[E-minutes] City Commission meeting minutes from June 10
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:50:39 -0500
June 10, 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 Schauner, Highberger, and Rundle present.
Commissioner Hack was absent.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of June
2, 2003; Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of
April 22, 2003; Human Relations Commission meeting minutes of February 19,
2003; and the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority meeting minutes of
April 22, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve claims to 320 vendors in the amount of $2,024,552.74.
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 reappoint
Mark Gonzales to the position of Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority
to a four year term which will expire June 30, 2007; and reappointment of
Sean Zaudke to the Lawrence Humane Society Advisory Board to a one year term
which will expire May 31, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Chip and Seal Project for the
Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer's Estimate $71,200
Vance Bros., Inc. $54,520
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the sole bid from Vance Bros., Inc., in the amount of
$54,520. Motion carried unanimously.
(1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve joint City and County cooperative purchasing
agreement with SBC for long distance service. Motion carried unanimously.
(2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7654, ordering the
condemnation of a tract of property and a utility easement, located at 835
East 13th Street, for stormwater improvements (13th & Oregon Project).
Motion carried unanimously.
(3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7655, authorizing the
possession of alcoholic liquor at the Lawrence Municipal Airport on July 16,
2003 for the Chamber of Commerce Mixer event. Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
Ordinance No. 7652, changing the name of Stintson Avenue to Bryant Way, 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, Highberger,
and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to
approve the Final Plat (PF-04-08-03) for Jayhawk Golf Training Center, a
replat of Lot 1, Alvamar Golfcart Addition and an adjacent tract of land
containing approximately 20 acres, located south of 15th Street and east of
Crossgate Drive, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way
subject to the following conditions:
1. Show correct street name (Crossgate Drive),
2. Label El Dorado Drive to the north,
3. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation,
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt,
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds, and
4. Provide a Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708(a).
Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to
approve the Final Plat (PF-04-09-03) for Fall Creek Farms 9th Plat, a replat
of Lots 6-9, Block 2, Fall Creek Farms, and Lots 4-6, Black 1, Fall Creek
Farms 2nd Plat, a proposed 4-lot single-family residential subdivision
containing approximately 6.442 acres, located west of Kasold Avenue and
south of Peterson Road, and accept the dedication of easements and
rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of public improvement plans for sanitary sewer main prior to
filling out the final plat with the Register of Deeds,
2. Provision of a 15' utility easement for the sanitary sewer main
extension,
3. Provision of a note stating, "The storm sewer crossing Lot 4 will be
maintained by the property owner. The City will continue to maintain the
existing curb inlets of Fall Creek Road until they require reconstruction,
at which time the entire system will be abandoned in place",
4. Label width of right-of-way for Buck Brush Court and Fall Creek Road,
5. Identify the type of "Easement for ingress and egress" on proposed Lot 3,
6. Label Lots 10 and 11, Block Two, Fall Creek Farms,
7. Provision of a note consistent stating, "Property owners will be required
to maintain adjacent drainage easements. There shall be no structures,
fences, or changes in grade within the drainage easement."
8. Provision of a signature block for Dru Fritzel,
9. Provision of a note as stated Sec. 21-708a.3.1 of the Subdivision
Regulations,
10. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement,
11. Submission and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan, and
12. Revise Final Plat to retain existing residences on Lots 8 and 9 on
separate lots.
Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the site plan (SP-04-25-03) for sidewalk dining at
Signs of Life, located at 722 Massachusetts Street, subject to the following
conditions:
1. A site plan performance agreement be executed,
2. The applicant shall obtain a sidewalk dining license from the City prior
to occupying the public right-of-way,
3. Execute an agreement with the City of Lawrence for the use of the
right-of-way,
4. Revision of the site plan to include,
a. Notation of the current interior occupancy and exterior,
b. A note stating, "The City will not be liable for any damage to outdoor
equipment associated with the outdoor seating area for any required
maintenance, installation and repair of City water lines of the site",
c. A note stating, "The City Commission reserves the authority to revoke the
right to use the right-of-way if the City Commission determines the noise,
trash, or other public concerns associated with the outdoor dining area
warrant removal of the outdoor dining area",
5. Show water meter location to 722 Massachusetts on site plan,
6. Place trash receptacles in area for private facility, do not use downtown
public trash cans for restaurant trash, and
7. Completion of HRC Conditions of Approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
(8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission
and establish "no parking" in the 700 block of Lake Street. Motion carried
unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission
and establish a "35 mph speed limit" on 27th Street between Crossgate Drive
and Wakarusa Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission
and establish a "35 mph speed limit" on Crossgate Drive between Clinton
Parkway and 27th Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve Sunflower Broadband sign on Riverfront parking
garage. City approval is required as property owner of the City parking
facility. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve as sign of community interest a City sponsored sign
for the Summer Brown Bag Concerts, US Bank Tower, located at 900
Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
(13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for
Robert and Elizabeth Bond, located at 1713 East 17th Street. Motion carried
unanimously. (14)
A member of the public, Pat Sinclair, requested that the final plat for The
Woods on 19th Street be removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
Sinclair said the City Commission was being asked to approve the final plat
for The Woods on 19th Street. However, the Commission could not approve the
final plat because it did not show the correct property owner of record.
The record at this time was James Slough and not Bluejacket Ford LLC as
shown on the application for this final plat as presented by Lance Johnson.
She presented documentation from the Register of Deeds Office that showed
the owner of record. The applications for both the final plat and the final
development plan were submitted and signed by Lance Johnson on April 23,
2003. Both showed the owner of record as being Bluejacket Ford LLC, and
this was not true. She submitted that this makes these applications as well
as the actions taken approving the plat and plan, void. The application
clearly stated, under proper owner agent and consent, "I'm the legal owner
of record of the land specified in this application where I'm authorized and
empowered to act as an agent on behalf of the owner of record of all matters
related to this application. I declare that the foregoing was true and
correct and accept that false or inaccurate owner/authorization might
invalidate or delay action on this application." She said the application
was signed by Lance M. Johnson, April 23, 2003.
She submitted that this was not a little mistake that could be changed in
the final days for the record by adding the real owner's name and suggesting
a pending on contract or option to buy arrangement with an interested party
which might have recently emerged. This seemed to her that this was a
serious misrepresentation of the facts. This false statement of ownership
was brought to the attention of the Director or Planning and others. There
were also many little errors on the plat, including lots less than 4,000
square feet. These plans should have been rejected and any possibility of
criminal or fraudulent activity investigated by the City Legal Department.
One reason plans must be filed in advance was to allow for public review.
If the plan was changed after it was submitted, citizens were forced to
repeatedly visit the Planning office. Ironically, the last revision of this
plan was submitted after the deadline for public comment for the Planning
Commission to pass. It was essential in a democracy for the elected leaders
to enforce laws and codes equally. It should not be necessary for the
public to take the City to court merely to have the City zoning codes
enforced with developers.
At the City Commission meeting on May 27th, Commissioner Highberger received
a promise from Linda Finger, Planning Director that the final development
plan would conform to the City's zoning codes. She said Finger failed to do
so. In several important ways the final development plan showed changes
from the preliminary development plan that were expressly forbidden by our
Code. Additionally, the final development plan now showed that a waiver was
requested and granted to reduce the sideline lot setback from 10 feet to 5
feet and she challenged that. She said this would have been discussed at
the March 26th Planning Commission meeting. This waiver would have been
shown in writing on the April 4th plan that the City Commission received
before their meeting for approval. It was not on this April 4th plan, but
Finger said it would have had to been on the plan. She could find no record
of this waiver being granted at the March 26th meeting which she attended or
in its minutes or her notes. Neither Finger nor Sandra Day could point out
where this waiver was requested. She believed that this wavier was not
granted by either Commission. This issue now was not whether this waiver
was approved, but whether sought and granted at the time and in the manner
required.
She said there was another piece of code 20-1013(b), application for
final approval. She said this spelled out some of the ways that the final
development plan might not differ from the preliminary plan. It stated in
part (b) "A plan submitted for final approval should be in substantial
compliance with the plan previously given preliminary approval.
Modification by the landowner of the plan as preliminary approved might not:
1. Involve reduction in the area set aside for common open space, open air
recreation area, or non-encroachable area, nor the substantial relocation of
such areas; nor
2. Increase by more than 5 percent the total ground area neither covered by
building nor involve a substantial change in the height of buildings."
