October 15, 2002

 

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 Hack presiding and members Dunfield, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle present.  Lawrence High School representative Zack Elmore was present.    

With Commission approval, Mayor Hack proclaimed the week of October 20 - 26, 2002 as “Respiratory Care Week.”

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 8, 2002.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority Board meeting minutes of August 27, 2002; the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 10, 2002; the Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 25, 2002 (draft minutes); the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of September 5, 2002; and, the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 4, 2002.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve claims to 367 vendors in the amount of $1,235,732.08.  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 Donna Osness to the Hospital Board for a four-year term, which would expire on September 30, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Mad Greek, 907 Massachusetts.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7586, prohibiting parking on the south/east side of Edgehill Drive northeasterly 270 feet east of Louisiana Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                    (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7588, allowing the possession and consumption of alcoholic liquor at the Prairie Park Nature Center on Friday, November 1, 2002, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.  Alcoholic beverages would not be sold at this event.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                   (2)

Ordinance No. 7583, rezoning [Z-03-12-01] approximately 1.2 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single Family Residence District), located at 1207 East 1600 Road 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.                                                                                                                      (3)

Ordinance No. 7585, establishing “No Parking” along the east side of Barker Avenue, between 20th and 21st Streets 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.                                                (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt Resolution No. 6437, providing for the redemption of the 1993 bond issuance for Brandon Woods and authorizing the transfer of title from the City to Brandon Woods.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                           (5)

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-08-24-02) of approximately 0.15 acres, from RS-2 (Single Family Residence District) to RO-2 (Residence-Office District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is described as being located at 1246 Haskell.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                          (6)

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-08-27-02) Lots 7-18, Block 3, Pinnacle Addition, from RM-D (Duplex Residential District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is generally described as being located on Sturbridge Court.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                    (7)

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-05-15-02) of approximately 1.266 acres, from A-1 (Suburban Home District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway west of Lake Alvamar.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                        (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to receive the staff report regarding the status of (UPR-12-9-92): Children’s Learning Center, 205 North Michigan; and, defer to the November 5, 2002 City Commission meeting.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                      (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-07-04-02, text amendment to Chapter 20 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, to amend Articles 6 and 12 regarding group living facilities parking requirements.  Motion carried unanimously.            (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve an agreement with KDOT for Capital Assistance funds for State Transportation Projects for Lawrence Transit System.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                       (11)  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve an amendment to the Inter-local Cooperation Agreement with Douglas County to allow one Douglas County Township or Fire District Fire Chief to serve on the Emergency Communications Center Advisory Committee.  Motion carried unanimously.                               (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the recommendation from the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals concerning an amendment to Section 303.1.3 of the Mechanical Code regarding the elevation of ignition source; and, authorize staff to prepare the ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                  (13)  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the Mayor to sign the Subordination Agreement for Chester Schmitendorf, 2014 Hillview Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                     (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the Mayor to sign the Subordination Agreement for Rick and Alice Anderson, 1602 East 18^th Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                         (15)

            Mike Keeney, representing the applicant for the Preliminary Development Plan for The Ridge at Alvamar, asked for deferral of this plan for one week. 

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield, to defer for one week, the Preliminary Development Plan for The Ridge at Alvamar.  Motion carried unanimously.                            (16)

During the City Manager’s report, Mike Wildgen said a seminar would be held at the Arts Center regarding Bio-Terrorism on October 21, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

He also reported that this weekend was the Home Energy Conservation Fair sponsored by the Recycling Division of the Public Works Department.   

Also, during the City Manager’s report, Wildgen said Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer wanted to update the City Commission on several Master Plan Projects and amendments to some of those contracts related to stormwater issues.

Voigt said in 1996 the City adopted a Master Plan containing 41 projects.  Twelve of those projects were identified as top priority and were prioritized based on a cost/benefit ratio.  He said five of the projects were completed and staff was currently working on four other projects.  Of these four projects, the first three were the big-ticketed items.  These projects were:

The first project is 21^st Street from Stewart Avenue to Naismith Drive, which was started in July.  This project is a 6’ by 4’ culvert going down 21^st Street under the road and discharging into the Naismith Channel.      

The second project was 21^st Street from Kentucky to Barker Court which staff was currently designing.  Construction is expected in January 2003.   He presented the Commission with a map of this project.  This project would cross Massachusetts Street and in the second phase, the improved system would put a lot more water in the channel.  He said Phase 2 of this project would require Commission action concerning additional design fees and construction costs. 

The third project, located at 13^th and Oregon, was the biggest project.  He said costs listed in his report, were a total of construction estimates, land purchases, and design fees.  He said this project was actually started five years ago when the City bought the Morton Block Plant for $400,000.  He said this project was a $4.1 million dollar project.  He said recently staff evaluated some of these plans and needed to make modifications.

The fourth project was 27^th Street to Saratoga.  This project is a Group 2 project, which was a lower priority, but staff was moving ahead because the sanitary sewer would be replaced in that area.  The Utilities Department has already started the design and was almost ready for construction.  He said the Utility Department was crossing over their project resulting in a collapsed storm sewer, so it made sense to build both of them at the same time to save money.             

Voigt said the Haskell Stormwater Mitigation Project was given a grant by KDOT.  This project is located south of the Douglas County Public Works Facility near Haskell University.  He said the run-off from the K-10 Corridor would be intercepted by a pond that would remove pollutants before they were discharged to the Baker Wetlands.     

The Ridge Court Project has been on this list for quite some time.  He said they had some design information and was trying to work this project in.  At this point, staff needed to build those other projects to see how things pan out.  If staff received good bids, this project could move ahead.

Another project waiting in the wings was 15^th and Lawrence Avenue.  This was a project where the stream bank is eroding.  These project plans were in place, ready to bid, and would move ahead if staff received good bids.                                                                                      (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement for additional engineering services for the 13^th and Oregon Storm Sewer Improvements with Terra Technologies and George Butler Associates in the amount of $42,830.  Motion carried unanimously.                                          (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement for engineering services for design services for the Belle Haven, 27^th Street to Saratoga Place, Storm Sewer Improvements with Delich, Roth & Goodwill, PA Consulting Engineers in the amount of $27,534.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                           (19)

            Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the cereal malt beverage license for Rock Chalk Carwash, 1215 East 23^rd Street was deferred from last week’s City Commission agenda.  After license review by staff, he said the cereal malt beverage license meets the City Code, which was subject to approval by the Health, Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments.

            Commissioner Rundle asked if the walk-up window met City Code.

            Wildgen said the City’s Zoning Code does not prohibit a walk-up or drive-through window.  He said there are standards in the City Code concerning front and back doors being left open during certain times.     

            Vice Mayor Dunfield said initially this was presented to the Commission as a drive-up liquor store, but this was not the case.    He said grocery stores and KWIK Shops sell 3.2 beer therefore, he thought this license should be approved.                                                                                  Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Rundle, to approve the cereal malt beverage license for Rock Chalk Carwash, 1215 East 23^rd Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                         (20)

Mayor Hack called a public hearing for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for the proposed use of federal funds by the Police Department.

Ron Olin, Chief of Police, said since 1996 the Police Department has received from the Federal Government approximately $423,000, which was traditionally placed towards technology.  In fact, their communications infrastructure and much of their security systems in and around their buildings wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for this money. 

He said his staff met with the Citizens Advisory Council today and presented their proposals for the expenditure of $49,058 in the 2003 Block Grant cycle.  The council voted unanimously to support their recommendations. 

The first recommendation was for a system called RUVIS (Reflective Ultraviolet Imaging System).  He said when you leave a finger, palm, or footprint, you deposit moisture or oil on a surface and this RUVIS system improved analysis of these prints.  Currently, for the Police Department to obtain a fingerprint they have to physically dust and this could cause damage to property.  RUVIS is a new technology that locates fingerprints with the use of ultraviolet light and would show police staff where to physically do the fingerprinting.  He said they have used this technology in a recent homicide and even though it took the Police Department four days to process this crime scene, they estimated that it would have taken twice as long if they had done the fingerprinting in the traditional way.  They proposed spending half of this money on the RUVIS System.  He said the only RUVIS System that he knew of right now was owned by the KBI. 

The second recommendation was to take $25,000 and buy a license for computer software called COP Link.  This is a program that has been developed over the last eleven years by a number of computer technicians.  This program was basically a data-mining tool.  He said the Police Department wanted to join into a cooperative agreement with the Topeka Police Department and hoped it would expand to the KBI and other cities that are part of the Metro-Squad which is a major case investigation squad based out of Topeka generally used for homicide investigations.  If they are able to procure this software technology, they could data-mine everyone’s computer information in attempts to solve major case investigations.  He said they thought it was good technology and estimated that if their own technicians had to develop a software system that was similar, they could not accomplish this in ten years.  He said they recommended expenditures for these two recommendations.

Commissioner Rundle asked Olin when he said, “mine everyone’s” data was he talking about the data from the Topeka Police, KBI, and other groups that participate.

