[E-minutes] October 28, 2003 City Commission Meeting Minutes
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:52:07 -0600
October 28, 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. Lawrence High School representative Jacob Gage was present.
Mayor Dunfield announced that the City of Lawrence won the
competition between the City of Lawrence and the City of Manhattan for
recycling aluminum cans. All of those proceeds would benefit the Habitat
for Humanity programs in both cities. He said Habitat for Humanity would
continue to collect aluminum cans to support their program.
With Commission approval Mayor Dunfield proclaimed Friday, October
27th through October 31st to be "Operator Appreciation Week."
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve the City Commission meeting of October 21st, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of
October 6, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve claims to 255 vendors in the amount of $2,704,371.62.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bid for surplus miscellaneous office
chairs from the Utilities Department. The bid was:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Grob & Sons $15.50
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the sole bid to Grob & Sons, in the amount of $15.50.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for scrap copper and brass from
the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
STP Recycling $1,000.00
Reiner's Metal $910.00
Johnny Nichols $825.00
J& L Metals $746.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the bid to STP Recycling, in the amount of $1,000.00.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bid for miscellaneous scrap iron
from the Utilities Department. The bid was:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Johnny Nichols $50.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the sole bid to Johnny Nichols, in the amount of $50.00.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for obsolete water meters from
the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
STP Recycling $3,225.00
Harold Starkebaum $2,023.00
Johnny Nichols $1,653.00
Reiner's Metal $1,500.00
Lux Salvage $651.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the bid to STP Recycling, in the amount of $1,000.00.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a surplus upright air
compressor from the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Grob & Sons $65.00
J& L Metals $52.98
Lux Salvage $28.00
Dallas Merritt $25.00
Johnny Nichols $15.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the bid to Grob & Sons, in the amount of $65.00. Motion
carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a surplus John Deere 318
Riding Mower from the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Shane Davin $356.48
Kirk Nyberg $318.00
Grob & Sons $318.00
J& L Metals $265.40
Lux Salvage $209.00
Dallas Merritt $205.00
Johnny Merritt $200.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the bid to Shane Davin, in the amount of $356.48.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a surplus John Deere 14SB
Push Mower from the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Grob & Sons $26.50
Johnny Nichols $20.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the bid to Grob & Sons, in the amount of $26.50. Motion
carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a surplus 1973 O'Brien
Trailer Rodder from the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Dallas Merritt $75.00
Grob & Sons $65.00
Kirk Nyberg $10.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the bid to Dallas Merritt, in the amount of $75.00.
Motion carried unanimously.
The following were no bid items from the Utilities Department:
laminated table; metal office desk; 650 C Plotter; and a Xerox 2520 copier.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a surplus 1000 gallon
propane tank from the Utilities Department. The bid were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Grob & Sons $395.00
Dallas Merritt $150.00
Johnny Nichols $100.00
Lux Salvage $51.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the bid to Grob & Sons, in the amount of $395.00.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bid for a surplus washer and dryer
from the Utilities Department. The bid was:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Grob & Sons $15.75
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the sole bid to Johnny Nichols, in the amount of $50.00.
Motion carried unanimously.
(1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve the purchase for two 1/2 ton pickups off the MACPP
cooperative bid from Roberts Auto Plaza, in the amount of $12,779.00 each,
totaling $25,598.00. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for 31st Street and Nieder Road
geometric and traffic signal improvements for the Public Works Department.
The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer's Estimate $397,556.50
Larkin Excavating, Inc. $329,007.16
R.D. Johnson Excavating $330,457.60
LRM Industries $340,687.84
Penny Construction $341,754.25
Pavers, Inc. $342,622.00
D.F. Freeman $372,320.53
Meadows Construction $397,559.76
Mega Industries $405,695.40
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to award the bid to Larkin Excavating, Inc., in the amount of
$329,007.16. Motion carried unanimously.
(3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with
Landplan Engineering for the design of the Sesquicentennial Plaza as
recommended by the Sesquicentennial Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7714, rezoning
(Z-08-26-03) 4 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) to
PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District), to add uses within 12 and
13 as allowed uses, property located at 3235 Ousdahl Road. Motion carried
unanimously.
(5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7710, annexing
(A-08-12-03) 59.796 acres of land on the south side of K-10 Highway and west
of K-10 Highway and west of O'Connell Road (Farmland Northwest Addition).
Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
Ordinance No. 7706, establishing the policy and procedures for tax
abatements, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was
moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to adopt the ordinance. Aye:
Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion
carried unanimously.
(7)
Ordinance No. 7707, establishing the City and County Economic
Development Board, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda,
it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, 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 Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to adopt Resolution No. 6502, ordering the construction of
Monterey Way from the intersection of Peterson Road south approximately
2,700 feet. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to adopt Resolution No. 6503, ordering the construction of
Harvard Road from the intersection of George Williams Way east approximately
550 feet. Motion carried unanimously (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to adopt Resolution No. 6504, directing and ordering a public
hearing on November 18, 2003 on the advisability of the construction of
Folks Road from 6th Street (Hwy 40) south approximately 1,500 feet to
Mulberry Drive, Old Oak Court, and a part of Larrisa Drive from Folks Road
approximately 200 feet west. Motion carried unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve the site plan (SP-09-58-03) for Wilcox/Hunter Boarding
House, a ten bedroom residential structure to be moved from 1309 Ohio Street
to 1033 Kentucky Street (zoned RO-1, Residence-Office District), subject to
the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
2. Provision of a revised site plan to include:
a. Correct the location of sanitary sewer manhole;
b. Sanitary Sewer line can not tie directly to manhole;
c. Provide required curb and gutter between parking and sidewalk;
d. Provide sidewalk ramp for the handicap parking;
e. Provide wheelchair ramp to house; and,
f. Parking summary to indicate number of required/provided spaces (including
Parking Group 2E ratio) and notion of number permitted by BZA action.