She said the plan that the City and Planning Commissions approved showed 2
models, A and B for buildings. She said approximately half the units were
one level and the other half were two stories. Surprisingly, on May 14th a
plan emerged that showed all 2 story buildings. This was simply not
allowed, false, denied by code, and was not an optional measure if you were
to enforce the zoning code, this could not go forward. She had pointed out
all of this in memos, written comments to the Planning Commission, and the
Director of Planning, but apparently it did not matter. One sad affect of
this change was that there had been talk about handicapped accessible units
and when you move to a 2 floor building, it was much less likely and much
less appealing to the elderly. She said these were units that were on the
far western edge of the development which would have made them much
noticeable to the neighbors if they were 1 story, but now the units were 2
story.
She could go on, but those were some blatant examples that she
showed the Commission. She had the code to quote and documents from the
Register Deeds of office. She was befuddled by the fact that a plan could
just skip along so merely despite its many flaws and despite its
non-compliance with code. She asked the Commission not to accept this plat
because it was false and could not be filed at the Register of Deeds Office.
Mayor Dunfield said there were some planning related issues and a
legal question concerning Sinclair's comments.
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, said the Commission
was only addressing the plat and not the final development plan. She said
Finger took a very thorough review of the final development plan prior to
the Planning Commission meeting at the City Commission's request and revised
conditions for the final development plan and the final plat was provided to
the Planning Commission before they acted on that plat to address issues
that had been pointed out that were inconsistent with the preliminary
development plan. Many of those changes in square footages were related to
where lot lines had originally been drawn. This was a PRD with a private
street which had a tract for that private street and originally the lot
lines were extended to the center line of that tract so that square footage
for half of this street tract was associated with each lot. During the
review of this final plat, it was determined that was not the correct way to
display the tract for the street therefore, the calculations were revised.
Stogsdill was not sure how to respond to the issue of the
application. She said they often had representatives that submit
applications for property owners who had properties that went through the
plat process. She said closing happened at the time that the final plat was
filed at the Register of Deeds so that the new owners filed the plat.
Mayor Dunfield asked Stogsdill if in her experience that was not
unusual.
Stogsdill said it was not unusual.
Vice Mayor Rundle said that the Commission, at this meeting, would
only be accepting easements and rights-of-way. The other planning items
would be addressed at the final development plan stage.
Stogsdill said the final development plan was approved by the Planning
Commission subject to a number of conditions. There was a period of time to
meet those conditions just as there was a 12 month period of time following
an action tonight by this body to accept these easements for that property
owner to fulfill those conditions and file that plat at the Register of
Deeds.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if those conditions were listed on the plat.
Stogsdill said often, they were revisions to the plat. She said sometimes
there were notes and sometimes there were modifications to the actual line
work on the plat. It depended on what the conditions were. Sometimes they
were separate agreements that were also required to be signed and filed with
the plat.
Commissioner Schauner said his recollection of those architectural drawings
of the houses that would be built at this location were almost all single
story.
Mayor Dunfield said he remembered those architectural drawings differently.
Commissioner Schauner asked Stogsdill if that 2 story construction was
consistent with her memory of the document that the City Commission
reviewed.
Stogsdill said the preliminary development plan that was approved by the
City Commission did show 2 different types of homes. There were
single-family bungalows and 2 stories. There was some discussion about
porches and how much of the garage door could be part of that front façade.
Between preliminary and final, the applicant refined their development and
chose to move forward with all 2 story homes. That was discussed at the
Planning Commission and the Planning Commission approved that final
development plan knowing that they were all going to be 2 story homes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that change in the plans would have come back
to the City Commission for approval which was moving from a mix of
single-family and 2 story dwellings to all 2 story dwellings.
Stogsdill said typically it was not brought back to the Commission for
approval. The types of issues that would come back for a revised
preliminary plan were when there was a totally different layout, different
uses, and development plans that had 1 large building and would go to
multiple buildings. When it was an all single-family development, whether
they were singles story or 2 story, had not been previously and issue.
Mayor Dunfield said that it was unusual with single-family house for
the City Commission to see floor plans and elevations at all during the
approval process.
Stogsdill concurred.
Commissioner Schauner asked Stogsdill if in her view, what the City
Commission was addressing at this time was in substantial compliance with
what the Commission had seen and approved before.
Stogsdill said yes. She said that the Director of Planning made
that determination before the Planning Commission meeting last month.
Mayor Dunfield asked about the question of ownership and the phrase
"authorize to act on behalf of the owner." He asked if that was a
significant phrase in this situation.
Corliss said yes. He said this was a common situation. He said as
property owners and contract purchasers from those property owners, work
their way through the land use approval process, the contract purchaser was
the individual bearing the burden of proceeding through the land use
approvals. He said they would be doing so, based on the fact that they
hoped to be able to close the transaction from the seller who's authorized
the land use approvals. They were the individuals that would bear the
burden of getting the necessary land use approvals.
He said it was his understanding that the property laws in Kansas
required that an instrument in the nature of a final plat be recorded and
that the individual that was recording that final plat be the property owner
of record. He said this was a common situation at closing. He had
participated in closing that was one of the documents that would occur once
the property had been transferred. He said the recording of the final plat
then would allow the property owner to proceed once those conditions were
met. He said a significant part of the application process was that a
contract purchaser would be authorized to speak for the actual property
owner of record.
Commissioner Schauner asked if going from a mix of 1 and 2 story
buildings to an all 2 story plat, affect the density of the project.
Stogsdill said no. The applicant voluntarily limited all of the
occupancy to 3 unrelated individuals.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-07-03) for The
Woods on 19th Street, a 37-lot single-family residential subdivision
containing approximately 11.726 acres, located north of 19th Street and east
of Delaware Street, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way
subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat that amends the rear lot line of Lots
25 and 26 to exclude the pedestrian easement from the lot and revise Tract A
to include the property contained in the pedestrian easement within Tact A,
2. Provision of a revised Final Plat to show dedication of Tract A to the
City of Lawrence rather than the Parks Department,
3. Provision of revised Final Plat to correct the text from "Easement not
found on record. 10' U/E to be dedicated and to contiguous with end of KPL
easement." To "Easement not found on record. 10' U/E to be dedicated and
to be contiguous with end of KPL easement",
4. Provision of a revised Final Plat to clarify the property ownership lines
between the subject property and the abandoned St. Louis, Lawrence, and
Denver Railroad Right-of-Way prior to recording of the Final Plat,
5. Provision of a revised Final Plat to extend a pedestrian easement from
the cul-de-sac sidewalk to Tract A consistent with the planned path shown on
the Final Development Plan,
6. Pinning of the lots in accordance with the requirements of Section
21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations,
7. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement,
8. Execution of an agreement not to protest a benefit district for Street
and Sidewalk improvements for E. 19th Street,
9. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation,
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt,
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds,
c. Provision of a master street tree plan, and
10. Provision of public improvement plans prior to recording of the Final
Plat with the Register of Deeds Office.
Motion carried unanimously.
(15)
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, representing Gary Potts, property owner/builder
at 1817 Castle Pine Court, pulled this item from the consent agenda for
discussion.
Keeney said the Commission received a letter from Potts detailing the nature
and reasons for this request which consisted of the purchase of 11 square
feet of right-of-way to rectify a corner front yard setback where a small
corner of a house over hung on a front setback line. He pulled this item to
ask the Commission to consider a related item to this issue. If it was the
decision of this Commission to accept this proposal made by Potts, he would
like to continue working on this house. When this whole issue came up
several months ago, the City of Lawrence issued a Stop Work Order. The
house was essentially completed lacking some trim, paint work, fixture, and
insulation. However, if the Commission were to approve this issue, would
take 2 weeks to 20 days in order for the paper work to be completed. He
asked the City Commission to remove the Stop Work Order in order for Potts
to finish this house in the next 20 days, hopefully by July 1st, and the
final action could be taken on this item and the right-of-way purchase could
be made.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said this
residence was substantially constructed. The applicant requested a variance
from the Board of Zoning Appeals initially in March and then again in April
and was denied. He said staff had worked with the property owner in regards
to a number of issues. This proposal had come forward where they would go
through the vacation process to vacate 11 square feet of right-of-way and
change the line from which you would measure from. He said the alternatives
were draconian in the sense of altering the house.
He said staff had already initiated the vacation proceeding process under
state law they needed 20 days of notice. If this issue was approved this
evening, the hearing would be scheduled for July 1st . He said Potts was
asking if he bear that burden, assuming things went well on July 1st and
that the Commission approved the Order of Vacation, then he would be able to
have all issues rectified under the code. If not, he would have spent
approximately 20 days constructing the house and would be in the same
situation that he was in today.
Corliss said staff did not object to proceeding with the building. This was
a unique situation. He particularly wanted the Commission to note the Board
of Zoning Appeals comments which were provided with the report at their
meeting. He said this was a different way to address a situation that was
presented to staff.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was Corliss' opinion that granting this
vacation request, in spite of what the Board of Zoning Appeals noted, did or
did not create an opportunity to argue about precedent in the future on
matters like this issue.
