ITEM NO. 6: RECEIVE PROPOSALS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS (DRG)
Receive requests from the Public Works, Utilities Department, and City Manager’s Office for projects to be included in the 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Guntert introduced the second half of the Capital Improvements Projects list for 2005 – 2010, outlining the total number of projects and how those were broken down by department.
Staff recommended the Commission find all projects in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as various Master Plans specific to each department.
Comm. Johnson said she did not know how to judge if the projects were in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and asked Staff to explain three ways in which the projects met the conformance criteria. Mr. Guntert replied that each of the CIP items was part of an adopted master plan and/or long-range plan for the department that recommended the item. Each of these long-range plans (Stormwater Master Plan, Water & Wastewater Master Plans, Transportation 2025) were in turn referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. Comm. Johnson indicated that this was not enough supporting data.
Ms.
Finger added that the CIP addressed the Comprehensive Plan intent for
coordination of services and infrastructure improvements, many geared toward
how to accommodate existing growth. The CIP included issues raised by the City
Commission and the public about community facilities and commercial land use.
Finally, the CIP provided additional support for downtown services, another
stated intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Comm. Angino asked when the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to express their frustration about the way items on the CIP were prioritized. Specifically, he wished to forward a comment to the City Commission that continued lack of action regarding Peterson Road (or other east-west connection) improvements would create a problematic traffic situation on 6th Street area similar to that faced on 23rd. He recommended all CIP items related to Peterson Road be moved to a position of high priority.
Chairman Burress explained his need for dynamic data in order to understand the sequence of events on the CIP list. Ms. Finger described how a sequence could be determined by examining the dependence of one project on another, particularly related to street improvements. Chairman Burress said it would be helpful if this dependence could be described in the CIP document, understanding that this did not dictate timing – as many projects were reliant upon outside funding.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that timing was not currently part of the Commission’s consideration, only conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Comm. Schachter said it was understood that the CIP system could be improved and that the Commission intended to discuss these improvements in the future. However, today’s consideration must be made with the system and the information at hand.
Comm. Angino commented that he did not hold Staff responsible for the inadequacy of the system.
Chairman Burress indicated he would vote against approval of the CIP because he did not feel the document provided enough data to make the decision the Commission was charged with.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Jennings to find the projects in the second half of the 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Plan in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and forward them to the City Commission with recommendation for approval and the comment that the City Commission consider giving top priority to finding a way to provide east-west connection north of 6th Street, between Iowa Street and the SLT/Hwy K-10.
Motion carried 7-2, with Comm.’s Schachter, Schenewerk, Johnson, Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings, and Riordan voting in favor and Comm.’s Burress and Lawson voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
