August 9, 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.   

Commissioner Hack requested that the regular agenda items for the rezoning requests (Z-03-20-05 & Z-03-21-05) for property located south of 6^th Street and west of Stonecreek Drive (extended) be deferred for one week.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of July 26, 2005 and August 2, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters meeting minutes of May 17, 2005 and June 15, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 524 vendors in the amount of $3,099,470.67 and payroll from July 24, 2005 to August 6, 2005, the amount of $1,505,017.29.  Motion carried unanimously.  
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Wagon Wheel Café, 507 West 14th; Stone Creek, 3801 West 6th; Rick’s Place, 846 Illinois, Ste: F; the Retail Liquor Licenses for Danny’s Retail Liquor, 1910 Haskell, No. 10; and Cork & Barrel, 2000 West 23rd.  Motion carried unanimously. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Marie Stockett to the Recycling and Resources Conservation Advisory Board, to a term which will expire December 31, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with RD Johnson for Clinton Water Treatment Plant Residual Lagoon Cleaning Project based on unit pricing in an amount not to exceed $178,200.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                (1)

Ordinance No. 7908, rezoning (Z-05-33-05) 1.004 acre, M-1 to RO-2, East 19^th and Homewood St, East of Bullene Avenue, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.  (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-06-22-05) for Family Video Movie Club Addition, a replat of Lots 11 and 12 and the north 50 feet of Lot 22 and all of Lots 23 and 24, Block 16, Babcock’s Enlarged Addition, (property is generally described as being located at 1818 Massachusetts), a one-lot commercial subdivision containing approximately 1.004 acres; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a.  A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.

b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.

c. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.

d. Filed copies of the cross access and utility easements.

2. A Temporary Utility Agreement.

3.         Revision of the final plat to include the following:

a. Reference of Book and Page numbers for the cross access and utility easements.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                          (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-06-23-05) for Lawrence Country Club Addition No. 2, a final plat of a portion of the Lawrence Country Club Golf Course and the right-of-way for Yorkshire Drive south of  Princeton Boulevard, (the property is generally described as being located at 2501 Princeton Boulevard), a one-lot subdivision containing approximately 0.957 acre; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Submission of public improvement plans for all public improvements per approval of the Public Works;

2.         Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and

3.         Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. Copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing;

b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and

c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                          (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to approve the mid-year funding request for the Sesquicentennial Commission for a birthday concert for the City of Lawrence on September 18, 2005.  Motion carried unanimously.                 (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to declare as surplus vehicles and approve the donation of certain Lawrence-Douglas County Fire and Medical Department vehicles as follows:  a) 1993 Ford Explorer to the Lawrence Humane Society Inc., and (b) 1994 Ford Ambulance to Eudora Township Fire Department.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                            (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Freda Hickam, 847 Rockledge Road.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                  (7)

Vice Mayor Amyx pulled from the consent agenda, the award of a bid to King’s Construction for Monterey Way, Stetson to Peterson Road;        Monterey Way, Peterson Road to Grand Vista Drive; and Peterson Road, Kasold Drive to Monterey Way benefit districts.  He said he had a concern about a roundabout that would be constructed on Peterson Road.  One of his concerns was the length of roadway such as on Harvard Road and using that as a collector street which required the need for roundabouts and speed humps.   He asked if that situation would be recreated with the length of Peterson Road.  He said he understood that a roundabout would be the speed control in that area.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the traffic calming device was a roundabout at Peterson and Monterey Way and also a traffic signal was planned at Kasold and Peterson which were the two devices that would control speed.  He said speed humps or bumps were not planned.  He said to the east of Kasold was similar in width and design and Harvard Road was narrower and did not have the width.  He said the area was designed to take more traffic.     

Vice Mayor Amyx said he hoped they were not creating the same type of situation with the length of Grand Vista coming from the north and east of that area.  He suggested that the Commission might want to look at other traffic signalization through that area because of the length of that roadway.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Vice Mayor Amyx was concerned about the speed of traffic.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he was concerned about the speed of traffic that might flow through that area because the length of roadway was from Kasold all the way to the end of Peterson Road along with Grand Vista coming on the backside of Hutton Farms. 

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, the City Commission reviewed the bids for the following projects:

•           Monterey Way, Stetson to Peterson Road

•           Monterey Way, Peterson Road to Grand Vista Drive

•           Peterson Road, Kasold Drive to Monterey Way

The bids were:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

Engineer’s Estimate                                     $5,474.442.00

                        King’s Construction Co., Inc.                          $4,178,265.04

                        LRM Industries, Inc.                                        $4,823.522.95

                        Emery Sapp & Sons, Inc.                               $5,180,593.50

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to King’s Construction Co., in the amount of $4,178,265.04.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                        (8)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:  None

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Consider the following 2006 budget related items.

a)       Receive staff memo re: justification for position to manage City’s website, per Commissioner Hack’s request from August 2, 2005

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said at the request of Vice Mayor Amyx, staff contacted K.U. and the website services they provided.  He said there were some options that K.U. could provide, but K.U. was occupied with their own services, but the idea of contracting some of those services was a possibility.  He said the City had been utilizing student interns for that position, but those students worked on a semester to semester basis and did not give a lot of continuity to that position.   

He said the information regarding the position to manage the City’s website had not changed much from previous discussions.  The amount of money requested for that position was still in the proposed and published budget.  He said that money could be eliminated or reduced.   

Commissioner Schauner said he voted in the majority to delete that position.  He said he did not have a problem keeping the money in the budget, but he would not like to fill the position until there was an opportunity to look at how the City might take a broader look at how that website and e-government would progress.  He said he would like more information about how that position would be integrated in the e-government effort.  He said he would also like to discuss whether some of that expense could be charged out to various departments throughout the City including some of the City’s enterprise funds.

Commissioner Rundle asked if that position would not be filled until after January 1, 2006.

Wildgen said correct.  He said that position was a 2006 Budget request.  He said they had funded other positions in a similar manner if staff could show associated efforts.

Commissioner Schauner said there were a number of places that would take advantage of an integrated website. 

He said he was discussing with a constituent that if a person paid their water bill on-line there was a $5.95 charge.  He asked if that was accurate.

Ed Mullins, Finance Director, said staff had the ability to automatically deduct a water bill from a bank account each month at no charge, but if wanting to charge a water bill to a credit card, there was a fee that went to the credit card company which varied depending on the amount of the bill.  He said staff collected the utility bill and the credit card company received that $5.95.

Commissioner Schauner suggested finding a way to make that fee a less expensive proposition for customers.  He said there were other ways of handling those charges.

Commissioner Hack said regarding the webmaster position she appreciated leaving the money in the 2006 budget.  She said approximately four years ago, the Commission discussed e-government and web-based agendas and the Commission continually asked for things to be placed on the website as a link between City staff and the community.  She asked that the discussion concerning that webmaster position take place soon so there was some sense of where that issue was going and possibly give relief to existing staff.  She said if it was important enough for the City to have the e-government initiative, then it was important that position be funded properly.  

Vice Mayor Amyx said he shared Commissioner Schauner’s concerns.  He said he voted to remove the position from the proposed budget; however after he talked with Lisa Patterson, Communications Coordinator, about the position, she was able to provide some additional justification for that position.  He said a lot of people used the City’s website to find information and there had to be constant updating of the City’s website. 

He asked if staff could look at contractual firms that might perform that service.   He said the idea of charging back some of those costs to the City’s departments was reasonable.  

Hack asked Amyx if he was opposed to leaving the money in the budget.

Amyx said he was comfortable leaving the money in the budget.

Commissioner Rundle said broadening the discussion to the entire e-government efforts and plans made sense.  He said he did not have any problem leaving that money in the budget knowing that money could be reallocated on January 1^st.

Mayor Highberger called of public comment.

No public comment was received.                                                                                    (9)

b)         Receive staff briefing re: anticipated 2006 legislative issues that may impact budget decisions for 2006 

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said Commissioner Hack inquired about possible legislative issues that might impact City finances and budgets.  The item that was most salient was the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) issue. He said there was legislation pending in the Kansas Legislature.  He said when he had made inquires with both the delegation and the League of Kansas Municipalities, they indicated that was not going to be a 2005 legislative issue, but that they were holding that issue off for the 2006 session.  He said he did not want to say that things would dramatically change next year, but that issue was on the horizon and there had been similar bills in the past.  He said he did not know how it would directly impact the 2006 Budget, but he could forecast that if there was a tax lid or spending lid that was statutory, then it might take effect July 1, 2006 for a 2007 Budget.  If it was constitutional amendment that required the voters of Kansas to approve it, it might be on the August or November ballot not taking effect to impact the 2007 Budget, but a future budget.  He said obviously mill levy decisions that the Commission made now might impact what mill levies were referenced in any future law.  He said taxing issues would be very significant in the 2006 Legislative Session. 

He said there had been federal legislation introduced that the League was tracking and that he would speak to at a cable operators meeting in Overland Park.   He said there was federal legislation that would essentially ban local franchise fees for telecommunications providers, cable and telephone.  The industry’s argument was that they wanted competitive neutrality because there were a number of different avenues for telephone and internet provisions whether receiving telephone off of the internet or cellular services where there were no franchise fees, but that would be a budget impact on all municipalities across the entire country.  He said the City was currently below the federal law on cable and state law on telecommunications as far as the amount of franchise fees that were charged, but it would have a general fund impact.  He said those were the two major telecommunications and there was obviously legislation everywhere that was seen in League materials that would impact budget.  He said the City was fortunate with the local delegation that they think that local taxing and spending decisions should be made by locally elected officials, but unfortunately not all state legislators share that governmental philosophy.  He said the communication issue was something that the Commission should be cognizant of when making decisions.       

