November 23 , 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.  Student Commissioner Justin Isbell was present. 

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION: None

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of November 9, 2004 and November 16, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 29, 2004; the Human Relations Commission meeting minute of November 18, 2004; and the Hospital Board meeting minutes of October 20, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.   

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, approve claims to 407 vendors in the amount of $1,078,222.94.  Motion carried unanimously.  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Pizzeria Uno Chicago, 3333 Iowa; and a Class A Club License for Lawrence Country Club, 400 Country Club Terrace.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Eric Struckhoff and Trent McKinley to the Bicycle Advisory Committee to additional terms that will expire December 31, 2007; reappoint John Studdard, Pattie Johnston, Mary Rosenthal and Barbara Betrand to the Douglas County Advocacy Council on Aging to additional terms that will expire December 31, 2007; reappoint Tom Bracciano to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board to an additional term that will expire December 31, 2008; and reappoint Cindy Strecker and Shannon Criss to the Recycle and Resource Conservation Advisory Board to terms that will expire December 31, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to concur with staff recommendation to reject the comprehensive housing rehabilitation bids for 2236 East Drive and 811 East 11^th Street due to bids exceeding staff estimates.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                   (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to execute the Relocation, Reimbursement and Encroachment Agreement with Southern Star Pipeline for the construction of Monterey Way and the intersection of Monterey Way and Peterson Road for the amount of $234,454.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an engineering contract with Bartlett & West Engineers in the amount of $238,454.30 for completion of engineering services for street, storm sewer, and sidewalks on Kasold Drive from Bob Billings Parkway to 22^nd Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                      (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an engineering contract with Bartlett & West Engineers in the amount of $58,932.85 for engineering services for the replacement of the waterline on Kasold Drive from Bob Billings Parkway to 22^nd Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                              (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of December 14, 2004 for 15^th and Lawrence Avenue Stormwater Improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7845, authorizing the condemnation of property interests (Wright tract) for the improvement of Folks Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                (6)

Ordinance No. 7844, authorizing the issuance of $1,140,000 in industrial revenue refunding bonds for Martin Logan Ltd, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6572, authorizing the issuance of bonds in the amount of $200,000 for intersection improvements at Bob Billings Parkway and Wakarusa Drive.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                  (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6573, authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $3,750,000 for the construction of Kasold Drive from Bob Billings Parkway to West 22^nd Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                          (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Shari Bradt, 422 Mississippi Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                           (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease/site agreement with Southwestern Bell Wireless LLC, as general partner of the Kansas City SMSA Limited Partnership, d/b/a Cingular Wireless, for space on and under the City’s Stratford Water Tower.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                  (11)

Patricia Sinclair pulled from the consent agenda for discussion, the adoption of Resolution No. 6571, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $250,000 for the design and construction of a roundabout at 19^th and Louisiana.

She asked the City Commission to not approve funds for a roundabout at the location of 19^th and Louisiana.  Once the funds were approved by the Commission, it would not be possible for residents to change this decision to install a roundabout.  She Barker Neighborhood residents found this to be true as the residents were repeatedly told that it was too late to stop a roundabout at 19^th and Barker since the City Commission had already voted for its funding.  She said this was the time, after which any appeals or discussions would be difficult to undue this decision.

She said it was frustrating because she attempted to be involved with this issue. She said she made a presentation to the Traffic Safety Commission this October trying to distinguish roundabouts in new areas with wide streets and limited traffic and the distinction between placing a roundabout into an existing older City neighborhood where there was a much more densely built environment and more pedestrian traffic.  She said sometime with arterial streets in smaller spaces the roundabouts would need to be smaller.  She said there were many safety issues involved such as placing a roundabout at Crossgate or Inverness, south of Clinton Parkway.  She said she found in frustrating that despite those efforts and the fact that she had been in communication with Public Works about this issue, that the issue of this coming to the City Commission never was broached to her by the department.

She said she was opposed to the roundabout at that location because she did not think it would be safe for pedestrians and it would not slow traffic.  Experts in the field and their experience with the new roundabout at 19^th and Barker supported that conclusion.  She said roundabouts were not a one size fits all solution to traffic for intersection problems.  She said there were many professionals who did not favor roundabouts in particular locations. 

She said in researching this matter there were places that were controversial in placing roundabouts such as arterial streets.   She said 19^th and Louisiana were two arterial streets and had a high level of pedestrian traffic.                          

She said one of the problems with the roundabout at 19^th and Barker was that there were going to be traffic counts done after the fact.  However, there were no pedestrian counts or study made at this area prior to the construction.  She said apparently the study for the intersection of 19^th and Louisiana which was performed in the year 2000 she did not believe that the study had any look at pedestrian traffic.

She said sometimes roundabouts were referred to as traffic calming devices.  She said the Barker neighborhood wanted traffic calming and in discussions with Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, she and Chuck agreed that traffic calming meant “slower.”   She also thought traffic calming meant safer and possibly even less traffic.  She said Soules agreed that a roundabout was not a traffic calming device, but a traffic control device.

She said there were those who claim there were fewer accidents where there were roundabouts.  However, that idea was overly simplistic and it appeared that in some situations there were fewer fatal or head on collisions, but there were not necessarily fewer accidents, there might be more accidents and she did not know if any of data talked about pedestrian safety.

In October, she appeared before the Traffic Safety Commission and specifically asked that Commission to consider ways to improve safety and consider adopting restrictive guidelines for future placement of roundabouts in older neighborhoods, especially where there was high pedestrian traffic, busy streets, and a small physical space to work with in a closely built environment.  She said at 19^th and Barker houses were in close proximity to that roundabout.  She said she was told that the roundabout had to be constructed in such a fashion because there was such a small space to work with.  She asked the Traffic Safety Commission if there was a point at which there should not be a roundabout constructed because of inadequate space.

She said there were no City standards for roundabouts and each roundabout was designed by the particular engineering company that was hired.

She said it seemed that what the Commission was doing now was looking at adopting new standards for streets in ways to make the City friendly for pedestrians and roundabout should be part of their review.

