September 7, 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 Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Highberger and Schauner present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
Mayor Rundle recognized the student delegation from Eutin, Germany, one of our Sister Cities.
Mayor Rundle proclaimed September 11th – October 9th, 2004 as “Lawrence Indian Arts Show Days in Lawrence.”
Mayor Rundle recognized the Free 4 Freedom event on September 11, 2004.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of August 31, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive the Mechanical Board of Appeals meeting minutes of May 17, 2004 and June 30, 2004; and the Task Force on Homeless Services meeting minutes of July 20, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 326 vendors in the amount of $3,802,525.40 and payroll from August 22nd to September 4 th 2004 in the amount of $1,357,732.18. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Harbour Lights, 1031 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Marjorie Blaufuss to the Board of Zoning Appeals/Sign Code Board of Appeals, to a term which will expire September 30, 2007 and also appoint Nancy Bjorge to the Sister Cities Advisory Board, to a term which will expire December 30, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7824, allowing the consumption of alcoholic beverages during the designated times on Sunday, September 19, 2004 at Fire Station No. 2, 2128 Harper Street, while hosting the Eutin, Germany firefighters. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
Ordinance No. 7821, establishing “no parking” along the northerly side of Sunchase Drive, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6561, declaring 827 Walnut environmentally blighted and giving the property owner 20 days to comply. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6562, declaring the sidewalk at 722 Lawrence Avenue in need of repair and giving the property owner 30 days to comply. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-07-20-04) for Wal-Mart Addition No. 2, a replat of Wal-Mart Addition No. 1, Lot 2, M & L Subdivision; Lot 7a, Armstrong’s Subdivision No. 1, and Lot 1, Armstrong’s Subdivision No. 3, a proposed retail development expansion containing approximately 41.442 acres, located at 3300 Iowa Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of the following agreements:
2. Submission and approval of public improvement plans for all public improvements; 33rd Street, 34th Street, sidewalks, sanitary sewer, municipal water, and storm sewer per approval of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit;
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
4. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-07-21-04) for Legends Addition No. 1, a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 1, a proposed multiple-family residential development containing approximately 29.435 acres, located south of 24th Place between Crossgate Drive and Inverness Drive; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Pinning of the lots in accordance with the requirements of Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
3. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan.
Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-07-22-04) for Cornerstone Plaza No. 2, a proposed commercial development containing approximately 0.83 acre, located at 1918 East 23rd Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street and sidewalk improvements for E. 23rd Street and frontage road;
2. Provision of public improvement plans for extension of the sanitary sewer to the Public Works Department prior to recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office
3. Provision of a revised final plat to show the following:
4. Provision of a revised stormwater study per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer prior to consideration of the final plat by the City Commission;
5. Pinning of the lot in accordance with the requirements of Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;
6. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
7. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations for a re-approval of the Final Plat (PF-05-14-00) for the 4-H Fairgrounds Addition No.2, a one-lot plat for the northern portion of the Douglas County Fairgrounds containing approximately 11.9 acres, located on the southeast corner of East 19th and Harper Streets; and accept the dedication of easements. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-07-46-04) for construction of a duplex, located at 933-937 Mississippi which adjoins an existing triplex on the two-lot site, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433; and
2. Filing of a cross access easement with the Register of Deeds to provide access to Lot 12 from Lot 11.
Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to execute the Engineering Services Agreement with PEC (Professional Engineering Consultants. P.A.), in the amount of $162,460, for Kasold Drive, Peterson Road to the KTA Bridge. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive a letter from Bruce Flanders concerning the Community Information Advisory Board to approve the dissolution of the Board. Motion carried unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Flora Taylor, 2609 Bonanza. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Steve Braswell, member of the Sesquicentennial Committee, pulled from the consent agenda, the first reading of Ordinance No. 7810, allowing the sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor in South Park for the St. John the Evangelist Beer Garden tent during the Lawrence Sesquicentennial Celebration. He said the area of the beer garden should be physically enclosed and accessed should be controlled. He said he understood that St John’s would not have any issues with this clarification.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7810, allowing the sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor during designated times on September 18, 2004 in South Park for the St. John the Evangelist Beer Garden tent during the Lawrence Sesquicentennial Celebration. (13)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None.