Mayor Highberger called of public comment.

No public comment was received.                                                                                  (10)

c)         Receive staff memo re: effects on fund balance of a lowering of mill levy by an additional one mill, per Commissioner Schauner’s request from July 26, 2005

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said staff provided a couple of table and graphs related to the effects on the fund balance by lowering the mill levy. 

Vice Mayor Amyx said the only reason the Commission was able to consider an item like this was because staff did a good job of being conservative with the City’s money.  He supported lowering the mill levy.  He said assessed values would be banked upon next year to take and replace some of that money and hopefully in the future lowering the mill levy could be lowered again.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Schauner said his interest in reducing the levy by an additional mill was based on exactly what Commissioner Amyx stated which was the City was good stewards in the past and was able to put aside some money.  Typically, the budget came in under projection and he would be surprised if that did not happen in fiscal 2006.  He said he believed another one mill reduction was good business and sent a good message to the community.  In fiscal 2007, if they needed additional revenue based on demonstrated need, the City always had that opportunity.  He said they could not predict whether Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) would pass or what the courts did.  He said to try and make business decisions based on future events which the City had no control over did not make much sense.  He was in support of reducing the levy an additional mill.

Mayor Highberger said he loved the idea of reducing the mill levy by one mill.  He said however, he was not sure this was the responsible thing to do.  He said they were not discussing lowering the City expenditures, but lowering the City’s revenues.  He said the City had a very healthy reserve fund right now and he noted that the City was already dipping into the reserve fund for approximately $1,000,000 for street repairs this year.

He said, as pointed out, the good budgeting by staff put the City where there was a solid enough balance and would be assured that there were solid reserves next year provided nothing out of the ordinary happened.  He said the City was at the point where there would be a better return on the City’s money by investing that money in street repair than keeping that money in the bank.  He said he was not sure that was true by reducing the City’s revenues by another three quarters of a million dollars.  If looking at the projections that staff provided, obviously the real numbers would be higher, but he did not like the trend.  He said his preference would be to keep solid reserves.  He said so far the City had avoided spikes up and down in the mill levy and his preference would be for a gradual lowering rather than getting into a position where the mill levy would need to be bumped up by a large margin next year.  He said he did not support the recommended lowering of the mill levy.  

Commissioner Hack prefaced her comments by saying her preference would always be to reduce the mill levy as much as possible.  She said this was the fifth budget cycle that she had been involved with and she had learned a lot, but one issue she did not need to learn was that this was not monopoly money, but taxpayer money.  She said she had great respect for the taxpayer and efforts of City staff to be sensitive to that issue as well.  She said she would support the lowering of the mill levy, but she was concerned about the future because they might place a future Commission in the position of having to raise taxes to keep those fund balances where they needed to be.  She said from the past several Kansas legislative sessions taxes were reduced during the good times, but now they were looking at more difficult times and those funds were not available to use for transportation, education, and social services.  She said the Lawrence community was growing and thriving.  She said she had every reason to believe that those fund balances would be built up.

Commissioner Rundle said he was glad to see that fellow Commissioners brought up that those funds were fund balances.  He said he was surprised that staff had not interrupted the Commission when the Commission was talking about spending the City’s general fund reserves because they had the 5% that they budgeted and those were not budgeted reserves.

He said the 15% recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) was a very conservative balance forward.  He said to have 40% had not been justified and he repeatedly pointed out that the GFOA pointed out the circumstances that should pertain if determining the need for a higher balance which had not been justified.  He said things such as liquidity and reserves already were dedicated and he had not seen staff identify saving internally.  He said instead of spending the savings account, he said what had been done was putting things on the credit card and borrowing when the City could be paying with cash.  He supported cutting the mill levy and he suggested starting a very basic discussion of budgeting and to form a budgeting committee.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not want anyone who might be viewing this Commission meeting or reading this information to believe that the City Commission was lowering their taxes because they were not lowering their taxes.  Assessed valuation went up about 8% on average and the City’s budget according to the projection sheet from City Management, went from $46,000,000 to $53,000,000 for fiscal 2006.  He said yes they were reducing the mill levy by 1.523% if that passed, but they were still spending almost $7,000,000 more money in fiscal 2006 than in 2005 in the general fund.  He said taxes would still go up even if lowering the mill levy passed. 

He said he shared Commissioner Hack’s concern about what the legislature had done over the past few years and he thought the legislature had acted irresponsibly.  He said he did not think the 1 mill reduction was irresponsible, but was simply an attempt to bring the City’s fund balances back to a position which was more defendable.  If in fiscal 2007 the City needed to do something else it would not require a spike.    

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to amend the 2006 published budget by lowering the mill levy by an additional one mill.  Aye: Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay:  Highberger.  Motion carried.                                                                                                              (11)

d) Discuss Commissioner Rundle’s specific revenue proposals for 2006 budget:

· Put the next generation parks projects proposals on hold until such time that a community discussion can take place regarding future use of the county wide sales tax revenues, including those funds going into the sales tax reserve fund.

Commissioner Rundle asked if that was the entire list of second generation park proposals.

Wildgen said there was a list of projects in the budget that the Parks Board and staff felt were the highest priorities based on discussions with the public such as Rails to Trails, and Langston Hughes park area, but there were other projects.

Commissioner Rundle asked if those projects would consume the entire available capacity that would be freed up by paying off the bonds.

Wildgen said not over the two year period.  The projects were listed would not.

Commissioner Rundle said he supported those particular items, but he suggested a broader discussion about whether or not they should continue to dedicate the entire portion of that sales tax to parks and not consider other projects and there were many projects looming on the horizon.  He said his proposal was that the entire second generation proposal needed to be looked at.  He said he was comfortable with those particular items going into next year’s budget.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Commissioner Rundle would like to have a broader discussion about other possible uses for the recreational sales tax, not for fiscal 2006, but fiscal 2007 or other out years that might include a discussion about funding for the homeless, the Housing Trust Fund or other things.

Commissioner Rundle said yes, that was not necessarily a recreational sales tax.  The way that was passed was left open to any public purpose and before they decided to continue to spend all of that money on parks, they needed to look at all the things the City was facing and decide where they were going to allocate those monies. 

Wildgen said he thought the Parks Board would like the opportunity to talk with the Commission this fall and discuss those projects and future projects.  One bond issue would be paid off this year and one next year which would be a two year cycle and could be part of the discussion. 

Mayor Highberger said it would be good to have that discussion.  He noted earlier in the year he raised the possibility of using some of that revenue for funding after school programs and after discussion with the Parks Board, he backed off on that proposal because the Parks Board pointed out to his satisfaction that there was a substantial number of projects that money could be used for.  He said this might play into their discussion later in the year on impact fees.  He said if they had impact fees that could cover the cost of new park land for new development then that would change what that money could be used for.     

Commissioner Rundle said that was a possible source for new parks and recreation facilities.

Wildgen said those funds going into the sales tax reserve fund the debt was paid along with small on-going Parks and Recreation maintenance projects.  

Vice Mayor Amyx asked Commissioner Rundle if he wanted to put on hold the next generation park system.

Commissioner Rundle said as pointed out there was a very large list of items that could come under that funding.  He said he would like to proceed with this year’s proposed projects, but he did not want to leave the impression that they would assume that all those funds were going toward parks projects when talking about expanding the library and other projects.

Mayor Highberger called for the public comment. 

Sharon Spratt, Chair, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, said they were happy to hear that those six projects were going to be maintained in this year’s budget.  She said the Board would be happy to discuss proposed project with the City Commission this fall. 

She said the one cent sales tax was primarily for Parks and Recreation in being able to maintain those projects.  She said the Parks were a viable part of this community and made this community a very livable community and added to the value. 

Hilda Enoch said working on the parks had been a very dedicated effort, but she thought that parks should, in the next year, compete for those funds because they have had access to those funds for a very long time since the vote was taken by the City.  She said there were other pressing issues and she suggested that if the homeless issue was considered as part of the Drop-In Center being recreation, then that might be a way to broaden it.  She said she felt that housing issues needed to take priority because priority had been given to Parks and Recreation.  

(12)

For 2006, budget the amount of liquor tax that was generated in 2004 ($530,786). (NOTE:  Staff budgeted $525,000 in City Manager’s Recommended Budget, per State estimates as provided by the Douglas County budget office.)

Commissioner Rundle said some of those revenue streams the City had tended to be very conservative with.  He said with the growing population he thought the City would earn at least what they earned the previous year and suggested placing that amount in the budget.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the County always sent a list of the number of budget revenue items that the state had given the County.  He said in this case, it was from their recommendation that the state was going to give the City $1,575,000.        

Commissioner Rundle said his proposal was to publish the budget at the higher level.

Mayor Highberger said that was an issue that could be looked at during the budget cycle next year.

Mayor Highberger said because that item was removed from the table he was not going to ask for public comment on that item.                                                                                         (13)

·           Proposed that the portion (one-third) of special alcohol tax revenues that goes into the General Fund be set aside in a special fund dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund and funding for homeless services and other social and cultural purposes.

