[E-updates] Lawrence City Commission meeting minutes September 16, 2003
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:50:58 -0500
September 16, 2003
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular
session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with
Mayor Dunfield presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner
present.
The Lawrence Sesquicentennial Commission recognized Lawrence's 149th
birthday.
With Commission approval Mayor Dunfield proclaimed September 17 - 23,
2003 as "Constitution Week."
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to approve the Human Relations Commission meeting of May 21, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to approve claims to 356 vendors in the amount of $1,396,039.10.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Harbour Lights, 1031
Massachusetts; Tellers, 746 Massachusetts; the Drinking
Establishment/Caterer License for the Hereford House, 4931 West 6th Street;
the Retail Liquor Licenses for Alvin Wine & Spirits, 905 Iowa (Contingent
Upon State License); and Alvin Wine & Spirits, 4000 West 6th, Ste: K
(Contingent Upon Stare License). Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Jeanette
Collier to the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Board; the appointment of
Barbara Hillmer; and reappointment of Steven Ramirez and Robert Mikesic to
the Human Relations Commission; the appointment for Jason Edmonds to the
City/County Economic Development Board; the appointments of Tom Rost and
Constance Wolfe to the Visitors Bureau Advisory Board; and, the appointment
of Pat Kehde to the Downtown Parking Advisory Board. Motion carried
unanimously.
A request for posting directional signs to support the Kansas River
Clean-Up to be held, Sunday, September 21st, from 10 a.m. to Noon, was a
walk-on item on the consent agenda. As part of the consent agenda, it was
moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the request for directional
signs. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to approve the contract with Ace Pipe Cleaning for $56,716 for the
2003 large sanitary sewer line cleaning/inspection program. Motion carried
unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to approve the purchase of in-car mobile data systems (10 district
cars) from Motorola Direct in the amount of $82,514. Motion carried
unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an engineering contract
for $89,050 with BG Consultants and $41,785 with EBH Consultants for
2003/2004 Waterline Improvement Project Design. Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to set a bid date of October 7, 2003 for the following comprehensive
rehabilitation loan projects: 347 Elm, 1810 Haskell Avenue; and 2001
Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7697, ordering the
condemnation of real property interests for O'Connell Road Improvement
Project (south of East 23rd Street). Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to place of first reading, Ordinance No. 7696, naming Douglas County
East 1600 Road north of the Kansas River as North 11th Street within the
corporate limits of the City. Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
Ordinance No. 7695, rezoning [Z-06-17-03] 1.44 acres, from A
(Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District),
located at the east side of Mulberry Drive, was read a second time. As part
of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt
the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.
Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6489, authorizing the condemnation of property
interests for stormwater improvements (Stroda tract) near 13th and Oregon.
Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to approve pursuant to sign code requirements, as signs of community
interest: 1) the annual United Way campaign banners for selected locations
within the City; and 2) the Lawrence Home Builders Association request for
directional signage for the fall parade of homes. Motion carried
unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to approve
the annexation (A-07-10-03) request of approximately 6.76 acres of land at
the extensions of Foxfire Drive and Burning Tree Drive south and west of the
existing Foxfire development; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate
ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to adopt the
findings of fact and approve the request to rezone (Z-07-22-03) a tract of
land approximately 6.76 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2
(Single-Family Residence District); and, direct staff to prepare the
appropriate ordinance. The property is generally described as being located
south and west of the existing Foxfire Development. Motion carried
unanimously.
(12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to adopt the
findings of fact and approve the request to rezone (Z-07-21-03) a tract of
land approximately 3.8 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District)
to RS-2* (Single-Family Residential District); and, direct staff to prepare
the appropriate ordinance. The property is generally described as being
located at 1800 West 27th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Commissioner Highberger pulled from the consent agenda for
discussion, the rezoning request for approximately 101.23 acres located
south of Harvard Road (extended) and east of George Williams Way. He asked
if that entire area was surrounded by City park land.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said generally speaking yes.
Commissioner Highberger asked where were the entrances to the land
being rezoned. He also asked how that rezoning came about.
Finger said there was a drainage area which was euphemistically
called "Ring Park", because it ringed around an area which wasn't park
ground and then there was a park directly across George Williams Way on the
east side of that road from Langston Hughes. She said that was how that
situation came about. The property owner, at the time, said that it was a
major drainage area that was not developable and they thought the City would
be able to maintain that property better than they could.
Sandy Day, Planner, presented a map of the area. She said the City
Commission would see a plat of this property in the next several weeks.
Staff had gone through the preliminary plat process and as that area was
further developed, Harvard Road would be extended and would connect with
George Williams Way on the far west side. That alignment had been in
planning documents for a number of years. She said the Commission would
start to see the necessary development pieces come into play. The
annexation took place with the swap of area that was along 6th Street. The
property was never rezoned and a preliminary plat was submitted and approved
by the Planning Commission and the zoning had lagged behind. Normally the
zoning would have already been considered.
Commissioner Highberger asked if a volume of traffic, in that area,
fed onto Harvard.
Day said Harvard Road would be the primary collector street. As the
area was looked at there would be multiple street connections as the rest of
area was built out and there would be multiple ways to get in and out of the
overall development.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the "Ring Park" was owned by the City.
Finger said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked how much was the purchase price of that
piece of ground.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the cost was several hundred
thousands of dollars. He said the bigger area next to Langston Hughes would
be more deservedly named a park because the thinner areas follow some
easements for high power lines. The thinner areas would be walkways and
trails.
Mayor Dunfield said this rezoning would give the City a chance to
protect some environmentally sensitive areas and develop some trails for
that connectivity issue. He said to have that feeding into a park across
the street from an elementary school seemed like a good opportunity.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the southern piece of that area lay in
the lowest part of the road westward on 15th Street.
Finger said she did not want to elevate Commissioner Schauner's hopes
of that being a substantial trail system because that area had steep
topography and what was or what was not actually paved, rather than aligned
path or what becomes a natural area, for access was an option for all of
those to occur. She did not think of that area as manicured.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the
request to rezone (Z-07-24-03) a tract of land approximately 101.23 acres
from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District);
and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. The property is
generally described as being located south of Harvard Road (extended) and
east of George Williams Way. Motion carried unanimously.
