October 18, 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.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Highberger proclaimed October 24 as “United Nations Day.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 4, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Library Board meeting minutes of September 19, 2005; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 14, 2005; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of September 1, 2005; the Health Board meeting minutes of August 15, 2005; the Public Transit Advisory Committee meeting minutes of August 18, 2005; the Building Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of September 1, 2005; and the Recycling & Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 14, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 333 vendors in the amount of $17,230,355.66 and payroll from October 2, 2005 to October 15, 2005 in the amount of $1,540,640.62. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Jet Lag Lounge, 610 Florida Street. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6616, authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Kansas Department of Transportation for Kasold Drive (over the Kansas Turnpike) Bridge Improvements, a joint project between the City, Douglas County, and the Kansas Turnpike Authority with KDOT funding eighty percent of the project using City allocated Five-Year Plan money and Douglas County and the Kansas Turnpike sharing payment of the remaining twenty percent local share. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to approve the proposal for construction engineering services from Professional Engineering Consultants for the Kasold Drive (over the Kansas Turnpike) Bridge Improvements in the amount of $357,099. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Huxtable L.T. Services, Inc., in the amount of $38,180 for the replacement of the makeup air unit at the Central Maintenance Garage. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
Ordinance No. 7935, establishing “no parking” along the west side of Lawrence Avenue from 150 feet north of Bob Billings Parkway to Applegate Court, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (SP-09-75-05) for the property located at 829 Massachusetts Street, Brown’s Shoe Fit Company, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Historic Resources Commission conditions of approval: (a) The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit; (b) Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work; and (c) The property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before demolition and new construction begin.
2. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.
3. Agreement not to protest benefit district to improve street lighting.
4. Add a note referencing DR-08-62-05, approved by the HRC, with conditions, on September 15, 2005.
5. Identify any sidewalk improvements on the site plan.
Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (N-10-04-05/SP-06-55-05) for the Eldridge Hotel, a site plan for an expansion of a non-conforming use for a park patio area and valet parking, located at 701-705 Massachusetts Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Historic Resources Commission conditions of approval: (a) any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work;
2. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
3. Submission of a photometric plan to be approved by the Planning Director before the issuance of a building permit;
4. Agreement not to protest benefit district to improve street lighting;
5. Add a note on the face of the site plan referencing DR-10-78-05;
6. Provide square foot summary of existing licensed premise areas (dining room, banquet space and bar) and total square feet of new patio area on face of the site plan.
Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-08-05-05) for a co-location on existing wireless tower located at 1800 Naismith Drive, subject to the following condition:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-08-04-05) for New Horizons Tae Kwan Do Studio, located at 3200 Clinton Parkway, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;
2. Provide the following revisions to the UPR site plan:
a. Reflect the correct position of the 100 year floodplain on this property;
b. Show the existing CATV cable line which continues east along the south property line and then north along the east property line;
c. A shared cross access easement for the shared driveway with the property to the east needs to be obtained and graphically shown. Show the recorded book and page number for the cross access easement;
d. For Site Summary, change “Lot 4” to “Lot 6B”;
e. General Note referencing the FEMA FIRM Panel and date;
f. General Note that “A revised site plan is required for review and approval prior to construction of future improvements”;
g. Dimension of parking aisle, west of the existing 7 parking spaces; and,
3. An approved flood plain development permit will be required prior to any grading or fill placed on the property and prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-50-05) of approximately 4.950 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) to PID-1 (Planned Industrial Development District) (the property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between Wakarusa Drive and Research Park Drive); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-51-05) of approximately 3.880 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) to M-1 (Research Industrial District) (the property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between Wakarusa Drive and Research Park Drive); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Cynthia Wisdom, 1049 Home Circle. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda a request to rezone (Z-07-46-05) a tract of land located at 515 Monterey Way. He said based on their recent conversation at a study session concerning the wastewater issues, in reviewing the staff review of this particular project, it seemed that it was inconsistent with the Commission’s concern about wastewater transit to approve a cross basin boundary flow change which was in direct violation of the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan. In reviewing that issue, he said he was hard pressed to understand how they would be willing to approve a violation of the City’s Master Plan when in fact, what they would be doing by moving this flow from the Wakarusa River Basin to the Kansas River Basin, would be robbing some future user of that Kansas River Basin of that user’s use of that capacity. He said approving this rezoning would not be good long-term planning.