Corliss said this issue was unique enough that it was unlikely to be the
vehicle of choice for resolving this type of situation. The property owners
would still wish to proceed with going to the Board of Zoning Appeals. This
was the appropriate avenue for setback situations. He could not guarantee
the City Commission that this won't be requested in the future and he knew
that his issue had been requested in the past. This was the means for
solving the encroachment problem which was to move the line.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City did that in the past.
Corliss said there had been instances in the past that this had been done,
but it was not the preferred method. He said they would essentially retain
a pedestrian and utility easement. He said Potts really did not want his
property, but he needed it in order to move the line.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not understand how this error occurred.
He assumed it occurred with the survey of the property. He asked for
feedback in what the City could do to minimize this from occurring in the
future. He understood the financial aspect on Potts as well as staff time.
Keeney said part of his company did survey work. He said they were hired to
stake this house and this staking involved a 2 step process which was the
rough staking in order to get the dirt work in place and then they came back
with a final stake. He said what happened was they were scheduled to come
back and stake this house on a Thursday, but a concrete company ready to put
in a foundation on Tuesday and they sometime stake their own houses. He
said the concrete company pulled up the corner pins because it was a
cul-de-sac lot, it was confusing for them and they essentially missed a
little bit. He said it was never final staked. It was laid out by a
foundation company and they usually hit it on the mark when they stake a
house, but hit this instance, it was missed because of a curve.
He said in regards to how they avoid this situation in the future, these
mistakes had happened in the past and all over town. As a matter of course,
when they stake a house, they also conduct a final survey after it was put
in. When they did a final survey on Potts house, they became aware of the
situation and informed Potts. He said for Potts to sell the house there
were disclosure requirements. These situations were typically housekeeping
issues. He said they did the best they could, but mistakes were going to
happen. He said when Potts was made aware of this mistake, he instructed
him to take this issue back to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
He said this was a small corner hanging over a setback line. He did not
consider this to be a big issue. He said it became an issue because it
happened during the election season and emotions were running high and Potts
bore the brunt of that.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not asking how we could absolutely cause
it not to happen in the future, but how they could minimize the changes of
it happening in the future. He said perhaps they needed to visit with staff
about this issue.
Keeney said their were several options discussed with Corliss after this
issue went to the Board of Zoning Appeals, such as a fine to make sure that
a licensed surveyor staked these houses. He said the bad side to that
suggestion was that if someone misses, you were almost buying that if
someone could squeeze something in there and with a $500 fine. He thought
that suggestion also could cause problems.
Commissioner Schauner was not sure that was a great answer, but he
appreciated his response.
Vice Mayor Rundle said since this was not granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals, did it remain at variance.
Corliss said they would be changing the property configurations so that
encroachment into the setback would no longer exist as of July 2nd, when the
vacation order was recorded. The variance action would be under a
different set of facts.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission was interested in removing
that stay for completion, would they do that by one or two motions.
Corliss said it could be done by one motion.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to approve the transfer of
right-of-way of approximately 11 square feet of right-of-way at 1817 Castle
Pine Court contingent upon $1,500 vacation fee and the City retaining
necessary easements; authorize the vacation proceeding; and remove the stop
work order. Motion carried unanimously.
(16)
During the City Manager's report, Mike Wildgen said in regards to the annual
Water Quality Report, staff has met all the standards for the State and EPA.
Wildgen also reported that a timetable was provided to the City Commission
on projected milestones for a variety of planning-related items that were
drawing to conclusion.
Commissioner Schauner said with respect to the Chapter 20 draft, rather than
getting that into the City Commission's Thursday packet for first review, to
be discussed at that Tuesday, City Commissioner meeting, he would prefer
more time to review that draft.
Wildgen said this draft would go to the general public and once that public
comment period in July was finished, staff was planning a study session in
August with the Planning Commission and most likely the County Commission.
(17)
Donna Bell, member of the Lawrence/Douglas County Health Board, presented a
report concerning their board. She said the mission of the Lawrence/Douglas
County Health Department was to provide health programs that were designed
to protect and promote the health of Douglas County citizens. It was a 5
member board, one in which there were members that were appointed by both
the City and County Commissions and they served 3 year terms.
She said their duties were very broad and the board was involved in many
issues. She said they formulated and established policies for the operation
of the Health Department; hired and evaluated the Public Health Officer;
reviewed and adopted the annual budget; and reviewed the department programs
and activities.
The programs and activities included the immunization program. They had
dealt with many environmental health issues such as: Case Management for
Pregnant Teens; Parenting Services; Case Management for the Frail Elderly;
HIV testing, counseling and education; WIC Supplemental Nutritional Programs
for Women, Infants, and Children; and Child Care Licensing. They had also
been involved in Communicable Diseases Control.
Over the last year some of their major accomplishments had included the new
regulations for non-residential swimming pools and spas in Lawrence. They
had updated those regulations to include new safety measures, construction
requirements, and operation; they had reviewed and accepted the Douglas
County Air Quality Report submitted to their group and to the County
Commission. The report provided support for the position that Douglas
County not be included in the Kansas City ozone non-attainment area and
participated in Douglas County Air Quality Review; they had reviewed the new
proposed child care licensing regulations for school aged children and had
worked close with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The new
proposed regulations that were given to KDHE gave some information that
would result in reduced availability and accessibility of child care
programs here in Douglas County; and they approved the appointment of the
new Medical Consultant. The previous consultant had been with them for 15
years. She said looking forward, they were involved and continued to build
expertise and capacity in their preparedness and readiness for bio-terrorism
and emerging diseases.
Commissioner Schauner commented on a report he read concerning the threat to
public health and safety from communicable diseases such as SARS. He asked
how the local effort attempted to address those issues.
Bell said the first issue would be to educate this board. The Douglas
County Health Department worked with Lawrence Memorial Hospital in
understanding the issues and in planning to gather those people that might
present those symptoms and what the process was for isolation and quarantine
regulations.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they worked in concert with School Nursing
Programs to report those types of possible communicable diseases.
Bell said they would work in concert with the administration of the school
system. She was impressed with the communication flow of information. She
said what was outstanding in this community was the sense that
Lawrence/Douglas County Health Department was viewed as the "go to" group
that disseminates information as well as making sure that information gets
to the right people.
Mayor Dunfield said with the change of the weather as we get into the summer
season was there any particular information that Bell would like to present
to the public in connection with this time of the season.
Bell said right now, with our weather changing, they were concerned about
environmental issues and West Nile Virus comes up as an issue. One issue
that they would like to remind homeowners and parents was to make sure that
they did not have pooling water in their areas. She said citizens would
need to take seriously any type of symptoms such as fevers and monitor
children. She said pool safety was also an important issue with the
regulations that affect drain covers.
Barbara Huppee, Executive Director, Lawrence/Douglas County Housing
Authority, presented a report concerning their board. She said the Housing
Authority was an independent agency of the City and County. Their history
went back to 1968 and had been administering housing programs since 1972.
Concerning the Public Housing Program, they were responsible for the
administration of $32,000,000 worth of housing and the deed was held by the
City. It was comprised of 7 developments such as Babcock Place, Edgewood
Homes, Peterson Acres, and a number of other housing units that were
scattered throughout the community. Since the early 80's they had also
administered the Section 8 Program and under that program, they provided
approximately 2.5 million dollars worth of subsidy's every year on behalf of
591 low income households and they did this through collaborations with
approximately 300 landlords in this community. Besides public housing in
Section 8 there were 365 units of public housing. They administer 38 units
of transitional housing for the homeless and were funded with City home
funds. Since that program began in 1998 they transitioned 87 previously
homeless families and individuals to permanent housing. They also
administered 19 units of housing under the Bert Nash Home Program which was
a state funded program. All together, they provided rental housing for
1,013 households in the City and County.
She said their major initiative was the Moving to Work Demonstration
Project. They were 1 of 3200 housing authorities in this Country that has
been selected by HUD to test new models for delivering public housing and
Section 8 assistance. Recently they formed a non-profit organization called
Douglas County Housing Inc. The purpose was to serve as an umbrella of the
Housing Authority as a non-profit corporation to be able to raise and
leverage funds in order to be able to continue to develop affordable
housing. They were currently waiting for the 501(c)(3) -ruling on their
application.
She said they had a comprehensive program of resident services that they
provided to those 1,000 households that they served and they did that
through $400,000 worth of grants they received every year and they consider
this to be wrap around services that helped elderly and disabled people as
well as household to be able to attain the services they needed in order to
be able to live responsibly under the lease. Of the 1,013 households they
served, 58 percent were relatively in disabled households. She said they
continued to apply each year for additional Section 8 Housing assistance.
