November 11, 2003

 

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Dunfield presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.  Lawrence High School representative Jacob Gage was present.   

Mayor Dunfield presented the Employee Service Awards from 5 years of service to 35 years of service and retirees. 

25 Years of Service:

William Brickell                                    Fire Lieutenant

Edward Brunt Jr.                               Police Lieutenant

Kevin Carr                                         Senior Project Inspector

Linda Finger                                      Planning Director

Jerry Grant                                       Operations Supervisor

Mark Grinstead                                Fire Inspection Officer

Fredrick Laughlin                                Firefighter

James McSwain                                 Fire Chief

Linda Miller                                        Administrative Clerk II

Richard Nickell                                   Police Sergeant

Timothy Pinnick                                  Inspections Supervisor

Mack Pryor                                       Police Sergeant

James Sloan                                       Fire Captain

Larry Woydziak                                Fire Captain

 

35 Years of Service:

 

Aaron Turner                                     Solid Waste Operator II

 

Retirees

 

Roberta Schmitz                                Administrative Services, Benefits Specialist

Charles Tunget                                  Public Works, Solid Waste Loader

Larry Colley                                      Parks & Recreation, Senior Trades Technician

James Combest                                 Public Works, Solid Waste Loader

Carl Giffin                                        Public Works, Solid Waste Loader Operator II

   

With Commission approval Mayor Dunfield read a proclamation honoring November 11, 2003 as “Veterans Day.”

With Commission approval, the Mayor proclaimed November 8-13, 2003 as “Kaw Valley District Missionary Baptist Association Week.”

CONSENT AGENDA        

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, toapprove the City Commission meeting of November 4, 2003.  Motion carried unanimously.

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, toapprove the Board of Zoning Appeals draft meeting minutes of October 9, 2003; the Sign Code Board of Appeals draft meeting minutes of October 9, 2003; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of October 9, 2003; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of November 3, 2003; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 10, 2003; the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 22, 2003; the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority meeting minutes of September 22, 2003; and the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 15, 2003.  Motion carried unanimously.

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 296 vendors in the amount of $ 1,861,563.46.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for one mobile compressor for the Fire/Medical Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Conrad Fire Equipment, price after trade in, for the amount of $22,054.00.  Conrad also offered an option for an engine gauge panel for $306.00 for monitoring the oil pressure and engine temperature for a total awarded amount of $22,360.00.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                         (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to establish Saturday, November 15, 2003 as Police Department Evidence/Found Property Action.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (2) 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first readingOrdinance No. 7595, authorizing the codification of the general ordinances of the City.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                  (3)

Ordinance No. 7721, ordering the condemnation of real property interests for 19^th Street and Barker Avenue roundabout improvements, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.        

                                                                                                                                             (4)

 Ordinance No. 7722, establishing “no parking” on the west side of Crestline Drive, south of 9^th Street, a distance of approximately two parking spaces to the nearest property line; and establish “no parking” along the east side of Christie Court, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                              (5)

Ordinance No. 7723, establishing a “bus loading zone”, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., school days, on 10^th Street, north side, for a distance of 110 feet east of New York School, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (6)

Ordinance No. 7718, levying a special assessments for part of the costs of construction of Congressional Drive from 6^th Street to the proposed extension of Overland Drive, including property acquisition, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, sidewalks on both sides, and other necessary and appropriate improvements, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                    (7)

   As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking”, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday – Friday, along the north side of 7^th Street between Comet Lane and Monterey Way, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                       (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish an “adult crossing guard” for Kennedy Elementary School at the intersection of Davis Road and Harper Street; and refer this matter to staff for budgeting analysis, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                         (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” along the north side of Quail Crest Place, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                 (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation for removal of the existing bus zone on the north side of 15^th Street, west of Naismith Drive, and establish a new bus zone along the north side of 15^th Street, from 330 feet west of Naismith Drive, west 35 feet, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                   (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-03-16-03) for the construction of a warehouse building located on the northwest corner of 3^rd and Maple Streets, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:

a.                  One additional street tree along Maple Street;

b.                  Show sidewalk ramps at the corner of North 3^rd Street and Maple Street;

c.                  Show curb and gutter sections at the east and west end of the rear alley driveway aprons;

d.                  A detail of the curb along North 3^rd Street per the City Engineer’s approval;

e.                  Show a curb along the length of North 3^rd Street per the City Engineer’s approval;

f.                    Provision of a note on the face of the site plan that states:  “All traffic control signs placed on private property open to the general public shall comply with the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” and “Standard Highway Signs,” published by the Federal Highway Administration, with respect to size, shape, color, retroreflectivity, and position.”

g.                  Provide a revised and corrected legal description on the face of the site plan; and,

h.                  Show existing utilities as noted in the review comments.

2.                  Provision of an approved HRC plan by the Historic Resources Administration per conditions of approval for DR-01-05-02;

3.                  Provision of a photometric plan per staff approval;

4.                  Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement; and,

5.                  Execution of an agreement not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district for public improvements for North 3^rd Street and Maple Street and the alley adjacent to this property.    

   

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-10-64-03) for an existing single-family house to be used as a six-bedroom/six-occupants boarding house, located at 1109 Tennessee Street, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;

2.                  Provision of a revised site plan to include:

a.                  A parking summary to indicate number of required/provided spaces (including Parking Group 2E ratio); and

b.                   A note indicating the site plan complies with the minimum provisions of the Final Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, 24 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Appendix II, of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended.

3.            The project shall adhere to the conditions, if any, of the Historic Resources Commission.      

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Susan (Church) Howig, 3010 Harvard Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                 (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, Rundle seconded by Schumer to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Sandra (Foster) Reed, 1410 West 22^nd Street.  Motion carried unanimously.              (15)

REGULAR AGENDA

 

Receive and consider approval of City water and wastewater master plans.

 

Steve Phillips, Black & Veatch, presented the report on the Master Plan.  He said they met with a number of community stakeholders who lived in the southwest portion of Lawrence who would be significantly affected by some of the recommendation of that study. 

He addressed the issue of the next steps that were important for the Commission to take in two key areas which were determining a funding mechanism for the program and identifying steps that were 2004 scheduled items.

He said in1995 they embarked on a significant wastewater system improvement project and water system project for the Clinton Water Treatment Plant and the City’s Wastewater Plant.  That project at the Wastewater Plant was significantly driven by new regulatory requirements.  The Clinton Project that was completed more recently, growth was the significant  driver.  Reliability was addressed in both projects, but the significant issues in the two efforts was growth in the water system project to respond to expanded capacity requirements in the western part of the City and the upgrade of the Wastewater Plant to meet new regulatory requirements set by the state and federal authorities. 

As they looked ahead into the first 25 years of this century and in terms of water supply, he asked, how did the issues of growth, regulation, and reliability compare?    He said it needed to be understood about what the identification of growth and re-distribution of service areas needs had been.  He said they worked with the Planning Department Staff to help them get an understanding of where the population growth was expected to be and then align that with the capabilities of the water and wastewater systems.     

He presented a map of the City showing growth for the next 25 years.  He said the two largest growth areas were the northwest area anchored by the extension of 6^th Street out to the SLT and the presence of the new Free State High School which were the driving forces in encouraging development in that part of the community.  The other large area identified for growth was the south and southeast area, including development south of the Wakarusa River.  That was a major part of their evaluation when discussing that issue with the County Commissioners.  He said they needed to find appropriate ways to provide opportunities to support that without going beyond what a reasonable service projection could be.  As they looked at developing a program, they recognized that right now the anchors for the water and wastewater systems in Lawrence were the Kansas River Water Treatment Plant, located at 4^th and Indiana, the Clinton Water Treatment Plant located in the western part of the City, and the Wastewater Plant located at the far east extension of 8^th Street. 