She said this fall she reviewed the roundabouts in the newer neighborhoods such as Crossgate and Inverness just south of Clinton Parkway and she was quite surprised to see the differences.  She said once the 19^th and Barker roundabout was opened out she saw enormous differences for example, the distance from the circulating lane, the distance from that to the crosswalk was about twice as far distant as the ones on the west side of town as it was a Barker and 19^th Street. 

She said her car was 15 ½ feet long and in some places it would not fit between the outside of the crosswalk and the beginning of the circulating lane that would mean if she was trying to exit the roundabout and there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk, she would either have to hit the pedestrian or risk getting hit by another vehicle that was driving around. 

She said the roundabout at 19^th and Barker was also physically smaller across, the diameter from the roundabouts out west. 

Mayor Rundle said it seemed that the discussion was a general discussion about roundabouts which was good to do, but in the context of this agenda item, this was part of a traffic calming study and proposal that the Louisiana Street neighborhood participated in.  He said there was quite an extensive discussion at that time with the neighborhood.  He asked if Sinclair could comment on some general flexibility on the type of roundabout at that particular intersection.

Sinclair said she was not part of the discussion of the Louisiana and 19^th Street roundabout, but she was very much a part of the Barker and 19^th Street roundabout discussions.  She said what was found was that repeatedly was once this phase had been approved there was no room for making comments about concerns. 

She said four years ago she did not know what the study said and she did not have time to read that study.  She said this was not a traffic calming device.

She said what she was trying to say was Barker was the first roundabout inserted into an existing older neighborhood where things were a different situation then going out on the west side of town.  She said she was trying to point out the differences in those circumstances and say that it was not necessarily a good solution at all intersection and she wanted to tell the Commission about her experiences.  Supposedly she thought the Barker neighborhood would be following up on their roundabout to see how things worked out before they jumped into placing more roundabouts at other locations.

Mayor Rundle said there was a series of steps, including solicitation of engineering consultant and design proposals.  He asked staff where public input would fall.

Sinclair presented photographs to the City Commission concerning roundabouts.  The photographs were mainly taken for the purpose of showing that dimension to the crosswalk.  She asked the City Commission not to approve the resolution so that this issue could be studied and establish some standards within the City before continuing to put potentially dangerous intersections in the community especially next door to schools.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said there were a number of steps that needed to be addressed before deciding the final design.  He said staff had notified both Centennial, University Place and staff had contacted the School District to make them aware that this issue was on the agenda.

He said staff would ask the consultants to submit qualifications.  At that time, staff would sit down with the neighborhood and school board to make sure staff was addressing concerns especially about pedestrian safety.  He said with the school at that location, staff did not want to create a hazard.  After the public meeting, staff would come back to the City Commission with some alternatives or a recommended design and staff would proceed.  He said staff would keep Sinclair informed of any meetings.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if Soules would summarize the public feedback about the Barker roundabout since that roundabout had been opened.

Soules said he had received a lot of good comments, but not everyone called him.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there were certain civil engineering standards for crosswalks and lane widths.  He said he assumed the City had a set of standards that the City used in the construction of those roundabouts.

Soules said the Kansas Department of Transportation had developed the design guidelines for roundabouts which included pedestrian crossing.  He said staff followed those guidelines and KDOT had offered to review any design of roundabouts free of charge. 

Commissioner Schauner said if the City Commission’s this resolution, would there be opportunity for community feedback.

Soules said yes.

Commissioner Dunfield said the 19^th and Barker roundabout was in his neighborhood and he had heard overwhelmingly positive comments from his neighbors including those whose children cross that intersection.  He said he knew that not everyone was in favor of that roundabout, but again the comments he had received was overwhelmingly positive.

Commissioner Hack said it was during the fall of 2000 when those meetings first started in which she attended.  She said at that time there was a concern about safety for pedestrians which was precisely the reason to slow the traffic down.      

Mayor Rundle said if this intersection did have more space he understood that perhaps they could make them less of a hazard for emergency vehicles.  He said that was a major concern that needed to be addressed.

Soules said emergency services would review those designs.              

Mayor Rundle said the consultant who did that study, one of the most compelling justifications for roundabouts was an example of a school on a major highway where a roundabout eliminated pedestrian accidents and cut down vehicle damage dramatically.   He said properly used, roundabout move more traffic and provided the slowing of traffic so pedestrians could safely interact with the roundabout.              

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack           , to adopt Resolution No. 6571, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $250,000 for the design and construction of a roundabout at 19^th and Louisiana.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                         (12)

The draft annexation agreement for property at the southwest corner of West 6^th Street (U.S. Hwy 40) and K-10 was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, Legal Services Director, provided a brief background of this issue.  He said the First United Methodist Church owned approximately 46 acre tract at the southwest corner of 6^th Street and K-10.  He said the church indicated that they wanted to commence development on that property and they had submitted a preliminary plat to the planning staff for review.  In discussions with this group over the past couple of years, staff indicated that they would recommend to the Douglas County Commission, Planning Commission, and City Commission that they thought it was an important intersection and staff would like to see that intersection developed to City standards. 

He said the church indicated that they did not want to annex into the City at this time and develop to City standards, but they had indicated that they might want to do some type of phase for development. 

He said staff had worked with the church on a draft annexation agreement.  He said he did not think that they would agree with all of the provisions.

He said the City Commission’s action was to refer this item to the Planning Commission for review, study, and recommendation to the City Commission.  It was possible that staff would not be able to come to an agreement with the church on annexation and they would need to work with the County Commission to see what would happen.

Commissioner Schauner said he was trying to remember the conversation about that southwest corner some months ago in which there was conversation about the campus for the church would be on the far southwest corner of that acreage and they had expressed some interest about frontage road development.  He asked if the preliminary plat indicated that type of interest.

Finger said the preliminary plat would show two lots.  The western lot was the lot the church wanted to be located at and the east side, closest to the SLT or K-10, the church presumed could be a different type of development.

Commissioner Schauner asked if they were asking that all that acreage be annexed.

Finger said yes, that was part of staff’s stipulation, to annex the entire area.            

