[E-minutes] May 20, 2003 City Commission meeting minutes
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 23 May 2003 10:09:27 -0500
May 20, 2003
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at
6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Dunfield
presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.
Student Commissioner Elmore was present.
With Commission approval, Mayor Dunfield proclaimed Wednesday, May 21, 2003,
to be "National Employee Health and Fitness Day."
Mayor Dunfield recognized Yuichi Sadatomi, intern from Sister City,
Hiratsuka, Japan.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of May 13, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the Electrical Examiners and Appeals meeting minutes
of March 5, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve claims to 373 vendors in the amount of $2,370,626.56
and payroll from May 4 to May 17, 2003 in the amount of $1,329,868.71.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Steve
Ozark to the Task Force on Homeless Services. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schauner requested that Ordinance No. 7650, establishing
requirements for Traffic Impact Studies be deferred until Linda Finger,
Planning Director, could be present. Motion carried unanimously.
(1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for The Meat
Market, 811 New Hampshire. Motion carried unanimously.
(2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the sole bid for the Lawrence Art Center HVAC
maintenance from Huxtable, in the amount of $36,936. Motion carried
unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the sole bid for the Investigation and Training
Center HVAC maintenance from Huxtable, in the amount of $23,400. Motion
carried unanimously. (4)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for security camera equipment and
installation at the Water Treatment Plants for the Utilities Department.
The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Huxtable and Associates $98,700
Superior Electric Co., Inc. $107,500
Overfield Corporation $130,000
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the bid for security camera equipment and
installation at the water treatment plants from Huxtable, in the amount of
$98,700. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7633, annexing
approximately 1.819 acres generally located at 1588 North 1400 Road,
(Everly Roofing - 220 East 23rd Street). Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
Ordinance No. 7646, establishing the Lawrence Sesquicentennial Commission,
was read a second time. The Sesquicentennial Commission was established by
City Commission motion in 1999. The ordinance is recommended to ensure that
Commission members can have Tort Claims Act protections. As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the
ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay:
None. Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
Ordinance No. 7647, establishing "no parking" along the west side of Ousdahl
from 25th Street south to the property line between 1603 West 25th Street
and 2515-17 Ousdahl Road, was read a second time. As part of the consent
agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the
ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay:
None. Motion carried unanimously.
(8)
Ordinance No. 7648, establishing a "disabled parking zone" on the south
side of Greever Terrace adjacent to Centennial School and in front of 2535
Belle Haven Drive, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda,
it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance.
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion
carried unanimously.
(9)
Ordinance No. 7649, establishing a 50-foot "bus parking zone" on the east
side of New Jersey Street, north of 14th Street, was read a second time. As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger,
to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and
Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to receive recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Advisory
Board and approve the naming of the ATSF tributary as "Burroughs Creek" on
city maps; and authorize staff to request the same designation through
applicable federal government process. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve a waiver from City Code Section 19-302 and allow
Tuckaway Apartment Addition, 2600 West 6th Street to have single water
meters. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
During the City Manager's report Mike Wildgen said the graphic element was
completed for the fireworks ban awareness campaign.
Wildgen also reported that Lawrence was mentioned in a magazine article
"American City & County" dealing with the effects of the ailing economy on
municipal solid waste. (13)
Mayor Dunfield presented Ordinance No. 7639, rezoning (Z-01-07-03)
approximately 11.726 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family District) to PRD-1
(Planned Residential District), property located on the northeast corner of
19th and Delaware Streets. He said because this project was discussed at
considerable length at a previous City Commission meeting, he thought the
applicant did not intend to make a presentation, but he was present if the
City Commission had any questions. He said there had been some questions of
a procedural nature and asked David Corliss to address those issues.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said it was
within the City Commission's legal authority to adopt the rezoning
ordinance. There had been a question concerning the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) requirements where the code stated that certain statements
be filed with the Register of Deeds after a PUD was approved. He said after
discussions with the Planning Staff, it was his understanding that that
requirement had not been followed for a number of years. It was a
procedural requirement that would be removed when the new zoning code was
adopted. It was also a procedural requirement that was not in anyway
defective toward proceeding with adopting this rezoning ordinance or the
Planning Commission approving the Final Development Plan.
