June 21, 2005
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 Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 7, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Public Health Board meeting minutes of April 18, 2005; the Recycling & Resources Conservation Board meeting minutes of May 11, 2005; the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of April 5, 2005 and May 19, 2005; and the Public Library Board meeting minutes of April 18, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 420 vendors in the amount of $1,970,645.82. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Red Lyon Tavern, 944 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
The consent agenda item regarding a review of the bids for the 2005 Cured-in-place (CIPP) project for the Utilities Department was deferred. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Peridian Group for engineering services in an amount of $20,745 for design and construction plans for a west bound left turn lane on Kansas Highway (K-10) at the intersection of East 1600 Road (O’Connell Road), southbound on O’Connell Road. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the rejection of bids received for Schedule II of the Airport Improvement Project and set a new bid date of July 19, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (3) (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with BG Consultants, Inc., for land surveying and other work for the BNSF Rail Corridor between 13th Street and 23rd Street, in the amount of $40,988. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6596, establishing July 19, 2005 as the public hearing date to consider the establishment of a special assessment benefit district for the improvement of Anna Tappan Way, between Haskell and Hanscom Road, including street, sidewalk, and other necessary improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to approve the site plan (SP-02-15-05) for the construction of Lawrence Fire Station No. 4, to be located in the 2100 block of Wakarusa Drive, south of the Water Treatment Plant. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (SP-04-31-05) for the development of a downtown building to a restaurant and office/retail space located at the southeast corner of 8th Street and New Hampshire Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
2. The applicant shall obtain a sidewalk dining license/agreement with the City of Lawrence for the use of the right of way per Article 6-12;
3. Revision of the site plan to include:
a. A note stating: “The City Commission reserves the authority to revoke the right to use the right-of-way if the City Commission determines the noise, trash, or other public concerns associated with the outdoor dining area warrant removal of the outdoor dining area”;
b. Notation of interior and exterior occupancy limits;
c. A listing of the variances that were granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals [B-04-09-05]; and,
4. Completion of HRC Conditions of Approval (DR-03-17-05).
Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (SP-05-34-05) for Family Video, for the renovation of the existing building to accommodate retail/office uses and the reconfiguration of the existing parking lot located at 1818 Massachusetts Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
2. Approval of a photometric plan.
3. Filing of the cross-access and off-site utility easements at the Register of Deeds Office.
4. Approval of public improvement plans for the sewer relocation, the removal of on-street parking on Massachusetts Street, and the curb reconstruction on New Hampshire Street.
5. Revision of the site plan to include the following:
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive a request from KDOT for applications for KLINK (FY 2008), Geometric Improvements (FY 2009), and Economic Development (FY 2009) Projects. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve a sign of community interest for the temporary signage for the Lawrence Art Market at the Union Pacific Depot location to be posted on the third Saturday of every month until September, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said Commissioner Schauner had expressed some interest in the Clinton Lake sedimentation issues. He said Earl Lewis, Kansas Water Office, was present to make a short presentation to the City Commission.
Lewis said they were the State’s Water Planning Policy Agency that developed the State Water Plan, but for the purpose of Clinton Lake they also ran the State’s Water Marketing and Water Insurance Plan which utilized storage in the federal reservoirs to supply municipal’s industrial water to a number of cities and industries in the eastern two thirds of the state.
Sedimentation was an issue that was obviously growing in importance within the state, and to some degree, to the federal government as well. He said they had seen a small shift in the way the state views sedimentation in the fellow reservoirs, and their role in the storage and providing water supply to the citizens of this state.
Clinton Lake construction started in 1971 and full operation began in November of 1977. The lake was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962, built as a part of the flood control system that covered not only the Kansas, but also the Missouri River.
The 1958 Water Supply Act, which was a federal act, allowed the state or local entity to encourage federal government in the Corps, to make flood control lakes large and put water supply in them if the local entity agreed to pick up the cost of construction. The State of Kansas took on that responsibility for 13 lakes across the state and Clinton Lake was included. At that time, when they were in the design phase of Clinton Lake, they estimated they needed approximately 89,000 acre feet of storage for water supply to serve the needs for the surrounding area. The state through, what was their predecessor agency the Kansas Water Resource Board, went out and received commitments from a number of local entities across the state, including the City of Lawrence, to help them pay back the state’s obligation to the federal government. The 89,000 acre feet were in the conservation pool, which was also the normal pool. The US Fish and Wildlife also asked for approximately 21,000 acre feet of storage be put into service at that location for local augmentation which was the storage that served the low flow releases that came down the Wakarusa River all the time.
Sedimentation was thought of during the design phase. They recognized that there was sediment in the stream. When they were designing the lake to serve the purpose that they and the US Fish and Wildlife had asked for, for a hundred years, they added another 28,000 acre storage on top of that storage, to be filled with sediment overtime, so that when they were at the end of the hundred year period, or in 2077, the plan was that would have the 89,000 acre feet of water supply and 21,000 acre feet of water quality storage. The sediment storage was split up, basically 2/3 conservation pool and 1/3 for the flood control pool. Essentially, they expected that 19,000 acre feet of sediment would come in to the conservation pool over the next hundred years and fill up that space. The most recent completed survey was in 1991 in which the Corp surveyed the lake and found that approximately 296 acre feet per year were lost instead of the 295 acre feet. Overall, it was a good estimation considering the amount of information they had available at that time. The problem, in this case and a number of reservoirs they had across the state, was that virtually all of that sediment was going into the conservation pool and almost none in the flood pool. Instead of losing 190 acre feet per year from the conservation pool they were losing approximately 296 acre feet. Therefore, instead of a 100 year sediment life, they were down to approximately 67 years.
He asked how that would affect the water suppliers that they served through the Water Marketing Program. The statute that allowed them to purchase storage and then sell that storage to customers was the Water Marketing Act, and that act required that they tried to provide water supply to their customers through a repeat of the 1950’s drought. Technically, it said in the statute through a repeat of a 2% drought. Since that was a statistical issue that did not have a lot of data, from a pragmatic standpoint, they set a 50’s drought in which was understood and that they had a lot of data and would be a significant drought that they would need to live through.
He said they had performed analysis with all of their contracted customers and stated that they should be able to provide water supply and not run the reservoir dry to all of their customers through a repeat of the 1952-1957 period which was their baseline standard.
The major factors that went into a straight water budget or mass balance analysis were the amount of water coming in, the water leaving through evaporation or losses, sedimentation, how much storage in the future, other downstream senior water rights they had to pass water through and then again the water quality release.
He said they were in the process of updating the yield analysis with improved data, the yellow line in their report showed what the yield should be from the reservoir at any point in time from 2000-2040. Obviously, they were not seeing any loss of inflow or any increase in evaporation which was all those things that were constant. The change that was seen was the e loss of storage due to sedimentation.
The red line in the report was the amount of contracts they currently had with users such as, City of Lawrence, Baldwin, and the six Douglas County Rural Water Districts. Right now they were in good shape through a repeat of the 50’s drought. Once they were out to 2040 and beyond, the current level of service became questionable of whether they could make it through that kind of a drought situation. He said from their standpoint, right now, it was okay, as long as they were making sure that they provided water past 2040.
Another issue that he knew the City of Lawrence had to deal with because of sedimentation was water quality, and a lot of work had gone into a biological survey this issue. He said when the sediment came into the lake from the streams at the upper end of the lake, as it slowed down and dropped out its sediment and created a lot of mud flats at the upper end. Once those mud flats form, the water was shallower, the sunlight could get to the sediment easier, which created algae blooms and a lot of other water quality concerns. Approximately 8-10 years ago there had been a situation where Lawrence had that situation happen which caused taste and odor problems with the water which also happened at Marion and Cheney Lakes. At Marion and Cheney Lakes, the water suppliers did not have treatment plants adequate to deal with this situation and actually had to truck in water for two weeks while that algae bloom passed. From that standpoint that issue was a wake up call for a number of folks, including themselves, because they did not have an algae bloom in this state of this size before.
He asked how they would handle sedimentation in the reservoirs. The first, and most effective answer today, was reducing the sediment load coming into the lake. This became a question of economy. Would the answer be to spend money to prevent sediment from coming into the lake for many years or spend that money trying to dredge those sediments out?
One of the type of administrative issues they could handle from a standpoint of making sure that their customers had water was to raise the conservation pool to offset the sediment distribution going into the conservation pool, rather than the flood pool and finally getting the sediment out of the lake.
He said there had been discussions about trying to reduce the sediment coming in and stop the sediment before it gets there. He presented an image of the watershed above Clinton Lake which covered part of four counties, not only Douglas, but Shawnee, Osage, and Wabaunsee Counties. There needed to be a lot of cooperation if there was going to be something done with Clinton Lake with the other counties and other cities that were involved in this watershed and to try and place “Best Management Practice” in the watershed, that would slow that sediment down. The Watershed Restoration Protection Strategy (WRAPS) was developed or designed to do that type of practice.
The WRAPS effort was starting to take off more and more statewide. In fact, the legislature, this last year, placed $800,000 into the Health and Environments Budget to match with $1.2 million BPA money, to try and encourage development in WRAPS efforts above the federal reservoirs across the state. The City of Lawrence was involved in that effort along with the conservation districts in the counties, NRCS, K-State Department of Health and Environment, in the educational biological survey in Lawrence. Mainly, the recommendations were to reduce the sediment and the associated pollution of the nutrients that were coming into the lake from the water which was the primary function.
The current activities were long range plans because this problem had developed over a number of decades. They were currently trying to develop a plan to identify stream bank erosion in the Deer Creek Watershed, just upstream of the lake, and then identify what some of those issues that could be addressed to slow that erosion down. Stream bank erosion was one of the key contributors to sedimentation of the lakes.
The state was also performing a study with the U.S. Geological Survey Office in Lawrence. The state and federal government had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try and identify soil conservation practices on fields and on farm grounds. Certainly, those practices were put in place to help protect against sedimentation in the streams and to protect storage in fellow reservoirs. Most of that money was spent to try and keep soil on the land to keep farm production up, and obviously that had its own benefits. As that practice was being done, it would be cleaner water off the fields, but the question was did they just get cleaner water coming off the fields which then erodes the banks, and the bed of the stream, and end up with sedimentation of the lake which came from a different source. That was one of the issues that they were trying to identify, right now, with USGS and hopefully they would have some results by the end of this year or early next year. He said this was focus had been shifting over the last few years from the state’s perspective of looking at stream bank restoration or stream bank stabilization. He said they were not necessarily saying that this was the best solution, but what was key was that this was a typical stream bank for an eastern Kansas stream where in some cases, 10-15 feet of almost straight up bank with nothing but soil that was waiting to be carried off downstream. As farming practices were being developed and in some cases, farmed right up to the bank of the stream, all of those trees that would have been used for protection, made those stream banks much more vulnerable. The question now was how much effort and what would be their return on their effort to try to stabilize those banks so that soil did not ends up in the lake, like Clinton Lake.
The second option that he previously discussed concerning raising the level of conservation pool. That idea was underway, which was a temporary administrative solution to try and make sure they could meet their contracts so it did not deal with the sediment issue in the larger sense. What this involved was each of their contracts with the Corp of Engineers required that if the Corps said that 190 needed to go into the conservation pool and 95 in the flood pool, but it was all going into the conservation pool, the Corps would need to give them some of the flood pool to make up for that error in their estimate. At some point, once it became more financially feasible and if that as the preferred option, they would try to get some of that flood control storage shifted over which would increase their yield. The way it looked now, that probably would not solve the problem, it would only be a solution for another 1-2 million gallons a day, and again, it was a short run solution that helped them make sure that they could meet their contracts, but it did not solve the problem. That was not a free solution either because the reallocation study alone ran from $750,000 to $1,000,000, mainly because of all the compliance issues that the federal government had to go through in any major change to a project that they ran. The federal government would need to add on mitigation cost on top of those other costs which was approximately $700,000.
The major change that they had seen from the state’s policy perspective was the Kansas Water Authority Lake Restoration Policy, which was approved last November. This was the first time that the state had taken on the issue of sedimentation in the lakes themselves. It had been the mantra of engineers like himself, and the Corps of Engineers, in particular, that those lives were built for a certain life span, in Clinton Lake’s situation, a hundred year life span, and they knew sedimentation was going to be happening. He said they could not just give up on Clinton Lake and move to another lake site and build another federal lake and have that lake work for another 100-150 years. All the best lake sites, the highest producing lakes were already taken. As they tried to identify other sites, the standards that needed to be used in order to try and evaluate whether a lake could be built was much different now than it was in the 50’s and 60’s. The cost and effort to even consider building a lake was monumental compared to what it was in that time frame.
