August 10, 2004
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 Vice Mayor Highberger presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, and Schauner present. Mayor Rundle was absent.
Clenece Hills, President, Lawrence Sesquicentennial Commission, presented information to the City Commission about the Sesquicentennial related activities that will be held the week of September 12-19, 2004.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of August 3, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to approve the Historic Resources Commission action summary of July 15, 2004; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of July 1, 2004; and the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of July 1, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 512 vendors in the amount of $2,955,105.45 and payroll from July 25, 2004 to August 7, 2004 in the amount of $1,370,710.41 . Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Cadillac Ranch, 2515 West 6th Street; Cross Town Tavern, 1910 Haskell Avenue, Ste: 6; Roadside Tacos, 534 Frontier Road; and the Retail Liquor License for Cork & Barrel, 2000 West 23rd Street. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Stephen Lane and Mike Goans to the Board of Zoning Appeals/Sign Code Board of Appeals, to terms which will expire September 30, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7785, rezoning (Z-02-02-04) 3.255 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to M-2 (General Industrial District); 601 North Iowa, formerly known as the Riverside Elementary School. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7813, allowing the sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor during designated times on September 4, 2004 at Clinton Lake Outlet Park for the Lawrence Mountain Bike Club’s fundraiser. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7814, allowing the sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor during designated times on September 11, 2004, on the west side of South Park for the Immanuel Lutheran Church “Oompahfest.” Motion carried unanimously. (3)
Ordinance No. 7751, rezoning (Z-11-40-03) a tract of land approximately 41 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) (the property is generally described as being located east of George Williams Way at Harvard Road), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-01-01-04) for 24th Street Villas, a proposed 18 dwelling unit, multiple-family residential development to b located on approximately 1.94 acres at 1500 East 24th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Provide Book and Page Numbers on each of the interior utility easements and drainage easements;
b. Note No. 10 conflicts with note No 15. Need to remove either note No. 10 or No. 15;
c. Correct the existing pervious and existing impervious square foot numbers, so they add up to the total property area;
d. Within the parking summary change (2 spaces per 3 bedroom unit) to (2.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit); and
e. Move the northeast duplex a minimum of 0.25’ south, in order to meet the minimum 25’ rear yard setback.
2. Provision of a photometric plan pursuant to Section 20-14AO1;
3. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
4. Submit public improvement plans to Public Works prior to release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources;
5. Per Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained;
6. Provide water line plans to the Municipal Utilities Department. These plans must be submitted for approval and signatures from the Fire and Utilities Departments before building permits are issued; and
7. Provide the following notes on the site plan:
a. “All existing trees shown as remaining must be protected prior to grading.”
b. “No occupancy will be allowed until all site improvements are completed.”
Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Grant Township for fire protection services in 2005 ($33,000 payment to City) and 2006 ($43,000 payment to City). Grant Township will provide its own fire protection services beginning in 2007. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Heidi Raak, 3112 Creekwood Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Lynisha Thomas, 2725 Bonanza Street. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to approve the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation of June 7, 2004 for the permanent installation of a traffic circle at the intersection of Goldfield and Prescott. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with FAA in the amount of $1,109,306 for Schedules I, II, and III for the Runway 1-19 Reconstruction Project. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda, the agreement with KDOT concerning a traffic signal and geometric improvements at 7th and Kentucky. He asked if the estimated cost of the project to the City was in the range that staff thought those cost would be.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said no. He said the resolution’s estimated cost for improvements was $50,000 which would have covered the engineering. He said staff would come back to the City Commission authorizing an additional amount. He said those costs were estimated because staff wanted to get further along with the plans to get a more accurate construction estimate.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to execute Agreement No. 152-04 with the Kansas Department of Transportation concerning the traffic signal and geometric improvements at 7th and Kentucky. This project has been selected by KDOT as a safety project and has been funded 90% State share, 10% City share, with a maximum State participation of $160,000. The City previously hired PEC to design this improvement in the amount of $27,030. The current estimated construction cost is $225,000. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
Patricia Sinclair, Lawrence, pulled from the consent agenda, Ordinance No. 7802, related to the health and sanitation code. She said there might be an unintended consequence of one of the proposed changes in the ordinance. She asked the City Commission to reconsider Section 9-605 which currently stated, unless the public officer “believed that the conditions exist of a quality and appearance not commensurate with the character of the neighborhood.” She said the proposed change was to strike “character of the neighborhood” and make that “immediately surrounding properties” as a substitution. She said holding people accountable to be like the general “character of the neighborhood” was reasonable and should remain. She said it led to a fairer enforcement and not selective enforcement, fairer, in a legal, ethical, and moral sense so a person could not be judged more harshly than someone a block away.
She said the possible unintended consequence of narrowing that comparison to “immediately surrounding properties” seemed that all a person needed to do was to be in the middle of three derelict properties to be untouchable by this code enforcement. Therefore, if your neighbors on either side were just as bad and a person was in the middle, the City won’t be able to proceed. She said by narrowing the focus of comparison, the City might be giving people an easy out. She believed that it was fair to stick with the “general character of the neighborhood.”
Commissioner Schauner said perhaps the domino effect could be used at getting at properties which might be immediately surrounded by properties that were not in the best of care. He said somehow and someplace there would be a property up against a property that was well cared for and that one house could be used to domino into the other houses in the neighborhood. He asked David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, Legal Services Director, if that was a reasonable interpretation of how that police power issue might be addressed in court.
Corliss said that idea was accurate. He said what would happen was that one of those properties was going to be adjacent to a property that didn’t have that same standard. If all of the properties down a block had a bunch of junk on the porch that was not appropriate, then that was an issue. If there were three structures that had that same situation, there would be properties on either side that would not have that same situation and it could be worked out accordingly. He said that was not getting at the concern that staff had with the existing language “character of the neighborhood” which was deemed to be possibly excessively broad because it could be a neighborhood association boundary or a neighborhood of several blocks. He said the term “immediately surrounding properties” gave staff an area to look at and it would be case by case specific. If the problem was inappropriate materials in the front yard, then you would expect staff to look at properties on either side and perhaps across the street. If it was problems in the backyard, staff would look at properties in the back yard as well.