He said the important issue to remember about the historical growth of Lawrence was the impact that the University had on utility and infrastructure development.  The presence of the high elevation where the University sat created a natural blockage to utility expansion.  In the water system the solution to that issue was to build a second Water Treatment Plant using the resource of the Clinton Reservoir to supply water, to augment the Kansas River Plant which primarily drew its water from the Kansas River.

For the wastewater system, the solution was to allow water to flow by gravity to the south and then pump and pipe that water around the University and allow it into the existing collection system on the east side, basically following a major corridor that ran down Haskell Street, from south to north which flowed into the Treatment Plant.  He said they had continued to do that, first as areas that were in the County that were developed and those County service areas were added in to the City’s collection system.  He said they had now reached a point where the question was how long it could be done.  He said as they looked at the water and wastewater systems those were the type of issues they had to address.  That wastewater system evaluation needed to look at collection system, treatment of collected wastewater, and define methods for disposal of residual products from the wastewater treatment process.

He said it was identified that there was a clear need for additional wastewater treatment capacity and that was not something that was entirely new to this process.  The new numbers were somewhat of a higher rate than in the past, but the basic premise was still there.  What really changed was the position that the regulators took concerning the level of treatment that was required, whether they discharged to the Kansas River or the Wakarusa River. 

He said as early as the late 1970’s, the idea of a discharge through the Wakarusa River to treat flows from the western part of Lawrence was advanced and considered.  The regulators were significantly opposed and placed high treatment limits.  The use of the continuing system in treatment on the east side of the City was more cost effective and attractive.  Most recently, the regulators had not reduced the requirement into the Wakarusa, but rather they had raised the treatment requirements for discharge to the Kansas River.  As a result, the additional costs of transporting flow from the far west and southwest areas became a burden on that option of continuing to transport flows at long distances.  He said it now became much more viable to consider a second Wastewater Treatment Plant that would discharge to the Wakarusa River directly.  He said that was evaluated in their study and in fact, discovered that it was more cost effective to consider a staged development of a new Wastewater Treatment Plant to support the growth in the south and west portions of the City rather than continuing to transport that flow long distances to the existing treatment plant.

The preliminary capital costs comparison indicated a range of a 4 to 8 million dollar savings by initiating a program to develop that new treatment plant.   To continue to support growth in those areas required a significant investment.  He said the investment in treatment was going to be significant to reach those high levels of treatment for a new Wakarusa River Treatment Plant and to make some additional upgrades at the existing treatment plant, to bring it up to the newer, more stringent levels for discharge to the Kansas River.  He said the collection system cost was a continuation of the rehabilitation, maintenance, and monitoring that was done with the existing system as well as development of new sewers to service that west and south growth area.  He said those were not day one costs, but costs over a ten year period in response to the population in growth demands.  What they were trying to establish was a road map and a plan for that development through that study. It would require a lot more detailed evaluations to specifically sequence those projects.  He said with a preliminary plan and the results of a pending study that they were recommending to evaluate the impact of those improvements on rates were sewer and water services.  Therefore, there was a much better opportunity to evaluate how quickly the City was willing to support that type of development and growth.

He addressed the water system supply, water treatment, and distribution of treated water to households.  The City had a legal right to withdraw water from the Kansas River as well as a legal right to withdraw water from wells in the alluvium under the Kansas River and form the Clinton Reservoir.  Their analysis indicated that there was adequate water right to support the growth through 2025.  What the team discovered was as they approached 2040 to 2050, if the growth projects held, they would bump that threshold.  Long-term supply planning in their recommendations for continued negotiations about the City’s position in that legal right to water was an important part of the plan.  It was not an immediate concern, but it was a significant issue to continue to monitor.  He said there would be some improvements necessary in some intake structures and pipelines to get water from those sources to the treatment plant and those were covered in their costs.

The Kansas River Plant which was originally constructed early in the 1900’s and the Clinton Plant would both need expansion and upgrade.  Environmental Protection Agency continued to develop new regulations with the intent to enhance the water quality and public, health, and safety for public drinking water supplies.  He said at approximately 2010 they would need to evaluate the impact of those new regulations on the treatment processes.  He said it was difficult for them to project how quickly the federal government would move on all those issues.  He said the plants were fully capable of meeting all the water quality standards that were in place right now.  The issue right now was capacity and reliability of those systems.  The regulatory impact would evolve as they moved through time. 

The distribution system was going to require significant capital improvements.  Pumping Stations, pipelines, and the storage facilities were in place to respond to emergency conditions and peak demands.  Those were principally driven by growth and a few of them were reliability of aging facilities.  Some components in the Kansas River Plant were 70 years old.  He said they would need to continue to provide funds to refurbish and maintain reliability in those systems.  When looking at the type of distribution for the water system, it was interesting that it shifted significantly the other way to distribution whereas the wastewater system was heavily dominated by treatment.  The reason was that the Clinton Water Treatment Plant already existed as an anchor in that west and southwest service area, but it needed to expand. 

He said they worked with the Planning Department to get population and demographic projections and evaluated those figures through two studies which were the water and wastewater studies.  They also presented an executive summary for the Commission’s review and consideration and met with the County Commission.  He said the question that struck the hearts of all, was what did those numbers mean as a rate payer in the City Lawrence.  He said that was the important next step that he encouraged the Commission to consider which was the development of a rate plan to support the capital improvements that were outlined in that program.  It was important to acknowledge that those were plans and there might be changes to those plans as varying factors affect what the assumptions were in developing the plans.  He said without a road map they were completely in the dark to suggest improvements to move ahead.  He said the rate plan would incorporate the results of their study in various ways to fund those projects and develop a profile for the Commission of what the rate structure needed to be.  He suggested that the rate study needed to happen in 2004.  The current rate structure, with the projects that were anticipated in the program was effective through the latter part of next year.  By the latter part of next year, there should be a new rate plan in place to allow those recommendations to go forward.

One of those recommendations was to continue the program in Collection System Rehabilitation and monitoring to finish the Kansas River Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project that was underway and to begin environmental permitting, and conceptual design for a new Wastewater Treatment Plant. On the water side, they needed to continue with the Kansas River Water Treatment Plant Residuals Disposal Project, look at an expansion of the Clinton Water Treatment Plant to continue to address capacity needs in that area and work on the distribution and storage issues that this City faced as the system grew.  That sequence of events was driven significantly by a commitment to fund those activities and that was the real purpose of the rate study at this time and why it was such an important stepping stone to the implementation of the program.                                      

Vice Mayor Rundle said there were two decisions that needed to be addressed by the City Commission.  He said he knew one decision would be financing.           

Phillips said the other decision was acceptance of the intent of the plan which was that they would move ahead and provide service in those areas south of the Wakarusa River.  The results of the negotiations that the City Commission had undertaken with the County Commission concerning the urban growth boundary and a commitment to moving ahead to support the growth that was projected in that area.   

Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the rate study was the primary financing decision.  The revolving loan fund that was done with the current expansion, he asked if there was any chance that would be in place.

Phillips said all of the information available at this time said there was a long-term commitment to that state revolving fund program at the federal and state levels. The state continued to solicit projects on an annual basis for participation in that program.   

Commissioner Schauner asked to what extent a Gray Water Program influenced the net cost of an expanded Wastewater Treatment Program.

Phillips said the impact of a Gray Water Program, in terms of the wastewater, he was not sure that it would affect their treatment costs.  It had the potential to be a discharged source, seasonally, for some of that flow.  Typically, the state required them to apply for a permit for the maximum amount that they would want to discharge.  He said they would still need to treat the water to the same level, in fact, for some of the Gray Water uses, they would need to provide additional treatment beyond what a discharge to the river would require.  On the wastewater side, he did not think there was a savings.      

Commissioner Schauner said Gray Water could be placed at one treatment level in the river, but they could not use that same level of treated water for Gray Water applications.