Mayor Highberger said what he saw was a request for a rezoning and he did not understand the connection.
Commissioner Schauner said under staff review, it stated:
“Regarding sanitary sewer service, per discussions between the applicant and the city’s Utilities Department, the development’s sanitary sewer flows will be directed via gravity from the development’s location in the Kansas River 2 (KR-2) Basin to the Wakarusa River 3 (WR-3) Basin. This cross-basin boundary flow does not comply with the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan recommendations and therefore is not an accepted sanitary sewer system extension. However, due to downstream capacity concerns with the KR-2 Basin, the location of the proposed subdivision, the magnitude of the proposed flows, and the existing capacity in the WR-3 Basin, this cross-basin request is acceptable to the city’s Utilities Department.”
He said staff’s review might be all true, but when moving flow from one basin to another without really knowing what the ultimate impact on that movement would be, it seemed that some future Commission was going to need to address the problems created by this cross-basin flow. He said he was not a utilities engineer, but he would like to hear some specifics from the City’s wastewater engineer about why this cross-basin request was acceptable and whether it would have some future impact on the capacity in the Wakarusa River.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said if the Commission wanted to defer this item for one week, staff had already completed an analysis and would be able to give more detail on those items to show the reasoning behind the recommendation.
Commissioner Hack suggested that the applicant be present for discussion, but she knew the applicant would not be available next week.
Vice Mayor Amyx said as part of this issue, he asked staff to find out when the recommendation for that change was made prior to the finding out about the problems in the KR-2 Basin.
Wildgen said yes.
Commissioner Hack said the recommendation came with a 10-0 vote by the Planning Commission. She said she wondered at what point, the Planning Commission received information about the sewer capacity issues.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the Planning Commission would never make decisions on sewer capacity, but decisions on land use.
Commission Hack said yes, but some of those issues were covered at the Planning Commission.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to defer for two weeks to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations regarding the request for rezoning (Z-07-46-05) a tract of land approximately 10.281 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located at 515 Monterey Way; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Mayor Highberger pulled from the consent agenda for discussion, the approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Horizon 2020 (CPA-205-02), Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. He commended the committee for their hard work on this issue, but he was concerned about the proposed service radius for neighborhood parks. He said that issue had been a concern for a long time.
The current plan continued the Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommendation of ½ mile service radius for neighborhood parks, but he thought that was too large for a neighborhood park. He said when looking at the older parts of town, almost all of those neighborhoods were served by very close to a ¼ mile radius. The numbers he had seen indicated that 50% of people would walk a ¼ mile to a park, but very few people would walk their children ½ mile to a neighborhood park. He said accessibility to parks was a real important quality of life issue and he suggested that the City Commission reconsider this item. He said obviously if there was not a majority of Commissioners who shared his concern, then he would go ahead and approve this amendment.
Commissioner Hack asked if that issue came up in the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board conversations.
Mayor Highberger said it was his understanding that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board allowed for mini parks, but set them aside as an unusual category for unusual circumstances. He said there was also a recommendation at some point that consideration be given to the Homeowner Associations maintaining parks or smaller areas. He said given their experience with Homeowner Associations, doing anything complex, he thought that was not an option that the City Commission would want to encourage. Also, he thought parks should be public and not privately operated.
Commissioner Schauner said sending this issue back to the committee for reconsideration was a good idea and he supported the Mayor’s proposal.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to send this item back to the Planning Commission to review the issue of quarter mile radius for neighborhood parks instead of the proposed half mile radius in proposed (CPA-2005-02) to the Comprehensive Plan Horizon 2020, Chapter 9-Parks and Recreation, and Open Space. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said this issue was a Comprehensive Plan amendment and asked if the City Commission would like staff to take it to the County Commission with City Commission comments.
