|
November 5, 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. With Commission approval, Mayor Hack proclaimed Sunday, November 10, 2002 as "Celebrate Marine Corps Birthday"; and the month of November as "National Home Care Month and National Hospice Month." As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 15 and October 22, 2002. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting of September 24, 2002; Lawrence Public Library Board meeting minutes of September 16, 2002; Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority Board meeting minutes of September 24, 2002; Lawrence-Douglas County Public Health Board meeting minutes of August 19, 2002; Mental Health Board meeting minutes of April 2, April 22, July 30, and August 27, 2002; Historic Resources Commission Action Summary from September 19, 2002; Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting of September 11, 2002; Grant Review Board meeting minutes of August 12, 2002; Housing Trust Fund Board meeting minutes of July 16, 2002; Mechanical Board of Appeals meeting minutes of October 14, 2002; Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of September 26 and October 10, 2002; and, the Practitioner's Panel meeting minutes of August 15, 2002. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve claims to 458 vendors in the amount of $3,941,084.30 and payroll from October 20, 2002 to November 2, 2002 in the amount of $1,283,234.34. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Eldridge Hotel, 701 Massachusetts (Contingent Upon State License); and India Palace, 129 East 10th Street. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the contract with Lowenthal Singleton Webb & Wilson for 2002 and 2003 audit services. Motion carried unanimously. (1) The City Commission reviewed the bids for a Scrap and Obsolete Equipment Sale for the Utilities Department. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to reject the sole bid for a Downstroke Vertical Baler, in the amount of $35.46 from Lonnie's Recycling. Motion carried unanimously. (2) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the sole bids for miscellaneous lab equipment, in the amount of $2.00; and Scrap Iron, in the amount of $123.33 to Lonnie's Recycling. Motion carried unanimously. (3) The City Commission reviewed the bids for the sale of scrap copper tubing and brass for the Utilities Department. The bids were: BIDDER BID AMOUNT Johnny Nichols $757.00 Reiners Metals $550.00 Vernon's Lawn Mowing $273.00 Lonnie's Recycling $135.73 As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid to Johnny Nichols, in the amount of $757. Motion carried unanimously. (4) The City Commission reviewed the bids for the sale of obsolete water meters for the Utilities Department. The bids were: BIDDER BID AMOUNT Reiners Metals $1,900.00 Johnny Nichols $1,308.00 Vernon's Lawn Mowing $ 548.00 Lonnie's Recycling $ 101.12 As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid to Reiners Metals, in the amount of $1,900. Motion carried unanimously. (5) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the engineering design contract with Landplan Engineering for Oread Center (16th and Wakarusa) sanitary sewer improvements, in the amount of $10,086. Motion carried unanimously. (6) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the engineering design contract with Landplan Engineering for Oread Center (16th Street) street and storm sewer improvements, in the amount of $18,561. Motion carried unanimously. (7) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the engineering design contract with Landplan Engineering for Oread Center (16th Street) waterline improvements, in the amount of $3,412.50. Motion carried unanimously. (8) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the engineering design contract with Landplan Engineering for Oread Center (Research Park Drive) street and storm sewer improvements, in the amount of $18,336. Motion carried unanimously. (9) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the engineering design contract with Landplan Engineering for Oread Center (Research Park Drive) waterline improvements, in the amount of $3,412.50. Motion carried unanimously. (10) The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Weatherization Program for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were: BIDDER STORM WINDOWS INSULATION WEATHERSTRIPPING OF DOORS Master Plan Management $2,897.00 Kaw Specialties, Inc. $3,927.22 Midwest Insulation, Inc. $10,575.00 Advanced Glass & Mirror $24,155.37 Kennedy Glass $26,344.70 Staff Estimate $31,920.00 $10,500.00 $5,500.00 As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the bid for storm windows to Advance Glass & Mirror, in the amount of $24,155.37; insulation to Midwest Insulation, Inc., in the amount of $10,575.00; and weatherstripping of doors to Master Plan Management, in the amount of $2,897.00. Motion carried unanimously. (11) The City Commission reviewed the bids for renovation of the bathroom and Kitchen for the Hearthstone House, 745 Ohio, for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were: BIDDER BASE BID ALTERNATIVE #1 TOTAL NEOTIATED BID BATHROOM KITCHEN Penny Construction $61,388.00 $12,612.00 $74,000.00 $63,000.00 Architect Estimate $55,000.00 (Did not include lead abatement activity) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the negotiated bid to Penny Construction, in the amount of $63,000. Motion carried unanimously. (12) The City Commission reviewed the bids for improvement to the Lawrence Public Library. The bids were: BIDDER BASE BID ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2 B.A. Green Construction Co., Inc. $32,500.00 $35,200.00 $50,700.00 McBride Electric $52,785.00 $59,732.00 $83,782.09 Quality Electric of Lawrence, Inc. $25,525.00 $26,730.00 $40,990.00 As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to award the base bid to Quality Electric of Lawrence, Inc., in the amount of $25,525.00. Furthermore, the contract for construction should specifically include the option for the City (as stated in the specifications), to award Alternate 1 ($26,730) and Alternate 2 ($40,990) within 60 days after the date the contract for construction is executed. Motion carried unanimously. (13) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7587, amending the City's Mechanical Code concerning the elevation of ignition source. Motion carried unanimously. (14) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7590, rezoning (Z-05-15-02) approximately 1.266 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District), located north of Clinton Parkway and west of Lake Alvamar. Motion carried unanimously. (15) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7591, rezoning (Z-08-24-02) approximately 0.15 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District) to RO-2 (Residence-Office), located at 1246 Haskell Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (16) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7592, amending the parking requirements for group living facilities. Motion carried unanimously. (17) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7599, allowing alcoholic beverages at the Carnegie Library Building for City Employee Relations Council Holiday Party on December 7, 2002. Motion carried unanimously. (18) Ordinance No. 7589, rezoning (Z-09-33-99) 1.5783 acres from R-1 (Single-Family Residence District) to RS-1 (Single-Family Residence District), located south of Peterson Road on the west side of Monterey Way, East 1150 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. (19) Ordinance No. 7584, annexing approximately 11 acres, generally located south of West 6th Street, west of Queens 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. (20) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt Resolution No. 6432, directing a public hearing on the advisability of constructing sanitary sewer improvements near the intersection of 23rd Street and Louisiana Street. Motion carried unanimously. (21) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt Resolution No. 6433, directing a public hearing on improving 11th Street from Haskell Avenue approximately 750 feet east. Motion carried unanimously. (22) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to adopt Resolution No. 6434, declaring 776 Ash Street environmentally blighted, ordering the property owner to remove the blight within 20 days or the City will contract to have the violations removed. Motion carried unanimously. (23) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the site plan (SP-05-33-02) for Alek's Auto Sales, located on the northwest corner of Lincoln Street and North 2nd Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. A Site Plan Performance Agreement be executed; (Per Section 20-1433); 2. Approval of a Floodplain Development Permit (City of Lawrence and DWR) prior to release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources; 3. Filing of a 12.5' wide cross-access easement by separate instrument with Douglas County Register of Deeds, labeling of the easement with filed book and page on the face of the site plan, and provision of a copy to the Planning Office; 4. Provision of a note on the plan stating, "The proposed 25'-wide driveway is temporary until such time as redevelopment occurs on the property to the north. At that time, the 25'-wide driveway will be removed and replaced with a 25'-wide driveway centered on the property line; 5. Label all proposed storm sewer structures; 6. Provision of a note stating that the site plan will comply with Sec. 20-14A04.4 of the Zoning code for preservation of existing trees shown on the site plan; 7. Provision of a photometric plan for all outdoor lighting; 8. Label the proposed bicycle spaces; 9. Filing of a 10' utility easement on the north, south and west sides by separate instrument with the Douglas County Register of Deeds, labeling of the easement with filed book and page on the face of the site plan, and provision of a copy to the Planning Office; 10. Approval of an Army Corps. of Engineers permit prior to release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources. A letter submitted to the Planning Office from the Army Corps. stating that the project is exempt may be submitted in lieu of a permit; 11. Provision of a note stating that the sales display area will be striped; and, 12. Approval of a KDOT Highway Permit. Motion carried unanimously. (24) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to re-approve the site plan (SP-08-61-00) for an office/warehouse development to be located at 911 East 11th Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide a revised Site Plan depicting the following: a. Location of enclosure site on the west which is acceptable to the Sanitation Department; b. Provision of additional screening along the south and west property lines to buffer industrial use from residential uses; c. Provision of evergreen, upright shrubs around dumpster enclosures; d. Revise the total number of parking spaces under the heading "interior greenspace requirements" to read 99. (Refer to Planning comment #19); e. Under the heading "impervious surface summary", revise the gross area so it matches the area listed in the legal description; 2. Filing of a Final Plat; 3. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement; and, 4. Approval of a Floodplain Development Permit. Motion carried unanimously. (25) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the site plan (SP-10-75-02) for an access driveway for Bowersock Mills, located at 546 Massachusetts, subject to the following conditions: 1. A Site Plan Performance Agreement be executed (Per Section 20-1433); 2. Execution of an addendum to the existing lease agreement (1977) between the City of Lawrence and The Bowersock Mills and Power Company; 3. Provision of a revised site plan to include: a. A fence along the south edge of the access drive; 4. Compliance with the Historic Resources Commission conditions of approval: a. The applicant provide photographic documentation of the existing site; and, b. The applicant provides construction documents. Motion carried unanimously. (26) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, Rundle, seconded by Kennedy, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-09-25-02) for Riverridge No. 3, a proposed residential subdivision containing approximately 2.02 acres, and proposes the creation of four lots, located between Riverridge Road and Golden Rain Drive, also known as 1829 Riverridge Road; and, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of a note stating, "Access to Lot 1, Block 1 to Riverridge Road is permitted as long as the property is used for single-family residential purpose"; 2. Provision of a note stating, "The public access easement and emergency turnaround space will remain until Golden Rain Drive is extended to the east, at which time emergency turnaround may be accommodated through alternate means subject to approval by the City of Lawrence Fire Department"; 3. Include the mission dimension on Lot 2, Block 1; 4. Provide owner or plat name to the south; 5. Revise location map to include major streets; 6. Submittal of public improvement plans for the sanitary sewer main extension, street improvements (Golden Rain Drive), water main improvements, and the temporary turnaround prior to the filing of the final plat with the Douglas County Register of Deeds; 7. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and, 8. Submission and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (27) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-09-26-02) for College Motel Addition, a replat of east 3/4 of the east half of Block 50, West Lawrence, a proposed 3-lot commercial and residential addition containing approximately 2.462 acres, located at 1703 West 6th Street; and, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit revised final plat providing: a. Book and Page reference of recorded Master Street Tree Plan on the face of the final plat; b. Depiction of vacation of 10' of right-of-way along Wisconsin Street, providing 40' of right-of-way from the street centerline. Revise lot sizes to reflect the additional area; c. Depiction of 40' of right-of-way along 7th Street; d. 15' utility easement along Wisconsin Street; e. Location map including quadrant, section, township, and range labels; f. Note stating that Lots 1 and 2 must share access to 6th Street, at a location at least 75' west of the Wisconsin Street and 6th Street Intersection; g. Depiction of Lot 1 and Lot 2 as 262' deep, measured from 6th Street to match the proposed lot lines to existing zoning district boundaries; and, h. Note referencing the Book and Page where the cross-access easement between Lots 1 and 2 is recorded. 2. Submission and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan; 3. Execution of an agreement not-to-protest the formation of a benefit district for street and sidewalk improvements for 7th Street, Wisconsin Street, and 6th Street; 4. Provide a cross-access easement between Lots 1 and 2 and note the Book and Page reference where it is recorded at the Register of Deeds office; 5. Submission of public improvement plans for sanitary sewer and water line extensions to the Public Works Department for approval are required prior to development or redevelopment on each lot; 6. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and, 7. Pinning of the lot corners to reflect Wisconsin Street right-of-way vacation. Motion carried unanimously. (28) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-05-03-02) for The Ridge at Alvamar, a proposed residential development, to be located north of Clinton Parkway and west of Lake Alvamar. The plan proposes 44 single-family houses and 29 townhouses (59 units) on 24.65 acres, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission and approval of a Traffic Impact Study by the Public Works Department prior to the submission of a Final Development Plan and inclusion of necessary public improvements in the proposed Final Development Plan; 2. Provision of a Revised Preliminary Development Plan to change "West Shoreline Place" to "Sanctuary Lane"; and, 3. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following changes per approval of the City Stormwater Engineer: a. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states "Construction activity, including soil disturbances or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. This permit must be obtained prior to the release of a building permit." Motion carried unanimously. (29) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize submittal of applications to Kansas Department of Transportation for Transportation Enhancement Funds in 2004 and 2005 State fiscal year. Motion carried unanimously. (30) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Randolph and Deborah Campbell, 757 Elm Street. Motion carried unanimously. (31) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Patrick and Tracy Kite, 1125 New Jersey Street. Motion carried unanimously. (32) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Bruce and Kristen Barlow, 815 Elm Street. Motion carried unanimously. (33) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the recommendation from the Mechanical Board of Appeals to establish two additional mechanical license types: Mechanical Fireplace Master and a Mechanical Fireplace Contractor; and authorize staff to draft and ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (34) During the City Manager's Report, Mike Wildgen updated the City Commission on statistics generated by Lloyd Hetrick, the City's Fixed base Operator for Lawrence Municipal Airport, related to the NASCAR event in September which showed an increase in the number of planes handled by the Airport an increase in rental cars, and fuel sales sold by the Airport compared to 2001. (35) Wildgen also reported that the KCC approved approximately a 10% rate increase for Westar Energy for the City's municipal lighting system. Also during the City Manager's report, Wildgen reported that the Triennial Review for the Transit System went well. He said all requirements were being exceeded therefore, the FTA considers our 2002 Triennial Review complete for all federal requirements concerning the City's operation. In conclusion, Wildgen reported that by the efforts of Fred Devictor, Director of Parks and Recreation and Karin Rexroad, Public Transit Administrator, concerning United Way, Lawrence employees exceeded the goal of $36,000. Employees contributed $38,089.54 this year. Dave Kingsley, GRI Research and Training, presented the update on the City of Lawrence Employee Survey. He said the actual data that is yet to come out would make it look more successful, but he wanted to give the City Commission an update. He said this survey was a large project which was started in May and wanted to make the Commission aware of the compressed timeline. He said there are 750 employees working for the City of Lawrence, and a 75% response rate which was tremendous for an organization this large. Between the times they had gotten that 75% response rate and the beginning, they worked with the employee committee and developed a survey instrument based on a lot of research. He said they field-tested that survey, developed the final instrument, and met with all the departments to get the survey taken. The for a large response rate was due to the assistance of the employee project team, which consisted of the Police Department and Fire/Medical Department representatives, Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, and Lori Carnahan, Personnel Director. He said with this type of response from City employees, they knew the results were representative of the City employees. The purpose of the survey was to establish a base line measurement so that the City could begin to focus on the areas of personnel in communications, supervisory, and safety issues. This survey should provide management with a good tool, to focus on these issues, and would see improvement with 750 employees and over $27,000,000 in payroll. He said there were 131 questions on this survey and 25 separate categories. The analysis of this many items would generate a lot of things to look at. In the preliminary report, as they looked at the data, the perception of what the employees have of their immediate supervisor in comparison to the other areas was high. He said immediate supervision was not as big of an issue as a lot of other areas. Another interesting issue was that employees perceive themselves as having high abilities in constituent services, which was not unusual. He said the citizen survey were being returned and thought there would be some interesting findings. Employees tend to think that their workload expectations are fair and did not see a big problem. The area that was the lowest level of satisfaction was that employees perceive departments that are not immediate to them which were the department heads, City Management, and City Commission, they perceive that the communication is not as good as between their immediate supervisors. In the low end of the scale, the perception was promotion fairness. He said there were major differences between departments. The protocols that the City approves require that we provide department heads with these results. He said they would be making some recommendations for absenteeism, turnover, accident frequency, and disciplinary rates by department. Other recommendations are that statistics are reported by department to City Management on a monthly basis so that we can begin to look at how those correlate with levels of satisfaction and how those change as we change as variables are changed in this survey; that this survey does not sit on the shelf, but is utilized to develop training programs and used to measure the outcome of training programs; and, a survey is conducted on a biannual basis and begin to develop a longitudinal look at how these issues change over time. He said he thought this survey would be valuable for strategic planning purposes in terms of recruitment and retention. He said the survey results would be used for targeted areas for improvement on a department level. He said they would have all results to the departments this week. He said they would begin meeting with department heads and have their final report completed within the next 30 to 60 days. After receiving no public comment, Mayor Hack said she wanted to thank City employees for their 75% response rate. She said due to the Survey Development Team, this survey was a success. Commissioner Kennedy said he was looking forward to the final results of the survey. Commissioner Rundle concurred. Vice Mayor Dunfield wanted to express his thanks to the GRI Team. He said clearly they have taken something on that is out of the ordinary and handled it very professionally. He said the results would justify all the efforts. Commissioner Henry also thanked the GRI Team. (36) Mayor Hack called a public hearing on a request for tax abatement for PROSOCO. Bruce Boyer, Vice President PROSOCO, said they were excited about the prospect of expanding their operations in Lawrence. He said he wanted to give a presentation to the City Commission concerning his company, PROSOCO and why they wanted to expand in Lawrence. He said PROSOCO was founded in 1939 by his grandfather, Albert J. Boyer. At that time they were manufacturing engine flushing equipment and other types of cleaning compounds for the automotive and train industries. He said when his father came on board with the company, they focused on masonry cleaning. He said a brilliant Union Pacific Railroad employee tried some of the engine cleaning material on brick and found that it did not create staining problems associated with other acid type cleaners that they had used in the past. He said going back about 40 years, was their first restoration project and today they are supplying approximately 35% of their total production to Historic Preservation Restoration type applications across the country. He said the products are sold across the country through a network of about 1,500 distributors. Most of their distributors focus primarily on the contractor trade. He said their products are promoted across the country through a network of independent representatives and direct PROSOCO employees as an architectural sales item. Items that are specified in architectural specification for use on restoration projects and new restoration applications. In 1998, they got to a point that they were about 11 years into their three-year plan to find a new home for PROSOCO and combine with their Kansas City operation which was four manufacturing office support buildings into one location. In 1998, they decided to make that one combined location and their ultimate home for their company in Lawrence, Kansas. Following the construction phase that took place in late 1998 and most of 1999, they moved into their facility at East Hills Business Park. He said currently they were employing 78 full-time employees that have an extensive 401K Plan, benefit programs, and paying above average wages for the State of Kansas. Kingsley said they were looking at expanding their operations because they did not build their production facility large enough. PROSOCO, unlike a standard manufacturing operation associated here in Lawrence was their headquarters and they had a large amount of personnel and occupations in the administrative support, and promotion sides of their company. He said when they designed their facility in East Hills Business Park, they originally designed an 110,000 square foot facility. Due to budgetary constraints at that time, they had to trim that back to the 80,000 square foot facility that was ultimately built. He then presented the Commission with slides of their facility. He said the corporate office building occupies approximately 30,000 square feet on two floors. The adjacent manufacturing facility which also serves as their warehouse and storage area is a 50,000 square foot building attached to the backside. The facility itself was built for their application and ultimately, their new expansion is going to add what has been published and was in their application as a warehouse/storage facility to free up more production space in the primary facility for future expansion. He said they also have large number of bulky containers and products, that given their production efficiencies, they could almost fill up their current warehouse capacity in a one-day single shift operation. He said they were looking forward to expanding to multiple shifts and continuing to grow in Lawrence. He said the building was unique and was designed by Treanor Architects, a local architect and built by Harris Construction. He said they were the winner of the 2000 annual award for the K-10 Association Development and he hoped the expansion made them as proud as their original building. He said the expansion project would include 55,355 square foot facility at a cost of approximately $2.3 Million. The $300,000, applied for in the application, is for a new production line that they would be relocating from Kansas City to Lawrence. He said they were asking for a 55% Tax Abatement for ten years. This facility is going to almost immediately offer upon completion, seven new jobs in Lawrence. He said questions were raised during the Public Incentive Review Committee concerning why a large building only offered seven new jobs. He has been through this issue once before and was acutely aware of promises made and promises kept. He said the seven new jobs for this facility were jobs they could fill immediately upon completion. This is not taking into consideration the future growth of the company and the future expansion of their production capacity which they hoped to see in the future. Even with the 55% Tax Abatement, this project will generate in excess of $30,000 a year in additional direct property and utility taxes. He presented a line drawing outlining their site. He said their current facility was laid out on that site to allow for future expansion. At that time, they were planning this expansion in seven to ten years and they have been lucky to move forward with the expansion at the present time. He said the environment was good for construction because contractors and architects are hungry and financing rates are low which made for an ideal time to expand. He clarified the line drawing slides for the City Commission. He said this new facility, while it is primarily a storage facility, is going to put us in a position to relocate the existing storage that they have in their production area to the new building and allow them to relocate the storage that they currently have in their office building to the new building. Mayor Hack asked for public comment. Wayne Parks, Lawrence, said we're carrying a lot of baggage from mistakes made before. He said everyone knows he is against tax abatements and wanted to say why. He said several business along 23rd Street have survived without tax abatements despite the baggage placed on their backs. He said, as a former employee of Goodyear, he wanted to explain the jobs that the City gave away. At the time of his employment with Goodyear, he said they survived because they were paid living wages until technology, automotive automation, and imports arrived. He said with these jobs they paid taxes and social security and received good retirement and medical. He said his point was that Goodyear did get a lot of tax breaks, but not tax abatements. He said these were the type of jobs that were needed in Lawrence without tax abatements. He asked why should we use are tax money to pay for new companies to come to town or for expansion of existing companies, when other businesses in Lawrence have survived without tax abatements. Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Kennedy, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Kennedy said this was a type of test for Commissioner Henry's tax abatement process that was developed through the Tax Abatement Task Force. He said they had to take a chance with Commissioner Henry's new Tax Abatement Policy and what the Public Incentive Review Committee had time to digest for PROSOCO. He said this was a great chance to explain how they got through this process and come to a 5-0 vote which would therefore, establish a good direction for the community. Commissioner Henry wanted to thank Commissioner Kennedy for his support. He said there were many months of serious discussion on the tax abatement process and in the end; they came up with a document that would stand the test of time. He said he was delighted to see PROSOCO as the City's first test case for the new Tax Abatement Policy. He said PROSOCO's cost/benefit analysis came out well and it was a good project. Commissioner Rundle said he was afraid that the Commission would not have a 5-0 vote. He said his opinions about tax abatements and how we implement them in our community are a matter of public record. The Commission is expected to exercise judgment after the Public Incentive Review Committee has met and made their recommendation. The policy indicates that even with the analysis, even with a positive outcome, there still is a chance for abatements not be granted or for the range to be adjusted. He said there is no reason why the Commission had to give a set percentage. He said it was particularly important for the Commission to use this judgment when we have an uncertain economy. Commissioner Rundle said it was his understanding that our property tax and labor rates are lower in Lawrence than at the New Jersey Plant. He said he felt he was not able to support this abatement at this time because he thought the expansion would happen without the tax abatement. Vice Mayor Dunfield said he was a member of the Public Incentive Review Committee and had gone through this process. He said it was important that questions be asked about the appropriateness of tax abatements. The policy debate is going to continue and as much as we might all like these issues to be resolved and set behind us, they are of importance to the community and will continue to be debated. On Election Day, he thought that we should all recognize the importance of that freedom to express and hold opinions and debate them in public as one of the fundamental strengths of our society. He said there was no damage or harm in continuing those debates. He said as he reads the current resolution, under which our Tax Abatement Policy is held, he thought PROSOCO's application met all of the criteria that are set out in that resolution. He said this was not to say that there is not room for adjustment within the policy, but again, in terms of the guidelines that are given, he thought PROSOCO's success at meeting those guidelines were quite clear. In closing, in all of the discussion that was at times a bit heated, as was reported in the paper, he wanted to point out to Boyer that not a single negative word has been said about PROSOCO's operation or its employees in the course of this debate. He said they were a quality company and everyone recognizes that. Commissioner Rundle concurred in that regard. Mayor Hack thanked Boyer for doing business in Lawrence and deciding to expand. She said the City's policy asks that they look at companies to grant abatements that are environmentally sound, small to medium sized, pay average wages per employment category that meet or exceed the average determined by the KDHR Wage Survey and combine positive cost/benefit ratios of 1 to 1.25 or greater over 15 years. She said PROSOCO's request clearly meets and exceeds these objectives. She said approval of this abatement makes sense and follows the policy which was approved by this Commission. Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Henry, to approve the tax abatement request for PROSOCO; and authorize a Resolution of Intent and a Performance Agreement to be drafted for final City Commission approval. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry, and Kennedy. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried. (37) Commissioner Rundle asked if the Performance Agreement came with input from the Performance Incentive Review Committee. Wildgen said no. The agreement would go directly to the City Commission. Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report concerning the possible public improvements for Folks Road between 6th Street and Harvard Road. He said staff met with the neighbors from Folks, Mulberry, and Harvard Roads on the potential improvements to Folks Roads. He said Folks Road is included in Horizon 2020, designated as a collector street, and is in the City's CIP in 2004. He said as a collector street, they would be looking at an 80-foot right-of-way and a street that is 31 feet back to back with sidewalks on both sides. He said some other issues discussed in their meeting were timing in construction, financing options, and how construction fits into the Oakley property development. Soules said some residents thought this improvement would be good because between Monterey Way and Wakarusa there is no other access up to 6th Avenue. Some residents felt this would give them an alternative to access their neighborhood. He said some residents opposed these improvements because they felt it would provide a cut-through for more traffic to serve other destinations. Soules said staff has not completed any type of traffic study. He said some of the traffic calming issues that were discussed were: roundabouts; off-setting the alignment so that coming off of 6th Avenue south, you could swing to the east or west and come back around to tie into Mulberry; entrance treatments coming off of Folks Road into Mulberry; making Mulberry one-way north which would stop the cut-through traffic and provide people a relief out but not back into their neighborhood; and, whether Folks Road could be dead-ended and not tie into Mulberry. Soules said David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, went over right-of-way acquisition procedures. Right now, there is no City right-of-way. If the City Commission decided to proceed, the City would have to acquire right-of-way. He said there were people from the Harvard Road neighborhood who were interested in the traffic calming issues along Harvard. He said staff has sent out a survey to the people along Harvard asking them for feedback on the current temporary traffic calming devices. He said after staff receives the responses, they would develop a plan based on those responses and then ask for input from the neighborhood. At that time, they could potentially bring ideas back to the Commission. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the City had done any appraisals for any type of right-of-way since staff didn't know where the road was going. Soules said not at this time. He said they were waiting on the Commission's direction. Doug Compton, applicant for the Oakley Tract, said this project was started approximately one year ago and received a 7-3 approval through the Planning Commission for the zoning they requested which was a PRD-2, up to 10 units per acre and office zoning along 6th Street. He said they had received KDOT's permission for access off of 6th Street. Planning staff has always had a concern of access and safety. He said that concern was no access off 6th Street and better access on Folks Road. Obviously, they could not come up with a plan that showed access off of Folks Road. They have been in a dilemma for the last 10 months and they were hoping to get direction from the City Commission and staff how they should build Folks Road and how do they get access to this 15 acres so that the property could be developed. He asked the Commission to direct staff to move forward with a plan. Roger Bain, Harvard Road resident, said his main concern was the increased amount of traffic when opening up Folks and Mulberry Roads. When the streets were laid out, it was quite obvious when looking at the aerial photography that this road was intended to go through. He said everyone was aware that there was a bad traffic problem on Harvard Road. The temporary traffic calming devices had some effect. He realized that this project would probably go through whether he wanted it to or not, so he said his concern was how the traffic would be handled. At the preliminary answer and question session, his suggestions were to make Folks and Mulberry Roads a one-way north to draw traffic out of the area instead of bringing traffic in. The second suggestion would be to have a traffic control device similar to what is at 6th and Schwarz Road where you can go in, but you can come out. It would also control one lane so people could have access into the areas from 6th and could exit out towards 6th, but the people within the Harvard neighborhood could exit to 6th as well. He said Folks Road has a main access to the high school which he had a concern about the traffic now because he has two small children, especially if the applicants zoning goes through and he gets the construction that he is proposing. He said having lived in this area for five years; he knew that people were not going to access South Iowa or the University by going to 6th Street. He said traffic would go down Harvard, to Monterey Way and then to 15th Street therefore, producing additional traffic onto Harvard. He said anything they could do to keep the traffic going towards 6th Street would be ideal. At the very least, the type of traffic control he proposed was to have a traffic light at the intersection as opposed to the roundabout or in conjunction with a roundabout. He said if not lighted, at least a pedestrian activated crosswalk would be appropriate. Brenda Jackson, Lawrence, said she wanted to thank the Commission for listening to the neighbors and having the opportunity for public comment. She said City staff had done an excellent job of letting the neighbors know what is going on with this development. She said she lived at the corner of Harvard and Mulberry and had listened to comments and wanted to bring one of the comments to the City's attention. She said they had a problem with drag racing and noise in the past, especially in the middle of the night. The roundabout has helped this issue quite a bit, but they still have a lot of traffic that goes through. She said for some reason they like to go to end of Mulberry and race to the roundabout. With the addition of some of the developments that the Commission had talked about and that are coming to their attention in the next few weeks, such as the Wal-mart at 6th and Wakarusa, the Oakley Tract at 6th and Folks and then this street that is going through between Folks and Mulberry, they wanted to make sure there were some other options that are looked at. She said when they bought their house they recognized that this street would probably go through. She said they wanted to make sure whatever the Commission decides to do, to take into consideration that there are a lot of projects going on in that neighborhood and these projects are changing the character of their neighborhood because of all those new developments. Because of these developments, several residents are talking about at what point, do they have to move out. Jackson said a couple of issues brought up by staff were that they proposed angling the Oakley Tract entrance onto Folks Road so it's one-way north. She said if it is two-way, she suggested angling that entrance from the Oakley Tract onto Folks in such a way that they can't make a right turn into the neighborhood and cut across on to Harvard over to K.U. This was one of the concerns that were brought up at the Commission meeting. Some of the neighbors in the Folks Road area pointed out, if your going to buy right-of-way, why not buy a little bit more right-of-way and direct traffic away from the neighborhood. She said there was also talk about a roundabout being placed at the Oakley Tract, so there would be a traffic calming device between 6th and Mulberry and another at Mulberry and Harvard to discourage traffic going from 6th and cutting across the neighborhood over to 15th Street so they wouldn't have another Wakarusa by-way. She said they know it is a question of "when" the street goes through, not a question of "if" the street goes through. She said if there was something they could do to preserve the neighborhood so that when the developments on 6th Street happen, in whatever form, that the neighborhood had some assurances that the noise and drag racing is not out of control and that their children can walk to school safely. Roger Mayhugh, Folks Road, said the suggestion of the one-way sounded like a good idea, but the people who are going to suffer the most, are the people that reside at that location. He said our taxes are going to go up and they are going to lose property. He said if the City decides to go with the one-way, then they have to go a half a mile out of their way just to go home. He said traffic would improve and a lot of problems solved, but the only people that will suffer are the ones that live there. The residents that live around this area, they want access in and out, but in the past there have been streets east of there that were supposed to go through, but back then, developers put cul-de-sacs in there which places all the traffic onto Folks Road. Soules said he wanted to clarify the one-way issue. This was a one-lane and not a one-way, to get through the entrance. There would still be two-way on Folks and Mulberry Roads. Lucy Flynn, Harvard Road, said her property backs up to the Oakley property and she wanted to reiterate that having two small children living there for five years, the traffic on Harvard Road is horrible. Making Folks Road another Harvard is not the right solution. With all the development in the area, there is going to be increase traffic coming through the neighborhood and there is already enough of it and she did not know how to elevate that problem. Wildgen said there were many ideas concerning this issue, depending on what the Commission decides, staff could study this issue; have neighborhood meetings to discuss various options; and bring these options to the City Commission for comment before the final design. Mayor Hack asked Soules if staff was seeking direction from the City Commission to come back with some plans, should the Commission agree that Folks and Mulberry should be connected. Soules said if the Commission wanted to provide staff with some direction to proceed with some alternative preliminary designs, staff could possibly talk to some consultants and meet again with the neighborhood after they have some ideas in place. Based on traffic being an issue, although they need a functioning road, staff does need to make sure that they maintain the character of the neighborhood. He suggested that maybe there were a few people in that neighborhood that would like to start a steering committee to give staff feedback. Commissioner Rundle said one of the proposals Bain mentioned was at the current stub of Mulberry Drive that would be "out" only and have two-way traffic along Folks Road. He asked if this was the first time he had heard this proposal. Soules said at the neighborhood meeting, Bain mentioned designing the intersection similar to 6th and