Commissioner Dunfield said there was previous discussion about that issue and the concern he had was similar to Sinclair’s concern which was if defining “immediately surrounding properties” very narrowly, and if you were restricted by that definition, then you could run into the type of scenario that was described.
He said in the last discussion on this issue, the response was that “immediately surrounding properties” did not necessarily mean only physically adjacent properties and it could go beyond that and look at everything on a block for example.
Corliss said that was a fair interpretation. He said one of the issues when working through this ordinance would be to try and do a better job from an evidentiary standpoint of showing that staff looked at surrounding properties, document that condition and respond to a defendant that could say that within view of their property there was the same type of condition. He said if that was the case, then staff was not doing their job if they were not also trying to enforce the law on that property as well.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to adopt on seconding reading, Ordinance No. 7802, amending Chapter 9, Articles 2, 4, and 6, of the Health and Sanitation Code. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Patricia Sinclair pulled from the consent agenda, the approval of the non-conforming use for Louise’s, 1009 Massachusetts.
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, presented the staff report. She said the property became non-conforming in 1994 when the City passed an ordinance that required 55% food sales for new drinking establishments. The existing bars that were in existence at that time became non-conforming.
She said the applicant submitted a site plan to the Planning Office last summer which was processed as a site plan. Staff overlooked the fact that the property was a non-conforming use. She said planning staff was unaware of that property’s status until the property was under construction this summer. Subsequently, the property owner was notified at the end of July and staff quickly placed this item on the agenda for consideration of the expansion. The code was clear that expansions of non-conforming uses should be approved by the City Commission.
She said the property had gone through the Historic Resources Commission review and had been constructed in accordance to those plans. The expansion for the second floor deck and the patio area in the rear of the property did not increase the occupancy load for the business. She said staff checked with the Fire/Medical Department and the occupancy was currently 134 people and after the deck was constructed and permitted to be used, the occupancy would remain at 134. She said in staff’s opinion, the expansion while it expanded the floor area for the business, did not expand the business in terms of how many people were able to be served and staff recommended that the City Commission approve that expansion.
Dunfield said the City Commission was given a staff report that was a non-conforming use site plan review and he asked what was included in the original site plan review.
Stogsdill said the original review would have been a reiteration of the square footage for the second floor deck and that it would be a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district. The review also indicated that there was no parking required for uses in the C-3 district. The sit plan included conditions that it could not be released until the historic resources conditions had been met.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Stogsdill knew why the Fire Marshall believed that the proposed second floor deck expansion did not increase the occupancy load.
Stogsdill said it was her understanding that there was one exit from the deck area and a second exit would require going through the building.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the current exit exited back into the building and out or did it go outside and down.
Stogsdill said one exit went through the building and one exited to the alley.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff created any additional methods for dealing with those non-conforming use applications so there would not be another embarrassing situation like this for staff and the City Commission.
Stogsdill said there was now a specific listing of all of the non-conforming uses that were created in 1994 by that ordinance which would be used by City Planners.
She said also, in the draft zoning code, there was a requirement that when the new zoning code was adopted and uses become non-conforming by adoption of that code there was a requirement that they would be registered. She said staff would be creating a database for all of the non-conforming uses that were created by the new code so there was a tracking mechanism in place.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was the stage of construction when Planning Staff discovered that this project was physically underway and he also asked, whether there was any request that construction be stopped until the City Commission had reviewed the matter.
Stogsdill said she believed by the time staff notified the applicant, the construction was at the painting stage.
Commissioner Hack asked if the applicant had stopped until this matter was resolved.
Stogsdill said there had been a request for a temporary occupancy, but that occupancy had not been granted because there was an indication that the process wait until the City Commission acted on that issue.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said what was currently underway was that staff was working with the Information Systems Department and Neighborhood Resources Department. She said those departments had developed a process to tag or identify sites that should not be issued permits. She said staff would be working with Information Systems to flag property if there was a problem.
Patricia Sinclair showed a picture of the back of Louise’s as it existed before the construction. She said in 1990, Louise’s had requested to asphalt the bottom deck and place a six foot fence around the area in which the Police Department asked that the fence not be solid to allow Officers to view the patio without leaving their cars. Also, they would have a person stationed at the entrance which would be the second entrance to the bar.
She said in the event the new deck was a replacement for the old deck was erroneous because the new deck completely filled the space right up to the alley on both levels.
She said as Commissioner Schauner had noted, the City found themselves in an awkward position of being asked to approve something that had already been built. She asked the Commission to not approve this addition and if the Commission found that they could not approve the addition, then she asked that the Commission postpone their decision to get more information. She said the Commission did not have opportunity to view the site and that was an important piece of information.
She was hoping to demonstrate why, even if the City Commission wanted to approve the non-conforming use, the expansion was more than 100% square footage allowed.
She thought that it was regrettable that the Planning Department did not have a mechanism to flag that site and she believed a lot of the responsibility should lie on the shoulders of the owner who knew or certainly should have known by being informed in the past of the fact that any expansions had to be approved by the City Commission. She said when she referred to the term “owner” in which she believed it was now a corporation, but the documents were signed by Brad Ziegler, so she was using his name as owner.
In 1990, before the non-conforming use, they had applied to have that lower deck resurfaced and fenced with a gate. She said from the photograph, it looked as though there was no fencing, but yet that space was somehow entered into the calculations in the staff report now as existing square footage or floor area, but she thought the floor area would be the interior space.
Also, in 1995, the owner asked to add the entire second floor to the bar. She said that area had been apartments and then used as storage so it was not designed as a bar so again, you would have had to follow the same sequence in the City Code as that expansion.
She said during that time, there was a misunderstanding with the Planning Department and when construction got underway, it became clear that this was something that needed approval by the City Commission. She said the owner also received a certified letter from the City Clerk telling the owner that if his business was a non-conforming use, the property owner’s expansion project would need to be reviewed by the City Commission. She said a lot of paperwork was generated, including quite an extensive review document that spelled out clearly the sections of code that applied and various other matters that were pertinent to this situation and other places like this. She said what she was trying to make clear was the sense that the owner said he did not know and it was the Planning’s fault, but that did not go over with her and she did not believe that could be demonstrated.