Commissioner Rundle said the special alcohol tax statute came to the City in three equal portions which were the special alcohol fund, special recreation fund, and general fund. He said rather than letting that money disappear in the general fund budget it as a separate item that could be looked at as a contingency fund for some of those purposes.  He said there had been discussion about finding a dedicated stream of revenue for the Housing Trust Fund and it was possible that a part of that could be allocated each year.  

Commissioner Hack asked how that would affect those numbers in 2006.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said obviously it had already been integrated into the general fund revenue stream and published.  He said if that money was pulled out now and dealt with as a separate pot and kept the items that were already budgeted, then the fund balances would be spent down.  He said a general contingency amount was budgeted in the amount of $200,000 and that money was used to tap a number of items that came mid-year. 

Commissioner Hack asked what the amount was.

Wildgen said approximately $525,000.  He said he had not researched the history on this issue, but one reason that money was placed in the general fund was to support the police and their efforts.

Commissioner Rundle said if it was budgeted as a contingency, would the projected balance be reduced in the fund balance forward.  

Wildgen said if that money was spent the fund balance would be reduced by that amount at some point.

Commissioner Rundle asked what the percentage was that was being projected for the fund balance forward.

Wildgen said in 2006 it was approximately 19% and 2007 it was 10%.  He said he had faith that the economy might keep the City going.  He said those projections were based on Ed Mullins, Finance Director’s, growth factors.

Commissioner Rundle said if they did make that adjustment, he asked what would be the percentage.

Wildgen said it would lower it from 18% to 15%.

Commissioner Rundle asked if that would give more flexibility in making that expenditure if it was published in the budget as a contingency rather than in the fund balance.

Wildgen said to designate that money as a contingency would give more flexibility.  

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if Commissioner Rundle was asking that with the 2006 Budget, to have $500,000 set aside that was currently being used to help fund the general fund to be used for issues that dealt with homelessness and other cultural affairs.

Commissioner Rundle said that amount and possibly the source of money that they had been seeking for the Housing Trust Fund.  He said any time the Commission received a request mid-year there would be some funding stream as a contingency and would not need to find the money.

Commissioner Hack asked if Mullins figured out the fund balance.

Mullins said it would be reduced by another 1%.  He said the concern would be if the contingency fund was increased from $200,000 to $730,000, that could not be done without decreasing some other budget items by a similar amount because they had set the maximum budget for the general fund.  He said if they wanted to increase the contingency, they would have to decrease something else.

Commissioner Rundle said he heard that perhaps they could amend the budget and suggested waiting until January 1, 2006 to see how they ended up and at that time do the budget amendment then.

He said at the beginning of the budget process he suggested earmarking that funding stream for the 2007 Budget.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Hilda Enoch asked what the rules were for prohibiting addendums.  She said the budget was not finalized yet.

Wildgen said correct.  He said this public hearing was part of the process, but there had been a published expenditure level, but that could be amended with another public hearing.

Commissioner Rundle said the statute required that the budget be published and after the budget was published they could only reduce that amount and shift funds around, but it could be amended after the first of the year.

Enoch asked if they could not tamper with the alcohol tax money.

Mayor Highberger said not without going through another public hearing process and republishing the budget.    

Rundle said they could reallocate funds.

Wildgen said internally those funds could be reallocated as long as the top expenditure level did not exceed what had been published.

Enoch asked if all that was needed was to reallocate funds or was that too hard if the Commission decided there were greater priorities.  She said the top figure would need to be kept, but changes could be made.  She said she did not think that it took the alcohol tax money off the table.

Wildgen said no, but the alcohol tax money was revenue into the general fund and they had allocated expenditures based on those different revenues.  He said it was already calculated into their decisions.   

Commissioner Rundle said they would have to identify other funds to shift around.  He said he did not think the other Commissioner would want to do that shooting from the hip.  He said he thought they could look forward to January 1, 2006, assessing where the City would be coming out and make a possible amendment to the budget if there were healthier than projected reserves.

Enoch said she did not understand the complexities of all the give and take of that budget, but she felt that the Task Force on Homeless Services that had worked for two years to come up with a proposal that really represented basic fundamental needs in the community, needed somehow to be addressed and if the Commission shuffled that off as another report that was going to be placed on the shelf, the Commission would be doing a disservice to some of the most dedicated community citizens who had put together something that needed to be addressed.  She said it seemed that was what Commissioner Rundle was trying to say that somehow the City had to come up with the funds to look at this now.  She said there were other funds that were available if the community made the kind of commitment that needed to be made.  She said she did not care where it came from, but there needed to be money allocated in following up on that Task Force Report.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to keep this issue on the table and keep an eye on the year end balances so that early in the year they could look at that budget and it would be a quicker way to identify a dedicated revenue stream than going to legislature next year and trying to get a new revenue stream going.

He asked when the budget was published.

Wildgen said the budge was published approximately 10 days ago.

Commissioner Rundle said if there would have been someway to do that shifting around before the budget was published that was what he would have done, but obviously he was late on those suggestions. 

Commissioner Schauner suggested that January would be the time to take a look at the budget and make decisions at that time.  He said hopefully the study session would be of some additional assistance.

Commissioner Hack agreed.  She said she would like to look at those issues in January. She said she did not think the Commission would take that two years worth of work and throw those years away.  She said the Commission would receive more information at the study session to get a better sense of the public/private partnerships.

Wildgen said the Commission had budgeted nearly $200,000 that had been published. He said it took approximately two months to pay the prior year bills before getting a decent handle on fund balances.  He suggested early spring or late winter there would be a better handle on the fund balances.                                                                                                      (14)

e)         Receive staff memo re: 2006 solid waste rates, water/sewer rates, and golf course fees; approve fees, and adopt on first reading, Ordinance No. 7900 and Ordinance No. 7904, if appropriate

Wildgen said fees were related to the published budget in that each year staff looked at the enterprise fund rates which were solid waste rates, water/sewer rates, and golf course fees.  He said these issues had been discussed in study sessions and no changes had been made since those discussions.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked why residential water rates were so much higher than multi-family rates.

Ed Mullins, Finance Director, said multi-family rates were in a class by itself. He said the City hired Black and Veatch and they looked at different classes of customers and that was the figure they came up with.  He said when talking about multi-family, under the old system, they paid the minimum charge.  He said now multi-family was paying that service charge for reading the meter.  In a sense their volume charge could be lowered because there was a service charge which was $1.95 for water service charge and approximately $7.30 on the sewer side and they pay that for each of their units.  Even though staff might be reading one meter, they were paying that service charge for several units.  He said as a result, there was a lower volume charge.         

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the multi-family rate $2.40 per 1,000 gallons was based on a unit having one meter.

Mullins said that was a pure volume charge.  That was the charge for using the water.  He said the service charge was separated from the volume charge. The second component was the service charge which was $1.95 per meter.  He said if there were ten units, they would be paying approximately $100.00 just for the service charge, plus the $2.40 per 1,000 gallons of water used.  He said if a residential unit used the same amount of water, they would only get that service charge one time while multi-family would pay that charge ten times if they had ten units.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he had a four-plex building and he asked if they were paying $2.40 per 1,000 gallons.

Mullins said that four-plex should be classified as multi-family and they should have the lower volume charge.   

Vice Mayor Amyx asked staff to explain the difference between multi-family and residential units.

Wildgen said there was a discount for the multi-family in one location.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked why should one resident in a four-plex building pay less per 1,000 gallons than a person in a residential house.

Commissioner Schauner said part of the discussion was that single-family units tended to use more water for irrigating outside whereas multi-families did not tend to have that much water usage outside.  In an attempt to encourage conservation there was a slightly higher charge per 1,000 gallons for the residential units.  As a result, it indicated a preference or a slightly smaller per 1,000 gallons charge for multi-family.  Most multi-family units did not have 10,000 square foot yard.     

Mullins said those charges had to do with the peaking charge because a significant amount of the charge that went into that volume charge was the fact that when people water their lawns in the summer time, they had to have that plant capacity to do that, but that plant capacity was not being used 12 month out of the year, but 9 months out of the year.  He said with multi-family typically, they did not have that peaking and as a result their volume charge could be less.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the golf course fees and asked if it made any sense to be price competitive and encourage more rounds that rather than raising the fee structure reducing the fee structure to be more competitive.  He said he thought he had heard that people thought they were competitive, but whatever was done last year, did not seem to help the City’s bottom line with respect to the golf course operation.  He said instead of going up $1.00, he suggested becoming more competitive and having a price point advantage for Eagle Bend. 

Wildgen said the golf course was part of the Parks and Recreation program and if wanting to look at how the City subsidized a program, he suggested looking at the pools.  Those pools did not paying for themselves and never have.  He said on an overall basis those pools were subsidized by sales tax especially the indoor pool because it was a very costly facility.  He said when looking at the golf course program, that program would need to be subsidized.  He said people would be driven away by having higher rates.  He said Jim Kane, Golf Course Pro-Manager, thought that Eagle Bend was competitive with other area courses because Eagle Bend had lower rates.       

Commissioner Schauner said he did not have any problem continuing operation of the golf course because there was not a choice.  He said there was a $216,000 annual debt expense whether the golf course operated or not.  He said the golf course was part of the advantage of living in Lawrence.  He said if staff thought that the City was price competitive, he did not have any reason to challenge that, but he wanted to make sure that Eagle Bend was as price competitive as could be and still be reasonable about it so as many people who want to use that course were able to.  He said he would like to attract people from Topeka and Kansas City to use the course.     