He said when looking at those lakes, they needed to treat those lakes as infrastructure. Those lakes were permanent structures that they would have around for generations if they were going to serve the population and sustain and grow the economy. This idea was a major shift in the way that the state took issue on. Their challenge was going to be going to the next level and talking to the federal government to get the federal government to change their view on that as well.
The Water Authority said to start with a small lake, conduct a pilot dredging project and see what was involved. He said they had put out requests from cities that had small lakes, and received responses about 15 different lakes.
He said they had studies being conducted, one study at El Dorado Lake in Kansas, and the other study across the line which was a drain at the Verdigris Basin, both of those studies were looking at sedimentation coming into the lake, water quality issues, what was going on upstream and the watershed, as well as what could be done in the lake itself.
The El Dorado study, was one that they were partnering with, with the Core of Engineers and the City of El Dorado and looking at not only the watershed, but what was the cost of dredging a major federal lake, what were the costs of putting on project, or on Corps land wetlands to try to manage the sediment as it came in, and how affective were those issues going to be. He said they were approximately another year away from having that study completed.
He said because of the Marion and Chaney Lake issues, along with work from the biological survey, they developed a predictive model using satellite imagery that would try and help them know when those algae blooms were going to come so that the water suppliers could be thinking ahead and be able to adjust their treatment processes and have those supplies on hand to deal with that issue when that happens.
Finally, the fund that was implemented through the legislature this year was the Drinking Water Fee Fund, which cities, through public water supplies, were paying a sales tax. This was an opportunity for those cities to collect a 3 cent per thousand gallons of retail to provide that in lieu of sales tax. The majority of public water suppliers in the state were practicing that collection currently and that money was going to state general fund. Starting in a year from this July, those funds, which would amount to about $3 million per year, were going to be shifted over to the State Water Plan Fund, and earmarked 15% for technical assistance for US validities and 85% for lake protection and restoration. He said Representative Tom Sloan, had been a big champion of that idea and was one of his issues. He said they would see a major change in funding levels in about a year.
He said South Dakota maintained a small lakes dredging program that they operated through state funds which cost approximately $5,600 for per acre foot to dredge which was somewhere around $5-$6 a cubic yard which was not cheap. If talking about 296 acre feet, per year, coming into Clinton Lake alone, that was $1.6 million, per year, just to keep up with where they were at. Those were rough numbers because they had not tried the issue of dredging with federal lake and perhaps there were ways that those costs could be cut down which were some issues they were looking at. He said $1.6 million for Clinton Lake was a serious number. Clinton Lake at 296 acre feet per year was probably the 4th, 5th or 6th lowest from the top. Tuttle Creek Lake, for comparison, received about 4,000 acre feet per year of sediment in, Perry Lake was on the scale of about 1,000 acre feet per year.
In summary, Clinton Lake conservation pool was filling in about 36% faster than what was anticipated. As a whole they were only losing 11 acre feet more a year than projected, so that was not a significant difference than what they had designed for. Obviously, with the WRAPS effort they could get back to the design rate or lower. Reallocation of the federal contacts would help them meet their customer contracts and keep them whole through the year 2073, but again they had to wait further down the road. Again, their first action would be to work on the WRAPS effort and stop the sediments from coming into the lake. The City of Lawrence was a partner in the WRAPS effort and should continue that effort or increase that effort if the City could. Dredging, down the road, dealt with both the quality and quantity issues, but it was very expensive. This was the stage that they were at, but there was still a lot of work to be done and a lot of information to be found out.
Commissioner Schauner said when looking at the 2004 yield analysis, it looked like about the year 2040, the yield was overtaken by current contract allocation. He asked how that analysis squared with the reallocation that they could maintain their supply through 2073.
Lewis said the slope of the line was falling because storage was being lost. He said they were losing 95 acre feet per year that should be going into the flood pool. Essentially, the yield line would be raised higher than it was now because there would be more storage available.
Commissioner Schauner asked if taking water out of the flood pool and into the conservation pool create additional algae problems.
Lewis said he thought those issues were separate. In the short run, after reallocation, the water depth above those mud flats would be a little deeper, and to some small extent would need to deal with the algae blooms issue, because there was more depth and there would not be much sunlight getting to the sediment.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the City could do to assist their office in dealing with the sedimentation issue, in terms of stream bank protection within our city limits.
Lewis said the Cheney Lake watershed in our own state was a good example of where the City of Wichita went and worked with local stakeholders. The City of Lawrence already had a group of local stake holders set up through the WRAPS work group. In that case, since USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was already a partner as well, they targeted a lot of their money to where there was local match. If looking to the Cheney example, with the NRCS program, the federal government would go up to 80% of the costs of some “Best Management Practice.” That meant that the landowners would foot the cost on the other 20%. He said there was always the question of some landowners not wanting to get that extra 20%. In that case, the City of Wichita covered the other 20%, and the City would get 5 times the money, because the City would match $4 federal government money to $1 city money and get that practice in place. He said the Chaney example was a good model for the City of Lawrence to follow and to work with that WRAPS work group because they would be working for the City to try and identify those problems and solutions. With NRCS already on the team and the State Conservation Commission, there might be some money sitting there looking for a match where that local landowner would not want to match that 20%.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they would be using the current structure to work toward a “Best Practice Program.”
Lewis said absolutely. If there was something sitting already with a group that was actively working, it made a lot of sense than trying to start anew. He said some of the WRAPS work group had been talking with the County Commissions and other groups that had decision making role on the issue of zoning and encouraging stream banks and repairing buffers and those sorts of things. He said the legislature, at the Water Authority’s request, put in $800,000 this year that would be matched to $1.2 million of EPA money to start this type of thing in other areas of the state.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there was an impact that could be gained from the buffering such as with the Christmas trees and the stream banks and stream buffering such as a green space and how much would that help.
Lewis said it helped a lot from the situation of controlling the sediment with the nutrients coming off the fields. The studies performed by NRCS, but also the Corps of Engineers were showing that by putting in buffering strips, were the most effective “Best Management Practices” for making sure that sediment did not come off the field and get into the stream. That idea was something that they were encouraging to still spend money on as well.
Commissioner Rundle said he knew of one city that was putting in those buffering strips and they were within their boundaries. He asked if that was a function of getting County Commissions to require that idea or was that something that needed to be done with incentives of the NRCS.
Lewis said typically it was incentive based. The NRCS and the State Conservation Commission both put money toward the buffer strip. Again, it was a voluntary situation, so it depended on what the willingness of the people was to participate. He said the issue of the zoning and the County Commissions, what was in that area was suburban growth. During construction period, they saw a lot of sediment coming off of urban growth areas. Once getting into a highly densely populated area, a lot more run off could be seen coming off because there were more hard surfaces, along with a number of different types of pollutants that came in. He said from a zoning standpoint, if working with Shawnee and Osage counties, was to try and put in some smart growth type zoning, then there would not be as much of those pollutants and sediment coming in. He said they had not really seen the situation of agriculture zoning requiring the buffer strips.
Mayor Highberger said it was concern that when the yield dips below the contract level, was about the time the City’s need was going to be hitting their contract level. He said he was glad that they were starting to look at far out issues.
Also, during the City Manager’s Report, Commissioner Schauner said he had received a call from a citizen with a question about whether there would be detours made available when the Kasold Street Construction Project was undertaken and whether it would be a phased reconstruction or and all at once reconstruction. He asked what sort of detours would be made available and what sort of additional information did staff provide to neighbors. The calls he received could be described as panicked, people very concerned about 15,000-20,000 cars through their neighborhood everyday. He said whether that was a realistic concern or not, he was not sure, but he thought there would be a lot more cut through traffic. He asked for additional information from staff about how they would detour that traffic.
Wildgen said a report was planned on the 5th of July, based on some of the meetings. He said staff would be prepared to report on that issue.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be anymore public meetings on that project.
Wildgen said there were no other meetings planned. (11)
Receive fiscal feasibility study from TischlerBise.
Carson Bise, TischlerBise, presented fiscal impact feasibility study. He said TischlerBise was a firm based in Bethesda, Maryland and had an office in Pasadena, California. He said their firm had a unique specialization of looking at fiscal impact issues as well as infrastructure financing and they were the only firm in the country with that unique focus. He said they conducted over 400 fiscal impact studies, over 500 revenue strategies, and impact fee studies. They also looked at infrastructure financing, capital improvement programming, economic feasibility studies, as well as software design.
He said the Public Improvement Task Force issued a white paper back in June of last summer, and it had many different subjects that it covered, one of those subjects was infrastructure financing, looking at appropriate allocation of public costs, looking at costs to the city long term for new development, and to examine methods for funding any infrastructure deficits. Based on that, the city issued an RFP, which contained a myriad of different tasks, and they responded and were retained. He said because of all the different broad subject matters contained in the RFP and the Public Improvement Task Force white paper, they recommended a three phase approach.
The first phase was the feasibility study, and because of the different issues facing the City of Lawrence, they thought it was best to approach it from a perspective of sitting down with elected and appointed officials, city staff, other interested parties, and find out exactly what the city’s desires were in terms of looking at some costs of growth or infrastructure finance study. Based on that, they could make a recommendation in terms of refining their work program to meet the specific needs of the community.
In terms of phase 2, they were recommending a comprehensive fiscal analysis that they would conduct which included 2 different work product recommendations. The first recommendation was a cost of land use study, which essentially examined specific land use or discreet land use prototypes in terms of single family units, at different densities, or different assessed values, multi-family units at different densities or assuming owner occupancy versus renter occupancy, what types of non residential development the city was likely to receive, different scales of retail, office and industrial flex space. The second recommendation was an evaluation of city wide gross scenarios over time. The reason they recommended those 2 different work products was one, the cost of land use study was going to take more of an average cost approach. It would paint a picture of the city’s current situation, today. The fiscal analysis of gross scenarios was going to look at all those different land use prototypes over time and the important factor was that the City could allocate those to various sub areas of the city, as well as looking at different growth scenarios or the total picture. An important reason for looking at this issue as a whole was the cost to serve development in the future, based on different scenarios, intervention strategies might be needed or other incentives to encourage or implement different scenarios. The cost to serve new development in the future could be very different in constant dollars than it was today and that was one reason for a 2 phased approach.
Finally, regardless of what approaches were taken, they recommended a phase 3 which was a implementation of revenue strategies, and that looked at an evaluation in different infrastructure financing mechanisms, such as impact fees, excised taxes, special benefit districts, TIFF districts, and all of those different financing mechanisms would be evaluated from 5 or 6 different perspectives because different financing mechanisms were only appropriate for certain types of facilities and they would look at things such as revenue yield, proportionality to demand, whether it was appropriate for that type of infrastructure in terms of geographic benefits, public acceptability, and other issues.
He said a fiscal impact analysis was defined as the cost of growth or cash flow to the public sector and essentially answered the question, were the revenues created by new development enough to offset the resulting service cost and facility demands. It was going to reflect operating expenses, capital expenses, and they could model assumptions such as debt financing versus pay as you go, or applying specific revenues to certain facilities. It would include all revenues and revenues minus expenditures equaled net fiscal impact.
This was very different than an economic impact analysis. They found in many of their studies, the development community wanted to look at economic impacts on the community and they were looking at the cash flow to the public sector. An economic impact analysis was going to look at things such as, what was consumer spending, what was the income generated or produced by this kind of development, what were the construction impacts, what were the secondary impacts in terms of indirect benefits and spin offs. Again, the fiscal impact analysis was going to focus on what it would cost the City of Lawrence to do business.
By doing a fiscal impact analysis they felt there were multiple benefits. One benefit was that you were not going to be in a new growth mode forever, and by looking at a scenario analysis they were able to look at the city’s changing environment where you switch from one, assuming new growth to looking at what happened when development slowed down, what happened with infill development, how did you encourage infill development, and what was it going to cost. He said importantly, it was an integration of land use and budget considerations. When most of the communities look at projecting revenue forward, they looked at past trends and do some type of linear regression or a straight line analysis. A fiscal impact analysis was going to tie revenues and expenditures to different land use types and different land use changes and in their minds it was a little more of a sophisticated approach.