Schwarz. Mayor Hack said, from a personal prospective, she believed it was inevitable that there needs to be a connection between Mulberry and Folks. She said she would like to see a way to make this work so it has the least amount of impact on the neighborhood and does not create another thoroughfare. She did not want to see the City do something that was just a straight shot because it would adversely affect these residents in the area. She said her preferences were ideas about roundabouts, signalization, narrowing down, raised crosswalks, speed bumps and possible moving the Folks Road alignment to the west. Soules said if the Commission wanted to proceed, staff would need to start to obtain some appraisals to buy right-of-way. He said staff needed to come back to the Commission with some cost estimates so that they could make a decision because it was not going to be cheap. Commissioner Rundle said when we have talked about those in the past, he was aware that we've had a lot of lost opportunities as development occurred incrementally along this corridor for connecting to 6th Street. The original plans were for more connections and we've gotten down to the point where that this is the last possible connection. He said he thought the Commission needed to treat this with extra care. We can't expect this particular area to fill all those unmet needs that could have been met if the City developed a little more carefully along that corridor. He said he favored trying to curtail all of the issues the neighbors have voiced concerns about. He said he liked the idea of serving the area as it develops with two-way traffic. Also, possibly designing the intersection like the Schwarz Road area so they could get out, but traffic wouldn't be invited to drive through the neighborhood and add to an already bad traffic problem. Commissioner Henry said he had participated in the neighborhood meeting and he was impressed with the neighbors because they came forward with not only concerns, but also possible solutions to this issue. He said he did not realize it was Bain's idea of the one-way out which would stop the inflow of traffic and was quite impressed with this idea. He appreciated the idea of two or three citizens getting together as a steering committee with the City. Vice Mayor Dunfield said it seemed that everyone was in agreement at this point, but wanted to toss out a couple of aspects that he thought the Commission needed to consider as part of this planning process and the central one is the landuse and the transition of landuse from its current agricultural zoning to some final built urban zoning situation. In some ways, it's kind of a classic smart growth situation in which we have an opportunity to do some infill development in a location where it's appropriate. As we think about this road, they also need to think about how that infill development can occur in a way that is beneficial to the City as a whole and beneficial to those neighbors who are already living in this area. The transitions of landuse from more dense use along 6th Street to a low density residential type of use further to the south are important supported by Horizon 2020 and those same transitions in landuse will also give us clues about the traffic calming issues and the access issues and the fact that we have an opportunity to get some relief from Harvard Road, but we don't want to, at the same time, compound problems in the neighborhood by encouraging new traffic to come into Harvard Road. Commissioner Kennedy said, as we've done in other parts of the community, which is one of our major thoroughfares, was to take Louisiana and change the perception to where it's a friendly neighborhood street. He was sure the Commission was well aware of what we achieved in that area and the Commission was looking forward to working in this area to achieve a street that would be workable for the new infill development that would occur and not land lock any of the existing neighbors. He said we needed to move ahead on this road and get it designed and built soon and continue with this open communication with the infill development and the neighborhood. Mayor Hack asked if staff needed a motion to direct them to prepare the necessary traffic solution. Corliss said it was clear that Soules would want to hire an engineering firm and in order to do that, the City will need to debt finance that cost. Staff could draft a resolution for that amount and the Commission may want to phase the study concept and then construction design with a lot of heavy thinking on the conceptual design. He said he wanted to make it clear that this project would be expensive. He said the Commission has heard comment that it is likely to be difficult to do a special assessment benefit district when you've got existing property owners along that area requiring them to pay special assessments. He said when we talk about adequate public facilities and the challenges of putting urban standards in an area that is a rural subdivision where we don't have right of way because this is a classic example and it will be an expensive road. Mayor Hack thanked the neighbors for coming and their valuable comments. (38) Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report regarding the status of the Use Permitted Upon Review for the Children's Learning Center, located at 205 North Michigan. Day stated that over the past several weeks they have met with CLC staff and have had a few conversations with various residents as they have called. They did take a look at the existing use permitted upon review that was originally approved in early 1993. Staff, including Public Works, Planning, and Code Enforcement, have been out on several site visits and the site complies with what the original requirements were. A lot of discussion focused on providing on- site parking. In the original discussions, there had been some discussion about shared parking with an adjacent church. Staff asked that David Woosley, Traffic Safety Engineer, go by and do some specific review about the number of vehicles parked on the street and to observe if there was any obstruction of the fire hydrant. In 8 visits to that area, approximately twice a day, he found that there has been no one parking in front of the fire hydrant or within the 15 foot of the fire hydrant as required. It is her understanding that CLC staff has been trying to impress upon their staff that there are parking regulations out there for public streets and to be aware of them. Parking in front of fire hydrants is certainly one of those regulations. Staff has also recently recommended to Public Works staff to consider putting up a "No Parking" sign that was located just back beyond the "Stop Sign" of Pinewood Drive to help establish some of the area right at the corner that is also No Parking. The site complies with what the minimum requirements were and still are for off-street parking for this property and she has had a pre-submittal with Stan Hernly, an architect and board member for CLC, to talk about the possibility of expanding the parking lot. There would be some variances that would go along with that, but that is also an option. Mary Fairburn, Lawrence, stated that since this first came up, citizens have had meetings with the board members of CLC and have gotten a much different response than they received from the actual management of CLC. She believed it is their intent to try to provide 16-20 spaces of off-street parking which would take care of the problem, but the big problem they have with that is funding. They just don't have the cash to do it. Various residents have various opinions about what should be done. There was something up before the commission to simply ban parking from both sides of the street. She thought that there are some people who are in favor of that because they don't want to wait 2-3 years for the parking lot to be built. There are others who are willing to give them a try and let them see what they can do to fix the parking lot or provide additional parking, even if it takes a couple of years to do this, whether it be to get a grant or raise money or whatever. Her request is that whatever is done that it be put in the UPR, simply because 9 years ago, citizens were assured before they went in, they got neighborhood support by saying, "Oh yeah, we've got a deal with the church, you don't have to worry about it." As soon as the permit was issued, that deal just sort of disappeared. She said they have been more vigilant in asking employees to move cars. The board members have been open to giving out their phone numbers if citizens don't get a response from management. That's been a really positive thing. She thinks the whole attitude thing has really soothed a lot of feelings. But, the citizens would like to see at least the parking lot in the UPR. There are others who would like to see more trash. One resident wanted to see an enclosed dumpster twice the size in the UPR and sound baffling around the playground in the UPR. She stated that everybody's had his or her own little idea about what is perfect. She thinks that most people would just be satisfied to see the parking lot in the UPR, if they could get that. That's basically the citizens' request. Chris Young, Lawrence, stated she agrees with Fairburn that most of the residents on the street would be happy with just having a parking lot and that since the board has gotten involved in the situation, the management of the center has been much more receptive to the citizens. The board members have made a big difference in handling the situation. A couple of things that still need to be addressed though is that the delay of 2 years or 3 years is not going to go and solve the safety issues that are at hand. Those issues are the school buses can't get down the street when there are cars parked on both sides because of how narrow Pinewood Drive is. The trash trucks have a problem getting down the streets with the cars parked on both sides. She thought the fire trucks would have a difficult time getting down the street if everybody is not parked right on top of the curbs. Although the citizens would like to work with the board and have this cohesive, friendly, and amicable relationship with them, those safety concerns are still there and those aren't being addressed in the interim until this parking lot is built. That, as a neighborhood, is something that the citizens will all still be concerned with. She encouraged the Commission to keep in mind that if they grant the permit again, the safety issues should be addressed. The neighborhood is not trying to get rid of them, they think that they're a good thing to have in the neighborhood, but they also don't want it to be at their expense. The neighborhood is a quiet, peaceful place, and during the weekend when there are no children or employees at the Learning Center, the citizens have a great quality of life there. She would like to see that on a daily basis and not just on the weekend. The biggest concern is to address that the parking lot be a stipulation of them maintaining their permit and that if it's not, that some other option be taken. Perhaps they've outgrown that facility and they need to address relocating. It is definitely a burden on the neighborhood and it is changing the quality of life. The citizens' quality of life is at the expense of them making a dollar. And even though they're not for profit, it's still at the citizens' expense. She thinks that up until the board got involved in it, the management had not even considered how much of a sacrifice or a burden it was causing the residents. She encouraged the Commission to address the safety concerns. Vice Mayor Dunfield asked if any of the neighbors have talked to the church about the use of their parking lot. Young stated that she had left several messages, but the church has not returned her calls. She knows that Stan Hernly has spoken with them at length, but they're not real receptive to it. Doug Ratliff said he would like to see the parking requirement put into the UPR as well. He said that he understands that it's a public street, but what it is now, is a public parking lot for a business. He knows that they were there first, but that is one of the unfortunate side effects of having a business like this located in a residential area. It is like oil and water. It's pretty hard to get them to mix. There's no guarantee that they're going to have a parking lot put up in a year or two provided they find the funding. The key word would be "if." He wouldn't be real crazy about not being to park there from 8-5 everyday during the week. But, essentially, we can't park there now. It's kind of bizarre to not be able to park in front of your own home. Having "No Parking" signs up would perhaps not be a big deal. He would just like to see the parking issue resolved. Basically they're going to have to be forced to do it and it may be their intent now to do it. He's not saying that they're not. But he doesn't know how else it can be resolved other than the no parking thing. He does not want to wait 2 more years. Derek Van Schmus, President of the Board of Directors of the Children's Learning Center, said the board is composed of 5 parents who are actively enrolling their children in the center and 5 community members who have chosen to serve in directing this learning facility. They meet approximately 10 times per year. Earlier this year staff made the board aware that they were having discussions with neighbors about the parking situation. As the summer went on, it became clear that the dialogue between the Learning Center's staff and neighbors was deteriorating to a point where it had become ineffective. The board took the step of holding a special meeting of the board. They invited the residents to join them and express their concerns directly to them. The board heard in much greater detail and quantity the residential concerns. They were able to establish a dialogue between the board and the residents that did include the board's executive staff as well. And they did come up with a number of short-term solutions. Some were implemented before the community meeting such as delivery vehicles have been asked not to park in the street by the service drive if they are not small enough to use the service drive they are asked to access the buildin they did come up with a number of short-term solutions. Some were implemented before the community meeting such as delivery vehicles have been asked not to park in the street by the service drive if they are not small enough to use the service drive they are asked to access the building to the front parking lot. When the center opened, trash collection was scheduled once a week. In approximately 1996, there was recognition that once a week trash collection was not sufficient. So the discussion was whether to get a bigger dumpster or do we get additional collections. The decision at that time was made to go to twice a week for trash collection. On periods of heavy trash generation, the center has requested off scheduled pick-up as well. Over the late summer, we tried a couple of