Phillips said it took some additional treatment depending on what was going to be done with that water.  He said there had been some discussion concerning impact on the water system and what most communities in the Midwest had found was that their communities were too water rich.  He said they received 35 inches of rain a year and lived next to large reservoirs and rivers that had significant base flows.  If living in the southwest or in the desert in Las Vegas, there was a much stronger impetus for Gray Water Systems for irrigation and for larger uses.  He said they did work with clients on a regular basis to evaluate those possibilities and depending on an industry that might have use for Gray Water or a  large user that might be able to take a significant amount, it could be a beneficial use to the combined utility system through revenue recovery. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a plant built on the Wakarusa to service the growing areas to south and southeast, to what extent would they be continuing to rely upon lift stations for moving or transporting their treated wastewater.

Phillips said currently that water that was in the west portion of the City and west of the University drained from the north to the south and was collected at a Wastewater Treatment Plant that was near KLWN Radio tower.  The water gets pumped from there to another lift station that was located near the Haskell Indian Nations University and then flowed by gravity from there to the treatment plant.  The plan proposed would take all of that flow west of the University out of that second pumping requirement.  He said probably, the pumping station near the radio tower would still be required to get flow into the treatment plant that relocated there.  That additional flow which amounted to ¾ of the initial flow to the treatment plant would only need to be pumped once prior to treatment instead of twice like it was now. 

Commissioner Schauner asked about the consideration of using more natural biodegradable wastewater treatment facilities rather than the traditional big concrete boxes.

Phillips said they looked at some alternate treatment technologies for a project at the airport approximately one year ago and staff had a report that they prepared in connection with that project.  He said they had extensive experience within their firm in natural treatment systems.  A number of communities in the Midwest, probably the one most people were most familiar with was Columbia, Missouri.  Columbia had a treatment system on the tail end of their treatment plant.  At that point, a significant amount of the most difficult contaminants were removed in a traditional plant and that natural system was used to polish the affluent before discharged.  This approach was something that could be considered.  This climate was not attractive for that system as it was in warmer climates to the south, but it certainly was a system that would be considered for adding on to a traditional plant.  To do a totally natural system for the 6 to 8 million gallons a day of average flow and approximately 25 million gallons a day in peak flows would require a large land area.           

Commissioner Schauner asked what the cost would be over its 20 year life as compared with a traditional system.

Phillips said historically, one of the reasons that communities had not taken that approach for full treatment was because by the time the cost of the land was factored in, it was more expensive than a conventional treatment plant.   He said there were reliability issues to the high treatment standard that was being discussed.  He said he would like a chance to check with people in his office before he answered Commissioner Schauner’s question specifically because he personally had not done a natural system for full treatment.   

Commissioner Schauner asked if using the natural process at the polishing end of the system, reduced the more traditional costs in treating that waste.

Phillips said it had that potential.  He said what steps they were asking it to take for them, significantly affected that and that was the purpose of a more detailed pre-design study for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.  What they had identified as a benchmark, was traditional treatment to the high standards that were being discussed with the state.  Part of the negotiation in a natural system with the state was obtaining the state’s acceptance of the reliability of that system over the varying temperature conditions and loading conditions that were being faced.    

Commissioner Schauner said the City might be water rich at the moment, but the futurist who look out 25 to 40 years suggested that might be a temporary condition and obviously always subject to upstream rainfall in competing interest of economic development.  He asked in Phillip’s experience, if it would make sense to adopt various tax and other public incentives to move away from the traditional green lawn life, that the City had came to expect, as a way of reducing costs of providing clean drinking water system and/or have a significant impact on the wastewater system as well as the predictable life expectancy of the City’s water supply. 

Phillips said currently those types of programs did not have as much emphasis in the Midwest, but they did in the Pacific southwest and the project offices in those communities had done extensive work to produce reclamation level water from Wastewater Treatment Plants to make that Gray Water System available and had promoted low water intense landscaping.  He said communities in some cases had chosen, by policy, to advise the citizens that they were not going to provide water treatment capacity for the maximum day demand in a period.  He said that was a policy decision people made in balancing the interest of the community in the type of green lawn environment and the bill that came every month to support that ability.

Commissioner Schauner said he would like to take this opportunity in the life of this project to think about out-of-the-box alternatives and discussions about what might be possible to save costs, natural resources, and be more concerned about the environment.

Phillips said that was one of the issues that they work closely with staff when establishing scopes for the subsequent steps to move deeper into the analysis and use those benchmark costs and find ways to move down to better value for the citizens.

Vice Mayor Rundle said to get a better idea of the scale, he asked how many acres were needed for a natural system.

Phillips said he would provide that answer later because the question related to whether it completely replaced the conventional plan or used it in combination with a conventional plan.  There were some contaminate constituents that were difficult for a natural system to handle and the type of volumes that were being dealt with.

Vice Mayor Rundle said in the executive summary on page 12, there was a statement that the most cost effective option, at present, did not appear to have any fatal flaws.   He said it seemed like a positive statement, but he wondered if there was anything beneath that.

Phillips said no.  He said sometimes they ran into circumstances that were not apparent at all at the master planning level and they would drill down to the next specific project development step and a hand would come up to state why it could not be done.

Vice Mayor Rundle said when Phillips stated that it was a ten year staged plan, he asked if that was using that dollar figure.

Phillips said yes.

Vice Mayor Rundle said he had questions about the competitive environment for water demands. He said in the executive summary it was mentioned that the tri-county had applied and apparently their application had reduced the City’s water rights.        

Mike Orth, Project Manager, said they were considering reducing it to .055 mgd.  He said it was a very small percentage of reduction, but it set a precedent in reducing the demand.

Vice Mayor Rundle said Water District No. 1, which served a large part of Johnson County had access to the Missouri River and their water right was larger, in fact, to be considered unlimited for their needs.  He suggested that if they get into a more competitive atmosphere for water rights that they consider combining buying water as a wholesale client from Water District No. 1, or that Perry Lake had capacity that had not been tapped.

Phillips said the balance in those issues was cost.  He said they represented and did a significant amount of work for Water District No. 1, as well as for Kansas City, Missouri and Olathe.  One of the interesting issues related to which one of those large providers people would buy water from, dealt with perceptions over control of growth and development in a community if buying a critical resource from another political entity.  It had been a significant point of discussion between Olathe and Water District No. 1.  The Olathe Council had been adamant about being a full service community and not losing the perceived independence they had by having their own water supply and their own wastewater treatment system.  He said it was an element of that discussion that would be prudent to consider as a governing body, as the governing body moved to looking at expanding sources beyond those the City directly owned rights to.

Vice Mayor Rundle said it could certainly balance the idea of being a full-service community with the idea that they would not need to go to the major expense of expanded water treatment. 

Vice Mayor Rundle said Phillips mentioned several times the possibility of a higher standard of treatment that might require the City to have a capacity to treat some of the biological pollutants.  He asked what would be the costs if the Commission did that as part of that project.

Phillips said what they had identified in that program were biological phosphorous removal and total nitrogen.  Historically, the permit at the Wastewater Plant required organic contaminates be taken out.  He said those that had carbon in them, if they went to the river, other organisms in the river took the oxygen out of the water to digest those contaminates and the oxygen was not available for fish.  The next issue that the regulators went after was ammonia because ammonia was toxic to a number of aquatic animals.  The next reduction from ammonia was nitrate which also had some issues in public, health, and safety.  As the regulators had moved through that, the next contaminate they identified was phosphorous.  Phosphorous could also cause depletion of the oxygen supply in the stream.  He said when looking at the Wastewater Treatment Plant’s side they had included nitrification, nitrate control, and phosphorous removal because the state was currently encouraging, even though those were not on the permit at this time, that within some time period, they probably would be.

Rundle asked if they were in the current permit.

Phillips said no, they were not in the current permit.  He said the cryptosporidium and the other laundry list of items on the water side, they had tried to project the impact of those in the study. 