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Hilda Enoch, Lawrence, said she did not understand the $216,000 that was paid whether there was a golf course or not.

Wildgen said that was a debt payment.  The City borrowed money to build that course and that bond issue would pay out in 2016.    

Enoch said that payment might need to go on for sometime, but that area did not need to be a golf course indefinitely.  She said a course was not one of those things that the community needed to subsidize particularly if there were priorities that were not getting funded.  She said she would like to know what percentage of people were using that golf course and what the need was to have that great subsidy when there were other golf courses in the community. She said the Commission needed to look seriously at what the City’s priority was in spending and this course seemed to be an extravagant expense for a community that had basic housing needs that were not met.

Steve Braswell, Lawrence, said he would like the City to reconsider the volume price breaks, especially on water.  He said he lived in an older part of town with smaller City lots and he did not see a lot of his neighbors water their grass and on grass pickup days there were not many bags to be picked up in his area, but in other parts of town there were dozens of bags in front of houses. 

He said with a family of three, anywhere in town, the family members would use the same amount of water whether in an older part or a more affluent part of town.  The big difference in family water usage was watering grass.  He said he wondered about expanding water treatment capability to handle that practice.  Also, those families use more solid waste resources.

Mayor Highberger informed Braswell that there was a flat rate for residential water fees at this time.  He said there was a declining rate and it was cheaper the more water used.  He said there was discussion about making it more expensive to use more water, but the Commission compromised on a flat rate and that problem was addressed.

He said concerning the golf course, he understood Enoch’s concerns, but because the way the golf course was setup there was borrowed money to make those improvements at the golf course and there were still 10 more years of payments to be made.  He said it would be more expensive for the golf course to be shut down then to keep going even though it was losing money.  He said it might not make sense, but keeping the golf course open was the fiscally responsible thing to do.

He said concerning Commissioner Schauner’s comments, he suggested that staff report back to the Commission whether a cheaper rate and an aggressive marketing campaign would have any chance of generating more revenues.      

Commissioner Hack said there was a finite amount that could be charged in terms of golf course fees.  She said to retain itself as a public course and to make it available to the broader public, there was a cap.  She said she would like to have conversation over the next month in terms of tournaments because those were money generators and it was an issue that prior Commissions were reluctant to look at. 

She said she appreciated Enoch’s priorities, but one of the things she learned in the two campaigns that she had been through was that for every person who was a passionate about the homeless, there were passionate people about a number of other issues.  She said different people had different important things in their lives and people needed to be aware of that idea.  She said she agreed with the Mayor that it would be fiscally irresponsible to abandon the golf course at this point and they needed to look at ways to enhance the income of that course.

Vice Mayor Amyx said during the agenda review meting, he brought up three different scenarios to look at concerning the golf course which was: 1) pay the short comings and go on; 2) sell the course, but there might be limits to that idea; and 3) an aggressive approach to marketing the golf course such as competitive fees and tournaments.  He said they needed to look at keeping the fees down and look at what other area courses do to help lower the amount of money that was being paid out on an annual basis to take care of the golf course.

Moved by Hack seconded by Schauner to approve the 2006 solid waste rates, water and sewer rates, and golf course fees and adopt on first readings Ordinance 7900 and Ordinance 7904.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                              (15)

f)          Receive staff memo re: public hearing for 2006 budget; adopt on first reading, Ordinance No. 7913, approving the 2006 budget and Ordinance No. 7914, appropriating and budgeting property tax revenue for the 2006 budget, if appropriate

Mayor Highberger called for public comment. 

Laura Routh, Lawrence, commented on the Lawrence Police Department budget.  She said for most departments that submitted budget requests a summary of accomplishments and goals was given as part of that budget document.  She said she was confused as to why the Police Department budget did not seem to be held to the same expectation.  She said for all City departments there was a chart that had a performance indicator matrix, but when looking at the Police Department’s performance indicator matrix, it was empty and stated that it was either not applicable or to be determined.  She said if the Commission was expecting City departments to justify their funding or an increase in funding, which in fact the Police Department was asking for and additional 3%, the standard needed to be the same for that department as for all others. She asked the Commission to consider in this year’s and next year’s budget decision, just who was held accountable for the Police Department.  

She said in the Police Department’s current year accomplishments, which was another section of that summary part of that budget, the Lawrence Police Department noted that their department had implemented resource planned recommendations “as appropriate.”  She said they talked about the resource plan in February, but asked what recommendations from that resource plan were implemented.  She said that resource plan was brought to the Commission so that the Commission could make decisions regarding goals and objectives and pick from that resource plan, what the Commission was going to have the Police Department focus on.  She said now the Police Department was requesting more money, approximately a quarter of the City’s budget in terms of outlay funds which was going to fund that department who apparently did not need to be accountable or provide any information on what they were doing and how they were going to do it.                    

She said she had some questions that were outstanding and she hoped that the Commission would consider those questions in their decision regarding the budget.  She asked if the Commission directed goals and priorities as the resource plan encouraged, what were those goals and priorities and did the Police Department budget meet or match the goals and priorities that the resource plan had them work through. 

She said it was her strong belief that the Lawrence Police Department should be held to the same, if not, a higher standard in justifying their request for increased funding.  She said she did not see that in the context of the document that was put forth in the budget.  As she saw it, the request was lacking in that it did not have a lot of information and it did not provide a lot of justification.  If the Commission approved it as it stood, then their process was flawed because she was not sure that the Commission or the Police Department had done their jobs because again, the Police Department did not need to provide any information.  She said as a taxpayer and citizen, she was not sure why that was the process that was being used.       

Enoch asked if alterations or changes were to be made after this public hearing.    

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service Department, said tonight was the night of the public hearing which needed to be conducted by State law.  A public hearing was based upon what was published as the proposed budget.  The mill levy requirements could not be increased for that budget.  He said there could be a number of things that could be done after the public hearing.  He said the Commission already indicated that they wanted to reduce the mill levy in an earlier discussion and staff assumed that would be the budget that was adopted.  If the Commission adopted that budget there were two things that accomplished:  1) That was the property tax requirement that the County Treasurer would collect as far as the mill levy requirement; and 2) That the Commission was telling the City Manager, that was the budget that the Commission wanted implemented for 2006.  He said within that budget, the Commission could tell the City Manager to reallocate priorities up to any management decision that the City Manager would make in implementing that budget.  The City Manager would not implement that budget until 2006.  

He said to answer Enoch’s question, for example on the special alcohol fund money, which was a question of how they allocated that money or if there was a question about how the City Commission allocated general fund money, if the Commission adopted the budget as presented, the Commission in the future weeks and months, tell staff to reallocate within those approved revenue and expenditure requirements.  After the first of the year, the budget could be changed in 2006 to show additional revenue sources and additional expenditures and spend more money based on that increase in expenditures.  The budget served both the statutory purpose to tell the County Treasurer what property taxes to collect and then it was also the management tool that said within those revenues that were authorized, that was how they were planning on spending that amount.          

Enoch said after the City Commission finished listening to the public, then the Commission would go ahead and either pass this budget as it was or they could reallocate now just so they kept that top figure.

Corliss said the City Commission could reallocate now.

Enoch said then there was some point in coming before the City Commission because those things tonight would be fixed.  She asked if there would be one more budget session.

Corliss said there were no more budget sessions planned.  He said his point was that the Commission had the ability within the published budget to say that they could not increase property taxes, but could reallocate money after that.  He said it would be more difficult because they would be making management decisions based on an approved budget, but staff could elaborate on the consequences to the Commission and respond accordingly.  He said it was the Commission’s budget that they were approving and it was staff’s responsibility to implement that budget.    

Enoch commented that there were differences in priorities but she thought some voices were not being heard and some needs were greater than others.  She said it was up to the City Commission to set priorities that the community could be proud of.  Housing that was affordable for this community was one of those very high priorities and she knew the Commission said they wanted to make affordable housing one of those priorities, but she wanted to see that the budget would reflect that idea.    

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to close the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Highberger asked staff to comment on Routh’s questions about the police department’s budget.  

Wildgen said he was not prepared at this meeting to address those concerns and would like time to put that response together.  Certainly if it was lacking in terms of the published budget then staff would want to put more detail in that budget.  He said the resource plan was a multi-year effort.  He said staff used the ideas and recommendations from the plan in looking at the priorities in the Police Department.  He said he would be glad to put something together for the Commission and Routh that gave more information related to that concern.  He said if there was not good detail in the budget, he wanted to make sure that budget was done right,

Mayor Highberger said he would appreciate that effort.

Commissioner Schauner said what would be helpful for him would be an objectives and output scenario on what they were trying to achieve, by what date would it be achieved, and a report on a regular basis about the progress being made in achieving those outputs.  He said that would be good information for the Commission and the entire community.  He said frankly, it would be a good way for the department to track its own progress internally. 

Wildgen said that was generally the assignment given to Chief Olin. 

Commissioner Schauner said that he agreed with Routh in that he did not see anything in the budget because it was all “NA” or “TBD” and he suggested that staff prepare additional information.      

Wildgen said staff would prepare that information.

Commissioner Hack said what she would like to see, since they would all be putting together the budget next year, was to have a timeline that was agreed upon if there were certain issues that the Commission thought were really important, for instance reduction of the mill levy or specific fund balances, it would be helpful for everyone to get a handle on those types of issues earlier.  She said the Commission started in that direction this year with Commissioners’ program improvements and she wanted to reiterate that that was a good place to start from next year.