They had been successful over the years in receiving both public housing
funds as well as Section 8 funding.
Major issues that they were facing and their major responsibility were
providing rental housing to low income people. They continued to want to
address local needs and the issues related to land and funds for
development. Their hope was that through the Douglas County Housing, they
would be able to leverage some funds.
She said there was legislation that sits before Congress to Block Grant the
Section 8 Program to the state's Housing Assistance to Needy Families Block
Grant. It was undergoing hearings right now. This would have a negative
impact on this community as well as the states and nation. Under that block
grant if it were to be approved, the 2.5 million dollars that this community
received would be lost to this State and this State would decide how to
administer those funds across the State based upon state determined need.
One of the major critical points about the Section 8 Program was that the
money we had in this community was money that was competed for based upon
their local need. The way in which the law was presently written required
HUD to continue to fund this City to the level of their commitments on
December 31st.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the Housing Authority solicited the City
Commission's support in lobbying against that legislation.
Huppee said yes. She said the Mayor had written a letter to our
Congressional Delegation.
Commissioner Schauner asked how they could make the citizens aware of the
possibility of those block funding grants for Title 8 instead of maintaining
our current process. He wanted to inform the people about how they could
participate in lobbying our Delegation of Congress generally about this
issue.
Huppee would be talking with a person from the Journal World to hopefully
get word out to our citizens about that issue. She said they had written to
the Chamber of Commerce, Health Department and all the Social Service
Agencies that they had collaborations with and a number them had written
letters. She thought the local press would be the way to get information to
the general public.
Commissioner Schauner was concerned about another loss of income for City
governmental operations and this was a critical piece of what the City did
through this agency. If anything the public could do to stop that activity
at a congressional level would be in everyone's best interest.
Huppee said this was the largest Affordable Housing Program that was in this
community. In some places like Johnson County, Section 8 was the only
Affordable Housing Program. This was a critically important program to
residents. In particular, low income residents of a community.
Vice Mayor Rundle said one the short coming was that our State did not have
a housing plan or infrastructure and they would need to create this from
scratch.
Huppee said the Governor had an Executive Order and they were moving one of
the housing programs to the Housing Development Finance Department. She
said they did have someone there that had some knowledge and expertise. She
said they had the Governor on board in opposition to the Block Grant. The
question was if the Block Grant passed and how it would be administered was
another question.
Commissioner Highberger asked if Huppee had seen increased demands for
housing during the last year.
Huppee said yes. She said there were a lot of people that were eligible for
their housing services. She said with the downturn of our economy, there
were more people that were coming to them for housing assistance. Their
waiting list was approximately 300 people at this time.
Wendy Coleman, Chair, Human Relations Commission, presented a report on the
Human Relations Commission. She has been a member of the HRC since 1997.
She said they had an opportunity to change lives and to make this community
a better place to live.
In 2002 their accomplishments included: HRC Commissioner training on the
public hearing process; mediation training classes; department sponsored
seminars for landlords; and Equal Opportunity Law Seminar.
She said the 2003 goals for HRC included: continuing and actively supporting
the HRC Commissioner Training on the Investigative Process; HRC Commissioner
re-treat; Economic Development Plan for minority and women owned businesses;
and conducting an employment seminar.
Karen Davis, Community Information Coordinator, Lawrence Public Library,
said the Internet Resources Advisory Board (IRAB) was recently renamed the
Community Information Advisory Board (CIAB) with the permission of the City
Commission so as to more accurately reflect the growing scope of community
information based services on which it would advise. These services include:
The Lawrence CyberVillage; The CyberVillage CLIC Database (CLIC); The
Center for Community Networking (CCN); and The Preview Forum project
The Internet Resources Advisory Board was established by the Lawrence City
Commission in 1995 to provide guidance for the newly created Lawrence
CyberVillage which was envisioned to be a web portal to the Lawrence
community. The Lawrence Public Library undertook this project at the
invitation of the Assistant City Manager at that time, Rod Bremby, and has
worked steadily since then to deepen and enhance it. The Cybervillage
currently included original content and links to local resources on a wide
variety of topics including the arts, business, education, local history and
much more- twenty categories in all.
An interactive web page creation system which they named "Page Builders" was
set up to allow for easy creation and revision of template based web pages.
The Page Builder system was currently used to publish adult softball,
basketball and volleyball league schedules, reschedules and team standings
for the Parks and Recreation Department, volunteer opportunities listed with
the Roger Hill Volunteer Center and Advisory Board Agendas.
The Lawrence CyberVillage has grown over the years to a current size of
approximately 2,000 pages and usage has climbed to 450,000 page views during
the month of April, 2003. It received over 5 million page views last year!
An online community information database called CLIC (Community of Lawrence
Info Connection) was added in 1998. CLIC was comprised of over 600 records
describing a broad range of nonprofit agencies, programs, services,
organizations, clubs and groups in Lawrence and Douglas County. These
records give detailed descriptions including telephone numbers, fax numbers
and live email and/or web addresses hyperlinks where available. The
information in each record was formally updated on an annual basis (and
often more frequently on an informal basis as changes come to their
attention).
Work was currently underway on a graphic redesign of the CyberVillage which
would more thoroughly integrate the CLIC Database with the second level
pages of the site and they hoped to have it up soon. Once the CLIC Database
was up and running, they then had a current community information "map" of
Lawrence and could consider possible ways to better serve the community
information needs of these organizations. Several successful initial efforts
included Library Study Circles and Library Panel Discussions on a variety of
topics such as: Medical Services for the Uninsured in Douglas County;
Funding Quality Child Care in Douglas County; Stranger Danger: Keeping Kids
Safe on the Internet; and Envisioning a Future for the Carnegie Building
A total of 7 nonprofit agencies and organizations have requested events
since January, 2000 and 80 representatives from these agencies,
organizations and groups have participated in the events.
She said the positive response to their efforts from the community has led
to the establishment this spring at the Library of the Center for Community
Networking (CCN). The CCN was a free service to nonprofit community
organizations, programs and agencies in Lawrence and Douglas County. Its
mission was the hosting of community dialogue concerning current local and
national issues. It was essentially an event planning and facilitation
service with added information research services available upon request.
Davis said another project which was just now in the planning stages locally
was the Preview Forum project. Preview Forums was a Ford Foundation funded
initiative designed to stimulate and encourage discussion on the local level
of "hot topics" of national interest. The Center for Community Networking
was selected this spring along with seven other organizations nationally to
be a target partner for this project. They would be partnering with the
World Company to co-host a first event this fall on the topic of "Race and
Ethnicity in a Changing America". Other events would follow.
Finally, the Library had recently received grants from the Lawrence Public
Library Foundation and from the Northeast Kansas Library System for the
purpose of purchasing videotaping and editing equipment and software. This
would enable them to videotape selected CCN events and Lawrence Public
Library programs. They hoped to produce simply edited programming for
broadcast on Sunflower Broadband's Public Access Channel 19.
Membership on the Community Information Advisory Board was currently in a
state of flux due to the resignation or expiration of terms of more than 50%
of the members.
A current CIAB membership list included continuing and newly appointed
members: Julie Boyle, Director, Communications, Lawrence Public Schools;
Mike Rundle, Lawrence City Commissioner; Bill Wood, Douglas County Extension
Agent; Bill Roach, Professor of Business Administration, Washburn
University; Jerry Niebaum, Assistant Vice Provost, University of Kansas;
Barbara Watkins, Coordinator, Curriculum and Projects, KU Continuing
Education; and Craig Penzler, chair, Lawrence Public Library Board of
Trustees
They felt this outstanding group of individuals would guide them in crafting
the vision needed to continue developing those library services toward their
full potential in the next few years.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked when the Preview Forum would take place.
Davis said early fall, hopefully in September. She said the Lawrence
Library was partnering with the World Company and there was a lot of
coordination involved therefore, that date had not been set.
Commissioner Highberger asked for the Lawrence Library's web address.
Davis said there were two web site addresses. The web addresses were:
www.ci.lawrence.ks.us or www.lawrencecybervillage.org.
Lee Hedrick, representing Douglas County, Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging
Board, said the board consisted of 15 people, three from Douglas County and
two from the City of Lawrence. She said JAAA advocated on aging issues and
builds community partnerships and implements programs within Shawnee,
Jefferson, and Douglas County to help senior's live independent and
dignified lives and they had been successful in accomplishing that mission.
She said name recognition was something that they were working hard on.
Over the past year they served approximately 10,000 seniors in the 3
counties and 19 percent of those seniors were in Douglas County. They
served persons of an average age of 80 years old. She said 81 percent were
female and 19 percent were males and out of these seniors, 71 percent lived
alone. In providing services, they partnered with many community agencies.