Vice Mayor Rundle said Phillips had mentioned that they were not doing that final tier and they also did not anticipate the regulations getting tighter.  He was curious about the costs.

Phillips said he could not project that cost because he did not have a treatment requirement from the government yet.  He said the government might require the removal of trace mercury from Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge.

Vice Mayor Rundle asked if most cities just meet those requirements.              

Phillips said most of their clients were doing the work that the City of Lawrence was doing right now which was to effectively protect the public health and safety and to be good stewards in the environment.  He said other cities were doing prudent planning which was what they were encouraging the City of Lawrence to do in order to have a ten year window of treatment.             

Vice Mayor Rundle said he was looking at some old proposals for the current expansion and there were some items identified as 2020 improvements, aeration basin, and two primary clarifiers.  He asked if those were still part of that proposal.

Phillips said that was why he mentioned the $70 million dollars that they showed for treatment on the wastewater side which included development of the new Wakarusa Treatment Plant and then modifications to the existing plant to complete that program and provide the projected treatment upgrades that would be necessary for that total nitrogen and phosphorous control.  .  

Vice Mayor Rundle asked if storm water was relevant to this discussion in terms of wastewater treatment. 

Phillips said he personally believed that it did.  He said when he started in his business the EPA was in its infancy.  One of the things the EPA asked engineers to do was to look at total watershed impacts on the environment.  He said at that time, those engineers were side tracked and dealt with wastewater treatment issues only.  Now, in the last 3 to 5 years, they were beginning to see people coming back and asking questions about non-point source pollution loads from agricultural land and the impact of stormwater on the receiving stream.  The significance to the Kansas River was that the river did not know if a pound of ammonia was in the river and if came from a farmers field, off a front lawn, or from the Wastewater Plant, it just knew that it had to deal with a pound of ammonia.      

Vice Mayor Rundle suggested an additional issue to consider which concerned stream buffers.  He said those helped to make sure the water coming into those streams did take out all of those fertilizers and other chemicals, avoiding the costs of treatment and giving them more linear parks.   He said if that was not already part of this City’s zoning and subdivision regulations update, then he would like that addressed by staff.

Commissioner Schauner said he always thought of the collection of wastewater as a closed system and in between there was a nice and neat closed system.  He came to learn lately that was probably not true. 

Phillips said there were two types of leakage which was leakage out and leakage in.  He said leakage out was in dry weather conditions the groundwater table was low, the pipe had settled, and the joint where the two pieces of pipe were connected together had opened up and the water might in fact run out of the pipe into a stream or ground water.  He said there was very little data collected on that type of information because there was no way to measure it directly.  More significant to the operation of utility was the leakage in from that same open joint when the groundwater table was high after a rain event and the pressure of that groundwater forced the liquid into the pipe and you pay to carry it to the treatment plant and treat it.   The Utilities Department has undertaken a significant program that got started with some work they did in the 1980’s to help identify those weak points in the system and took corrective action as well as discussing policies that could be incorporated into an ordinances concerning construction methods that contribute to the problem whether it was a discharge of a foundation drain, driveway drain, or whether it was poor construction, but allowed that pipe to settle.  Those elements were things that staff was doing a good and aggressive job on and that was part of the collection system program costs that were identified.

Mayor Dunfield asked if the Four Seasons Pump Station that was referred to earlier, all of the bulk of the new areas in the northwest area that they were projecting growth in would ultimately drain to that pump station.     

Phillips said correct.  He said that pump station was located generically at 31^st and Kasold.  He said up to 6^th Street the sewer network brought flow from north to south.

Mayor Dunfield asked in that pump station and in the pipes that lead to the pump, did they currently have the capacity to handle that projected growth.

Phillips said the detailed reports showed some improvements in the collection system to that pump station and made recommendations for continued expansion at that pump station to accommodate the growth that was in that study area.  When that pump station was built a few years ago, they had a design year established.  He said when they get to that design year, if they had accommodated the growth that was planned there were some suggested expansions for that pumping station. 

Mayor Dunfield asked if there would be incremental increases.

Phillips said yes, both in the pumping station and in a storage tank that was there to help deal with some of those peak flows that were discussed in wet weather conditions to help reduce the costs to downstream facilities so they did not have to deal with that entire infrequent peak.

Mayor Dunfield said the other issue, he would like to discuss, went back to the Wetlands Treatment Systems.  He thought he understood one of the limitations of those systems.  He said if they were to try and treat wastewater in an open wetland, that wetland would need to be out of any 100 year flood plain.  

Phillips said yes.

Mayor Dunfield asked if that was true all the way through.

Phillips said that was a gray area depending on the determination with the state of whether that treatment was one that was chosen to add to the process in addition to the discharge permit requirements.

Mayor Dunfield said nothing that was required to meet the discharge permit could take place within the floodplain.

Phillips said any facilities had to be protected so they remained functional during a 100 year storm event.  That was the guideline that was used.

Mayor Dunfield said that was one of the limitations that people did not think about.  He said there was the Wakarusa Valley and natural wetlands and it seemed to make sense to make use of that same kind of area for a treatment, but it could not be done.

Vice Mayor Rundle said the other issue was winter.

Phillips said yes, that was the significant challenge because in the winter the microbes that did the work in a natural treatment system, their metabolism and their desire for food went down because their metabolism was slower in cold weather.  He said they need to have a way to deal with the continuous flow and load that came to the treatment plant.  He said they end up sizing natural treatment systems for the coldest month of the year because there was a permit compliance requirement during that cold month that needed to be met.

Commissioner Schauner said but what they did in colder climates was a greenhouse effect rather than a completely open system that might be able to be accomplished in Arizona.

Phillips said that was true.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the life of the plant cost would be comparing an open system even if it had a greater land expanse as compared with using a physical plant, there would obviously be additional costs of operation than in a more natural system.

Phillips said he did not have the answer to that question.  That would be one of the things that they would suggest to the Commission as they moved ahead next year to begin to identify the specifics of a Wakarusa Treatment Plant.  That was the kind of issue they would incorporate and that was one of the things that were done in those smaller version studies at the airport.  They looked at a greenhouse based natural treatment system as well as pumping that flow to the existing treatment plant from the airport area.             

Commissioner Schauner said it would be good information to have in terms of what the Commission’s options were outside of just building another traditional treatment plant. 

Phillips said for that project they worked with a special consultant from the northeast who had been involved in the development of a number of those projects to augment their staff and their knowledge of different Midwestern based natural treatment systems.  Most of their experience had been in the open systems. 

Vice Mayor Rundle said he assumed this would be an insignificant contribution to cost savings.   He said in a research area in Kansas City, there was a building that had a self contained treatment system.  If they had the modular approach scattered around the community where a firm or large building could perform their own wastewater treatment, he asked when they would get something significant savings on the major plant if they had those decentralized.

Phillips said a lot of that depended on working with Planning to see whether there were focus areas for the development that would allow what was being described to occur easily or whether the development was going to be scattered and how they would need to address locating the number of those and their function and getting them access to the discharge stream making sure their close enough to the Wakarusa so they could discharge reasonably. 

Commissioner Schauner assumed part of that location could be part of the long-term planning and infrastructure development south of the Wakarusa.

Phillips said yes.  He said integrated planning of a new major area like that was certainly a major policy and practical undertaking for the community.  He said they talked with staff about the types of impacts that this program would have in addition to a water and wastewater system and those were beyond the scope of their services, but they certainly play into the Commission’s acceptance of that commitment to serving a new area.

Commissioner Schauner commented about the financial process.  He was not making a critical comment about the way the City’s current plant looked like, but it looked like a plant and those other facilities, they could have substantially a less impact on a physical appearance of a development or neighborhood and would have some significant appeal from a visual standpoint. 