3. The applicant will compensate the City for trees required to be
removed as part of the relocation of the house.
Motion carried unanimously.
(12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation for
installation of a temporary traffic calming circle at the intersection of
Eldridge and Goldfield Streets and direct staff to prepare the appropriate
ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
(13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation for
installation of a bus zone (8 a.m. - 4 p.m.) on school days, along the north
side of 10th Street for a distance of 110 feet east of New York Street and
direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried
unanimously.
(14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, seconded By Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety
Commission's recommendation to establish "no parking" along the west side of
Crestline Drive south of 9th Street, a distance of approximately two parking
spaces to the nearest property line and direct staff to prepare the
appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
(15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Janice
Heath, 3231 Glacier Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
(16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for
Reginald and Nicole Demby, 1072 Home Circle. Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Stone Creek,
3801 West 6th Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
It was moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to defer the second and
final reading of Ordinance No. 7704, annexing [A-07-10-03] 6.763 acres of
land at the extensions of Foxfire Drive and Burning Tree Drive, south and
west of the existing Foxfire development. Motion carried unanimously.
(19)
Mayor Dunfield pulled from the consent agenda for separate
discussion, the adoption of Resolution No. 6496, declaring the necessity for
condemnation and survey of various property interests to be condemned,
generally located at 1900 Barker Avenue, for the 19th and Barker roundabout
improvements.
Erik Herron, Lawrence, who lived near the intersection of 19th &
Barker, discussed Resolution 6496. He said this resolution authorized the
City to force the owners of the Bungalow Laundromat to sell a portion of
their property. He said the owners indicated a willingness to sell the
entire property to the City and the Barker Neighborhood Association
supported that idea when they voted unanimously to support a southeast
orientation if the City were to build the roundabout in the 19th and Barker
vicinity.
He said condemnation of the property required a decision by the City
Commission that the roundabout was necessary. The resolution required that
the City Commission affirm that the roundabout was both necessary and in the
public interest. This was a higher standard than had been previously
considered by the Commission with regard to that issue. As the resolution
noted, the traffic project would cost the City $550,000 and it would be paid
for by bonds. The City bond rating could be significantly affected by too
much debt. He asked if it was necessary to take on additional debt at this
time.
He said traffic could not go slower than it was right now because
there was a four-way stop at that intersection. There had been accidents at
that intersection, but given the volume of traffic the accident rate was
insignificant and the accidents had been minor. He asked the Commission if
that project was necessary and in the public interest. He asked if it was
in the best interest of the community to have a roundabout placed in the
neighborhood that would generate a boarded up building and to construct a
traffic project that discouraged vehicles from stopping in a residential
neighborhood with a substantial number of pedestrians.
Herron said Commissioner Schauner had noted on a number of occasions
that the City needed clear, open, and transparent criteria for its decision
making. It did not seem to have clear criteria to determine how and when
projects like this roundabout should be put in place. He said they had not
heard precisely what problem the roundabout would solve and why a lower cost
alternative was not pursued. He understood that this project would go
forward, but he believed the Commission and the City owed the Lawrence
residents clear answers to their questions, particularly as it moved to
condemn property.
Doug Brenn, owner of the Laundromat at the corner of 19TH and Barker,
said the amount of property that the City would take from his lot would make
it a non-buildable lot. He was not notified that this issue would be on
the agenda, but learned about it from the Barker Neighborhood Association.
Hack asked Finger to comment on the buildable lot issue with regard
to the new regulations on smaller lots.
Finger said she was not aware of what size the lot would result in.
The new regulations allowed lot sizes down to 3,000 square feet (RS-3
District). She did not know what that property would result in and there
would also be setback issues which might make the structure non-compliant.
In the new regulations that was called a non-conforming structure which was
not the use, but the structure itself would be non-conforming as to
setbacks.
Corliss said the property was currently a non-conforming use. After
the "takings" that the resolution would allow the City to proceed with, it
would be non-complying as far as the minimum lot sizes concern under the
current City regulations. Staff met with Mr. Brenn and walked him through
the current code implications for the property. If the structure was
destroyed to the extent that it would need to be rebuilt, the rebuilding
would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order to be
built. That was also impacted by the changes in the proposed new zoning
code. He said staff hoped it would be adopted soon, but he did not want to
speculate on that in regards to the "taking" issue because he was not sure
how that played into determining the value, but there would be changes in
the new zoning code that would allow for smaller lot sizes. How that
actually impacted that lot, he could not speak definitively at this time.
Mayor Dunfield noted that on the subject of the buildable lot, his
own lot, about two blocks from this intersection, would also not be a
buildable lot if it would require a variance in order to rebuild on that
piece of property because the RS-2 zoning classification did not conform to
the way the original area was laid out.
He said in regard to the necessity of this issue and being in the
public interest, he did not think the Commission would have undertaken that
issue a number of years ago if the Commission did not think that a better
and more effective traffic control system device was required at that
intersection. He was not anxious to tear up roads in his own neighborhood
and take peoples' land from them, but he was convinced that a four way stop
was not adequate and would become more inadequate as time went by. He was
convinced that it was necessary and in the public's interest.
Commissioner Hack said David Woosley, City Traffic Engineer,
explained the difference in terms of the actual traffic calming between a
stop sign and a roundabout. She said Woosley called a four way stop, a
passive calming device as opposed to a roundabout because a person did not
need to stop at a stop sign or a stop light and that had been the problem.
She said a roundabout slowed traffic down and kept traffic moving and that
was the concern in this area.
Commissioner Highberger said roundabouts also kept traffic from
backing up. He was not fond of roundabouts personally, but with the
information he received, he thought it was the proper means to address the
problem at that intersection. He thought that the City had been negotiating
with the intent of keeping the Bungalow viable. He said this traffic
calming plan was justified by the facts. He supported the condemnation as
proposed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the area to the south of the Bungalow
would be a new parking area.