Also, there was a planning form that needed to be filled out that asked what the request was for. She believed the owner owned other bars and was before the City Commission earlier this year, at least three times, requesting variances and exceptions for the Masonic Temple. She said the owner was quite aware of the code and has been informed of this on more than one occasion, the requirements for City Commission approval of expansion.
In 1995 when the owner submitted the plan for expanding into the second floor, the owner stated it was 85% expansion with the downstairs at 1700 square feet and upstairs was 1400. There was also a hand drawn plan that she thought accompanied the 1990 plan where the figures were higher.
She said when looking at the staff report on this discussion, there was gross square footage and net footage which was confusing because when Quinton’s was being discussed it was just square footage. She said by this square footage, it seemed to be saying if looking at the gross square footage, it was a little over 100% and if you look at the net it wasn’t. The way this was being computed was that their taking into account that back patio as part of the existing square footage. She said what she was trying to demonstrate was that the owner himself submitted his building permit application in 1995 and stated his existing square footage downstairs was 1700 and wanted to expand upstairs 1400 square feet. She said the owner stated it was an 85% expansion and that was what the City Commission approved in 1995. If you look at that deck, whether gross or net, that would put you well over the top. She said she was just trying to look at the precedent.
Sinclair said then there was a question of “necessary” and the City Commission looked at that issue when looking at Quinton’s. She said they had an applicant who had made no statement as to why it was necessary along with the Planning Department’s report that made no statement as to why it was considered necessary. She said now they say it was necessary, but last time they said they could not rule on that because it was a legal term that wasn’t defined for them adequately. She said there was some talk about if the owner felt it was necessary due to business plans and so forth, that would make it necessary, but she did not believe that was adequate to address the term “necessary” used in the code. If all it took to consider it necessary to expand was for an owner to say they needed to make some more money and need more space, then there would be no point in having it in this code at all. As it was, those businesses were at an advantage over other drinking establishments downtown because they did not need to meet the food requirements and the property values were more valuable than others. She suggested that looking at the word “necessary” would involve more than the owner statement which did not exist. She said there was no statement at all about why it was deemed necessary. The previous time in 1995, the owner had a form to fill out that asked why they thought it was necessary and so forth and that time the owner said he had recently lost his lease on the Henry T’s building and he needed to replace income generated by that establishment.
She said she had a chance to look at what was built behind Louise’s and she considered it a metal monstrosity. The deck was totally visible from Vermont Street and that deck might be upgraded in the future.
She said previously there had been restrictions placed on the expansion in terms of not having music, lighting, and other things and whether those restrictions would continue with this expansion, she did not know.
One concern expressed by neighbors at 1005 and 1007 Massachusetts was people getting onto roof tops. She said she looked at the structure and it seemed that it would be easy to go over the railing from the second story onto roof tops and when going up the stairs, the railing was relatively low and would give access to roof tops.
She said even though the owner first applied for the building permit in June of 2003, the building permit was not issued until June 2004. So there was a years worth of time in which someone might had noticed including the owner, that this was not right. She said it was not like it was built a year ago and they had been waiting, it was very recently built. She said it set a dangerous precedent to allow this expansion.
She said she gathered quite a bit of information and if the Commission had any interest in this issue, she would be happy to share those minutes or other documents like a letter from Price Banks, former Planning Director, noting that there was supposed to be a yearly review after the 1990 incident. She also had a long document that the owner would have received in 1995 concerning the non-conforming use review that spelled out all the conditions of the code. She asked the City Commission to wait until they had a chance to review the relevant information and the structure itself before the Commission reached a decision on this issue.
Paul Werner, Architect, said his firm built the addition and agreed with Planning Staff’s memorandum that was presented to the Commission. He said they found out about this issue the day they tried to get a temporary occupancy permit to paint the deck. He said he did not know it was a non-conforming use. He said it was ridiculous to think they would have gone through all of that work and risk building that structure that cost approximately $150,000 to wind up with this issue on the City Commission’s agenda after the fact. He reiterated that they did not know about the non-conforming use. He said they went through the Historic Resources Commission and site plan and thought they were doing everything they were suppose to do. He asked the City Commission to approve the non-conforming use.
Acting Mayor Highberger said it was unfortunate that this was reviewed after the fact. He said given that, he thought the applicant had expended a substantial amount of money and the only thing to do, at this point, was to approve the non-conforming use.
Commissioner Hack concurred with Acting Mayor Highberger. She said there was now a mechanism in place that would not allow this type of issue to happen again. She said she was not blaming staff or the Commission and she concurred to approve the non-conforming use.
Commissioner Dunfield added that from a generalized policy point of view and not looking at the specifics of this case, he thought they would want to make the maximum use of the limited downtown buildings because they did not want downtown to grow into the neighborhoods. The alternative to that was making the best possible use of the land in the C-3 district. He said he did not want to apply that thinking to this particular case because this particular case had its own problems, but as a general statement, it was important.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see the paper history of this project going back to 1995. He said his concern was this project was not an isolated case of mistakes being made in the way things were handled and he said the Commission needed to get a better handle on how those projects were handled by staff, and how they were approved or not approved because it placed this City Commission in a very untenable position to be asked as a remedy to either delay for some period of time or deny all together a project in which the owner had spent $150,000. He said it put the City Commission in a position where it could not win. He said they either get to ignore their own rules and approve this non-conforming use or they get to follow the rules to the letter, for example, approving no more than 100% of the original gross square footage because in this case, the City Commission would be approving 101.2%.