(14)
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
During the City Manager's Report, Mike Wildgen said the State's
Revenue Secretary, Joan Wagnon, was in Lawrence to promote the State's Tax
Amnesty Program to ask the City for their support in attempting to collect
approximately $300 million in owed taxes. He said the State's goal was to
collect approximately $20 million under the amnesty program.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible for the State to
access City employee databases to see if any City employees owed back State
Income Tax.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, said there
was a Debtor Set-Off Program at the State level and, at times, they get
requests for information about matching records. He said they had shared
some information, but it was not necessarily confidential in the sense that
it was basically a record that an individual was employed by the City. He
said there was a state statute that required the City, when appropriate, to
provide some funds that would go toward that Debtor Set-Off Program.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City would do the same thing with
respect to those people who bid for City work before the City awarded any
City projects.
Wildgen said the City checked back taxes with some of the Drinking
Establishments Licenses. He said they had not practiced that check with
licensed contractors.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that would be an idea that had some
merit for further discussion. He said if those contractors were doing
business with city taxpayer dollars with individuals who were not paying
their State taxes, it might be an issue that the City Commission should
discuss. (15)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive bids on City bond and note sale. Approve lowest responsible bids.
Approve declaration of emergency allowing for the adoption of an ordinance
on first and second reading. Approve adoption of necessary resolutions and
ordinance authorizing the bond and note sale.
Ed Mullins, Finance Director, presented the bids on the City's bond
and note sale. He said this was the second time that they used a company
called Parity which allowed on-line bidding on the Internet. He explained
that the bids could not be seen by other bidders.
He said there were nine bids on the bond sale and he did not know if
that was attributed to Parity or that there was a good mark for the bonds.
He said typically they would receive four or five bids.
Mullins explained the note sale. He said the note that dealt with
the airport was subject to alternative minimum tax and only received two
bids. One of those bidders bid on the wrong maturity date so it was
disqualified. The other bid was fairly competitive.
On the $15 million note issue there were four bids. Once again, one
of the bidders bid on the wrong maturity date and was disqualified. The
remaining three bids were close in bidding, but the best bid came in at
1.17% which was a good rate.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for General Obligation
Temporary Notes, Series 2003-II. The bids were:
BIDDER Net Interest Cost ($) Average
Annual
Net
Interest Rate (%)
US Bancorp Piper Jaffray 188,019.17
1.170851
UMB Bank, n.a. 194,869.58
1.213511
CIBC World Markets Corp. 195,552.92
1.217766
TGH Securities Disqualified - Incorrectly
Calculated Bid
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to U.S.
Bancorp Piper Jaffray for the Net Interest Cost of $188,019.17 at an Average
Annual Net Interest Rate of 1.170851%. Motion carried unanimously.
(16)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6491,
authorizing the sale of General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2003-II .
Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for General Obligation
Temporary Notes, Series 2003-III. The bids were:
BIDDER Net Interest Cost ($) Average
Annual
Net
Interest Rate (%)
Country Club Bank, n.a. 27,716.78
1.470213
TGH Securities Disqualified - Incorrectly
Calculated Bid
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Country
Club Bank, n.a., for the Net Interest Cost of $27,716.78 at an Average
Annual Net Interest Rate of 1.470213%. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6492,
authorizing the sale of General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2003-III
. Motion carried unanimously.
(19)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for General Obligation Bonds,
Series 2003-D. The bids were:
BIDDER Net Interest Cost ($) Average
Annual
Net
Interest Rate (%)
UBS Financial Services Inc. 728,833.36
3.290639
UMB Bank, n.a. 735,837.61
3.324285
Stern Brothers & Co. 746,201.58
3.368135
Hutchison, Shockey, Erley & Co. 751,893.92 3.369154
Harris Trust & Savings Bank 747,645.69
3.375572
US Bancorp Piper Jaffray 746,867.53
3.379265
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. 750,315.58
3.385014
Wells Fargo Brokerage 755,922.62
3.399559
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. 762,952.36
3.429494
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to UBS
Financial Services Inc., for the Net Interest Cost of $728,833.36 at an
Average Annual Net Interest Rate of 3.290639%. Motion carried unanimously.
(20)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6493,
authorizing the sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003-D. Motion
carried unanimously.
(21)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to declare an emergency and
adopt on first and second reading Ordinance No. 7699, authorizing the sale
of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003-D. Aye: Dunfield, Hack,
Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried.
(22)
Received staff report concerning the median in the 4100 block of West 6th
Street, in response to concerns of Doug Garber, property owner at 4101 West
6th Street.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report
concerning a median in the 4100 block of West 6th Street. He said the
median on West 6th Street, west of Monterey Way was recently completed as a
requirement for the site plan improvement for the newly constructed fueling
facility at the western entrance of Hy-Vee. The median was installed for
safety to prevent left turns across on-coming traffic. The new fueling
facility had the potential of significantly increasing the traffic in this
area.
The conflict occurred when the people making left turns stop in the
through lane of traffic. Drivers were not expecting that stop and at 45
m.p.h., a safe stopping site distance of 360 feet and breaking distance of
194 feet was needed. Additionally, this movement was into oncoming traffic
whether going into the Hy-Vee development or turning into the property being
discussed.
Over the last several years, KDOT had noted that the City needed to
reserve the right to control turning movements at some point in the future.
The City had applied for a grant from KDOT to place a left turning lane all
the way to Folks Road. If that project was approved, that project could
proceed in 2007.
He said since this was a state highway, the City needed KDOT's
approval to do any type of improvements. KDOT had conveyed that they would
not recommend breaking or shortening of the median and City staff was in
agreement.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the street width, at the east end of
the left turning median into the Hy-Vee main driveway, was wider at that
point than it was at the driveway of the subject property and if so, how
much wider.
Soules said he could not say specifically, but it started widening
where the median was started because a full turning lane needed to be
developed for stacking to the Hy-Vee entrance.
Commissioner Schauner said the length of the stacking lane was at the
minimum that KDOT would approve.
Soules said correct. He said for the development as it was proposed,
a certain amount of traffic was anticipated. He said a traffic study was
performed and the stack that was needed was similar to some of the other
improvements. He said there should be distance for access to the facility
and the taper lane was based on the speed. The traffic would need to be
pushed over to get enough width for left turns and pull those vehicles out
of the through lane of traffic.
Mayor Dunfield said the lane was roughly twelve feet wider.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked about the original plans and didn't those
plans have the driveway in question mistakenly shown as being opposite the
Hy-Vee entrance. He asked if that was the document KDOT originally had
reviewed.
Wildgen said KDOT had reviewed the plan with the correct location.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Dave Mount, Lawrence, said he had questions regarding the median and
the intersection of 6th and Kasold. He said the median located by Hy-Vee
prevented people from turning left out and into Hy-Vee coming in from
Wakarusa. He said there was a light at Monterey Way to turn left to get
out. However, the north side of 6th Street, if going west out of town,
traffic could get into Hy-Vee, but it disabled the entrance off of 6th
Street and the gas station entrance if coming from the other direction.