Mayor Highberger said yes.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report Mike Wildgen said staff had discussions with the Attorney General’s Office concerning Memorial Park Cemetery. He said while the Attorney General’s Office was pursuing this issue, a bank in New York had intervened with legal filings wanting to return the property to private hands to service the mortgage it had on this property. He said staff would meet with the bank’s attorney out of Wichita and Graham’s attorney out of Kansas City this next month to view the property to determine the outcome.
He said the City spent approximately $62,000 since June and the Attorney General’s Office agreed to claim that money in some type of filing on the Perpetual Care Funds that the State was holding.
Also, during the City Manager’s report, Wildgen reported that the City’s fire overtime payroll expense for the Boardwalk fire was approximately $32,000 which did not count Public Safety and a variety of other City personal that were involved in that issue.
He said staff provided the Commission with a comparison, as it related to the Boardwalk Apartments, of the 1965 Fire Code with the present code and the 2003 Code.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the 2003 International Code Council was the code that was being considered.
Wildgen said yes.
Commissioner Hack asked the City Manager for a weekly update with regard to sewer line capacity and infrastructure improvements during the City Manager’s Report.
Commissioner Schauner said he seconded Commissioner Hack’s suggestion. He said there was no one on the Commission making it impossible for a $150 million dollar business to do business in this town. He said the public should know that this Commission would do anything and everything to make sure they could make sewer transit safe and achievable for the development community. He said he did not want anyone to come away from reading whatever article they might see in whatever newspaper thinking otherwise because it did a disservice to this City Commission. (14)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Review draft Request for Proposals for the use of the Carnegie Library facility, 9th and Vermont.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said as a result of the discussion, staff provided the City Commission with a revised updated Request for Proposals that could be used for the upcoming decision for the use of that building. He said staff tried to put some weight on certain items such as the Business Plan, the proposed use, and any miscellaneous items that would help the City Commission make a decision on that use.
The architect would present architectural drawings and the project would be able to be bid early next year if the City Commission chose to proceed with that project. He said there was no deadline date because staff did not know what the Commission felt was appropriate, but suggested the first of the year which made it more than 60 days out.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if there had been any interest from anyone outside the individuals who presented their request with the original RFP for the Carnegie facility. He said 60 days might not be enough time for individuals to put together a business plan.
Wildgen said no one has notified him about any direct use of that facility since this item was last discussed by the City Commission. He said there might be people waiting to see the outcome of the new RFP.
Commissioner Hack suggested informing the applicants that a scoring matrix would be used in evaluating the RFP.
Commissioner Rundle said staff had integrated a scoring matrix in the RFP, but it would be good to inform the applicants of that scoring matrix.
Mayor Highberger said for his preference the RFP gave enough direction and staff did not need to necessarily inform the applicants of how the Commission was going to weigh the proposal.
Commissioner Rundle said the way he read the draft proposal there was an emphasis on the details of the business plan, but he was not sure there was a consensus on that particular emphasis. He said the values to the community and those other items were his priority.
Vice Mayor Amyx said three weeks ago he thought that discussion had taken place and the RFP had reflected the Commission’s direction.
Mayor Highberger said the way it was drafted now seemed to balance the proposed use in the business plan at 40 points each. He said the overriding concern would be that the building be used appropriately and provided a benefit to downtown Lawrence, but he would greatly prefer that the new use not become a new financial burden for the City. He said the way the RFP was drafted addressed most concerns. He said if there were specific recommendations for changes, the City Commission could consider those concerns.
Commissioner Rundle said just raising the issue would flag people that was not the only factor. He said he did not want any changes in the RFP, but wanted people to have that in their consciousness that that was not the only factor.