Wildgen said that parking area was proposed at one time, but that was
part of the negotiation and not part of the condemnation.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the Commission had not addressed the lack of
notice to the property owner.
Highberger said even though the City was in negotiations with the
property owner, it seemed like common courtesy to notify the property owner
about this item being on the agenda.
Corliss agreed and explained the related items that would be on the
next two City Commission agendas.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6496,
declaring the necessity for condemnation and survey of various property
interests to be condemned, generally located at 1900 Barker Avenue, for the
19th and Barker roundabout improvements. Motion carried unanimously.
(20)
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Mike Wildgen introduced the new Historic Resources Administrator,
Lynne Braddock Zollner. He said Zollner would update the City Commission on
the National Register Historic District Project.
Lynn Braddock said this project was a 2002 Historic Preservation Fund
Grant in cooperation with the National Park Service, Kansas State Historical
Society, and the City of Lawrence. Consultants were hired to prepare
national register nominations and those nominations were at the State level
at this time. The State had reviewed those nominations and they would be on
the Historic Sites Board for their review in February 2004. Assuming
everything went well with that review, those nominations would be forwarded
to the National Parks Service for final review and acceptance.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, asked Braddock to brief the
Commission on the concepts for the next grant.
Braddock said there was a grant deadline of November 14, 2003 for the
2004 Historic Preservation Fund Grants. There had been a public comment
session at the Historic Resources Commission for projects that they would
hopefully apply for, to receive those funds.
One concept was the continuation of a Design Review Intern which had
been a successful program for the City in the past two years.
Another concept was the National Register of Historic District in the
Breezedale area and staff was currently working with those property owners.
She said there was a new requirement that a letter be received from the
property owners in the proposed district and at least 51% of those property
owners must be in support before applying for that grant.
The third concept would be to design a system for public access that
would compile information on historic properties within the City of Lawrence
and also some type of database that the public could find what properties
were on the National Register.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that would be a website based system.
Braddock said the website system was the idea, so that the public
would have access.
(21)
REGULAR AGENDA
Conduct a public hearing on the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG)
spending proposal.
Ron Olin, Chief of Police, said for the past 7 years his staff had
been the recipient of a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) and over
the past 7 years they had received $428,000 from that particular program.
He said they had taken that money and had been able to apply it to
technology in a variety of different areas, including forensics, computer,
and radio technologies.
He said at the present time, there was a possibility of receiving a
$27,821 for calendar 2004 which might be the last year of availability for
the LLEBG. In this case, his department had a particular problem that they
hoped to be able to use those funds on. He addressed that problem to the
City Commission.
He said the Sheriff's Office had applied for and received a $450,000
grant for infrastructure to attach onto the City's computer aided dispatch
system. This infrastructure would permit mobile data computers to be in the
Sheriff's patrol vehicles. Part of that grant funded the actual apparatus,
the computer that went into the vehicles, but it did not have enough money
to fund the mobile data computers for police vehicles. He said the LLEBG
money coupled with computer money in their regular budget would possibly
equip 10 of their regular patrol vehicles with mobile data computers. The
whole project would be finalized in 2004. Obviously, $27,821 was not as
much as they had received in the past because those monies were diminishing,
but he found that money to be a helpful funding source.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded
by Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the grant spending
proposal. Motion carried unanimously.
(22)
Consider request from Jim and Monica Franz to establish "no parking" along
one side of Christie Court.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He
said the request came to the Traffic Safety Commission and was supported by
a number of neighbors in the area. He said this was a situation of
congestion in the neighborhood. There were concerns about the number of
vehicles parked on the street, safety of the children, access in and out of
the area, and narrowness of the street. The Franz's requested no parking on
the east side of the road.
The Traffic Safety Commission, after addressing all the public input,
voted 5-1 in favor of the "no parking." The one dissenting vote felt that
there was not enough input from other neighbors and could possibly create
other parking issues on other streets.
Commissioner Schauner said the Commission had some prior discussion
about the development at the northwest corner of Peterson Road and Kasold
with street width, curb to curb. He said there was general agreement from
this City Commission that narrower streets had a proper function in
neighborhood developments because it slowed traffic. He asked what width of
street was that as compared with was being proposed for future build-outs.
Soules said it was a residential street and he understood that a
measurement was taken of approximately 25 feet and that would fall into a
typical residential street of 27 feet back of curb to back of curb.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those driveways were deep enough to
stack at least one car.
Soules said yes.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Jim Franz, Lawrence, said they had approached the Traffic Safety
Commission in September with an issue of safety and congestion. He said the
street was 25 feet, curb to curb. He said a police officer measured the
street and thought it was narrow and should be signed for no parking on one
side. He also said in talking with the Lawrence Fire/Medical Department,
they said there should be at least a minimum of 20 feet of clearance in
order for emergency vehicles to get in an out of a residential street.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the neighbors had a preference for no
parking on any particular side.
Franz said he had talked to 6 households and they all agreed for
parking on the west side of the street.
Paul Laird lived in the neighborhood on the west side of the street.
He supported no parking on the east side of the street.
Commissioner Schauner said there were advantages to narrow streets,
but he thought this was a good example of a negative of narrow streets with
high density housing. He supported the "no parking" request, but he would
like the Commission to consider, as they approved further developments with
narrow streets, thinking seriously about the type of issues being addressed
so the Commission could mitigate to whatever extent was reasonable, those
issues in advance.
Commissioner Highberger said the planning theory he addressed
suggested that parking cars along the side of the street where the sidewalk
created a feeling of safety for the people on the sidewalk, but in this case
it was different. He supported the parking restriction as proposed.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if this type of issue would be corrected by
the revisions to the subdivision regulations.