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive proposed University of Kansas/City Land Use Cooperation Agreement from the task force. Motion carried unanimously.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented an overview of the Land Use Cooperation Agreement. He said last year, former Mayor Dunfield created ad hoc task force committee made up of City and Kansas University representatives to discuss the issue of land use and zoning regulations that might apply to University of Kansas property.
He said most of the University of Kansas property had been zoned under the City’s zoning map, but the City had a practice of not enforcing that zoning ordinance that was titled to the University of Kansas. The City did not require the University to plat, rezone, or site plan and there was a State law that prohibited municipalities from requiring a building permit on State projects. Therefore, the City had not engaged in either the practice that was prohibited by State law nor had the City attempted to exercise any municipal land use powers on property titled to the State of Kansas.
He said in the draft agreement, it recited some of the law as it pertained to land use regulations and governmental immunity. There was an important Kansas Supreme Court decision from 1990, Herman v. Board of County Commissioners, a case coming out of Butler County where the State wanted to, and did, construct a State Prison. The Kansas Supreme Court was faced with an issue that the Kansas Court of Appeals had dealt with some years prior as to whether or not property titled to the State was subject to zoning regulations. The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the law that the State Court of Appeals had adopted which came from New Jersey where there were a number of jurisdictions around the Country adopting, which was a balancing of interests test. He said the City thought that test was a law in Kansas in regards to the application of municipal land use laws against other governmental entities whether it would be County, School District, or in this case, the State of Kansas.
He said staff had engaged in discussions with representatives of the University of Kansas and had crafted an agreement for City Commission review. The agreement was not for approval at this time, but for discussion from the Commission and if appropriate, to proceed with sending this item to the Planning Commission with other elements when they reviewed the revised Chapter 20 to eventually adopt the new development code.
He said the recitals section of the draft agreement, contained the history and rationale behind the agreement. The agreement set up essentially categories of property which included the primary University of Kansas, Lawrence, Campus, and a 150 foot buffer area that went from the boundary line into the interior of the University’s campus and set up different land use rules for those different categories.
He said for property outside of the currently existing boundary, the University had indicated that they would comply with all of the City’s land use regulations. For property that was within the 150 foot boundary area, the University indicated that they would comply with certain City land use regulations and they would then also conduct an analysis of the project and would, as a general practice, establish a Building Advisory Committee, that would be composed of adjacent property owners, neighborhood association representatives, City representatives, and University representation to review the proposed plans for that development within that 150 foot buffer area.
He said for property that was within the primary campus, the University agreed to comply with all of the City’s standards for water, wastewater and stormwater management, but the University would not be required to comply with any of the other City’s land use regulations.
He said there were helpful provisions in sharing of information between the University and the City as far as the University’s Capital Improvement Plans and their analysis for traffic for major projects that would be even in the interior of the University.
There was language in the agreement concerning notice on development and construction projects that might affect provisions in the agreement as well as the interest of the parties.
He said this draft agreement did not change the Historic Review Memorandum of Understanding that set out the requirements and obligations between the University’s Historic Review Board and the City’s Historic Resources Commission for properties that were overlapping properties.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Jason Boots, Kansas University Student Senate, said the draft agreement was a great step between the University and the City in terms of better relations. He said he hoped both the University and the City would take a more proactive effort in keeping track of that 150 foot buffer zone.
Carol Von Tersch said she lived approximately 15 yards off KU campus. She said she knew there had been a compromise between the City and University’s interests, but it was hard to see what the balance was in that compromise because the map that was printed in the paper showed that boundary line did not give any indication of how much of that land was under State inventory and how much of that land was Endowment Association property. She said if it was Endowment Association property, it would now be subject to all of the City’s rules and regulations. She said if they could see a map that delineated the ownership of that property there would be a much better view of what types of compromises were actually being made. She asked if this was a huge concession on the part of the City or was this draft agreement a balanced compromise.
The City now controlled the Endowment Association properties and the University had in the past, at will or whatever was most beneficial at the time, transferred title from the Endowment Association to the University when it was in the University’s best interest to do that. She said with this Interlocal Agreement, the University would no longer need to make that kind of decision because they would not need to treat the ownership any differently.
Another issue was the question of zoning and how that zoning change would fit into some residential enclaves. She said there were a couple of places where the boundaries seemed to cross into a residential enclave and it took on the appearance of spot zoning. If the University owned one little piece then they would not need to go by the rules in that particular residential area.