Wildgen suggested a deadline in approximately 90 days.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Mayor Highberger said the recommendation was to move forward with a deadline in 90 days without any significant alteration to the proposed RFP.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to proceed with the RFP as written with a 90 day deadline. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Consider approving an amendment (CPA-2005-1) to Horizon 2020 to update the Transportation Element (Chapter 8) to make it consistent with the update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Transportation 2025. This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission at its April 27, 2005 regular meeting at the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC). The CPC reviewed this chapter as part of the update process to Horizon 2020 the comprehensive land use plan for the City of Lawrence and unincorporated Douglas County. A draft updated chapter was considered by the Planning Commission in May 2005 and was referred back to the CPC for further revisions to incorporate comments received from the Planning Commission and public. The Planning Commission voted to include modification to the Major Thoroughfares Map to add a principal arterial from the western terminus of Peterson Road extending west to but not connecting to SLT.
Bill Ahrens, Planner, said last spring the Planning Commission directed the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC) to look at and update Chapter 8, Transportation Element Chapter. He said the committee considered the first draft in May and received public comments. He said the chapter was rewritten to make it consistent with the goals and objectives of Transportation 2025 and that a number of policies were expanded on to include functional street classification, level of service standards, traffic impact and access management standards, consideration of streetscapes, bicycle and pedestrian considerations, and public transportation considerations among others.
At their September 26th meeting, the Planning Commission also amended the Major Thoroughfare Map which was part of Chapter 8 to add a future principal arterial street basically that would extend westward from the intersection of Peterson at Folks Road crossing but not connecting it to the South Lawrence Trafficway. The reasoning behind that idea was that 6th Street was the only major east/west arterial that crossed the South Lawrence Trafficway in a developing part of town and that as development occurred then the traffic problems on 6th Street would be increased even more than they were now.
Mayor Highberger asked Ahrens to clarify his statement about crossing but not connecting to the SLT.
Ahrens said that was correct.
Bob Lichtwardt said one year ago, the City Commission considered several possible east/west routes, north of Highway 40. The Planning Commission last year, in forwarding their recommendation to the City Commission, voted to not select any of the three alignments that they were considering, but leave it to the City Commission to make that decision. The City Commissioner’s heard testimony from numerous citizens and organizations including Parks and Recreation objecting to the Alignment One going from the western part of Peterson Road directly westward to Queens Road. The City Commission wisely decided not to select any of the three alignments without further study, but rather to leave the Major Thoroughfares Map as it was which showed a westward route from Peterson Road down to Wiggins Road.
Citizens made permanent land use decisions based on Comprehensive Plan maps. A road shown on Horizon 2020’s Transportation Map in this location, at this time, would be permanent. This line was removed before because of the very unlikely and difficult process it would require to go there. Now this issue had surfaced again, this time the Planning Commission had recommended altering the Horizon 2020 Transportation Map to add a road extending what was originally designed as Alignment One. This extension, which went from Peterson Road to Queens Road, would end westward. This was a major decision. It was made without any prior public notice to allow the public to respond.
He said, as you know, at least one Planning Commissioner had stated that he did not realize when he voted for this rewording, that this was a major change from the position that the Planning Commission had adopted in 2004. It was likely some other Commissioners did not realize the implications of their “yes” vote.
He presented a slope map from the Northwestern Development Plan which pointed out the proposed road would cut through very rugged and sensitive land to Queens Road and beyond (westward).
He also presented a United States Geodetic Survey Map that showed rather accurately the vegetation and forested areas of that land. He said that road would cut across all of the green vegetation and forested land if it were built. He also showed a third map, Transportation 2025 Map, for the area with contour overlay that showed both the City’s natural park area and Martin Park
He said the road being planned was a 3 to 4 lane major arterial which would cut a 120 foot swath through this land. He asked if a person could imagine the adverse environmental impact that would have and the considerable expense to build bridges across the steep valleys and the effect on drainage ways. This major arterial would not only bisect the natural park area that the City, at some expense had acquired, but it would also abut the park for about ½ mile. It would be considerably more difficult for the City to monitor undesirable and un-allowed activities in the park and eventually could undermine the usefulness of the park as a natural area, leading to its decline.