He said he did not disagree with Commissioner Dunfield’s comments about the use of downtown, but the Commission had rules in place that were designed to help them in a known way fill that limited downtown area so that everybody gets to follow the same rules instead of exceptions and mistakes. He said he would like to see the paper history on this issue and have further conversation about the terms “necessary” and “incidental.” He said there was going to be more and more pressure downtown to expand those existing facilities and he thought they needed better rules and those rules be followed as written rather than having a situation like the Commission was faced with at the present time. He voted against the approval of the non-conforming use. He said he wanted to send a message that he personally did not want to see that type of matter come before the City Commission again. He said it was an embarrassment.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the non-conforming use (N-08-04-04), finding that the second floor deck expansion at Louise’s, 1009 Massachusetts Street, is necessary and incidental to the existing use of the building and the conditions set forth in Section 20-1302, Expansion of Non-Conforming Uses, and approve the second floor deck expansion, subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Commission grant the authority to enlarge the building devoted to a non-conforming use as the extension is necessary and incidental to the existing use of said building and the conditions set forth in section 20-1303 (Expansion of Non-Conforming Uses) are met; and
2. Approval of the site plan for the expansion of the non-conforming use subject to the following condition:
(a) Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (8)
Acting Mayor Highberger pulled from the consent agenda, the letter of support for the Overlook Trail project at Clinton Lake.
He said there were concerns from citizens about the possibility that construction of the trail would involve paving over some amount of native prairie. He said he wanted to make sure that the City Commission was aware of that concern.
He asked staff if there was a timeframe for authorizing the letter.
Lew Ruona, Corp of Engineer Operations Project Manager, said it was not prairie, but planted warm season grasses. He said by definition of prairie, it was untilled ground that was natural in state. He said that area was established in the 1970’s during construction of the lake. He said they further put warm season grasses in the pilot channel or the spillway in from Sanders Mound, but that did not make it a prairie, but a warm season stand of grass.
He said there was no timeframe to sign and authorize the letter. He said Kansas Wildscape was one of their partners and they were asking the City to partner with the Corps of Engineers. He said they would submit the application for the grant through the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. He said it was a federal grant and they had a good set of partners, a good initiative, and great public support.
Acting Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to sign a letter of support for the Overlook Trail project at Clinton Lake. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen reported that the Parks and Recreation crews had taken much effort earlier this year to enhance the downtown planters which were reaping dramatic results.
Acting Mayor Highberger said concerning the energy’s code webcast there was discussion with the Resource Conservation Advisory Board about whether the Commission had authorized the Code Boards to proceed with review of the International Energy Code. He said it was his sense that was authorized by the Commission, but he would like that issue clarified.
Commissioner Schauner said he believed that was correct.
Commissioner Dunfield said that issue would need to get in line behind a couple of other projects they were working on, but the Commission wanted to make sure it would be addressed.
Also, during the City Manager’s report, Commissioner Schauner asked Soules if he could summarize the quality of some of the streets surveyed.
Soules said part of the discussion staff would need to have with the City Commission was what level of service did the Commission want provided. (10)
REGULAR AGENDA
Conduct a public hearing on the recommended 2005 City Budget and consider adoption of implementing ordinances and actions.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, presented the recommendations for the 2005 City Budget. He said the budget called for a mill levy of 27.882 and a total of $122,270,941 in expenditures. It was a balanced budget and did not contain items such as the Community Development Block Grant. He said this was the City’s operating and Capital Improvement Budget for 2005. He said August 25, 2004, was the deadline to be certified with the County Clerk so they could begin the process of administration of the taxes at the County level.
Acting Mayor Highberger called a public hearing on the recommended 2005 Budget.
Bobbie Flory, Lawrence Home Builders Association, said they appreciated the time and effort City Staff and the City Commission had put into this budget, however they continued to request that the City remove the Building Inspection Division from the general fund and to form an enterprise fund. This would allow both the City Commission and building community to closely track the fee revenue for building permits. The LHBA felt strongly that the fee revenue should be reserved for the expenses incurred that related to the purpose of the fee.
The LHBA would also like the 2005 Budget to reflect the requested position by Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director, for the Inspector II position. She said Torres had indicated that position would be for inspections, plan reviews, and to administer the upcoming contractor licensing program. She said she met with Torres to come up with a reasonable fee. No additional staff was planned to administer the contractor licensing program which hopefully would come by January 2005, but there would be some fee revenue generated by that program. She said LHBA would like to see that fee revenue that was generated by the contractor licensing program be used to help fund that position.
She said the bottom line for the LHBA was accountability to the building community and to homeowners for the fees that they paid to City of Lawrence for the required services. She asked that the City Commission reconsider the design of the City Budget provide that accountability.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Acting Mayor Highberger pointed out that the matter of the building inspection position was under litigation at this time and he generally agreed with that concept.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7816, the approval, adoption, and appropriating by fund the budget of the City of Lawrence, for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7817, making certain determinations and provisions concerning the appropriation and budgeting of property tax revenue for the year 2005 City Budget. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Receive various staff recommendations regarding rates and fees for 2005.
Mike Wildgen City Manager, presented staff’s recommendations regarding rates and fees for 2005. He said there were a number of services that were not supported by sales tax or property tax, but were supported by enterprise funds.
He said the recommendations for the budget contained solid waste service rates, acceptable containers for yard waste, items related to water and waste water rates, and pool fees for children.
Acting Mayor Highberger questioned the water rates. He said his reading of the study indicated that the intended revenue increase for the residential portion of the City’s water rates for 2005 was 5.4 percent, but when looking at the table in the budget it showed the rates for different categories of users. He said all but the very lowest category would experience rate increases of 10% to 15%. He said he knew there was some decrease for the smallest users, but he asked if there was a small number user that would be seeing a decrease in the rates. He asked if that discrepancy could be explained.
Keith Barber, Black and Veatch, said the very low users were the users that would see a benefit in the new rate increases because there was no minimum usage charge. He said approximately 25% of the users be in that range of reductions.
Commissioner Schauner said then approximately 75% of the water consumers in the City would see an increase of excess of 10% beginning in 2005.
Barber said it would not necessarily be that much of an increase. The more water that was used would add up. He said the lower of volume of water usage, would be less of an increase in costs because of the averaging.
Acting Mayor Highberger asked if the change to inclining rate for water rates would not take effect until 2007.
Barber said those rates would be phased in over an extended period of time.