There was discussion about some of the other requirements in regards to
notification and obtaining certain lists from the County Clerk's office and
again, those were procedural questions which in his opinion did not render
adopting this rezoning ordinance as a legal problem.
Mayor Dunfield said the City Commission previously had lengthy discussions
concerning the issues of this project. He said based on that previous 5-0
unanimously approval, this would have been a consent agenda item. He asked
that public comment be limited to new issues, facts, and information. He
said there had been extensive discussions of procedural issues such as how
and when submittals were made and reviewed; potential traffic issues that
might result from this development; the compatibility of the development
with the existing neighborhood in terms of its density and appearance;
floodplain issues; flood control; storm water control; greenspace; and
environmental issues. He said they had acknowledged that the majority of
the neighbors in the vicinity of this project would prefer that the whole 11
acres be acquired as a City park and that the proposal before the Commission
was probably considered a second choice by many of the neighbors.
He said after discussing all those issues in considerable length, this City
Commission was satisfied at the end of that last discussion that the pro's
of this development out weighed the cons.con's. He asked again that public
comment be limited to new information
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Steve Holiday, property owner across from the proposed development, said he
was speaking to the Commission as a cycling and outdoor enthusiast. He saw
this issue as a once in a lifetime opportunity for the City of Lawrence to
acquire a nice woodland area around a bike trail and he thought it would be
an asset to the City in the future. He asked the City Commission to deny
this ordinance. He said the majority of the neighbors were of the opinion
that a park would be a much preferable option.
Pat Sinclair, Lawrence, asked the City Commission not to vote to rezone the
property at 19th and Delaware Street. She said once this land was rezoned,
the City would lose control over its development. She said the Commission
should vote "no" because there was new information supplied and because the
plan the Commission thought they voted for on April 15th was not the plan
that exits today. Some would call that bate and switch. She said the
Commission was told that the neighbors supported the rezoning and this
housing development. She said the City Commission stated that they wanted
to know what the residents wanted. She said three of the Commissioner's
campaigned as neighborhood friendly and signed promise cards during the
April election that stated that they would not build in the floodplain and
they would study the impact of major developments on neighborhoods. She
asked the Commission to honor those promises.
She said this project was not a Wal-mart, but had potential to cause vast
disruption to an established older neighborhood and cost the City money in
handling flooding and traffic problems which ensue.
She said a handful of residents in this area along with officers in the
Barker Neighborhood Association told the City Commission that they had
reached a compromise with the developer at the last moment. She said they
had indicated that they had worked together all along and that this proposal
was good and acceptable to the neighborhood, but that was wrong. The
developer had only met with a few people in secret meetings. The Barker
Neighborhood Association (BNA) claims approximately 40 households, but there
were approximately 700 households in the Barker Neighborhood according to
the BNA. There was also a defunct group in force of status for the Kansas
Secretary of States Office because they failed to file annual reports for
the past two years and listed Mayor Dunfield as contact person.
She walked about half of the Barker Neighborhood and the area of Brookcreek
just east of the railroad tracts with a petition. The petition was to ask
the City to purchase this land for use as a public park and maintain the
park as natural wildlife habitat, wooded area, and greenspace. She opposed
the rezoning of this property from single-family residential to PRD-1; and
opposed the planned residential development. She said 221 Lawrence
residents signed, 194 from Barker Avenue, and 19 from Brookcreek, east of
the railroad tracks. There was widespread support for a park and a real
love for the existing woods and its wildlife as well as serious concerns
about exiting flooding from neighbors on three sides. She said very few
people declined to sign the petition.
She said another widespread concern was a sense of being powerless in
decisions affection this neighborhood, a frustration of process, a feeling
of uselessness of expressing an opinion, and a disappointment with their
elected officials. The few supporters of the developers plan did not do
anything to publicize this situation before the Planning Commission meeting
and now they were calling and mailing all the people on her petition to tell
them there was no possibility of a park.