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to receive the draft annexation agreement for property at the southwest corner of West 6^th Street (U.S. Hwy 40) and K-10; and refer this issue to the Planning Commission for recommendation.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                        (13)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: 

During the City Manager’s Report, Janette Klamm, Residual Coordinator, Utilities Department, gave a presentation to the City Commission summarizing the history and current status of the department’s participation in the Environmental Management System Program, sponsored by the National Biosolids Partnership, in which staff was currently seeking certification.

She said this certification was exciting, not only because they get the benefits of having environmental management system, but they would be one of several agencies that were certified in the country.  Of the 25 Charter Agencies, there were only 5 agencies that had been accepted as certified.  She said it was reasonably believed that they would be one of the next agency’s to be certified nationally.   

She gave a sample of their Class A biosolid material that was available for gardening to the City Commission.

Commissioner Schauner asked if this material could be applied directly to your home garden.

Klamm said this material could be obtained at their facility which was located near the Recycling Center.       

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, informed the City Commission that the Indoor Aquatic Center had been awarded the “Best of Aquatics, Class Three Award for Best Public/Non-Profit Indoor Family Aquatic Center.  

He also thanked Chuck Soules, Public Works Director and Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director for co-chairing the United Way efforts.                     (14)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Consider approving the Minimum Standards for the Lawrence Municipal Airport as recommended by the Aviation Advisory Board.

Rick Bryant, Chair, Aviation Advisory Board, said the document that was presented to the City Commission represented approximately two years of effort between City staff, Aviation Advisory Board, and dedicated community volunteers.  He hoped the document would establish a minimum standard of operation for commercial operators at Lawrence Municipal Airport.  He said with their recent multi-million dollar investment at the facility, they would have individuals and companies that would want to locate at the airport to provide aeronautical commercial services to the aviation community. 

He said this document did set a basic ground floor of what the Board expected all operators to participate in, own, operate and to work with the level of service that they had came to expect from people already operating at the airport.

He commended Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager - City Liaison, Airport Advisory Board, and City staff for many hours of hard work and research. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the minimum standards were similar to what would be found at Forbes Field.

Bryant said yes.  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did have a document that helped to guide airports with the drafting of those documents.  He said this was another step, as they progressed forward, to a more professional management and upkeep at the airport.

Commissioner Schauner asked how someone who wanted to offer avionic repair or flight training, learned about those standards.  He asked if it was on the website or in a booklet that was handed to prospective vendors.

Bryant said both methods were available.  The minimum standards were on the website and once the City Commission approved the draft, those standards would be in effect.  There was also a document available, but they would encourage those prospective vendors to go to the website and print out the sections that were appropriate to their application.  Those vendors would then contact Debbie Van Saun, Airport Manager, to go through the process to acquire land, building permits, and whatever the process would require for their portion of the operation to serve the airport.

Commissioner Dunfield asked if the current operators at the airport reviewed the draft standards.

Bryant said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said there was one note in the staff memo that there was only one person who had attended a meeting who had a concern about a flying club.

Bryant said the individual that had attended the meeting was one of three individuals who owned an airplane that was housed in a hangar at the airport.  He said flying clubs were quite common at facilities across the country.  He said they distinguished between 2 to 4 individuals who go together and create their own flying club and have people share interest in the ownership and operation of the aircraft versus a commercial flying club where an individual would buy an interest in the aircraft and the aircraft was used to generate income for the group.  He said that individual wanted more clarification on the definitions that were used on that section of the manual.  He said they believed that issue was resolved because they had not received any additional feedback.  He said they had extended the opportunity to suggest language that would simplify or make more clear the definitions that were placed in that section.

Commissioner Schauner asked if aircraft owned for commercial purposes would be covered under the minimum standards and if a flying club would be covered in a different way.

Bryant said in this particular instance, the 3 individuals owned the airplane as private pilots and they shared equally in the cost and upkeep.  This document only covered commercial operations.  Any private individual, if they cross the line from private into commercial, then they would fall under jurisdiction of those minimum standards.

Mayor Rundle asked if this document would be an adopted policy and not a resolution or ordinance.

Van Saun said yes.  She said this was a fairly fluid document.  She said they did plan during the stages of review that they would have occasional review opportunities for the Board to make sure its fresh and always appropriate to the operation at the airport.  She said she anticipated that in a year or so that the Board would be looking at this document again to make sure all of the conditions were appropriate.                   

Commissioner Hack said the Aviation Advisory Board has such a passion for what it did for the Airport.  She said to have this document in place raised the bar for Lawrence Municipal Airport.  She thanked Bryant and the Board members for all their tremendous work.

Commissioner Schauner added that the report was terrific.  He said he thought the work was very professional and well done.  He said it complimented both the Advisory Board and Van Saun to their good work.   

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve the minimum standards for the Lawrence Municipal Airport as recommended by the Aviation Advisory Board. (15)    

Receive staff memo regarding blasting operations within the City of Lawrence.  Review Ordinance No. 7846 outlining blasting amendments to Chapter 8, Article 2 of the City Code, as recommended by the Uniform Fire Code Board of Appeals.

Rich Barr, Fire Marshall, presented the staff report.  The ordinance was drafted by the Fire Code Board of Appeals as per City Commission direction to review the City’s current blasting regulations, to take comment and to determine if changes were necessary. 

Tom Waechter, Chairman of the Fire Code Board of Appeals, presented the changes that were proposed to the existing ordinance for the City Commission to consider.  He said they had a total of six or seven meetings looking at background information that was provided.  The history of the series of events at Fox Chase South dated before April 2004.  City staff and neighborhood representatives provided a great deal of background on the events that occurred before the Fire Code Board of Appeals became involved.    

It was the Board’s intent to look at the Fox Chase South experience as a case study and to look at the ordinance and concerns by various parties including the blasting contractors, the neighbors and owners of nearby property, City staff, and legal counseling. 

He said they also had taken advantage of expertise of near surface rock removal with a distinguished K.U. geophysics professor who gave technical background to understand some of the implications of this particular ordinance.  They also had the advantage of a fair amount of research of comparable ordinances and charts on pre-blast requirements in which they used as benchmarks in some of their decisions. 