Another important benefit was it would allow different scenarios to be looked at. It was going to provide information that was going to ask you “what if” questions such as what happened if they changed densities, what happened if they looked at increased levels of service, what happened if they tried to implement certain intervention strategies to encourage different growth futures.
In terms of their feasibility analysis, based on their interviews with city staff and various elected appointed officials, he wanted to discuss some the findings. Obviously, Lawrence was continuing to grow. The City grew 22% from 1990 to 2000 and continuing to grow into this decade. There were signs of fiscal stress, such as loss of state revenue sharing, and like cities in many states, this city was not alone. Growth in sales tax revenue had been somewhat static.
Commissioner Rundle asked Bise if he meant the rate of growth for sales tax revenue had been static.
Bise said yes. One time sales and use tax was being used, in some cases, to subsidize operating needs, which was a sign of fiscal stress. The Capital Improvement Plan was not keeping up with growth related demands, and attendant with that was infrastructure replacement and rehabilitation needs were being delayed as well, operating support service impacts because the City was asked to do more with less, and at the same time the City was being forced to hire additional positions in support offices, such as your City Clerk’s Office, administrative offices such as Human Resources, all of those support services were impacted as continuing to grow in line departments such as fire, police, public works, and other departments. Like in most communities, the City was facing demands for higher levels of service. As you get new residents, many of them were coming from more urbanized areas, and they were sophisticated, and use to high levels of service, and they start to demand that higher service when they move to smaller communities.
He said based on conversations there was a desire to better understand how specific land use types impact the city, which was one reason they were recommending the cost of land use study. Some of the questions asked were: was multi family housing better than single family, and at what density; what was the fiscal difference between retail, office, and industrial flex. There was also an interest in understanding the total impact of total growth alternatives, as mentioned before, which was why they were recommending the fiscal studies for the different scenarios. He said potential scenarios were listed that could be trends, what happened under the best case if the city continues as usual, higher density, higher employment, infill, and again those levels of service changes, hypothesizing in terms of what levels of service should they provide in the future, whether it be for parks, road capacity, fire, police, and what was that going to cost for new development, but more importantly, what was it going to cost to serve everybody that was here today, and that was what the real cost is going to be.
In terms of cost of land use study they recommended different zoning districts to study and with each of those categories, assumptions would be made in terms of: what was the assessed value of each type of development, what were the persons per household from the 2000 census, what types of front footage were associated in terms of road maintenance and depending on revenue structure, they might look at income and other things, and it was going to provide a generalized understanding of where the City was today.
With the fiscal analysis of the growth scenarios, they were going to allocate that growth over at least, 4 different fiscal analysis zones, and that would allow tailoring the input into the model, because developments in one area of the city might be occurring at completely different densities than another area. It might have completely different trip generation characteristics. It might have completely different road front footage assumptions and it might have completely different income. He said there were a myriad of different factors that would be looked at in terms of really fine tuning the inputs into this analysis. When talking about developing any kind of model, garbage in equaled garbage out, so they wanted to take a very sophisticated approach with this issue.
Finally, the implementation of revenue strategies were going to look at if there were funding gaps, which he assumed there were funding gaps, because the City did not have a fiscally unconstrained budget at this point, and that was one argument that could be used with people who say that growth was paying their own way. If that was truly the case in Lawrence, there would not be a fiscally constrained budget. He asked how those gaps would be funded, what revenue sources was the city not taking advantage of, what existing sources were good candidates to be raised, what financing mechanisms should the city consider for funding a different infrastructure, whether it be impact fees, excise taxes, special benefit districts, they had no bias going into this study in terms of that.
Mayor Highberger said a 3 part approach was recommended. He asked if it was possible to do the fiscal impact study without the cost of land use study, and if so what would they be losing by not doing the cost of land use study.
Bise said if he was going to select one or the other, he would definitely go with the fiscal impact analysis. By doing the cost of land use study, it was setting the stage and painting the picture of the current situation. Depending on the scenarios that were looked at, it could be that the cost to serve development in the future could be very different than what it cost today, and that was one reason for doing the cost of land use study. He said they had done that before, where the community had been dolling out incentives left and right for industrial development, because that was where they were thinking they were getting the most bang for their buck, but because of the revenue strategy, and he used Scottsdale, Arizona as an example, Arizona’s revenue structure was heavily reliant on point of sales, sales tax, and if that was the major revenue structure, and there was no property tax and industrial flex had the lowest assessed value of any of the non residential development and generated no sales tax, he asked why the farm would be offered up to attract this development. He said that was not to say offering up the farm to get the retail either because there were more than just fiscal issues to consider when looking at land use changes, but it would give an understanding of what you were getting in terms of a return on a per unit basis, and a per thousand square foot basis for different land use types.
Mayor Highberger asked if the cost of land use study was necessary for getting to the implementation strategies.
Bise said no, it was a luxury.
Commissioner Rundle said one of the concerns was the affect of impact fees on the cost of land. He said they had one other study in 2003 which the presenter declared that there was significant evidence that suggested that impact fees do not feasibly increase the cost of housing. He asked if Bise could comment on that research.
Bise said yes, in fact there was some recent empirical data from Chris Nelson, a noted Land Use Professor formerly from Georgia Tech, now currently Virginia Tech that basically purported that same thing. There was some increase to the cost, but it was not the full increase that everybody would assume, but more importantly, that study and another study also proved that there was no appreciable difference in the amount of development received as a result of impact fees. In many cases more development would be received because there was a reason why people wanted to live and work in a particular community. Impact fees were one way to ensure that that quality of life, in terms of your infrastructure and levels of service, were provided in the future. If there wasn’t that quality of life, people were going to bypass and go to the next community.
Commissioner Rundle said another point made was that impact fees tended to lower the value of development land.
Bise said that study did not address the actual land costs it was more the construction cost.
Commissioner Amyx asked if Bise would ever recommend using this study as a tool on whether or not a particular development should or should not happen.
Bise said, the study itself, no. Basically, what was being discussed was fiscal zoning, and as mentioned earlier, fiscal issues were just one of the myriad of issues that needed to be considered with a land use proposal. The cost of land use study would give a better feel for what the impacts for that particular development proposal would be, because they were looking at discreet land use types individually. With the fiscal analysis of growth scenarios you would be able to imply some fiscal results based on the overall scenario findings. He said large geographic areas city wide were being looked at and using marginal cost differences in the fiscal study versus average cost in the cost of land use study and it was very difficult to arrive at what a particular development would cost. If you were wanting to look at that idea, they suggested a fiscal model be developed that looked at specific development scenarios or specific development proposals.
Amyx asked what would be different of requiring any development that would come forward, to have a cost benefit analysis on that particular development however big or small it was. He asked what the difference between that idea and what they were proposing.
Bise said most fiscal studies that were prepared, were on behalf of the development community, and not surprisingly, most of the development community said that development paid for itself. One of the reasons was because they used a pure average cost methodology. If there was a balanced budget, and the one variable that was not divided by population, was the assessed value and it was higher than what existed today by default, the development proposal was going to pay for itself.
Commissioner Schauner said if they were to authorize entering into a contract to do both the cost of land use analysis and fiscal analysis of growth alternatives, would they end up with more than anecdotal opinion about whether growth pays for itself. He asked, what they would end up with as a product that they could use in making public policy decisions about matters related to those two types of studies.
Bise said he was going to throw that question back and ask if Commissioner Schauner knew if growth paid for itself today. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to suggest one way or the other.
Commissioner Schauner said the question had been asked multiple times and he suspected there were five Commissioners with six different opinions.
Bise said that was his point. There was no empirical evidence today and everyone had as an opinion, but nobody really knew for sure. By doing a cost of land use study, a picture would be painted that they knew on average a single family house at this density generated “X” amount of revenue and “X” amount in cost. This amount of 1000 square feet of retail generated this versus that, so that would be documented for the first time. +
The second phase would look at where they wanted to be 5-20 years from now. What land use policy changes did they want to think about entertaining or were there any questions they would like to have answered in terms of land use policy, budgetary policy, level of service policy. Those questions would be answered under the fiscal analysis and the growth scenarios. It would provide information that they did not have today that there was going to be several tangible benefits and would generate one hundred “what if” questions. It was going to make not only the council, staff, and citizens a little more sophisticated in terms of dealing with level of service issues, physical policy issues, and it would make you ask questions from a different perspective than you were asking today.
Commissioner Schauner asked how they could keep that information about costs and impacts current. He asked if they were only going to get a snap shot from 2005 that it might have less validity, the farther they got away from that, as they moved away from those study points.
Bise said to a certain degree, yes because things changed over time. As the City was faced with budgetary shortfalls, levels of service in one area would be reduced and increased in levels of services elsewhere. Unless implementing the scenario and maintaining current levels of service, yes, 10 years from now it might be somewhat out of date, but if the city continued to do business the way it did, if implementing those scenarios or go down a certain path 10 years from now, the benefits were likely to remain the same, but the numbers would change.
Commissioner Hack said that Bise indicated that the cost of land use analysis, perhaps, could be omitted. She said the information that was submitted to the City Commission, the information stated that they would review up to 10 land use categories suggested by the client, and suggest any changes. She asked if Bise had any experience with the new urbanism concept, and would that concept be one that Bise would encourage the City Commission to look at.
Bise said yes. He said the City Commission was in no way wedded to those 10 categories that they suggested and that was a reason communities performed cost of land use studies. If there were land uses that currently were not being attracted, but the City Commission would like to encourage, they could be looked at in this study. They would need to have some national and regional data if there wasn’t an example within the community. The Commission could look at what happened under double-decker townhouses in a new urbanist community, but it could also be used in the physical analysis of gross scenarios. One of the scenarios could be compact development. Compact development had many different meanings, it could mean higher density, but it could also mean a mixture of new urbanist principals and land uses could be differentiated out land uses that were single family that were in more compact developments, versus single family that were new urbanists, and there would be a different set of assumptions, and would have different impacts. Fire was impacted completely different under new urbanist principals because of the grid street pattern and the alleys.
Commissioner Rundle said his question related to that area. He asked if Bise could site an example of another community that was able to have a positive impact on their public decision making based on the information on the cost of land use analysis.
Bise said yes, Sarasota, Florida. He said it was a very sophisticated cost of land use study. They actually looked at different subdivisions and had actual data on people generation, and helped them address land use policy. Recently, they did a gross scenario as well as a cost of land use study in Anchorage, Alaska. He said that led to a public debate about whether they should have a local option sales tax, because this was a community that relied on tourism, had no sales tax, and had huge infrastructure shortfalls. They recently did a study as well as implement a fiscal impact model in Hillsboro County, Florida and as a result of that the schools were looking at enrollment projection methodologies. He said Howard County was doing the same thing, based on their study. Also, they were looking at increasing their impact fee rates because the analysis showed the impact fees were using 10 year old cost data and not coming anywhere close to covering the cost today.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the land use policies always related to fees.
Bise said not necessarily. For instance, using the industrial land use category, if that was what they thought the white elephant was and the cost of land use study showed the complete opposite that might need to be thought over with having a balance of land uses. He said every community was going to have contributors and recipients and development could not be approved based on whether or not it paid for itself. What would need to happen was to try and attract the optimum mix of land uses, and that was what the cost of land use study was geared toward.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Mary Nall asked Bise if previous land use studies that had been performed examined any form of elemental materials construction or earth built construction, and if not, if that was something that data could be gathered and looked at.
Bise said they had never looked at an earth or elemental structure, but that idea could conceivably be look at.
Melinda Henderson, Public Improvements Task Force, said she wanted to encourage the City Commission to consider the entire package because she was happy to see how this idea was broken out into the where the City was now and what the City could do in the future which was critical information. She said she would hate to see the City Commission pinch a few pennies and not have the overall benefits of doing the entire study because the two studies complimented each other. She said she would like to see the City Commission fund the entire proposal.
Commissioner Rundle said he wholeheartedly concurred with that last suggestion that the City Commission approve the entire package. The more information they had, they could make good policy decisions. The earlier comment about garbage in, garbage out seemed to lower the quality of decision making. He said he hoped the majority of the Commission could support doing the whole study.