She also raised the issue of how the boundary lines were being drawn. She said there were some places where there were little jogs and there were no straight lines. She said on 11th Street the boundary crossed 11th Street and took in the tennis courts and a rental property, but she did not know if that was owned by the Endowment Association. There was also another jog that jutted out in the 1800 block on Maine and she did not know why that jog was at that location. She wondered if that was a logical zoning boundary because it was not in a straight line and it seemed it would be more logical to have a straight line. Specifically, she wanted to focus on the property at 704 West 12th Street. She said on the map the boundary jogged out to capture that property and pull it into the University area. She said that property was owned by the Endowment Association, but in order to pull it within the boundary line, it would need to cross property that was owned by private interest, specifically First Management, a Doug Compton property. She said another house appeared to be included in that area which was a Lemesany property. If that was the case then some of those property owners did not need to play by the rules, but she did because she was right outside of that boundary.
Debbie Milks, resident in the Oread Neighborhood, said she agreed with Von Tersch in that she was not sure what the City was gaining by this agreement since they had lost control over the Endowment Association.
She also raised questions about the wording of the termination clause, at will, within 6 months, which led her to believe that it would not take much for the University to buy property and not need to play by the rules.
She said with the parking issue on Ohio Street, the fact that K.U. was exempting itself from any of the parking regulations was a situation that would only get worse. She said for K.U. to follow certain rules, but not rules about parking was a big missing piece.
Janet Gerstner said this agreement would impact all parts of the City. She said she believed this agreement could be a win/win situation for both the University and the City. She said there were many questions that currently existed in the agreement, but if the agreement was crafted correctly and everyone could work together on this issue, ultimately the cooperation between the City and University was undoubtedly beneficial to both parities.
She said she had a concern about the150 foot buffer zone. She thought it was a good idea concerning the analysis and notification of adjoining property owners, neighborhood representatives, and forming an ad hoc community building advisory committee that looked for recommendations and advise from the City as well. She said her only concern was that there was really no formal process and no forum for that idea. She said the new recreational center that was located on the southeast edge of campus had a tremendous impact upon the University Place Neighborhood. The neighbors and the City made a lot of suggestions that could have made that area more compatible for the City and for the neighborhoods at large.
She suggested that this agreement was a good start, but wondered if it could be improved on to make it more formal and to have some type of public venue to come back to such as some type of governmental meeting.
She said another concern was parking for all of the neighborhoods on the east and southern sides of the campus as well as West Hills on the northwest. Those neighborhoods deal daily with parking issues.
Lastly, she had a concern about Section 9, Notice to Parties, where there was a five day notice commencement to development and construction which included demolition. She suggested that idea be broadened to 10 or 15 days so people in the greater community and K.U. would become more aware of those projects and give them a chance to comment. She said the City had a five day notice on some of their activities on infrastructure development and construction, but one major difference was that the City had to make a five day notice upon receipt of an application.
Mayor Rundle said the process would be to refer this issue to the Planning Commission and obviously the City Commission should communicate their own concerns and make sure neighborhood concerns were addressed as well.
Vice Mayor Highberger said since the City’s legal position was not clear it was a guessing game as to how far the City could push to get what they wanted and how much they would need to concede and the University was in the same position. He said the City wanted as much control as it could over development around the University because there had been some serious impacts in the past. He said the draft agreement did a good job at addressing issues, but the agreement could be more fined tuned through the Planning and City Commission processes.
He said concerning the issue of the boundaries, there was no intent to place any non-endowment association property on the map and if that had been done, the map would need to be corrected.
As far as the termination clause, he was not sure how significant that would be when setting up the time frame so there was time to impose the zoning regulations in case there was intent to terminate the agreement and in that case, the City would be wiling to enforce their rights in court. He said the intent of both parties was to put an agreement together that would avoid litigation. He said it was in the best interest of the City and the University.
He said parking would have been a deal breaker. He said if the City would have insisted on parking control, the City would be in court.
Mayor Rundle thanked all who worked on this issue. He said the Commission tried to touch on those larger issues of University zoning, but it was the larger process of updating the City’s zoning code that overtook this issue.
He said he preferred to see earlier notice to the University. The earlier of a notice the more chance there was for some type of negotiation or responsiveness. For example, if a house was going to be demolished there would need to be some time to propose to move that structure or possibly salvage some architectural elements of that structure.