On April 15th, the Commission heard two residents and Mayor Dunfield state
that this plan would give the City six acres of land for a park. Even at
that time, this was not true. The land had been reduced to 3.653 acres on
the plan. She said both Lance Johnson and Planning Department staff did not
see fit to correct the City Commission's misunderstanding.
The Commission had also heard about numerous trails to connect to nearby
streets, Parnell Park, and a pedestrian bridge that would be built to
connect to Johnson Avenue. These were only paths drawn on paper. Once City
departments reviewed the plan, it was clear that the parcel to be given to
the City was "landlocked" or inaccessible to the general public. She said
this was primarily a storm drainage creek and it would have lost all of its
wildlife due to construction. Notes by the Planning Department and comments
from the Storm Water Engineer made it clear that a pedestrian bridge would
not be possible at Johnson Avenue. There was no possibility of a low water
crossing or path at that location. This was a deep creek channel with steep
muddy banks.
She said there was a 50- foot railroad right-of-way whose ownership was
unknown which prevented paths to Delaware Street and Parnell Park. The
track of land being retained by the property owners blocks most of the
access from the planned public hiking trail along the Santa Fe Railroad
Track. City notes showed this area must be fenced if it was not available
to the public. PRD requirements did not allow the public access and it was
present in the stormwater easement that it did not allow for fencing.
She said the public would not be able to easily access this tiny plot
consisting mainly of the creek and unresolved problems. She said the plan
for a City hiking/biking trail would pass backyards of these developments in
a private play area rather than natural woods and it would not be fenced.
The spillover would intrude both on homeowners and hikers.
Regarding the density of the proposed housing, she lived on Johnson Avenue
and it was pointed out as a dense area not unlike this housing plan. Her
yard had 50- foot frontage and was a total of 6500 square feet. It was
larger than 22 of the proposed lots in this development. She said Mayor
Dunfield's neighborhood was similar to hers. She presented the City's plan
to the City Commission.
She said it was not okay to rezone land because you want infill development
or because you thought this plan was better than its predecessors. Horizon
2020 clearly speaks as to the "golden factor" in our City Code. Rezoning
request must be reasonable and in compliance with out Comprehensive Plan,
but this project was not. She said to listen to the neighbors even though
they could not be present. She said this plan was a mess and it would cost
the City and the neighborhood dearly.
She said Mayor Dunfield emailed her notifying her that she had an unhealthy
obsession with this issue and accused her of spending thousands of dollars
of taxpayer money though accessing City services. She said our developers
who the Planning Department called "customers" certainly had taken at least
that much of Planning Staff's time. The question was "What do you think you
had approved?" and "Why did you think it was okay to approve it?" She asked
the City Commission to reconsider.
Mayor Dunfield intended to make a motion, but he did not intend that to halt
discussion by other members of the Commission. He acknowledged that he made
a couple of misstatements during the last discussion. He said it was a 3.6
acre City Park, just by way of a comparison, that was somewhat larger than
Veterans Park at 19th Louisiana. It was also true that the floodplain
boundary did cross into some of the properties and across a tiny portion of
the cul-de-sac at the end of the private street, but he pointed out that
aside from that tiny bit of pavement that the development was committing to
adding no-fill at any point in the floodplain; to building no structures of
any kind within the floodplain; and preserving the existing trees.
He clarified a statement made to Sinclair about the amount of staff time
that had been used on this project. It was clear to him with discussion he
had with staff and all of the paperwork that this project had taken much
more staff time then we would ever anticipate for a small subdivision of its
type. Given the pressures on City staff and the workload that City
Management staff and given the budget crisis and the demands that was making
on City staff, he believed this issue needed to be resolved. He said
because of these issues, he moved to declare and emergency and adopt
Ordinance 7639, on first and second reading so that we could move on and let
City staff get back to the work that needed to be done.
Vice Mayor Rundle said touching on the issue of the park and the combination
of the specified park space, he said it was combined with another area of an
easement and with the two of those, it was approximately 5.8 acres.