Wildgen said staff would draft a report.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to accept the recommendation of
the Traffic Safety Commission to install "no parking" signs along the east
side of Christie Court. Motion carried unanimously.
(23)
Conduct a public hearing on a final special assessment for Westwood
Hills-Baldwin Creek No. 2.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After 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 Schauner, to place on first reading,
Ordinance No. 7715, levying special assessments for part of the costs
construction of a gravity sanitary sewer, pump station, force main and other
necessary and related improvements for Westwood Hills-Baldwin Creek No. 2.
Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Conduct a public hearing on a final special assessment for Wakarusa Drive
(Overland to Eisenhower Drive).
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Schauner, seconded
by Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading,
Ordinance No. 7716, levying special assessments for part of the costs for
construction of a four-lane section with necessary concrete and curbs and
gutters, sidewalks on both sides, public storm sewers, turn lanes, and any
other related and necessary improvements for Wakarusa Drive beginning at the
Overland Drive/Wakarusa Drive intersection and continuing north to the
intersection of Eisenhower Circle, approximately 3620 feet in length.
Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Conduct a public hearing on a final special assessment for Wakarusa Drive
(Eisenhower Drive to Queens Road).
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by
Highberger, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading,
Ordinance No. 7717, levying special assessments for part of the costs for
construction of Wakarusa Drive beginning at the Eisenhower Circle/Wakarusa
Drive intersection and continuing west to the intersection of Queens Road.
Motion carried unanimously.
(26)
Conduct a public hearing on a final special assessment for Congressional
Drive (6th to Overland).
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Jim Bowers, attorney speaking on behalf of the landowner, said the
basis for their objection went back to the year 2001. Approximately 2 years
ago, the City Commission approved Wakarusa Place Preliminary Development
Plan which among other things had a condition requiring the formation of a
special assessment benefit district to pay for the construction of
Congressional and other improvements related to that project.
On December 19, 2001, the City Planning Commission approved a final
plan with a similar condition. In the following year, February 9, 2002, the
City and his client entered into an agreement which required his client to
dedicate right-of-way for certain public improvements, including
Congressional and to waive the right to protest the formation of the special
assessment benefit district and that agreement was consummated. Following
that agreement on February 28, 2002, the City Commission passed Ordinance
No. 7491, rezoning Wakarusa Place which contained a condition that the
special assessment benefit district be formed and ordered those
improvements. That was followed by a public hearing on May 7, 2002 to form
the special assessment benefit district that then lead to the construction
of the improvements. On May 21, 2002, the City Commission passed Resolution
No. 6385 which authorized the construction of Congressional by this special
assessment benefit district. The construction commenced and the completion
of those improvements was now a fact.
On May 6, 2003, his client filed an application for a building permit
to implement the development plan that was approved by this City Commission
on October 23, 2003. The City did not act on that building permit and his
client was required on May 27, 2003 to file a mandamus action in the Douglas
County District Court to compel the City to act on the building permit. The
District County Judge, did on July 31, 2003, order the City to act by August
7, 2003 and Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director, denied the
building permit that was to build improvements approved by the City
Commission when the condition was imposed that a special assessment benefit
district be created to construct Congressional. That decision by Torres was
appealed by his client to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning
Appeals held a hearing on that matter and affirmed Torres's decision. That
matter was up in the air and an appeal would be filed with the District
Court.
The accumulative affect of those decisions were a classic bait and
switch and it suggested a lack of good faith on the part of the City and
possible fraud by the City by tying those assessments to approval of a
development plan, exacting a waiver of the right of protest and then
rejecting the approved plan while imposing the assessments. He said his
client objected to the imposition of the tax levy unless the City Commission
allowed 6Wak to develop the property in accordance with the approved
development plan which was the basis upon which they agreed to the special
assessment benefit district.
Bill Newsome, 6Wak Land Investment, addressed the actions that the
City Commission had taken since May as it related to that issue. He said
the Commission had instructed staff to deny Wal-mart a building permit
because it was considered by the Commission to be a "department store." He
said that was contrary to how the City had viewed those types of stores for
30 years and how the Planning Staff and Planning Commission, not once, but
twice over the last twelve months, viewed Wal-mart in which they never
called it a "department store" and they never said it was not an approved
use for their land. He said four City Commissioners could not rewrite
history and could not rezone their property on a whim.
He said other actions by the Commission were that they instructed
staff to deny their restaurant permit because of an invented concept called
a cohesive plan; passed Building Permit Moratorium; initiated a new area
plan for the sole purpose of creating a vehicle to rezone their property;
initiated a rezoning of their property; initiated a zoning action on the
northeast corner of 6th and Wakarusa for the sole purpose of disguising what
this was all about and that was stopping Wal-mart on the northwest corner;
and attempted to alter the Planning Commission's work on the Commercial
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the language on the 6th and
Wakarusa intersection. He asked if any one of those actions would have
occurred if Wal-mart had not applied for a building permit in May.
He said the City had clearly failed to grasp its legal obligations
when the City instructed staff to deny those building permits in May. He
said it had the earmarking of a situation like others where if a road block
was put up, it would blow over and go away. He said in May there was no
grasp of the situation which existed now on Congressional in that there was
a half million dollar road project tied to a benefit district, which was
tied to an approved development plan and that benefit district could not be
legally defended. There was no grasp in May of the exact same situation on
Overland Drive and the only difference on Overland was that the price tag
was higher. Finally, there was no grasp in May of the situation as a
condition of that development plan agreed to dedicate right-of-way on 6th
Street when the Kansas Department of Transportation was going up and down
6th Street paying landowners hundreds and thousands of dollars for their
right-of-way and they dedicated that for free as a condition and tied to
that development plan and that could not be legally defended. He said Doug
Compton or Bill Newsome would not go away along with Wal-mart.