He said this issue was moving forward in a structured relationship that provided some process to deal with issues that came up on the past and would continue to come up.
He expected the Planning Commission to address mapping with suggestions such as overlay districts.
Commissioner Dunfield said he thought this was a very good compromise. He said he expected there would be more fine tunings and additional questions to be answered.
He said the boundary issues would need to be more finite in dealing with particular locations.
He said the City would be receiving a great deal out of this agreement, mainly, predictable boundaries and predictable land uses within those boundaries. He said it was easier to see what the City was gaining out of this agreement than what the University was gaining. He said the University did get some value out of improved relations with the City and neighbors. The University would also get some value out of predictability and everyone benefited from keeping this issue out of the protracted court fight.
Commissioner Schauner said he was concerned about the lack of definitions in the agreement. There was also a lot of room for conversation about what certain words and phrases in that document meant. He would like to see those words defined in the agreement because it would be helpful to everyone if they were looking for predictability and ease of interpretation.
Clearly the University was a major player in the life of the City both economically and socially and a good relationship with the University was essential to everyone. He said the biggest thing the City got from this agreement was the opportunity to test the goodwill of the parties. The trust that brought this agreement to bear would be tested sooner than later as the University had an interest in building additional structures within that 150 foot boundary area. He said he was hopeful that the trust that the City had placed in that agreement was well placed.
He said he would join the community in suggesting that they could all do well having a more articulate method of describing the role of the ad hoc group. In fact, it might do well since they would see many of the same players in those matters as time went on, to have a standing committee rather than an ad hoc group that simply came together from time to time.
Parking was an intractable issue because he did not think parking would ever be resolved around the University, either on campus or near campus. He said the City needed to look at helping the neighborhoods deal with those traffic issues aside from and apart from this agreement and it should be a major piece of the City Commission’s agenda in the near future.
He said neighbors did suffer from the influx of traffic generated by the University and the University needed the City’s assistance in that regard.
He was anxious to hear the Planning Commission’s reaction to this issue and he was hopeful that this was a good first step that could be refined.
He said he had talked to Corliss to discuss why the Endowment Association was included in this agreement. He said he recognized that they could transfer property from time to time, but he suspected that they did not transfer property ownership until such time as the University found that it was in their best interest to own and maintain that property. He suggested that the Planning Commission look at that issue and provide the City Commission with some additional insight and analysis on that question and a map as suggested. He said it would be very helpful to have a detailed map for both the Planning and City Commissions to see what properties around the edges were drawn into that map for inclusion in the University’s zoning.
Mayor Rundle said healthy and strong neighborhoods near the University were certainly preferable to deteriorating and blighted neighborhoods. He said, to the extent that projects could be adjusted, to sustain that type of neighborhood was in the University’s interest and they should find it productive and rewarding to work with neighbors in their goals to sustain strong vibrant neighborhoods around the campus.
Commissioner Hack said the whole issue of compromise was one where not every side would get what they wanted. She said addressing the mapping issue would enhance the agreement to make sure the Commission had not skipped over anything that might be problematic.
She said there had been a lot of work that went into this agreement and it was precipitated by a rather difficult situation with the University and the City.
She agreed with the idea of a standing committee with representatives who were well acquainted with the particulars of the agreement.
She also agreed that the wording in the agreement should be defined.
Mayor Rundle asked if this issue should be referred to a Planning Commission committee or the Planning Commission as a whole.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, suggested referring this issue to the Planning Commission at their November meeting because of other changes that staff would like to bring back to the City Commission such as the U District and the appeals section of site planning, along with other major issues found by staff.
She said staff would bring to the November 17 Planning Commission meeting map revisions and text changes. She said staff was working on notifying property owners of what was going on. She said if the Planning Commission acted on that agreement November 17th, the agreement would be back in front of the City Commission in December.
She said staff would like this agreement adopted before Christmas so that there was a delayed adoption date of January 14, 2005, that would allow the other map revisions to catch up so that an entire document could be adopted.
She said the draft Subdivision Regulations were on the Planning Department’s website. There would be listening sessions on October 5th, 7th, and 13th for the initial discussion and then the Planning Commission would also be looking at the Subdivision Regulations in November or December for their first public hearing.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to receive a proposed University of Kansas/City Land Use Cooperation Agreement and submitted the proposed agreement to the Planning Commission for its review. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Consider request for $3,000 from the Lawrence Street Dance Committee, LTD., to help fund a free dance the evening of September 18, 2004 at South Park.