Those in Lawrence and Douglas County included: Senior Center; Douglas
County Visiting Nurses; Trinity Respite Care; Assisted Health Care; Teach
Inc.; Bert Nash; and Meals on Wheels.
She said they joined with the other 11 Area Agencies on Aging in the State
of Kansas to launch a statewide media campaign to help people understand who
they were and what they did. This has included public service announcements
on radio, four 30 minute television programs annually, and billboards.
She said they also began an aggressive program in the past year to raise
development funds. She said they were ambitious and set a $100,000 goal to
raise those funds. She said they only made $10,000, but they felt they did
well.
Hedrick said they had worked hard on restructuring their board and they were
now divided into 4 committees which were: fund development; member
development; public relations and marketing; and an executive committee.
She said they were in the process of developing measures to evaluate
themselves in customer and employee satisfaction, physical soundness, and
board/counsel satisfaction. She said they have updated their personnel
policies and evaluation processes. They had a strategic planning last year
and targeted 12 separate areas and had a plan for the next 3 years.
Joe Simunac, Baldwin City, Chairman of the Advisory Counsel for AAA, said in
2002 they had legislative breakfast and this gave them the opportunity to
make the legislature more aware of the needs of the aging and the programs
that they were providing for them. He said they keep abreast of the
legislative action and voice their opinions when needed.
He said they revised their bylaws by increasing their board members from 12
to 15 members and also increased the term limit from 2 to 3 years. He said
they also participated in a committee that allocated money to different
groups who help with the elderly and pay for performance. At the end of the
month if they had met their standards, they were reimburse for that amount.
The Counsel has started an active program of visiting meal sites and this
was done for 2 reasons. One reason was to check the quality of the service
and the other reason was to talk to the participants in the program to see
if there were any needs that were not being met. He said in order to
identify potential board members they were asking citizens to serve on their
committee as volunteers. He said they supported the action of the board.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was the minimum age to join AAA.
Simunac said age 60.
Commissioner Schauner said there were 2 groups that the communities needed
to be mindful about representing, children and the elderly. Those were the
2 groups that were least able to help themselves in many cases and any
program, activity, or support that the Commission or City could give to
those groups was very valuable activity. He thanked Simunac for serving on
the Advisory Committee and the staff for the work they did on this issue.
(18)
Fred DeVictor, Parks and Recreation Director, presented the proposal from
the Lawrence Rotary Clubs for a proposed arboretum near the Clinton Lake
Softball Complex. He said this was an exciting partnership opportunity for
the City Commission to consider. He said it was a partnership that would
invest in one of the best natural resources we have in this community which
were trees. He said they had been working with local Rotary Clubs to help
them find a project to help celebrate their Rotary Club centennial in 2005.
He said they met with the committee in March and presented a number of ideas
to them. One of those ideas was an Arboretum. The club accepted that idea
and wanted to pursue it. He presented a map to the City Commission
depicting the location of the proposed Rotary Arboretum. He said their idea
was to plant approximately 50 to 60 different species of plants, mostly
trees and shrubs, identify those plants, and this Arboretum would be used as
an educational tool for the entire community.
George Woodard, Chair of the Rotary Centennial Project for the Lawrence
Rotary Club, said Rotary International was a community service organization
that was designed to promote good relations and worked to build local and
international projects. The impetus for this project was that the Rotary
would soon celebrate its centennial year. He said the Rotary was
established in Chicago in 1905.
Woodard said when they were looking for an appropriate project, this
partnership with the City building an Arboretum seemed exactly right because
they wanted a project that would be visible, long-lasting, and a major
enhancement for the community. He said they had been working with the Parks
and Recreation staff on this project and their Rotary Clubs had
enthusiastically supported this initiative. He said they were at the point
of raising funds that would be committed to plantings in the area that was
described. These plantings would be labeled and identified for those who
would use the area. He said there was no Arboretum of this type in this
immediate vicinity and they were pleased and happy to work with the City in
developing a project that was recreational, educational, and that would
enhance a sense of civic and community pride.
The 3 Rotary Clubs of Lawrence committed themselves to a goal of $50,000 to
support this project. They encouraged the Commission's support and they
looked forward to working with Parks and Recreation in seeing this project
to completion. He thanked the City Commission for their consideration of
this initiative.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Rotary Club's goal of $50,000 would be
used to purchase plant material and the $19,000 would be installation cost.
DeVictor said staff would work with the Rotary Club. Their money would go
to buy the plant materials. The $19,000 would be to bring the level of the
ponds up and improve the drainage and also getting water to that area. He
said there would be some City expense that would come out of the Special
Recreation Fund.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any on-going plan or idea about the
expense of maintaining this project over time.
DeVictor said there would be some expense, but not major expense. There
would be some water and labor costs. He said immediately west of that area,
there was a maintenance shop and there were crews that worked in that area
all the time.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commission Highberger asked if those
funds would be coming out of this year's budget or next year's budget.
Wildgen said it might be 2005. He said the maintenance would be supplied by
existing staff.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there would be any major land moving.
DeVictor said no. Those ponds were there now.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the proposal from the
Lawrence Rotary Clubs for proposed arboretum near the Clinton Lake Softball
Complex. Motion carried unanimously.
(19)
Mayor Dunfield commented on 2 agenda items in regards to our budget
difficulty. He said in these 2 agenda items were the better side of
Lawrence. He said they had seen presentations by 5 different boards of
volunteers, people who were giving their time freely for the benefit of all
the citizens in the community. He said this proposal from the Rotary was
another way of contributing to the community of building that social capital
and he appreciated all the effort.
Commissioner Highberger concurred. He was looking forward to seeing the
arboretum when it was completed.
Wildgen said the Lawrence Police Officers Association did not approve the
Memorandum of Understanding between their association and the City. He
said the next step was to work with the association on contacting the
mediator. Ultimately, this issue would come back to the City Commission for
review. Commissioner Schauner asked
what would be the timeline for getting a mediator to participate.
Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, said they had a meeting set up with
Federal Mediator on June 20th, 2003. She said according to the resolution,
they had 7 days to complete that process once it was started.
(20)
Karin Rexroad, Public Transit Administrator, presented the report concerning
the Request for Proposals from Laidlaw Transit Services and MV
Transportation. She said on April 3rd, 2003 the FTA had made a
determination that they needed to re-bid their contract to provide fixed
route, paratransit and ADA services. At that time, they had their original
RFP updated and the proposal was reviewed by the FTA to make sure they were
in compliance with all rules and regulations. She said staff recommended a
5 year contract.
On April 3rd, the City Commission authorized the Transit Department to
solicit for a 5 year contract. Staff received 2 responses to staff's RFP
which were Laidlaw Transit Services and MV Transportation. The evaluation
team completed a detailed review of those proposals. She said staff did
reference checks on both vendors and the Finance Department performed
financial reviews of those vendors. Both vendors met staff's qualifications
and passed the financial review. They scored closely in the evaluation
process. Laidlaw received 79 points and MV Transportation received 84
points. She said staff looked at the proposed costs of each vendor for a 5
year period and the proposals seemed reasonable. She said MV Transportation
submitted the lowest bid.
She said MV Transportation had provided a quality system to this City over
the past 3 years and was a willing partner in the development of this
transportation system. She said MV Transportation was one of the main
players in the 60 percent increase in ridership. They had performed and
maintained 98 percent on-time performance which was a tremendous standard
and one that many other transit agencies would be envious of. They had good
corporate staff support and currently they were working on a project with a
corporate individual who was helping staff perform a systems analysis in
looking at what they could do to enhance routes and look at smarter and
better ways to provide better service.
Another service that MV Transportation offered was an unconditional
satisfaction guaranteed warranty which was in the event the City was
dissatisfied with MV Transportation's services for any reason during the
term of the contract, the City of Lawrence could terminate the contract. In
the event the contract was terminated, MV Transportation would refund to the
City of Lawrence any and all profits made by MV Transportation during the
final 12 months during the period prior to the termination. This guarantee
was provided previously to the City. They also guarantee that they would
not reassign or transfer the project manager unless they had the City's
written permission to do so.
Based on the evaluation, financial review, past service received from MV
Transportation, the evaluation committee recommended that the City contract
with MV Transportation. They would be providing our public transit services
both fixed paratransit and ADA eligibility certification services.
Mayor Dunfield asked about the RFP process and the review by the evaluation
committee. He asked if this process was being done in response to federal
regulations.
Rexroad said yes. She said they were following the same procedure as staff
did 3 years ago. At that time there was a lot of FTA support. She said
staff was comfortable that they had met the FTA's rules and regulations.
Mayor Dunfield asked if they were involved directly at this point.