He asked the City Commission to understand that their intent was not to become blasting experts.  This issue had a great deal of inside knowledge and expertise that was not in the purview of the Board.  He said none of the Board members were immediately aware of work with blasting components.

He said the task of the Board was to amend the ordinance and reflect the best practices as they became aware of situations. 

He said the Board focused their efforts on four major areas which were:

1. Public notification, including some re-evaluation of the past ordinance in terms of the method used to contact nearby neighbors and the content of that message both to the neighbors within 500 feet and 1500 feet of the proposed blasting;

2. Issues tied to liability;

3. Evaluate key detail related to blasting; and

4. Life and Safety concerns for those parties that brought their concerns forward.

He said there was a great deal of help from City Staff and cooperation from both the trade involved and neighborhood representatives.   

He gave a PowerPoint presentation to the City Commission on the proposed changes to the exiting ordinance.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked about the definition of structure.

Waechter said the Board chose not to write in the formal definition of pipeline utility, but relied on the fact that an assessment of all utilities in the area needed to be completed and notified.  He said they settled on the NFPA definition of structure for consistency. 

Vice Mayor Rundle asked about the definition of blasting expert.

Waechter said they asked a geophysics professor, who he was aware of those in the area that could complete subsurface investigations and it was a fairly limited group.  The definition of an expert moved into another realm, asking the question whether there was a licensing process for an explosive engineer, but the general consensus was no.  He said there were people with a great deal of experience in the field who went through an enormous number of certifications not to the least which was the insurance company who wanted to make sure that they are not extending coverage to individuals who were not well trained and had the credentials.  To say that there was a professional licensure for this particular activity was something that the Board could not come up with a definitive statement so years of experience, exposure in the field, comparable engineering analysis.  In the end it was a fairly independent enterprise and not one that they could clearly tie a definition of blasting expert to.               

Mayor Rundle said there was a very few number of people who were blasting experts. 

Waechter said yes

Mayor Rundle said one of the suggestions was to broaden it to include explosive engineers in some fashion.  He asked Waechter if the experience was critical in this area.

Waechter said there were two sides to the question as they were proposing the ordinance.  He said they didn’t dive into the qualifications of the individual loading the hole where the excavation work was occurring.  He said as it was conveyed, it seemed that was heavily regulated by Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and other regulations.  He said the Board chose to place the expertise in the engineering review, on the front end to make sure that blasting operations could proceed in a formally prescribed manner. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be reasonable to assume that if this “expert” was able to provide the Fire Marshall with proof of liability insurance, that was the insurance company who issued the certificate, would have some standards by which they determine whether a person was eligible to be issued such a certificate.

Waechter said that was true.  He said in the Overland Park ordinance, the insurance companies evaluation of the blasting plan was relied on to be their standard.  He said the insurance company was the one that came forward to tell what was a suitable plan and what that plan would cover.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the notification to utilities would be by first class mail or certified mail.

Waechter said certified mail.

Commissioner Dunfield said in the course of looking at this issue, did the Board look at the history of damage due to blasting operations either locally or regionally.

Waechter said the Board made that a focus effort.  He said the Board relied upon information they received from blasting contractors and City staff.  He said numbers were conveyed to the Board on the seismograph readings for the Fox Chase blasting.  Assuming those seismographs were calibrated and operating correctly, registering at less than half of the peak particle velocity of blasting, in the most extreme case.  He had some side bars with the geophysics professor and the standards for peak particle velocity were set relatively low.  He said that did not mean that damage of some sort could not occur in some series of events, but the evidence was that damage had not been a common occurrence.  He said any individual operating as a blasting contractor who has been through a series of claims, would not have the liability coverage that it took to be in business. 

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Dan Wilkus, resident on Stonecreek Drive, took the opportunity to go through the ordinance as proposed with some additional comments that might help clean up the ordinance. 

He said some of the major problems that were encountered at Fox Chase South were notification of the adjacent property owners, existing regulations were too vague and did not contain definitions of key terms, pre-blasting permit application document (City had no ability to stop the blasting when violations were discovered), no mechanism for adjacent property owners to appeal issuance of the blasting permit, adjacent property owners were not provided a copy of the pre-blast survey or offered a post blast survey of their property, adjacent property owners were denied blasting records, lack of professional or any oversight during some of the blasting operations, inadequate audible warning system in place to warn neighbors.

He suggested amendments to the proposed ordinance which were:

Section 1

• Suggest adding a condition indicating the permit can be revoked if the permittee violates any regulation contained in the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, not just conditions and limitations contained in the permit.
• Suggest adding a condition stating the Fire Marshall needs to the discretion to be able to order the permittee to cease and desist blasting operations if he or she has evidence violations of the permit conditions or the Code of City of Lawrence have occurred.  This would insure blasting is not continuing to occur between the time of a potential violation and the time it takes to hold a hearing with the Chief.

Section 2

• The definition of “structure” needs to include specific examples of the type of structures covered (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas pipelines, petroleum pipelines, sanitary and storm sewers, water lines, etc.)
• The definition of “qualified engineer” needs to be added. This person needs to have the appropriate credentials to oversee in close blasting operations.

Section 3

• Suggest changing the listing of items from an “application” to an “application checklist”.  The application checklist would be used to insure all items are included in the permit application document.  

• Suggest increasing the liability limits required and require the qualified engineer overseeing the blasting within 500 feet to also provide evidence of liability insurance.  The current liability limits were adequate fifteen years ago.  I have more liability coverage under my own personal umbrella policy.  During the blasting performed in May and June 2004 in the Fox Chase Subdivision, as many as forty homes were within 500 feet.  Clearly, if forty homes were damaged or destroyed, $2,000,000 is not going to cover it.

• Suggest adding a condition requiring all portions of the blasting plan to be completed and submitted prior to issuance of a permit.  Also, a permit application fee of $500 shall accompany the application document and a fee of $300 for a renewal permit.