Kendall Simmons, Lawrence Street Dance Committee, LTD presented the report. She said the Sesquicentennial Commission decided not to fund any night events which were when the Lawrence Street Dance would occur.
She said when planning all of the events for September 18th, their logic was that the day events would be focused on children and the night event would be for young adults. She said because of all the work that had gone into this event, they decided to go ahead with the dance.
She said when reading the application for funding from the City, one issue on the application was an unmet need. She said with all of the great activities that were going on with the Sesquicentennial, the event was oriented toward people who were into Lawrence history or children.
She said they had done some fundraising such as receiving funds from Bud Jennings, Scanning America, First State Bank and Trust, and Sunflower was looking at some funding, but for the most part, it was her debit card that was paying for this event.
She said alcohol would not be served at this event and the dance event would be a night activity opened to everyone from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. She said their committee had done everything possible to make this a friendly event. She asked the City Commission to consider helping their committee with this event.
Mayor Rundle asked if Simmons had all the appropriate insurance and park permissions.
Simmons said yes
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any input from the Police Department.
Steve Braswell said they had discussed this event with the Lawrence Police Department and they knew what was going on. He said they would have security at that event.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the amount of funding from other sources.
Simmons said they received $300 from Scanning America, $300 from Bud Jennings, but she did not have the figure from First State Bank and Trust and she did not know what Sunflower would be donating. She said they were still talking with other businesses such as Martin Logan. Their entire budget for this event was $4,570.
Commissioner Hack said there was an indication that there would be security at this event and she asked what their plans were.
Simmons said they have had discussion with a security company.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Commissioner Highberger said the idea was great and he was looking forward to the dance, but he had a concern about the public appointed committee that was formed and that the Commission would be going against decisions that that committee had made. He also had a concern about overlapping another Sesquicentennial event which was the Sister Cities banquet.
Mayor Rundle suggested that if the City Commission approved their request that the Commission pledge a ceiling amount and if their Committee raised other funds, then the City would pay less.
Commissioner Hack asked about the Sesquicentennial Commission decision to not fund any night time events.
Bill Crow, Treasurer, Sesquicentennial Commission, said their Commission looked at the week and especially the weekend events and decided to not sponsor any evening events which included the Sister Cities event because they did not want to over stretch events for that weekend. He said their Commission turned down a lot of requests for events this year. He said it was a matter of balance.
Commissioner Schauner supported the idea and requested that the City Manager visit with the Police Department to make sure they were properly coordinating security for the dance location.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve a request for up to $3,000 from the Sesquicentennial Commission Street Dance Committee, LTD. to help fund a free dance the evening of September 18, 2004 at South Park. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
1. Ordinance No. 7824, 1st Reading, allow alcoholic liquor at Fire Station No. 2, 2128 Harper on September 19, 2004.
2. Ordinance No. 7821- 2nd Reading, establishing “no parking” along the northerly side of Sunchase Drive on first reading
3. Resolution No. 6561 – 827 Walnut environmentally blighted.
4. Resolution No. 6562 – 722 Lawrence Avenue sidewalk repair.
5. Final Plat – (PF-07-20-04) Wal-Mart Add No. 2, 41.442 acres, 3300 Iowa.
6. Final Plat – (PF-07-21-04) Legends Add No. 1, 29.435 acres, S of 24th Pl., between Crossgate & Inverness.
7. Final Plat – (PF-07-22-04) Cornerstone Plaza No. 2, .83 acre, 1918 E 23rd.
8. Final Plat – (PF-05-14-00) 4-H Fairgrounds Add No. 2, Douglas County Fairgrounds, SE corner of E 19th & Harper.
9. Site Plan – (SP-07-46-04), duplex at 933-937 Mississippi.
10. Engineering Services Agreement – PEC for $1762,460, for Kasold, Peterson to KTA Bridge.
11. Community Information Advisory Board – Dissolution of Board.
12. Mortgage Release – 2609 Bonanza, Flora Taylor.
13. Ordinance No. 7810, 1st Reading, allow alcoholic liquor at S Park for St. John’s Evangelist Beer Garden on September 18, 2004.
14. KS University – City Land Use Cooperation Agreement.
15. Lawrence Street Dance Committee – Fund request for free dance on Sept 18, 2004 at S. Park