Another issue concerning 6th and Kasold was the recent deaths at that
intersection. He had asked several police officers to monitor that
intersection, but the officers were not at the right place at the right
time. He suggested that the Police Department place one officer on Kasold
and one officer on 6th Street, to monitor that intersection, from 5:15 p.m.
to 5:45 p.m. He said in that 30 minute timeframe those officers could write
enough tickets to pay their salary for the week.
Finally, he had an issue with the medians off of 31st and Iowa. He
said some of those medians, he had no idea what they were for and why they
were there. If going south on Iowa from 31st Street there were places where
it was nothing but curbs. He said why was there a median when a person
could not turn left anyway. He thought medians were to prevent left turns.
Doug Garber, owner of 4101 West 6th Street, addressed the issue of
the raised median that was installed in front of his business. He said in
the memo that was generated by the City concerning the raised median some of
the reasons for installing that median did not seem relevant.
He said some of the similar installations on West 6th, 31st Street,
and 27th and Iowa, in all those instances, each of those businesses that
were affected by those medians had some alternative to entering and exiting.
Those business might be blocked at one entrance, but they had some way to
get in and out from both directions. He said there was one entrance and one
exit and with this median he could not enter his business without breaking
the law by making a u-turn around the median; driving through parking lots;
or driving blocks out of the way.
Garber said the City Manager stated that all the City had to do was
to provide reasonable access, but that did not seem reasonable, especially
since that median was generated by another business across the street for a
gas station. It was his understanding that it wasn't even initiated by the
City, but by Hy-Vee and through the wheels of progress, the City became
involved and the median was built.
He said of the four options that were stated in the City's memo, he
would accept any one of the first three with the fourth option not being an
option which that option mentioned enlarging the road. He said the road
should be enlarged, but at an at-large City expense. He said no one had
explained why 6th Street enlarged to five lanes from Kasold all the way east
past Michigan, but all of a sudden when approaching Kasold to Wakarusa it
funneled down and widened and funneled down again. He said the City was
planning on some extensive development on that corner of 6th and Wakarusa.
It would make more sense to enlarge 6th Street with five lanes, than to put
the burden of those medians on business owners.
He said right now, by the City's numbers, there were approximately
18,000 vehicles generated and by 2025 the City expected 40,000 vehicles
generated. He asked if anyone seriously thought that medians could control
the amount of traffic that would be generated.
He said there were a dozen entrances between Wakarusa and Kasold that
had access both ways and breaking the median from his access wasn't going to
change any of those other accesses. He did no see any great difference in
allowing him to have access.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Garber about the volume of traffic he had in
a given day.
Garber said approximately 10 or 15 cars. He said it was a small real
estate company right now, but he could not predict what the future would be.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if Garber owned part of the property that was
undeveloped to the west.
Garber said no. He presented a picture of the area to the
Commission. He believed the City's idea was to take his driveway and
connect it to a property and create some type of access road that funneled
into Eldridge. He said even if that was done, there would still be traffic
issues with Eldridge. He did not see what was gained by funneling more
traffic to a far more dense intersection than that single driveway
generated.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if that access road would be put in when
there was redevelopment.
Wildgen said yes.
Garber said that property had already given the City 30 feet of
easement and he was willing to let the City expand the road to ease the
traffic on 6th Street. He said it was not in the City's plans, but maybe it
should be.
Wildgen said it probably would not be a public street when it was
built. He said the Garber plat clearly indicated that at some point there
would be a cross access easement. He said that undeveloped property when it
was reviewed and platted or re-platted it would undoubtedly be a
requirement. He said getting it to Eldridge was a least a 1/4 mile and
could be a controlled intersection.
Garber said he could not do anything about who owned that property.
He said it was out of his control. He said he offered to pay for the cut in
the median, although the cost of the median cut seemed high, he might still
be willing to pay that cost.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked what the current traffic volume was on 23rd
Street, Louisiana east.
Wildgen said he was not prepared to discuss the traffic volume, but
it was probably more than this issue.
Finger said this area was comparable to western portions of 23rd
Street as far as traffic volumes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the increased projection of traffic on
6th Street going to require a rethinking of the maximum speed limit from
Wakarusa East to Kasold on Lawrence Avenue.
Soules said it possibly could. He said staff would take a look at
median and access issues. He said the street was meant to be an arterial
street to funnel traffic through the City.
Commissioner Schauner asked if a curb cut in the current median would
be one additional reason that would limit the arterial nature of that
street.
Soules said yes, it would limit the capacity.
Commissioner Hack asked if KDOT gave any repercussions if the median
break was put in like the repercussions if a curb cut would have been put in
near 6th and Wakarusa. She asked if there were financial concerns for the
City.
Soules said he could see the similarity to 6th and Wakarusa. He said
staff would need KDOT's approval to break the median, but KDOT did not
recommend that median break because there were other alternatives.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were projected costs for a cross
access road from the Garber property to Eldridge.
Soules said less than $400 a foot for those street improvements. He
said the costs would be substantial.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he was willing to find some way to open this
curb. He did not think the City did a prize winning job of taking care of
traffic on 6th Street as it developed even after years of public outcry
about 23rd Street traffic problems. He thought they had a number of
opportunities to sunset this opening "when" and "if" the 5th lane was
developed further west. He said when that property to the west redeveloped,
at that time, the Commission could condition that on the median being closed
again when that access to Eldridge was available. He said there was low
volume traffic in that area and it seemed that there were many examples of
similar situations such as 23rd Street when going east from Louisiana, past
the median that kept traffic from going into Walgreen's or Checkers. He
said there were left turns into Ohio Street and Tennessee that seemed like
they were comparable. He was not sure that was accurate in terms of the
distance from the intersection. He said this issue seemed similar to the
agreement the City had at 6th and Wakarusa which was keeping that left turn
open until such time traffic volumes reached a certain level. He thought
Garber would pay his penalty for not staying on top of it while the median
was going in by having to pay the costs of taking it out.
Commissioner Highberger said he had a great deal of sympathy for
Garber because he hated seeing actions of large corporations end up having
negative impacts on regular working individuals. He said there might have
been some incorrect information provided early in the process, but given
that, the fact that the median was there, he thought changing the median
would potentially create a major safety issue especially as traffic volumes
increased. He would like to see the traffic speed lowered because it would
be important in the future. He said they could potentially be creating a
death trap that was waiting to happen. He said having arterials with that
speed and traffic volume going through residential areas created an
unhealthy situation, but given the fact that it was like it was today and
the fact that KDOT was unlikely to cooperate, he did not support the median
cut at this time or a turning lane.