Commissioner Schauner said one of the rationales for increasing the water usage rate and going to the inclining schedule was to promote conservation. He said if trying to promote conservation with only the stick of higher rates, it seemed that some type of an incentive program should be considered to assist people to move to a more water friendly environment. He said Hayes, Kansas, for example, had a very aggressive program of assisting homeowners to move to a significantly less water intensive yard. He said if the City was going to raise prices on water which was significant, then the City should try to help on the other side of that equation as well. He said he would like the City to look at whatever programs that might be available to assist homeowners in moving to a more water friendly environment.
Mark Thompson, representing Anderson Rentals, spoke specifically to the recommendation for septic charges for tanks and portable toilet waste. He said in 1999 they appeared before the City Commission back when the Wastewater Treatment Plant was being expanded. He said during that point there was a proposal to build a new dump station. He said the increasing costs to their business, at that time, was a 1.3 cents a gallon to what was now 11.9 cents a gallon which was an 819% increase. He said, at that time, they petitioned the Commission to consider the unintended economic consequences of having such dramatic rate increases on the wastewater dumping fees. He said the consequences ranged from forcing the people who pumped septic tanks to strictly land apply that waste because those people could not pay the new higher costs to dump at the City’s plant which was, at that time, deemed less desirable by the County Health Department.
He said to his specific circumstance, by raising the rates at the Lawrence Plant, it placed pressure on local businesses in trying to compete with out of town vendors. He said his business was centered in Lawrence and he worked in a 25 mile radius. The Lawrence Wastewater Treatment Plant was the most convenient place for him to dump his waste. He said the rates for this service that was before the Commission now was going to be an additional 44% increase to his dump fees, from 11.9 cents a gallon to 17.71 cents. He said with the increase that went into effect between 2001 and 2003 was basically a 7% increase that he had to pass along to his users. He said this latest increase was a going to be a 5% increase that he would need to pass along to the end user.
He asked the City Commission to consider those rates because those fees targeted local businesses specifically.
He said as rates go up, the rates were designed to recoup the dollars in capital cost for building that dumping station. As the City increased those rates, there were fewer and fewer people to dump at the Lawrence Wastewater Treatment Plant and that would cause people to pay even higher rates in the future because of the reduced volume of business. He asked the City Commission to consider those rates when making their decision.
Commissioner Schauner asked Thompson if he had any other suggestions to make besides not increasing those fees as proposed.
Thompson said the plant was already built and fixed, but he contended that the higher the City raised the fees, the less people would use that plant. He said raising the fees was not the answer.
Jason Boots, KU Student Senate, said one idea to consider was some type of discount on usage. He said the cost per gallon on the lower end would be a little more than costs per gallon on the higher end.
Bobbie Flory, Lawrence Homebuilders Association, commented on the system development charge increase. She said the LHBA had long been opposed to system development charges, but they had tolerated those rates. Those rates had been increasing steady and they would be experiencing a significant increase at this time. They were concerned about the impact that would have on workforce housing.
Acting Mayor Highberger said he appreciated Flory’s concerns about the impact those system development charges would have on workforce housing, but when looking at the water and sewage fees, the City would be experiencing substantial fee increases over the next five years to pay for the cost of growth and that was even considering the raised system development fees. He said compared to the surrounding area, even after those fee increases, this City’s fees would still be on the low side.
Barber said Anderson was not stuck with paying for the entire City facility, but part of that cost. The sewer system users were paying the bulk of that cost. He said they were recovering a share based on capacity received at that facility which created a unit cost and that was passed on to the users of the facility. The capacity was built based on approximately 600 loads per year, but they were not near that amount.
As far as the total cost, the proposed charges were not the total cost and that charge excluded any return on investment for the Treatment Plant. Those costs did include a return on investment just like any of the sewer service charges. He said those proposed charges were discounted from what the City could impose on those charges based on cost of service by eliminating the return on investment at the Treatment Plant. He said the unit cost also did not include anything associated with the sewer system and it was treatment only. He said the City could only impose the minimum charge for the operations maintenance of the facility in the treatment of the waste and replacement cost which was an Environmental Protection Agency user charge requirement. He said if the City Commission was to adopt the minimum charge instead of the 171 per thousand gallons it would be approximately 124 per thousand gallons which was slightly more than the current charge. Acting Mayor Highberger asked about the cost.
Barber said he did not think the cost would be significant. He said they were applying the same unit cost that was used for the sewer system, but only for the treatment portion which drove that minimum cost. He recommended that costs be applied, but there was flexibility on recovering capital because the EPA did not have any mandates for recovering capital.
Commissioner Schauner asked what impact the minimum approach would have on septic costs.
Barber said septic would be $135 assuming the strengths were right. He said those strengths seemed high for pumping on a 3 to 5 year basis.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that the Commission reduce the charge for septic tank and portable toilet waste because the speaker made a good point about the City driving a significantly harder burden on local businesses. He said he would like that cost reduced in the way that did not harm the City’s ability to recover operating costs and EPA mandates. He suggested reducing those costs to the minimums that were suggested rather than raising the rate as proposed in Ordinance No. 7818.
Commissioner Hack agreed. She said the Commission’s intent was not to harm local businesses.
She said the original direction for the Black and Veatch study was to look at generation of money to maintain the system and she said a leap was taken from that study to conservation. She said conservation was critical, but there might be a more gradual way of having that conservation discussion as a community rather than a punitive approach of raising those rates as more water was being used. She would like to see a change in the septic fees and also for the Commission to reconsider Ordinance No. 7808, concerning water and waste water to receive additional information.
Barber clarified his comment on the residential rate. He said it was not so much a conservation rate as a cost of service base rate that recognized the increasing demands of the higher users that irrigated their yards. The entire system of rates throughout Lawrence’s history had been on the declining block which set the highest price for water for the residential customer’s because they had the highest demand and lowest volume. The middle range block was commercial customer’s which had the next highest use of volume, but lesser demands than residential customers so they received a lower rate. The third block was industrial which had the most usage and also the least demand on the system.