Phillips said not only in addition to the enclosed natural systems that were now within the last ten years in their technology some significantly smaller footprint processes available that were more traditional processes, but much smaller footprints.  A number of communities that they had worked with in sensitive areas had in fact enclosed that small footprint technologies in buildings and structures that to the passerby there was no indication at all that was a Wastewater Treatment Plant.  He said what was interesting was that people thought there were separations between the technology there was and the natural systems, both were a biological treatment process that used microscopic animals and plants to do their work to remove the contaminates.  He said it was merely the container that they provided for them and how they created an environment that was attractive to them to do the function of wastewater treatment. 

Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there was anything in the discussion that influenced the way those plans would be modified.                         

Phillips said understanding that the purpose of their effort was to identify the performance requirements for treatment collections supply distribution and establish benchmark pricing from which the Commission could make a decision about supporting or not supporting that growth plan, he would say no.  He said did it identify new opportunities as they moved forward to evaluate the implementation of the program, he said most certainly.  He would not suggest as a master plan that their discussion would change the intent as long as the Commission was willing to accept that what they provided was a benchmark of pricing and implementation schedule.  He said when they did the other project they did a similar master plan in 1995. He said following the acceptance of that master plan, they moved into what was called a conceptual design report. At that point, they looked at all those technologies in detail and did much more sophisticated costs analysis and implementation scheduling of the projects.  At the conclusion of that step that was when they made a final selection of technologies and did the detailed design.  He said the next step of conceptual design planning and in the case of a Wakarusa Plant, sighting, environmental approvals, and obtaining permits took a significant period of time, if it was a target of having that plant in service by 2008.  He said their encouragement was that kind of planning was an appropriate activity for 2004.

Commissioner Schauner said if they thought the City’s current water rights would get them to 2040 or 2050 with current projections on growth, he would like to see the City design public policy around a way to stretch those known water rights to 2075.  He did not know what it would take to do that, but he thought it was irresponsible to think they were at the exhaustion point on their know water supplies in 47 years.  He said there needed to be a way to stretch that known water supply further than where current projections took it.  He would like that to be in the back of the Planner’s minds, as they thought about what they did on the collection and distribution side of that system, as a significant part of the discussion.          

Commissioner Highberger said this was one of the biggest decisions the Commission needed to make.  He said the key was putting a Wastewater Treatment Plant south of the Wakarusa which was going to dramatically affect the entire future of this City for generations.  He liked Commissioner Schauner and Rundle’s approach to that issue.  Those considerations needed to be taken into consideration in the design phase.  He said the cost was scary to him and he was curious to see what came out of the rate study.  He said the rate study needed to take into consideration the work of the Public Improvement Task Force so that they could allocate the burden as fairly as possible.   He was ready to approve the Water and Wastewater Master Plan as presented.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6506, concerning certain master plans and reports as general guidelines for the planning and operation of the City of Lawrence Water and Wastewater Utilities.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                                             (16) 

Consider adopting Resolution No. 6507, (joint City/County resolution) concerning the identification and establishment of future business parks in Lawrence and Douglas County.

 

Mayor Dunfield presented the report.  He said it became clear from communicating with a number of individuals that there were questions about this joint resolution and process for identifying future business parks.  He said out of respect, the Commission would not try to decide this issue at this time if the other Commissioners agreed.  He thought there should be time for discussion and suggested deferring this issue to a future agenda.    

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said City staff also suggested deferring this item.   He said this issue would be on the County Commission’s agenda and he thought they would also defer this item.   

Commissioner Highberger said he was under the assumption that the committee he was serving on concerning this matter was acting on a partial response to the  City Commission’s goal of identifying new industrial park space.  He said it was not the intent to side step the Eco²  process.       

Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.

Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, distributed an Eco² initiative to the City Commission which was presented to the County Commission last December.  She highlighted the statement of purpose from that document.  She said the result of the process of Eco² was a strong view that the people of Douglas County should embrace careful planning for growth that included concurrent development of industrial parks and preservation of open space.  She said they had learned from their experience with Eco² that it was possible to simultaneously work for industrial development, open space, and planning and the spirit of Eco² must live on.   It was a consensus building process and the County appointed 8 people from the community to accomplish several tasks. 

She said the first task was cooperation which was a coordinated plan between the County and all the cities of Douglas County to identify and access Business Park and open space lands and perhaps this could be accomplished by an interlocal agreement.

She said the second task was planning to develop more detailed business park and open space plans including the identification of prime sites and financial models for their improvement use or preservation.  She said some people had questions about how that land was identified, would be financed. 

She had a concern about the Eco² mission statement and abiding principals.  She said the dual goals of economic development and open space preservation were inextricably linked and should not be broken apart and pursued separately with regard to the Eco² initiative.  She suggested receiving public comment to make sure everyone was on the same page and not duplicating efforts or work that was already completed. 

Henderson said when looking at the background of Eco², it consisted of 3 parts which were the Industrial/Business Park Program; Open Space Program; and The Implementation Plan.  She said there was a perception that the industrial park portion might not be applied and she suggested making sure that did not happen. 

She said the industrial/business park program criteria and the open space program were similar, both of those were to be comprehensive and County wide and consistent with a vision of Eco².     

She discussed the Eco² plan.  She said the Eco² Board would not only establish strategies for Industrial/Business Park development and Open Space that was consistent with Horizon 2020, but the board should also be soliciting, receiving, and considering outside proposals for both of those projects.  It was possible that the Task Force Report could be given to the Eco² for them to implement or perhaps Eco² might think it would be helpful to have planning staff to do some of that work and come back with a report. 

Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering, said he was there to talk about the nuts and bolts of the approval process and getting actual business and industrial parks approved.  He said there were a lot of question and concerns about how that resolution would work.  He said with some short delay in approving that resolution, he could approach some of the people that had been involved in that process to work things out.    

William Dann, Lawrence, suggested that none of the public’s money should be spent on businesses, particularly when school funding was such an issue.

Marci Francisco, Lawrence, had comments on the criteria that the committee identified.  She said in terms of location, it was important to say that they were looking for land that was adjacent to already developed urban areas or well within the urban growth area.  In fact that description of location was a reiteration of the recommendation to look for the three sites. 

She said when looking at soil type, she hoped that they could avoid prime farmland soils and that might be a criteria that would help that reunification of the Eco² dual goals to look for preservation and industrial sites.  

She said speaking to the wording in that resolution, it was her understanding that in the last part of section 2 of that document that she hoped that the City and governing bodies instruct the Planning Commission to begin the process of updating the industrial chapter of Horizon 2020. 

Jim Roberts, Chair, Eco² Committee, read a statement from the committee on the proposed resolution. The Eco² Committee viewed the document as a recommendation to set the parameters for identifying business parks sites in Douglas County.  Potential sites identified by City and County staff would be a useful input to the work of the Eco² Committee.  The Eco² Committee was developing a framework for the simultaneous acquisition of business park space and open space that would meet a Douglas County vision of economic vitality and responsible stewardship of the natural environment.  The Eco² Committee welcomed other input that could be used in completing its work.    

Mayor Dunfield said there were several items that had been raised that clearly needed clarification and comment such as: 1)  The relationship between this effort and the Eco2 group.; 2) Financing; 3) The relationships of the business parks to the urban growth area and to the different municipalities within Douglas County; 4) Some type of guidance from the County as to whether they wanted to look at industrial sites being developed with City infrastructure and under City standards from the beginning or whether there was a possibility of starting under County standards and bringing them into the cities as the expansion occurred.          

Commissioner Schauner said he shared the concern about the appearance of the City going off on its own with a resolution and not directly involving Eco².  It seemed that the comments that were made were consistent with his thinking about what they should be doing.  He would like to see the City select an individual to directly and regularly participate on the City’s behalf in Eco² work.  He said having the City with direct involvement on a regular basis on those topics would be critical to representing the City’s interest as far as industrial park or land was sought and acquired. 