Commissioner Rundle said he had sent a letter to the City Commission, the press, and staff about some of his concerns and one of those concerns was that the City did not get their bank statement until the budget process was almost over.  He said he thought there should be some discussion about when the City would receive their financial report and direct staff accordingly.  He said it was awfully hard to put a wish list on the table at the beginning of the year when they’re forecasted to have far less money than they actually did have on hand.  He said it would be good to have discussion and get a little clearer on staff direction and other issues.

Commissioner Schauner said it would be great to have more discussions, but he suggested adding more study sessions about the budget because it was a more complicated matter if the City Commission was going to be as hands on as its been in the last year or two in budget preparation.  He said he would very much like to see more opportunities to have more discussions among themselves about how that process went forward.  He said that could eliminate much of the last minute sort of suggestion.

Commissioner Amyx said there were always going to be times when items might come out toward the end of the process that the Commission needed to recognize.  He said the Commission should always be prepared for that last minute rush of any new ideas that might come along.                      

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt on first reading Ordinance 7913 (as amended), approving the 2006 budget and Ordinance 7914, appropriating and budgeting property tax revenue for the 2006 budget.  Motion carried unanimously.                                          (16)

Conduct a public hearing on proposed special assessment for the Riverside benefit district.

Mayor Highberger called a public hearing on the proposed special assessments for the Riverside benefit district.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report.  He said the Riverside special assessment benefit district was created for sanitary sewer improvements in the general vicinity of north Iowa, north of Riverridge Road.  He said the benefit district involved a fairly large pump station that was located off the map and provided for sanitary sewer capacity, not only for the Riverside Business Park, but also helped the entire sanitary sewer improvements in that area primarily north of Riverridge Road and some of the property that was to the east of North Michigan.  He said the Commission was provided a staff memo that presented the chronology on this project and the ordinance that established the special assessments on this property.  The resolution that the Commission adopted creating this benefit district indicated that there would be some public at large participation and that those properties would pay their benefiting share and that was what the assessment ordinance provided for.  He said staff provided notification to the property owners and the appropriate notice had been published.           

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to close the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7862, levying assessment on lots, pieces, and parcels of land in the City of Lawrence, Kansas to pay part of the costs for the construction of sanitary sewer improvements including pump station, force main, gravity lines and related and attendant improvements in and near Riverside Business Park as authorized by Resolution No. 6402.  Motion carried unanimously.      (17)

Receive staff memo regarding the request for waiver from building permit moratorium for proposed triplex at 500 Florida Street.

Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said the request was for a triplex and the building plans were included on the web-based agenda.  This building moratorium was in the HOP area and was one of the moratoriums that the City Commission requested as a result of the adoption of the plan to allow each of the neighborhood associations to study the identified areas for possible zoning updates.    

Mayor Highberger asked if the moratorium began June 2004.  

Leininger said June 7, 2005 was when the revised moratorium took place.  The first two moratoriums were for the entire HOP area.  This moratorium was only for specific identified areas on the plan.  

Mayor Highberger asked if this area had been under a moratorium for a little over a year.

Leininger said there was a break from April to June.

Mayor Highberger asked about the status of planning of the area.

Leininger said there were representatives willing to sever on the task force.  She said she had provided those representatives with information on explanations of the different zoning districts and other basic information.      

Commissioner Hack asked when the moratorium expired.

Leininger said six months from June 7^th which would be December 7^th.   

Commissioner Hack asked when the application was made for that project.

Leininger said that application was made July 12^th.   

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Barbara Sabol, applicant, said while the July date was a correct date, she had applied for a building permit prior to the time that she sought the exemption from the moratorium.  She said she wanted to clarify a couple of points.  She said her personal work history had been in social services in which she worked with vulnerable populations and she would not use those words and “buzz words” to influence anything. 

Secondly, that from the beginning of this work, her sister and she had an interest in low and moderate income housing and housing that was accessible to the handicapped because they were aware of the needs of the handicapped having faced that issue in their own family.  She said she was hoping to move forward and she had met with Steve Braswell, President, Pinckney Neighborhood Association, and she was able to say to Braswell, as a property owner in that neighborhood, she had not been made aware of the planning that was suppose to be going on the neighborhood, had not been invited to a meeting, had gone to the website and could not find the minutes of the various task forces that were responding to this plan that was being developed.  She said to the degree that it was feasible and people were interested in having community input, then it would seem that would include all the property owners in that particular area.

She asked for the Commission’s consideration of an exemption so that she could move forward in what she believed to be a valuable project for the community.  She said a staff member of Stephens Realty had been helping oversee that project.     

Commissioner Rundle asked if she would be the developer of the project or would someone else.

Sabol said she was going to have that project contracted out.

Commissioner Rundle asked if she would be the owner of the project.

Sabol said yes.

J.R. Demby, Stephens Real Estate, said Sabol along with her sister had been trying to get this project accomplished since November of last year.  He said he assumed that the Commission had a copy of a letter he sent asking for the exception as well as the letter from Braswell in response.  One of the concerns he had was the amount of time that this moratorium had experienced. 

The property was owned by Sabol’s mother who was of an advanced age and Sabol or her sister did not live in that house.  He said finding out about the property as well as other properties that her mom and dad had acquired over the years scattered out over many places, but had not had any family attention to, the sister’s set about putting everything in proper order.  This particular property, the sister’s found a dilapidated structure and one of the solutions was that they purchased that property from their mother and had that structure demolished.  He said the sister’s then contacted him to find out what would be a reasonable use of the property after coming up with this idea of putting something that would benefit low to moderate income families.  The sister’s came up with a list far greater than was economically feasible as well as being able to fit within the boundaries of the property.  Their intent was to provide a nice property for people who would rent from them. 

He said what they were trying to accomplish far exceeded anything that was done or had been done within the last 20 to 25 years in construction in that neighborhood and it was going to be a benefit to some family.  He said one of the reasons he was asking for the exemption was because someone out there needed a home and they were trying to provide something that was hopefully a little bit better than the norm and hopefully affordable. 

He said the first application for a building permit was back in April and they had tried to apply before they found out about the moratorium, but they applied after.  He said they thought the application had been granted, as a matter of fact, the contractor had gone down to pick up the permit and the contractor was told that there had been an extension.  He said he believed that they were in the eighteenth month of the moratorium all together.  He asked that the Commission give this issue consideration.                  

Steve Braswell, on behalf of the Pinckney Neighborhood Association, said he had a conversation with Sabol and Demby.  He said he was asking that the exception not be granted.   The reason was from a public policy standpoint in that they had this building moratorium and to allow the process to go on.  In the ordinance concerning that moratorium it stated that allowance could be made for exemptions for rebuilding or additions to existing structures that did not change the footprint of the project.  He said granting this exemption would change the footprint and he felt that a case had not been made to warrant exemption. 

He said there had been ample time to do something with this property.  He said they had seen a lot of neglected property in older neighborhoods to a point where those structures needed to be torn down.  The property had been neglected and had not brought in income when there was an opportunity to do so and therefore, he saw no urgency to this issue.

He said Sabol questioned his statements about the use of the words “low and moderate income” and “handicapped accessible.”  He said he asked Sabol what the property would rent for which seemed like a reasonable question, but he did not receive an answer.  He said in their meeting and in a letter Demby stated that they would like to make the bathrooms ADA compliant, but that they might not.  He said one of their main points for requesting the exemption was because it would be handicapped accessible even though they might not make the bathrooms ADA compliant and it was aimed at low and moderate income households even thought they did not know the amount it would rent for.  He said most of this issue was of a policy standpoint and he asked the Commission to uphold the moratorium and let the process of the neighbors and City staff, come up with an overall view to see where that would lead.                

Mayor Highberger asked what the underlying zoning was for that area.

Leininger said RM-2. 

Commissioner Hack asked if this project would conform to the density in the RM-24 district with the requirements in the new code.

Leininger said yes.

Mayor Highberger said since this project was a triplex structure he asked if it would not require a site plan.

Leininger said correct. 

Vice Mayor Amyx asked Braswell if Pinckney Neighborhood had an opportunity to respond to that density on this particular piece of property or the properties in this area.  

Braswell said they were going to get together with Leininger to discuss that issue in a couple of weeks because they had identified that particular area of concern.  He said they had not accomplished anything other than identifying the overall HOP area.         

Commissioner Hack said in the 15 or 16 months of this moratorium all that had been done was identifying the HOP area.

Braswell said what had been identified was their area of concern within the overall HOP area.  He said they had discussed what they wanted among themselves, but they had not discussed their ideas with the Planning Department.

Commissioner Hack asked Demby to discuss the parking and the handicapped restroom issues. 

Demby said regarding parking, Braswell asked if they could put the parking in the rear and they did not have a problem with that idea, but that they might have a size problem with the lot.  He said the other problem with putting the parking behind the structure was that there would be a very narrow back out turn option.

As far as the bathrooms being ADA compliant, specifically what he told Braswell was it was their intent to make those ADA compliant.  He said his client just readdressed that issue with him and his client did want to make the bathrooms ADA compliant.  He said he believed they could make those bathrooms ADA compliant based on the preliminary plans, but he was hesitant to say that those bathrooms would be in compliance because they might run into a size issue.       

Commissioner Hack said it was not unusual to not divulge the amount of rent that would be charged.

Demby said Sabol was his client and he had to respect her privacy.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked Demby if they had applied for a building permit based on certain plans that were submitted.