Mayor Dunfield concurred with Commission Highberger's comments. He
said clearly it was an inconvenience for Garber, but the Commission needed
to weigh the needs of access to that property against the public safety
issues; the regulatory authority that KDOT exercised; and against the City's
own policies of reducing the frequency of access onto arterials in order to
better manage the access and make those safer and allow them to do their job
better. He did not support a break in the median.
Commissioner Schauner said his concern about this issue went beyond
the median break at that location. He hoped the Commission followed the
traffic management plan for the westward expansion or improvement of
Wakarusa. He thought this median break would send the wrong message to the
future enforcement of the City's traffic access plan for West 6th Street.
He was not unsympathetic to Garber's situation. He said this was a
good example of when the City developed property in an adhoc way without a
master plan for the area. Unfortunately, Garber's property had a bull's eye
on it with respect to having a left turn access at that point. He thought
the larger issue was public health, safety, and welfare for the traveling
public on that street. He was not convinced a few left turns a day were
justified at that location and he would like the Commission to go on record
as being firmly supportive of the traffic management plan for West 6th
Street so that the Commission did not recreate 23rd Street. He said if the
Commission was not consistent in the enforcement of that plan, they would be
hearing other people asking for variances or special consideration as it
related to curb cuts and other traffic variances in that part of town which
was obviously going to grow at a rather significant pace. He did not
support a median break at that location.
Commissioner Hack echoed her fellow Commissioners. She agreed that
Garber was put into a difficult position. She said a lot of the control on
the City's access management plan came from KDOT and that was a controlling
factor for the things that the Commission had done and turned down. She
said the Commission had been consistent in adhering to that plan and they
had shut the door on the turn lane into the People's Bank property. This
was a situation where the Commission needed to follow what they had done
before and concur with KDOT's recommendation not to approve the curb cut.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the City had a traffic management plan for
6th Street, east of Wakarusa.
Finger said the City did not have an adopted access plan for east of
Wakarusa, but KDOT looked to the governing bodies, where the highways go
through, to be good facilitator as well as stewards of their highways and
rights-of-way and access to them. It would be consistent with everything
the City had been told from KDOT on major highways that taking access to
designated intersections was good stewardship of that roadway.
(23)
Consider a request from The Chocolate Factory for the placement of a sign on
the Riverfront Plaza tower. City approval is required because the tower is
located on City property.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented a request from The Chocolate
Factory for the placement of a sign on the Riverfront Plaza tower. He said
there were two issues to that request. He said one was a variance in which
the Board of Zoning Appeals would handle and not the City Commission. He
said the other issue was that the large tower was controlled by the City it
was part of the construction of the decked garage.
He said when the Marriott was built in the mall, the past Commission
had a request for neon outlines for different signage and that Commission
made a decision to allow the current signage. He said in this case there
was a business inside the Marriott, The Chocolate Factory that was
requesting placement of a sign on the tower. He said the Commission's
direction would be to see if they would want an additional sign. He said
the sign would need to meet the City codes.
Mayor Dunfield asked what the issue for the Board of Zoning Appeals
would be.
Wildgen said the size of the sign.
Mayor Dunfield said the situation that was there now was that the
Marriott had used up the allotted area for signage so the BZA would need to
make that decision as to whether more signage could be permitted on the
tower. He said irrespective of the size issue, the Commission's direction
was to make a decision whether to allow the signage in that location.
Carter Weatherington, Co-owner of The Chocolate Factory, said they
were located inside the Springhill Marriott Suites and their business had
been located in that building for approximately 10 years. He said the
problem that they ran into was letting the public know that they were at
that location. He said 75% of their business was strictly from hotel guests
of the Marriott. He said they would like to get their name out to the
public air where people could see where they were located.
He said they filled out a variance request for the City and the form
had a property owner signature which was the City. He said City staff
suggested that they go before the BZA for a variance because it was in
excess of the amount of square footage that was allowed at that location.
He said at the time they met with the BZA, they were told that tower could
hold 150 square feet which the Marriott signs exceeded considerably. He said
the Marriott either already received a variance or had somehow circumvented
the requirement for a variance. He said his concern was how the City
decided who could use their property for advertising.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if Weatherington had talked to the Marriott
about trying to reconfigure their signage so that The Chocolate Factory
could be included in that area of the Marriott signage.
Weatherington said no. He had talked to them about the color of the
sign to match it with the Marriott sign to stay consistent, but they did not
talk about physically changing their signage. He said it could be a
possibility to talk with the Marriott, but he had not considered it.
Tammy Moody, representing Luminous Neon Art and Sign, said she had
been working with the Weatheringtons and hoped that the City of Lawrence
would allow them some signage for their business. In looking back and
researching the records, when the Marriott signage was allowed, back in
March 2001, there wasn't some additional signage granted for the Riverfront
property to allow four logo "R's" for the Riverfront property to exist on
that tower.
She was a short-term resident of the Lawrence area since February,
but one of the reasons her family relocated here as Kansas natives was
because of the diverse community and the personality that was represented in
Lawrence for small business and the lack of the corporate world taking over.
The Marriott was allowed approximately 360 square foot in what was
normally 150 square foot allowance and there was large amount of signage
area. She said this was a small privately owned business that was a large
asset to this community, but they were not able to survive without street
signage. They were a business that was represented inside the mall when the
mall was represented as retail facilities. Now they had the need for some
street signage. She said all of the square footage on the exterior of the
actual structure had also been used by other businesses that had other means
of relating to the public for their locations such as Sunflower Broadband.
She said The Chocolate Factory was a small business with actually no
street signage and she hoped the Commission would consider their request.
She said they were requesting two small signs approximately 32 square feet
each that would sit on that tower. She felt favorable at the first hearing
of the BZA and thought that most of that committee received the fact that
this small private business did need signage to survive, but they did table
that issue due to the fact that the City was the property owner. Again, she
hoped the Commission would consider that small business need for the public
to be aware of them in a setback situation inside of another facility.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Moody, as a professional in a sign business,
if there were simply a small banner, would that serve the purpose of people
who were looking for The Chocolate Factory.
Moody said a banner would probably serve as recognition. As far as
the aesthetic factor of the tower, she thought the City would be better off
in having some professionally done signage.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he meant the name in a sign such as seen at
shopping centers where they would list businesses by name.