Commissioner Schauner said no matter what study was performed or who did the study, he suspected the results would be subject to a lot of scrutiny by a variety of stakeholders. He suggested having as much information from as many different perspectives as was reasonable, so they could get a report that withstands the scrutiny, withstands the criticism which provided an honest basis for the City Commission to make public policy decisions. He said the cost of $38,400 dollars for the cost of land use analysis would not even do one sewer repair. In the grand scheme of infrastructure expenses, for example, it was not very much money and he thought it was worth the expense. Ultimately, he thought the devil was in the details no matter what report they received. Based on whatever studies they authorized, the real difficulty would be how would they as a Commission make and continue to make decisions based on that information, rather than decisions based on anecdote. He said they could have as much good information as could be provided, but they needed to follow through and make decisions based on that. He would like for the City Commission to have as much information as they could get and would like to the whole package approved.
Commissioner Hack agreed. She said as a result of this issue, they might embark on areas where they had not treaded before as a community. It was important, should the Commission decide to go down that road that they had all the information that was needed to make an excellent decision for the future of the community to whom they were responsible. She said she did not want to leave out a chunk of information and the educational component that went along with that idea would be enormous for the rest of the community which would be helpful. She supported the entire package.
Amyx said he had no doubt that Bise’s firm did an excellent job performing feasibility studies. He said one concern was that this information was going to have to be brought up to date many times, and this was going to be a small cost in the whole scheme of things. The price of the study was probably in line with the studies done across the United States. He said he was quoted recently that one concern he had was impact fees, but he still had a concern about whether or not they should be placing impact fees and further costs onto homeowners. He said he did not think the money needed to be spent at this time.
Mayor Highberger said he had concerns about the cost and the total package, but he agreed that the Commission should move forward with the total package. He said there had been some concern that the City Commission had already made up their minds about what was going to happen. He said if the Commission had already made up its mind, then they would not bother to spend that money. He said the Commission could adopt Lenexa’s excise taxes or Overland Park’s impact fees, but he though they were moving in that direction and it was something that needed to be done. He said the study would tell them, if they were going to do the study, then they needed to do the study fairly and reasonably. He said he was relatively confident that the study would suggest that they needed to raise additional revenues, and he would rather have those revenues generated from new growth rather than placing it on the backs of all existing property owners in this town. He supported moving forward with the whole package.
Commissioner Rundle said it was common to everyone who waited on this issue which was the concern for fairness. The only way to make this fair was to be informed, and the only way to be informed was to do perform this study. He also pointed out that the Commission just approved an engineering contract for design and plan documents, construction documents, for a left turn lane for $20,000. He said he thought they were getting a bargain relative to the amount of research that this would entail.
Mayor Highberger said as the contract content, he would support including a mixed use land use category in the cost of land use study.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to receive the fiscal feasibility study from TischlerBise and directed staff to negotiate a contract, with appropriate elements, for presentation to the Commission. Aye: Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Amyx. Motion carried 4-1. (12)
Conduct public hearing on Historic Resources Commission on recommendation on placing the structure located at 1927 Learnard Avenue, the Zinn-Burroughs House (L-04-01-2004), on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
Lynn Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, said the Historic Resources Commission, passed a resolution on June, 16th, recommending landmark nomination of the Zinn-Burroughs’ house at 1927 Learnard Avenue to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. They felt that the information in the staff report and in the environs description clearly identified all the things that the City Commission needed to consider to hold this public hearing and to make a final determination on the landmark status of this structure.
James Grauerholz, applicant, supported the nomination and his application was also supported by a lot of people in Lawrence. He said he went to K.U. in 1969, and then he went around the world to some big cities and then came back to Lawrence. In between, he met Burroughs and spent the last 23 years of his life near him as a friend and secretary. He said Burroughs stayed in Lawrence the last 16 years of his life. He said he was not saying that Burroughs was the most exemplary role model of a person, but he also hoped that nobody would want to say that about Charles Dickens, or Norman Mailer, or a lot of other artists.
He said he did support the nomination and it was not intended to be more conspicuous than appropriate. He said Langston Hughes was the most famous person worldwide associated with Lawrence, but the person whose worldwide fame has brought the existence of Lawrence to the attention of people in the world was William Burroughs. He said the next in line is William Quantrill, John Brown, and then finally Langston Hughes.
The idea was to do something for Lawrence, because Lawrence was his home and he intended to live the rest of my life in Lawrence and he cared about the future of Lawrence now and beyond that time and this nomination would be positive for this city.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Melinda Henderson, resident of Barker neighborhood, thanked Grauerholz for his work in making this nomination happen. She encouraged the City Commission to approve the nomination.
Carl Gridley, representing the Lawrence Preservation Alliance Board, said the Board enthusiastically supported this designation. .
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the recommendation to designate the structure located at 1927 Learnard Avenue, the Zinn-Burroughs House (L-04-01-2004), on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Receive staff report concerning public civility ordinances.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the City Commission had before them a staff memorandum and three draft ordinances for review and discussion and the ordinances were not on this agenda for adoption for first reading because staff was awaiting City Commission direction on proceeding.
He said it was important to keep in mind that staff tried to craft those ordinances in response to community concerns regarding public safety and general welfare, but also, staff tried to balance the protections of civil liberties that were guaranteed by the Constitution. He said Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, had done extensive research on court decisions around the Country reviewing similar legislation and whether or not it had withstood Constitutional muster. There were not a lot of Kansas court decisions on those issues. It was important to note that the law had changed over the years, if not over the decades. The Commission might have been familiar with past discussions about laws that would prohibit, for example, loitering in public. Courts were very clear that a law could not be adopted that prohibited that type of conduct. It was important to note that laws could not be adopted on the basis of a person’s status, but they needed to focus on behavior and conduct. It was that background that had brought those ordinances to the Commission at this time.
Scott Miller, Staff attorney, said there were three ordinances he wanted to discuss. The first ordinance involved aggressive panhandling, one that controlled the use of the city’s right-of- way. The second ordinance involved a ban on public camping and private camping without the permission of the landowners involved. The third ordinance was the penalty section involved in each of those and why they did not set absolute penalties for the offenses, but rather relied on the city’s general provisions regarding penalties for public offenses.
The first ordinance was one that banned aggressive panhandling. This ordinance was aimed at threatening or coercive practices that might take place in solicitations for donations of money. Panhandling, under the ordinance’s definition, was a request for solicitation for money that was verbal in nature which included a request for solicitation to buy something where a reasonable person would understand the request to be for a donation, for example, buying a pencil for $5. It did not specifically include performances by street performers, street musicians, and did not include any requests that were made solely in writing by the form of a sign. If someone was sitting or standing in a place where they were allowed to be and they had a sign that asked for a donation, none of the ordinance covered that idea because that was not construed to be something that was inherently coercive or threatening.
The ordinance had two different sets of prohibitions for aggressive pan handling. One was for things by their very nature that had been determined to be threatening, for example, touching the person who was solicited, following them after they had refused a solicitation, and doing something else with a general catch all provision that a reasonable person would understand to be threatening, would understand to be coercive when it comes time to ask for a donation of some sort. There was also a prohibition against intentionally blocking the entrance to any vehicle or building, for example, if a person was trying to enter their home or business at some place, or vehicle, and someone was soliciting at that person at that point and would not move to let that person into their vehicle or your home, that would be a violation of the ordinance. The list of prohibitions was found on page 2 of the ordinance.
The other set of prohibitions in the ordinance were the unlawful acts that ban panhandling, as opposed to just the aggressive pan handling. Those were things that involved areas where there was a special sensitivity to panhandling, such as automatic teller machines, in a vehicle at the time of being panhandled, at a city bus stop at the time of the time being panhandled, in a bus or other form of public transportation where it was difficult to get up and leave during the time a person was being solicited. That was the general nature of that particular ordinance.
The second ordinance was an amendment to the City’s current legislation involving use of the City’s right-of-way which was found in section 16-803 of the City’s code and 16-804 listed exceptions to the provisions of 16-803. He said at this time, it was illegal to place any table or rack or other devices for the storage or display of merchandise on the City’s right-of-way including sidewalks or streets, to leave tools, boxes, implements, merchandise, or goods on the sidewalks longer than was necessary on the City’s streets, and to appropriate any public right-of-way including streets and sidewalks.
He said regarding this ordinance, what they were proposing was that it would be made illegal to intentionally obstruct the City’s sidewalks, streets, and right-of-way. The other prohibition was if continuing to obstruct the City’s sidewalks, streets, and right-of-way, under the definition, when told by a police officer to end such obstruction. If there was a situation where a person was not aware that they were obstructing the city sidewalks, under the ordinance’s definition of obstruction, a police officer came and made that person aware of the fact, that they were obstructing the city sidewalks, streets, or city’s right-of-way, and that person refused to do something about that, at that point that person was in violation of the ordinance.
The definition of obstruction, under the ordinance, was to walk, stand, sit, lie, place an object in a manner so as to require another person or driver to take evasive action to avoid physical contact or to block the entrance of any private or public building, or establishment from any public street or sidewalk.
In order to support the legality of the ordinance’s prohibition, the exceptions were as authorized to exercise one’s constitutional right to picket, or legally protest, but only to the extent that the rights would be impermissively restricted by the operation of the ordinance. In other words, if the First Amendment authorized a person to do something, this ordinance did not try to take that away. Secondly, utilizing a wheelchair, walker, or similar devices to move about the sidewalk, street, or right-of-way as a result of a disability, did not count. Sitting or lying on a street, sidewalk, or right-of-way due to medical emergency, patronizing or operating a commercial establishment lawfully conducted on the sidewalk pursuant to the code, attending a parade, festival, or performance, rally, demonstration, or other similar event lawfully conducted on a sidewalk, street, or right-of-way, and sitting on a chair or bench located on a public sidewalk that was provided either by the City or adjoining property owner would not be a violation. Also, if there was a permit for an activity, that activity would not be a violation either.
The third ordinance was a ban on camping. The definition of camping was a little complex in this case, because it was based upon a federal regulation that had passed Supreme Court scrutiny. Basically, what the camping ordinance provided was that it was illegal to camp in any public recreation area, public parks, or on any City owned property. The definition of camping talked about specified activities, and the definition was that if someone conducted one or more of those specified activities in a way that it reasonably appeared that a person was were using an area for living quarters, that would constitute camping under the ordinance. The specified activities were sleeping or making preparations to sleep, making a fire for the purposes of cooking or for warmth, storage of personal property, and also erecting a tent, lean-to or other similar temporary structure. If any of those things were done where it reasonably appeared, in light of all the circumstances, that the participants in conducting the specified activities or using the area as a living accommodation regardless of their intent, then, according to the ordinance, that person would be camping which was a violation of the ordinance.
The reason staff did not choose to specify any particular penalties was because under the City’s general penalty section, which was found in Chapter One of the City Code, anytime there was an unlawful act where a penalty was not provided, the penalty was a fine between $1-$1000, or a penalty in jail, incarceration of 0 days-180 days. That was effectively equivalent to class B misdemeanor under state law. This allowed the penalty to fit the offense in terms of the municipal judge’s discretion concerning the appropriate penalty. If it was a first offender obviously, the penalty would be lower than if it was someone who continued to offend. If a judge felt that based upon the circumstances, there was no need for a fine in excess of $1, that could be done. It was a penalty provision that allowed the judge to craft a penalty for individual circumstances in light of the circumstances, and in light of what the judge heard when the case was tried, and based on the behaviors, that could be fairly important.
Commissioner Rundle asked Miller to explain the language under the public right-of-way ordinance that related to patronizing or operating a commercialized establishment lawfully conducted on the sidewalk. He asked if that language meant persons conducting a sidewalk sale, or operating a hot dog stand.
Miller said correct. He said it was conducting actual business, for example, if the City gave someone a permit to conduct restaurant operations on the sidewalk. If there was a hotdog stand on the sidewalk and a person was standing in line waiting for service, in that circumstance, then there would be an exception because that was an activity that the City sanctioned in some way or some form.
Commissioner Rundle asked how a person was protected if they were eating ice cream on the sidewalk that they had purchased in an establishment.