He said yesterday a letter was forwarded to the City Commission; a letter that was written to the Planning Commission dated September 14, 2004. A letter that should had been forwarded to the City Commission when they first considered this issue, but for some reason was not included in the correspondence the City Commission received in 2004. In that letter, they outlined in some detail, the extensive damage to the park and its environment that would result from building that major arterial. He said they also quoted Horizon 2020 Chapter 8 on Transportation which states “The alignment of all streets must take into consideration physical constraints like the protection of drainage ways, existing land use, and topography.” This arterial would certainly not conform to Horizon 2020.
On a more personal note, a few years ago they donated to the City a 40 acre tract of land that made up part of the 90 plus acres of this natural park, the City now owned. The deed they gave to the City stated, among other things, that no road would be built within or on the border of the property.
Last year, in the design of Alignment One, someone placed the arterial a few feet south of their donated land as a legal gimmick that was intended to avoid violating the deed agreement. Regardless of the legalities, the affect on their former forested land and on the extremely environmentally sensitive land along the section line would be just as irrevocably damaged as if the arterial were directly on the section line. He said if they had known that the City might extend Peterson Road directly westward they would certainly not have given the 40 acres to the City. This was a land use issue, a planning problem. How the City treated land like this was hanging in the balance. He said either the City values those areas and preserves them for future public enjoyment and benefit or lets them be destroyed by thoughtless planning decisions. He said what would be done would be an indication of what kind of city Lawrence was and would be. He asked that the City not fail their trust; preserve this woodland and other environmentally sensitive areas by not cutting through it with a major arterial. He said they could expect that other landowners who might be considering conservation easements and/or donating park land to the City would be very hesitant to make any agreement with the City if they thought their land might later be in jeopardy.
There were several viable alternatives on deciding on an east/west route north of Highway 40. One of those other alternatives should be considered. He said he and his wife Betty had lived there for 48 years and had placed their confidence in Lawrence during that time. He asked the City Commissioners not to take away that trust.
Betty Lichtwardt said she discovered that the correspondence from a year ago was something that was never sent to the City Commission. She said because this whole issue came up unexpectedly, she did not learn what the actual wording of that change was until Saturday.
She presented to the City Commission information that was written by the Parks Commission and the Jayhawk Audubon Society by Joyce Wolf who pointed out the impact that this road would have on the general environment.
Doug Compton, Lawrence, said he had several frustrations including that he did not know of this issue until Bob Lichtwardt called him to tell him about it. He said a year ago when they went through this process, that he thought it was behind them.
Seven years ago when he had bought that 160 acres, they went through a lot of planning and meetings with city staff to layout Bauer Brook which was a 160 acre, 7 lot subdivision that backed up to the Lichtwardt’s 40 acres. He said through that process they had met with staff to find out where Peterson Road was going and what was the logical way extending it to the west. Through those same discussions the need for additional City parkland was discussed because conversations had been going on between the Lichtwardt’s and the City regarding access to their 40 acres of land. At the time, the only access to get to the Lichtwardt’s land from the east going west was if they, the city came up with the 20 acre track of parkland that connected their land to the 40 acres behind it. He said as a result, it was implemented and they had negotiated a price with the City and they sold 20 acres of land to the City so the City could have 20 acres next to 40 acres to create greenspace and a buffer of parkland around that area. He said, at the same time, they did a lot of other planning on how to layout the lots and how to not disturb the natural terrain and the woods in that area. He said at the present time, the road going into Bauer Brook back to the cul-de-sac went through the highest point of the land and every house that had been built, not disturbing one tree in that area.
He said his frustration now was that they had gone through all those discussions, planning and processes. He said the Lichtwardt’s had a 500 foot easement on his property to protect the parkland behind his property. He was probably the only residential structure in Lawrence, Kansas that sat on 40 acres that had a 500 foot easement on their property by his neighbors. He said it was important that everyone knew how much time and energy was spent in planning this area. Every time they discussed Peterson Road going west, it was down Martin Park Road. He said it was not even an option going through the Lichtwardt’s land or the 20 acres of park land that he had sold to the City.