He received a letter from a constituent that had a concern about promoting County residential sprawl and the loss of valuable farmland.  He said this idea of having location contiguous to City boundaries was something the Commission needed to consider, but how, when, and where was more proper in the hands of the Eco² group and this body in this setting.  He would like to see this matter be directly addressed by Eco².               

Commissioner Hack said the Commission needed to remember that this was not just a Lawrence industrial park issue, but also a Douglas County issue.  She said there were situations in Baldwin, the Farmers Turnpike and the SLT that were being considered.  She said some players were left out of this issue, not only Eco², but also private enterprises in terms funding possibilities.  She would like to see the Commission think in terms of Horizon 2020 having some general locations quickly determined so that as the Commission worked with the urban growth area and other communities in the County, there was a clear distinction between industrial areas and residential areas.  She was excited that the Commission was moving in that direction because it was something that the Economic Development Board had expressed concerns about because there were no places to show potential businesses.  The Commission had expressed concerns about this issue in their goal setting session along with the County Commission.        

Mayor Dunfield said the comment about the City’s participation in Eco² was a good idea and one that the City Commission should ask the County Commission to address if they were going to discuss that same issue.   He said in the first 2 ½ years of Eco², the City did have an elected representative of the City that participated on that committee.  He said in the committee’s current configuration, Eco² was a County body and that committee did not have formal City representation.  He suggested that might be something the City Commission might want to look into.

Commissioner Highberger said the statement read by Jim Roberts reflected his thoughts on how that process would work.  He said the discussion addressed the point that Marci Francisco raised about proper sighting of industrial sites and location contiguous to existing urban areas.  He said he dropped the ball on this resolution by not making sure that was properly memorialized in that resolution.  He was not familiar with Eco² history as he should be.  He said all the concerns that had been brought up had been addressed by the committee.  He favored dropping this issue, at this time, so the Commission could make sure the resolution was accurate and clear before it was adopted.

Vice Mayor Rundle said the positive side to this issue was that they were moving forward on this issue.                                                                                                                   (17)

Receive recommendation from the Economic Development Board to establish a Business Retention Task Force.      

 

Mayor Dunfield said this proposal came mostly out of the Business Retention Report that was developed earlier this year.  It also grew from both the employee and citizens surveys that the City Commission commissioned last year.  He said the Commission had talked about not letting those surveys become one time issues and find ways to continue the effort to improve quality of services.  He said the proposal from the Economic Development Board was along those lines. 

Lavern Squier, President, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, said he supported the Mayor’s parameters that he had identified as the intent and background of the issue.   He said from an economic development prospective, this exercise might be helpful to everyone and to perhaps stream line the outcome and processes at the City level.  He said they certainly wanted to be cognizant that those processes needed to reflect the community interest and protect community safety standards.  He said there was a balance and this was an effort to take a look at that as a fresh perspective to see what the outcome would be from that point.             

Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the task force would be focusing on retention and expansion.

Squier said yes.  He said in an economic development circle, typically that was one of the terms which was recruitment and retention expansion that tended to get bundled together. Sometimes for companies simply to stay put might be a factor that might need to be addressed.  

Commissioner Schauner asked how long Squier expected that the task force would come up with a report or suggestions.

Squier said they did not have a distinct time frame nor was it up to them to mandate the timeframe from their prospective as the Economic Development Practitioners in this measure.  He said the group, once given the generalized charge, could come up with individual charges within, but he did not see an enduring process.  He did not know if there was a backside timeline that they needed to observe.   He said he saw a fairly short time cycle.

Marci Francisco, Lawrence, said as someone who had worked with a number of boards, commissions, and task forces over the years, she thought it was helpful to have a well defined statement about what the charge was, particularly for a task force.  She said they were asking them not to do any regulation or on-going work, but to examine the processes and make recommendations.  She said it would be helpful if the Commission would address the timeframe for that group and one in which the Commission could still respond to their findings and get that implemented during this City Commission’s term.  

Mayor Dunfield said the first question in the memo was whether the City Commission was interested in pursuing that idea.

Commissioner Schauner said he had some concerns in that he did not think there was a clearly defined mission statement, goal, or issues to be addressed.   He also had a concern that if there was going to be a task force, he would like to see it have a deadline for making recommendations or giving the City Commission a report because their recommendations would likely have some impact on adequate public facilities, zoning and subdivision regulation work that was going on.  He would like to see the task force’s report be made available to those other processes so that they could either be incorporated or at least considered. 

He said the other piece of that was that he heard frequently that Lawrence was business unfriendly.  He would like the task force to address that topic and specifically, what was it about Lawrence that was business unfriendly.  He would like it quantified in some fashion rather than just continuing to use the phrase.   The two phrases that continued to befuddle him were that “Lawrence did not have enough affordable housing” and that “Lawrence was business unfriendly.”  He said he would like to know what that meant in some objective terms, data, comparisons, and analysis.  He said if they were going to have a task force, he would like a specific deadline and specific statement of what their task was and to at least cover those issues.

Commissioner Hack said when looking at the request from the Economic Development Board it talked about the City task force and possible solutions.  She said there were two questions that were raised in the survey which were the lower ratings of traffic control regulatory enforcement and community planning as well as the negative perceptions of the local business environment by the business community as reported in the survey.  She said there were some conclusions that came as a result of the image survey which was also a fairly long process.  She said if taking those issues as well as those issues that rose to the top of the image survey, there might in fact be some overlap, but there might be some additional items that needed to be discussed.  If those were people’s perceptions, then those were people’s reality and that was what the Commission needed to address.   She was supportive of that task force and she would be pleased to serve on that committee.  She said because she worked with the image survey, she felt that she had some knowledge to contribute.  She thought that a 6 to 8 month timeframe would be reasonable with the understanding that if the task force needed more time to make sure they did it right.

Commissioner Schauner said a 6 month timeframe was what he had in mind.  He also had an interest in participating in that process.         

Vice Mayor Rundle said he also expressed an interest in serving on the task force.  He said one issue that had not been mentioned was the work that Lynn Parman, Economic Development Director, had done using the business retention surveys in which she had surveyed a large number of local businesses and he assumed that data would be part of the discussion of that group.  He said as he understood, the majority of jobs were grown locally from expansion and from business that were started in the communities.  He said the work of this task force was critical in capitalizing on the local resources in this community, spinning off development from the university, and to be aware of the plants that were right for expansion and those that were at risk for leaving.  He said they had a role to play as a City in bringing those issues together.  He said because things change over time, this type of work needed to be on-going.  He said the task force should set up some type of a mechanism so there was on-going awareness of retention and expansion needs and concerns and a way to stay current.

Mayor Dunfield said that was one of the messages that he took from those surveys that the City Commission commissioned.  He said it was an on-going process and he did not expect that survey to be packed away.  He said it was useful for a task force to have a deadline and clear goals, but the Commission needed to recognize that improvement and the quality of public service was an on-going effort and one that was going to out live that task force and the City Commission’s tenure on the Commission.       

Commissioner Schauner agreed with the Mayor that this was an on-going process, but his idea of a task force was that the task force was given a particular task, it accomplished that task, and then that task force could make recommendations which would require some further process.

Mayor Dunfield asked the Commission if they wanted that task force to be formed through the Economic Development Board with City Commission representation or did the Commission want it to be a City Commission Task Force.

Commissioner Hack said it seemed that since the Economic Development Board was the group that asked for that task force, she suggested letting the board form the committee.        

Mayor Dunfield thought that idea was appropriate.

Commissioner Schauner said he assumed that the board would not select who they wanted to serve.  He preferred that the Commission make their own selection for appointment to the task force.

Commissioner Highberger said it was not the Commission’s Task Force and he was not sure why they were discussing it.  He preferred that the City take a more active role in that task force.

Commissioner Schauner suggested that this be a City process.  He said the City drove the largest economic engine in the County. 