Miller said this ordinance just applied to obstructing the sidewalk and not being on the sidewalk. He said a person could be on the sidewalk without obstructing the sidewalk and a person could be on the street without obstructing the street. He said if a person was standing off to the side eating an ice cream cone or in a place where traffic was not being obstructing, then it was his belief that under the definitions of this ordinance, the ordinance would not apply to that behavior. It was only if a person made a conscious decision, under one part of the ordinance, that that person wanted to block the sidewalk and try to interfere with other peoples’ passage on the sidewalk that that person would be in violation or if a person was obstructing traffic and an officer asked that person to move to the side of the sidewalk or some other place so that traffic could flow, that would be a violation, but just sitting on the sidewalk or standing by the sidewalk eating an ice cream cone would not be a violation.
Commissioner Rundle asked if having to walk around someone while there was still room on the sidewalk constituted having to evade someone.
Miller said that did not constitute having to evade unless that person was obstructing traffic intentionally or unless a police officer detected a problem and asked a person move. He said police officers did not have unfettered discretion as to what obstructing the sidewalk meant because there was a definition for obstruction.
Mayor Highberger asked Miller to discuss how the proposed camping ordinance was different than the existing law under trespass.
Miller said under trespassing right now, in order for a person to have any sort of criminal liability, a person would need to be banned from the property. Essentially, someone who was either the owner, or had authority from the owner, had to approach that person and tell that person that they were not allowed to be on the property. In certain circumstances, if that person was camping, probably the natural reaction, especially on private property, would be to move to the next neighbor. He said what this would do was to set up a prohibition that existed without the need for individual landowners or their representatives to give any type of notice to an individual such as a person under a blanket who was given notice that that behavior was wrong within the city and would be punished.
Mayor Highberger asked Miller to discuss, with respect to trespassing, camping on City property.
Miller said at the present time, the City had the authority, like any other property owner, to ask someone who was conducting activities on the City’s property to leave, provided it was not something that was constitutionally protected. The difference would be exactly what he described in which the City would not need to send someone out to tell a person that he/she could not be on City property. That circumstance and the notice would happen to everyone at the beginning of a process.
Commissioner Schauner said, concerning the first proposed ordinance, one of the things he read that caused him some concern was that the ordinance had a certain level of vagueness, this idea of what was aggressive and what wasn’t. He asked Miller to discuss this concern from an enforcement perspective, what Miller’s research had shown concerning a vagueness defense in terms of how someone might defend against that ordinance.
Miller said there were two primary arguments made against this type of ordinance and were First Amendment grounds and the vagueness argument that Commissioner Schauner had made. He said in some places, like Seattle for instance, an ordinance very similar to this ordinance, had been tested on vagueness grounds, and certain portions of it were obviously less vague than others, for example, the vagueness challenge was made in the Seattle case against what was found in A2 Subsections B and C, which was intentionally blocking the path of travel for person being solicited or intentionally blocking the entrance to any vehicle or building. Those two provisions, for example, were found to be saved from a vagueness argument based upon the specific intent elements that were involved, and if looking at each of the offenses that were being discussed, all of those offenses had some intentional element, for example, touching somebody when soliciting and there was no consent that was not vague at all. The specific intent, at least in that case, subsection B and C, continuing to solicit a request for donation from person after that person had refused an earlier request, he said their might be a little more of an argument in that circumstance, because they did not define what the word “continuing” meant. He said the Supreme Courts, both of Kansas and the United States, had fairly, consistently held that as long as people of average intelligence could determine what was prohibited by the conduct, in that circumstance, the enactment would pass the test for vagueness, the making any statement, gesture, or any other communication that would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened, fearful, or compelled. The law was full of situations where a reasonable person standard existed. The law was full of situations where you might not be able to define the exact outer limits of conduct, but that did not make it unconstitutionally vague because the law presumed that using a reasonable person standard took out the arbitrary or capricious enforcement aspects that was the second element of the vagueness test.
Commissioner Amyx said under the definition portion, “panhandling”, where it indicated that it was a request or solicitation to purchase an item for an amount far exceeding its value. He asked the difference between that idea, and scalping ball game tickets.
Miller said he guessed there could be an argument about the value, because in that circumstance the issue would be whether or not that would constitute a donation or was a person getting something of value, but if it did cover the scalping of game tickets and that sort of behavior was going to be banned and the request for solicitations was for someone who needed money for some reason, it probably made sense to ban the same type of aggressive behavior when it came to scalping ballgame tickets.
Herman Leon said the recommendations before the City Commission were obviously crafted because of a great deal of pain and discomfort in this community as a whole about conditions that were distressing to visitors, residents, and to the people that were being discussed. He said this after listening to all the weighty issues concerning the future of the water supply of Lawrence, this issue might seem like a minor regulation, but he suggested that this issue was a sign of an inappropriate response to the growing pains of the City of Lawrence because the City was moving into the big leagues. He said he did not know about the term “panhandling”, because where he came from they called it “begging.” It seemed that this issue continued a trend to attempt to transform what could be human ways of dealing with the situation into legal ways.
He said if thinking about the enforcement of those regulations and the police that would be called to enforce those regulations the regulations could be removed or cancelled if the City changed its policy with regard to foot patrols downtown. He said that sounded like a strange suggestion to make, but in many cities that had gone through the growing pains, it had been found that if there were police on the beat, and police who knew all the stakeholders such as merchants, tourists, residents, beggars, homeless people, and trouble makers, that police who had a regular patrol up and down Massachusetts Street from 6th street down through 11th and through the parks perhaps, not as a hostile occupying force, but as representatives of this community attempting to annihilate the inevitable conflicts that occurred as this City grew. He said people who might be arrested under this law, and there was a general consensus in the community where this type of behavior was occurring, that this had gotten a little too out of hand. He said those who read the newspapers know that there were a lot of things going on that were illegal in which no one was enforcing.
He said a lot of people were very distressed about the direction of this legislation, and it might be worthwhile, before addressing this issue, to consult with the police department. He said they had spoken to many police officers in emergency situations and they needed to be involved in continuing education to help those police officers cope with the craziness that existed on the streets and cope with it in a way that prevented emergencies from happening. The problem with this section was that the police would get called when the emergency had already happened. He said if the Commission consulted with a number of police officers who worked with those difficult situations, those officers might appreciate that consultation.
Maria Martin, Director of Downtown Lawrence, said Saturday’s newspaper stated that the Lawrence City Commission would consider three ordinances that dealt with homeless issues. The ordinances before the City Commission, did not deal with homeless issues, nor did they criminalize a specific group of people based on their income or housing status. In the near future, the City Commission and the community would receive the City’s Task Force on Homeless Services final report and recommendations. Within the document the Task Force stated, “The community must avoid relating the problem with homelessness with problems of street crime and inappropriate behavior.” The document went on to say “the Lawrence community must firmly and consistently address behaviors that it finds unacceptable regardless of who is involved.” Those ordinances addressed many of the problems in this community, and when enforced would prohibit certain conduct which was harmful to community residents and visitors. Those ordinances were necessary. Enforcement, however, of those ordinances, could and would be difficult when applied to individual’s who had no income or resources, but the ordinances must be enforced, so that the behavior was either greatly reduced or even eliminated. What this would take was still probably something needing discussion.
If the violation of any of the above ordinances was a repeated result of someone who was found to be a homeless individual, then an appropriate treatment approach model to the ending of chronic homelessness would result in individuals living off the street, and with employment and a way to earn an income. This approach, this kind of model, with strings attached, could be the assistance that the enforcement of those ordinances would need in the end. She said she hoped that the City did move forward with adoption of the ordinances, but also when faced with the program or model that would help end homelessness in this community, that the City Commission took into account that that would also help in eliminating some of the problems if there were results for individuals who were without shelter and without income.
Kalila Dalton said her first concern was selective enforcement of the laws. It might not have been the intent of the drafters of the laws to specifically target homeless people, but given the way that she had personally seen Lawrence police officers treat homeless people and target them, that was the case. She said she walked down Massachusetts Street everyday, and she had never been aggressively panhandled. She said she was an advocate at the Women’s Transition Care Services and she knew that the City’s resources for people trying to find housing were sometimes inadequate. She said her concern was if those resources were currently inadequate and people were resorting to things that they did not really want to do, such as camping out, rather than having a stable home, those laws were just going to send more people to jail and not actually fix any of the problems. If there were more beds in homeless shelters and if there were more types of aide that people could use to get back on their feet, that seemed like a more reasonable approach than adopting laws that would be sending people to jail over and over again for no particular reason. .
Marta Buechler asked if a person was selling something on the sidewalk, did the City need to sanction that sale. She also asked if she was giving something away at a table set up on the sidewalk, on at a street corner, would that also be a problem. She also had concerns about the statement of “reasonable intelligence.” She said the homeless was the population that was most affected by those ordinances. Often, people who were without homes were people who did not have the mental capacity to maintain the resources which were required to hold a home in Lawrence.
Mayor Highberger said staff would respond to those questions after public comment.
Jim Connelly, Downtown business owner, said he had been involved in this issue since they felt that there was a tremendous problem with panhandling with the Task Force for the Downtown Lawrence Association. It seemed during early part of the Task Force that the Police Department did not have sufficient strength to move people off the sidewalk. He said he felt that this was an issue regarding the safety of business people and customers who had been approached in an aggressive manner. This issue seemed no different than what the City had regarding skateboards or bicycles on the sidewalks because the ordinances were to ensure that they had safety conditions for people to go about their business or to shop, and that was why he supported the three ordinances.
Mayor Highberger asked Connelly if he had read the definition of aggressive panhandling.
Connelly said yes.
Mayor Highberger asked Connelly if he had seen or had customers who told him about panhandling that would fit that definition.
Connelly said yes. He said there had been instances where customers, particularly elderly women, had felt uncomfortable being approached, and in some way targeted. He said one particular customer would not come downtown without her husband.
Peter Zacharias, Downtown business and property owner, said he commended staff on the ordinances that were drafted. He said they had lobbied for a couple of years for better ordinances that the police could actually respond to, which had been kind of lacking up until this point, and hopefully those ordinances would pass. He said he was especially happy with the exemptions made for street musicians and performers, and people like that who really give color and flavor to downtown, because they did not want that type of function discouraged, but encouraged and he was happy with the provisions and exemptions made for those groups.
There had been lots of problems downtown over the last couple of years. He had actually seen, on two occasions, panhandlers attack people, beat them, when those people either did not give them enough money or did not respond in the way that was appropriate to the panhandler. He had seen panhandling nearly on a daily basis, granted he was downtown nearly 6 or 7 days a week, but it was a constant and ongoing problem. He said he had numerous customers complaining about feeling intimidated, feeling threatened when coming downtown and feeling like they had to run the gauntlet to come into his store and something needed to be done to address this problem.
He had a question of whether or not those ordinances would help them with the fires downtown. There was a fire set last January, where a homeless person set a fire to keep warm at the back a downtown store which caused over $38,000 in damage, and almost put that family out of business. He said the District Attorney was unable to respond because it wasn’t arson, because there was no criminal intent, so the person was let off scot-free without any repercussions whatsoever, and he wanted to know if those ordinances would help that situation.
He said beginning last October, he came to work one morning and found food slopped down by his back doors and windows. A few days later, there were human feces on the stairways and the entryways to his building. A few days later, a fire was set at his basement door used for keeping warm and camping and luckily his door did not catch fire and the building did not burn down. About a week later, he did find the homeless people camping on the roof of his building and he asked them to leave at 11:30 at night, but he did not have any defense. He said he asked them to leave the property and they stood right outside the property and waited for him to leave so they could go back to camping. He said he finally did call the police and when those three individuals saw that this issue was going to get some response, they did leave, but it would have been nice not to have been alone at 11:30 at night confronting those individuals and realizing there was absolutely nothing that could be done to them if they wanted to persist in this behavior. He said he would like to see how those ordinances would address those concerns.
Hilda Enoch, member of the Coalition on Homeless Concerns, said she had no problem with aggressive, threatening, or coercive behavior being outlawed. She said she frankly had not been a recipient of that type of behavior downtown, so she could not speak to it as being something essential to do, but others could. She said with regard to obstructing the sidewalk, she thought it was nebulous in that the City was permitting sidewalk cafés which some might consider obstructing, and others might consider adding to the milieu of our downtown, but there were many people in this community, unfortunately, who could not sit at a sidewalk café because they did not have the money to do that. She said she would like to feel somehow that those people were also welcome and a part of this community, and maybe the answer was just having a few more places where people could have an extra bench, or a place that they could sit and enjoy people passing by without having to pay for it, because they did not have any money.