He said he developed 160 acres that would not have more than 7 or 8 homes on it. There were 90 to 100 acres of greenspace surrounding the area that the City had acquired for parkland. He asked the Commission to consider not going west on Peterson Road as suggested.
Carey Maynard-Moody said she was not present to represent ECO2, but to remind the City Commission of ECO2’s work. This issue came up quickly and she was unable to ask for ECO2‘s permission to speak for them. Their work was to encourage such things as conservation easements and build as great a community as possible with consideration for the resources that they had such as good water, air and land.
She said she enjoyed being part of the dedication ceremony and remembered when the Kansas Land Trust dedicated the Lichtwardt’s 40 acres. She was excited that Lawrence was a very forward thinking City that would honor such a gift and do right by that gift. She wanted to remind the City Commission that ECO2 was hoping that others would come forward and consider conservation easements and would look at that as a way to further enhance the Lawrence community, but she did not think they would if their gifts and goodwill flew in the face of moving cars. She asked the City Commission to consider the impact and precedence that could be set by showing irreverence for a gift that should be revered and that they could never get back once it was given back.
Gwen Klingenberg, speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters, said the League sent a letter last year on the subject of an east/west arterial road north of 6th Street. The concern for Alignment One or Peterson Road still had not been addressed. Studies such as environmental impact analysis, total cost analysis, and comparisons with the combined alternatives had not been done.
According to Goal 4, the amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 8, read: “Protect the environment and promote energy conservation.”
Policy 4.1B read: “Plan arterial and other street alignments to avoid incursions into natural and environmentally sensitive areas or negatively impacting them.”
Policy 4.3B read: “Street proposals should avoid steep slopes and also not be approved where physical constraints such as drainage ways, existing land use, and topography may be negatively impacted.”
Policy 4.3C read: “Minimize impacts on environmentally sensitive areas.”
She said even the Lawrence Travel/Demand Model Process from Transportation 2025 had a word of caution which read: “A model is a tool that can be used with to assist with the evaluation of potential roadway improvements. It was not a crystal ball. While the model provides valuable information, it is not sensitive to all aspects of the planning process. Model results should be considered in the content of other information such as feasibility, environmental concerns, public acceptance, cost, and other criteria.”
She said Bill Ahrens stated at the City Commission meeting on October, 12, 2004 that Alignment One Peterson Road Extension went through some challenging terrain in the center section which added to the cost of constructing that project. There was also an agreement entered into between the City of Lawrence and the Kansas Land Trust for a conservation easement which prohibited any development or improvements from impacting those parklands.
Other individuals who had concerns about the parklands wrote letters at the time of the October 12, 2005 meeting were the Sierra Club and Boy Scouts, along with Sharon Sprat, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board said that their Board voted unanimously to oppose the recommended Alignment One and that she had felt that the City Commission had made a long-term commitment to preserve a unique, geographical area of the Community by purchasing some of this land for future parks and accepting a conservation easement on this site.
She said Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks and Recreation, said that he told the Planning Commission that Parks and Recreation would be more than willing to be a part of a solution to look at other options, other than Alignment One.
All the written and verbal communication strongly objected to having any road built to extend Peterson Road directly to Queens, now the City was asking to go over the SLT. The reasons included that the significant environmental destruction of that area, the drastic effects the roads would have on the City’s wild wilderness parks and the cost that would certain be incurred in building a road along that alignment.
Another concern that was raised at the October 12, 2004 meeting was the negative message that was being sent to others who might donate parkland. Even the Planning Director had stated that there had been considerable discussion about the fragile environmental integrity and the nature of the area that was north of Peterson Road continuing on to the west. She said the City Commission voted unanimously to deny an amendment to Comprehensive Plan (Horizon 2020) amending the Major Thoroughfares Maps.
Klingenberg said in Chapter 8 concerning neighborhood collectors there should be a term inserted that they connect to neighborhoods thoroughfares so that it was understood that the purpose was to interconnect areas within a neighborhood and not to collect traffic to go to arterials.