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, said yes. It was originally
shown as one tract and then it was determined that the easement area should
be a separate tract so that it could also be utilized as open space for the
PUD requirements. It was divided as easement and actual dedication.
Vice Mayor Rundle seconded Mayor Dunfield's motion. He thought there had
been a discussion about this issue and recognized that there was a choice.
Clearly the neighborhood indicated that compared to some of the other dense
developments and the trailer park, they did not want to stand in the way of
single-family development. This development would be an asset to the
neighborhood. He supported this issue.
Commissioner Highberger said the one issue that had came up since the last
meeting that was a concern was the pedestrian connection from Johnson Avenue
to the Rails to Trails. He asked if anyone could explain the viability of
that as proposed in this plan.
Stogsdill said it was pointed out in the review of the Final Development
Plan that there was not direct access and the plan showed an easement.
Staff had recommended that be revised so that the tract actually abuts
Johnson Avenue. The actual viability of how the path would work would be
determined through public improvement plans that would be submitted before
building permits would be issued.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there was a note to that affect on the plan.
Stogsdill would make sure that there was a note on that plan.
Commissioner Schauner commented on a letter written by Sandra Day, dated the
16th of April, addressed to Lance Johnson, the developer, about this
project. On that letter there were nine enumerated conditions for this
project and a tenth condition that was added by the City Commission which
there would be a requirement that there was an addition of a note to the
face of the development plan that limited the housing type to detached
single-family housing.
Stogsdill said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said the Commission was not there to act on the plan
itself, but to act on a request to rezone the ground?
Stogsdill said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked who would act on this Preliminary Development
Plan or who would have the ability to condition the plan on those ten
conditions and/or could this City Commission do that in the rezoning
process?
Stogsdill said the development plan had those conditions and in order to
move forward with the Final Development Plan, the applicant needed to
provide a Preliminary Development Plan that met those conditions and that
plan had been submitted to staff. There were also three conditions attached
to the rezoning ordinance approval and the 3rd condition was restriction of
the housing type to detach single-family. That was in the ordinance that
the Commission was being asked to act on.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if those conditions could be placed in the rezoning.
Stogsdill said that would be a question for Corliss on how many conditions
they could place on a rezoning ordinance. The two conditions that were in
this ordinance were: the maximum density level and the detached housing
type. The remainder of those conditions was specifically related to the
plan.
Vice Mayor Rundle mentioned the process of the Preliminary and Final
Development Plan, he said the City Commission did not act on the Final
Development Plan other than to receive the easements and dedications. He
asked if the Commission would take any action on the Preliminary Plan.
Stogsdill said the City Commission approved the Preliminary Development Plan
on April 15th along with the rezoning action. The Commission approved the
plan with those ten conditions.
Commissioner Schauner said infill development was a difficult process. He
said it was difficult because as a concept, most members of the City
Commission were in favor of infill development as well as many members of
the public until the infill happened to be something that they believe would
affect their property or their existence in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner complimented Sinclair on her willingness to speak out
and be a voice for a fair number of individuals in that neighborhood. He
thought Sinclair was not a lesser customer than anybody else. If reasonable
request for reasonable information were made to the City, he was confident
that we would continue to make that information available in a customer
friendly way.
He could not read into the fact that there were so few people present from
this neighborhood either "in favor of" or "opposed to" this plan. He had
concerns about the plan from the beginning from a traffic and stormwater
aspect because even though they would not be adding fill to the ground, they
were adding impervious surfaces to the area and that would have some impact
downstream. He said the City's Stormwater Engineer stated that the impact
would be minimal and he was the expert. He would probably vote against the
motion on the basis that he did not want to rush these matters when
neighborhoods were impacted. He preferred for the City to handle this in
the same manner that they would handle any other request for rezoning. He
voted against the motion.
Commissioner Hack was in favor of the motion because she agreed that this
project had been a long process. She said the Commission had asked the
developer to work with the neighborhood and that happened. She said it was
not what all the neighbors wanted, but that was a compromise. She said it
was obvious that everyone would like a park nearby.