other things. The teachers and aides tried to park only on one side of the street. It didn't really help. It was just kind of taking it off one end and putting it on the other. One of the policies that's led to this congestion on Pinewood Dr. was the fact that the Center's lead teachers come in the morning and park in the parking lot. They have a dozen lead teachers and approx 20 aides. For the last several years, what has been the practice is that when lead teachers take their lunch, they would return to park on the street in order to allow maximum space in the parking lot for evening pick up of children in order to keep traffic moving smoothly and safely. Following the Oct. 24th meeting with the neighborhood, we have changed that practice so that the lead teachers leave their cars in the parking lot all day long. Center's staff had been monitoring the parking lot at pick up to see if traffic flows. Preliminary indications are that it's working, so that's a large number of cars off the street. In terms of the intersection of Pinewood and Michigan, it was brought to our attention that there's a real problem getting traffic on and off of Pinewood from Michigan when cars are parked on both sides of the street all the way up to that intersection. One thing that we came to agreement on that we thought we could do as a short term solution is to come to the City together and request a "No Parking here to the Corner" sign and set that back 50 feet from the intersection from Michigan on the West side of Pinewood. Given as that process is time consuming, we have already directed our staff not to utilize that section of the street. We do employ a lot of young people at our center. We have high turnover. Unfortunately, it goes with the territory in the childcare business. One other solution that the neighborhood felt comfortable with is that we take the basic traffic courtesy and safety issues adding them to the staff handbook. That way they become disciplinary issues for the staff and have the potential to affect the staffs' raise or merit increase. Eventually dismissal would be an option if the procedures were not followed. All in all, he felt like there wasn't anything special that the board did by getting involved in this discussion. He felt that adding a third voice between the executive staff and the neighborhood kind of just brought some fresh faces to it that did not carry the baggage of the previous interactions and we feel very hopeful that we have begun to repair the relationship that we have with the neighborhood that we reside in. A lot of mention has been made to parking at the church. He forgot the name of the church but it's directly south of the Center. They have voted as a unit that they will not allow the Center employees to park there. For reasons of liability, they were not able to rent space to the Center. Their insurance agent just felt like that was not a viable option. Without recourse for compensation, the church felt like the additional wear and tear was not fair to the congregation which is understandable. Some "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" discussion took place. Snow removal of the church by the Center was presented, but at this point the book is closed on the church parking lot. There were some good discussions and Stan Hernley facilitated that discussion and we felt like we got really good response and were really listened to. In the end it's their decision, so the Center is going with other options. Two nights from tonight, we are meeting again with the neighborhood. We are going to provide them with some ideas and sketches of proposed changes to the parking lot to increase the number of spaces on site. We hope that that process will be fruitful. As the residents themselves have mentioned, we are exploring possibilities for grant funding to help the Center complete that work because the children that attend the Center come from neighborhoods and families that meet certain requirements for assisted lunches and all those kinds of community requirements. There's a program that will begin and so we would try to determine if we were eligible for that grant. Then of course we would have to apply. But we are trying to come up with come ideas and drawings to see if we can reach common ground and find something that's mutually beneficial to the residents and the Center. He thanked Stan for bringing the letter that is being shared with the neighborhood residents as well. Commissioner Rundle asked Van Schmus if he knew the history of the enrollment from the beginning and how much it has grown over the years. Van Schmus said currently there are fewer enrolled students than were permitted for due to the fact that the allocation of rooms of different ages has changed. Van Schmus said the enrollment is in the area of a 130 to 145 children and that is pushing the max of the allowances from the Kansas Department of Health Environment. There will be no expansion in terms of enrollment because of no additional space to meet the staffing and square feet requirements. Mayor Hack asked if the current number of employees was twenty-three and she also asked if they had twenty-four spaces available off street. Van Schmus said yes. Jeff Tryon, Lawrence, said he brings a different perspective to this issue because he does not actually reside at the property, but he does sees what is happening on a regular basis. Tryon said he doesn't think there is anybody in the neighborhood that opposes having a learning center. A learning center has potential as a resource for any neighborhood in any part of the town as long as it can exist in the constraints of the neighborhood. However, what they have found is that there are definitely traffic and safety problems resulting from employee parking in regards to emergency medical issues, fire issues, and garbage trucks. Tryon thanked Sandra Day for working with both sides to understand what they are dealing with and what the possibilities are. Tyron said there are two issues that need to be addressed. One is resolving the traffic and safety issue on Pinewood. The City Commission needs to think about a temporary solution by possibly limiting the parking from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., which is suggested by Woosley and the Traffic Safety Board. The CLC should be given the opportunity to possibly to come up with some parking solutions. Tryon said his concern is addressing the safety and traffic issues for possibly two years. It would be a big regret if something were to happen during that time. It is going to inconvenience the residents and CLC but it is a safer alternative to restrict parking. The second issue that needs to be determined is the solution to on side parking. It was Tryon's understanding that there are some options but he is still concerned that this will be a long process. The current situation now is not safe and it needs the City Commission direction, and the twist is considering the restricted no parking as a temporary solution and to ask the church to consider a one year short-term parking option. Tryon said there are times he has to walk a block to his house because of lack of parking. Commissioner Henry asked if the no parking from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. was on both sides of the street or just one. Tryon said you would need both sides. If you do not do both sides then you are only spreading the parking problem in a different fashion. Whatever the decision may be, it will still be better. Stan Hernly, Board of Directors of the Children's Learning Center, said the Learning Center is licensed for 175 children, and the total number of children fluctuated from 160 to 165. Since that time the school district has added several early childhood education classrooms that take some children in the four or five year old classrooms and puts them in a school setting. More recently services have been provided for 140 children, which is a little lower than in the past. Hernly showed a photo of Pinewood Drive containing all of the cars on the side of the street, which are staff vehicles. Staff has been told not to park on the northern side. Hernly said we are still in a testing phase to see if the procedures are helping the situation on the street. Hernly said it would not hurt to approach the Church if someone else, like the City staff, could talk with them. Hernly said he understands the Church's concerns, but if there is a way to work something out then he would be more than willing to work it out. Commissioner Kennedy said he is not ready to attach an amendment to the UPR until there is more input from the neighborhood and the CLC. The CLC has been working hard with the neighborhood. Mayor Hack agreed there are safety and traffic issues. Commissioner Rundle said the City Commission needed to get feedback from Woosley about the temporary option of eliminating parking on the street. Commissioner Henry said he would like Mayor Hack to support and encourage all off street parking. Commissioner Henry said he could support temporary parking on both sides of the street from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Commissioner Rundle asked if there is a possibility for a more cost effective solution for no parking such as going to the BZA. That type of dialogue is welcomed before Staff and CLC. Mayor Hack stated that there would have to be a plan or something to go to them. Vice Mayor Dunfield stated that it was clearly a difficult issue for a City Commission to deal with. He wondered if the fellow Commissioners would be supportive of them drafting a letter to send to the church encouraging them to try to work with the Learning Center. HE said it seemed to him only neighborly and reasonable that when you have a vacant parking lot and need for parking nearby that this is an opportunity to share and be part of a community. He wouldn't have any problem encouraging the church if the rest of the Commissioners deemed it appropriate. Mayor Hack agreed and stated that she would be glad to hand deliver it if that would help. She thought that was the way to proceed. It's just the issue of being neighborly and helping in a situation that is crammed into a small spot. The Learning Center is providing great service to kids in the community and she knows none of the neighbors are questioning that. The safety of citizens' families as well as vehicles is certainly paramount. Vice Mayor Dunfield asked if Hernly indicated that the Learning Center would provide insurance from the lot. Hernly stated that the information that they got from the church was that they had talked with their insurance agent and that there wasn't a liability issue as long as they weren't charging for the parking. There wasn't any requirement for additional insurance. Mayor Hack stated that she would like to hear what happens in the continued meetings with the neighbors. She would also like staff to get together with the board to help write a letter to the church. The Commissioners would sign it and she would be glad to arrange a meeting and see what they could do to get this moving in a positive direction. Commissioner Kennedy noted that Michigan Street was getting widened to allow wider road. He asked if they were going to allow parking on either side of the street. Chuck Soules stated that he didn't think that was the intent. Commissioner Kennedy asked whether or not the TSC has discussed parking on either side of the street. Mayor Hack stated that they had. She stated that in the information that Day gave them, it is recommended that parking be removed from both sides. (39) John Keller, Black and Veatch, presented information regarding the Lawrence Municipal Airport Sanitary Sewer Study. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. He stated that tonight's goal was to update the status of the project and present the current recommendations on how to proceed. He will supplement the memo that Debbie Van Saun presented. He said two years ago Black and Veatch was retained by the City to study a viable option of providing sanitary sewer at the Lawrence Airport. The goal was to either collect and transport to the current Lawrence Wastewater Treatment Plant or to collect and treat and discharge at the nearby Mud Creek which is east of the Airport. Two years ago they started working with the City Manager's office and the Utilities staff and concerned citizens. Black and Veatch developed a large growth option for the airport. What that was based on, was a 60,000 gallons per day pumping facility which would expand to 120,000 gallons per day. That was based on the viable 25 acres of land. They developed those flows just based upon general practices. Black and Veatch submitted that to KS Dept. of Health and Environment and at that time the pumping station was the most viable option. KDHE came back and said that was the direction they should go. Black and Veatch asked if there were any other viable options. At that time, KDHE indicated that there were two things that needed to be addressed. One was to make sure that they look at all the options. At that time, Black and Veatch was looking at a contained wetland like a greenhouse, lagoons, mechanical plant, anything at the site. Really, they were trying to look at being environmental friendly. They focused on the contained wetland or the greenhouse. Secondly, KDHE wanted to make sure that was the most cost effective option. At that time, the City Commission directed Black and Veatch to look at a smaller option of maybe 10,000 gallons per day versus the 60,000 gallons per day. If you look at the current airport right now, you might be getting a thousand gallons per day and the growth, if you get one industry, you might take up most of that. So looking at a unit that was 10,000 gallons per day seemed logical. We looked at that, we addressed that and we submitted that to KDHE and they deemed that a small growth option. KDHE came back and said that they agreed and it was a more cost-effective option. However, now that they were looking at a smaller growth option, KDHE stated that they needed to look at more alternatives, one being a septic tank system, which the City already has at the airport, or septic tanks with a drip proof system. After this current response from KDHE, Black and Veatch got with the City Manager's office and the Utilities Department and developed three strategies which will be presented tonight. The first strategy is to go forward and look at the contained wetland option. Again there was a firm called EEA in Cambridge, MA come in and that was really the whole principle behind the studies. It was to look at a different treatment system, something environmental friendly. Black and Veatch did fill out a NPDS permit to discharge into Mud Creek and they still have not heard a response from KDHE on that. So the first option was to go forward, get that response from KDHE on the discharge permit and probably have to do a study. What that says is that if there is discharge into Mud Creek, there can be no harm to the stream from what already exists today. This will take additional time and money. At the end of this