He said the driving force for the residential rate was not so much conservation as it was equity because the highest residential users were using so much water that their usage was placed in the block for the commercial user which had the lower rate. The more a person irrigated their yard the cheaper it was on average because that person went out of the high priced residential rate to the lower priced commercial rate. He said that idea was being refined by first, making all usage for that class which had characteristics for maximum day/maximum hour similar to the class to pay the uniform rates because the large users did not get that discount. He said at the end of the study period they recognized that the irrigators actually had higher demands than most of the other residential users so it was almost like a subclass within residential whereas residential had always paid maximum day and maximum hour demands on average. He said it would be the same average, but the lower volume users were going to have a smaller demand and therefore benefit by a slightly lesser rate and the higher users in that same class would have the higher demand and that was the reason for the second inverted block. He said on average residential class would still pay the same, it was just who in the residential class was making up the difference.
Commissioner Hack said she understood the comment about that not being conservation, but we were either conserving water or conserving the system.
Barber said there would be a conservation impact. He said some people might cut back on their water usage, but that could be good because of the expansion and delay future expansions as well.
Commissioner Schauner said some of his confusion about this issue came from discussion several months ago by a person from Black and Veatch. He said he had asked the question whether water conservation was something the Commission should be considering. In other words, did the Commission have a water shortage issue facing them? He said that person said there was no water shortage issue.
He said a month ago there was a study session on this topic and he received a different answer that water availability, tracking it through the next 25 years, was going to maybe match demand. He said that struck him as a different answer. He said it left him wondering if the Commission needed to be looking at conservation and if so, was water pricing a way to achieve part of that idea or were we not faced with a water shortage and were they really just looking at how to recover more money from consumers to expand and maintain the water delivery system. He said at this point, he would have a hard time supporting Ordinance No. 7808 until there was a better explanation.
Acting Mayor Highberger clarified that Ordinance No. 7808, referred just to the 2005 water fees.
Commissioner Dunfield said he would like to comment on the potential change in the rate structure. He said the same amount of money would be collected from the users of the system with whatever rate structure they used. The question was going to be how those costs were distributed among the different users. He said they needed to take in the amount of money that the system needed to operate because that was the way the fund worked. He said again, it was a question of equity of how that cost was distributed among the different users. He said we were in a very fortunate position because we had a lot of access to water, but that did not mean that it was a resource that we should take for granted and it also did not mean that we could use that resource without a lot of expense, time, energy and effort that went into taking that stuff if your watching flow under the bridge and making it drinkable. He said the issue of equity was important when thinking about taking river water, running that water through all those processes to make it so it was clean coming out of the tap and then using that resource on a lawn, he thought there was a legitimate question of the preciousness of that whole process of treatment and how that product was then used in the end. He said this particular ordinance was not really addressing that issue, but he was an advocate of changing the rate structure. He said it reflected the type of values that the community had about using its resources wisely and over the long haul he hoped to continue to move in that direction.
Acting Mayor Highberger supported lowering the septic and chemical dumping fees to the minimums. He said he shared Commissioner Hack’s concerns about impacting local businesses unnecessarily. He said he echoed Commissioner Dunfield’s comment that if the City Commission had implemented a few percent decrease in the water fees a few years ago, they wouldn’t be talking about spending a substantial amount of money that was being discussed in raising the revenue. He said regardless of equity issues, if the City could delay the growth in their water usage, then it saved everyone money because the City would not need to increase water capacity and indirectly increase their water treatment use too. He said low end users had been subsidizing high end users in the City for a long time and he would like to see that changed.
He said he would like to see more data about how individuals were affected. He supported the goal of equity in the City’s water rates because it seemed that idea was what the City was heading towards.
Commissioner Hack asked at what point the City Commission would be making that decision on the water rates. She asked if that would be part of the next budget cycle.
Wildgen said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any particular urgency on making a decision to adopt Ordinance No. 7808, establishing water and wastewater service.
Wildgen said staff would like that decision made sometime this fall because of the administrative work. He suggested sometime in October would be appropriate.
He said Ordinance No. 7818 establishing septic charges could be placed on first reading at this time.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7795, establishing solid waste service rates. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7797, establishing acceptable containers for yard waste to refuse cans, roll-out carts, and compostable fiber bags, prohibiting use of plastic bags for yard waste, and amending Chapter 9, Article 4, Sections 2, 3, and 6 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas. (18)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to defer adopting Ordinance No. 7808, providing or a revised schedule of rates for water service and sewage disposal service supplied by the City of Lawrence, Kansas by amending Section 19-312, 19-312.1, 19-314, and 19-318 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003 Edition, and amendments thereto. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7809, amending sections 19-902 and 19-903 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas 2003 Edition, concerning system development charges for water utility and wastewater utility connections. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading amended Ordinance No. 7818, amending Section 19-806 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas 2003 Edition, and amendment thereto concerning septage discharge fees (the Ordinance was amended to change the charges to the minimum charges as set out in the Black & Veatch rate study. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to increase wholesale water rate to $2.25 per thousand gallons. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to increase pool fees for children to $1.75. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
Wildgen suggested that the Commission inform staff on what they wanted to see in terms of a report on Ordinance No. 7808.
Commissioner Hack suggested that staff provide additional information of various options like ascending and flat rates and the long term effects of those different options.
Receive staff recommendation to increase court costs.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director presented the staff report. He said during the 2005 Budget deliberations, the Legal Department presented a program improvement that was to replace the existing software that ran the Municipal Court system with a new enhanced system and the option to pay for that system through increased court costs. He said as a Municipal Court they had advocated in following a philosophy that they wanted fines and fees to be roughly in the medium/middle pack of similar communities. He said this City did not necessarily have the highest fines, but the City also did not have the lowest fines. He said when looking at court costs, staff found that they were leaning towards the shallower end of that pool so staff was recommending to the Commission the adoption of Ordinance 7805, which would increase court costs by $10.00.
He said staff’s memo provided to the City Commission indicated where this City was in comparison to court costs with similarly situated communities. Some communities follow a different philosophy on court cost and keep their cost low, but their fines high. In other communities it depended on the severity of the charges.