Rexroad said no. The FTA did not like to be directly involved.
During that first year of the transit system, they were not familiar with
all of the rules and regulations, so the FTA provided some technical
support.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked why there were only two bids and not more.
Rexroad heard from two companies who had extreme growth in their
services and they could not take on anything else. One company said they
were scheduled to go to a conference and they did not have time to fill out
the application. She said there was very good attendance at the
pre-proposal conference and did not know why the other vendors did not bid.
She said staff received solid proposals.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if a 5-year contract was typical.
Rexroad said yes, it was normal. She said it could actually be
longer than 5-years because of new regulations by the FTA.
Mayor Dunfield asked how a 5-year contract dealt with the unknowns
in the business of transit providers.
Rexroad said that transit provider was taking the risk. In the
contract there were certain items that allowed for renegotiation such as a
major increase in revenue hours that allowed staff to negotiate with the
provider to look at their fixed costs.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he was interested in knowing the fuel and
insurance costs.
Jon Monson, CEO of MV Transportation, told background information
about their company. MV Transportation has been providing public
transportation services for the past 28 years under the same ownership.
There were currently 85 contracts in 17 states and about 5,000 employees.
He was pleased to hear about the efforts from Lawrence's Human Relations
Commission regarding women and minorities. MV Transportation was a woman
and minority owned bus company and one of the largest African American owned
businesses in the United States. MV Transportation was selected 3 years ago
to start providing public transportation services in Lawrence. He believed
they have done an outstanding job. He said ridership continued to approve
every month.
The proposed renewal contract included improvements for the drivers while
still maintaining cost effectiveness. He addressed Commissioner Rundle's
question regarding the 5-year contract. He said that out of the 85
contracts, at least 80 of those contracts were 5 years or longer. Typically
most costs in this business were very predictable. He said for example fuel
prices go up and down and if you look at fuel costs factoring in inflation,
it was a very predictable commodity. He said their company hedges fuel cost
changes by purchasing long-term contracts for fuel delivery therefore, they
hedge their cost years in advance.
He said in terms of insurance, MV Transportation received a decrease in
their insurance rates due to their safety record. He also noted that during
the 28 business years, a contract has never failed to be completed.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked more specifically about health insurance.
Monson said there were significant increases being experienced in medical
and dental insurance costs. He said they experienced about an 18 percent
increase in their premiums last year and they were anticipating double digit
increases during the period of this contract. Every report they had read
indicated that the increases in medical benefits would continue. He said
they proposed improvements in the medical package as part of their proposal.
Commissioner Schauner asked how much turnover was experienced in the past 3
years among MV Transportation drivers in Lawrence.
Monson did not have that figure with him, but he could get that information
to the Commissioners. He said when they first started the system they had
all brand new drivers and in their business typically when someone was in
their first year, you have a much higher range of turnover. Once someone
hits a one year period, the typically stay with the system. He said they
had seen their turnover moderate since the first year of the contract when
it was higher.
Commissioner Schauner asked Monson if he could provide those figures
concerning turnover for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years of operation.
Monson said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said transit drivers had organized a union to bargain
a contract with MV Transportation. He asked for the status of those
negotiations.
Monson said about 40 percent of their employees' nationwide were part of
organized labor units. The most prevalent labor union MV Transportation
dealt with was the Amalgamated Transit Union, which dealt with transit
employees all over the country. The employees in Lawrence selected ATU to
be their representative. He said they were meeting at that very moment and
that they were through all of the non-economic issues and they were entering
negotiations into the economics of the contract.
Commissioner Schauner asked when MV Transportation began negotiations with
ATU.
Monson said 6 months ago.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was an agreement.
Monson said there was no agreement.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Monson anticipated an agreement.
Monson said yes. The reason for the delay was because ATU requested a large
number of employees to be on the bargaining committee. He said the number
of employees they wanted to participate, caused them to meet only in the
evenings.
Commissioner Schauner asked if MV Transportation would remain interested in
serving Lawrence if the contract was less than a 5-year period of time.
Monson said they had contracts that were less and more than 5-years. He
said the City could be assured of was the reason they placed the guarantee
in the contract was that City staff or the Commission would have the right
to anytime during the contract to change course at any time.
Commissioner Schauner said prior to the committee making the recommendation,
did the City conduct an independent evaluation of bus maintenance.
Rexroad said there was an on-going review of maintenance as part of the
oversight of the agency. In fact, MV Transportation was a partner with the
City in the Tri-annual Review where maintenance was a major issue that was
reviewed. She said staff evaluated bus maintenance such as walk around the
vehicles and checking for preventive maintenance. Liquidated damages were
in their current contract that stated if maintenance was not being done the
City could charge them for maintenance.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they had solicited input from drivers because
no one knows those buses better than the actual drivers.
Rexroad talked to drivers on a regular basis regarding every issue.
Commissioner asked if a Personnel Audit was ever performed to evaluate
employee satisfaction as part of her review process.
Rexroad say no. She said because it was a separate contract, staff left it
up to their management.
Vice Mayor Rundle said in the review of the transit providers, he ask about
the statement that both "provided solid labor management programs."
Rexroad said it outlined their whole labor management policy in regards to
discipline, safety plans, meetings, hiring's, etc. She essentially meant
that they had put together a solid plan that would handle situations if they
were to arise.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was any comparison of compensation
levels and benefit packages as part of the management policy.
Rexroad said yes. She said that information was provided by both transit
providers. She said in regards to driver wages, MV Transportation and
Laidlaw starting range was approximately the same, but when you get to the
end of the contract, MV Transportation exceeded Laidlaw's proposal. She
said both proposals were very similar.
Commissioner Highberger asked if it was the same with the benefits.
Rexroad said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any information about employee
turnover.
Rexroad said she was planning on updating that information. The first year
turnover was approximately 60 percent, but it has not been updated over the
last year.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the information could be provided in the
future.
Rexroad said yes. She said turnover was high in the transit industry.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the Commission wanted information to assess
maintenance, such as scheduled versus unscheduled, number of road calls, and
the number road miles per road calls, was that something that would need to
be placed in that contract.
Rexroad received that type of information monthly as part of the current
contract.
Vice Mayor Rundle suggest that information be part of the RFP.
Rexroad said that information would be hard to receive because it would be
giving out someone's information, but they had that information for MV
Transportation.
Vice Mayor Rundle said if the Commission moved ahead, that contract would
come to them late June. He was interested in some type of evaluation of
that information.
Rexroad said staff would put together information for the City Commission.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it was comforting to hear that guarantee in the
contract, but it seemed like there were no parameters to that guarantee. He
asked if there had been any parameter set in the event that the city does
want out of the contract.
Monson said there were no parameters. He said the company has only lost one
contract in 28 years. The contract was lost in San Jose, California,
approximately 3 years ago because that agency re-bid every 2 years and the
low bidder automatically won. He said there were no quality-criteria, and
based on what happening in this area at that time, they increased their wage
rates for employees and they were not the low bidder so they lost the
contract. He said MV Transportation was very confident in their ability to
assure the Commission that they would meet the needs of the community.
He addressed some of the maintenance questions. He said they internal
performed additionally a quarterly complete audit of the maintenance
program, and there were certain statistics measured in terms of "miles
between road calls." He said Lawrence system compared favorably to data
that was collected nationally by the FTA in terms of reliability of on-road
performance. He said they could provide those statistics to the
Commission.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there has ever been an independent inspection
done by a mechanic.
Monson said MV Transportation employed internal auditors to perform
quarterly evaluations on all functions of the transit system. He said for
example, every quarter there was a regional safety manager that came to
Lawrence and evaluated driver training records and accident reports to make
sure that MV Transportation's service in Lawrence was following all policies
and procedures. He said a similar process was done in the maintenance area
where they had an internal auditor come in quarterly and do a physical
inspection of the vehicles and a records check. He said the City was
welcome at any time to perform an evaluation on the maintenance of the
buses.
Mayor Dunfield said the City Commission was asking for information
concerning maintenance. He also said that the Commission needed information
on the turnover rate of employees over the three year course.
Commissioner Schauner requested that be comparative data so the Commission
could compare it to other systems of like size.
Vice Mayor Rundle said given this guarantee, he felt the Commission could
review this contract at any time.
Mayor Dunfield said the nature of the process and the FTA requirements, not
to mention that they had 2 companies who had put their proposals on the
line, made a re-bid situation a drastic measure.
Vice Mayor Rundle said they had created an employee survey. He asked if
that was something that could be administered for MV Transportation
employees.
Monson said yes. He said MV Transportation take employee relations very
seriously. He said obviously when you're going through a first labor
contract, emotions tended to run high. He believed that MV Transportation
would come to a very positive settlement with their employees. He said
there were many different points of view among their employees that they
respected, but he thought they had made good progress on their labor
contract. He said this was a public service that this City was paying for
and citizens had the right to any information that they wanted about their
operation in Lawrence.