She said they were asking also that the terminology along driveways to arterials should be to not permit driveways on arterials in new areas and developed areas should not be based on the developer’s assessment of the hardships.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked whether any of this information was presented to the Planning Commission.
Klingenberg said yes and that most of the information was taken from the minutes and from the League’s letter a year ago. She said when this issue came up it was news to all of them.
Commissioner Hack asked if it was the alignment that was new news.
Klingenberg said the idea of Peterson Road being placed back on the thoroughfares maps.
Mayor Highberger asked about the last two points that Klingenberg made.
Klingenberg said the last two points were points that they had asked about before and that they still had strong feelings about.
Mayor Highberger asked if Klingenberg was able to present those points to the Planning Commission.
Klingenberg said yes.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the Planning Commission initiated this amendment based on information discussed by the City Commission a year ago.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the Planning Commission, after hearing the public testimony, still felt strongly about Peterson Road and the Planning Commission added that into their motion to amend, after knowing and discussing that they had brought this same issue forward to the City Commission a year ago and it had been rejected.
Commissioner Rundle said if this amendment was not in the Transportation Plan it could not be studied with KDOT funds.
Finger said it was actually already in Transportation 2025 because at the October 12, 2004 City Commission meeting, it was both a text amendment to the Major Thoroughfares Map in Horizon 2020, and also to Transportation 2025. The Transportation 2025, Comprehensive Transportation Plan was actually the Metropolitan Planning Organization which authorized the 3 alignments and it was on their map, but it was not on the Major Thoroughfares Map of Horizon 2020. The short response to the question was that as long as it was in Transportation 2025, those KDOT transportation funds could be used for the study.
Commissioner Schauner said in looking at the Planning Commission’s minutes those minutes stated that it was discussed whether the Planning Commission should attempt to reintroduce all three potential arterial placeholders as recommended in 2004. It was noted that all three options proposed in 2004 ended at Queens Road and most of that area was now developed. He asked if all three of those potential arterials were in a document as placeholders.
Finger said they were in Transportation 2025, but not in Horizon 2020. She said as those were draft minutes, she was a little unclear as to what the Planning Commission was amending into Horizon 2020, as she read through the minutes. She said staff would get clarification from the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission in the past had made a recommendation on one of the alignments.
Finger said the City Commission denied the amendment to the Major Thoroughfares Map.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if all three of the alignments remained because of that action.
Finger said the alignments remained because there were two separate documents that went parallel, the Comprehensive Transportation Plan 2025 and Horizon 2020. The only action that this body could take was on the Major Thoroughfares Map in Horizon 2020 and it did not negate the three alignments that the Planning Commission placed in Transportation 2025.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the initiation by the Planning Commission was to clean that discrepancy between the two plans up or try to give the City Commission clearer direction as to what they expected to be the Transportation Plan in that area.
Finger said they were trying to get the two documents the same. She said the Planning Commission still had strong feelings that Peterson Road or some major east/west arterial alignment was needed between Wiggins Road, (1750 Road), and 6th Street.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the action to deny would essentially leave them where they were right now because the Planning Commission still had their strong opinion on what should happen to transportation in that area and the City Commission believed that access on Wiggins Road, assuming the majority of this City Commission believed that Wiggins Road should be that east/west access, would still have that same split.
Finger said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked how the City Commission would make the Planning Commission understand. He said he was trying to find the level of where the City Commission was in government.
Finger said the next step to seal this issue was some level of environmental study to preclude that there was no feasible route to go east/west which was a monetary consideration that the Planning Commission had advanced several times to the City Commission in that the Planning Commission thought the east/west connection should be done and it needed to be studied. The last time they advanced that position was October 12, 2004, that was again what the Planning Commission was asking the City Commission to do.
Commissioner Hack asked if the City Commission could rely on its direction last time to not decide on a road. She said the City Commission’s clear direction was that they would not accept a road that impacted the Lichtwardt and Compton properties.
Finger said that was correct.
Mayor Highberger said the City Commission was also not interested in spending money on studying that issue.