Moody said the public needed to know that The Chocolate Factory was
located within the Marriott Suites due to the fact that all of the other
entities within that mall had signage that was visible from the street. She
said it was very hard for them to get any public recognition as far as drive
by traffic. She said a sign's purpose was to work 24 hours a day and 7 days
a week. She said it was not necessarily the passer by wanting something from
that business at that time, but remembering when they do see that sign next
time they were in need of that product, remembering where it was.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked about the size of the Marriott sign that was
granted and was Moody including the neon above the entrance that said
"Riverfront."
Moody said no. She was referencing the four Springhill Marriott
signs that were located on top of the tower which was approximately 360
square feet which was 150 square feet was the maximum allowable size on
properties.
She said there was an amendment that was not addressed that requested
some review from the four "R" logo signs that were addressed in that meeting
of March 2001. She said there was a letter from the City Manager to Art and
Sign addressing that the City was willing to allow the four "R's" which was
Riverfront recognition, but there was some additional signage that was
discussed at that time.
Tim Herndon, Board of Zoning Appeals, said the board sent this issue
to the City Commission because there were some facts that were present at
the time of their hearing that they felt should be examined by a larger
body. He said while the board was not abdicating their duties by sending
this back, they felt some input in terms of policy was probably advisable.
He said the board was concerned, not with the deviation in the
applicant's sign size from what was allowable under code, because they were
sympathetic with their situation.
The primary concern with the BZA was that they had this tower which
was a landmark and the board was reluctant to grant a variance in this
specific situation because it could lead to a series of variances which that
landmark could become a kiosk that housed many signs of many businesses that
might, over time, locate in the Riverfront. It was for that reason the
board thought this request was outside the normal type of sign variance
request. He said because it was City property and there was no one
representing the owner, they felt this request deserved some special
attention.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the image that was provided to the
Commission accurately showed the placement of the sign.
Herndon said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he was on the previous City Commission when
they approved the signage at that location. He said the idea of having an
identity of Riverfront was to facilitate traffic that was hopefully
generated to that site. He thought it was appropriate to try and generate
traffic and get life on the river. That Commission did however, try to
limit the individual signs for individual businesses and emphasize the
identity. He was hesitant about the request because there could be more
businesses that would also request signage and he did not want to see a
proliferation of signage.
He asked staff if there was any recourse that could be taken, because
of the approval from the Commission for signage for the Marriott. He asked
if the Commission could ask the Marriott to reallocate their signage to
include other businesses.
Wildgen said the Commission could ask the Marriott, but they could
not tell them they had to reallocate their signage. He said the City did
not own the tower itself, but because of the relationship with the mall, the
City had control. He said the City owned the ground, but the Riverfront
needed to maintain the tower.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Herndon if he could phrase the issues that
the board wanted the Commission to address.
Herndon said the board would like to know if the City of Lawrence
would condone a policy of placing signage and placards on that tower.
Again, it was not the issue of this specific request and their sign size,
but the area and the landmark. He said perhaps there was another location
to consider on that property, but it was not his business in this
circumstance to help design their project.
Vice Mayor Rundle said his personal position that he did not want to
see a proliferation of signage. He said the previous Commission did choose
to allow what they allowed and tried to maintain a majority of the space for
the aesthetics and to mainly create an identity overall.
Commissioner Hack said this particular business was in a situation
that was different from the other business in the Riverfront in that the
other business had signage that was visible to the street. The issue of
proliferation, her question was how many businesses were going to be located
in the lobby of the Marriott. She did not see a problem with this
particular sign going in under those circumstances.
Commissioner Highberger said the Commission wanted that space to be
utilized and he did not see how a business could operate without street
signage. On the other hand, the Commission had just declined to change a
bad situation for someone to be consistent with City policy. He said a
previous Commission denied signage on this area. He did not want to create
a policy that allowed every business that happened to be located in that
space to automatically be entitled to a sign on the tower. He supported
this particular business proposal and the variance for signage.
Mayor Dunfield said possibly there was a compromise that could be
suggested which would allow this sign to go in as shown, but in the future
that panel where that sign was would be an area for signs identifying other
business within the Riverfront. He said if the City had another business
that needed an identification sign, it would mean that The Chocolate Factory
sign would need to be smaller.
He said the issue of the landmark nature of the tower was legitimate,
but it was also true that this was a unique situation because this property
was unlike any other in terms of the way it addressed the street and
downtown. It was also true that tower had always been a sign. The reason
why it was built there was to call attention to this location and to bring
people to it. He would rather not see the Commission look for other places
around that property to put more signs because he would rather see those
signs in a limited area than scattered about. He agreed with Commissioner
Highberger in that he would not have a problem with this particular sign.
He said if the Commission could come up with some way of saying that the
Commission could limit the future addition of signs to the property, he
thought that was a good idea.
Commissioner Schauner said he liked the Mayor's suggestion, but he
wanted to expand on that suggestion in that the Commission should attach a
fixed number of square footage available on that tower above and beyond what
was currently there. He said if the City was lucky, they would have a lot
of people wanting to put signs at that location because that would indicate
a resurgence of retail use or other use in that space. In the meantime if
the Commission had a policy that limited the square footage of additional
signage on the landmark that would satisfy both, The Chocolate Factory's
interest and also avoid the proliferation question.
Vice Mayor Rundle said this area was similar to a mall where business
could not be seen from the street and identifiers were needed to guide
people in that area. He asked how the Commission would administer a request
for signage. He asked should the Commission or the BZA approve this request
on the condition that businesses would need to share the square footage.
Wildgen said a record in the minutes that indicated the amount of
available square footage would be appropriate. He said the applicant would
need to understand that their signage might shrink based on future
applications.
Commissioner Schauner asked if 32 square feet was the proposed
signage and was that 8x4 x 3.
Moody said the applicant had requested that their signage be located
on two sides of the tower so it would be visible from both traffic
directions which would be 64 total square feet.
She said the Commission's discussion was fair, but she asked the
Commission to allow 64 square feet for commercial businesses to advertise on
that tower. She said if The Chocolate Factory did the first expenditure for
that additional square footage, they would need to be notified with some
approval and it would be at the next applicant's expense, not only to do
their signs, but to affix the shrinkage of The Chocolate Factory who already
withstood the costs of the first two signs.
Commissioners Schauner and Rundle concurred.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve an additional 64
square feet of sign space on the Riverfront Plaza Tower to be located on two
adjacent faces, for the present, the total allocation will be used by the
Chocolate Factory; provided that future Riverfront Plaza tenants may use a
portion of the same 64 square feet as well and any future reallocation of
the sign space would be paid for by the future tenants requesting to use
part of the space. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Consider the following amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, Horizon
2020: An amendment to Horizon 20220 to expand the Urban Growth Area as
shown on the Transportation 2025 Land Use Map with the addition of the
southern boundary extending to N900 Road and with an expansion northeast of
Lawrence to N2000 Road, east to E1700 Road and south across the railroad
tracks.