study, it might be found out that this may not be a valid approach. The second option to be looked at is to address KDHE's comments. We would need to look at the smaller growth option of the septic tanks and the lateral fields come up with a more cost effective option. We possibly can sell this to KDHE in the sense of it being a more cost effective option that will meet all of the parameters. However, this might not be a favorable response to the City, because we want to go with the contained wetland/environmental friendly, now we're getting to a septic tank which is where we started at. The third option, which was Black & Veatch's recommendation, is to say time out. Currently, Black and Veatch is preparing a master plan for the City of Lawrence. The Planning Department is also doing a master plan for north of North Street. It is Black and Veatch's recommendation that they take a stop and just let the two plans resolve themselves. Development of flows at the north of North street should take place, then come up with a strategy and then go back to KDHE and tell them that this is the flow and this is how we intend to treat it. In both of KDHE's responses they've really come back to the fact that nothing is more reliable than pumping to the new Wastewater Treatment Plant, which we're currently expanding. We're in year two of a three year project. Nothing is more reliable from sending it to the new treatment plant. Again, this is just a recommendation. Let's see the two master plans work themselves out and then go back to KDHE. Michael Almon, Lawrence, spoke on behalf of Friends of Douglas County, a local organization that advocates for smart growth. He stated that although it wasn't reflected in the Oct. 24th Memo, the Friends of Douglas County was the first organization advocating for a solar aquatic wastewater treatment system. In 1999, Friends of Douglas County put together a report which focused on smaller distributed wastewater treatment systems that could be located in discrete watershed areas of the City and the county as a smart growth option. This would provide more flexibility in planning, wastewater treatment collection and treatment, and in lowering costs. One of the main focuses of that time was that Lawrence had to be plagued by failure of pump stations because approximately 1/3 to 2/5 of Lawrence's wastewater is currently pumped to the central station. This takes place mostly from the west side of Lawrence for a distance of about three miles south and then north and east side of Lawrence. So that was one of the main purposes in pursuing this. The smaller distributive systems could not only eliminate the costs to the City of the pump stations, but also the inevitable failures of the pump stations particulary during severe weather situations. So that's when the Friends of Douglas County put together the report on the 13th of May 2000: "Construct the Wetlands and Hyper Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Municipal, Industrial and Septage." He stated that he wasn't sure if the Commission received copies of this report from staff or not. He said that he would give the Commission copies of the executive summary. The study pointed out what wetlands actually do to cleanse water. They do this through diverse biotic systems in nature. They have recently been applied using a technological approach using microprocessors and very diverse aquatic biotic systems consisting of fish and plants, snails, microbes etc. This is quite distinct from what Black and Veatch refers to as an activated sludge system. The solar aquatic systems that Ecological Engineering Associates designs is worlds apart from an activated sludge system. He felt that KDHE does it a disservice to refer to it as that. It totally misrepresents what the system does. The typical activated sludge system is a mono-cultural system. It does use microbes but it's mono-culture and it's subject to toxic shock and can be rendered useless for a period of time if it gets inundated with excess sewage or heavy metals or something of that sort. Whereas the diverse biotic system of a solar aquatic system, greenhouse or living machine, they don't suffer that shock because there's such a diversity of the microbes and the plants and the snails and whatever that if one of those organisms gets impacted or several, there are others that are still viable and actually thrive in a differing kind of situation. The problem is that KDHE doesn't understand that, or they don't choose to understand that. Friends of Douglas County met with KDHE in May of 1999 and explained the system. They were mildly interested and said they were never going to advocate for anything such as that. They would consider such a system if they got an application. Which we were very gratified that the City of Lawrence did submit that application. But, it was clear from the beginning that they had a bias against this kind of a system. I assume because they are simply "old school" engineers. When the RFP went out, we suggested a number of engineering firms that have had extensive experience with this, including Ecological Engineering Associates, IASIS, BNIM Architects, TetraTech, who do know the systems and do know how to design them. He stated that he was appreciative that Black and Veatch has taken a serious interest in it. He assumed that the learning curve is growing faster. Nevertheless, KDHE does not seem to be engaging in the learning curve. BNIM, located in Kansas City, has designed a system that is now operating in Kansas City at the Missouri Department of Resources, 47th a Troost. Black & Veatch points to three options, one of which talks about how the City would end up spending more money and time to pursue the first or second option to arrive at what we ultimately would achieve if just the third option was chosen. The third option is just not to do a constructive wetland and pursue other options KDHE is being a proponent for. Almon said Lawrence needed to be doing the proper consulting analysis and studies and pay the money upfront to learn what the best options are. Pay to have an informed choice and to save money on operational costs down the road. He said he didn't think there was a problem in required significant time and cost additional to the City that may result in a denial of permit application. In KDHE comments they talk extensively about what the costs would be for various options. Almon said it seemed KDHE accepted face value what an engineer tells them about a pump, pipe, and chlorination system. When an engineer comes up with something like a solar aquatic system, then why do they question it. They keep harping on the costs here yet there is little response from KDHE about performance. Almon said it seemed as if they are simply not addressing whether the solar aquatic system will effectively treat the water the way we want it to be treated and preserve the integrity of Mud Creek. The water can be tertiary level with UV disinfection, it does not even need to be discharged to Mud Creek in any kind of form that would damage that creek. Secondly, it does not even need to be discharged in Mud Creek; instead it could go to recycling to fire prevention for irrigation as it is from the solar aquatic green house. It also could go to an outside constructive wetland for a number of acres. Other hyper wetland engineering companies will tell you this and will design just as such. Black & Veatch could do it too but KDHE does not want to recognize that and they have not responded to the NPDES permit to discharge into Mud Creek because they know that they would have to allow for the permit to go through. Almon said he thinks they are deflecting the attention from how the system works on to the cost of it which Black & Veatch has shown would be more cost effective if done in a modest scale at the appropriate size. It is their mistake to not look at the true functioning of a solar aquatic system. For example, when they question the numbers, it is ten times less of sludge comes from a solar aquatic system then coming from a chlorination conventional wastewater treatment plant. Almon said we should focus on who's job is to do what and pursue the course the friends of Douglas County feel are the most appropriate and valuable for the future of Lawrence. Mayor Hack asked how far along the Master Plan was. Matt Shultz, Project Manager, Black & Veatch, said he was in charge of the Wastewater Master Plan for the City. Shultz said they are taking a global approach at the growth for the City through the year 2025. Shultz said they recommended a time out so that they can finish the global master planning and work with the Planning Department. The report should be completed around the first of the year. Commissioner Henry asked if that was the length of the time out. Shultz said "yes". Commissioner Rundle said he has looked at this as somewhat of a pilot project. It could have applicability in other parts of the City because sewering the City is more and more a challenge. It could have even brighter applicability if the City had a test case when getting into the discussions of expanding beyond the current level, which the City will be facing at the end of this current project. Commissioner Rundle said he toured the facility in Kansas City and he is glad the engineer is saying that this would be a live proposal. Commissioner Rundle said he does not understand the necessity for the time out if they can keep waiting for KDHE to come forward. Vice Mayor Dunfield said this City Commission has strongly indicated its interest in pursuing this contained wetlands avenue and has been struggling with this for three years. KDHE has been sporadic regarding communication with the City's engineers. It is very clear that KDHE is doing everything it can to avoid dealing with the idea of a contain wetlands and it is equally clear that the City Commission can proceed without KDHE's approval. Vice Mayor Dunfield said the time out makes sense and is appropriate to find out if there is going to be an approval. Commissioner Henry said he very much agrees with Vice Mayor Dunfield. A time out would give the Commissioners time to get some answers. Commissioner Henry said he is concerned that the longer they drag their feet the greater chance that companies decide that Lawrence drags their feet regarding these issues so they will go to other cities. Mayor Hack said calling it a time out is very appropriate and that she supports the decision. The City Commission needs to get a better idea of what their options are. Commissioner Rundle said he would like to use this time out to find out from the Economic Development at the Chamber of Commerce, what the time line is of those people who have expressed interest in the airport properties and their needs for sewering because it is going to be important if the we look at replacing the septic system or doing this conventional approach. He asked when would be a realistic time to provide these options because there is no guarantee that if we abandon the Wetlands options, that we're going to be able to provide any of these other options in a timeline that's going to meet the needs of these companies that are looking and we might end up driving them away. Commissioner Kennedy concurred with the other Commissioners. It was moved Henry, seconded by Rundle, to received a report regarding the Lawrence Municipal Airport Sanitary Sewer Study and approved Strategy 3, as described in a September 5, 2002 Black & Veatch letter, which calls for suspending work associated with pursuing the contained wetlands for approximately two months pending completion of the Master Plan for North of North Street. (40) The City Commission then took a five-minute recess. Mayor Hack said she appreciated the Department Heads looking at the goals and finding ways that some of their objectives could fit into the various goals. Commissioner Kennedy concurred with the Commission Goals and was enlightened that City departments came up with their own goals to help the Commission achieve their goals. Mayor Hack said this document did not represent all the objectives that these departments were working on. There were other goals that did not fall into a particular slot based on the Commission's broad goals. The rest of the goals are found in the Operating Capital Improvement Budget. Commissioner Henry said he was pleased to see the response from departments. Vice Mayor Dunfield said he would like to suggest to very modest addition. Since goal number three, Community Building, seemed to have the fewest items under it, Vice Mayor Dunfield suggest that the City Manager's Office and the Planning staff add an objective such as continued support for the Heritage Area Development. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Rundle, to approve the objective statements for City Commission goals after modifying the statements for City Commission Goal No. 3 "Community Building" by adding a goal for the City Manager's Office and the Planning Department "to continue support for the heritage area development." Motion carried unanimously. (41) During public comment, Doug Bowen, Lawrence, said he is against roundabouts and pedestrian islands. He said he did not know items on the Consent Agenda were approved on one sweep, so he asked the City Commission to explain agenda item number eight. Bowen said if he had known then he would of strenuously objected. Bowen then asked who evaluated the City Manager. Mayor Hack said the people elect the City Commission and it is the Commissioner jobs to evaluate the City Manager's position. Wayne Parks, Lawrence, said he is interested in the aqua system and waste. He said he had concerns with the growth issues within the City and the hidden cost associated with growth. He said he had a concern about the Folks Road issue because it seemed like this was a planning issue. He asked if there was a right-of-way every mile and when we annex land, didn't we need to make a plat to show where the streets are going to be so that when developers develop the land, they can develop around it properly. Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: _____________________________ Sue Hack, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 5, 2002 1. Contract - 2002 & 2003 Audit Services to Lowenthal Singleton Webb & Wilson. 2. Bid - Sale of Downstroke Vertical Baler for $35.46 - rejected 3. Bid - Misc. lab equipment for $2.00 & scrap iron for $123.33 to Lonnie's Recycling. 4. Bid - Sale of scrap cooper tubing and brass to Johnny Nichols for $757. 5. Bid - Sale of obsolete water meters to Reiners Metals for $1,900. 6. Contract - Engineer Design, Landplan for Oread Center, (16th & Wakarusa) sanitary sewer for $10,086. 7. Contract - Engineer Design, Landplan for Oread Center, (16th St.) street & storm sewer for $18,561. 8. Contract - Engineer Design, Landplan for Oread Center, (16th St.) waterline improvements for $3,412.50. 9. Contract - Engineer Design, Landplan for Oread Center, (Research Park Dr.) street & storm sewer for $18,336. 10. Contract - Engineer Design, Landplan for Oread Center, (Research Park Dr.) waterline improvements for $3,412.50. 