Section 4

• Suggest adding a statement requiring the contractor to invite the owners of utility transmission and pipeline to be present during the blasting operations.  During the Fox Chase Subdivision blasting earlier this spring, there was little or no communication between the contractor and the utility owners.  The neighbors were the ones who contacted and invited the utility representatives to various meetings and provided them with information to perform stress calculations.
• Suggest adding a condition allowing the Fire Marshall to expand the pre-blast survey as he or she deems necessary.
• Suggest adding a condition requiring a pre-blast survey of additions or modifications made to structures after the initial survey.
• Suggest adding a condition requiring the surveyor to prepare a survey plan and submit it to the Fire Marshall for approval prior to conducting the surveys. 
• Suggest adding a condition requiring proof of annual calibration of all seismographic and airblast monitoring equipment.
• Suggest adding a section containing airblast level restrictions.  A literature review should be conducted to determine appropriate airblast restrictions. 
• Suggest adding a condition requiring a professional engineer to certify the need to use blasting for excavating material within 500 feet of structures.  Blasting should be the last alternative for areas within 500 feet of structures, not the first.
• Suggest adding a condition requiring the contractor to make available to the public all blasting records.  Also, require more detailed seismic and blasting records be recorded.

Section 5

• Suggest adding Section 8-207.57 to the list of sections to be revoked and replaced by this ordinance.

Mayor Rundle asked Wilkus about all his suggested amendments.  He asked if there were examples of those amendments in other ordinances or reference materials.

Wilkus said yes. 

David Dressler, Dressler Consulting Engineers, Overland Park, Kansas, proverbial blasting expert, said in response to some of the issues that Wilkus had concerns over, blasting was only taught in two colleges, in the school of rock mechanics, which was in the engineering division, but that was mainly coring and mining.

During the pre-blast survey, they inform the homeowner what blasting vibrations feel like and what to look for in terms of the first signs of damages.  The first sign of damage was a broken window which would be followed by the letter “x” shaped crack in the drywall in the upper most part of the house from the racking effect of vibration. 

He said in regards to blasting records, he understood that when he was blast monitoring for a private contractor that only until that information was turned over to another person did it then become public.

He said when performing pre-blast survey’s they look at anything within 500 feet such as cemeteries, headstones, box culverts, and bridges.  Pre-blast surveys were performed on weekends so limiting per-blast surveys for working days was not a good option from his standpoint. 

It was also common practice, if the Fire Marshall saw anything wrong or if there was high seismograph reading, the Marshall could pull the blasting permit.  He said if blasting was not safe, blasting would not be allowed.                                  

Russell Pilshaw, Pexco, the drilling/blasting contractor that was being discussed, said he was not sure that anyone realized his expertise.  He said he had been in the business for 30 years from manufacturing of ammonia nitrate products to all the various products that were used in commercial as well as some of the military explosives.  He was currently licensed in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas, and Pennsylvania.  He said state law did define a structure as a bridge, tunnels, and railroad crossings.  Although those structures were not required a pre-blast survey.  He said those were structures and that was how it was defined.  Those structures were to be modified, or the blast modified during any blasting activities around those structures.  All the information that was in the City’s regulations was covered in the CFR’s as well as the National Fire Code and 10,000 regulatory pages in the Library of Congress. 

He said if they wanted to reinvent the wheel, that was fine, but the education of citizens would be a viable option.  He suggested taking courses and having instructor’s teach citizens about those laws. 

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if there were particular provisions in the new draft ordinance that Pilshaw had objections to.

Pilshaw said he could not object to anything that was in the regulations, he would just need to live by those regulations, and charge his customers accordingly.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked Pilshaw what provisions of the new regulations would be the hardest to handle.                         

Pilshaw said the 1500 foot notification bothered him more than anything from the standpoint that no blasting reactivity was going to go outside a 500 foot area.  If he damaged a house 100 feet away, there was a possibility that he would damage a house 100 foot away.  If he did not damage a house 100 feet away, there was no viable, reasonable explanation for saying that he damaged something 500 feet away.  He said the word “high explosive” was used to terrify a person, when in reality that was a daily occurrence.  He said over 6.2 billion pounds of explosives was used in the United States last year.

Pilshaw said there wasn’t any part of the regulation that was proposed that he could not live within. 

He said residents have a problem with the appeal process to be able to deny a blasting permit and it was already relevant to the planning process.  He said when the Fox Chase South development was under consideration, Wilkus received a letter from the City.  Wilkus at that point had time to protest any blasting.  He said there were several cities that had on their planning profiles put down on the site plan, as a site condition (No blasting allowed).  He said this was done during the planning process and should remain there.

As for the meeting to address the concern of the neighbors, that was done in the pre-blast survey on a one to one basis with those that were most affected by this according to the law.  He said as his company policy, they pre-blast everything within 300 feet.  Anything outside of 300 feet for the amount of explosives he would need to put in the ground, he would need to drill a whole 33 feet deep and there was not sewer line in Lawrence that deep.

Alan Cowles, Lawrence, said he would like to leave the technical details to the technical people with one exception, which was the big gas pipeline that went close to Hy-Vee on 23^rd Street and up through his neighborhood.  He said the pipeline was 16 inches in diameter, but carried gas at a pressure of approximately 1500 pounds per square inch and part of that line was 50 years old.  He said in certain places, 15^th Street and Wakarusa, it was superficial enough that farmers had dug that line up with plows.  He said the line went through some very populated areas.  He said the planners from 50 years ago never expected residents to be so cozy with such a large and high pressured device and this needed special attention in the blasting code because it was such an unusual issue.  He said it was not a good idea to set off dynamite close to that line.

He said another issue for consideration was high tension power lines. 

He said his primary comment was to create some type of mechanism so individuals could find out about the blasting plans much more in advance. 

He said there had been four developers call their neighborhood in advance to come down to City Hall inviting the neighbors to come down to take a look at their proposed projects.   He said they found that dealing with the developers in advance, had been pleasant and gave the neighbors a chance to be positive and creative.  He suggested that it be made mandatory that neighbors receive notification at least 30 days or perhaps more in advance of a blasting permit being approved and an opportunity to have a meeting with the developers or representatives.  He said that would create a more positive opportunity for the neighbors to solve those problems.