Olin gave Rundle an example.  He said let’s say he was arrested for a crime and was booked into the Douglas County Jail.  At the time they booked him in, they noted on the booking sheet that he had a cross tattoo on the back of his hand and this information was entered into their computer system.  In the future, if someone with a cross tattoo is a suspect in a crime in the future, this system would permit a police officer to search for a suspect with a tattoo on the back of his hand along with victim information, field interview contacts, and also search Topeka’s computer system.  He said there were some states, such as Alaska, that were going statewide with this technology and if Lawrence comes in on the ground floor, this would probably go statewide because it appears to be superb technology.                 

Rundle said he had a concern because of Olin’s term he used which was “everyone’s data.”

Olin said this was only criminal justice data that is exchanged over secure networks.

Jean Ann Pike, Citizens Advisory Council, said this was fascinating technology and thought this method would assist in helping our Police Department accomplish their jobs in a more efficient manner.  She also said they needed to find a way to acquire radios for the Police Department.  

Moved by Henry, seconded by Dunfield, toclose the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Rundle, to approve the federal funding by the Police Department for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant.  Motion carried unanimously.           (21)

Lynn Parman, Vice President of Economic Development, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, presented the Economic Development Report to consider and requested funds for economic development promotional materials.  She said concerning the updates of programs and initiatives, they have acquired and installed the Business Retention Software System.  She said she would begin the surveys with the business executives and plant managers in the coming weeks.  She said they were able to acquire this software system for $2,000 when the regular price was $6,500 by writing a grant as well as working with Aquila because they have purchased the license for the software. 

She said they would be surveying all of the plant managers and business executives of our industries in asking them questions about the viability of their company and how they were doing as well as how doing business in Douglas County is for their particular company.  She said they would feed this information into the software system and would be able to provide some good, quantifiable information on our business climate as a community. 

The other completed initiative was that they have launched their available Sites and Buildings Database on the Chamber’s website which was www.lawrencechamber.com and click on Economic Development - Sites and Buildings.  This database provides a look at the 39 commercial properties that exist in Douglas County and also provides a professional, efficient, and quick response to prospects when they are asking for our inventory as a community.  She said they have had wonderful cooperation with the commercial brokers and landowners, but had work to do with the pictures and floor plans in the system. 

Additionally, they have implemented their first direct mail campaign and have received five calls as a result of that direct mail which would be done on a quarterly basis.  She said they would be doing another direct mail this Fall that would be heavily toward informing those site selectors about the phenomenal educational attainment of our community as well as our workforce. 

She said she would be going on some marketing initiatives over the next couple of months and would be partnering with the Kansas City Area Development Council, a business attraction organization for Kansas and the Metropolitan area including Lawrence and Topeka.  She said she would be going with them to Phoenix to call on site selectors.  This is an effort to build an awareness of the Kansas City area, but also allows her an opportunity to talk about Lawrence and build relationships with those site selectors.   

She said she would also attend a tradeshow in cooperation with the Kansas Department of Commerce and Housing as well as the Kansas City Area Development Council.  This tradeshow is the council of Real Estate Executives.  They have an international conference twice a year and it is a tradeshow for economic developers because they could develop relationships with these executives.  She said she would be partnering with the Kansas Department of Commerce and Housing and was hosting a hospitality event.

Also, she said they have been more involved in the other communities located in Douglas County.  She said they have been to the City Council meetings in Baldwin City, Eudora, and Lecompton and were getting more involved in their communities.

Finally, she said they have been pursuing an update of the Strategic Plan.  She said they were continuing to move through that process and hoped to have a working document by January 21, 2003.  She said they would have a recommended document to the Commission by next Spring on the update for the Horizon 2020 Economic Development element of the Strategic Plan.   

Jim Martin, President of M-PACT Corporation in Eudora, Kansas, said he was the Co-Chair of the Economic Development Board of Directors.  He said they came to the City Commission with a very fundamental observation which was that we needed to create more career opportunities in our community. 

He said their Board of Directors had selected Lynn Parman to head up their economic development activity for the City and County and needed to give her basic tools to allow her to complete her primary task of creating new jobs in our communities.  They had a one-time request for funds to develop a package that they could use for five years to sell Lawrence and Douglas County to potential employers.  He said their current materials were over fifteen years old and presented these materials to the Commission for their scrutiny.  He said they needed new material and needed it now. 

He said they have asked Parman to find new career opportunities for our community.  With the Commission’s participation in their fund request, this allows them leverage to request funds from other entities in the County.  He wanted Parman to give the Commission the specifics of their plan, but wanted to think beyond and say, “what happens if we don’t do this.”  He said he was convinced that we would lose job opportunities because we simply don’t have those documents or basic tools to give a newly hired professional the ability to sell what this great community has to offer. 

Parman said she wanted to fill in a couple of details and emphasize the material that the Commission has already received.  In the Commission’s packets, she said they should have a formal request letter that highlighted exactly all of the details.  She said they have just completed an RFP process as a preliminary measure so that they could know what kind of budget they needed to request.  The RFP’s that were submitted were approximately $50,000 for all three of the pieces together including printing.  They have gone to the Douglas County Development Inc. board meeting and requested $10,000 which was approved.  Additionally, she said she has written a grant to Aquila to their Economic Development Department and received verbal confirmation on that $3,000 grant application.  She said this is $13,000 they have been able to raise so far to help leverage the City as well as the County Commission’s funds. 

She said one of the three pieces in the RFP was a business relocation packet.  She said she could have used this business relocation packet 34 times since July 8 which was when she started her job.  She said she had 34 prospects that have asked for this information and she did not have anything to send them.  She said she sends them a letter and a community profile that the Chamber puts out with lots of advertisements and photos.  She said these prospects want to know about the facilities and other employers.  She said they needed a package to give to these prospects to portray an image to them that we are serious as a community about our business climate and attracting companies.

The second piece they would be developing is a County profile at a glance.  It is a piece that would be updated each year which would have a demographic profile and a tri-fold piece that we could give those basic demographics that we could ask for on a regular basis.  She said she would use this at tradeshows.  It would have that same look as that first piece, again trying to send a consistent image and a consistent message. 

The third piece, which is the smallest piece, would be an ability to provide a very professional look to their proposals that they give to companies as well as any studies they do.  It would be a proposal binder.  Right now, they did not have anything like that. 

Parman said these three pieces would set the stage for us to be able to market our community very effectively and consistently to our external market.  Additionally, they would use this new look and feel of our marketing pieces to spillover into our other marketing efforts.  When they send a direct mail out, it would look the same as their marketing piece.  When they do an advertisement in a site selection journal or maybe a life sciences journal, it would have that same look to it.  Again, they are trying to raise the visibility of the City of Lawrence and Douglas County to our external audience.  

She said she could not emphasize enough the program enhancements that they have made since July.  She reiterated that they have added an existing business software system they had purchased for $4,500 less than the original cost.  They have also put in place a new direct mail campaign that has already resulted in a number of calls.  Additionally, they have placed emphasis on their relationships with the Kansas Department of Commerce and Housing and Kansas City Area Development Council in working with them on marketing initiatives.  They have put a lot of program enhancements in place, but they simply do not have $53,000 in their operational budget to pay for those brochures. 

In their request, she said she was asking for $20,000 from the City of Lawrence, $20,000 from the Douglas County, and had already secured the other $13,000.  In the Commission’s criteria for mid-year fiscal requests, two of the particular criteria are definitely met by this request and that is that it meets the goals of the City Commission.  Additionally, it helps to leverage other funding sources, which it has.  She urged the City Commission to consider this funding request.  She said she believed this was a priority for the City, County, and the community as a whole to present a very positive image to our business attraction clients in order to create jobs in the community. 

Wayne Parks, Lawrence, had questions concerning economic development and its cost.  He has been a working person all his life and Lawrence is a good place for employment.  He asked in terms of economic development, does the cost override the benefit? 

He said in the 70’s people decided that factory workers were getting too much money and it was costing too much in inflation, so they let imports come in, which ruined a lot of our good paying factory jobs.  He said we’ve given away jobs and now we were trying to buy them back with tax abatements.  He said with the way the economic conditions were now, he wondered why we had to give the Chamber of Commerce our tax money when we are short of tax money for a lot of needy things.

Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, said the City was lucky to have Lynn Parman, Vice President of Economic Development.  She said Parman has done an outstanding job and applauded her efforts.  One of Parman’s discoveries was how out of date the City’s marketing materials were.  Since Baldwin, Eudora, and Lecompton would also benefit from these marketing efforts, she would like to see if they could be approached to contribute at a ratio comparable to the sales tax ratio.  Also, since the Chamber is 1/3 partner’s in economic development with the City and County, she would like to see if it was possible for the Chamber to contribute some funding as well.  Henderson said it was an awkward time to ask for money outside of a budget year.  On the other hand, she said the City does need better marketing materials.                    

Commissioner Rundle said this was a necessary expenditure.  These marketing materials were not needed immediately, but long ago.   He said he understood that these marketing materials would have a 5-year shelf life and that caused him to be less enthusiastic about spending this money now.  He said he felt like our economic development efforts might have a lack of luster and thought we should all share responsibility.  The most important focus is to look at the future and thought we had some serious work ahead of us to get a clearer focus for our economic development efforts, to have a clearer plan, and the expenditure of public funds compels us to clearly look at how we are going to benefit from this plan.  He asked that there be public input when working on the design of these materials.  He reiterated that was a necessary expenditure and he said his enthusiasm would grow if we could get busy on that work of crafting a plan and focus on moving ahead with that update of Horizon 2020 and more importantly, our own strategic plan of economic development.