She said this had been a great partnership between the neighborhood,
developer, and City staff and she complimented all three parties for the
interest and time. The whole plan was a good idea and she liked the design
of the plan. She supported the Mayor's motion and the development.
Commissioner Highberger declined to vote against the motion to declare this
rezoning an emergency. He agreed with Commissioner Schauner in that it was
important for citizen participation in this process whether it was
convenient or not. He commended Sinclair for raising important issues and
City staff for diligently and professionally responding to those concerns.
He did not want to discourage any citizen from participating in this process
because it cost this City.
He said this project was a good model for what could be achieved in this
community when you have a developer who was willing to work with neighbors
to try and meet everyone's needs. He said with this project, the City was
acquiring parkland and the houses were consistent with the neighborhood. He
was in favor of the project, but voted against the motion.
Mayor Dunfield withdrew the motion. He respected both Commissioner
Schauner'sCommissioners Schauner and Highberger's comments. He respected
Sinclair's efforts and knew that his motion might be taken as disrespectful
and he did not want that motion to seem that way.
He said living in this neighborhood this whole process has been extremely
divisive and has done damage to the Barker Neighborhood Association along
with relationships among neighbors. He said it has done damage to the
extent that was really unwarranted by the nature of the project that was
being discussed. By extending this process further, he was afraid they
would be extending the damage that was being done further and this was a
concern. However, he withdrew his motion.
Vice Mayor Rundle moved to approve this rezoning and suggested that this
issue come back to the City Commission on the consent agenda and there would
be an opportunity, at that time, to pull this issue from the consent agenda
again.
He said in terms of the impervious surface, the City did have a major
stormwater improvement in that area and he believed this improvement was
designed with the full recognition that there would be further urbanization
in this area of town and it was being designed to accommodate stormwater
run-off for fully urbanized areas.
Commissioner Schauner said this development and the difficulty that it has
had working through the process was perhaps a symptom of something larger
than this development which was the process through which these in-fill
developments go through at the City level. He was not one to suggest
rushing this issue through. On the other had, he thought that developers
with any type of project, as well as citizens, should know the process. It
should be clearly delineated and followed. He said the language should be
cleaned up in this process so that all stakeholders could fully participate
with knowledge of the process in a way that did not add advantage or
disadvantage anyone so no one had the upper hand. He would like this
process modernized, cleaned up, and made more workable.
Mayor Dunfield expanded on that idea and wanted the Commission to discuss
ideas that they could work on to improve the citizen participation process
at their Goal Setting Session, so that the Commission did not end up in this
type of situation. He said there were disagreements among neighbors over
whether there has been adequate opportunity to comment. He said some
residents said that there had been more than adequate opportunity and this
issue needed to be resolved and another resident said that it has happened
behind residents' backs.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No.
7639, rezoning (Z-01-07-03) approximately 11.726 acres from RS-2
(Single-Family District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District), property
located on the northeast corner of 19th Street and Delaware Street. Aye:
Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried.
(14)
Mayor Dunfield called a public hearing on the proposed special assessment
benefit district for the improvement of Research Park Drive, beginning at
West 15th Street and continuing south approximately 920 feet.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said the Commission had previously held
a public hearing establishing the benefit district, but during the process
between the advertisement for a public hearing and when the public hearing
was held, the Oread Center tract was platted during that period of time.
Therefore, the wording in the Resolution needed to be changed in order to
include that same benefit district. The publication was on front footage,
but when this area went to lots and blocks, then in order to incorporate the
same area into the benefit district the area needed to be addressed on a
square footage basis. He said the City's Bond Council suggested that the
process start over. He said all of the owners had been notified and this
process had not been slowed down the construction timeframe
Commissioner Schauner asked if the benefit district would consist of those
parcels and asked if they were owned by separate individuals.
Soules said yes.
Mayor Dunfield called for public hearing.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack,
to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6470, setting
out the findings to establish a benefit district and ordering the
improvements of Research Park Drive, beginning at West 15th Street and
continuing south approximately 920 feet. Motion carried unanimously.