Demby said yes, but that permit was taken off the table because of the moratorium and they would need to reapply.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if those plans included ADA bathrooms.

Demby said the first set of plans was for two duplexes and due to size limitations on the lot they had to change those plans.  He said he thought they had made that application based on the new triplex plan which gave them more size and that plan would have incorporated those bathrooms. 

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if those plans were completed.

Demby said those plans were in Topeka with the architect.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked when those plans would be completed.

Demby said he would call the architect tomorrow, but generally there was a week turnaround.  He said concerning the final plan, because of the moratorium issue, he told the architect to hold up on the final plans until they knew what was happening.  He said he was told that there would be a 4 to 5 day turnaround whenever he would let the architect know that the project was a go.      

Commissioner Schauner asked if this building permit application was made before May 31, 2005.

Demby said yes.

Commissioner Schauner the original moratorium was passed on July 25, 2004.  He asked if there was a building permit request made prior to the effective date of the original moratorium

Demby said no.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not know if this was a good or bad project.  He said there were a few months left on the extension of the HOP moratorium and he did not want the Commission to be in the position of saying “yes” to this project and then finding someway to say “no” to the next project that would have similar circumstances.  He said the Commission was clear about why they had the original moratorium and the extension thereof.  He said he had not heard enough information to suggest that the Commission should grant an exception to the moratorium.  He said he could not tell for sure whether those plans were ready to be built on or whether there was additional work to be done.  He said it seemed that the Commission should honor the moratorium, but commented to whomever this issue concerned that he did not think there was much chance that that moratorium would be extended beyond its current life.  If the neighborhood wanted to have an impact on what ultimately happened in their area, he thought people should be meeting with staff sooner than later because he did not think he could support an additional extension on the moratorium.  He said he could not support that particular request, but he wanted it clearly stated that the moratorium would not get further support from him.  He said this party could come back when the moratorium expired and would not need to go through those hoops.       

Commissioner Rundle asked if there was reasonable chance of accomplishing the goals of the moratorium in terms of getting back something for the Commission to look at as a neighborhood plan.

Leininger said she thought they were relatively close in submitting a neighborhood plan.  She said submitting a rezoning request before the moratorium would not be an issue.     

Commissioner Rundle said for those reasons, he thought they would be able to wind those issues up according to schedule.  He said he would not rather plan the area by approving something that they would then need to make a non-conforming use in the future.    

Sabol asked about the accountability process to make sure that the neighborhood was able to have appropriate input.  Again, she had gone to the website and could not get information and did not find minutes to the task force that had been empowered to do that work.  She said as a property owner, she had not received any notification of any meetings.  She said when she asked for the membership list Braswell did not have that list available or would not make it available, if that list existed.        

Commissioner Hack asked who was listed as the owner of the property.

Sabol said she and Sonya Johnson were listed as the property owners.

Commissioner Hack said that the property owners should have been notified.

Braswell said his neighborhood association was an informal group.  He said they had just submitted their latest newsletter to the printer and Sabol would receive an email copy of that newsletter. 

Commissioner Rundle said working between staff and the neighborhood association, he hoped they would come back to the City Commission with a draft plan and hopefully there would be neighborhood meetings and input on that plan.   He asked if this plan would be addressed by the Planning Commission.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said no, once staff received information back from all of the subcommittees the action would be to help implement the HOP plan through amendments to Horizon 2020.

Commissioner Rundle said there would be a variety of public hearings that staff could explain in addition to those informal meetings.  

Commissioner Hack said the timeline would be that the moratorium would end December 7^th, and then have public hearings to amend Horizon 2020 to reflect the HOP plan. 

Finger said first, the amendment would need to be initiated to zonings based upon whichever code the City was under at that time and then staff could look at Horizon 2020. She said if there were inconsistencies, then they could make amendments to Horizon 2020, but she did not know if there would be inconsistencies.  The intent was never to amend the HOP plan into Horizon 2020 only to avoid any conflicts that might be between those two documents.  She said the next step after the moratorium expired should be, if it had not occurred, to initiate rezoning if appropriate.  After that it would go to the Planning Commission for public hearing and back to the City Commission.  The hope was that the Commission had created the moratorium for a long enough period of time, but that process would be at its end rather than its beginning.  In other words, by the time the moratorium expired, the Commission would have already acted on that zoning request.   

Commissioner Hack said she was concerned about the length of time of this process.  She said she would support this exception request because she believed this was a good project.  She said it was important, it terms of the moratorium, to step up and get those plans taken care of.  The reason there were no detailed plans was because the applicant was not sure they would be able to implement their project and she asked why someone would want to spend money on an architect if the project would not be approved.  She said while there were no detailed plans, she supported the request for a waiver from a building permit moratorium for the proposed triplex at 500 Florida Street   

Vice Mayor Amyx said Finger described a process of what could be another year.  He said the on-going costs of what he considered to be a very small project was going to have a great affect on those properties.  He said there was application made and he believed everyone had acted in good faith, but in looking at the entire HOP area and staff’s recommendation, it justified the proposed triplex on Florida Street.  

Finger said based on current zoning this project was acceptable.  The areas that were identified in the HOP plan were areas that identified inconsistencies between current use and zoning either based on lack of transition, inappropriate transition, or a use that was out of character or not permitted in the zoning.  She said those reasons did not describe any of what that property owner had discussed or looked at.  She said architectural or design standards that the committee had hoped, those were not created, and the creation of those standards would be at least a year. 

Vice Mayor Amyx said what the Commission was telling Demby and his client was that it would be a year from now when they could apply for a building permit.

Finger said she was just stating the process if the Commission did not grant the waiver.

Mayor Highberger said both sides had good cases.  He said obviously a moratorium was imposed for a reason which was to ensure that any future construction in that area be done after a chance to access the current zoning and make any necessary changes. 

The process identified places that had construction inconsistent with current zoning and that property would have also been inconsistent with current zoning because it had a single-family dwelling unit.  He said he was concerned about this project dragging on for an extended period of time given the likelihood of the zoning on that corner changing dramatically.        

Commissioner Rundle said if the Commission was going to make a decision on this issue they needed to make sure the entire HOP area was aware of this issue and could consider the ramification of this issue opening the door to similar projects and totally compromising the planning process.  He said Commissioner Schauner had given a compromised proposal that he would not support extending the moratorium which was in January which was not a year from now.  He would prefer that if the Commission was going to make an exception, they make sure the entire HOP planning area was notified and could be there to comment. 

Commissioner Schauner said his concern was that the Commission was trying to make a decision based on “what if” and “maybe”, but he did not find that satisfying.  He said what the Commission knew was that there was a moratorium in place, the Commission said there would be exceptions for two purposes and this project did not satisfy either of those purposes and they were very close to the end of the moratorium.  It seemed that the Commission should honor their prior work.  He said this decision might not be fair to this particular individual, but the Commission was trying to do the right thing for a lot of folks who lived in that area not just this particular landowner.   He said he would like to see the City Commission deny the request, light a fire to the extent that they had the ability to do that under the Pinckney neighborhood and move forward in the way they had been moving.  He said they were getting close to the end of the moratorium and he suggested not abandoning the process now.     

Mayor Highberger said the Commission did not have a clear standard for waiving the moratorium in this case and he did not want to open the door for any number of other requests to waive the moratorium.  He said regardless of whether the study group’s work was completed by the end of the current moratorium, he would not be interested in continuing a moratorium for this property any longer.  He voted against granting the waiver.

Commissioner Hack asked if Mayor Highberger could clarify his comments.

Mayor Highberger said regardless of whether there were proposed rezoning or any guidelines in draft process, there would be no moratorium unless it was reinstated and he would be highly unlikely to vote for extending the moratorium and if there was a moratorium, he would certainly grant a waiver for that project after that time.    

Commissioner Rundle said this would not preclude in his mind if the neighborhood proceeded and stayed in touch with the applicant that if some further negotiations in the plan adapting to what the neighborhood was working toward, it would be possible that the applicant could come back with the neighborhood’s support before the end of the moratorium.  He said the neighborhood was committed to try to cooperate and move things along as quickly as possible. 

Commissioner Hack said if that was the Commission’s hope then all parties had to be at the table and that there had to be some appreciation on the part of the neighborhood of what could and could not be done within the confines of a particular size of a lot.  She said it seemed like a good project and it did not seem like it was something that people could object to in the long run.  She respected the votes of her fellow Commissioners, but she said they needed to get this plan going.  There were too many things on hold and it was too vital an area along 6^th Street and to have it hanging out there for as long as it had been, was the wrong way to do business.        

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to deny the request for a waiver from a building permit moratorium for a proposed triplex at 500 Florida Street.  Aye:  Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay:  Amyx and Hack.  Motion carried. (18)

Deny the following Temporary Use Permitted Upon Review TUPR-07-17-05, a request for a Latin Festival to be held at Gaslight Tavern located at 317 North 2^nd Street.  Submitted by Jeff Fortier owner of Gaslight Tavern

Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, presented the staff report.  She said the City Commission did not typically see those Temporary Use Permits because most of those permits were administratively approved.  However, if a request came that did not meet the standards and was denied the applicant had the ability to request City Commission approval.  She said staff provided the Commission with code citation as to the findings that needed to be made.