Commissioner Kennedy said the Commission’s number one priority was Economic Development.  Economic development is attracting and retaining businesses in town so that we could provide numerous job opportunities for all of the citizens of Lawrence Kansas.  We need to improve our image and the only way we could do this is to be professional, provide adequate information to any of those companies that are looking at staying in Lawrence as well as relocating to Lawrence to provide job opportunities for our community.  He said he was backing this issue 100% and if we could get additional money from other cities, this would provide even better products.

Commissioner Henry concurred.  He said he appreciated Parman’s aggressive posture towards Economic Development because this was the Commission’s primary emphasis in their Commission goal setting session.  Fortunately, we now have a Mid-Year Funding Request Policy which we didn’t have before.  He said this did meet at least two of the guidelines.  He said any firms that do not come to Lawrence are lost opportunities, lost tax revenues, and lost jobs.  He supported Parman’s request.

Vice Mayor Dunfield said it was unfortunate that we have gotten behind in this area and thought it was clear that Parman was going to be pushing us all forward and appreciated that very much.  He agreed that we needed to take a step in addressing this issue.  He said as Commissioner Kennedy said, if there is additional funding out there that could be leveraged, so much the better.  

Mayor Hack said this meets the City Commission’s goals.   She thanked Commissioner Rundle because we did not have much to go on for these types of request and now thanks to him, we have some concrete measurements to look at, to whether or not these major requests are important enough to grant. 

The other part of this issue was the assessment method where the Commission was looking at the long-range implications and would this be an annual request or a one-time request.  She said Parman has indicated it was a one-time request.  She said she would also like to look at the other communities within Douglas County for some resources.  She supported the request.

Commissioner Rundle said when looking at funding, it seemed like we could go two ways.  He said we could pledge up to $20,000 and if the Chamber was successful in receiving additional funding, we could reduce the City and County contributions or did they see it as being funds that they could use to be effective.

Parman said in the formal request, it stated, that if in fact the project comes below the amount that we have raised in funds, that they would refund that amount in proportionate shares to all of the entities that contributed.  She said she definitely wanted to say that publicly, that they would be very physically conscious about what has been contributed.  The RFP’s received were approximately $50,000 which would be in line if the County Commission is able to also go forward with this request. 

Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Rundle, to approve a funding request for $20,000 in supplemental funds for the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce for economic development promotional materials.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                   (22)

Mayor Hack said the 2001 Tax Abatement Report and the Public Incentive Review Committee minutes were in the City Commission packets.  She said the Commission has reviewed and followed these tax abatement issues very closely.  She thanked Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, for the amount of time and work he put into producing this report.  She then asked for public comment.  

Graham Kreicker, speaking on behalf of the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance, said they wanted to commend Prosoco for seeking another tax abatement for a new project that would create jobs paying $10 to $15 per hour.  These new jobs are in line with the living wage rates they have proposed which is a wage 30% above the poverty level for a family of three.  He said they herald this as a timely example of Lawrence’s continuing ability to attract and retain firms paying living wages.  It reaffirms their conviction that the City Commission should also have no hesitancy to incorporate a living wage amendment into its tax abatement policy. 

He said he also personally wanted to commend Sauer Danfoss, not only for the $20,000,000 in investment in this town, but the fact that they do pay living wages.

On the other hand, they are concerned that Davol has been left out of the PIRC investigation of the other 13 firms that received tax abatements.  Although Davol would cease operations in March, throwing 130 employees out of work, they are a thriving division of C.R. Bard, a Fortune 500 member of the New York Stock Exchange.  Davol would continue operating plants across the U.S., Puerto Rico, Mexico and Malaysia.  For the quarter ended June 30, they reported record sales of $317.5 million.  It was their 14^th consecutive quarter of growth of 7% or better.  C.R. Bard is in such good shape that they recently rejected a $3.2 billion dollar buyout.  C.R. Bard’s, CEO, William Longfield had a salary in the year 2001 of $2.1 million dollars, plus $576,000 in stock options.             

Davol’s workers in Lawrence are not so lucky.  In 1991, Davol received a 50% tax abatement valued at up to $890,000.  Then, the Journal World carried stories about the low pay of the workers, which started just $0.25 above the minimum wage.  It appears that nothing has changed in 10 years.  With veteran workers still not making a living wage.  Now, Davol is pulling up stakes and saying “Adios” to Lawrence the year after their tax abatement ended.

He said they respectfully requested that the PIRC undertake the same analysis of Davol’s operations over the last 10 years that they have done for other firms that are not leaving town.  What wages are actually paid, how many jobs were actually created, and how long ago did employment levels start to dwindle below the promised level?  Lawrence would get no long-term benefits from Davol’s $900,000 tax abatement.  Commissioners and citizens alike need to know what short-term benefits accrued to this deal, if any.

He presented the City Commission with some information that was prepared by the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance to study the situation about the Davol story as told in the pages of the Lawrence Journal World.

Kirk McClure, Public Incentives Review Committee member, said he also wanted to thank Frank Reeb for his Herculean effort in preparing this report, but he wanted to inform the Commission about what was missing in the report.  What is missing was a summary or any sense of figuring out the policy implications of what we find.  He had three points to address.

He said the first point is that the tax abatement program is not working well.  Only six of the fourteen firms analyzed are producing the jobs they promised and/or provided the investment that they promised.  He said he studied the economic development literature and he was not finding good indicators of what should be the benchmarks or how many we should expect to be in compliance.  McClure said we should only have a couple of firms out of compliance.  Yet, we are scoring a 43%, this means that the program is not working well in Lawrence.

He said secondly, he thought the City has been misadvised to use this program.  He said they have been at this for a number of years.  What is happening is that we are running contrary to what we see going on in our own City and what the research tells us about the successes and failures in cities throughout the Country that in fact, tax abatements do not work as a means to attract firms to a community.  What we need is a mechanism to help us improve the way we do economic development is to have an Economic Development Planner on staff, inside City Hall.  He said we needed to have a Planner who responds to the City and who is beholden to all the citizens of the City.  We need to have that be a professional Planner who understands the State of the Art of Economic Development planning.  That means among other things to recognize that there are few areas of consensus in the planning literature like this one that said, “tax abatement don’t work.”

McClure said his third point was to respond to some of the criticisms that have been raised about our own concerns about tax abatements.  He said that is if we in fact decide to take the report as we see it, and decide to enforce the tax abatement agreements that were created, that we would create a climate that would not be good for business.  He said he contended, in fact, the situation is completely the opposite.  He said we already knew from the research how we market the City for prospective firms.  What creates a business friendly climate is the availability of a labor force that is well educated and competitively priced; the need to have sites for development that are well serviced with utilities and other infrastructures; and the available financing, both in the private sector and because Kansas is very lucky in that it has a very large amount of industrial revenue bond funding relative to the size of our state which are all available here in Lawrence.  He said we find that taxes are not an important issue in attracting firms, unless, in fact the firm is very high tax community.  He said we know from reports that business taxation is on a par with elsewhere in the region.  From national studies, we know that the business taxation level is below the national average, so in fact, we’re very competitively priced.

Finally, with regard to the business climate, we need to think about the City’s reputation, which was a difficult matter.  The report shows that we grant tax abatements to firms whose benefit/cost ratio is at or below 1%.  We know from some of the others that we had to artificially extend the benefit/cost analysis beyond the life of the abatement in order to get the benefit/cost ratio above 1%.  That should not be done.  We should only be even considering, deals that are effectively well above 1%.  The willingness to give out abatements were for only marginally beneficial projects.  On the flip side of this, was to not enforce the abatements where we find non-compliance creates a double problem.  We have resentment among the business community.  The people who are producing jobs and investment and paying full taxes which creates difficult situations for City staff in the future as staff negotiates future economic development incentives.  We are now in a situation where there is a climate of distrust.  The City is known now, not to enforce its own tax abatements.  We need to think about that aspect of the business climate.       

Jere McElhaney, Douglas County Commissioner and member of the PIRC, said he also wanted the thank Frank Reeb for all the information that was provided to the Public Incentive Review Committee.  He said he was not a fan of tax abatements and that this started long ago before his time, but he had to be realistic in that it was part of the world today and it is the game we have to play. 

McElhaney said recruiting business into Lawrence and Douglas County was just like football recruiting, you have to pull out all of the strengths and weaknesses of your school and encourage that athlete to come to your University.  He said we have to be very business friendly.  Tax abatements are working in this community.  He said two examples where tax abatements were successful in this community and often overlooked were the University of Kansas and Haskell Indian Nations University.              

In Table 4 of the Tax Abatement Report, when looking at the average salary of employees and the benchmark from KDHR 2000 Annual Survey, you would see that all companies are up.  In Table 6, he noted that you could see the local expenditures and sales that each one of our businesses made in our community.  Table 7 shows what impact these businesses have in our community and how they reach out to make Lawrence and Douglas County so much better.

