November 27, 2001
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 Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Henry and Kennedy present. Student Commissioner Raney was present.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of November 20, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of November 1, 2001; the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of October 9, 2001; and the Recycling and Resources Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of October 10, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve claims to 262 vendors in the amount of $544,850.94 and 2001 longevity pay to 430 employees in the amount of $294,103.80. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Ken White and Lee Queen to the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals; the reappointments of James Dunn, Marilyn Roy, Terri Pippert, and Diana Deutsch to the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee; the reappointments of Mark Tucker, Trent McKinley and Pat Weaver to the Lawrence Bicycle Advisory Committee; the reappointments of Don Shepard, Richard Heckler, William Jeltz and Kelly Boyle-Wolfe to the Grant Review Board; and, the reappointments of Deb Baker and Lewis Phillips to the Recycling and Resources Conservation Advisory Board. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 7445, establishing a moratorium until April 1, 2002 on the issuance of building permits for property generally located in a certain portion of Old West Lawrence neighborhood as read a second time.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
Ordinance No. 7446, establishing a moratorium until April 1, 2002 on the issuance of demolition permits for property generally located in a certain portion of Old West Lawrence neighborhood was read a second time.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-34-01) of approximately .466 acres from A (Agricultural District) to C-4 (General Commercial District), property located at 912 North 3rd Street; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-09-30-01) for Fox Chase Addition No. 6, a 34-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 11.917 acres, located west of Branchwood Drive and north of Stoneridge Drive, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval and publication of the rezoning from A to RS-2;
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
3. Applicant’s Engineer shall respread all applicable special assessments per the approval of the City Engineer prior to recording the Final Plat with the Register of deeds Office;
4. Provision of a Revised Final Plat to include:
a. MEBO for Lots 1-7, Block 3, per the approval of the Storm Water Engineer;
b. Include a 10’ UE between Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3, per the request of Southwestern Bell; and,
5. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation;
a. Provision of street sign payment;
b. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
c. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
d. Provision of a Master Street Tree Plan; and,
e. Provision of a pinning letter of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2.
Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the purchase of property for the extension of Wakarusa Drive in the amount of $64,000, as authorized by the City Commission on November 6, 2001; receive the petition for the extension of Wakarusa Drive as a temporary extension to Queens Road; and, prepare a resolution establishing the benefit district authorizing the improvement. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, informed the City Commission there were 354 people that took advantage of the Compost Program and between 50 and 75 tons of compost was given away. This program was currently underway until Saturday.
Mayor Rundle called a public hearing on the proposed special assessments for improvements of 24th Place from Inverness to Crossgate; Inverness Drive from 24th Place to 27th Street; Inverness Drive from Clinton Parkway to 24th Place; and, Inverness Park Drainage Channel, Inverness to Crossgate.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, briefed the City Commission that several months prior the City Commission established these benefit districts and these projects were completed. The appropriate notices have been sent by mail to the property owners for these improvements. These improvements included 24th Place from Inverness to Crossgate; Inverness Drive from 24th Place to 27th Street; Inverness Drive from Clinton Parkway to 24th Place; and, Inverness Park Drainage Channel, Inverness to Crossgate. All of these improvements were included with exception that the property south of the drainage channel, was to be assessed for the improvement of Inverness Drive from 27th Street to 24th Place. These properties were not assessed because the City had received payment in full from the developer for their share of the improvements. The remainder of the properties would be assessed for a fifteen-year period which the City Commission approved when they were approached by the developer for this property. These types of assessments were usually for ten-years. When the City issued bonds selling debt to the public in the spring, the City would then have the resources to pay-off the temporary notes the City had issued to finance this project and then the special assessments would be used to retire the debt that would be bonded in the spring.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7447, for the improvement of 24th Place from Inverness to Crossgate. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7448, for the improvement of Inverness Drive from 24th Place to 27th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7449, for the improvement of Inverness Drive from Clinton Parkway to 24th Place. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7450, for the improvement of Inverness Park Drainage Channel, Inverness to Crossgate. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, said the Kansas Legislature would reconvene on January 14, 2002. The City Commission traditionally prepared a policy statement that indicated the City’s views on a number of different legislative issues that impacted the community and the City organization. He presented the City Commission with last year’s statement because they were building on that statement. He said the statement highlighted some of the issues that reflected the 2001 Legislative Session. He said staff was ready to receive any direction the City Commission might have on particular issues. He said Mayor Rundle mentioned the possibility of the state establishing a Housing Authority that would be able to debt finance certain local community projects in regards to housing issues. This was a statement that was not in the Legal Municipalities Policy Statement. After talking with the Executive Director of the League of Kansas Municipalities, Corliss said this League was not opposed to this issue, but it has not been one of their priority statements as indicated in their policy statement. He said it might be appropriate to discuss this issue to see if it was appropriate to include in the City’s statement.