Mayor Dunfield said concerning the City's comprehensive plan, if
there were members of the public who had come to speak to this item, he said
there was a brief presentation on this item during the most recent joint
study session with the School District and the County Commission. At that
time, it was decided that they should have a further study session on that
item with the County and City Commissions together.
Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the amendment to the City's
comprehensive Plan. He presented a map to the Commission showing the City
and School Districts city limits. The School district City limits went far
to the south and west, but to the western side of the City, the City was
already within 2 1/2 miles of the western limits of the current school
boundaries and was also already at the northwest boundary limits. He said
the map also showed the current urban growth area and the City to the west
was within a mile of that urban growth area and 1/2 mile to the northwest.
He said the urban growth area on the southern side of the City followed the
Wakarusa River and there was an extensive amount of floodplain in that area
already.
He said the start of process of the urban growth area started with
Transportation 2025 and the need to update the transportation plan and
request that staff provide to the consultants who were doing the
transportation plan, what was a reasonable growth pattern for the City of
Lawrence by the year 2020. He said at that time staff had received updated
information from the Census 2000 and it became fairly obvious that the
estimates that were in Horizon 2020, at that point in time, underestimated
the City's growth in a fairly significant manner.
He said staff looked at the growth patterns and where the City was
growing. He said the growth was going south of the Wakarusa River to N 1000
Road and it also showed further extension of the urban growth area to the
west, essentially, a mile and a half to three miles to the west of the
current urban growth area.
He said this issue was sent to the City Commission by the Planning
Commission on an 8-2 vote for recommendation for approval. However, what
the Planning Commission approved was different from what staff recommended.
The Planning Commission recommended approval extending the urban growth area
to N 900 Road and also further north of the airport. The extension to the
north was recommended by City staff for approval, based on the potential
that area could be used for industrial uses.
Dyer showed the Commission on the map the area that was provided to
Black and Veatch for the Wastewater Master Plan and Water Plan Master
Update. He said this issue was going before the County Commission for their
review. He said the amendment to Horizon 2020 would take the approval of
all three bodies which were the City, County and Planning Commissions. He
explained that there were also text amendments that would go along with the
other amendments.
Mayor Dunfield said the reason for a further study session on this
item was to better understand some of the implications of moving an urban
growth area and what it said about expectations for the future.
He said as the Commission looked at the North Lawrence expansion of
the urban growth area, it would be helpful to see the floodplain delineation
carried all the way out to the County line.
Dyer asked Mayor Dunfield if he would like that delineation all the
way out to Jefferson County.
Mayor Dunfield said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle said when the study was completed would that assess
the floodplain more closely resulting in map changes.
Dyer said the possible outcome of that stormwater study was more of
increased standards for any types of development (i.e. should they actually
be development that occurred in that area and if there was, how should it be
developed). He said there was going to be more of a big question of costs
versus benefit. To provide stormwater sewer for this area might be a costly
process and it might not be something that made sense.
Commissioner Highberger said there were a couple of points in the
Planning Commission notes, that Planning Commissioner Shachter stated that
this was not an annexation policy. He asked Dyer if he agreed with that
characterization.
Dyer said yes. He said concerning the urban growth area there were
very little state or local statues that went along with this, except there
was specific language in the Joint City/County Subdivision Regulations that
stated: "Areas within the urban growth area in the City of Lawrence were not
allowed to do the five acre exemption." The five acre exemption was a
process in the County that allowed the division of land for development
without any platting. Provided that other requirements were met, five acres
of property could be cut out and sold to someone who wanted to build a home.
He said that was not allowed in the City and a person would need to go
through the process of platting, providing necessary easements and
right-of-ways. He said that was the most specific law that went along with
the urban growth area. Otherwise, the urban growth area served a number of
different purposes which were: It provided owners in that area foresight
information that this might be an area that the City was going to urbanize
into; provided information when the City looked to update its master plans;
and it provided information with regards to the growth of the City and where
they expected the City to be at.
Commissioner Highberger asked if it would be reasonable expectation
of wherever the urban growth area was drawn in an area that was suitable for
a subdivision that would encourage a proliferation of five acre lots around
the edge.
Dyer said that could be an unintended outcome. He said five acre
subdivisions were happening at a rapid rate already, particularly south of
the Wakarusa River.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the urban growth area was at N 1000
Road, cold they expect five acre lots south and north of 1000 Road.
Dyer said that was an important part of the text amendment that he
did not mention. He said the way the text amendment was crafted it stated
that the urban growth area extended on both sides of the street the depth of
the setback requirements in the County. He said what that did was hopefully
give the County Director of Public Works the ability to say along the major
thoroughfares that were shown on the Major Thoroughfares Map, that there
could not be curb cuts and five acre exemptions.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Dyer asked the Mayor if it was the
intention of the City Commission to have a study session with the County
Commission regarding this item.
Mayor Dunfield said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the hope was to come to some consensus rather
than bouncing that issue back and forth. He asked if the County Commission
had talked about the five year exemption in recent months.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the last time it came up was at
the last study session on the urban growth boundary which was within the
first six months of this year between the City and County Commissions. She
said the five acre exemption was something that would be discussed when the
revised Subdivision Regulations came before the Commission because there
were exceptions, but there was no five acre exemption in the proposed
document. (25)
Consider adoption of findings of fact, concur with the Planning Commission's
recommendation and deny rezoning request for a tract of land approximately
38.42 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to RM-1
(Multi-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as
being located north of Peterson and east of Monterey Way (extended).
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report concerning the
rezoning request for property located north of Peterson and east of Monterey
Way (extended). She presented the City Commission the overview that was
usually presented to the Planning Commission that showed the subject
property and the surrounding land uses. The property immediately to the
east of the subject property was recently approved for a planned unit
residential development. The original zoning allowed up to twelve dwelling
units per acre and the resulting project was approximately eight dwelling
units per acre.
She said staff was in the unique position to look at several
different applications in the same vicinity. She said there was a
preliminary plat for this property, a separate preliminary plat, and the
rezoning request.
She said the City Commission actually considered this property a few
weeks ago as part of a larger rezoning request that included single-family
residential zoning for the entire piece.
The applicant indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that the
request would be forwarded, in the future, for that southern piece and their
intent was not to continue with the single-family development to the south,
but they were not prepared to provide a site plan of what that area would
look like at the time.