Commissioner Schauner and Commission Highberger would be riding on an MV
Transportation bus and that would give them an opportunity to give them an
up close look at Route 6.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the recommendation of
the evaluation team. Per FTA requirements, the City Commission would
formally authorize the contract to be drafted at the June 24, 2003 City
Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
(21)
The Capital Improvement Plan for 2004-2009 was delayed from a prior City
Commission meeting because the Commission was not familiar enough with the
document to feel comfortable discussing.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked for the total number of projects in the plan.
Shelia Stogsdill, Assistant Director of Planning, said there were 160, but
the minutes indicated that the City Commission removed the Learnard Project
was removed which made the number of projects at 159.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked for the total number of dollars.
Corliss said approximately 324 million dollars was the total of all those
projects.
Stogsdill said realizing that all of those projects would not be completed
in 5 years was that often times, staff would be looking at land development
proposals long in advance of actual development. She said being able to
identify the improvement of Kasold, which was ultimately going to be a major
arterial street, helped staff to inform property owners, early in the
process, that the City would be looking at additional right-of-way
dedication. At this point in time, that project was at least 5 years out.
She said if another development was moved along sooner, staff would need to
look at how to help participate in that improvement to move that up in the
priority list.
Mayor Dunfield reviewed the City Commission minutes and appreciated the
removal of the Learnard project.
Vice Mayor Rundle said if the Commission wanted to amend this plan, what
would need to be done.
Stogsdill said it would be referred to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission would hold a public hearing for that amendment. She
said it would then go back to the City Commission for action.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After hearing no public comment, Commissioner Highberger said there was
public comment regarding the satellite public library at the last
presentation concerning the Capital Improvement Plan. He said this
proposed Capital Improvement Plan indicated that project would cost
approximately $245,000 for that satellite library in 2004. He said it
seemed unlikely that would occur.
Wildgen said one other project mentioned at the last discussion was the 15th
and Iowa Street project.
Mayor Dunfield said he found the 15th and Iowa Street project disturbing and
a project that required discussion before the Commission made a final
decision.
Commissioner Highberger said this plan was not a binding document and the
plan needed more input, but did not see any reason to withdraw from the CIP
at this point.
Commissioner Schauner said the Capital Improvement Plan was obviously a wish
list and as the community grows they would have additional infrastructure
intersection improvements. He would like a better sense of what benchmarks
they used to measure future project activation against. He said it would be
helpful to have some standardized benchmarks against what the Commission
would measure requests for activating any particular project out of the CIP
for implementation. He did not have any problem with the document as it was
written, but he had a concern about how the Commission decided what project
was 1st, 2nd, or did not do at all.
Vice Mayor Rundle said there were fewer cities that did have a very strict
priority list and did adhere to that list.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Capital Improvement
Plan for 2004-2009. Motion carried unanimously.
(22)
Mayor Dunfield addressed the letter to the U.S. Corps of Engineers
concerning the pending Record of Decision for the eastern portion of the
South Lawrence Trafficway. He said the Commission heard from Commissioner
Hack via e-mail that she preferred to see this issue deferred until the
County could weigh in on it. The County has also indicated that they would
like this issue to be deferred until they had a representative to discuss
that matter.
Commissioner Highberger was not sure what in the proposal required a lot of
discussion. He said the word "delay" in the letter, might need to be taken
out. He said all that was being requested was an update on potential plans
involving the South Lawrence Trafficway that might involve moving City
roads, which would require City funds. He would like to have more
information. He thought the intent of this was to initiate a discussion of
the route of the SLT, for instance. He said if Commissioner Hack preferred
to have it deferred until she returned, he was in agreement with that
deferment.
Mayor Dunfield said the word "delay" was causing concern on the part of the
County and also Commissioner Hack. He said if the request was to ask the
Corps of Engineers to give a presentation to the Commission about the issues
that would affect Lawrence, then that would be a request that the Commission
could make.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it was hard to know what the Corps of Engineers was
going to be basing their decision on. He wrote a letter that addressed his
concern of the idea that state and regional projects should not address
local roads and traffic problems. He said there was no other department of
transportation in the country that would agree. He said if the Record of
Decision was done without regard to local issues then it raised a concern.
Mayor Dunfield said his main concern was the lengthy process the Corps of
Engineers has taken to arrive at the point they were at now. He said the
Corps of Engineers had taken into consideration a lot of public comment from
a lot of different sources. He said it had been mentioned that the
Commission should indicate the City had concerns about Haskell Indian
Nations University participation in this process. He said it was not the
City's business at this stage, nor did he think Haskell's position was
unclear. He was unclear of what was being asked.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the first paragraph was clear concerning Baker
University, Douglas County, and KDOT were in a memorandum of agreement and
Lawrence was not part of that agreement.
Commissioner Schauner said no matter where or when this road was built,
there would be unhappy stakeholders. His concern was that wherever the road
was built, it would have an impact on the City's finances, most particularly
the Capital Improvement Plan. It was easy to make decisions that affect
other people's budget because it was not your money being spent. He would
like to have a discussion with the Corps of Engineers in regards to how the
City partners with those decisions. He said the City was a real stakeholder
in the logical consequences of completing the SLT. The SLT would also have
an impact on farm property in the area.
Mayor Dunfield asked if that participation needed to predate the Record of
Decision.
Commissioner Schauner wished he was more knowledgeable about the impact of
the Record of Decision.
Corliss was not an expert on the SLT and its requirements as it went through
the necessary federal permits that KDOT was seeking. The Record of Decision
was a key point as far as what an administrative agency has to make in
regards to determination. That allowed for certain things to happen, both
positively for the project and for those who wish to challenge the decision.
KDOT and the County were seeking the necessary federal government approvals
and that was the Record of Decision. The alignment issues, the location of
roads, and the location of the roads that intersect, were key facts that
needed to go into making the decision.
Commissioner Highberger said the Record of Decision would likely recommend
moving several of Lawrence's city streets. He said it would behoove the
Corps of Engineers to be assured the City was going to participate in that
if they expected the City to spend any money. He would like to be briefed
by the Corps of Engineers prior to the issue of the Record of Decision,
given the fact that the Record of Decision potentially implicated the City
in spending money on roadway relocation projects.
Commissioner Schauner concurred with Commissioner Highberger.
Wildgen asked if the engineering firm that worked for KDOT, could give that
briefing because the Commission could get a quicker review.
Commissioner Schauner said perhaps a study session with someone from that
engineering firm.
Dunfield said a study session would be a good format.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the County Public Works was involved in the
memorandum of agreement.
Wildgen said yes.
Mayor Dunfield suggested a study session take place before the Record of
Decision was published.
(23)
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the
staff report concerning the proposed annexation of property on the southeast
boundary. He said this issue was being discussed to brief the Commission on
the status of this project and the Commission would not be making any
decisions or initiating this annexation. He realized as staff was putting
some of the finishing touches on the service plan, it then needed to go to
the County Commission and Planning Commission and ultimately come back to
the City Commission. He had not briefed the City Commission on this
project, particularly the new City Commission. This was being addressed to
make the Commission aware of the process in the weeks and months to come.
Corliss said this would be an annexation of approximately 563 acres of
property. He said there were 18 tracts on the southeast portion of the
City. He presented a map of the proposed annexation of land to the City
Commission. He said this project had been initiated because the City had
funding from KDOT to build O'Connell Road. The plans were finalized and the
City was acquiring right-of-way in limited portions along that corridor.
What staff wanted to do before the project was started was to have this
annexation competed. He said they needed this annexed property for a number
of reasons which was to debt finance the City's portion. He said in order
to do that under the main trafficway statute which was the preferred method
of debt financing, the property needed to be within the City. He said there
was a good argument that if spending City tax dollars, the project should be
within the City. There was also some pending development request. The
Farmland property was in transition and the City would see development
request for that property. He said it made sense to have a service plan for
the area, talk about how the City would serve it and it made sense to staff
to annex this property.
He said a meeting would take place with the engineering design firm and
property owners to discuss a sanitary sewer benefit district. One of the
challenges for this property was that the property to the east of O'Connell
needed to be served by a new regional sanitary sewer system which would
bring sewage down to this point and then to the north according to the
Master Plan.
Corliss said there would be a service report and then it would go to the
Planning Commission. He said the County Commission needed to make certain
findings because of the size of this annexation. At that point, staff would
need to set a public hearing date and this issue would come back to the City
Commission which would make the ultimate decision whether to annex the
property. He said this process was similar to what was done on west 6th
Street, west of Wakarusa where the City annexed approximately 700 acres
north and south of west 6th Street so this project could be debt financed
and also planning purposes.