McElhaney said he praised the companies that have worked under these abatement policies.  He said the City did not promise these companies a perfect or rosy economic future when they came to the City of Lawrence asking for tax abatements.  These businesses took a chance to come into our community and maybe it is our fault that we did not provide them the basic economic conditions that the company could work under.   

He said as a member of the Douglas County Commission, he said they were in favor of these abatements.

Marci Francisco, President of the League of Women Voters for Lawrence and Douglas County, said the league was pleased that the 2001 Tax Abatement Report was modified to include much needed information.  She said they wanted to recognize all of the hard work on the part of the PIRC members and City staff.

In 1999, the League of Women Voters did a study and adopted a position on tax abatements and several of their recommendations have been met.  She said there was other recommendations such as the in-lieu taxes should be adjusted annually.  She said they would like to encourage the committee and staff to review this position in hopes that further review of tax abatements would become even more comprehensive and a valuable resource in guiding our economic development policy and procedures.  She presented the Commission with a letter that included a copy of this position.  She said the League was one of the many groups that did endorse the Living Wage Alliance.

Larry Kipp, Lawrence, said he was pleased that the PIRC has done this report.  He said in 1996, he asked the City Commission to please examine the City’s tax abatement portfolio, look at its performance so it could be improved.  It took a long time, but we are finally getting there.  He said this report was not perfect and thought some of the wage information concerning average wages was a blend of upper level and lower level wages.  He said hopefully in the future, we could get more detailed information according to the particular job categories.

The tax abatement portfolio is an investment portfolio by the City and it needs to be looked at every year by the City Commission.  He said for now, since this is our first look at what is going on with these tax abatements, that it is important to not have any knee jerk reactions.  He said he was concerned that some of these companies are under performing, but when you take a first look at something and see something that is not right, you could not necessarily diagnose the problem right away.  He said you have to get familiar with the type of data that is coming in and the performance that you expect.  This would only occur with a track record, and over time, it could be explained. 

He said it could be that the companies that are not doing as well had the worst cost benefit ratio to begin with and that might be a warning that we ought to pay attention to the cost benefit ratio more and stay away from anything that is close to 1%.  For now, we ought to be grateful that we have this data and up to par with being responsible in our investment portfolio.  He said he was looking forward to new data and eventually develop the experience to be able to deal with this type of issue competently.

Wayne Parks, Lawrence, said he was trying to point out the living wage earlier, when he spoke.  He said when we talk about tax abatements it seems that we are talking about working people and services jobs as a commodity.  He said without the consideration of the ordinary working people in Lawrence, Lawrence wouldn’t be what it is today or in the past.  He asked whenever tax abatements are granted, to think about living wages.

Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, said she wanted to thank the PIRC for all of their hard work in helping guide staff in drafting this report.   She said by far, this was the best report since granting abatements.  She especially wanted to thank Dave Corliss and Frank Reeb, the staff that found the data that she requested.  She said we were off to a good start as far as reporting and that was a direct result the PIRC committee.  She also thanked Commissioner Henry.

Henderson said she tries to attend all of the PIRC meetings and follows the process to understand what the committee was trying to look for to help the committee do their job.  She said all of the abatements were granted under the old policy and now we have a new policy that explains how to go about reviewing the tax abatements.  She said there were some sections of the policy she felt could be improved, but overall she thought this report was the outcome of the new policy.  This meant that we were trying to look at old abatements under a new policy and thought there was some question as to whether or not we could actually make any changes, adjustments, or modification to abatements under the policy.  Under Section 22, Annual Review of the old policy, it does indicate that if any of the criteria on which the abatement is granted are not adequately satisfied, the City Commission may remove or modify the exemption.  She said she did not think anyone was at the meeting to ask the Commission to pull an abatement without trying to work with a company, but she said she wanted the Commission to be aware that the policy under which all of these abatements were granted does have that statement.  She said when you look at the criteria for tax abatements some of the criteria asked for the number of new jobs, earnings, and the benefits that would be provided.  She said this report indicates that there are some companies who have been granted abatements, who have not met the number of new jobs and possibly the earnings and the benefits. 

She said she understood that we didn’t want to appear to be business unfriendly if we start modifying abatements because a company isn’t performing, but at the same time, she would like to hear Commission discussion about companies who have been granted abatements who are performing.  She asked where is the equity.  She hoped to have discussion and to have a game plan developed as to what we could do to the companies that do have abatements now and how to work with them and be clear what our options are, if they are not performing.

Mayor Hack said the Commission’s action was to receive the report.  She asked for Commission comment.

Commissioner Kennedy said he would like to thank Mayor Hack for chairing the PIRC.  He said there were numerous meetings and it was a challenging aspect to take on for our community as we have provided tax abatements to some business that have not met the City’s expectations.  He suggested that the Commission conduct a study session and visit with staff in regards to City Commission direction.  He also suggested that City staff and the Chamber of Commerce come together for open discussions with these businesses that are not meeting their projections when they initially were granted their tax abatements.  He said the City needs to help business survive to keep our jobs in the City of Lawrence.                              

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to thank everyone including the Mayor and Vice Mayor, staff and other members of the PIRC for their efforts.  He said he wanted to recognize that staff has improved both reporting and record keeping.  On the same hand, there is still further work to be done to get our records complete and in order and to keep improving our analysis. 

He said it was appropriate to be admonished by other speakers and not have any major reactions and to look at this carefully in light of speakers got up in opposites ends of the spectrum with the County Commission saying the tax abatements were working and McClure saying they weren’t working.  Obviously, we have to take some time to study this and thought a study session might be appropriate.  He also thought it might be appropriate for the PIRC to take time to come to a consensus on a summary and recommendations, but might be impossible because the committee was divided.  Commissioner Rundle said he did think this was an open question.  There were other communities that make the choices to put their efforts in other areas and certainly thought when we look at applying our policy, it is implied that were not going to be ridged and not recognize the downturn of the economy and be flexible when their extenuating circumstances.  

He said he questioned the philosophy that applying a policy, looking at claw backs, or even saying “no” sometimes is business unfriendly.  The fact that we have a policy implies all of this.  He said he did not see how the process of review and granting tax abatements is any different from any of us going to a bank for a loan where there were clear expectations of demonstrating a plan and certain performance.  Also, all of us who have jobs have expectations that have to be met when you apply for a grant, which was meeting certain criteria and report. 
            Commissioner Rundle said he was absolutely finished hearing about “business unfriendly” without having a discussion on specifically what we could do to address that.  It came up whenever Mayor Henry’s Task Force, at that time, on tax abatements was held.  He said he asked members of that committee to get together to identify those things that are clearly not working.  He said he thought the community was ready to be “business unfriendly.”  He said he did not agree that was the City’s image.  He said when the City was doing an Image Survey, members of that committee reported that a survey done in the City showed that the City image from the outside was neutral.  When Lynn Parman, Vice President, Economic Development, Chamber of Commerce, came to Lawrence for her job interview, she recognized Lawrence as a progressive community.  The fact that we are one of the few growing areas in the State of Kansas, clearly indicates that we must be doing something right.  We couldn’t be total “business unfriendly” or we wouldn’t have the record of firms coming to Lawrence.

He said the American Planning Association or other professional associations have specific city service related methods to analyze services performed by cities.  He said he wanted to talk about concrete specific problems and address them rather than just presuming that there is this “business unfriendly” climate.

Commissioner Henry said he was the person that formed the Tax Abatement Task Force last year.  He said he put together a committee of 16 people who represented very diverse views in this community from very much in favor of abatements to opposed, but most of the people were middle ground and wanted to learn.  We all learned a great deal.  He said they learned in a perfect world there was no such thing as tax abatements, but we also learned that there was no such thing as a perfect world.  He said this is a very competitive world.  There are communities and states that are desperately vying for that economic development dollar.  We have to be competitive, we have to be aware of that or we’re going to lose the whole ball game. 

He said he put together this Task Force and worked together for 7 months.  He said they argued and disagreed, but at the end of each meeting, they came together in a spirit of cooperation and agreement.  During those 7 months they talked many topics including living wage and found out also, that they disagreed on living wage.  He said they agreed that those companies that come here and offered less than a living wage ultimately that salary appreciated into a living wage.  That was why they chose as a committee not to include the living wage into the tax abatement document simply because it sends a wrong message to businesses. 

He said the adopted policy is different.  It is a better policy, thanks to the Tax Abatement Task Force.  For example, the new policy requires a performance agreement and if the business fails, during the businesses annual review there is a claw back provision.  The City Commission could modify that tax abatement in accordance with the failure to meet the performance agreement. 

He said the new policy also has a target objective of a combined positive cost benefit ratio and it is spelled out (1.25).  He said he felt strongly that those companies that applied for a tax abatement under the old policy should not be held accountable to the new policy and its much more stringent requirements and to do otherwise, is a show of bad faith.  He said it would undermine the credibility of the economic development initiative of this community and the government that implements it.  