Waechter said a recent conversation with the Fire Marshall highlighted the fact that future permits were coming about for blasting within areas that were already populated.  He said one of the approaches was to look at where blasting was likely and where those developments were in terms of sequence of events, and trying to anticipate a few steps ahead in how this information could be shared with nearby neighbors.

He asked the Commission that any further direction they could provide to the Board would be helpful. 

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if Waechter had seen longer notice periods in any of the other statutes that he had researched.

Waechter said there was notification in the chart identified and it might have been a number that extended out to 30 days.  The definition of days versus working days was an important issue to get cleared up.

Commissioner Hack asked Wilkus if there were longer notification periods in the areas that were worked in.                

Wilkus said he could not say for sure.  The issue he saw was an appeal process where once you received the permit, you cannot just pull the plug when the permit was ready to be issued.  He said it was hard to evaluate something if all the information was not on hand.  In the particular case of Fox Chase South, they had a lot of issues coming in at parallel.  He said more advance notification would help because then it could be discussed.

Dressler said Leawood, Kansas did have a 10 day waiting period where there was an appeal process.  If some did appeal, the issue would go before the City Commission.

Mayor Rundle said it would be helpful to provide some information on where items were similar to other ordinances and also to provide some assessment of changes that improved the ordinance from the homeowners’ perspective or caused some type of harm.        

Commissioner Hack said she appreciated the work that had gotten the City Commission to that point.  She said it was the proverbial balancing between protecting the rights of those people who were trying to get things done, protecting the rights of the property owner involved and also not over regulating to the point that they had something that was impossible to navigate through. 

She agreed that the best piece of information received was having conversation upfront.  She said the most important issue was getting people on the same page. 

Commissioner Dunfield said Cowles started to outline that there were two types of issues.  One issue was communication question and the other was a technical question.  He said he was not comfortable taking a position on the technical issues, but he thought in terms of the communication issues, they should try to work towards better notification, more notification, and more positive notification.  He said he did not object to making some of the changes that had been proposed in that area.  Rather than using the “working days” definition versus “calendar days” he would prefer to extend the times somewhat and not get into that question of what a working day was and whether it was applicable to a particular case or not.

As far as the question concerning major utility lines and the major gas line in West Lawrence, the notification of the utility companies and the ability for those utilities to appeal answered that question.  He said utilities were extremely sensitive to any type of work that went on close to those high tension lines or gas lines.

One other issue was the Fire Marshall’s discretion to pull a permit which was a good point.  He said this was another one of those technical issues where he did not want the City Commission to decide whether to pull a permit or not.  He said the Fire Marshall should have that authority and should be perfectly willing to exercise that authority when warranted. 

Finally, he felt strongly about the definition of a blasting expert.  He said experience with blasting was the key to that issue.  He did not think a person with a civil or structural engineering degree necessarily was in a position to understand the issues that went along with blasting and he thought it was experience.  He said if anything, that definition might need to be strengthened by requiring five years of experience in the field or something more specific to that effect.  He said that experience was the key.

Vice Mayor Highberger concurred with most of Commissioner Dunfield’s comments.  He was not sure about the process and there were a lot of details that needed to be worked out.  He suggested that the City Commission express their concerns to the Board.

Commissioner Schauner commented that when he did a “Google” search concerning blasting regulations and that search came up with 187,000 hits.  He said what that said to him was that blasting was an activity that had generated a tremendous amount of public interest and concern in this country and across the world.  He said he did not think it was unreasonable for a person whose major investment both in property and in family be given more notice and opportunity for explanation and more assurance than the blasting expert might think was necessary.  A blasting expert was a blasting expert who knew the risks, but the average citizen who was informed that there was going to be blasting close to their home, holds a reasonable concern and fear about what might happen to their property and family.  He said he would rather error on the side of too many meetings, too many notifications, to provide as much guarantee or solace to those neighbors as they could.   

He said the neighbors and City owed Wilkus a debt of gratitude for the work that was done and he hoped that Wilkus would stay tuned to the work of the Board when they could look at the proposed revisions.  He suggested going back to the Board so they could take into account what had been relayed by concerned citizens.         (15)

Receive and discuss The Lawrence Community Land Trust concept and housing priorities.   

Rebecca Buford, Tenants to Homeowners, said she thought the Lawrence Community Land Trust concept worked and was applicable to the Lawrence market.  She said housing was becoming more and more unaffordable in Lawrence and as the housing costs increase at a greater rate than incomes increase, there was a real subsidizing crisis.  No matter the view on how much we should subsidize, the amount that was received in home funds and federal subsidy for affordable housing was being wasted in a recapture program because they were losing so much.  She said they could get one family into an affordable house, but 5 years from now when they sell that house on the market, it was not longer affordable and it would require 2 or 3 times as much subsidy to get that same family with the same amount of income into that home.  She said goals and who they want to get into housing could be talked about, but the model, no matter where goals lie helped them more efficiently use that subsidy as part of the Lawrence Community Land Trust which would be a non-profit body that the Board of Directors would be a part and parcel of the community.  This idea would more efficiently allow the use of government subsidy.  She said what Tenants to Homeowners Community Land Trust was asking the City Commission was to allow Neighborhood Resources to apply the Federal Home Funds that currently went to First Time Homebuyers Program which was recaptured in some part, but not entirely.  She said there was the issue of not recapturing the whole amount plus a huge increase in market appreciation.  She said they were serving less and less people with the current program. 

She said they were also asking the City Commission to consider the Housing Trust Fund money that was put on hold and look at that as seed money to allow Tenants to Homeowners to acquire lots so they could retain that Housing Trust Fund subsidy into the community of Lawrence as affordable housing that would remain in the community. 

She said people ask why a person would want to own a house if that person did not have full title to the land.  She said it was because that person did not have access to the market.  She said these were people who could not buy a house.  Obviously if a person could access the market and purchase a home, that person would not want to limit their equity, but they were talking about a large market of the population that could not access the market at all and there option would be renting.  If comparing renting to the Land Trust model, 5 years from now if a person was renting that person would spend $600 to $800 in rent and they would take nothing away.  In the Land Trust model, a person would pay a $600 to $800 mortgage payment a month and would take all of the equity out of that property as well as 25% of the market on the improvements. 

