Memorandum

City of Lawrence

City Manager’s Office

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager
FROM:	Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager
Date: CC:	October 23, 2012 Cynthia Wagner, Assistant City Manager
RE:	Response to Laura Routh Correspondence dated October 22, 2012

Laura Routh has written a letter to the City Commission regarding her concerns about the 9^th and New Hampshire project and process. 

First, it is important to note that the process regarding discussions on this project has been extremely lengthy, stretching over nearly an eight month timeframe.  In that timeframe, there have been over ten public meetings by various bodies to consider some portion of the incentive request and in each of these meetings, there has been opportunity for the public to read the documents, make public comments, and also contact staff regarding any questions along the way. 

As with any issue that comes before the City Commission as a result of a request for City Commission review, staff coordinates with the individual or group making the request. In some cases, that involves gathering information from that individual/group, and possibly others, to coordinate the request and prepare a staff report.  This may require checking back with the requesting party to make sure that the facts were captured accurately. As a courtesy, information that is written is also shared either just prior to, or concurrently with the agenda being posted so that the individual/group can be informed about what information has been provided about the item and the date and time the item will be discussed.  With items that are extremely complex, such as the 9^th and New Hampshire project, it is reasonable for staff to coordinate with the applicant regarding the content and order of presentations in order to have an organized flow of information to avoid repetition and provide the best information for the City Commission to discuss. 

In her correspondence, Ms. Routh cites a number of e-mails that she received as part of an open records request.  As with any document or quotation, an e-mail needs to be considered within the context within which it was written.  Below is a response to the e-mails included within Ms. Routh’s correspondence. 

• There is an e-mail to Lynne Zollner from an employee at Treanor Architects who was suggesting some additional information be included in a staff report.  The information suggested was not included in the staff report. 
• There are e-mails between the City’s third party consultant, Springsted, Inc. and William Fleming regarding the detailed projections on project revenues and expenses and the assumptions that were to be used in the analysis.  These types of clarifications back and forth are not at all unusual as the consultant is working from information prepared by the developer. It appears that not all of the expense information was provided by the developer to Springsted initially. This information included such items as hotel remodel expense, furniture and fixtures for the units, and a vacancy rate for the commercial space. I believe that there was also a math error in one of the original spreadsheets sent by the developer to Springsted, which required clarification between the two.  It should also be noted that City staff was not directly involved in any of the analysis completed by Springsted, though we were copied on some of the discussion between the two parties. 
• There are e-mails between the City Clerk and several members of his Leadership Lawrence class who were interested in the project.  He was informing them of information that was publicly available about the project because they had previously expressed interest.  He was not expressing an opinion on the project.  Also, it should be noted that Ms. Routh and Ms. Soden, a neighborhood representative, were also sent e-mails on several occasions alerting them to agenda items related to the project. 
• Ms. Routh cites e-mails that share drafts with the developer. There were a number of instances where it was important to make sure that everyone understood the background and assumptions used for reports.  This was the case with the calculation on the developer’s contribution to the parking garage and also with Springsted’s reports. 

I think that it is important to also comment on the open records request.  The City was extremely thorough in providing its response to Ms. Routh’s open records request. Her request was submitted on July 30, 2012 and requested documents and e-mail correspondence dating back to April 1, 2012. Because her request was quite extensive, involving a number of staff members retrieving e-mails and documents dating back several months, which resulted in a stack of records nearly two inches thick, and over 13 hours of staff time, the cost for the records was $500.  Ms. Routh mentions several times in the correspondence that some information was withheld from her request.  It is true that there were records which were not provided. The City relied upon valid exceptions in the Kansas Open Records Act, to discretionarily close the records. Most were spreadsheets which included proprietary financial information, which were withheld pursuant to K.S.A. 45-221(a)(18) and K.S.A. 45-221(a)(20).