He said what needed to be discussed until this situation ended was
the price tag the taxpayers of Lawrence were bearing because the City did
not want a Wal-mart on their land. They were more than happy to pay the
costs of Congressional and Overland Drives and also dedicate the
right-of-way for free on 6th Street as part of their development plan, but
since this City Commission appeared unwilling to uphold its end of the
agreement, they had no choice but to seek remedies from the courts and to
put this obligation back to the City-at-large until such time as the
building permits, which they were legally entitled to, were granted. He
said the issue tonight should not be about what the City was going to do to
Doug Compton, Bill Newsome, or Wal-mart, but what the City was doing to the
taxpayers of Lawrence.
He addressed costs assessed to benefit districts which were
Congressional Drive was assessed at $423,000, with bond interest over ten
years which exceeded half million dollars; and Overland Drive was assessed
at $514,000, with bond interest over ten years which was over $600,000. He
said waterlines for those two streets were $79,000. If applying KDOT's
standard per square foot valuation on the right-of-way on 6th Street, that
was up to $750,000. He said all of those figures added up to $2,000,000.
This was a $2,000,000 price tag to the taxpayers of Lawrence just because
the City did not want Wal-mart on their land.
He said the bills that were being paid now were to the Kansas City
and Lawrence firms who were defending the City. The August 2, 2003 addition
of the Lawrence Journal World published those hourly rates up to $295 an
hour. The taxpayers were also bearing the brunt of the District Courts
ruling to reimburse their legal fees based on the fact that the City
provided no lawful or reasonable explanation as to why it did not follow its
own procedures. The only reason any of those legal fees existed was because
the City failed to honor the zoning and development plan in place.
The average taxpayer of Lawrence who was going to be faced with a
higher mill levy in 2003 would be shocked at the amount of expense that the
City was incurring in an attempt to take their property. He said the
litigation process was just getting started. Attempting to explain away
those costs by saying there was a reserve fund for that issue had about as
much truth as saying this wasn't about Wal-mart. This was an enormous black
hole for the taxpayers of Lawrence and that black hole was going to get
deeper every day the dispute went on. He said the City Commission had the
power to bring the situation to an end very quickly and very simply and save
the taxpayers of Lawrence huge amounts of money.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner to close the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Dunfield asked staff to comment on the question of the
improvements to Congressional being tied to the development plan and how
staff saw that relationship.
Corliss said the development plan, to his recollection, included
requirements that the property owner not protest the benefit districts for
the improvements that included Congressional and Overland Drives and there
might have been other requirements to that as well. In regards to Ordinance
No. 7718 concerning Congressional Drive, he recollected that the development
plan did require that the property owner agree not to protest a benefit
district for Congressional Drive. Those improvements were required as a
condition of the development plan. The benefit district had successfully
been established under the K.S.A. 12-6a and they had followed the
requirements of the statue as far as the special assessment process was
concerned. He said the City Engineer had advised that the project had been
accepted and the City Clerk had followed the relevant statutory provisions
as far as assessing the property now that the project had been completed.
He said the City Commission had before them the ordinance that would special
assess the property. Those special assessments would not be due and owing
until the property owner received their tax bills in November of 2004.
Commissioner Schauner asked whether it would be appropriate to move
to executive session to discuss matters currently in litigation.
Corliss said that would be appropriate and that it would make sense
to defer this matter until the end of the regular agenda.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to defer action on this
item until the end of this evening's agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
(27)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Mayor Dunfield asked for guidance from the Commission because they
had a Public Incentive Review Committee (PIRC) meeting this Thursday which
he would chair and there had been some questions raised about the two tax
abatement situations that were on the PIRC meeting agenda.
He said the Commission had talked many times about how City Hall
interacted with different aspects of the public and with businesses in
particular. He said clarity, consistency, and predictability were the
issues that made City Hall user and business friendly. He wanted to make
sure that there was an understanding among this group as to what their
abatement policy was before going into the meeting with PIRC to discuss
particular abatement situations. In that regard there had been a request
for additional information that came from Vice Mayor Rundle and the
information that was being asked for seemed to be pointed toward the
question of whether the AMARR Company would expand in Lawrence if it was not
for an abatement. He said his recollection of the abatement policy that was
adopted in 2002 was clear about what was said about both the kinds of
information that was going to be requested and also about the "but for"
issue.
He had presented a memo to the Commission summarizing some of the
discussion with three members of that committee just to confirm that he was
clear about what the intent behind the abatement language was.
The two key items were the idea of those items of clarity and
predictability. He thought the intent of the 2002 Abatement Policy was to
set out clear standards and criteria and to be able to tell companies that,
essentially, if they met those criteria and standards, they could feel
confident that their abatements were likely to be approved, although the
final decision was the City Commission's.
The 2001 Abatement Policy contained a "but for" clause which required
those companies to tell the Commission that they would not be relocating
here without an abatement. That clause was deliberately removed from the
2002 Abatement Policy. Again, his recollection was clear and the
recollection of three committee members confirmed that. He wanted to get
the City Commission's understanding of what the policy was so that when he
went to PIRC, he would know how to frame the discussion since the PIRC
needed to do their review within the framework of the policy that the City
had established.
Commissioner Schauner said he read the policy several times and
though he would have some qualms about some of what the policy said, he did
not think the Commission should change horses in mid stream. He said
AMARR's proposal for an abatement ought to be handled in accordance with the
policy as it was currently written. That was not to say that he did not
believe that the policy should not be reviewed, most particularly the
sentence in Section 14, Paragraph 4, of the policy which said "It shall be
the policy of the City to approve a tax abatement if the project meets the
economic development objectives outlined in Section 3." He said it seemed
that the mandatory intent of the word "shall" did make it difficult for this
body to exercise much independent judgment about whether the abatement was
in fact good for the general economic health and welfare of the City. He
was neither "pro-abatement" or "anti- abatement", but viewed himself as
"pro-taxpayer." He viewed the standards set forth in Section 3 of the
abatement policy was a starting point for the examination of whether the
abatement should be granted or not, not if they meet that criteria then they
would automatically get an abatement, but if they meet that standard then
the Commission should have further analysis of the abatements true credible,
long-term impact on Lawrence's economic health. He was not proposing to
change the policy midstream, but that PIRC conduct its business on Thursday
in accordance with the policy.