This specific request was for the closure of the parking lot at the Gaslight Tavern on Saturday from noon until 11:00 p.m.  She said this was a site that was a very small commercial building which had an outdoor patio area and was granted approval to reduce the overall parking requirement from 20 spaces to 9 spaces through the Board of Zoning Appeals.  This request was to not provide any parking at all and to utilize the City public parking lot that was south of the Depot across North 2^nd Street.      

Staff recommended denial and staff had concerns about setting a precedent.  The code was very specific to say that Temporary User Permits may be permitted on properties that had excess parking above and beyond the requirements of the ordinance.  In the review of this request, staff also inspected the site and determined that it was in the environs of the Union Pacific Depot and there had been an awning and patio cover that had been installed which had not gone through the proper review process and would need to go through that process no matter the outcome of this request.  She said staff also had concern about granting a Temporary Use Permit on a site that did not fully comply with the requirements of the site plan that was approved by the Commission a few years ago. 

Commissioner Rundle asked if the parking in the City lot would be adequate in number to meet requirements.

Stogsdill said the applicant had indicated in the request that they estimated that there might be 250 attendees.  Obviously that number would be spread out throughout the day.  She said she did not know how many parking spaces there were.  She checked to see if there were any specific events that were scheduled at the Depot and Saturday, but there was nothing scheduled.    

She said staff had concerns about the busy street. She said there was a crosswalk, but people walking back and forth all day, they had suggested the applicant pursue use of one of the City parks which had been used on multiple occasions for other outdoor music festivals.

Commissioner Rundle asked if Stogsdill saw any similarities to this issue and the code provisions that allowed an apartment to have parking that was not contiguous.

Stogsdill said the code permitted parking that was under the same ownership within 300 feet of the commercial establishment or multi-family establishment, but it had to be property that was under the same ownership.

Commissioner Rundle asked about the distance from that property to the City lot.

Stogsdill said it was approximately 100 to 120 feet the width of the right-of-way for North 2^nd Street.      

Vice Mayor Amyx said in this particular case, he asked if all of the attendees would need to walk to the site from the City lot. 

Stogsdill said yes. 

Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the performance bond.

Stogsdill said the amount of the performance bond was up to the City Commission.  She said typically that performance bond had been used when there had been and event that had been on public property and staff wanted some sort of bond setup in case of things like trash cleanup.  She said since staff recommended denial they did not offer a sum.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the site needed to control occupancy at any given time.

Stogsdill said staff had concerns about that issue.  She said her conversations with one of the Fire Inspectors was that the building was so small that it was rated for less than 50 individuals, but they did not post occupancy for less than 50 individuals.  Clearly, she assumed the manager would be handling that to some extent.  She said the applicant did indicate that not everyone would need to go in and out in order to get food and drink because they did have patio windows that were used for service.

Commissioner Rundle said he had attended a performance at that location and it seemed that it was people sitting outside listening to the music.

She said the approved site plan showed that the building was only 300 square feet in size and the outdoor patio was 500 square feet which did not include those 9 parking spaces that they were requesting to block off so they could put up tables and chairs to sit at.  She said it did include taking out the accessible parking space for that site and there were other businesses that were south of that business in that same building and those business would be without their parking for the entire day.

Commissioner Rundle asked if it would be staff’s recommendation for denial of the original request that was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Stogsdill said yes, staff did not recommend approval.

Commissioner Hack said in the staff report it discussed obtaining liability and personal injury insurance in such form and amount as the City Commission may find necessary to protect the safety and general welfare of the community.  She said if the Commission decided that this issue was appropriate, she asked who would determine whether or not insurance would be required.  She said if the Commission agreed to this permit could the City be held liable for using the City’s parking lot.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service Director, said where the City had required insurance it usually had been for events that took place on City property to protect the City from a claim that as a property owner the City was responsible for injuries that would occur based on their permission to be on City property.  There might be instances where a particular event was such a nature that regardless of where it was located, the City would require insurance.

Stogsdill said the use she was most familiar with was the use of the right-of-way when people request blocking off a street for block parties.  She said there was a requirement to provide proof of insurance as part of that application but that was because that person would be specifically using the public right-of-way.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that would be permitting them to close their existing parking and that they knew that they would be having their patron’s park in a public lot instead.

Wildgen said yes.

Commissioner Rundle said the City usually required the person holding the event to name the City as co-insured.  He asked if that could be done in this case.

Corliss said that could be done.  One of the issues was that if this Temporary Use Permit Upon Review required the use of public property, the Depot north or south lot, did they want to make a condition of the TUPR to obtain either insurance or getting the City named as an additional insured on their policy.  He said there was the question of whether it was appropriate to allow this event to occur that they would have exclusive use of that public parking lot.  He said they would need to let the city know if they were going to make that their parking lot for the evening and would be responsible for that lot.   

Mayor Highberger asked if there has been any contract with the other small businesses near the Gaslight Tavern.   

Stogsdill said the applicant had indicated as part of their application that those retail owners were on board with this request. 

Mayor Highberger called for public comment. 

Jade Brown, on behalf of Gaslight Tavern, said he asked that the Commission approve the temporary use of the parking area for an event on August 13^th.  The Gaslight had received a temporary extension of premises from the State of Kansas to allow the possession and consumption of alcohol in that area. The Gaslight had also applied for a temporary permit with the City of Lawrence which was awaiting Commission approval.

He said they respectfully disagreed with staff’s assessment and portrayal of the issues concerning this event.  He said they felt their request was reasonable and that the issue was simple as to whether the City should allow the Gaslight to forego parking for twelve hours so as to increase public access to a live music event featuring live music by local musicians. 

He said the intent of the City Code special event provisions was also clear.  It was outlined in Chapter 20-1454.1, the intent was to provide for temporary use of land for special events.  He said it was the intent to protect nearby property owners, residences, and businesses.  He said it was the intent to preserve the public, health, safety, and convenience.  The Gaslight planned to have employees directing drivers to the lots across the street which they felt was adequate and which according to the planning office report, that they agreed with that assessment.

As for the liabilities resulting from parking as stated, this was a public lot and while they were not asking to exclusive access to this lot, they were merely stating that alternative parking was available.  As to liability for people crossing the street, he said they did not feel there was any more liability for someone crossing the street to go from that lot to Gaslight than there would be for going to the Jackpot Saloon to the Replay Lounge downtown.  He said likewise he did not think there would be anymore liability for the City if the Gaslight patrons use that lot as there would be for the Jazzhaus patron using the lot located behind the Jazzhaus.         

The Gaslight had met with and received the approval of neighboring property owners, neighboring businesses, and the North Lawrence Improvement Association.  The Gaslight had taken and would continue to take all necessary steps to ensure public health, safety, and convenience.  It was therefore proper, that this temporary use permit be approved.  As for the issues that staff brought up concerning non-compliance, the Gaslight was not aware of any non-compliance prior to the filing of that TUPR.  The Gaslight had made it a point to vigorously make sure they were in compliance with all applicable laws and would continue to do so.  However, there had been no notice or no chance to rectify the situation therefore, due to this lack of notice, they felt that addressing this issue at this time and in this manner were inappropriate. They said they also felt that those issues were not really relevant to the use of the parking lot.

It had been traditionally this communities support and acceptance of the arts and entertainment that had allowed Lawrence’s music scene to grow, flourish, and gain national attention.  He said many of the rules and restrictions as applied to this industry serve to discourage expression and to deprive the community of one of their most unique and valuable assets.  The music scene in Lawrence was something that they should all be proud of and support so long that it was done in a responsible manner which was what they were asking to do. 

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the maximum occupancy would be 250 people.

Brown said yes.  He said they did not know for sure how many people would show up.  They could handle up to 90 people with the premises as it currently was.  He said they realistically expected attendance to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 to 150 people which was why they were asking for that parking lot use for overflow so that the people could come out and enjoy the music.  He said 250 people was a long shot, but they liked to provide that cushion in case that many people should arrive and they believed that the site was adequate to handle that number of people.

Commissioner Hack asked if they would cap their attendance at 250 people.

Brown said yes, if the Commission desired.      

Commissioner Schauner said that Brown mentioned that the lot across the street would be for overflow.  He said the fact of the matter was that it was not overflow, but the only parking.

Brown said what he was referring to as overflow was the use of the existing parking on the Gaslight premises would be used for overflow for patrons who would not have access to the premises otherwise.  He pointed out that there were nine spots available for that whole complex and with the existing 90 person limit, that was ten people per car and that amount of car pooling was unrealistic to expect.  He said there would always be overflow and the Gaslight had been working with the neighboring property owners since the beginning to try and rectify this issue and make sure that it was done in a proper manner.  

Commissioner Rundle said one of the concerns of the North Lawrence Association was that the music was scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m.  He said if this TUPR was approved, that they made every effort to adhere to that time limit.

Brown said they intended for the live music to exist between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.  He said after11:00 p.m. there would be people spinning records as was normally the case with the Gaslight.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Brown had a proposal as to how he would cap the attendance at 250 people.

Brown said they would be collecting a door fee admission and would be counting the attendees as they arrived and left to ensure that no more than the requisite number entered the property.   

Tom Alexias, Lawrence, said he supported the project.  

Jesse Jackson, local concert promoter, said he had done shows at the Gaslight, and throughout the Midwest.  He said he would be on the premises and it would be handled just like any professional concert.  All needs would be met for the public safety, door counts, ticket counts and all the other needs to make sure the concert was ran professionally.     

Commissioner Rundle asked if any of those bands had a local following. 