She said she agreed with Zacharias that starting a fire downtown to keep warm or cook was not the appropriate place, but she remembered vividly the cold winter that several of the people that were camping down by the river, many whom were Native Americans and young people that had been in our service that were veterans. She said their problem, if it was a problem, was they just wanted to be left alone. They were homeless and did not want to be indoors. She said the homeless started fires to cook by the river. She said she would like to feel that that was the one place that was designated a camping area for people who had a need to just be there.
She said she remembered one weekend when Senator John Edwards was in town campaigning, and suddenly that whole camping area was suddenly razed. It was a sad event because it came entirely when they had been camping there for quite a while. At that time, the coalition decided to form a committee to come before the City and plead to let the homeless have one place where they could not be unbothered, because that was the type of individuals they were. Even with the shelter, some of the homeless preferred not to be there and others had very serious drinking problems along with drug addiction as well, and a lot of problems might be related to the war. She said some of the homeless just needed serious treatment, but in the meantime they were not permitted in shelters, and they needed to have someplace to be. She said some of the homeless were Native American veterans that served in our military who were being completely neglected and were in great need to be treated with dignity.
She said she knew that the City did not want their beautiful park area burned, but it would be in the good of the City if they considered addressing the need for some type of camping facilities including a toilet area and other services along with patrolling that was necessary to keep that area safe for the people that were at that location and help the homeless with compassion, to be a part of our community, because they were.
Mark Cline said the people who were causing most of the problems were people who would not change their behavior because they went through the legal system. He said the society was not going to benefit by making the homeless shelter the Douglas County Jail instead of something else. The legal sledgehammer was absolutely nonsensical and what they needed to do was have the person causing the problem be helped by a social worker who was intelligent and knew what he/she was doing. He said these people did not need to be sent through the legal system because it would be the taxpayer paying for those lawyers.
He said the relationship between the homeless people and the Lawrence Police Department was good and that was something that was critical and should be preserved. The deeper issue was preserving a good relationship between the police and the homeless people so that no loss of life or limb would occur.
Loring Henderson, Director of Lawrence Community Shelter, member of the City’s Taskforce on Homeless Services and member of the Coalition for Homeless Concerns, thanked City staff for doing the research because this had been an issue that had been discussed in the Homeless Task Force and other places in the City for some time, so it was good to have some draft ordinances to discuss and work from. As he had gotten involved with this issue over the last year, as a Director of the Lawrence Community Shelter and a Task Force member, he said he had felt the proposed ordinances were an area of cooperation. He said no one wanted to have a downtown where aggressive behavior was condoned. He wanted to reach out to the business community, neighbors, and to whoever was affected and was concerned that the City had ordinances that could be discussed and work together on. The idea of having downtown foot patrols also might help.
He said they were at the beginning of a wide community discussion on homeless services and on the issue of homelessness in Lawrence as the Task Force was ready to produce its plans and recommendations. He said he saw the ordinances as an overall approach. He said if someone violated one of those ordinances as a result of behavioral problems, as a community, they needed to have resources to help the person after the violation and that was what the Task Force plan would hopefully address. The Lawrence Community Shelter was working on the overall problem with individuals who were experiencing homelessness.
He said they had said that the ordinances were for all citizens, and he trusted that those ordinances had been written intelligently and with an eye to constitutionality. Some college students, or other people, might panhandle, but by and large it was not those types of people. There were frequent instances of people other than the homeless people, who did occupy the sidewalk, but by and large those ordinances came from concerns in the community about people experiencing homelessness. He said he was offering his willingness to cooperate, to express appreciation to the City staff for drafting those ordinances, and to ask a couple of questions that might or might not be able to be answered at this time.
One of the small entrepreneurial projects that the Lawrence Community Shelter had started was to develop work habits and work projects for people who were at the shelter. One of those projects was a vending project for a homeless newspaper called “Change of Heart”. This was actually a newspaper that had been put out by homeless people in Lawrence for a number of years, but that paper had always been free. The Shelter thought that they would change that practice and ask for a donation and there was also a contract that each vendor would sign. He said he had reviewed this issue with City staff and the idea was that people would walk up and down Massachusetts, or other places where there were a number of people, and the paper would have printed on the front “Donation $1”. He said he had a question whether their project idea would be changed by this panhandling ordinance, and that was a question that might not be answered right away.
Henderson said there were several existing camps and from time to time, problems when camps were cleared out. Right now there were camps, but it seemed to be a fairly quiet period that those camps were in existence and those camps had been there since the early part of the summer. He said his question was if it was possible that the City would issue a permit for camping to homeless people. He said this was an issue that had not been talked about with the Task Force and he was only bringing up the idea as an individual. He said if camps were strictly not allowed, there would not be enough shelter space and there needed to be a resolution of emergency housing.
Mayor Highberger asked Miller to respond to the 5 or 6 questions that were raised during the presentation.
Miller said the first question was whether it would be legal to place a table on the sidewalk to give something away as opposed to selling something under the ordinance. The ordinance, for unlawful use of the City’s right-of-way, did not make any distinction between selling something, giving something away, or whatever purpose that a person would be using the sidewalk. If a person was blocking the sidewalk intentionally with a table and someone had to squeeze around that table to get by, that would be a violation of the ordinance. If the table was just on the sidewalk at some point, the definition of the ordinance would need to be relied upon and what constituted obstructing traffic in the ordinance, to determine whether or not a violation had occurred. Obviously if setting something up in that sort of circumstance, the simplest and easiest thing to do would be to obtain a permit and then follow within the ordinance’s restrictions, but he was not certain that the City wanted to engage in giving tables that were on the sidewalks permits. If the City did not, then the appropriate thing to do would be to just be certain that the flow of traffic was not obstructed, and if for some reason obstruction was bought up by police officer then try to make some sort of arrangement to not obstruct traffic.
The other question was the reasonable intelligence standard. That was a standard that was not made up, it was not something that he adopted when he was determining how he was going to write the ordinances in question. It was a standard found in the law, and the question was about whether or not those ordinances were vague and that was just the standard that was adopted in the law. Generally the ordinances, perhaps with exception to the camping ordinance because they relied on a federal regulation, were all fairly straightforward in the words that were used and what the prohibitions were.
He said Zacharias had some questions regarding fires under the unlawful camping ordinance. Fires were called “specified activities” under that ordinance and if, for some reason, a “specified activity” occurred and based upon that activity, it reasonably appeared that someone was using the back of a shop or other private property for living accommodations then there would be a violation. That was something that would need to be judged on course of conduct and on a case by case basis. This ordinance should not be read as an entire outdoor burning ban, because the ordinance was not suggesting that.
He said regarding Zacharias’ concern about camping on private property, certainly this ordinance would apply to the circumstances described which were individuals continuing to come back night after night using the roof of his private property as some sort of living arrangement, the ordinance would apply and that was what the ordinance was aimed at.
There were also questions about walking up and down the streets selling a newspaper. If remembering the definition he referred to about what panhandling consisted of to begin with, unless making verbal solicitations, for example if a person was just walking up and down the street with something that said “Newspaper $1” and someone gave a donation of $1 and in turn that person received a newspaper, that would not fall under the prohibition of the ordinance because it did not fall within the definition of panhandling. If doing something verbally, then you needed to make sure that you were not doing any of the other things verbally that made it aggressive panhandling, because it would constitute panhandling. He said that was a training issue for the people who would be distributing the newspapers.
As far as the permit for camping, and the legality, the ordinance provided for the ability of the City Manager, or his or her designee, to grant a permit for camping. Whether or not the policy of the City would be to grant that sort of permit, obviously, was up to the direction of the City Commission and the discretion of the City Manager. That idea was something that was possible, but as far as whether camping would be definitively allowed it was something that he could not answer.
Mayor Highberger said concerning the newspaper question, it seemed that $1 was not an unreasonable amount for a newspaper. He said the way that was read was that would not fall under the definition of panhandling.
Miller said yes, it could be just a commercial transaction in that circumstance. He said he guessed it would depend whether or not that money was consider to be a donation or not. If it was a commercial transaction then it would not be covered. If it was a donation it would, but even if it did, as long as there was no aggressive, threatening, or coercive behaviors, then it should not run afoul of the prohibition.
Commissioner Rundle asked if two of those ordinances were admitted into section 14, and the other was in section 16.
Miller said correct.
Commission Rundle said it seemed that some of those sections did specify fine caps and fines for certain behaviors. He said some of those behaviors seemed to be a little more serious or egregious than some of those other behaviors in which they were allowing a ceiling of $1,000. He asked if that was consistent.
Miller said the reason for this discussion was for staff to receive direction from the City Commission in the drafting of those ordinances. He said certainly one of the things that could be considered would be the appropriate penalty range for violations of the ordinance. There was nothing locked in stone about that dollar amount, and if there was a consensus about some different dollar amount that would be appropriate, it would be no trouble at all to adopt that amount.
David Corliss said if the City Commission wanted to set a maximum fine that was lower than what the general schedule was, that would be entirely appropriate.
Commissioner Rundle said it looked like in section 14, depending where this was placed, it might already be governed either by the general cap in the section which was $500. Some of the specific sections were as little at capping as $100. He suggested receiving more information about those concerns.
Vice Mayor Amyx said under fines, it gave the flexibility to the judge to make the determination on what that fine would be with a maximum of up to $1000.
Miller said correct, and that was the general prohibition in Chapter 1 which was a “catch all” provision for offenses that did not designate a penalty provision. Something that was important to consider in the homelessness context was that this City had a Community Service Program, where if a homeless person would be fined, they might have the potential to perform community service in lieu of trying to pay a fine, which in that circumstance would probably seem more just.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if there was an individual who had multiple offenses, he assumed the judge would take into consideration the times he/she would come before him.
Miller said that was generally how that worked. .
Commissioner Schauner said he had a continuing concern because of the fire downtown. He asked if it was Miller’s interpretation of the camping ordinance that it would require multiple attempts to take residence or to spend extended periods of time on a roof before this ordinance would came into play, or would it just be a reasonable intention drawn from their activity.
Miller said the standard is the totality of the circumstances and he assumed that could be established by single course of conduct, or single incident if the evidence was strong enough, but if the evidence was weak then it might take several incidents in order to establish that pattern.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible to draft an ordinance, under the general health and welfare authority, to make it illegal, without specific written permission from the building owner, to occupy, for any period of time, a rooftop in downtown.
Miller said yes he thought so, but he had not done research on that idea. He said those roof tops were private property, and restrictions could be placed on private property to benefit the private property owner.
Commissioner Rundle said in some of the earlier discussions, he thought it was said that someone would need to be given a warning before actually charging them with trespass.
Miller said under the state trespass statute, one of the ways a person could be guilty of trespassing, which there was a list that included issues like violating court orders, was either entering or remaining upon property after being told by the owner not to be there. Under the ordinance the way it was written, that warning needed to happen before police could conduct any type of enforcement action, and then when going to trial on that incident, a witness would need to be brought in, who was either the owner of the property or an authorized individual who would testify in court that they gave this notice, but the person did not honor that notice. This would simplify the procedure in those regards, because you no longer would need to worry about having that additional witness. It changed the presumption to be that it was illegal unless there was consent.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the posting of a no trespassing sign satisfied the warning element.
Miller said yes, under the ordinance. The other way that that element could be satisfied was a place that was locked or barred against passage. He said he thought under all those circumstances it would fall under the state statute and under the trespass ordinance.
Commissioner Rundle said he appreciated staff’s extra work on this issue. He said the only question that remained was having fines that were fitting and suggested that staff could address how those fines related to other fines and offenses or if there was a way to categorize to fit the nature of the offense.
Commissioner Schauner said that idea might be more to the lack of currency on the rest of the City’s code than it did to the appropriate level of fines available.
Commissioner Rundle said he thought some of the other offenses needed to be raised.
Corliss said there were some provisions that were being looked at that the City did not currently use. He said when those ordinances came back to the Commission they might want to establish a maximum fine that was lower than the first one, if it made sense within other offenses, but staff could take a look at that issue.