He would like to have as a point of some future discussion, looking
at that abatement policy to see if they could fine tune it after a number of
years of experience with abatements to make sure that the Commission was
providing tax incentives to businesses that would provide long-term economic
stability. When looking at the AMARR proposal, he was not certain that
their starting wage at $10.00 would in fact satisfy the revised living wage
hourly minimum which was currently $9.53 an hour, but which would be revised
when the next set of numbers from the federal government were made
available. He would like PIRC to consider that issue in their
deliberations.
Commissioner Hack asked the Chamber to address the issue of the $10
starting wage for AMARR.
Lynn Parman, Vice President of Economic Development, Lawrence Chamber
of Commerce, said the starting wage for AMARR that was proposed in the tax
abatement proposal was $10.66 an hour. The wage that Commissioner Schauner
was referring to was the Prosoco abatement from the year past.
Commissioner Schauner said the Commission was placed in a difficult
situation when there was media coverage of abatement requests before this
Commission had that information in an official setting. He would like that
process to come to the Commission first before being evaluated publicly by
other individuals. He asked in the future that information and conclusions
be shared with the City Commission as a first step rather than a second or
third.
Vice Mayor Rundle said AMARR went into their abatement request
assuming that the living wage requirement would be part of the picture, but
he wasn't sure of that. He said the other part of the policy that addressed
average wage per employment category should all be considered by PIRC along
with anything that addressed the living wage.
He said as discussing this issue with Mayor Dunfield, it was obvious
that they had a different perception of the "shall" phrase of the tax
abatement policy. He said his interpretation of the policy was that it was
not such a hard and rigid policy. He said he researched the records and
ironically that language appeared for the first time in a draft on September
11, 2001. The meeting on that day was cut short and the minutes were not
extensive. He could not find discussion of that issue in subsequent
meetings and there were only some notes that individuals shared about the
study session with the Task Force and the City Commission. Commission
meeting minutes when they adopted the final policy were actually weighted
heavily toward the Living Wage which seemed to take over that discussion and
those other policy issues were not addressed. He said he read the minutes
of the meeting on the Prosoco approval of the abatement and again, he
brought up some of the same concerns that were in the information that he
requested.
He said it was fine to try to make things predictable for the
applicants, but he was concerned about the tax paying public and non-abated
businesses. He said there was a lot of language in the ordinance that
invited and supported additional information such as "the policy and
procedures were to govern the fair, effective, and judicious use of the
power to grant such exemptions." Under the general procedure section, the
City Commission needed to determine if it "may be lawfully granted" and
whether the tax abatement "should be lawfully granted." In the standards
for costs and benefits, in determining whether a tax exemption "should be
granted", a cost benefit analysis which shall consider various factors but
include the phrase "but not limited to." He said in Section 15 it
stated, "Application required includes that the application would be
complete and full and the applicant would provide such additional
information as may be requested by the governing body." He said the point
of this process was not to suppress information or take off the table
certain considerations. Obviously, if this issue was clearly spelled out by
the policy, the Commission would not be looking at those abatements and they
would be administratively receiving those request by staff.
He said because of this difference of understanding, he would not be
interested in holding AMARR to some more rigorous standard than the majority
of the City Commission felt was appropriate given the common understanding
of this policy. He said additional information that was asked for should be
addressed by PIRC and their recommendation should be what it was.
Commissioner Highberger supported Commissioner Schauner's comments.
He said the information from the Mayor indicated that it was the intent of
the committee to not have a "but for" provision in the abatement policy, but
as Vice Mayor Rundle pointed out there was a lot of language in the current
policy that indicated otherwise. The one issue that concerned him on this
debate was that he was under the impression that it was inappropriate to
raise some of those issues and he found that disturbing. He appreciated
what AMARR and Prosoco has brought to this community, but given that, he
felt that the City Commission had a fiduciary responsibility to the entire
community. He said it was insulting to the business community to the idea
that the City Commission could not say anything negative or raise some of
those issues because those companies might get upset. He said what the City
was doing was cutting a deal and the deal had to work for both sides and
both sides had to receive a benefit.
He wanted AMARR to expand in Lawrence, but he did not want the City
to make a deal that was bad for the City of Lawrence. He wanted to consider
this application in a broader context and he did not want to change the
rules in midstream on anyone. It was important that the rules were
predictable. He concurred with Commissioner Schauner's conclusions, despite
the additional language that Vice Mayor Rundle pointed out in the abatement
policy. If this was the common understanding of what the policy said, his
preference would be to go forward with that understanding.
Commissioner Hack said the City Commission had in this discussion,
joined the Prosoco Performance Agreement and the AMARR tax abatement. She
wanted to make sure that the Commission looked at those two issues
separately. She did not understand why PIRC was looking at the performance
agreement.
She said with this process, the company requested the abatement, not
the City or Chamber of Commerce and that was where the press releases came
from. Obviously, there were going to be comments from the City and Chamber,
but it was a company decision to apply for an abatement. She said the
company made the request, PIRC analyzes the request and made recommendation
to the Commission and the Commission approved or disapproved the abatement
based upon the PIRC's recommendation, but the Commission was free to make
that decision and they were not bound by the PIRC. She was concerned that
if the Commission throws a Performance Agreement to PIRC or the Abatement
Policy to PIRC, then PIRC was making policy as opposed to the City
Commission.