Vice Mayor Dunfield said the issue of the performance agreement is one that represents a very significant improvement in our tax abatement policy.  The work of the review committee this year brought forward some of the weaknesses in the past policy and in our ability to set clear standards and to understand the standards and consequences. 

The wage information that is contained in this year’s report is still fairly ambiguous, we actually have two separate benchmarks for wages and it’s really not clear what wage standards we are wanting to hold companies to, based on the current report.  He said this was an issue for on-going study and one that we need to refine as this process goes on. 

The basic policy question that he thought this raised is one of how we ensure accountability from those companies that are granted tax relief under our abatement policy and at the same time maintain the flexibility to help those companies succeed and to recognize economic conditions.  He said he did not know that we had an answer to that yet.  He thought the new tax abatement policy helps us along that way.  He also thought that the future review committees as they go on from year to year and compare past data to the current data would develop a better idea of how to resolve that policy issue, but certainly we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to ask accountability from companies to whom we grant tax breaks and that is clear in our old policy as well as in the new policy.  He said it is a matter of resolving how we get there and how we make those negotiations.

Mayor Hack said she thought one of the things discovered with this new policy was that we have strict rules and standards by which tax abatements would be granted.  She thanked Larry Kipp for his comments and said he was exactly on target in terms of not having a knee jerk reaction to this issue because we are in a sense trying to apply new rules to old agreements.  The new policy does set forth a performance agreement between the applicant and the City and that did not exist in a formal sense prior to this new policy. 

The PIRC would annually review compliance with that performance agreement and forward that review to the City Commission.  The policy states that if the City Commission determines that a business or project is not in compliance with the performance agreement then the tax exemption may be modified pursuant to the performance agreement as the City Commission deems appropriate. 

The purpose of the PIRC is not to evaluate whether the City should or should not grant tax abatements as matter of principle.  That is a road we have gone down with Commissioner Henry’s Task Force that is a decision that came to her with a very large group of diverse individuals.  The charge of the PIRC is to look at the future applications in light of the new policy and to review the abatements annually.  Through the discussion that they had at the PIRC, this discussion pointed out to her how grateful she was for the months of hard work that the committee did and that they were able to come together to develop a policy that would serve this community well into the future.  She agreed that this was a work in progress and hopefully we’ll have lots of opportunities to look at companies who would like to come to Lawrence or existing companies that want to expand and increase the number of jobs available to our citizens.      (23) 

Mark Wilson, Planner, presented the Text Amendment to the Joint City/County Subdivision Regulations to include a definition of the term ‘undue hardship.’  He said the term ‘undue hardship’, is currently used by the Planning Commission as a standard to grant variances from the Subdivision Regulations.

Mayor Hack said this entails changing ‘undue hardship’ to ‘unnecessary hardship’.  She said ‘unnecessary hardship’ has been used in Kansas Supreme Court cases over the last 50 years.  She asked if staff was trying to bring the City into compliance with what is being used.

Wilson said yes.

After no public comment, Commissioner Rundle said this was another one of those areas where you start with “thanks.”  The initial groundwork came from special committees and many study sessions.  He said this would help clarify application of this policy.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Text Amendment (TA-05-03-02) to Section 21-901.6 of the Joint City/County Subdivision Regulations to include a definition of the term ‘Undue Hardship.’  Motion carried unanimously.                                                       (24)    

Mayor Hack called for a 10-minute recess.  She informed the public of a 3-minute time limit for each person to make public comment regarding the proposed floodplain regulations.

Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the proposed Text Amendment (TA-08-02-01) to Chapter 20, Article 9A regarding floodplain development/management requirements.  He said staff has provided a memo outlining the different options that the Commission could take concerning this issue. 

He said this issue was a culmination of approximately 1.5 years of work and many different drafts of floodplain amendments.  He said Version No. 1 is a text amendment that does not include the additional two-feet of freeboard for areas within the current City limits and Version No. 2 does include the additional two-fee of freeboard which is called the “Drainage Protection Overlay District.”

Currently within the City limits, there are a number of areas of properties that have drainage easements across them.  Those drainage easements are much more restrictive than the “Drainage Protection Overlay District” by a long stretch.  Those drainage easements never seem to bring up any type of issue.  In Version No. 2, there was a large amount of public comment that had been made in regards to the stigma that has been associated with the floodplain connotation being with the property and this is why it was renamed the “Drainage Protection Overlay District.”   Version No. 2 also serves as trying to get out in front of the floodplain.  The floodplain had expanded between 1981 and 2001, particularly in North Lawrence by a large measure.  People in North Lawrence and elsewhere that have not been in the 1981 FEMA Floodplain with the adoption of the 2001 floodplain maps are suddenly receiving letters from their lenders stating they had to get flood insurance by virtue of Federal law.  Version No. 2 is an attempt to forewarn residents that live in the “Drainage Protection Overlay District” because when the maps are redone by FEMA, they could potentially be required to get flood insurance by Federal law. 

He said neither Version No. 1 or Version No. 2 changes the FEMA floodplain and none of the proposed drafts included additional land for federal purposes.  This is strictly for regulations in regards to the City.

Commissioner Kennedy asked in regards to the “Drainage Protection Overlay District”, if a realtor who was selling a house and the house was in the new two-foot freeboard drainage overlay protective district, would he be required to tell the buyer that they need flood insurance or potentially floodplain insurance when the floodplain grows?  Kennedy also asked with this connotation of changing the name, would that change the perception of the property owner, realtor, and the mortgage person?

Dyer said in regards to notification, the notification for Version No. 2 had been reduced from the previous version that came out of the Special Projects Committee.  The only requirement for notification for property in the “Drainage Protection Overlay District” is a notification.  Also, that there is some restrictive development practices and to contact the Planning Office for additional information which is much less of a notification than if you live next to a drainage easement.

In regards to flood insurance, the flood insurance requirement stems from Federal statutes, which requires lenders to require flood insurance of any improved property that is in the floodplain area within a FEMA floodplain.  As for the “Drainage Protection Overlay District” by itself, there is no federal requirement to get flood insurance if an improved property is in the “Drainage Protection Overlay District.”  He said there has been a lot of public testimony stating that if for example, someone in New York does the underwriting and sees floodplain on the appraisal than that going to make bells and whistle go off and therefore, flood insurance would be required.  He said that is why they changed it to “Drainage Protection Overlay District.” 

Commissioner Rundle said one of the primary concerns that residents had is that our regulations would require property owners to carry flood insurance.  He said it’s the Federal FEMA Designated Floodplain that leads to that requirement.  He said he has tried to explain to people that the floodplain does grow because of development. 

Dyer said this was a very important factor into why the additional two-foot area is an important part of the floodplain regulations.  As the City urbanized, which would increase the amount of rooftops, pavement, and impervious surfaces, and as the water runs into the floodplain, even with stormwater detention, it still increases the floodplain.  He said there are two important aspects floodplain increases, which was width wise and depth wise. 

Commissioner Rundle said either version is a step above the minimum requirement of FEMA.

Dyer agreed. 

Commissioner Rundle said when we go above FEMA’s standards, we are eligible to apply for a reduction in overall flood insurance rates.

Dyer agreed.  That is one of the positive benefits that would hopefully, in time, come out of any adoption of more stringent floodplain regulations.  He said there is a system called CRS (Community Rating System) that FEMA rates communities, based upon their floodplain regulations.  Everybody within the City who has flood insurance would get a 5% decrease in their flood premiums and obviously, as more stringent regulations are adopted, the higher and bigger benefits all residents in the floodplain would see.

Vice Mayor Dunfield said on this subject discussed in the study session, the estimate on the reduction in flood insurance premium costs on Version 2 was in the order of 15% to 20%.

Dyer said yes.   That is a potential break on flood insurance.

Vice Mayor Dunfield said he would like to reiterate that the 2001 FEMA maps are developed by the federal government and the City of Lawrence has no authority to reduce the size of the floodplain.  We have to accept those maps and Versions 1 and 2 are identical in terms of the size of the floodplain.

Dyer said yes.  We are somewhat at the mercy of the federal government.  The federal government is the only underwriter of flood insurance.  Therefore, they could make communities who wish to participate in the flood insurance program adopt the maps that they have set.  Communities get the opportunity to challenge the maps, which were done for our City’s maps.  There has been a long public process and a lot of notification.  Communities must adopt the FEMA maps in order to participate in the flood insurance program.  The additional two-foot of freeboard gives the local community some ability to control those maps somewhat.  The ability to look forward to do some predictions and try to provide folks with some notice that when the next maps come out, they have the potential to be in a floodplain.

Vice Mayor Dunfield said the other aspect that wasn’t mentioned was that drainage protection district also gives us the opportunity to restrict new development in that area and thereby keeping the floodplain from expanding as much as it would without the district.

Dyers agreed.  It keeps development in the floodplain area more restrictive and therefore, as the floodplain expanded, there would be less people getting notices requiring them to purchase flood insurance.

Vice Mayor Dunfield said within that drainage protection district, new development would have to meet a no rise standard, meaning it would have to not contribute to additional flooding.   This would help keep the size of the floodplain down.