Mayor Dunfield said he would like the Economic Development Board to have input as to the makeup of the committee beyond the City Commission representative.                               (18)

Consider amendment to Horizon 2020 to update the Economic Development Element CPA-2003-4. (PC Item No. 9; PC approved 9-0).

Brad Hauschild, Planner, presented the staff report concerning an amendment to Horizon 2020 to update the Economic Development Element CPA-2003-4.  He said the text amendment was condensed version of the recently developed 2003 Strategic Economic Development Plan which was developed by the Economic Development Board and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce.  The amendment to Horizon 2020 placed an emphasis on the goals and policies of that strategic plan while the strategic plan itself had the background information and more of the details to economic development opportunities in the County.     

Mayor Dunfield asked if this issue was on the County agenda tomorrow night.

Hauschild said yes.

Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Hack said that she was pleased within Policy No. 2 that there was conversation about workforce development in addressing early childhood development issues.  She said as the Commission had discussed education and community participation in the effort for education and she was pleased to see that as a prominent part of that document.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7724, a joint ordinance/resolution with the City of Lawrence and Douglas County, to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan “Horizon 2020” by adopting text amendments revising Chapter 12, Economic Development contained in Horizon 2020, to update the goals and policies for the economic development occurring within the community.  Motion carried unanimously.       (19)

The Commission took a 5 minute break.  

Consider approval of 6^th Street and K-10 Nodal Plan (PC Item No. 10l; approved 9-0)

Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the staff report. He said this nodal plan was initiated by the current governing body a year ago in response to a rezoning request commonly know as Diamondhead.  It was a zoning request for the southeast corner of the SLT and 6^th Street.  That rezoning request included commercial and residential.  Staff completed that nodal plan and presented the plan to this governing body which was then sent to the Planning Commission for consideration.  The Planning Commission considered that plan at two different meetings and changes were made.  She said there were no changes to the recommendations in regard to land use.  He said there was quite a bit of language added in regards to design and design standards.  The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of that plan.  

Commissioner Highberger said on the southwest corner there was, at one point, a church and they had planned to develop that area into a campus.  He asked where that was referenced in the report or whether it was removed.

Dyer said that had been moved.  The Planning Commission wanted the current events placed in one section.

Commissioner Highberger asked about the use map on Page 29.

Dyer said the map still reflected the possibility of a public institution such as a church type of use.      

Commissioner Schauner said the language that the current property owners’ intention was to develop a church campus and ancillary uses, he asked what other uses could that ground be put to as proposed on the map if a church was not developed and what ancillary uses would be permitted.

Dyer said the ground could be used for other public and institutional uses such as a library, vocational technical school or community facilities.  He said in regarding ancillary uses, churches, at this time, use campus type settings with fellowship halls and gymnasiums.  He said some churches incorporated private schools as well as elderly care facilities on their property.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the current owner did not develop a church and the property was sold, would it be an up zone to make that commercially developable.

Dyer said yes, the plan would need to be modified.      

Commissioner Schauner said the blob map did not specifically address access management to 6^th Street.

Dyer said the blob map did show the access points along George Williams Way and an access point ½ mile west of the intersection of 6^th Street.  He said that was consistent in what had been adopted for the 6^th Street Access Plan for the area that was east of the trafficway. 

Mayor Dunfield said essentially the boundaries of the nodal plan corresponded to the points of access from the two major streets.

Dyers said correct.

Sue Morgan, Business Administrator, First United Methodist Church who was the owners of the southwest corner of the plan under discussion, addressed three main issues.  One was the blob map and its accuracy or inaccuracy in terms of what their plans were for that property.  She said a letter was sent to the City Commission that stated their understanding of the permitted uses that the Planning Staff had explained to them and an addition to a new provision in the most current draft which dealt with timing of building permits and a recommendation that was not in the plan previously.  

Concerning the blob map, when they had met with the Planning Staff after the first draft of the plan, City staff showed them that map.  She said they indicated to City staff that the representation was just about the opposite of what their plans were for the use of that property.  She said they did not intend to do the church development piece in the northeast corner of their section. The church property development that they anticipated started in the east/west, in the middle of that property and there was more development on the southwestern ¼ of the property that they anticipated.  She presented to the Commission their master planning document.  She said the institutional and public use that they anticipated utilizing was not represented on the map.  She said Planning Staff had told them that were insignificant at the time and it was only to be conceptual and swapping out those uses would not be a problem. 

She said they found themselves in a rather interesting situation because planning was being done by the City, but their property was in the County.  She said when they discussed that issue with Planning Staff it was indicated that although they would not be under the jurisdiction of the City at this time, they would want any development to be consistent with City standards because they were in the urban growth area and they anticipated being annexed at some point.  She said that was their wish because of all the work they had done with engineering and architectural consultants at this point were aimed in that direction.  However, for the immediate, it put them in a quandary because they had a draft of a plan where they were being named as one of the properties and the recommendations being made regarding placing restrictions on the timing of building permits was suggesting that no building permit in this most recent draft, be issued until the widening of the 6^th Street Corridor was completed which was 2007 or 2008.  She said that was not in the prior document and they did have a concern since their plans, at this point, were moving forward with the hope that they would be breaking ground within a year on their first phase of their building. She said they understood that to get that building permit they would need to apply with the County, but with Planning Staff being shared, they had some concerns about what the City’s position would be on that in terms of development of their property.

The letter that was sent earlier, their purpose was to try and get some sense of where they stood on the issue, at least from the City standpoint.  The only way they could think to approach that was to look at the City standards for permitted uses as defined in the recommendation from the Planning Staff and go through the zoning ordinances of the City and laundry list those acceptable uses by City standards and intent of that nodal plan.  She said if their understanding was consistent with City staff, they were fine with what was being proposed.

She asked if the Commission’s understanding was consistent with the permitted uses that they understood would be allowed on that property.  She asked if the Commission could give some feedback about whether that most current proposal, which stated that building permits were not to be issued until completion of the widening of 6^th Street.  She asked if that would affect them and how it would affect them from the Commission’s perspective.  She also had a concern of whether or not their plans for the master development, that were not consistent with the northeast corner, would make any difference.                        

Commissioner Schauner asked if the schematic diagram showed the parking lot fronting Highway 40.

Morgan said it was setback quite a way.  The discussions that their architects had with KDOT indicated that the entry off of Highway 40 would be approximately in the middle of the property at the highpoint of Highway 40.  She said there was also access to the property off the frontage road on the east side.  The Phase 1 development would be one multi-use building and it would have closer access off of Highway 40 than it would off that frontage road.     

She said the other piece of their plans included sale of a piece of that property to a Limited Liability Company that would be in the northeast corner and ran along the east side of the property.  She said they did not need the entire parcel and hopefully they would be selling that piece of property.  She said the LLC would be a church member based owner/constituency and that was another reason for their inquiry about the uses on the property. 

Commissioner Hack asked what the use of that building would be and how much traffic might be generated.

Morgan said the building would be multi-use.  There would be worship services on Sundays and that would be the most concentrated volume of cars.  Also, she said there would be a gym in the multi-purpose room, small kitchen facilities, and classrooms for senior adults and youths.  She said concerning traffic volume, there might be some traffic during the week, but the biggest concentrated traffic use was the Sunday worship.  

Commissioner Schauner asked about the list of uses that the LLC might make of the northeast parcel.

Morgan said their representation of those uses was in the letter and that list was gone through with Planning Staff based on City ordinances.

Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.

Chris Sook, attorney representing Diamond Head, LP, the developer that owned approximately 100 acres on the southeast corner, thanked Planning Staff for their cooperation in the development of the plan.  He said it was their original request for rezoning on the southeast corner of the intersection that caused this body to decide that a nodal plan needed to be developed and resulted in the tabling of the rezoning request which had been tabled for several months and the developer was anxious to move forward.  He said Planning Staff had indicated that the zoning applications, in general, were in general compliance with the nodal plan.    