He also pointed out that the State had mandated the collection of certain fees with the City’s court costs which was currently at $9.50. He said some of that money funds Law Enforcement Training Center and some of that money was for State programs that was included in the total costs. He said staff recommended that the City’s court cost increase from $22.50 to $32.50. He said staff would like to use that additional revenue to help fund the case management software. He said staff would like to increase the court costs effective on September 1, 2004. He said staff would account for those funds in the City’s equipment reserve fund and then develop a necessary contract to proceed with the acquisition of that software this fall.
He said staff’s memo also indicated some of the program improvement values with the new software. He said the current software was from a vendor that provided that system in mid to late 1990’s. The system that staff was looking at was the system that all Kansas District Courts had adopted. He said that system could be purchased through a State contract where the City would save some funds.
He said the software had very good functionality and court staff had been impressed with its ability to do a lot of things that the current system could not do. He said the software also allowed staff to take some next steps as far as the electronic importation of data.
He said when looking at the data for July, there were approximately 3500 tickets. Staff currently keyed in that information in the computer system, but he would like to move toward the electronic importation of that data which would be similar to what the parking control offices do. He said by importing that data, it would be a quicker process, reduced the opportunity for error, and would free up staff time which could be used for collection and warrant efforts. He said it was likely, at some point, that the State would mandate that process because the State would want cities to talk with their computers as far as different charges. He said this data was compatible with the State agencies because it was the State District Court System as well.
Acting Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7805, providing for revised court costs assessed by the Municipal Court of the City of Lawrence by amending sections 1-113 and section 12-105 of the municipal code of the City of Lawrence. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Conduct Public Hearing on proposed maximum special assessments for the construction of the improvement/extension of George Williams Way from its current termination north approximately 3,000 L.F. to W. 6th Street (US Hwy 40), including property acquisition, and other necessary and appropriate improvements.
Conduct Public Hearing on proposed maximum special assessments for the construction of Harvard Road from George Williams Way east 500 feet including property acquisition, traffic calming, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, water main and other necessary and appropriate improvements.
Action Mayor Highberger called a public hearing.
Dave Corliss said the two special assessment public hearings were related. He said these were benefit districts that were created last January. He said they both were in the design and property acquisition phases. One of the issues that had kept this project from proceeding was the discussion with the property owner immediately at the southeast corner of K-10 and 6th Street regarding the land uses that would be allowed in that area which were related to the commercial chapter, nodal plan, and a number of other issues that were worked on.
Since that time, the project had been designed and staff had received the last property interest that was needed which was a temporary construction easement from one of the property owners. He said at this time, the Commission would be setting the maximum assessments.
He said he was anticipating a discussion with one of those property owners for the Collister Track. He said staff offered to recommend to the Commission to defer special assessments on that tract. He said that tract was currently a residence farmstead and based on the Commission’s indication on how they wanted to proceed with deferral of assessments that property would likely qualify for that deferral because that would have a substantially economic hardship as the property was currently used. He said the property owner provided the easement, but he did not get a chance to understand what that property owner wanted to do with the deferral of the special assessments.
The City Clerk’s office had provided the appropriate notice to the property owners and published the required notice.
He said the road project would be built while KDOT and the City were constructing 6th Street, but that road would not be opened up until the 6th Street project was completed. He said there was a roundabout at the intersection of Harvard and George Williams Way and would proceed north. The road widens up to a three lanes with sidewalks on both sides and bike lanes. He said there was a substantial drainage structure towards the southern end of the project just north of Langston Hughes that was related to the next benefit district project as well.
The City Commission’s action was to conduct the public hearing and direct staff, if appropriate, to proceed with adoption of that ordinance.
Corliss went on to discuss the next benefit district. He said Resolution No. 6503 was adopted last year and authorized the connection of Harvard Road where it was ending with one of the Fox Chase Developments which would extend Harvard further to the west. The developer at that location was constructing Harvard, privately financed. He said there was City property at that location which was the property that was adjacent to George Williams Way, the undeveloped park property and property owned by Stultz and his partners on the north side. He said there was a fairly substantial drainage structure that was required on that project as well. He said because the City was an adjacent property owner there was substantial City involvement in those costs.
The City Clerk’s office had sent the appropriate letters and notice. He said the Commission authorized the project and staff would like to establish the maximum assessments before they proceeded with the project.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the assessing method was on a front footage basis.
Corliss said both projects were based on front footage. The property in the Harvard Road district located in Parcel 1, was assessed a certain percentage of the cost based on the ratio of the front footage. He said the method of assessment was following the City’s philosophy that unless there was a substantial difficult geometry in those streets, that front footage was the fairest way to look at a collector street assessment.
Acting Mayor Highberger called a public hearing for George Williams Way and Harvard Road.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7806, levying the maximum assessments to pay all of the costs for the construction of George Williams Way from its current terminus north approximately 3000 L.F. to West 6th Street (U.S. Highway 40) including property acquisition and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution 6449. Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7807, levying the maximum special assessments to pay all of the costs for the construction of Harvard Road from the intersection of George Williams Way East 500 Feet, including property acquisition, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, water main and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No. 6503. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
Commissioner Dunfield commented that it had been the understanding that the deferral of the assessment on the Collister track was key to this situation.
Corliss said he planned to follow up with a letter to Mrs. Collister indicating that the benefit districts would be proceeding and ask her for her view.
Conduct Public Hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of a drainage easement on Lot 40, Western Hills Suburban Rancheros Subdivision, 4101 W. 13th Street.
Acting Mayor Highberger called a public hearing.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, had been working with the owner, Mr. Lubensky on this matter. He said the property owner would like to construct a new house and that was the reason for the request for a vacation. He said Voigt determined that area would not affect the drainage for that development.
He said all utilities had been notified and there were no issue.
Also, property owners were notified within 200 feet of that area. As a result, there was an inquiry that had concerns about drainage, but staff responded to that inquiry and they had not heard if that person still had any concerns.