Commissioner Hack said the only thing she wanted to make sure of was that the Commission allowed in the ordinances the discretion and the authority of the judge, repeated offenders, and those types of situations. The fact that the City did have community service in lieu of a fine did make that an option as well. She said she appreciated staff’s work because this issue had been a difficult and touchy issue for a lot of people. She said the intent of those ordinances was not aimed toward specific individuals, but aimed on behaviors that had been a growing concern among folks in this community for the last several years.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought this was one of those situations where police did need additional tools to deal with some of the behaviors and the concerns and complaints about in the past few years. He said it would be appropriate to have some additional conversation about foot patrolling downtown even though there was some of that type of patrolling now. He said regular police presence that knew stakeholders and could use those tools in a way that with the least possible show of authority, could defuse a lot of situations that might otherwise be explosive.
He said the community was trying to balance competing interests. There were people who essentially made their livelihood by asking people for monetary help on the streets, and trying to balance that interest with those citizens who use downtown, either to make a living or shop and carry on their daily life. He asked what the greatest good for the greatest number of people was and he thought that having the appropriate tools for the police to deal with uncivilized behavior, whether it was uncivilized behavior by a college student, or a homeless person, or a business person downtown, uncivilized behavior was uncivilized behavior. He said he was supportive of those three ordinances and he thought the Commission should send those ordinances back to staff for fine tuning and move forward with this issue.
Commissioner Amyx also thanked staff for those ordinances. He said the Police Department and especially downtown merchants, needed to have the authority to help in dealing with a number of those issues. He said he was downtown early until late as many of the other merchants, and he saw a lot of things that went on. He said he had people on his roof push his furnace flue down through the roof last year. He said he saw panhandling going on, on a regular basis and he wanted everyone to remember that the right-of-way extended into the alleys and the parking lots. He said the faster they proceeded with this issue the better for everyone around.
Mayor Highberger thanked staff for their work. He said the aggressive panhandling ordinance, particularly, was drafted very carefully and he supported that ordinance. However, he said he was less sure about the use-of-right of way which was located in a section of the City Code that really did not have much to do with the types of behaviors it tried to address. He said that ordinance seemed a little overbroad. As far as camping, he certainly would support the section that applied to camping on private property. The problem with enforcement was pretty clear, and they certainly did not want people setting fires downtown. That issue needed to be addressed and if it could clearly address the use of roofs, he thought that would be a big improvement. He said he was not sure the City property needed to be addressed right now because there was a trespassing ordinance, and the current procedure of warning people before they took action was probably good enough. He said they were dealing with some people that did not have other options. Especially, until they could provide other options by looking at the recommendations of the Homeless Task Force, he would be reluctant to take away those options for people who really did not have any options. He asked if staff had enough direction from the City Commission.
Corliss asked if the Commission wanted staff to come back with those three ordinances with what Commissioner Rundle indicated concerning fine schedules. He also heard discussion about direction to have staff look at the trespass ordinance and whether or not it could be improved as far as Miller discussed earlier which would be a separate ordinance. He asked about the Commission’s direction on those three ordinances.
Commissioner Schauner said as he heard the Mayor’s comments about camping it was that with respect to private property, the ordinance was one that he could support, but as it related to publicly owned property that might not be necessary at this point based on the City’s notice policy.
Mayor Highberger said the City had a trespassing ordinance that covered that issue.
Commissioner Hack asked if that ordinance covered the private side, but not the public side.
Mayor Highberger said he thought the trespassing ordinance covered both. He said staff raised the issue of one person camping on one person’s private property and being told to move from place to place and for a private property owner, if the City could relieve them of that burden then the City Commission should do that. With respect of someone putting up a camp on City property down there at the bridge, there was not the same level of consideration that was a going to be a burden on them to give notice before they took action.
Commissioner Schauner said concerning the alleys, sidewalks, or publicly owned property, he asked if they relied solely on the current trespass ordinance would the police have any additional authority to move people off that property, if they were “camping” as defined in this ordinance, in the alley at 2:00 a.m.
Miller said one issue that was important to remember was that the City did have an ordinance right now that was being amended by the unlawful use of the right-of-way ordinance, and that ordinance made it illegal to appropriate any part of the City’s right-of-way. There had been some concerns expressed as to what the exact definition of “appropriate” meant in that context, but he assumed that if that ordinance would sustain judicial scrutiny, that could be used in that sort of circumstance. As far as trespassing ordinances, he did not think the trespass ordinance or the trespass statute was designed for use on the public streets and rights-of-way of the City. It was more of a situation where it was intended for use on discreet pieces of property, because he asked how you would order someone off all the streets of the City. It was not something that was very practical to do, and might run into some constitutional problems that obviously might not exist the way the ordinance was written now. In response to the question, he did not think the trespass ordinance was an appropriate way to try to address the situation that was described.
Commissioner Hack said it seemed that the first ordinance on aggressive panhandling was something that the Commission agreed upon. The use of the right-of-way, it seemed that the genesis of that had been an increasing concern of public safety on public right-of-way downtown in terms of folks blocking the way and that might go along with aggressive panhandling in effect.
She said she was comfortable with Ordinance No. 7891 and 7892 the way they were written, but Ordinance 7893 was the ordinance that the Commission might want to change along with the fine situation. She said she needed to hear why there were concerns over the public right-of-way.
Mayor Highberger said he realized that he had not articulated that issue very well, but he could not do that at this time. He said it seemed that the consensus was that the Commission would like drafts for all those ordinances to come back to the City Commission for first reading and there might be further discussion at that time.
Corliss asked if the City Commission would like to have all three of the ordinances come back on a regular agenda with further discussions about the fines and appropriate relationship to other fines in the city code.
Commissioner Schauner said it would be appropriate to come back with a proposed ordinance that attempted to address the fine question, but with respect to the rest of the substance of all three ordinances, bring back the proposals that the Commission had addressed and bring them back in ordinance form and they could have some discussion as a Commission about what changes might be appropriate or not.
Commissioner Hack said the only ordinance that the Commission was somewhat more specific on was the trespassing issue and perhaps sections A and B.
Corliss said they would pursue the trespass issue as a separate ordinance and provide the Commission with additional research and direction on that issue.
Commissioner Rundle asked if it was indicated that it was a state statute change that had made it easier to get access and the elimination of the need to have a witness in addition to this.
Miller said it was not statute change, but a fundamental operation of the rules of evidence, prohibition against hearsay evidence.
Commissioner Schauner said he heard that the statute itself provided some methods by which you could eliminate the need to say “get off my property” by posting, chaining, or some other overt act to notify a potential trespasser that they were not to be there.
Miller said yes, for example, the statute used the language like “locked or barred against entry.” If a person walked up to someone’s locked fence and climbed over it, that would be a violation of the criminal trespass ordinance.
Commissioner Rundle suggested consulting with business owners on what they could do. (14)
The City Commission recessed at 9:15 for 10 minutes.
Consider adopting on first reading, Ordinance No. 7890, amending sections 9-810 and 9-812 of Ordinance No. 7782, of the City’s smoking ordinance, concerning premises owner liability provisions. This item was deferred from the June 14, 2005 City Commission meeting.
Corliss said when the smoking ban took affect it was important to note that it had two misdemeanor liability provisions. Obviously, there was an opportunity to cite an individual who was smoking within an enclosed place that was prohibited under the ordinance. There was also the issue of the property owner responsibility and potential liability under the ordinance. He said staff met with Phil Bradley’s group earlier in the year in response to some of those concerns regarding the property owner’s liability, and at that time staff did not recommend a change to the ordinance, but staff was recommending a change to the ordinance at this time. Staff thought that it was still appropriate to have misdemeanor liability for a property owner if they were allowing smoking on the premises, and staff thought that the language that they had provided improved upon the current code and staff recommended that the Commission amend the current law and adopt this ordinance.
He said Bradley did send a memorandum to the Commission late this evening and staff had a little bit of an opportunity to look at that memo, but staff did not have a lot of time to study it. He said staff could walk the Commission through some of the changes that they were recommending to the smoking ordinance and they could also discuss the general enforcement practices of the City regarding that ordinance.
Tony Wheeler, Staff Attorney, said the proposed ordinance amended two sections of the smoking laws. The first amendment occurred in section 9-810 regarding enforcement. In subparagraph E, the word “establishment” was replaced with the word “premises” which was a term that was used throughout the ordinance which was a minor clarification. In paragraph F, staff added a new subsection in which they tried to articulate what actions staff wanted a property owner to take to help in enforcing this ordinance, and it was spelled out that they were required to immediately advise a person that was smoking, to stop smoking. If the person did not stop smoking, the owner should then ask the person to leave the premises. If that person refused to leave then language was inserted that stated: “they should exert all lawful efforts to remove the person from the premises”. The reason that staff suggested the language exert all lawful efforts was to provide some flexibility for the property owner to address circumstances in a manner that they deemed lawful and appropriate. For instance, they might not want to call the police, they might be able to lawfully remove the person on their own and there might be some property owners that wanted that flexibility. If the Commission would like staff to specify that the owners needed to call the police, staff could make that change.
The next section of the ordinance dealt with violation of penalties and a new section was added which was subparagraph B which stated: “it was unlawful to allow smoking, to willfully or knowingly allow smoking to occur where it was prohibited in an article,” but it was a defense to this section if they took the actions that staff specified in section 9-810F. A final sentence was added that stated: “that it shall be prima-facie evidence that the owner, manager, operator, employee, knowingly or willfully allowed smoking, if the smoking occurs in anyplace regulated by the article, in the presence of the person.” She said that language was added to prevent people who were violating the ordinance from playing games or not taking the measures seriously. There was a fear that an owner would only take those actions specified in 9-810F when one of the City’s enforcement officers arrived at the scene, and looking the other way the rest of the evening. She said the Commission would hear that that was an unlawful shifting of the burden of proof which was not the case. This was a rebuttable presumption which appeared in other criminal statutes, and had withstood court challenges to that same affect. She said what was meant was if there was not contradictory evidence presented to the court, that the court could consider that fact. If, however, the court was presented with evidence to the contrary the court must weigh all of the evidence and then make a determination following hearing all of that evidence, so it was not shifting the burden of proof.
The final section appeared in paragraph D that clarified that for the purposes of counting the number of violations that occurred within a year, that would be measured from the date that the smoking occurred, not from the date of convictions because there might be someone that would attempt to seek continuances in order to fall outside of the one year time period.
Mayor Highberger asked if was fair to say that the general intent was to give bar owners the safe harbor that they were asking for in terms of if they made a reasonable effort to get someone to stop smoking, the owner would be legally off the hook.
Wheeler said correct. She said staff was trying to improve the ordinance, provide more clarity and direction as the owners requested. If the owners took the actions that were specified, the owners would have that safe harbor.
Mayor Highberger said he thought he understood the concerns about the phrase: “exert all lawful efforts to remove.” He asked staff if they would have any problem changing that language to say “to exert reasonable efforts to remove that person from the premises.”
Wheeler said no.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Rick Renfro, owner of Johnny’s Tavern, said in January bar owners came to the City Commission and commented that their sales were down and that something needed to be done. The City Commission said that they would address that issue with City staff and find a way to help mitigate that issue. In December, another meeting occurred to discuss with the bar owners the four or five issues of concern. One concern was the safe harbor issue and the Commission three months earlier said that they did not want to address that issue at that point in time. Another issue concerned a separate smoking room or a separate facility. He said Hallmark had their separate facility, but there was never any discussion about trying that idea with any other business or establishment. He said the ordinance that the Commission adopted had approximately 8-10 points specific to Hallmark and there was no one else that was going to get that break, which was not fair.
He said he only heard about this meeting four weeks ago that this item was going to be on the agenda and he was surprised at the time because there had not been any follow-up meetings with City staff about other issues that could be done to mitigate the circumstances that the business owners were under. He said it seemed very obvious that this was an attempt to tighten up the laws. He said one bar owner had to go to court for five smoking charges against him, but four of those charges were dropped because of the lack of evidence. He said this was a reaction to that court proceeding. He said the pretense that City staff was trying to work with business owners was not true. He said he did not feel that staff had tried to address any of the issues that he specifically had and he thought staff was trying to make the ordinance tougher so that it would be easier to convict the business owners. He said he was more into the whole process and it did not seem like the business owners and City staff was working together to address issues and not that there had been a problem with the loss of a conviction, now staff was trying to tighten the ordinance up. He said this issue did not seem like it was in the true spirit of how they started out in what they wanted to do.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if Renfro was happy with the current language that was in the ordinance.