Commissioner Schauner asked what would happen if the City Commission did not
annex this property.
Corliss said City staff would find a separate way to debt finance the road.
He had some ideas that might involve a charter ordinance and might require
the cooperation of the County. He said it would challenge the City on the
road project. He asked if the Commission wanted to address the road
project.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the road was high on the Capital Improvement
Plan's agenda.
Corliss said yes. It was a substandard road that was in substantial need of
repair. It was not wide enough to handle the traffic now. He said this
would be a collector street with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City did annex the property, what
other obligation would incur as a result.
Corliss said the full panoply of City services would become
available to all of these property owners.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City was placed on a timeline in
providing those City services.
Corliss said the State laws provided for a 5-year review of whether
or not the city had met its service plan. The service plan would tell us
how the services were going to be provided. He said in many cases the
vehicle for providing those services was that the property owner pays for
the infrastructure, for example, the sanitary sewer that was mentioned
earlier. Under the development policy, Resolution 5614, property owners
paid 100 percent of the cost of sanitary sewer service as far as extending
the service to that property. The City maintains the sewers; collection
system maintenance; and discharge to the Wastewater System. Those costs
would be borne by the property owners.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this property, if annexed and
developed, would require the use of lift stations for sanitary sewer.
Wildgen said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said then it would cause the City to incur
on-going costs of maintenance.
Wildgen said the property owners would be paying a wastewater rate.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those rates paid the costs of that service.
Wildgen said staff believed that it paid for the costs of that service. He
said there would be 5 year review of those water and sewer rates. It did
pay for electricity and maintenance of the lift stations, once they were
accepted.
Corliss said when looking at the service plan, you would see the list of
City services whether it was transit, fire protection, or police protection.
Following the general development of the community, its growth would help
pay for some of those services.
Mayor Dunfield said these issues of annexations always pointed out
the double edge sword that the Commission was dealing with. On one hand,
the Commission could not effectively plan the future of the areas unless the
Commission could gain control of them within the city. On the other hand
the City would also incur obligations to extend those services. He said it
pointed toward the need to resolve the adequate public facilities
discussion.
Commissioner Schauner said once the land was annexed, then the city
would be compelled to proceed to provide city services on a schedule. He
said the city loses some control of their ability to control costs. He said
those costs were over and above the City's ability to recover from a benefit
district and would essentially become costs to the City-at-large. He said
it was not this particular project, but how this particular annexation would
fit into the land use plan generally and whether or not the costs associated
with it were warranted as well as the unknowns concerning the property to
the north with whatever might happen to that ground.
Corliss said another variable was the timing of development in
growth. The city did not control when someone would desire to proceed with
growth.
Commissioner Schauner said the City loses some of that control once
the land was annexed and the City had to begin providing services. When
someone comes in with a plan to develop this ground then the City was in a
reactionary position rather than in a position to talk about what the City
thought should happen to that ground.
Corliss said the City would be pro-active in the sense that the City
would have identified the issues and the general ability of the City to
provide those services and get some idea of costs estimates. He said the
City would not know, for example, when tract 17 would develop. It might be
in the next year or two or it might be in the next decade or two.
Wildgen said the City did attempt to annex on the east side several
years ago. The Commission at the time said no because it was not part of
the Master Plan and that ended up being the right decision.
Commissioner Schauner said his concern about what happens when the
City takes that leap which created other obligations that were significant
and his question was not addressed.
Wildgen said the City did put in a major wastewater line and part of
that was to help circulation back to the west.
Commissioner Schauner's other concern was the lift stations. He
said a number of people suggested that lift stations were not a good idea
because they had a limited life and when they needed to be replaced that was
a City-at-large expense.
Wildgen said it was a rate-payers expense it was not a property tax.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was a rate-payers expense just to
that benefit district.
Corliss said no. The City-at-large paid for that expense.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment. There was no public
comment on this topic.
(24)
During the Public Comment part of the meeting, Racie Mohammad told
the City Commission that the 2 cab companies in Lawrence had recently
combined. She had a disability and small children and in essence, would
cost her $25 to go and buy a gallon of milk.
The new taxi rate had an $8 flat fee anywhere in Lawrence, $1.50 for
her child, $2 for the stop and $.40 a minute. She did not know how those
costs were regulated in the City, but it was disturbing.
She said when speaking with other low income households about how
they would get medicine in the middle of the night; take a child for a
checkup; or appointments made 48 hours in advance which was what would be
required for the paratransit service. She asked the City Commission to look
into that issue and to have this now joint company take low income
households seriously.
Mayor Dunfield asked staff to report on the City's authority
concerning this issue.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, said he did
not know if this was the same women that contracted the City Clerk's office,
but he did receive a complaint on that same issue. A letter had been
written to those companies asking them to provide the City Clerk's office
with some feedback.
Mayor Dunfield again asked for a report from staff.
(25)
During Commission Items, Mayor Dunfield said they were not scheduled to have
another discussion about the City budget until July 2nd, and because of the
amount of discussion and debate that particular item had generated. He
suggested talking about funding school activities from City taxes.
He said all of us recognized the City stake in the quality of our schools
and everyone would like to find ways to help. Vice Mayor Rundle, City
Manager, City staff and he met with representatives of the School District
to talk about the situation. As a result of that discussion, it did not
appear feasible to make a grant to the School District for the City's 2004
budget.
There were several reasons for that decision, some were technical. The
School Districts fiscal year and the City's were 6 months apart and they
each had different regulatory and accounting requirements for the 2 bodies.
Also, the complications and uncertainties that were involved as a result
were significant. They also raised a great many policy questions that had
the potential to create new problems rather than solve the ones that they
were already aware of. Finally, the magnitude of City's own budget
problems made it essential that they take care of City employees and City
services first.
He said the better course at this point was to look ahead to the School
District 2005 Budget in a joint effort by the City, County, and School
District. He said they needed to find more options to consider. He said
they should follow the Johnson County sales tax issue, for example, and
consider whether they might want to put a similar measure to a vote of the
citizens of Douglas County.
He said the community wanted to support education. He believed they needed
a clear community process for providing that support.
Commissioner Schauner thought this was the right decision. He had received
more comment by telephone and email about this particular issue than
anything else in his very short tenure on this body. He said this funding
issue raised some long-term policy issues that needed a broader discussion
and community involvement. (26)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 9:20 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M. Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 10, 2003
1. Bid - Chip & Seal Project to Vance Bros., for $54,520.
2. Agreement - Joint City/County cooperative purchasing with SBC for long
distance services.
3. Ordinance No. 7654 - 1st Reading, condemnation, tract of property &
utility easement at 835 E 13th, 13th & Oregon Project.
4. Ordinance No. 7655 - 1st Reading, Alcohol sales July 16 at Lawrence
Municipal Airport.
5. Ordinance No. 7652 - Changing Stintson Ave to Bryant Way.
6. Final Plat - (PF-04-08-03) Jayhawk Golf Training Ctr., S of 15th & E of
Crossgate.
7. Final Plat - (PF-04-09-03) Fall Creek Farms 9th Plat, 6.442 acres, W of
Kasold & S of Peterson
8. Site Plan - (SP-04-25-03) Signs of Life, 722 Mass.
9. TSC - No parking, 700 Balk of Lake St.
10. TSC - 35 mph on 27th between Crossgate & Wakarusa.
11. TSC - 35 mph on Crossgate between Clinton Pkwy & 27th.
12. Sign - Sunflower Broadband, Riverfront Parking Garage.
13. Sign of Community Interest - Summer Brown Bag Concerts, US Bank Tower,
900 Mass.
14. Subordination Agreement - 1713 E 17th, Robert & Elizabeth Bond.
15. Final Plat - (PF-04-07-03) The Woods on 19th, 11.726 acres, N of 19th &
E of Delaware.
16. R-O-W - 11 sq ft., at 1817 Castle Pine Ct, contingent upon $1,500
vacation fee.
17. City Manager's Report - Water Quality Report/Planning related timetable.
18. Boards & Commissions - Public Health Board/Housing Authority/Human
Relations/Community Info/Jayhawk Area Agency.
19. Arboretum - Clinton Lake Softball Complex.
20. Memo of Understanding - Police Officers Assoc. (Denied)
21. RFP - from Laidlaw Transit & MV Transporation.
22. Capital Improvement Plan for 2004-2009.
23. Letter - Pending Record of Decision to US Corps of Engineers.
24. Annex property - Southeast boundary.
25. Public Comment - Taxi Service
26. Commission Comments - School Funding
5
June 10, 2003
City Commission Minutes
Page 20
_____________________________
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