Dyer said another important factor of that “Drainage Protection Overlay District” is that people that are in the fringe of the floodplain build two-foot up which is what they are required to do above base flood.  Now, all of a sudden, the home that is in the floodplain is higher than the home that is not in the floodplain, which creates trouble for the person that is not in the floodplain.  So by adding the additional two-foot area beyond, homes are being built high enough so that they are not going to take on their neighbor’s water.  This happens regularly, people build on the fringe of the floodplain and the person next to them is suddenly below the house that is built in the floodplain.

Commissioner Rundle asked Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, if that freeboard area has been called arbitrary in some concerns.

Voigt said the two feet originated from the fact that we require residences to elevate two-feet.  This is done because it is a factor of safety or a freeboard against flooding.  When we look at what FEMA regulations are on elevation when building a house, you have to be two feet above that.  The assumption is that if everybody in the world is two feet above, that they are protected.  The alternative to assigning the two feet would be to do an actual study of the whole City using hydrologic and hydraulic models to determine what the actual depth would be once the entire City is developed.  This engineering study would cost the City a lot of money.  

Commissioner Rundle asked how much would it cost.

Voigt said approximately ½ million dollars.  He said we spent a ¼ million dollars on our Master Plan to evaluate our drainage system for areas that should be improved.  To take that further and evaluate every stream tributary and where properties are elevated would be much more work.  The alternative is to assume the two-feet.  That two-feet is less in some areas and more in other areas. 

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

Emma Barger Ridley, North Lawrence, said as of now, her property is not in the FEMA floodplain, but with the City’s new development, it could be in the City’s floodplain overlay.  She has a failed septic system and due to the City ordinance, she was unable to replace this system and therefore needed to connect to the sewer.  She said she has contacted the City and has been told that to connect to the sewer was the property owners’ responsibility.  The sewer ends in the middle of Oak Street and it must be brought down approximately 200’ to the end of 9^th and Oak.  She was told the City would not bring the sewer down 9^th Street at all, or down part of 9^th and half of Walnut, which encumbers part of the property. 

Ridley said she also needed to build another house on the property due to the foundation problems from the failed septic system.  She said her house is approximately 100 years old and had sand for insulation.  She said she needed to take care of her 5 year old daughter and her elderly mother who had health problems.  She said she needed to know whether or not the two-foot elevation would be required for their new development, what version would be passed, and how does that affect her.  She said her property did not flood in 1993 and there has never been any standing water on that property, nor water in the ditches.  She said her property did flood in 1951, but it was not until the end of the flood that it finally reached that section of the house.

Don Hopkins, North Lawrence, said he has lived in Lawrence all his life and lived in North Lawrence for the last 40 years.    He said where he lived has never flooded except in the 1951 flood.  He said he thought it was a forward decision to penalize people that had never been in a flood by requiring a two-foot overlay.  He had a concern about selling his property with the new flood regulation, which makes his property depreciate.  He said he did not think the two foot overlay was right and asked the Commission to approve Version 1.

Mel Wedermyer, Lawrence, Deerfield Woods No 3., said he purchased his property in December of 1999, which was the first house in that development.  He said he had a nice lot, and the floodplain was right along his back property line.  He said he knew that he would acquire flood insurance because things do happen, but this new overlay, puts the line right down the middle of his property and he was concerned that his property values would decrease because of this or if something happened to his house such as a fire, he would have to build it up to meet the new regulations.  He said he did not think his house should be in that area because when they built the house, he wanted to make sure it was two-foot above the floodplain and the lowest opening of the windows in the basement were built to these standards, but it still shows that half his property is inside of it.  He said if the Commission approves Version No. 2, that the hydrological survey, just to not penalize people saying they are and then have to pay to prove that your not.  He hoped the Commission would pass Version No. 1.

Ted Boyle, President of North Lawrence Association, said at their meeting last night, they discussed this floodplain overlay or drainage district.  Personally, he said calling it a drainage district insults the intelligence of people.  The residents of North Lawrence, at the meeting last night, unanimously voted for Version No. 1.  He said they felt that the established residents and business in North Lawrence should not be penalized with Version No. 2., and believed that this problem is caused by new development in North Lawrence.  He said they also felt that the new development should accept the financial responsibility of this floodplain overlay district, and not the established residents. 

Boyle said if they had a drainage system in North Lawrence, which they did not have, if you live north of the railroad tracts, there is no drainage system.  He said the people of North Lawrence do not feel threatened by the Kansas River.  He said the problem is the drainage from the north, which happened in 1993 prior to the pump on North 2^nd Street.  The pump on North 2^nd Street takes less than 10% of the water out of North Lawrence.  Anything past 3^rd Street to the east, they did not have any storm drainage as well as from the railroad tracks north.  The lack of a storm drainage system is the problem in North Lawrence especially when you have development to the north.  He said they felt that this financial burden should fall on undeveloped land to the north and not the residents of North Lawrence. 

He said when you pay flood insurance, people that are in the FEMA floodplain that were not in it, but are in it now since November 2001, has called him and informed him that their flood insurance ranged from $300 to $600 a year.    He said the residents of North Lawrence have lived and coped in the North Lawrence area and accepted it. 

David Geyer, representing LAN, said he wanted to read one sentence in their whole policy statement about development in flood ground, which said “Residential, commercial, and industrial development should be discouraged in flood prone areas.”   He said he was glad to see that they were doing that.

Bill Yanek, representing the Lawrence Builder/Realtor Coalition, said he agreed with Dyer on one point, which was that we do have a FEMA floodplain since November 2001 in place.  He said it is the coalition’s opinion that we ought to regulate as the federal government dictated.  He said they supported Version No. 1 and thought it was a good compromise position.  It does provide additional flood protection by adding the freeboard only to newly annexed properties.  He said Version No. 1 passed on a strong 8 to 2 vote from the Planning Commission.  He said one point that has been brought up and that they agree with is, stigma is stigma, when it’s on the property, call it floodplain overlay district, drainage protection district.  Stigma on property is going to stay there when that property tries to change hands.  Finally, the coalition believed as a community, it was time to move forward on this issue.  He said the coalition urged the Commission to pass Version No. 1.

Tim Holverson, Vice President of Public Policy for the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, said in February 2002 the Chamber’s Board of Directors unanimously supported the FEMA guidelines as being strict enough.  However, in the spirit of compromise, Version No. 1, they felt, was a fair compromise for all involved that in lieu of a comprehensive Hydrological and Hydraulic study. 

He said he wanted to bring up three brief points.  One, they did not think it was fair to penalize existing businesses and residents with the two-foot freeboard component. Secondly, if Douglas County passes anything less stringent, and there is a strong likelihood that they would, there would be increased pressure on rural development over which we would ultimately have less control.  Finally, Boyle brought up a good point, which was the real problem, is a drainage issue.  The stormwater utility fees and those projects are moving forward to address those problems.  Again, they asked for support of Version No. 1.

Wayne Parks, Lawrence, said he did not live in North Lawrence, but had a daughter and son-in-law that bought a new house in North Lawrence several years ago and their land was raised, but every time you build a new house that is raised, water has to go somewhere.  He said generally speaking, a lot of these areas that have a potential of flooding should never be developed.

David Reynolds, Lawrence, said he wanted to respond to the question about drainage easement versus a “Drainage Protection Overlay District.”  He said the impact is significant regardless of what was told earlier, in its action.  In a drainage easement, you’re just not allowed to fill, block, or do anything to the easement.  Whereas in a “Drainage Protection Overlay District” all of the things that were talked about in the ordinances apply such as the notices, insurance etc.  The impact of a drainage easement versus a “Drainage Protection Overlay District” is significant.

Reynolds said, relative to requirement for flood insurance, he is building 3 properties that are in the two-foot freeboard area.  The bank required him to have flood insurance. 

He said the two-foot freeboard is in fact very “arbitrary” because we don’t know.  He asked what is the City’s responsibility.   It appears that in the ordinance, all of the cost and impact are placed on the citizens whether it is a builder, developer or an individual citizen.  They have to do the studies and buy the insurance.  He asked why couldn’t the City cough up what ever the dollars are and find out what the real answer is.  It appears that we are unwilling to do that.  He asked why could we put this issue up to a vote and apply the results of that to a real plan.  This ordinance does not solve the real problems.   He supported Version No. 1, but would like to make a recommendation to find out the real answers.

Vice Mayor Dunfield asked Reynolds if he understood it that he was paying flood insurance on property that is now in the freeboard and not in the FEMA floodplain.

Reynolds said yes.  The community has already responded to this because everyone was afraid of getting sued.   The realtor’s are already telling people that this is a potential two-foot freeboard area whether it is a new or existing home.  He said the market is responding to this issue because there is a tremendous responsibility associated with this.  Regardless of the discussion of whether or not we think there is going to be a negative impact, it is already there.  He said he has already written this into his disclaimers. 

Joyce Wolf, President of the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association, said she was also asked to testify for the Conservation Committee for the Jayhawk Society.  She said she wanted to address some issues concerning stormwater on 21^st and Stewart.  She said the stormwater at this location would send more water down Naismith and have some adverse effects on the downstream residents. 

She said although they supported what the stormwater management fees were doing, they needed to have those kinds of things in effect and backing up further, this was another reason what we should adopt and should take into effect the downstream effects of development within watersheds.