She said Prosoco had complied with the policy and the abatement had
been approved. It had been an agreement between the City and the company
and both sides needed to benefit and that was the reason for the cost
benefit analysis which showed the economic implications for the next ten
years and the next fifteen years because that was the way the model read.
She said the performance agreement that was being discussed
concerning Prosoco, to look at wages and the issues that they approved in
the new policy, was absolutely the wrong way to be looking at this issue and
this was an agreement between the City and Prosoco and she thought it should
not be discussed by PIRC, but by City staff and then to the Commission.
She said as far as AMARR, the City did have a partnership agreement
with the City, County and Chamber and the Commission needed to remember that
this was AMARR's request. She said the Commission did not have vast
experience in how the abatement policy worked. She was thrilled with AMARR
and Prosoco. She said the Commission had a duty to question and make sure
they had all the information, but she also thought the Commission had a duty
as one of their goals which was to support economic development. If the
Commission throws up road blocks and sends out a message of mistrust that
concerned her. She suggested making sure the Commission did not change
horses, that PIRC was not making policy, and look at AMARR's abatement as
AMARR's abatement request.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not want PIRC making policy either
because the Commission had a policy on tax abatement, but he had some
concerns about parts of that policy and he thought the Commission should
address that policy to see if that was a policy that they wanted to
continue.
He said the people that operated any manufacturing business were in a
business and they were sophisticated, adult business people. He said this
was a business arrangement and unless the quid pro quo provided benefit to
the taxpayers at large and the business there would not be a deal. He said
PIRC's responsibility was to gather as much relevant information to the
application for an abatement as was reasonable. He said reasonable people
could disagree about the depth of that information. However, he would
rather the PIRC error on the side of too much information than not enough.
He did not want PIRC to be seen as a rubber stamp for any application that
came along that made the 1.25/1 ratio.
He said AMARR had brought a lot of money and jobs to town and he
hoped they would continue. He said AMARR would do what was in their best
interest as a business and they had obviously found Lawrence a good and
honorable place to do business. The City has been a good and honorable
partner in that relationship and he was confident that the City would
continue to be a good and honorable partner.
He did not think that having clarity, consistency, and predictability
in our policy meant that they had to grant authority to PIRC or assume that
everyone who made a request and could put the right numbers on a piece of
paper would get an abatement. He said the Commission needed more of an
examination and discussion about abatement requests.
He said his comment about the press release had less to do with the
fact that there was an announcement that there had been an abatement request
and there were conclusions in the press release about how good the abatement
request was. He did not know if it was good, bad, or indifferent, but he
would like that public information from the Chamber or any other
representatives of the City in this economic development partnership to let
that decision be one made by PIRC and by the City Commission rather than by
press release.
Mayor Dunfield said the City Commission needed to investigate and ask
questions, but if there was information that the Commission needed in order
to make a decision, the policy needed to be able to tell people what that
information was. If a company had gone through the process of following
everything that was in the policy, answering all the questions, and going
through all of the procedures, then in fairness, the Commission needed to
act on that information. To ask them to go through that process and then to
say, but now before the Commission made a decision, the Commission had a new
set of steps that they wanted the applicant to go through, that was a
concern that the Commission was making a policy on the spot rather than
deliberating over the policy and finding out what additional information the
Commission might actually want of companies in the future. He said if the
Commission wanted that "but for" question in terms of financial issues, then
that needed to be part of the policy.
Commissioner Schauner said that was fair. He did not think anyone on
the Commission had any interest in causing companies wanting an abatement to
jump this hurdle and jump another, but he thought the policy needed further
discussion to have additional information to PIRC and to the Commission
before decisions were made about abatement request.
Vice Mayor Rundle said no one was suggesting that PIRC rewrite the
abatement policy. He said the Prosoco performance agreement was the first
performance agreement that would need to be addressed to make sure that it
was in compliance with the policy. He did not think it was any different
than sending it to the Planning Commission to determine if it was in
compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or other planning guidelines
and bringing a recommendation back to the City Commission. He said PIRC
was going to have to review, on a yearly basis, the compliance with those
performance agreements. He said there might be other standard requirements
such as claw back policies that the Commission might want to consider and he
thought the PIRC was the best place for those issues to surface and be
discussed.
Commissioner Schauner said in looking at the material provided for
Prosoco there was a performance agreement between the City and Prosoco which
was executed by Prosoco's Vice President October 9, 2003 and apparently was
not executed by the City. He asked if the original abatement intended to
include that formula for determining whether the wages had been met or not.
Mayor Dunfield said this was the first performance agreement under
the new policy.
Commissioner Schauner said Prosoco had either met the number of jobs
and the wage issue or they didn't. He said it looked like an opportunity
for more complications to arise. He would rather have a performance
agreement ask for the number of jobs created and if they paid the wages that
were intended to be paid.
Commissioner Hack said an abatement was not just guided by those two
issues. The Commission was allowing for some of the areas to be strong and
many areas had experienced difficulties due to external factors. To get a
big picture of where they were in all of those areas was extremely important
for PIRC.
Commissioner Schauner said substantial compliance was good enough for
him. If a company said they were going to create 80 jobs and they created
77, to him that was substantial compliance.
Commissioner Hack said that example would be substantial compliance,
but to someone on PIRC, it might not. She said that was the problem that
occurred.
Commissioner Schauner said he would hate to see the Commission
sacrifice the number of jobs based on a formula that might weight investment
as a setoff against the number of jobs not created or the amount of money
for each job not paid.
Commissioner Highberger that formula reduced the tax abatement amount
for failure to achieve the stated goals in any category.