Mayor Dunfield said from a conceptual point of view the amount of area that was identified as public institutional was similar in both cases.  He said this pointed to where the interface between planning and actual projects occurred.  As a statement of intent, the blob map seemed to be fine.  He said as a developer, whether the use was a church, non-profit, or a for-profit use,  as the developer looked at the land in more detail, those blobs could shift somewhat.  He said they would be looking at a lot different situation if they were talking about shifting a commercial chunk relative to a low density residential for example.  In a case of the southwest corner that relative shifting of uses was not disturbing.    

He said their were interesting questions that were raised concerning City/County aspects and the question of the building permit being tied to the completion of the 6^th Street project.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the plan would go to the County Commission for receipt at their level.  The joint City/County Planning Commission looked at and reviewed that plan based upon Horizon 2020.   She said that in itself, coupled with the policy in Horizon 2020 would encourage urban development in Service Area 1 and/or Service Areas 2, 3, and 4 to be somewhat concurrent with the ability to provide infrastructure to another improvement.  The plan had taken into consideration that this was County property, but within the City’s gateway and growth area.  The map that she chose to sketch on was the topography map so when taking a blob map and taking other elements such as topography, slope, and vegetation, generals areas would then need to conform to how property fits in a 3 dimensional standpoint.  The plan took advantage of those different elements and that was what a blob map left out which was the individualization of how each quadrant was developed.  She said there had been concerns about development on the fringes of the City, beyond the boundaries and incorporation of that development which was at a different standard into the City and the County would give the City perspective on their interest.                 

Vice Mayor Rundle said it sounded like the Church was willing and was planning to be annexed and ultimately build to City standards.  It did not sound like the Commission would deal with that issue with a heavy hand if they applied some City standards.

Finger said staff’s biggest concern was the point of access because when looking at the map there were odd deceleration lanes when going into that interchange halfway and beyond going west from that property.   She said staff would want thorough discussion with the Department of Transportation and the Church about access, temporary versus permanent, on that property.

Mayor Dunfield said that would become more of a finite design decision based on topography and other considerations.   

Commissioner Schauner said having driven that road frequently, deceleration in that area seemed a complete opposite of what actually happened in that area.  He said it was an acceleration area.  He said there was a connection between that finite piece of the design standard and issues like what uses might be permitted on the LLC’s tracts.  In fact, the more dense or frequented development, the greater impact it would have on access questions, the more important the relationship was between those uses and access questions. 

He said he did not know if he would be willing to state unequivocally that he could support all of those uses that they had listed as secular purposes which were the laundry list that was in the letter.  He did not think it would be appropriate to say that any one of those uses were fine because he felt they needed more information about whether those uses did fit into an area that were on a blob map considering to be institutional uses.  He did not thing a long-term residency as an institutional use as Dyer defined it earlier.

Morgan said their question was whether that would be considered in the office/industrial warehouse.  The institutional piece was the church.  The rest of the area was all recommended for that office/industrial based on location.  She said all they were trying to pinpoint was the permitted uses under the recommendation for the industrial warehouse and office portion of the plot.

Bryan Dyer said they had a number of discussions with church staff and that had been their concern which was what would go on the other piece of their property.  Essentially, the blob map showed approximately half of their property as institutional and perhaps the other half as office/warehouse uses.  He said when looking at past uses that had gone into areas that had been designated by plans as this office/warehouse/industrial uses, the majority of those uses were the same intensity of what they described was the same intensity as what was on the blob map.  In regards to the restaurant and things in terms of a commercial nature, staff’s response was that the possibility of the small commercial area to serve the area that intersection, if it did not develop into an industrial park and if it was integrated with the area and was part of a development, it could be a possibility and not out of the realm of reason.  A large scale commercial development of a retail nature, he hoped, staff was clear that was not what staff envisioned for occurring at that corner.      

Commissioner Schauner asked if the subdivision regulations that were currently under review, impact what could be built in that industrial zone.

Finger said yes.  She said the Institutional Business Park (IBP) uses and the Residential Single Family Office (RSO) and the Residential Multi-Family Office (RMO) and the Office (O) District itself would all be somewhat similar to the uses found in today’s regulations under use group 9 which would be office or use group 18 which would be research/industrial types of uses.  She was hesitant to say any type of motel/hotel operation was not in any of those uses and she would not find that to be very compliant with that nodal plan as presented to the Commission.      

Commissioner Schauner said it struck him that the right answer was whatever the zoning regulations were in effect at the time the request was made would determine what appropriate uses could be made of the property as opposed to the Commission making some sort of promise that X, Y and Z would be permitted. 

Mayor Dunfield said it seemed that  Dyer stated it well, that the intention was a research park type of use and that there were things within that type of a campus that might make sense that had a restaurant that served the campus or other ancillary type of commercial functions, but that it was clearly not intended to be a commercial district. 

Commissioner Schauner said he was fine with that concept, except the slippery slope there was that would be a very high traffic corner and there would be attempts to push the limits on what would be acceptable to be developed at that location, not just that corner, but the other three corners as well.  He did not want the Commission to tread down the path to mislead the Church as to what might be acceptable in the future based on what the zoning regulations in place at the time the building permit was requested or whatever document might be in place would permit.

Mayor Dunfield suggested moving on to the question of the building permit.  He said he noticed that there was a comment in the Planning Commission’s discussion to the effect that building permit restriction could apply only to commercial properties.  He asked if that was part of the final language.           

Dyer said the southeast corner would have access by George Williams Way sooner than by 6^th Street.  The intent of the language that was added into the plan was that a non-commercial residential development that took access via George Williams Way would be something that permits would be able to be pulled on.  He said with commercial on 6^th Street, permits should not be issued until 6^th Street was substantially completed.     

Mayor Dunfield asked about the specific case of the church.

Dyer said that would be one of those City/County plats that would be swapped and most likely from the time that the church had described would be coming to staff’s office in regards to a County site plan.  If that plan was adopted, the site plan could not be looked at and not recognize the plan, but at the same time, the intent of the 6^th Street restriction was as the area came into the City and as the City adopted access management plans for that area west of K-10.  He said the bigger issues would be access and also recognizing, if that area did develop and came into the City, it was likely that there would be some recommendation on access on 6^th Street.   He said there could be a possibility of a right-in or right-out or be taken off of the proposed collector street that ran down the west side of their property. 

Commissioner Schauner said the time to be thinking about an access management plan for west of the SLT was now and not a year from now.  He said to the extent that the Commission had any authority to develop an access plan for that street, they were probably behind the curve right now and ought to be working diligently to develop such a plan.  He said the City was faced with a 23^rd Street Plan tonight as an issue of something that happened without any planning and he would like to talk about that access plan sooner than later.  With respect to the southeast corner, if permits were issued for a build out on that before 6^th Street was finished, there would be a tremendous amount of construction traffic through the neighborhood which was being developed to the south and east of that platted piece along Harvard Road which would be completed by then accessing to George Williams Way.  He said that would be a real issue for the neighbors at that location with increase traffic.

Commissioner Hack said on the plan that was shifting from the southwest to the southeast, she asked because they had access on George Williams Way that it would not be as critical for the 6^th Street improvements to be completed.

Dyer said yes.  

Commissioner Schauner said whether they accessed 15^th Street, up George Williams Way or through Harvard Road to 6^th Street, there was still going to be no access on 6^th Street that anyone would use for an extended period of time.  That traffic would come through either the Harvard neighborhood or West Lawrence neighborhood because it would be the quickest shortest route between point A and point B.  He suggested not permitting that additional traffic through that neighborhood until there was 6^th Street access or some type of phase in.    

Vice Mayor Rundle said the language as drafted stated that it might be appropriate for a residential development if they did consider an access plan.  He asked if they would further define that.

Mayor Dunfield said requiring traff