This was not the only time to bring up issues in regards to the policy statement, but obviously, as the legislative session matured, staff would bring the City Commission different issues that needed guidance. It was an understatement to say that most of the City’s work was defensive in nature where the City attempted to protect either revenue sources or State legislative authority in the various statutes for what we do for the community. The City spent most of its time trying to advise our delegation and other legislators that would listen about the importance of those revenue sources and not establishing mandates or taking away certain authority and other areas.
Commissioner Kennedy commented on the proposed redistricting and reapportionment. He asked Corliss where the State was in this process.
Corliss said as was common on a number of issues, the legislature had an interim committee that met during the interim of the legislative session to review the redistricting issue. This committee received testimony including hearing from Mayor Rundle. The committee had proposed a third congressional district that would take a portion of Lawrence (eastern portion) and place it in the Third Congressional District. The remainder of Lawrence would be placed in the Second Congressional District. This would be one of many bills that would be introduced on redistricting four congressional seats in Kansas. He said the City has not been successful in convincing the interim committee to leave Lawrence in a congressional district that was part of metropolitan Kansas City area and not splitting Lawrence in two congressional districts. He said the local delegation was convinced, but other legislators needed convincing.
Rundle asked what legal recourse the City would have if the delegations were convinced on splitting Lawrence into two congressional districts.
Corliss said the courts in looking at other redistrictings, focused on two primary issues. One issue was one-person one vote. This first criteria was mathematical precision. The other criteria was racial or ethnic issues. The courts also look at “communities of interest”, which looked at the taking away of a community’s ability to represent itself at a federal or state level. It was a more difficult burden for the City to bear, as opposed to the numeric and racial/ethnic factors that might be examined. It was something the City needed to take a serious look at if the interim proposal was successful.
Rundle asked about where the City stood in regards to the Rights-of-Way Franchise Fees debate.
Corliss said he participated in a conference call with a number of municipal officials. He said he was cautiously optimistic. He thought they would be successful in agreeing with the telecommunications industry on a proposed bill that would allow the City to continue to receive franchise fee revenue roughly at the rate that the City has received in the past and also protect the City’s authority to regulate the public right-of-way. What the legislature would do remained an interesting question. We might be able to agree between the City and Southwestern Bell, Sprint and AT&T as to a relationship. What the legislature would do, hopefully, would be to respect this compromise and enact it. Corliss said this issue was important because franchise fee revenue was a valuable revenue source for the City.
Rundle asked when this regulatory statement was usually approved.
Corliss said the document was usually approved in December. The City Commission would have the opportunity to reflect on priorities and look at the wording the City proposed. There would be a meeting sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce where the School District, City, County and Chamber officials would invite the local legislative delegation to share priorities. They would also meet with members of the delegation individually to discuss issues.
Corliss said it was no secret the state would be looking for money and there were a lot of tempting targets that would have dramatic impact on City finances. The best example was the $16,000,000 of alcohol tax funds that come to cities. The House proposed last year doing something else with those funds. Out of $16,000,000, the City received over a $1,000,000 which was used for alcohol rehabilitation, recreation fund and general fund.
Henry said he was interested in the alcohol tax fund because it did a lot of good for the community.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, commented on the State and Shared Taxes issue. He said staff had a suspicion that legislators would be looking at this issue as a way of balancing the State budget by giving Cities and Counties less. He asked Mayor Rundle about the housing issue and if staff should research this issue.
Rundle said there was an effort by the Kaufman Foundation and staff might want to contact them.
Dunfield said some of the items identified this year, appeared to be variations of some of the same issues from previous years. From his understanding, the general regulations for Drinking Establishments item was basically the same as the liquor law re-codification issue as last year.
Corliss said he thought it was the same, but would like to rearticulate this issue in light of the Supreme Court decision that came down this summer. He said this case served as a warning to cities that regulated Drinking Establishments beyond the authority in state law. Right now, the City had a limited ability to license Drinking Establishments. The City has used its home rule authority to regulate these Drinking Establishments that would allow us to attack or condition their license based upon neighborhood nuisance issues that had periodically came before the City Commission. Corliss had a concern about this practice in light of the Supreme Court decision. Given this case, someone could say the City did not have the authority to regulate beyond state law. All that could be done was state law and home rule authority could not be used. From a legal standpoint, he said his preference was to have specific state statutory authority to condition or revoke a license if it was a neighborhood nuisance problem. Now, with this court decision, it added ammunition to those who opposed City efforts. (10)
Mayor Rundle requested discussion of allocation of Code Enforcement resources. His specific concern was the amount of time dedicated on the weekends for enforcement of the sign code. Code enforcement has been a concern of residents and neighborhood groups for many years. This year’s budget allocated for additional code enforcement staffing. Next year there would be additional staffing for the single-family zoning ordinance regulations. He said timeliness of inspections on the building permit side of Neighborhood Resources was an on-going concern. He had a concern about staff giving weekend sign code enforcement high priority and had questions whether this issue deserved such priority. From information presented in a memo dated November 13, 2001, in response to a series of questions he asked, it appeared that other than losing a sign temporarily, there did not seem to be fines on a regular basis and thus no real deterrent and did not seem to be effective in curtailing this issue. He said his contention was it did not take a professionally trained inspector to identify signs in the right-of-way. There was a statement in the memo that enforcement required the ability to determine whether right-of-way was located which varied throughout the city to determine whether a sign was in violation of specific sign codes. He said anyone could be trained to determine whether a sign was in the right-of-way. These people could then refer these violations to professional staff for handling. He said the memo did not provide a clear justification that sign violations were more pressing than housing code and other code violations. He said the memo failed to satisfy his question of whether this was the best use of staff time given the other demands of enforcement.