The original FEMA regulations that were written along time ago were for those structures that were built in floodplains and had suffered flood losses, which were mitigated.  She said unfortunately, it has been corrected so that we are now encouraging people who put in two-feet of freeboard, they are allowed to build in a floodplain.

Michael Almon, Lawrence, said he received a letter from the Lawrence Builder/Realtor Coalition, as well as being notified by the City, that he would be in the two-foot freeboard if these regulations were adopted.  He said he was in favor of the two-foot freeboard and did not appreciate the Lawrence Builder/Realtor Coalition misrepresenting him and misrepresenting the issues.  The coalition claimed that the two-foot drainage overlay would cause property values to decrease as well as stigmatize properties.  However, the development itself is development that would expand the floodplain.  Put water where it needs to be flowing from the developed properties that are raised onto exiting properties next door.  Those people next door are the one’s that would be victimized by developers, not the other way around.  He said this has been true in North Lawrence, Prairie Meadow, a creek in East Lawrence and the Santa Fe Creek drainage area, which the City is spending half million dollars to improve the drainage there.  He said this is also the case at East Hills Business Park, which the City annexed for Douglas County Development Inc., that was putting massive amounts of floodwater on farm property nearby.  It’s the development that puts the properties next to them at risk.

He said the coalition also portrayed the City regulations put properties at risk.  He said the City adopting these regulations are actually using the precautionary principles so that people would be notified that they would be at risk by the circumstances that would result from development.  The City’s regulation would be protecting people by giving them advanced notice.  He said people are complaining that it is already happening, but that is the point of this regulation.  He said it was unfortunate that the current property owners are going to be suffering from flooding that would result in result of development.  Nevertheless, the climate change that is happening is also a factor in extreme weather variability and much more flooding.  The flooding is coming we’re simply using one foot as the next logical step that would eventually be the FEMA regulations.  Almon said we’re actually using the precautionary principle.  He said it is also irrelevant that we’re doing this in Version No. 1 or No. 2, because the City of Lawrence is going to be exempted from this. These regulations aren’t even going to apply to the City of Lawrence, its only part of the County that is not currently the City. 

Jackie Richardson, Lawrence, said the responsible thing for the City Commission to do is the Hydrological and Hydraulic study that would cost a half million dollars.  She said to her, that cost seemed minor compared to the amount of property value decreases that many people would undoubtedly would suffer under these proposed regulations, as well as the cost of flood insurance for all these to pay which essentially is another tax.  She encouraged the Commission to vote on Version No. 1.

Jim Turrentine, Lawrence, said that it was time to provide maximum relief for the 1,400 properties in the floodplain in the City of Lawrence.  It is time to give the owners maximum reduction in their flood insurance premiums.  It is time to provide maximum savings to the City and the taxpayers by minimizing the need for additional stormwater projects.  He asked that the Commission vote for the maximum protection for the people and make the effective date of implementation as soon as possible.  He said make the effective date on platted property now.  He said do not make 1, 400 properties pay 10% more on flood insurance for 5 more years so that a handful of people do not have to do the Hydrological and Hydraulic studies. 

The average cost for flood insurance in Lawrence is $385 per year.  The maximum protection could save people as much as 30% a year or $115.50 per property, per year.  This is $161,700 per year for the 1,400 properties now in the floodplain in the City of Lawrence.  Paying 10% more for flood insurance for 5 more years is $269,500.  Hydrological and Hydraulic studies are needed for proper development for these areas.  An exemption so that $15,000 in studies did not have to be done, does not make sense. 

We need maximum protection so that we could work off our stormwater projects at a level expenditure rate.  Maximum production now would avoid the need for over $100,000,000 in stormwater projects during the next 40 years.  He said please provide the people of Lawrence maximum protection from flooding and minimize the cost for everybody.

The builders have not demonstrated any convincing evidence that their concerns are valid.  He said not building by regulations is not better than being unprotected.  He said please protect the property values.  Protected property values would be more valuable than unprotected properties.  He asked the Commission to vote for Version No. 2.  He said Version No. 1 does not protect our property, Version No. 2 does.                                       

Jeanne Ellermeier, Lawrence, said she did not live in a floodplain or overlay district, but on top of the hill.  She said she was not threatened by any way, shape or form, except by which she saw happening.  She came to speak because she has lived in Lawrence a long time and had seen a lot go on with the flood problems.  She said she was there in the mid 80’s when the City Commission, at that time, would do away with the Lawrence floodplain zoning in order to invite more development.  She said the Commission eliminated the floodplain zoning and Lawrence has been paying for it ever since. 

She said there were 15 areas that were never built on until the floodplain zoning was eliminated.  Now they are all developed and all flooded at one time or another and all of us are paying for it.  We could not afford looking ahead.  She said the current Commission could not be accountable for what the Commission did 15 years ago, but consider that 15 years from now, somebody, on some Commission, is going to say why did that Commission let this happen.             

She said restrict development, make it harder, go ahead and adopt Version No. 2 of this plan because it protects the people, it does not penalize them. 

Steve Glass, Lawrence, said he wanted to address a couple of statements that Dyer made that he took strong exception to.  One statement had to do with equating “Drainage Protection Overlay District” to drainage easements.  He said this has been addressed by a couple of speakers, but they just simply are not the same thing and for Dyer to imply that they are, is being less than honest with the Commission. 

A drainage easement is generally along one of the property lines around a property, it does not go through the structure of the house.  He said you could not build in a drainage easement.  The impacts of a “Drainage Protection Overlay District” are vastly different. 

Secondly, Dyer made the statement that the floodplain is always expanding.  He said this was not correct.  The 1981 maps included some property that we currently own on East 31^st Street just a block East of Haskell, formerly known as the Dunbar Offices.  He said they bought that property in 1995, it was in the floodplain, based on the 1981 maps and paid flood insurance on that property.  When the new maps came out, somehow that property was no longer in the floodplain, despite the fact that there had been significant development all around it.  He said he did not have any clue why it went from being in the floodplain to being out of the floodplain, but it did, according to the federal government.  Now, if you would impose the two-foot freeboard, he would be back in the floodplain.  He said the real point is that even the floodplain maps at some point are not 100% accurate.  He said they weren’t either accurate in 1981 or not accurate in 2001.  To impose the two-foot freeboard simply compounds some of those inaccuracies.  He encouraged the City Commission to approve Version No. 1.  He thought it was a version that provides significant protection to the community without imposing the freeboard requirement that is going to harm a number or our residents.

Mayor Hack called for Commission discussion.

Commissioner Rundle asked about the penalizing of existing developed property.  He said he thought there was an exemption for existing properties coming under the guidelines.

Dyer said existing properties, particularly existing platted properties, are not required to do the Hydrological and Hydraulic study to develop.  He said one of the time periods the Commission could set was a deadline for which property has to be platted.  Property is platted and in the “Drainage Protection Overlay District” of the “Floodplain Overlay District” within that time does not require you to do the Hydrological and Hydraulic study.  The Planning Commission did add in to both Version No. 1 and No. 2, for residential property, they added a time in which they have 5 years to have that property developed.  If they don’t develop in that 5-year period, it is put back into the requirement to do the Hydrological and Hydraulic study.

Commissioner Rundle said he was talking about for existing “built” property.

Dyer said for existing built property, both Version No. 1 and No. 2, greatly enhance and build you a property that is in that additional two-foot area.

                Commissioner Rundle asked Dyer to comment on the property that was referred to as on the edge of the floodplain now, but the floodplain overlay district goes right through the middle of the property.  He asked how that property was penalized.

Dyer said he did not think it is particularly penalized. One must note that 25-30% of flood insurance claim payouts occur for property that is outside the FEMA floodplain area.  Almost a quarter of the claims come from property that is not even in FEMA’s floodplain, but they have bought flood insurance.  There’s not any particular detriment to having that overlay district go through the property in regards to what the ordinance says.

Commissioner Rundle asked if Dyer was implying that someone might get flood insurance even though they’re not required to.

Dyer stated that it happens all over the nation since folks are making flood claims and are not in the FEMA floodplain. 

Commissioner Rundle said that there are certain times when the hydraulic studies are required.  He then asked when they weren’t required.

Dyer said that was tied back to the platting process.  Property that is platted by a certain period would not be required to have an H&H study to develop.  There would be some additional restrictions particularly on the placement of fill and restrictions on the amount of impervious surface coveraging.    Once again, they must refer back to the 5-year period that was added for undeveloped residential property.  He stated that they had 5 years to get that property developed.  If someone has a home and wants to put an addition on it or they want to expand a business and it’s platted, there’s no H&H study required for that business or home to expand. 

Commissioner Rundle asked Voigt as he recalled the exempting of built properties seemed to come largely from the opinion that they’re not going to be adding to a problem, it’s new development that’s going to be adding to the problem of the floodplain.

Voigt asked if he was talking about the idea of exempting in watersheds that are primarily developed.

Commissioner Rundle said yes, exempting the built property.

Commissioner Dunfield said he was talking about not requiring elevation of floors for residential property that is already developed in the drainage protection district. 