She said another issue that should be considered about this model was that it addressed something that had not been discussed.  She said the City of Lawrence was a great place to live and that was why housing prices were going up.  She was not sure that individual homeowners were always completely the reason to attribute to that market driven appreciation.  As they improve their homes they certainly deserve a part of that appreciation, but that appreciation needed to be separated and retain some of that for the community.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he was glad to see this issue come forward because he was excited about Community Land Trust 20 years ago, but he did not have the skills back then to do anything about that issue.

He said he had some questions about the use of the First Time Homebuyer Program.  He asked how much money was involved and the number of people that would be served.

Buford gave an example of how the Homeowners out of Tenants (HOOT) Program was not working as well as it was because of the increase in prices of homes.  In 2002 there were 25 HOOT loans provided to low to moderate income families, but much more in the moderate range which was under 80% medium income into houses.  She said this last year, they were only able to place 14 people into a home and that was with a $35,000 subsidy to cover a 20% buy down, closing costs, and rehab money for that home.  She said $35,000 to $40,000 would be the limit they would use on the Land Trust and they would place that buy down portion toward the purchase of the land and that was the amount that would be retained.

She hoped they would be serving as many, if not a few more, with the Land Trust Program the first time around and they needed to start thinking about 5 years from now on those second sales.  It becomes more affordable to a family of a lower percentage of medium income because they would be retaining that subsidy.  She said she thought they could serve 15 to 20 families initially and with the Housing Trust Fund money acquisition, they could certainly serve 15 more families.

Mayor Rundle asked Buford if there were guidelines for the dispersal of housing in the community.  He said even the Housing Authority had been unable to move very far west because of HUD Guidelines and the high cost of land.  He asked if those issues were looked at in terms of concentrating in one area.

Buford said the HOOT Program specifically works with targeted neighborhoods more than anywhere else.  She said new construction was targeted in the East Lawrence, Pinckney, and North Lawrence neighborhoods.  She said they could target a certain amount of land trusted property that they would specifically look at houses in those areas. 

Margene Swarts, Community Development Manager, said the HOOT Program was community wide.

Buford said income restrictions had limited the HOOT Program to work better in certain neighborhoods.                   

Commissioner Schauner asked if lenders were resistant to participating in making home loans in the Land Trust concept. 

Buford said 5 or 10 years ago yes, but luckily 2 or 3 years ago Fannie Mae introduced a Land Trust Mortgage product and that had opened the door.  She said they hoped to initially use the lenders that they had partnered with the HOOT Program, but she hoped to expand the program to using other lenders and give people more opportunity to participate because they would model the ground lease and mortgage on the Fannie Mae mode so that other lenders could sell on the secondary market if they wanted to.

Commissioner Schauner asked if those lenders were offering rates competitive with non-land land trust loans.

Buford said yes.  She said current HOOT lenders offer prime rates on the HOOT Loan and they would continue with the Land Trust Mortgage.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it had been Buford’s experience that buy down on mortgage rates was not a particularly effective way of encouraging first time home ownership.

Buford said that issue became a matter of numbers.  She said HOOT was working extremely well 3 or 4 years ago, but as the gap continued to increase, the amount of buy down they were spending continued to increase and they were not necessarily filling the gap.  She said retention of that subsidy would allow them to do that more and more.  The first year of the program, they might not help low income people and they might still be serving the moderate income people they were able to serve with HOOT, but 5 or 10 years down the road, when they go to resell that property, they would see an increased ability to serve lower income people.

Commissioner Schauner said if he understood the graphics, the idea was that rather than spending money that was not seen again in a buy down program, you would seed a program which eventually grew into a return on that investment and to some extent the program became self sustaining, but that would depend on the number of sales and other factors.

Buford said it was an economy of scale.  There were 130 Land Trusts across the country and she wanted to emphasize that they were not reinventing the wheel.  Tenants to Homeowners had received technical assistance from the Institute for Community Economics which was the leading consultant in creating a Land Trust.  She said that group seemed to know every trick in the book and had gone through what had worked best.  She said they were at an opportune time where they could institute those best practices, but also become a role model for other parts of Kansas.  Most Land Trusts were not self sustaining from the lease fees in the trust.  However, as an organization, there were other avenues and certainly there were a lot of tricks which could be created in the ground lease, for instance a re-issue fee.  She said when things get resold, there was a particular stream of operating expense that made it easy to administer.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Land Trust purchase homeowners tend to move as frequently as Non-Land Trust owners.

Buford said that was a good question.  She said Burlington, Vermont, when they started their Land Trust had similar numbers to the Lawrence community and they had been the longest running Land Trust.  She said after 10 years they recently published a study at a first time look at how people use the Land Trust and a majority (77%) were able, after the first sale, to move into the market.  So those homeowners did move up into bigger and better housing.  She said with Lawrence’s numbers they could bridge that gap and that second sale with that 25% of appreciation and equity build up could move that homeowner into the market.

Commissioner Schauner asked whether the rate at which the homeowner sales was similar to a Non-Land Trust homeowner.

Buford said yes.  She said that would be an issue of if the City’s prices on homes went extremely high, that rate might slow down.  She said that could be adjusted where they would get less or a higher percentage of appreciation which would influence how soon they would want to leave.

Commissioner Schauner said curiously enough, the Land Trust benefits financially from increasing house prices as well.

Commissioner Highberger asked if they would be focusing primarily on new construction or were there plans for rehabilitating homes also.

Buford said they could do both new and rehab homes.  She said with the neighborhoods, they would have better luck with the Land Trust concept because it did fight gentrification and they could justify placing more money in rehab homes, knowing that it was going to be affordable for the long-term.  She said their organization had strayed away from rehabilitating homes because those homes were quite costly and a new and better house could be built for the same costs.         

Mayor Rundle said he was excited when he first heard about this issue which was on the Energy Conservation Homes Tour.   He said he would like to proceed a little bit more slowly than making a decision right away.  He said there were some competing programs where people could be eligible for those funds. 

He asked if the Practitioners Panel was developing a program at this time. 