Rundle said his questions were focused on the designated weekend sign duty. Also, he asked what data supported the increase. He said the memo indicated previously staff was out two to four hours on a Saturday or Sunday and now has gone to a full day. The memo stated that the City averaged sixty to seventy illegal signs per Saturday. He said this was not the type of data he was looking for. The data that would justify an allocation for staffing resources would include the number of calls and letters the City acquired concerning side code violations from citizens which would demonstrate there was a demand for this type of enforcement. It did not compare with how many calls the City would get for sign code violations as opposed to calls and letters about housing violations or environmental complaints. He said he was interested in whether the other commissioners shared his concerns and whether or not they wanted to give staff direction to refocus energies of code enforcement.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said staff received the note from the Mayor approximately midday and did not have time to respond or ask for clarification on some of the issues raised, thus the November 13, 2001, memo might have been incomplete. In 2000, he said he asked Neighborhood Resources to have staff out on weekends because there was a clear abuse of the sign code violations. Since then, the City Commission has authorized another position. He pointed out that Neighborhood Resources staff dealt with other issues on weekends such as environmental, site plan, temporary use and housing issues and were not just assigned to enforce sign ordinances.
Commissioner Dunfield said the difficulty was how the City would assign staff time. He said they needed to shift priorities in order to try to respond to more of those environmental type complaints.
Mike Wildgen asked if there was a problem with the weekend schedule. The addition of a staffing person allowed Neighborhood Resources to overlap some and get enforcement on Saturdays. Typically there were more sign code violations on the weekends.
Commissioner Hack said if she felt this individual was spending all day Saturday pulling up signs, then she would be concerned about allocation of time. She said it did not appear sign code enforcement was the only thing going on. As long as there were other code violations being addressed, it did not seem to be a critical problem.
Rundle said his concern was that the primary effort was sign code enforcement.
Wildgen said during sporting events the City typically has t-shirts and hat sales on weekends and code enforcement needed to address these issues on weekends.
Commissioner Kennedy said with the inspector working on the weekends on different code violations, did the inspector have the opportunity to visit with the property owner prior to a fine being imposed. Property owners would more likely be home on the weekends versus being gone through the week. He suggested the inspector submit a report to the City Commission so they could have an idea on how effective it was for a weekend inspector.
Commissioner Henry said most of the sign violations did occur on weekends and it seemed the City needed someone on the weekends to handle these violations along with other code violations. (11)
Kennedy commented briefly about the 31st Street Improvement. He said the City Commission gave TranSystems authority and money to proceed with a feasibility study as to what the City could do with 31st Street in case of a delay in the trafficway. He asked about the status of the TranSystems study.
Wildgen said staff had met with TranSystems and planned on briefing the City and County Commissions in December. (12)
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 7:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2001
1. Ordinance No. 7445 – 2nd Reading, Moratorium on issuance of bldg permits for Old W Lawrence Neighborhood.
2. Ordinance No. 7446 – 2nd Reading, Moratorium on issuance of demo permits for Old W Lawrence Neighborhood.
3. Rezone – (Z-08-34-01), .466 aces, A to C-4, 912 N 3rd.
4. Final Plat – (PF-09-30-01), 11.917 acres, W of Branchwood Dr & N of Stoneridge Dr.
5. Purchase Property – Extension of Wakarusa Drive for $64,000.
6. Ordinance No. 7447 – 1st Reading, benefit district, 24th Pl from Inverness to Crossgate.
7. Ordinance No. 7448 – 1st Reading, benefit district, Inverness Dr. from 24th to 27th.
8. Ordinance No. 7449 – 1st Reading, benefit district, Inverness Dr. from Clinton Pkwy to 24th Pl.
9. Ordinance No. 7450 – 1st Reading, benefit district, Inverness Park Drainage Channel, Inverness to Crossgate.
10. 2002 City Legislative Policy Statement.
11. Code Enforcement – Neighborhood Resources.
12. 31st Street Improvements