Voigt stated that this was in both versions.  The assumption was it  would be difficult if a house were partly destroyed to elevate the whole structure.  

Commissioner Rundle, asked why even have the 90%, why not just simply say if they’re destroyed 100% they can be rebuilt or they can expand.  Rundle asked staff if they had any feeling on that.

Dyer said if the City Commission wished, the 90% requirement could be changed.  However, for the area in the FEMA floodplain, those are strict federal standards that state if your home is destroyed by 50%, you must elevate to rebuild.  So the 90% is only in reference to the area that the City is able to set their own guidelines.

Voigt said that the properties being talked about in the overlay district might even be higher already because they are outside FEMA’s floodplain.  If they are actually lower than the FEMA elevation and their house burns down, it would be a very good idea to elevate above FEMA’s elevation at that point. 

Commissioner Rundle said he had looked through the materials to find the collaborating material on the stigma.  It just didn’t seem to him that it was demonstrated, in fact it seemed like there were appraisers that were of the opinion that it’s a neutral affect of being in the floodplain and overlay district.

Voigt said they had a tough time convincing an appraiser that property the City wants to purchase is lower in value because it’s near the floodplain.  He stated that it has to work both ways.  He stated that he has property for one of the City’s projects that’s in the floodway and they really have to spell that out for this appraiser.

Commissioner Kennedy asked if the dark blue on the map was the FEMA floodplain and the light blue is the 2-foot freeboard. 

Voigt said yes.

Commissioner Kennedy said that was the trouble he was having with the two-foot freeboard.  He said he would like to see these maps with contour lines.   He said  this gives an example of what the floodway actually is through those areas.  He said if we seriously want to think about  Version No. 2, we really need to have the Hydraulic and Hydrology study for the entire community to make it equitable and feasible and to know exactly where this 2 foot line is going to run with the entire community and this is going to be very expensive. 

Voigt said staff didn’t actually see the FEMA laid over the contours until staff put this together and what was apparent was that the FEMA lines do not follow the topography well.  The light blue area follows the topography.  It takes the FEMA elevation that was given to staff and superimposes it on aerial topography that is within some error that staff accepts.  This makes the control of this area based on data that staff feels comfortable with.  In some areas, the FEMA maps don’t line up with the stream.  In some cases the FEMA area is up on the hillside above the stream and the stream itself is not mapped.  He said  that this happens more out in the County but the potential and same error occurs in the City.  By making this overlay district follow the topography, we’re getting a more realistic picture about who should be forewarned and who shouldn’t.  That’s one of the benefits from an engineering viewpoint that we have with this method.  FEMA in the 60’s and 70’s adopted their mapping system with the idea that property owners would use this as a warning.  This was putting out the word and leaving it up to people’s good judgment to stay back from those areas.  He said FEMA wrote their regulations to say that if you’re near the area, you have to do A,B,C and D.  The property owners were more than happy to do A,B, C and D because they could develop the ground.   What happened was, we got even more encroachment.  Prior to FEMA, people used common sense, after FEMA, they use regulations.  One of the things about the overlay districts, is that it goes back to the philosophy of saying that this is an area that’s at risk and this is an area that should be looked at in a different light than other areas.  Staff can recall 3 times that developments discharged into the floodplain and their was nothing the City regulations could do about it.  These were the Home Depot, Deerfield Woods Development, and Green Meadows.    Storm water criteria from 1996 are great, but there’s a section that says that if it discharges into the floodplain, you don’t have to do any stormwater management.  The whole reason for this discussion, is to try address this problem.  By expanding this to a common sense zone, we’re trying to address this problem. 

Commissioner Dunfield said this is an extremely important issue for the City.  This was a  turning point and a defining moment for what Lawrence is going to be.  If Lawrence is going to be a great city, we need to make the tough decisions that are required to achieve great policies.   He said current policy in the City of Lawrence is the minimum required by federal law in order to participate in flood insurance programs.  If we want to be a minimum city, then we could leave our regulations alone.  Both of the versions that are in front of the Commission are compromises in nature.  They both allow development to continue in floodplains, they both allow people living in floodplains who choose to take that risk to continue to take that risk.  We need to do as much as we possibly can avoid penalizing people and thought were close to that.  The Planning Commission's special committee that studied these regulations at the City Commission’s direction came up with a very good definition which has not been talked about at all tonight.  He would call it a golden rule for development in flood prone areas.  Development can occur as long as it does not increase the flood hazard for its neighbors.  This is what was determined to be the standard.  This is the standard that we have to measure our actions against in this matter.  When we do that, we come to the conclusion that the freeboard area is required.  It’s required because it will reduce flood insurance costs for property owners in the FEMA floodplain as much as 20%.  It’s required because it will limit growth of floodplain areas and reduce the number of new people who end up in the floodplain as a result of development.  It will reduce the potential hazard to those who are in flood prone areas.  It will protect property values because it protects property for all of these reasons mentioned.  It provides needed information to property owners and potential property owners about the risks they are taking.  We cannot afford to not inform people of the risks.   All of this leads to a support of Version No. 2 with two modifications.  These modifications will try to reduce the penalty on those who are in this drainage protection overlay district.

The first modification is to paragraph 20-11-0406D, which talks about a residential structure being destroyed by more than 90%.  He stated that he would like the 90% eliminated and say if a residential structure is damaged or destroyed, it may be rebuilt without elevating the structure to comply with the provisions of these regulations.  If you have a property and its damaged or destroyed, you can rebuild it without elevating the floor level and so forth and he would recommend the same change for nonresidential structures which is 20-11-0407-C.

The other suggestion, which was sparked by Commissioner Kennedy’s comments at the study session, was that we’ve already lost 5 years in the amount of time that FEMA took before it established these boundaries and it published them and allowed us to adopt them.  We’ve already lost another year in our own deliberations about what we’re doing about floodplains, so he would suggest that the Commission not lose anymore time and eliminate the paragraph (20-11-401-B) that allows for undeveloped residential property platted prior to some date to not do the H&H study until 2007.  He thought the Commission should eliminate that because that means that the full restrictions on new development in undeveloped drainage protection districts go into effect immediately rather than waiting another 5 years to take effect. 

Commissioner Rundle asked if Dunfield’s suggestions would send this issue back to the Planning Commission.

Linda Finger said that the Planning Commission sent the City Commission Version No. 1 with the recommendation for approval and Version No. 2 without.  Finger stated that what Commission Dunfield recommended, was changes to version 2.  If the Commission unanimously or by a supermajority approves Version No. 2, the City Commission has the final say.  If there is a simple majority, it must be sent back to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Dunfield said in other words, whatever language the Commission chooses, if it passes on a 4-1 vote, it doesn’t require reconsideration by the Planning Commission.

Finger agreed.

Mayor Hack stated that it might be helpful to review  the City  Commission’s procedures.  Version No.  1 came with a positive recommendation, so that takes a simple majority to approve and a supermajority to decline.  Version 2 is the opposite. 

Dyer said Version No. 1 came with a positive recommendation for approval, so a simple majority will approve that.   The City Commission would still need to take action on Version No. 2  to get that taken care of.  If there’s a simple majority to approve Version No. 2, then that would go back to the Planning Commission.  That would to go the Planning Commission’s next available meeting,  which is October 23^rd.  The Planning Commission would then review it and could modify it, then send it back to the City Commission.  Once it’s back to the City Commission, a simple majority to approve Version No. 2 would be all that’s required.   He wanted to remind the Commission that a previous memo, which was sent, stated that the version would have to be reviewed by the Kansas Department of Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources.  So whatever direction the City Commission gives the Planning Commission, they will draft that into an ordinance for the Division of Water Resources to review and they have up to 90 days to review it.  It will then come back to the City for 1^st and 2^nd reading. 

Mayor Hack said that this has been a long process and there are some very strong feelings on all sides.  Her feeling is that Version No. 1 does represents a compromise as they both do, but she stated that she felt that Version No. 1 is something that she can live with.  It is making a tough decision to accept Version No. 1 because it does expand what the minimum requirements are for FEMA maps.  She said  her concern is the residential property that is currently established.  She stated that she did not want those properties to bear the burden in the issue of fairness.   They’ll know the rules from the beginning and we’re not going to be making a change of rules in the middle of the game.  Hack said that she would support Version No. 1 for the preceding reasons.

Commissioner Rundle stated that Vice Mayor Dunfield’s suggestions are very good and he would support them.  He stated that he knew from the comments made, that people are not convinced that Version 2 is a threat.  However, he thought because it would put the controls in immediately, people would have protection from the expansion of the floodplain due to development right now.  With the exemptions from built property having to come under the requirements if their property is destroyed, it doesn’t appear to him that there is any requirement for owners to do anything immediately. He said he has never been convinced of this threat.  Voigt’s presentation at their study session demonstrated clearly how the freeboard (when totally urbanized), provides the most protection.  Rundle said the elimination of the 90% limit provides additional protection for people who already have their homes built in the floodplain.  This problem was important to address now.  He stated that it’s very convincing that there is a compelling reason to move forward on this for the general taxpayers. 

Commissioner Henry said his concern was predictability, particularly in the case of property owners who