Renfro said no. He said he agreed that there needed to be some type of definition of safe harbor. He said this proposed ordinance was tightening things up and was putting him in the position of being the policeman. He said he did not have any tickets for that type of violation. He said he was not going to say that no one was smoking at Johnny’s because it happened once a week that someone from Kansas City or somewhere else, did not know about the smoking ban, would light a cigarette until one of his employees informed them of the smoking ban. He said he did not think this issue would affect him, but he did not think it was fair or right.
Phil Bradley said he would like the Commission to eliminate the word “immediately” in that first section because it worked fine without that word and it still left the obligation on them to notify them and there could be evidence presented if it was delayed or not. He agreed with the Mayor’s comments in that he had no problem with reasonable efforts. Many places had different policies, some places had policies that they would not confront their customers other than advise, they were not allowed to touch them and they were not allowed to escort them, because as the Commission heard this evening, in a whole different manner sometimes people took those as threatening actions. Those were lawful means, but if the place had a policy that they did not allow that, then they would be in violation of this amended ordinance if they did not exert all of the lawful means.
He said he thought the real crux of the issue was the last sentence, the prima-facie evidence. He said he was not an attorney and he did not understand that term as well as many of the attorney’s that were present. He said he was not arguing that this was unconstitutional, or that it had not been done in other places, but he was saying that it did shift the burden of proof. He said he did not think that was right, particularly in this ordinance, when you were not going after the violator, but after the person that provided a premisis that the violator committed the crime upon.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Bradley had a suggestion for changing that last section.
Bradley said yes, eliminating the word “immediately” because it worked fine without that word and the safe harbor still existed, the responsibility of the owner still existed of what they were supposed to do, and it still left the opportunity to present evidence that they did not do it, and prove them guilty.
Dr. Steven Bruner, Lawrence, said he was very strongly in support of the ordinance and the intention to stop indoor smoking. He said he had to agree with Bradley for once. He said he had been impressed and amazed with how well the bar owners and their patrons had followed the spirit of this ordinance. He said he had personally witnessed one exception to this ordinance where it was obvious that it was being ignored. He said he had been to Johnny’s five or six times and he had never seen anyone smoking, so it was really impressive how well this ordinance had been accepted and integrated into the spirit of this community.
He said the Helena experience was discussed a lot when they talked about the health aspects of indoor smoking. Helena, Montana had the ordinance that banned indoor smoking in bars and restaurants. It was in effect for 9 months and they experienced a 40% drop in heart attacks in the only hospital in that area that cared for heart attacks. After the ordinance went out of effect, and it went out of effect because of a technicality in the enforcement clause, the heart attack rate went right back to where it was before there was an ordinance. He said the point of that, was that he wanted this ordinance to be acceptable and enforceable. He did not want people to ignore the law, but he really did not want this ordinance overturned on a technicality when it was working so well the way that it was right now. The whole thing sounded a little edgy to him, and he did not want some court to look at that and throw out all the good work that had been done over small technicality in the enforcement clause. He said if the Commission was going to do this, he suggested being very sure that it was not going to put the whole thing at risk.
He said he thought it was fair for the owner of an establishment to make sure that the people in that establishment obey his rules and the rules of the City that he was in. He did not want to see an owner who did nothing, and there should be a way to penalize a person who flouts the law in that way, but be sure that it was a way that would pass muster with the courts and did not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Commissioner Amyx said he agreed with Dr. Bruner in that there was a chance that they could probably do more harm than more good. He said making changes to the ordinance, placed him in an uneasy position. He said as a business owner, he knew none of them were in business to throw people out, but they did live by the rules and regulations that were set forth by the City. He said he did not see a real need to make the changes that had been presented under Ordinance No. 7890. He asked if the number of complaints or charges against business owners gone drastically high over the last several months.
Corliss said no. There were more people in the room now than had ever been cited under the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Amyx said with that being said, he thought businesses were doing a very good job in policing themselves, and he did not see a need to go with any further action on this issue.
Commissioner Hack said the only issue was use the use of the word “premises”, because it was used in other ordinances instead of establishment. She said there was not any question that it was staff’s intent to make sure that owners’ that were willfully disobeying the law should be punished. She agreed that the word “immediately” was probably not necessary. She also thought the term “reasonable efforts” made sense, or eliminate that because she was not sure that she would go up to someone to ask them to stop smoking and she would rather have someone trained in that effort to take care of the person. She said she did not want folks to come out of this feeling like bar owners were guilty and had to prove themselves innocent, and if this tended to feel that way then that was the way that people would interpret it which left the City open for some hazy areas.
Mayor Highberger said without the addition of the language on the prima-facie case, he asked if it was possible to prosecute a bar owner for ignoring smoking, or how difficult was it without that to be able to prosecute a bar owner for ignoring smoking on his premises.
Wheeler said if the City’s inspectors walked in and saw ashtray’s full of cigarettes, even if an owner then took the action specified in the ordinance, she thought they could present evidence that there were numerous cigarettes on site, so she thought that could be done. There was just a concern that the enforcement people had expressed that they were concerned that some people would not take any actions until enforcement people arrived and the enforcement would not be there.
Commissioner Hack asked if it was possible to work out language that was more of a compromise position. She asked if there were other ordinances that protected the City’s interest in a situation like that, and at the same time protect the business owners who were actually doing what the ordinance was asking them to do.
Wheeler said staff could do some additional research on that. Staff did look at several ordinances before they drafted the ordinance, but staff could go back and have conversations with the people in the community and try to find that compromise.
Corliss said it was important that if staff was going to have dialogue with those individuals that the Commission give staff direction as to what to discuss. He said the Commission was not talking about a compromise as far as smoking rooms within establishments, but what type of language should be in the ordinance as far as when the property owner would be liable for allowing smoking on their premises. He said staff could have a dialogue and review what Bradley had provided in his memo. If that was the City Commission’s desire, then staff would go back and look at that further. If it was the Commission’s desire to have a broader discussion about the prohibition then staff needed that direction.
Commissioner Hack said her thought was narrow in that it was just that language that they had discussed.
Commissioner Schauner concurred. He said looking at proposed changes including changing “establishment” to “premises” made good sense because it was consistent and it probably should have been written that way in the first place. Paragraph F was perfectly fine until the last full sentence which began: “if any person refuses to leave” and then the question become what language should be inserted in place of “all lawful efforts” and whether that was too broad or too restrictive, was open to some debate and was worth some discussion with staff.
With respect to the violations section 9-812B, what he remembered was that “first do no harm,” so what he did not want to do was harm to our current ordinance by injecting some language in paragraph 9-812B that would risk some greater harm to the smoking ordinance. However, if he were to write that he might word that in some different order. For example, it seemed that the line “it is a defense to this section” ought to follow and it ought to be at the end of that paragraph rather than the second line of it because as he read it, the intent was to provide that safe harbor, that Bradley and others had asked for. He said he read it to say: “if you had done the things that are spoken to above in paragraph F”, then that was an affirmative defense to any charge that you had not done what the ordinance required you to do, and that ought to be a complete defense. If you had done it and could demonstrate that you had done it that should be a defense to being charged with a misdemeanor violation. That to him was a safe harbor, and perhaps it was a matter of wording it a little differently. He said he did not see it as creating a guilty until proven innocent sort of thing because he thought the shifting of burden thing was always more sophisticated than worth discussion. He said he thought staff could have some discussion about how to reword that or to provide a safe harbor. The last year of experience demonstrated that there had been good faith efforts on behalf of owners, operators and employees to enforce this ordinance. It was not self enforcing and the City did not have enough police officers, nor do we want to hire enough police officers to go out there and sit in every bar and tavern in town and make sure nobody’s smoking because that was ludicrous. He said he thought they did rely on the good faith of the people owning and operating those establishments to see if this law works. He said he did not want to put the owners and operators at physical risk nor legal risk on the enforcement side, but he did think that this 9-812B could be reworked a little bit that would give greater comfort to owners and operators and still not do harm to the survivability of the ordinance.
Mayor Highberger said he basically concurred with Commissioner Schauner. He generally supported the thrust of the ordinance. He said it was his understanding what they were trying to do was to not make it easier to convict bar owners, but trying to provide the safe harbor. He said he did not think the intent of the prima-facie clause. He agreed with Commissioner Schauner that rearrange some of the sentences might make it a little clearer, and if the language of “all lawful efforts” to include “reasonable efforts”, might also help.
Commissioner Rundle suggested dropping the word “immediately” or change that word.
Mayor Highberger said he was not sure how important that change would be because he assumed the advising needed to be done in the length of time it took to smoke a cigarette.
Commissioner Hack said before they send Wheeler off on a goose chase of some sort, if it was just a matter of rewording what they already had then staff could pass that around to various stakeholders before it came back to the Commission.
Commissioner Schauner said the message that needed to be delivered was thanks a million for the good work that had been done by all owners and operators, because without their help this issue would not go anywhere. Also, he said he did not think there was anyone on this Commission that had an interest in penalizing folks who made a good faith effort to make this thing work. He said he believed that the intent of this rework was to provide that safe harbor that people had been asking for and any use of it in any other way, he thought that would be looked at in a very negative light by all five members of this Commission.
Bradley said he agreed with the safe harbor clauses, and he believed that they were in safe harbor all the way up to that last sentence, but the last sentence started to take back some of that safe harbor.
Corliss said that process could be gone through, but the point was that would be the first evidence, and then he could show the defense. The defense would be that he advised the person, whether it was immediate or not, to stop smoking, and then he exerted all reasonable or lawful efforts to ask that person to leave. If they did that then they would not be cited.
Commissioner Schauner said as he understood, what was not available was this affirmative defense. It was strict liability under oath.
Corliss said it was not explicit in the ordinance and that was what they were trying to do was to make it explicit in the ordinance and spell it out. He said he thought staff had good direction and one of the things that staff would like to do was to sit down with Bradley and go through this issue with him and see if staff could get something back on the agenda that responded to the Commission’s general concerns.
Commissioner Rundle said Commissioner Hack’s suggestion that making sure information was made available to stakeholders so that people had ample time to look that information over was a good idea..
Corliss said staff would post the information on the website and give a couple of weeks notice before this issue was placed back on the agenda.
Vice Mayor Amyx said but the goal under the penalty part of this ordinance was to make sure the folks in business had that safe harbor.
Corliss said it was clear under what circumstance a property owner would be held liable for a misdemeanor citation, and then they would be able to say they had a defense in that they advised the person to stop smoking and if that did not happen then they would advise that person to leave and then they would call the police department because that person was still on his property and they were still smoking. He said staff would fine tune it with the Commission’s direction that put that report out on the website.
Moved by Schauner, seconded Rundle, to extend the meeting for five minutes. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Commissioner Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid – 2005 Cured-in place project for Utilities Department deferred.
2. Agreement – Engineer services for W bound turn lane of K-10 at intersection of E 1600 Road, southbound on O’Connell Road to Peridian Group for $20,745.
3. Bids – reject bids for Schedule II of the Airport Improvement Project.
4. Agreement – Land surveying for BNSF Corridor between 13th & 23rd to BG Consultants for $40,988.
5. Resolution No. 6596 – July 19th, public hearing, benefit district, Anna Tappan Way, between Haskell & Hanscom.
6. Site Plan – (SP-02-15-05) Fire Station No. 4, 2100 blk of Wakarusa, S of Water Treatment Plant.
7. Site Plan – (SP-04-31-05) Restaurant & office/ retail space, SE corner of 8th & New Hampshire.
8. Site Plan – (SP-05-34-05) Family Video, 1818 Massachusetts.
9. Applications – from KDOT for KLINK (FY 2008), Geometric Improvements (FY 2009) & Economic Development (FY 2009) projects.
10. Sign of Community Interest – Lawrence ArtMarket at Union Pacific Depot.
11. City Manager’s Report – KS Water Office.
12. Feasibility Study – Carson Bise.
13. Public Hearing – HRC, structure at 1927 Learnard to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
14. Public Civility Ordinances.
15. Ordinance No. 7890 – 1st Read, amend smoking ordinance concerning premises owner liability provisions.