11. Bid - Weatherization Program, storm window to Advance Glass & Mirror for $24,155.37; insulation to Midwest Insulation for $10,575; and weatherstripping of doors to Master Plan Mgmt for $2,897. 12. Bid - Renovation of bathroom & kitchen, Hearthstone House, 745 Ohio to Penny Construction for $63,000. 13. Bid - Lawrence Public Library improvements to Quality Electric of Lawrence for $25,525. 14. Ordinance No. 7587 - 1st Reading, amend City's Mechanical Code, ignition source. 15. Ordinance No. 7590 - 1st Reading, rezone (Z-05-15-02) 1.266 acres, A-1 to PRD-1, N of Clinton Pkwy & W of Lake Alvamar. 16. Ordinance No. 7591 - 1st Reading, rezone (Z-08-24-02) .15 acres, RS-2 to RO-2, 1246 Haskell. 17. Ordinance No. 7592 - 1st Reading, amend parking requirements for group living facilities. 18. Ordinance No. 7599 - 1st Reading, allow alcoholic beverage at Carnegie Library Bldg for City Employee Relations Council Holiday Party, Dec. 7. 19. Ordinance No. 7589 - 2nd Reading, Rezone (Z-09-33-99) 1.5783 acres, R-1 to RS-1, S of Peterson on W side of Monterey Way, E 1150 Rd. 20. Ordinance No. 7584 - 2nd Reading, Annex 11 acres, S of W 6th, W of Queens. 21. Resolution No. 6432 - Benefit District, public hearing, sanitary sewer at 23rd & Louisiana. 22. Resolution No. 6433 - Benefit District, public hearing, 11th Street from Haskell to 750' East. 23. Resolution No. 6434 - Environmentally blighted, 776 Ash. 24. Site Plan - (SP-05-33-02) Alek's Auto Sales, NW corner of Lincoln & N 2nd. 25. Site Plan - (SP-08-61-00) Office/Warehouse, 911 E 11th. 26. Site Plan - (SP-10-75-02) Driveway for Bowersock Mills, 546 Mass. 27. Final Plat - (PF-09-25-02) Riverridge No. 3, 2.02 acres, creating 4 lots, between Riverridge & Golden Rain, 1829 Riverridge Rd. 28. Final Plat - (PF-09-26-02) College Motel Addition, E 3/4 of E 1/2 of Blk 50, W Lawrence, 2.462 acres, 1703 W 6th. 29. Prelim Dev Plan - (PDP-05-03-02) The Ridge at Alvamar, N of Clinton Pkwy & W of Alvamar, 44 single-family houses & 29 townhouses (59 units) on 24.65 acres. 30. KDOT - Transportation Enhancement Funds in 2004 & 2005 State fiscal year. 31. Mortgage Release - Deborah Campbell, 757 Elm. 32. Mortgage Release - Patrick & Tracy Kite, 1125 New Jersey. 33. Subordination Agreement - Bruce & Kristen Barlow, 815 Elm. 34. License Additions - Mechanical Fireplace Master & Contractor. 35. City Manager's Report - 36. City Employee Survey - 37. Tax Abatement - PROSOCO 38. Public Improvements - Folks between 6th & Harvard. 39. UPR - Children's Learning Center, 205 N Mich. 40. Lawrence Municipal Airport - Sanitary Sewer Study. 41. City Commission Goals. 5 November 12, 2002 The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 7:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Vice Mayor Dunfield presiding and members Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle present. Mayor hack was absent. High School representatives Zack Elmore and Caroline Nobo were present. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to approve claims to 332 vendors in the amount of $2,435,863.18. Motion carried unanimously. The City Commission reviewed the bids for lime residuals forcemain and fiber optic line (Contract 2) for the Utilities Department. The bids were: BIDDER FORCEMAIN FIBER OPTIC LINE TOTAL Engineer's Estimate $950,000 $280,000 $1,230,000 Razorback $482,222 $217,350 $699,572 Garney Companies $532,288 $195,310 $750,610 Redford Construction $542,110 $208,500 $750,610 Beemer Construction $608,000 $216,630 $824,630 Rose-Lan Construction $754,099 $269,450 $1,023,549 Emcon $887,000 $208,000 $1,095,000 Meadows $973,447 $243,700 $1,217,147 Dennis Johnson Construction $619,253 $260,626 $879,879 As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to award the bid to Razorback Construction, for the total amount of $699,572; and, authorize the City Manager to sign a Supplemental Service Agreement with Black & Veatch for a maximum not-to-exceed fee of $543,500 for construction phase services related to the lime residuals processing facilities and the lime residual forcemain. Motion carried unanimously. (1) The City Commission reviewed the bids for paving on the City Compost Site on east 11th for the Public Works Department. The bids were: BIDDER BID AMOUNT LRM Industries $104,975 Asphalt Improvement Co. $107,125 Seal-O-Matic Paving $111,767 As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to award the bid to LRM Industries Inc., in the amount of $104,975.00. Motion carried unanimously. (2) The City Commission reviewed the bids for one skid loader for the Parks & Recreation Department. The bids were: BIDDER BID AMOUNT KC Bobcat $36,860.49 Kan Equip $42,070.00 Murphy Tractor No Bid Victor L. Phillips No Bid Coleman Equipment No Bid As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to award the bid to KC Bobcat, in the amount of $36,860.49. Motion carried unanimously. (3) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7602, designating Folks Road within the City limits as a main trafficway. This designation will allow for City debt financing of proposed improvements to this road. Motion carried unanimously. (4) Ordinance No. 7587, amending the City's Mechanical Code concerning the elevation of ignition source, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5) Ordinance No. 7590, rezoning (Z-05-15-02) approximately 1.266 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District), located north of Clinton Parkway and west of Lake Alvamar, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6) Ordinance No. 7591, rezoning (Z-08-24-02) approximately 0.15 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District) to RO-2 (Residence-Office), located at 1246 Haskell Avenue, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7) Ordinance No. 7592, amending the parking requirements for group living facilities, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8) Ordinance No. 7599, allowing alcoholic beverages at the Carnegie Library Building for City Employee Relations Council Holiday Party on December 7, 2002, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Henry, Kennedy, and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations and adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning of approximately 5.58 acres [Z-09-34-02] from RM-1, RM-2 (Multi-family Residential District) and RM-D (Duplex Residential District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), Lots 1-6 & 1, Block 3, as well as Lots 24-31, Block 2 of the Pinnacle West Addition, located at W. 8th Street; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (10) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning of approximately 2.7 acres [Z-08-26-02] from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex Residential District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. The property is generally located 170' north of Riverridge Road fronting Iowa. Motion carried unanimously. (11) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning of approximately 1.0 acres [Z-09-28-02] from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to RM-D (Duplex Residential District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. The property is located at 2010 Riverridge Road. Motion carried unanimously. (12) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Douglas and MarSue Mackey, 1010 East Home Circle. Motion carried unanimously. (13) During the City Manager's Report, Mike Wildgen said the City of Lawrence has received recognition for 35 years of membership and participation from the National League of Cities. Wildgen also reported, with the National Elections over and the City Elections coming to the forefront, City Election Packets were available on the City's web site. Also, during the City Manager's Report, he reported that City of Lawrence has submitted the 2003 General Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for the GFPA Budget Award. Lisa Patterson, Communications Coordinator, is working to have the 2003 budget available on-line by the end of this month. In conclusion, Wildgen reported that an article written by Lisa Patterson concerning the City's partnership with the US Army was included in Public Management, a national publication. (14) David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 7594, prohibiting the possession and discharge of fireworks within the City. This ordinance also included language to make it clear that "novelties" which are not included in the definition or firework, are not included in this prohibition. Staff has reviewed the United States Department of Transportation classification of fireworks and in addition, there are State regulations that were also reviewed. These types of 'novelties' are not considered fireworks by the Federal or State authorities. By adopting this ordinance, the Commission is amending the current language in 8-207.6 which is the three day exception and replacing all of 8-207.6 with language in Ordinance No. 7594. As staff was preparing this ordinance, Jim McSwain, Fire Chief and Rich Barr, Fire Marshal, were involved in the preparation of this ordinance. There were also discussions with members of the Police Department about enforcement of this ordinance. He said staff also brings before the Commission a separate ordinance that was not necessary to adopt, if the Commission wanted to adopt the ban of possession and discharge of fireworks, but it was something staff recommended. Corliss explained Ordinance No. 7601, concerning Notice to Appear issuance authority. He said under State law, only sworn Law Enforcement Officers could issue notices to appear which were called NTA's. He said this notice generates the complaint in Municipal Court. Under State law, only sworn Law Enforcement Officers can issue notices to appear. He said the City Commission adopted a Charter Ordinance approximately 8 years ago, which exempted the City from the provisions of State law, which could be initiated under the Home Rule Amendment because, that State statute is not uniformly applicable to all cities. He said the City adopted Charter Ordinance No. 31 that allowed the City Commission, by an ordinary ordinance, to state that the Commission wanted other City employees to have the ability to issue Notices to Appear. He said for example, the City has used this Charter Ordinance to allow Parking Control Officers to issue Notices to Appear for habitual violators and Animal Control Officers to issue Notices to Appear for a dog running at large and also, to allow Fire/Medical Personnel to issue Notices to Appear, under limited situations, for over occupancy in establishments. He said all of this was legal prologue for what he wanted to present to the Commission which was Ordinance 7601 which would allow for the Fire Chief to designate appropriate personnel in the Fire Department to enforce any provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Significantly, it would include provisions of the prohibition against fireworks because in discussions in regards to this ordinance, staff believed that additional personnel would be needed for enforcement beyond the personnel of the Police Department. Firefighters would be able to issue Notices to Appear under appropriate circumstances to individuals who are in violation of the ordinance. He said firefighters would be trained with Municipal Court personnel about the appropriate way to issue citations. He said Ordinance No. 7601 is being brought before the Commission because it is related to the Fireworks Ordinance and is appropriate. Corliss said the Commission could adopt the ordinance prohibiting fireworks and consider Ordinance No. 7601 at any time in the future if the Commission wanted additional information, but staff wanted to present this ordinance for consideration. Commissioner Kennedy said it was his understanding that the Fire/Medical Department could issue Notices to Appear, for certain violations already. Corliss said yes. The Fire/Medical Department had the ability to issue Notices to Appear for occupancy violations. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the Fire/Medical Department had the ability to issue Notices to Appear in regards to fire hazards. Corliss said the Fire/Medical Department did not have the authority, but this issue would not be ignored. Neighborhood Resources could issue the Notices to Appear and prosecutors could initiate the complaint. They also have general police type powers to close a facility down if there is a fire hazard. Commissioner Kennedy requested information from the Fire/Medical Department concerning the number of extra fireman on duty during previous 4th of July celebrations. He asked if they were anticipating additional personnel needed to police our town next year, due to the fact this would have a budgetary impact for the City. Commissioner Kennedy also asked, in regards to the Notices to Appear, if the fine was already established. Corliss said the fine was not being changed by any of these ordinances. He said he did not recollect what the fine was. Commissioner Kennedy said he would like to know what the fine was and would it go on a citizen's record. Corliss said all of their adjudications in Municipal Court were misdemeanor violations. He said they were violations that would go on City record. He said he would provide Commissioner Kennedy with information concerning fines. He reiterated that none of the Ordinances that the Commission would be adopting would change the fine for violation of the Fire Code and it is at the discretion of the judge whether to suspend the fine or follow through. Commissioner Kennedy said he would like to know what the basic and maximum fines are for this violation before voting on this particular ordinance. Darryl Krape, Lawrence, who was unable to attas not being changed by any of these ordinances. He said he did not recollect what the fine was. Commissioner Kennedy said he would like to know what the fine was and would it go on a citizen's record. Corliss said all of their adjudications in Municipal Court were misdemeanor violations. He said they were violations that would go on City record. He said he would provide Commissioner Kennedy with information concerning fines. He reiterated that none of the Ordinances that the Commission would be adopting would change the fine for violation of the Fire Code and it is at the discretion of the judge whether to suspend the fine or follow through. Commissioner Kennedy said he would like to know what the basic and maximum fines are for this violation before voting on this particular ordinance. Darryl Krape, Lawrence, who was unable to attend this City Commission meeting, asked that his comments be place in these minutes. His comments were taken from a memo that was drafted by Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk. The memo stated, "Earlier in the day I received a call from Darryl Krape, Lawrence, who could not attend the meeting tonight because he was going out of town. He asked me to relay his comments to you regarding the proposed Fireworks ordinance. Mr. Krape stated he is in favor of the total ban on fireworks. He spend 30 years in the military