Staff met with the applicant during the review process and prior to
the submission of the actual zoning application. They talked about several
options to consider for this property and looked also at the fact that staff
was in the process of reviewing development codes and knowing that the
applicant had some timing issues in terms of when they were ready to develop
that property. One significant issue that was articulated to staff was that
they wanted to put something in place to notify property owners that open
field was not necessarily going to be left as an open field or to be
developed as single-family lots. That was something that was recognized as
a long-time issue in this community. Many times people would buy property
not knowing how that property was zoned and finding out much later that
there was a significant type of development going on in their backyards.
The subject property was along Peterson Road which was an arterial
street and it would be bounded on the west side by a collector street that
would be serving those interior residential lots. Staff found that the
request was premature in terms of its timing and acreage and staff was not
prepared to recommend approval of more substantial density for that piece of
property at this time.
Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, said Day's summary was accurate,
but one clarification was that the anticipated future use of the subject
request was not entirely single-family housing and that was a concern in
placing the public on notice. He said a situation that they felt was
critical to the proper planning, long-term use, and at-large disclosure as
it related to this property had to do with the timing being perfect. He
noted that the property to the east was a mixed use multi-family. He said
the highest type of building type was a four unit attached building and
ranged from four units down to two units to single-family. This 35 acre
piece was a mixture of a variety of housing types. Immediately to the north
was the recently approved preliminary plat of Stonegate Four and immediately
to the west was Monterey Bluffs and those were single-family. He said to the
south they were bordered with a benefit district process for the improvement
of Peterson Road that would expand it from its current status to a three
lane arterial. Along the west edge was Monterey Way extended north to
connect to the existing collector street which originated on Kasold and
headed west. He said there was a lot happening on all four sides of this
subject tract.
He said technically speaking and from a standpoint of decorum was not
material, but the property owner of the subject tract was the same owner as
the developer of the corner piece. It was anticipated that, at some point
in the future, when housing was put into place it would generate other
traffic in and about the area. He said there would be an absorption and
build out time and a market flux that was the subject of discussion. The
absorption rate dictated between three and five years that they thought that
the subject tract would be suitable for a proposal. The absorption,
occupation, and normalization of traffic and other things that would happen
would happen in a three to five year time span, but between now when they
were not equipped to put together a good plan that would hold fast and be
good in the future, between now and three or five years those other pieces
on the periphery would become occupied. He said the subject tract today was
zoned RS-2. People would occupy the surrounding areas thinking that area
was going to be RS-2.
He said the Planning Commission voted 8-2 to deny this zoning
request, but it was worth noting and it should be an item that could be
referred to at some point in the future that when they were talking about
bringing this zoning into place, the RS-2 zoning for that entire piece, that
there was general agreement from the Planning Commission when he explained
that they were trying to have a vehicle that would enable the benefit
district work to come into place. He said the ground needed to be annexed
and zoned and that had to happen for the Peterson Road and Monterey Way
improvements.
He thought they were making a mistake by doing this and the land use
pattern that dictated there should be a multitude of housing types available
at the intersection of a collector and a major arterial was going to be
jeopardized by that standing RS-2 zoning that was in place. He would
greatly appreciate the Commission's consideration of a super majority vote
to allow that RM-1 zoning to occur.
Mayor Dunfield said it was a unanimous decision from the Planning
Commission to deny the rezoning request. He said there was a 2-8 vote on
another variation.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After hearing no public comment, Commissioner Highberger agreed with
Herndon in that it might be a suitable area for a mix of uses, but it seemed
if they rezoned that area to RM-1, it was carte blanc for a vast expanse of
multi-family and without having some clear idea of what was going there and
how it related to the surrounding areas, he was reluctant to go forward with
that request.
Commissioner Schauner concurred.
Mayor Dunfield hoped there was time available and the City's zoning
and subdivisions regulations could move along at a reasonable pace because
there might be some good opportunities in those new regulations for the
zoning of this property that would be good for everybody. Mayor Dunfield
concurred with the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Rundle concurred. He said the plan would expire before
intending to develop that area so it would be back to the City Commission.
He said that was a short-coming of the City's Planned Unit Developments in
that they go on far too long and they tended to work as speculative zoning.
He said it might be too much to ask the realtors who were going to market
that area to be forthcoming and disclose that area was not going to stay
RS-2.
Commissioner Hack said in-fill development was what they had the most
difficult time with and should this develop the way Herndon suggested, it
would in fact be infill development with preconceived notions about what it
would be. She agreed with staff and the Planning Commission that this was
not the time to do this, but with the understanding that something needed to
be in place to let people know that area was not going to be what they might
have thought it was going to be.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendation to deny the rezoning (Z-07-23-03) request and
adopt the findings of fact, to rezone a tract of land approximately 38.42
acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to RM-1 (Multi-family
Residential) District; the property is generally described as being located
north of Peterson Road and east of Monterey Way (extended). Motion carried
unanimously. (26)
Receive the staff report on the City of Lawrence employee health care
renewal.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, presented the
staff report concerning the City's employee health care renewal. He said
next month the City would begin their annual open enrollment for employee
benefits. Historically, City staff used a meeting in September to update
the Commission on health insurance information from Blue Cross and Blue
Shield.
He said there was a good renewal projection from Blue Cross and Blue
Shield this year and staff was expecting somewhere in the neighborhood of an
18% renewal and in fact that was what was used to budgeted. The renewal
projection from Blue Cross was 2.49%. According to the City's claims
representative from Blue Cross that was the lowest renewal that she had seen
this year and she dealt with large self funded clients much like this City.
Reeb said the reason why there was such a spread from a 2.49%
renewal, when in fact they heard earlier in the year from Blue Cross that
the City should expect approximately an 18% renewal, was because earlier in
the year the City's projections were based on a combination of industry
trend and what could be expected across the nation and in particular, the
Midwest with respect to health care in general. He said for the City's
renewal they would get an estimate or projection based on the City's actual
claims both for the first half of this year and the claims for last year
those, were all crunched by an actuary and an underwriter to come up with a
better estimate of what the City's claims would be for 2004.
The other response was that some of the renewal would be within the
City control which was to get information out to City staff to be better and
wiser consumers of health care. He hoped CHAMP activities were a big part
of why the renewal was the way it was because claims were very good for this
year. He said staff received utilization data from Blue Cross and Blue
Shield last week and staff was starting the process of crunching that
information. He said staff did not know some of the specific information
that he would have liked to present to the Commission tonight. Most likely
there would be several factors and hopefully most of those factors would be
within the City's control so that staff could make sure they get that kind
of renewal for the next several years to come.
Reeb presented data and graphs to the Commission for their review.