(15)
Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk, presented the staff
report concerning public entity insurance policy renewals. He wanted to
provide the City Commission with basic information about insurance
coveragescoverage's and give the Commission the opportunity to ask
questions. He said the City had the opportunity to purchase terrorism
coverage associated with these policies and he wanted Commission direction
as to whether the City should proceed with purchasing that coverage or
decline.
He said the City had three insurance coverages coverage's which made up our
public entity policies were: Public Officials Coverage; Employment
Practice's Liability Coverage; and Law Enforcement Coverage. All three of
these coverage's were with Scottsdale Indemnity Company which was one of the
premiere insurance companies in the public sector practice. All of the
coverage's had $50,000 deductible and $500,000 liability limit. All of the
coveragescoverage's also had a "consent to settle" endorsement which meant
the insurance company needed the City's written consent before they would
settle any claim that would fall under these coverages.coverage's.
Another key point was while under the policy the insurance companies had the
authority to defend any claim that might appear on these
coverages.coverage's. They do allow our City Attorney to defend these
claims which he believed was an important part of renewing
coverages.coverage's.
He said the Public Officials Coverage was one of the policies and that term
was somewhat misleading because it did not just protect elected officials or
key management, but basically provided some coverage to all employees
whether they were full-time, part-time, or seasonal. If those employees
were acting within the scope of their employment there were some
coveragescoverage's under this Public Officials Coverage. This was a broad
coverage that provided protection for the City's employees, volunteers who
might be doing work on behalf of the City, and other members of boards or
commissions.
As far as the Employment Practices Policy, it protected the City and its
employees from any actions for hiring and firing types of decisions and
harassment or discrimination claims that might arise.
The Law Enforcement Policy provided protection for the City's Police
Department in the event that there were allegations of civil rights
violations, personal injury allegations, or property rights violations.
He said there was protection even without these insurance policies through
the Kansas Tort Claims Act. These policies were intended to supplement
that State Law because there were some gaps in the Kansas Tort Claims Act
and what the City would be purchasing were some insurance
coveragescoverage's that would fill those gaps or provide some additional
coverage.
Purchasing insurance in this market was not a buyers market so there was
good and bad news with the premium information. The bad news was that the
City was still in a hard insurance market. The increases that the City
experienced from last year ranged from approximately 3% on the Public
Officials Policy, almost 30% on the Employment Practices Liability, and 17
1/2% increases on the Law Enforcement Policy.
The good news was that staff did a good job at estimating or anticipating
those cost increases. In fact, the City came approximately $10,000 under
the amount that was budgeted for those policies.
He said on November 26, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act of 2002. He said this act would require insurance
companies to provide terrorism coverage for any insurance policy that they
might be offering to entities such as this City. He said the City had an
opportunity to purchase some terrorism coverage that would apply to the
Public Officials Policy, Employment Practices Policy, and the Law
Enforcement Policy. He said because of the nature of those particular types
of coveragescoverage's, it was staff's recommendation to decline those
additional coverage's for certified acts of terrorism because it was
unlikely that any claim might arise for actions based on those types of
coverage's.
He said the City did have a Property Policy, Excess Workers Compensation
Policy, and currently, the City had some terrorism coverage for those types
of insurance policies. Later on in the year when those policies needed to
be renewed, staff would come back to the Commission for direction on whether
the City should renew that coverage to include the Certified Terrorism Acts
Coverage. For purpose of those policies, staff recommended to decline that
coverage and asked for the Commission's authorization.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those policies provided for cost of defense
as well as indemnification.
Reeb said yes.it did provide for ????? (Frank, Commissioner Schauner
interrupted your thought) Sorry!
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Schauner, to direct staff to renew those policies and decline the terrorism
coverage as recommended by staff. Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and
Schauner. Nay: None. Abstain: Hack. Motion carried.