Acting Mayor Highberger called a public hearing.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Order of Vacation for a portion of a drainage easement on Lot 40, Western Hills Suburban Rancheros Subdivision, 4101 West 13th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (27)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Steve Ozark, Co-Chair, Lawrence Coalition on Homeless Concerns, said after receiving encouragement from the City Commission about a long term proposal rather than stop gaps situations the Coalition met with the Community Drop In Center, Lawrence Open Shelter, and the Salvation Army to see what they could do on a very tight budget that would be meaningful for the City of Lawrence and the Homeless population in this community.
He said as a result of those meetings, a proposal was developed by the three primary care givers as far as how they could have 24/7 services in Lawrence in a cost effective way. He said in the past when none of those service providers were open, then that left that situation to the police force and hospitals to try to deal with situations, but they could not assist beyond an immediate place to go.
He said many people had stated that they were convinced that it would save the City a great deal of money on the front end and he was convinced that this proposal would be a great service for downtown businesses as well as the homeless population.
Commissioner Dunfield said after reading their proposal he wasn’t clear where the services would be provided.
Ozark said that vagueness of where specifically those services would be located was partially because the location would be figured out with the funding. He said the services would be at the Community Drop In Center, Lawrence Open Shelter, the Salvation Army, and those service providers’ staff rather than in an outside location. He said they felt it would be most beneficial for servicing rather than corralling people.
Commissioner Dunfield asked whether this proposal was reviewed by the Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness.
Ozark said the Task Force was at point of finalizing all those ideas that were brought forth and try to digest a long-term goal of how to serve the Lawrence public. He said he would be interested in what the Task Force in large thought about that proposal because it had not been shared with them. He said he would find it hard to believe that anyone would have a problem with the proposal to see a negative, both cost wise as well as service wise for this step. He said the proposal would be passed out to the Task Force next Tuesday.
Commissioner Schauner asked whether there was a proposed timeline.
Ozark said the idea would be to have the funding to continue the services that they had begun into the fall which would be September through December for 2004 and their proposed budget for 2005.
He said when breaking down those numbers in their proposal it represented taking the hours that services were open now, extending those hours, paying for one person’s time for those hours, and a pro-rating portion of the utilities. He said it was not going to give great service because they would have one person on duty at 3:00 in the afternoon on Saturday. He said a huge problem was weekends with nothing open and people were just wandering about which was not good for the homeless community or downtown business.
He said they were working on a map and a brochure to give out that type of information.
Commissioner Hack said she would be comfortable with short-term help, but she would hate to undermine the Homeless Task Force because they had been working on issues for more than year.
Commissioner Dunfield said it would be appropriate to add this to the next regular agenda. He said he would feel more comfortable having the Mayor present to get his reaction to this situation.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that it might be more helpful if there was some additional conversation in their proposal concerning the point of service delivery. He said the more that idea could be flushed out the easier it was for the Commission to react to it.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Dunfield said the 19th and Barker roundabout was in his neighborhood and the general reaction from his neighbors had been positive.
He said there had been several comments about pedestrian safety of the roundabout and some suggestions had been made that might be worth getting a response from staff.
One of the suggestions was made about signage. He said it seemed that at the splitter island there was a sign post with a diamond shape reflector sign. He said underneath that sign a pedestrian crosswalk similar to the one that was in the middle of the street in front of the Lawrence Arts Center would be feasible and useful.
The other question that was raised and seemed to make sense was why there was no stripe across the road similar to other crosswalks.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2004
1. Agreement – KDOT for traffic signal & geometric improvements for 7th & Kentucky.
2. Ordinance No. 7785 – 1st Reading, Rezone (Z-02-02-04) 3.255 acres, RS-2 to M-2, 601 N Iowa, Riverside Elementary School
3. Ordinance No. 7813 – 1st Reading, Consumption of Alcohol, Sept 4, 2004 at Clinton Lake Outlet Park, Lawrence Mountain Bike Club.
4. Ordinance No. 7814 – 1st Reading, Consumption of Alcohol, Sept 11, 2004 on W side of S Park, Immanuel Lutheran Church “Oompahfest.”
5. Ordinance No. 7751 – 2nd Reading, Rezone (Z-11-40-03) 41 acres, A to RS-1, E of GWW at Harvard.
6. Ordinance No. 7802 – 2nd Reading, Health & Sanitation Code amendment, (Chpt 9) environmental code standard and furniture on porches.
7. Site Plan – (SP-01-01-04) 24th St. Villas, 18 dwelling units, 1.94 acres, 1500 E 24th.
8. Non-Conforming Use – (N-08-04-04) Louise’s, 1009 Massachusetts.
9. 2005 -2006 Fire Protection – Grant Township
10. Mortgage Release – 3112 Creekwood Dr., Heidi Raak.
11. Mortgage Release – 2725 Bonanza, Lynisha Thomas.
12. TSC – Permanent installation of traffic circle, intersection of Goldfield & Prescott on June 7, 2004.
13. Letter of Support – Overlook Trail project at Clinton Lake.
14. City Manager’s Report.
15. Ordinance No. 7816 – 1st Reading, Fund Budget beginning Jan 1, 2005.
16. Ordinance No. 7817 – 1st Reading, 2005 City Budget.
17. Ordinance No. 7795 – 1st Reading, solid waste service rates.
18. Ordinance No. 7797 – 1st Reading, acceptable containers for yard waste.
19. Ordinance No. 7808 – 1st Reading, rates for water service & sewage disposal service.
20. Ordinance No. 7809 – 1st Reading, system development charges for water utility & wastewater utility connections.
21. Ordinance No. 7818 – 1st Reading, septage discharge fees.
22. Wholesale water rate – $2.25 per thousand gallons.
23. Pool Fees – $1.75 for children.
24. Ordinance No. 7805 – 1st Reading, court cost for Municipal Court.
25. Ordinance No. 7806 – 1st Reading, Levy max assess, GWW to W 6th.
26. Ordinance No. 7807 – 1st Reading, Levy max assess, Harvard from intersection of GWW.
27. Vacation Order – Lt 40, Western Hills Suburban Rancheros Sub, 4101 W 13th.