Jackson said they were bringing in a national act which was a D.J.  He said there would be local and national acts present.

Commissioner Rundle asked if any of those acts typically draw in access of the 250 people in other venues.   

Jackson said no, but the national act had never been to Lawrence and he believed there would be 90 to 150 people, but it would be great if they had 200 or 250 people.  

Commissioner Rundle said in the event they were overwhelmed with success that they were prepared to turn people away.

Jackson said they were very prepared because they had done shows in many locations.  He said they were prepared for 125 to 150 people.

Commissioner Rundle said he had been to other events where they had to park across the street and traverse that intersection to the after parties and that traffic light did have a walk signal.  He said it seemed that crossing the street was rather normal at that location.  He said he was prepared to support the request based on Commission conversation.  He said it was fairly typical that they required insurance that the City to be named as co-insured.  He said if that was feasible under the City’s regulation to add that as a requirement, he would like to see that happen.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the amount of the bond.

Commissioner Rundle said it seemed that when they held Fiddling and Picking Championships in South Park which was a larger event that there was a set level.

Wildgen said that was insurance coverage.  He said the performance bond was related to cleaning the property afterwards.

Corliss said his preference would be to not get a performance bond, but if they thought they would have issues about trash and cleanup, on public property, they would ask that they escrow a certain amount of cash.  He said if the City had to pay someone overtime to go and clean that area up, then they would use those funds.  A performance bond with a surety company would be very difficult to enforce.  He said if they had an issue about performing on public property then his suggestion would be to give the City a cashier’s check for $1,000 and then the City would reconcile if they had to pay someone overtime or do extraordinary cleanup in the parking lot.  He said a performance bond was more for a larger public improvement project.

Vice Mayor Amyx, said that Ted Boyle, President, North Lawrence Association, discussed the 11:00 p.m. cut-off for music which was also part of that bond.

Wildgen said in terms of enforcement that was a police department issue.           

Corliss said there could be a liquidated damage penalty in that the applicant would give the City a certain amount of money.  He said it was an enforcement issue in that they were pledging that they would close live music at 11:00 p.m., but that they were going to have stereo music going on and that would need to be handled appropriately.   

Commissioner Schauner said the music scene was important, but he was concerned about the safety of the people up and down that street.  He said it was not a particularly well lighted area and that traffic was 30 to 45 miles an hour on that street.  He said the only way he could support this issue was if they hired a police officer to ensure the safety of the pedestrians crossing the street.  He said he thought there needed to be a cleanup bond, not $1,000, but a couple hundred dollars.  He said he did not want to discourage this activity and did not want to make the money an issue in that they could not have their event, but on the other hand, his greater concern was the safety of the public.  He said this area was not like Massachusetts street because there was faster traffic in the area.  He said they needed some additional off-duty police for protection for pedestrian crossing as well as the traveling public from at least 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

Mayor Highberger said he understood staff’s concerns and he always hesitated to contradict staff, but this was the type of event the City should encourage.  He said his only real concern was people crossing the street especially after they had been drinking.  He said he was willing to support the TUPR, but he asked that the applicant have someone outside to keep an eye on people and discourage people crossing the street someplace other than the light.      

Commissioner Hack said their application discussed security people.  She asked if one of those security people be assigned to that crossing guard position. 

Brown said a person could be assigned.  He said if the Commission preferred an off-duty police officer, one could most certainly be procured for that purpose.

Commissioner Hack said she agreed with the previous speakers in that this event was a good idea and was part of that wonderful music scene in Lawrence.  She said she agreed with the Mayor in understanding staff’s concerns.

Commissioner Rundle said the security was no problem, but he asked about the insurance.

Jackson said he had insurance for all of his shows.  He said they would have insurance for the normal way they insured their shows.  He said they always would get an insurance certificate depending on the venue.  He said this venue had insurance, but generally he would get additional insurance.  He said they insure where the event was occurring and that included that outside parking lot area.  He said parking in a public place they usually did not insure the public parking lots that were next to their venues unless for some reason their security had to go into that public space, but then it was their security and staffing that they had hired for that event and their insurance would cover those employees.      

Corliss said the City’s liability concerns were not as the regulator in this instance.  The City liability concerns would be as a property owner.  He said it would not be fair to burden an event organizer with insuring public property that they were not having exclusive control of.  He said he did not know if the insurance requirement was as applicable here as it would be for example when those types of situations were done in Burcham Park.  He said he wanted to make sure while they were using public property that if there were injuries that occur that it was not the public that was responsible for it.

Brown said they had addressed the issue in terms of staffing to cross the street.  He said they would have someone at that location to deal with people crossing the street.  He said they would encourage people to cross at the light, but they always staff someone there when they would be at a normal capacity.    

Vice Mayor Amyx said they would allow 250 people on site, require a security officer for pedestrian traffic across North Second Street, a $250.00 cashier check, and an 11:00 pm end of live music. 

Corliss suggested that they would agree to pay for appropriate security.  He said if they could not have an off-duty police officer, they might just want some at that location.  He said they did not want a private citizen trying to control traffic on North 2^nd Street.

Brown said they had run into that difficult issue of getting an off-duty police officer.  He said they usually get private security because it was difficult to get off-duty police to do that.   

Corliss said staff would need to check with the Chief of Police because there were rules about whether they allowed off-duty police officers to be involved in security at drinking establishments.  He said the key was at that intersection there was someone letting people know when the light indicated that they could cross that road.  He said what they did not want were those people trying to stop traffic to move people back and forth.   

Commissioner Rundle said they would be looking at this event as a measure for future requests. 

Moved by Schauner, seconded by            Amyx, to approve the Temporary Use Permit Upon Review subject to the conditions of a maximum of 250 people on site at any one time; the applicant will provide traffic control for pedestrian traffic across North Second Street; provide a $250.00 cashier check; and live music shall not extend beyond 11:00 pm.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                (19)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

Consider motion to recess into executive session for two statutorily allowed purposes: 1) consultation with an attorney for the City on matters that would be deemed privileged under the attorney-client privilege; and 2) for discussion of possible real estate acquisition.  The purpose of the executive session is to keep attorney-client matters confidential and to keep possible terms and conditions of real estate acquisition confidential.  The regular meeting of the Commission will resume in the Commission meeting room in 40 minutes.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to extend the meeting to 10:30.  Motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to recess to executive session at 9:45 for 40 minutes for the purposes of consultation with an attorney for the City on matters that would be deemed privileged under the attorney-client privilege and for keeping possible terms and conditions of real estate acquisition confidential. Motion carried unanimously.                   (20)

The Commission was back in regular session at 10:25.                       .

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 10:25 pm.  Motion carried unanimously. 

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Dennis Highberger, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2005

1. Agreement – Clinton Water Residual Lagoon Cleaning Project, to RD Johnson for $178,200.

2. Ordinance No. 7908 – 2^nd Read, rezone (Z-05-33-05) 1.004 acres, M-1 to RO-2, E 19^th & Homewood, E of Bullene.

3. Final Plat – (PF-06-22-05), Family Video Movie Club Add, 1818 Mass.

4. Final Plat – (PF-06-23-05), Lawrence Country Club Add No. 2, Golf Course, & R-O-W for Yorkshire, S of Princeton.

5. Funding Request – Sesquicentennial Commission for birthday concert on Sept 18, 2005.

6. Surplus Vehicles – Donation to Lawrence Humane Society and Eudora Township Fire Dept. 

7. Mortgage Release – 847 Rockledge, Freda Hickam.

8. Bid – Monterey Way, Stetson to Peterson; Monterey Way, Peterson to Grand Vista; and Peterson, Kasold to Monterey Way, to King’s Construction for $4,178,265.04.

9. 2006 Budget Items discussions. Receive staff memo re: justification for position to manage City’s website, per Commissioner Hack’s request from August 2, 2005 

10. Receive staff briefing re: anticipated 2006 legislative issues that may impact budget decisions for 2006. 

11. Receive staff memo re: effects on fund balance of a lowering of mill levy by an additional one mill, per Commissioner Schauner’s request from July 26, 2005

12. Discuss Commissioner Rundle’s specific revenue proposals for 2006 budget:

Put the next generation parks projects proposals on hold until such time that a community discussion can take place regarding future use of the county wide sales tax revenues, including those funds going into the sales tax reserve fund.

13. For 2006, budget the amount of liquor tax that was generated in 2004 ($530,786). (NOTE:  Staff budgeted $525,000 in City Manager’s Recommended Budget, per State estimates as provided by the Douglas County budget office.)

14. Proposed that the portion (one-third) of special alcohol tax revenues that goes into the General Fund be set aside in a special fund dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund and funding for homeless services and other social and cultural purposes.

15. Receive staff memo re: 2006 solid waste rates, water/sewer rates, and golf course fees; approve fees, and adopt on first reading, Ordinance No. 7900 and Ordinance No. 7904, if appropriate.

16. Receive staff memo re: public hearing for 2006 budget; adopt on first reading, Ordinance No. 7913, approving the 2006 budget and Ordinance No. 7914, appropriating and budgeting property tax revenue for the 2006 budget, if appropriate

17. Conduct a public hearing on proposed special assessment for the Riverside benefit district.

18. Receive staff memo regarding the request for waiver from building permit moratorium for proposed triplex at 500 Florida Street; and denied waiver request.

19. TUPR (TUPR-07-17-05) Latin Festival Gaslight Tavern, 317 N 2^nd, Approved.

20. Executive Session