He pointed out that in Attachment A in the far right column there were
numbers and the 2.49% renewal was a combination of several numbers. The
first number was the City's health claims and what Blue Cross expected the
City to see for 2004. He said that number was negative so Blue Cross was
projecting that the City's health claims would actually be lower in 2004
then in 2003.
The next number was the dental claims, which was a double digit
increase. He said staff did not necessarily like to see that, but it was
relatively average for what dental claims would be projected to be in 2004.
The other number was the prescription drug claims, which was over 23%
and in terms of what staff could do to hone in on making some improvements
that was obviously an area that City staff could work on. Some information
from Blue Cross indicated that City staff could do a better job of our
generic substitution, in other words, substituting generic drugs for the
high dollar named brand drugs.
He said the total claims were expected to be about 1.77% increase
from 2003 to 2004. The bottom numbers on that page were general operating
expenses and those would be flat for 2003 to 2004. Those were expenses like
the drug cards and booklets that were done by Blue Cross as our Claims
Administrator. The other number which was a double digit increase as well
was the City's re-insurance with Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Most of that
double digit increase came from the individual stop loss and not the City's
aggregate re-insurance. Overall, Blue Cross and Blue Shield expected
somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.49% percent increase for 2004.
Reeb said he thought it would also be interesting to look at where
the City was a year ago and he pointed out the numbers that the City saw a
year ago. He said they were expecting about a 16% on health care claims,
about a 5 1/2 % increase on dental claims and an 8% increase on drug claims.
The re-insurance number that the City received last year was over 50% so
obviously, City staff was making some improvements.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the attachment point for the
individual stop-loss coverage. He asked if it was at 50% and this year it
was projected to be 29% because it was set too high or was it set too low.
Reeb said the individual attachment point was $75,000. He said in
the eyes of Blue Cross, it was probably set too low.
Commissioner Schauner said so the City paid more of a premium because
there was a greater risk to the re-insurer.
Reeb said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Blue Cross would like the City to
self-insure a greater risk by raising the individual stop loss to something
higher than $75,000.
Reeb said correct and move that number up to $125,000 or perhaps
$150,000.
Reeb said it was important to remember that while the City should be
happy with those renewal numbers, they were just projections. He said the
City was self-funded and our claims drive the City's costs. If the City had
the year that Blue Cross expected, the City would have some significant
savings in retained earnings. If, on the other hand, the City did not have
a year that Blue Cross expected and it was much worse, then the City would
still need to pay those claims.
Reeb presented to the Commission Chart 4 of Attachment D. He said
the last time the City saw a difference in their projected and actual claims
was in the mid 90's. He said in 1995 they were projected to have
approximately a 15% increase and that year the City's claims were a lot
better than that. The following year Blue Cross projected a fairly low
increase and the City's claims were much worse. The same continued in 1997
and also some significant claims in 1998. He reiterated that those numbers
were projections and they needed to be careful. He said he wanted to be
sure that staff funded health care as best as they could.
Reeb said as directed earlier in the year during a study session,
they were making no changes to the employee contributions and the plan
design so those would be the same in 2004 as they were in 2003. There was
also discussion at that study session about looking forward at other
options. In the Commission's packet he included a tentative schedule for
the Health Care Committee for the remainder of 2003 and on into 2004. From
that tentative schedule there would be discussions about consumer driven
health plans and other options that could be better fits for the City
Employee Health Care Program.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the meeting on October 16th for
self directed health care taxability/retirement plan consequences
discussion. He asked if there would be any written material available.
Reeb said he hoped so and at a minimum staff could get Commissioner
Schauner a copy of the minutes of that meeting.
(27)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Dave Mount, Lawrence, had a concern with driving in this town because
the roads did not go through, but it wouldn't be so bad if citizens drove
adequately.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 16, 2003
1. Directional Signage - Walk-on item, KS River Clean-Up, Sept 21st, 10 am -
noon.
2. Contract - 2003 large sanitary sewer line cleaning/inspection program to
Ace Pipe Cleaning for $56,716.
3. Mobile data systems - Motorola Direct for $82,514.
4. Engineering Contract - 2003/2004 Waterline Improvement to BG Consultants
for $89,050 and EBH Consultants for $41,785.
5. Bid Date Set - Comprehensive Rehab Loan Projects for 347 Elm & 1810
Haskell, Oct 7.
6. Ordinance No. 7697 - 1st Reading, condemnation O'Connell Rd
Improvement Project, S of E 23rd.
7. Ordinance No. 7696 - 1st Reading, DG County E 1600 Rd, N or KS River
as N 11th .
8. Ordinance No. 7695 - 2nd Reading, rezone (Z-06-17-03), A to RS-2, E side
of Mulberry.
9. Resolution No. 6489 - Condemnation, stormwater improvements, 13th &
Oregon (Stroda Tract).
10. Signs of Community Interest - United Way & Lawrence Home Builders Assoc.
11. Annex - (A-07-10-03) 6.76 acres, Foxfire Dr. & Burning Tree Dr., S & W
of Foxfire development.
12. Rezoning - (Z-07-22-03) 6.76 acres, A to RS-2, S & W of Foxfire
Development.
13. Rezoning - (Z-07-21-03) 3.8 acres, from RS-1 to RS-2, 1800 W 27th.
14. Rezoning - (Z-07-24-03) 101.23 acres, from A to RS-2, S of Harvard & E
of George Williams Way.
15. City Manager's Report - Tax Amnesty Program
16. Bid - GOB/Temp Notes, Series 2003-II to U.S. Bancorp for $188,019.17 at
1.170851%.
17. Resolution No. 6491 - GOB/Temp Notes for Series 2003-II
18. Bid - GOB/Temp Notes, Series 2003-III to Country Club Bank for
$27,716.78 at 1.470213%.
19. Resolution No. 6492 - GOB/Temp Notes for Series 2003-III
20. Bid - GOB, Series 2003-D to UBS Financial Services for $728,833.36 at
3.290639%.
21. Resolution No. 6493 - GOB, Series 2003-D
22. Ordinance No. 7699 - 1st & 2nd Reading, GOB, Series 2003-D.
23. Median - 4100 Blk of W 6th, 4101 W 6th.
24. Sign on Riverfront Plaza Tower - The Chocolate Factory
25. Comprehensive Plan - Horizon 2020, expand Urban Growth Area.
26. Rezoning - Deny 38.42 acres from RS-2 to RM-1, N of Peterson & E of
Monterey Way.
27. Health Care - City employee renewal.
September 16, 2003
City Commission Minutes
Page 39
_____________________________
Lisa K. Patterson
Communications Coordinator
City of Lawrence
PO Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044
(785) 832-3406
fax (785) 832-3405
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
http://www.lawrenceks.org