Swarts said there was a landlord program underway for subsidies.  A landlord sponsored program for subsidies, but it was still in the planning stages.  She said they were looking at a $25,000 to $30,000 allocation.

Mayor Rundle said the Homeless Management Information Services had been identified even before the Task Force on Homeless Services started.  He said they had applied for federal funding and that was not included in their grant.  He said there were two applications to foundations.  The first application did not make the award in the amount that they needed and with the other application, they had been turned down.  He said if they could devise some process where the Housing Trust Fund Board could meet one more time to see if they wanted to let go of this, but he certainly thought a decision needed to be made soon and get some money into their hands because land costs were going in one direction.

Wildgen suggested referring this issue to the Housing Trust Fund Board for comments and a formal review and perhaps the Grant Review Board.

Swarts said the NARC has heard the presentations on the Land Trust concept and they support that concept.

Commissioner Hack asked Swarts to comment on the $750,000.

Swarts said that boiled down to $500,000.  Tenants to Homeowners was hoping for from the Housing Trust Fund.  The remaining $250,000 was the annual allocation for the First Time Homebuyer Program (HOOT).  She said that wasn’t anything new, but an acknowledgement that if they went with the Land Trust concept, they would still be able to use that source for that program.

She said the Finance Department informed her that the balance of the housing trust fund was $556,642.

Commissioner Hack said the request from the Practitioners Panel was for a program that was to be started by Tammy Clark.

She said Clark was working through the Drop-In Center to create a committee that was working with a subcommittee of the Practitioners Panel.  She said they had the support of the local landlords and the Drop-In Center.  The details were basically going to be able to help people who otherwise couldn’t rent in the conventional market or thorough the Housing Authority because of previous issue made them ineligible.

She said certain landlords were agreeing to rent to them because there would be funds to guarantee the payment of rent and damages should that occur.  She said they were also going to create a support system to help with timely rental payments and to make sure there were not any damages.

Commissioner Hack asked if there would still be funds for the Community Land Trust.   She asked if Swarts would be comfortable with the suggestion of running this issue past the Housing Trust Fund Board one more time.

Swarts said yes.

Mayor Rundle said he would like to have the Commissioner’s know when that would take place because the Housing Trust Fund Board might think the City Commission might know a lot more about those housing options than the Commission did.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission gave the go ahead, what would their next step be.

Wildgen said there would need to be some legal agreement.

Swarts said the target date for starting the new program would be January 1^st, 2005.  She said they would be meeting with Buford and the Community Development Division staff and talk about what tweaking needed to be done to the program to make it work.  There were some people in the pipeline right now that they would funnel through between now and the end of December.

She said they would use existing funding that they had in the HOME Program to continue and meanwhile talk with Tenants to Homeowners about what properties they would identify to work on that end.

Buford said they had gotten a lot of technical assistance.   She said she had met with lenders, appraisers and realtors.  She said in the next two months she hoped to perform a lot of education because this would be a transition.

Commissioner Schauner said if the City Commission gave the go ahead, what was the reasonable timeframe before such a program could be up and operational with lenders and site selection.

Buford said by the first of the year.  She said she had already done a large portion of that work.  She said she and Swarts would need to decide the specifics, but with their technical assistance, they also had a model ground lease and other things in place.

Commissioner Hack said personally she wanted Buford to continue on the ground work to get this program going, but she agreed that the courtesy of having the Housing Trust Fund Board give their blessing to the program since they were the caretakers of the money.  She said when discussing affordable housing it was discussed on several different levels and one level was the income of the homeowners and it was an issue that needed to be address as a community.  The other issue was the affordability of homes.  

She said what she liked about the program were the comments about keeping those homes in the program.  She said without this program, some people would not be able to afford that first step in buying a home.  She thought the program was a great step forward and for Lawrence to be the model for the State of Kansas.

Commissioner Dunfield said he would like the City Commission to send the signal that they intended to start the program whether it was a $250,000 program or a $750,000 program, because that would remain to be seen.  He said the Commission should at least endorse the concept and urge this group to move in that direction.

Mayor Rundle concurred with Commissioner Dunfield.

Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the Commission was endorsing this program pending review by the Housing Trust Fund Board.

Commissioner Hack added that the Commission would be endorsing this program with no specific amount of dollars involved.

Vice Mayor Highberger said if the Housing Trust Fund Board came back with a negative recommendation then the City Commission would take a look at this issue again.

Mayor Rundle asked if this program could be started with existing funds.

Buford said yes.

Mayor Rundle suggested that the program proceed and supplement the program with additional costs.                                                                                                        (16)

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner,  to adjourn at 8:53 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.

_____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 23, 2004

1. Bids rejected –  2236 E Dr., & 811 E 11^th

2. Agreement – Southern Star Pipeline for Monterey Way & intersect of Monterey Way & Peterson.

3. Contract – Bartlett & West Engineering for sidewalks on Kasold from Bob Billings Pkwy to 22^nd for $238,454.30. 

4. Contract – Bartlett & West Engineering for waterline replacement at Kasold from Bob Billings Pkwy to 22^nd for $58,932.85.

5. Bid Date – Lawrence Ave. Stormwater Improvements on Dec 14, 2004.

6. Ordinance No. 7845 – 1^st Read, condemnation of Wright tract for Folks Rd.

7. Ordinance No. 7844 – 2^nd Read, IRB for Martin Logan for $1,140,000.

8. Resolution No. 6571 – GOB for $250,000 19^th & Louisiana roundabout.

9. Resolution No. 6572 – Issue bonds for $200,000, Bob Billings Pkwy & Wakarusa.

10. Resolution NO. 6573 – GOB for $3,750,000, Kasold from Bob Billings Pkwy to W 22^nd.

11.  Subordination Agreement – 422 Miss, for Shari Bradt.

12. Annexation Agreement – SW corner of W 6^th & K-10.

13. Lease/Site Agreement – Southwestern Bell, KS City SMSA Limited Partnership, Cingular Wireless.

14.  Airport – Lawrence Municipal Airport minimum standards.

15. Ordinance No. 7846 – 1^st Read, blasting amendments.

16. Housing Priorities – Lawrence Community Land Trust.