and has heard enough "snap and pop" to last a lifetime. He believes he does not have to shoot off fireworks to be patriotic. He said if someone wanted to be patriotic they should express his/her patriotism by voting. He also stated partial bans do not work. His support for this statement is the fact we now have a partial ban on certain types of fireworks (e.g. no bottle rockets) but people shoot them off anyway. We also have a ban on dates and time of day when people can shoot off fireworks, but those are also disregarded. He also objects to his tax dollars being used to clean up after those people who can't cleanup the spend fireworks themselves. He asked the Commission to "stick to its guns and have the backbone to push the ban through." Patricia Sinclair, Lawrence, read a prepared statement and said, "Tonight we are considering the wording and content or ordinances banning fireworks in Lawrence. I have reviewed the proposed ordinances and have some concerns and some questions about them and about how the process of enforcement will occur in the future. The first concerns the exclusion of novelties in the ban. It was my understanding that the City Commission desired a ban of all fireworks and that so-called novelty items were to be included in that ban. If the Commission wishes to allow "novelties," then it will be important to understand just what is included in that term and where these items can be sold. To the best of my recollection, and I was unable to confirm this fact today, Kansas applies a narrower definition of novelty item than does the United States Department of Transportation. If this is the case, it is important that our ordinance reflects that and that the Commission understands what items will be included and where items can be sold in Lawrence if at all. It seems possible that novelty items might be sold in Lawrence 365 days a year something that we might not want. We need not only approve an ordinance, but it is also important to craft a citywide policy for enforcement, with a clear understanding of the penalties involved. It seems to me that we should begin with what we want to happen next July, and work backwards from there in drafting our ordinance. The City Commission needs to be able to work together with the Lawrence Police Department so that the Police Department carries out the will of the Commission and the Commission sets policy that is deemed workable by the Police Department. I think that we all want something radically different than what has taken place in the past in terms of enforcement. While we realize that our police department will not be able to deal with all complaints, we should be able to expect to have a stated public enforcement policy and to see citations given. This is a very important piece of work and it is needed so that the community knows what to expect. Many residents will willingly comply with a ban, but unfortunately we know that others will not. Many Lawrence residents have been frustrated with trying to get enforcement in the past. Communities enforce fireworks bans in a variety of ways. Some hold parents or property owners responsible for violations that occur on their property. Some confiscate fireworks that are found. Lawrence should be able to do that once possession is illegal. If a resident or a police officer sees a violation, what will occur? If there is not somebody actively shooting off fireworks or holding them when the officer arrives to check out the situation, what can they do next? Can they, and should they, enter the property to look for fireworks then confiscate any that are found? Should a citation be issued and, if so, to whom? Should a warning be given for a first offense with a citation coming on a second offense? What will the penalty be for somebody found in possession of or using fireworks? It needs to be hefty enough to discourage violations. It's not too soon to plan a public education campaign about the new ordinance and its penalties. Many people do not follow the news closely and many new residents flow into Lawrence each year. Let's plan to post the information prominently at all appropriate City offices and recreational facilities and also consider posting signs at the major entrances to the City. My thanks to the City Commission for voting for a ban on fireworks. Now let's make sure that ban works as well as possible." Gary Bartz, Lawrence, said on July 10, 2002, the Lawrence Journal World did an online poll that asked the question, "Should the City of Lawrence place more restrictions on fireworks?" The results were: 58% said no, 41% said yes, and 1% was undecided. In the past we have had problems with fires, like 501 Colorado, but from 1988 to 2000, there were fires on the July 2, 3 and 4th of July. In those years, there were $15,000 worth of damage that is $1,015 dollars of damage each year and that was basically 4 fires per year. In 2001 we had an apartment fire and it seemed to have started the "chicken little syndrome" where we think the town is going to burn down around us. This was caused, as stated in the Fire Department's Report; the misuse of fireworks and it also could be started by the misuse of charcoal falling off a deck. He said what concerns him about banning fireworks is what is next? According to the U.S. Fire Administration, there were twice as many fires caused on Halloween as on the 4th of July. Also, Christmas time fires almost doubled the amount of loss in property compared to the 4th of July. He said the Commission should not adopt this ordinance and he thought the Commission should take the lead to say that this is a tradition and would hate to see it go. Eric Garrett, Secretary/Treasurer of the Douglas County Fireworks Association, said they knew fireworks better than most people. He said they not only sell them, but also are aware of the classifications and the level of safety requirements. He said they are trying to compromise with the City by promoting safety and even giving up many of their products they felt were somewhat safe. Throughout this debate, however, their expertise and knowledge has been completely ignored. Garrett said it is disappointing that five people are deciding on this issue for everyone. It is still not too late to allow the citizens to decide on this issue. He said Vice Mayor Dunfield especially should not have any objection to this since the majority of people e-mailed him in favor of the ban. He said if the Commission won't consider this issue, then he asked that they consider allowing safe and sane fireworks within the City limits of Lawrence. The States of California, Florida, and several others have already done this, as well as the City of Topeka. According to fireworkslan.com classification of fireworks in the U.S., it states: "In a broad general sense, safe and sane is used to refer to fireworks which stay on the ground, don't move, and don't explode. Safe and sane fireworks are almost often defined to include fountains, sparklers, ground spinners, wheels, some novelties, snakes, smoke, strobes, party poppers, and more. Fireworks such as firecrackers, rockets, shells, flying spinners and others are usually not considered in this category, but the exact definition varies from state to state. He said he believed safe and sane was exactly what it says and it would be appropriate for the citizens of Lawrence, both adults and children. Vice Mayor Dunfield asked where the current status of these items called "novelties" fall under the current regulations. Corliss said in Ordinance No. 7594, he said it is stated that items called "novelties" not classified as fireworks by the U.S. Department of Transportation, won't be included in the ban. He said novelties are also not included in the definition of fireworks under state law. He said, in other words, the City currently does not ban novelties. These items are not considered fireworks under the state law that allowed for the sale of fireworks between June 27th and the 5th of July and are not considered fireworks under the City's current ordinance that allows for the use, possession, and discharge on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of July. Vice Mayor Dunfield said, in other words, the new ordinance is making explicit what is already permitted in terms of the sale of novelties. Corliss said yes. He said staff thought that was appropriate given the level of interest in what would be allowed to continue to be used as a novelty. Commissioner Kennedy said with the questions that were presented today, he did not know if his fellow Commissioners were concerned about the enforcement of this ordinance and how and who was going to enforce it along with the cost associated with the enforcement. Concerning Ordinance No. 7601, he wanted to know exactly what was going to happen if this ordinance is adopted and who was going to be in charge and did this ordinance have enough force to take care of anything that happens. Commissioner Rundle asked if it was possible that staff could get all these answers by next week so these ordinances could be on first reading at this meeting. Wildgen said staff is already enforcing fireworks code provisions. He said the other ordinance was to recognize that the Fire Department has some ability to enforce this part of the Code. He said there will be challenges next year and it will take some time and education. Commissioner Rundle said the Commission continues to hear comments on this proposal and for him the majority of the comments were positive, but he acknowledged those who opposed this ban. He also acknowledged that in many ways this represented sacrifice on the part of a lot of people. It is a change and an elimination of a tradition. He said there are many neighborhood gatherings that will not have the same quality. He said he has participated for the last ten years in a neighborhood gathering that involved five families and many other friends and neighbors and that gathering predated him by at least another 4 years. He said he knew Marvin Pine, owner of Pine Fireworks, almost as long as he has been involved in Folk music in the area. Pine is among those people who risk the loss of income from the sale of fireworks at his stands. He said as a personal friend of Shelly Miller and her family, fireworks are a part of that families tradition, family celebrations, and if not, their identity. Of all these people in these various constituencies who are opposed to the change, he has angered and disappointed many of them, including close personal friends and some of his strongest supporters disagree with the position he has taken on this ban. He said doing the right thing for Lawrence took precedent for him over these friendships and political support and he was hoping those bonds are stronger and would weather this issue. The argument is made that there have been no significant accidents in recent history and he did not feel that was the point. He said he did not think we could wait until one or two persons lost their lives or we lose one or two businesses or homes. It is implied in these comments that at some point, we will reach a threshold where we will need to ban fireworks and some of the people who oppose the fireworks ban at this time acknowledge the fact that we will need to have a ban. He said firefighters have recommended this ban along with their family members who also want the ban because they want to know that chances of their spouses being removed from harms way is as strong as possible. He said, as a public official, he felt he had to look at that threat. Again, this has generated strong emotions for all the reasons he referred to and he understood and appreciated that and encouraged individuals to look responsibly at those emotions and understand the basis upon which the Commission is making this decision. Rundle said Public Safety workers put their lives on the line everyday, they voluntarily put themselves in harms way and their families risk the loss of a loved one. He said we need to be aware of what we're asking the public safety people to risk when we have thousands of people shooting off fireworks at the same time. The risk is just not acceptable. He said, concerning the safe and sane idea, it sounded to him like a partial ban. He said some of the Commissioners were interested in considering a partial ban, but one of the loudest arguments against this issue was lack of enforceability. Everybody complains that this is difficult to enforce and he felt the Commission was pushed into the total ban because law enforcement and public safety people said a total ban was the most enforceable. He said unfortunately, they have already crossed that bridge and the option of having a partial ban was taken away by that argument. He supported the ordinance. Commissioner Henry said this was a public safety issue and did not believe anyone had the right to endanger property or life through their actions. Since the Commission voted on this issue, he had heard overwhelming support in favor of a ban. He said he was not willing to change his vote at this point in time and this issue was clearly a public safety issue and this community will be far better off as a result of this ban. Vice Mayor Dunfield said he has spoken his mind on this issue and wanted to comment on one additional item and that is the question of a public vote. He said a public vote is always a possibility. However, it did seem to him as a City Commissioner he was elected to weigh issues and to make difficult decisions and not to pass those issues off because they were unpleasant and were upsetting some friends and family members and because issues were emotional and caused grief among some people. He said it was the Commission's role to make these types of decisions. He said all the Commissioners had been accused of being brave and being the opposite when it comes to this same issue. He said the question is not one of bravery or cowardliness; the question is one of taking their responsibility as elected officials and addressing difficult issues and making difficult decisions. He supported the ordinances. Commissioner Kennedy said he was trying for a compromise to have the City of Lawrence able to celebrate in the old fashion way, what has been a tradition for approximately 50 years. He said the ordinance banning fireworks was not a workable ordinance that would be enforceable for this community and it would place additional public personnel out on the streets to enforce this ordinance which will entail additional expenses for the City of Lawrence. We will need to have additional firefighters available writing your next-door neighbor and friends a Notice to Appear. He said an ordinance is going to be passed and he did not like the way it was written, but he also knew that staff had done an excellent drafting this ordinance. He had questions concerning Ordinance No. 7601 and did not support the ordinance banning fireworks due to the fact that he sees the need for additional staff in harms way to enforce this ordinance. Commissioner Rundle said he was glad Commissioner Kennedy asked these questions and he was expecting to take seriously what information s |