Mayor Dunfield said the difficulty the Commission had in the past
that the Commission could say yes or no whether they met the different
criteria or not, but there had not been any clarity of what the consequences
would be. This performance agreement sets down in a mathematical formula
that if the company failed to meet criteria in one area then this was
precisely the consequences.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that formula affected each of those
jobs, wages, and investment independently or were they weighted together.
Commissioner Highberger said effectively separately. A quarter of
the abatement depended on meeting the job goals, a quarter was for capital
goals, and a quarter was meeting equipment goals. He said his objection was
the section meeting the wage goals because the way the formula was weighted
was almost zero.
Mayor Dunfield suggested that this discussion would be more
appropriate after PIRC had a chance to review the performance agreement. He
said the sense that he was getting from the Commission was that the
Commission wanted to have the Prosoco agreement looked at by PIRC and
discuss the possibility of changing the policy to determine if they wanted
that additional information from future application rather than applying it
in this case.
Commissioner Schauner added that he preferred looking at the fine
tuning sooner than later.
Commissioner Hack said as the policy was looked at, they did need to
go back to the Tax Abatement Task Force and remember the history behind that
and how they arrived at decisions. She thought the Commission hampered some
of the City's economic development because it continued to be a moving
target. It was stated clearly on this Commission that they wanted
consistency.
(28)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to recess into executive
session to consult with the City's attorney to discuss matters currently
under litigation for twenty minutes with the justification for the executive
session to keep confidential matters deemed privilege in the attorney-client
relationship. Motion carried unanimously.
(29)
The City Commission reconvened in open session at 8:30 p.m.
After returning from executive session Mayor Dunfield addressed the
consideration of Ordinance No. 7718. He asked if staff had any response to
any statements that were made during the public hearing.
Corliss said the appropriate forum for the discussions about the
denial of the building permits in question would be the Board of Zoning
Appeals. City staff presented an extensive report to that body and staff
would rest on the statements in that report and also rest on the statements
of the Board of Zoning Appeals that was in transcript of their meeting. He
thought that was the appropriate place to discuss those items and not before
a legislative body that had heard those statements and seen those pleadings
before. He said the Commission's adoption of Ordinance No. 7718 was
entirely appropriate. City staff had followed the applicable statutes. He
said the property owner admitted that they wanted those improvements and
that there property benefited from those improvements and that was the
question. The other issues could be decided in other forums, but the
Commission's action was to proceed with the adoption of that ordinance.
Moved by Schauner , seconded by Rundle, to place on first
reading, Ordinance No. 7718, levying a special assessments for part of the
costs of construction of Congressional Drive from 6th Street to the proposed
extension of Overland Drive, including property acquisition, traffic calming
devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater
improvements, sidewalks on both sides, and other necessary and appropriate
improvements and to defer second reading for two weeks. Motion carried
unanimously. (30)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 8:35 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2003
1. Bids - Miscellaneous sale of scrap and obsolete equipment -Utilities
Dept.
2. Purchase - 2 - 1/2 ton pickups off MACPP from Roberts Auto Plaza for
$12,779.
3. Bids - 31st & Nieder Rd geometric & traffic signal to Larking Excavating
for $329,007l.16.
4. Agreement - Landplan for design of Sesquicentennial Plaza.
5. Ordinance No. 7714 - 1st Reading, rezone (Z-08-26-03) 4 acres from PCD-2
to PCD-2, 3235 Ousdahl Rd.
6. Ordinance No. 7710 - 1st Reading, annex (A-08-12-03) 59.796 acres, S side
of K-10 & W of K-10 & W of O'Connell Rd (Farmland NW Add)
7. Ordinance No. 7706 - 2nd Reading, establish policy & procedures for tax
abatements.
8. Ordinance No. 7707 - 2nd Reading, establish City & County Economic
Development Board.
9. Resolution No. 6502 - Order Construction of Monterey Way from
intersection of Peterson S approx 2,700'.
10. Resolution No. 6503 - Order Construction of Harvard from intersection of
George Williams Way E approx 550'.
11. Resolution No. 6504 - Order Public Hearing, Folks from 6th S approx
1,500' to Mulberry, Old Oak Ct, & part of Larrisa from Folks 200'.
12. Site Plan (SP-09-58-03) Wilcox/Hunter Boarding House to be moved from
1309 Ohio to 1033 Kentucky.
13. TSC - Temp traffic calming circle, intersection of Eldridge & Goldfield.
14. TSC - install bus zone (8 am to 4 pm) school days, N side of 10th for
110' E of NY.
15. TSC - "no parking" W side of Crestline S of 9th.
16. Mortgage Release - 3231 Glacier, Janice Heath.
17. Mortgage Release - 1072 Home Cir, Nicole Demby.
18. Drinking Establishment - Stone Creek, 3801 W 6th.
19. Ordinance No. 7704 - 2nd Reading, annex (A-07-10-03) 6.763 aces,
extesnsions of Foxfire & Burning Tree Drives, S & W of existing Foxfire
development.
20. Resolution No. 6496 - Condem various properties at 1900 Barker for 19th
& Barker roundabout improvements.
21. City Manager's Report - Introduced Zollner new Historic Resources
Administrator.
22. Public Hearing - Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, approved proposal.
23. Parking - no parking along one side of Christie Ct.
24. Ordinance No. 7715 - 1st Reading, levy assessment for Baldwin Creek No.
2.
25. Ordinance No. 7716 - 1st Reading, levy assessment for Wakarusa at
Overland/Wakarusa Drives.
26. Ordinance No. 7717 - 1st Reading, Wakarusa, Eisenhower to Queens.
27. Ordinance No. 7718, Congressional, 6th to Overland. (Defer action until
end of meeting)
28. Tax abatement discussion AMARR and Prosoco.
29. Executive Session - litigation.
30. Ordinance No. 7718, 1st Reading, Congressional, 6th to Overland.
??
??
??
??
October 28, 2003
City Commission Minutes
Page 34
_____________________________
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