(16)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to recess into executive session to
discuss matters relating to employer/employee negotiations, and personnel
matters and attorney-client privileged discussions for fortytwenty-five (45)
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
Upon returning with the justification for the executive session to open
session after 45 minutes, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack,keep
confidential the matters related to extend the executive session for another
fifteen (15) minutes.negotiations and personnel issues. Motion carried
unanimously. (17)
After returning from executive session, Mayor Dunfield called for discussion
concerning the 6th and Wakarusa area.
Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said as he studied
Ordinance No. 7491, which was the rezoning of 6th and Wakarusa, the more he
realized that the stores that were to go in this area were to be stores with
small service areas. He said this was not the only concern, but they also
had concerns about traffic, safety, and access in and out of other areas if
this area was developed to further extent.
Gwen Klingenberg, West Lawrence resident, studied a 132,000 square foot
building. She said a home improvement store was 2.87 cars per 1,000 square
feet whereas a discount super store was 3.82. She said the Commission was
looking at 396 cars during the peak hours from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
However, with a super or large store, you would be looking at 528 cars a
difference of almost 130 cars per hour. She said a 132,000 square foot
building was too large for that corner.
Mayor Dunfield thought it was clear that the Commission was hearing
discussion and confusion over what the City meant by the different
definition that this City was trying to use for different types of
commercial buildings. This issue needed to be confronted.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to prepare an ordinance for
consideration at the May 27, 2003 City Commission meeting establishing a
building permit moratorium for six months which would prohibit building
permits at the northwest and northeast corners of 6th and Wakarusa,
including the area to Champion Lane, the moratorium is for the purpose of
making amendments to the City's Zoning Code including definitions of
"department store",", "variety" store, and other related terms, and to make
recommendations on the uses, including densitiesdenisities per building
structure, at these locations. The finalized building permit moratorium
shall include the PUD site at this location. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
During Commission itemsFrank, the Commission discussed the drafta letter to
KDOT Secretary Miller requesting that the City be updated on the SLT related
issues processes.
Vice-Mayor Rundle asked Commissioner Highberger if the word "consulted" in
the draft letter was strong enough.
Commissioner Highberger said the draft letter would accomplish what he
wanted and that was to request that the KDOT keep the City Commission
informed about the South Lawrence Trafficway process.. I don't know what
they were talking about.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor of sign the
letter to Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
(19)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M. Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING MAY 20, 2003
1. Bid - Lawrence Art Center HVAC maintenance to Huxtable for $36,936.
2. Bid - Investigation and Training Center HVAC maintenance to Huxtable for
$23,400.
3. Bid - Security Camera Equipment for Water Treatment Plants to Huxtable
for $98,700.
4. Ordinance No. 7633 - 1st Reading, annex 1.819 acres, 1588 N 1400 Rd.
(Everly Roofing 220 E 23rd)
5. Ordinance No. 7650 - 1st Reading, Traffic Impact Studies requirements.
6. Ordinance No. 7646 - 2nd Reading, Lawrence Sesquicentennial Commission.
7. Ordinance No. 7647 - 2nd Reading, "no parking" along W side of Ousdahl
from 25th, S to property line between 1603 W 25th & 2515-17 Ousdahl.
8. Ordinance No. 7648 - 2nd Reading, "disabled parking zone", S side of
Greever Terr adjacent to Centennial School.
9. Ordinance No. 7649 - 2nd Reading, "bus parking zone" E side of New
Jersey, N of 14th.
10. Naming ATSF Tributary as "Burroughs Creek."
11. Single Water Meters - Tuckaway Apartment Addition, 2600 W 6th.
12. City Manager's report.
13. Ordinance No. 7639 - 1st Reading, rezone (Z-01-07-03) 11.726 acres from
RS-2 to PRD-1, NE corner of 19th & Delaware.
14. Resolution No. 6470 - Order Improvement, Research Park Dr., begin at W
15th .
15. Public Entity Insurance Policy Renewals
16. Executive Session - Employer/employee negotiations.
_____________________________
Lisa K. Patterson
Communications Coordinator
City of Lawrence
PO Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044
(785) 832-3406
fax (785) 832-3405
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
http://www.lawrenceks.org