Commissioner Hack said she would not support studying the issue.
Finger said staff had taken the message back to the Planning Commission that the City Commission did not on October 12, 2004, believe that it was the right alignment. That the City Commission still endorsed Wiggins Road and that they had no interest in funding a study.
Commissioner Rundle said maybe his recollection was fuzzy but he had taken seriously this concern that there be an east/west connection between Wiggins Road and 6th Street. He said people would expect him to be out in the lead championing this cause and voting its inclusion, but he thought he had argued at the time that if they did not have it they could not study it. He said he was still sensitive to the area. If they had it in that area he would like it to be something that mitigated any impacts and if barring that, he would not want to build the road. He said they would be bearing the consequences with the complete breakdown of the 6th Street corridor if a solution was not found. If this was not the right solution, then someone needed to come up with some very creative way to do some sort of network of many arterials through an existing neighborhood. He said that was the problem in that they had allowed the development to occur and now they were trying to go back and put a thread through the hole in the needle.
He said he clearly did not want to be environmentally insensitive, but he wanted to have the flexibility to study this issue fully and find any alternative or mitigation that was possible.
Mayor Highberger said he shared Commissioner Rundle’s concerns because they were valid concerns. He said the Planning Commission thought that the City needed more east/west connectivity and he agreed, but he also thought they had to take topography into consideration. He said he remembered what Finger told them last time that if they saw a section line and there was not a road on it already, there was a good reason for it and this was a prime example.
Ahrens said there were no magic answers. He said he did agree that they needed additional east/west arterial connections especially in a rapidly developing part of town. What the correct alignment was, he did not know and it was something that needed to be studied. However, they were in the early stages of beginning the update of Transportation 2025, which was a federally required process that was done on a 5 year cycle. They were required to have that done no later than September 2007. He said they would be hitting that process big in 2006 and it might be an appropriate time to be looking at the entire region and a number of possible alternatives in that area. In addition to doing a lot of scenario modeling, they could also be taking into consideration as part of that, environmental considerations, terrain, and impacts on public spaces. He said the Transportation 2025 update would be the appropriate starting point to look at the City’s roadway system.
Commissioner Hack asked if the City Commission could defer action on this issue and what would be the downside of doing nothing. She asked if that placed that alignment along the section line in permanent marker anywhere.
Finger said no. She said this chapter was an update to Horizon 2020 and it needed to go forward to the County Commission as well. If the City or County Commission were not ready to act then that was alright. The chapter would be updated with the other revisions that take into consideration some of what the League had mentioned and some other points, but it was not a document that can’t ever be amended again.
Commissioner Schauner said it appears that they were putting their heads in the sand and putting off for some future lucky five people on the City Commission in the future to deal with the result of continuing to develop that northwest area without providing additional east/west access. Ten years from now, if they continued to develop that northwest area, north and west of Compton’s property and west of the park, someone was going to ask the question, what were those people thinking in 2005.
Commissioner Hack said she did not disagree with Commissioner Schauner in that the City Commission needed to come up with an additional east/west connector.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not disagree agree with anything that had been said, but he felt they had not said it in bold enough terms to satisfy him, whether it was Wiggins Road or it was an elevated roadway a mile high that got them east to west, they needed some additional capacity to move people from west to east and visa versa in that northwest area. There was a train coming and there was light at the end of the tunnel and he was fearful that it was a train and not just the end of the tunnel.
Commissioner Hack said there was a very expedient way to do this which was to take it right down that section line, but that was not the best way to do it. She said their discussions all along had been that they could not continue to rely on 6th Street and 23rd Streets to be their only east/west connectors. She said there were some things that were brought up, not just the environmental sensitivity in the area, but the long-term implications of individuals like the Lictwardts who wanted to give property to the community with the understanding that certain things were going to happen.
The availability for someone like Compton to sell property to the community thinking that certain things were going to happen; she did not want to set that tone. She said as a community, their integrity was on the line. She said that was the environmental side of the issue. At the same time traffic needed to be moved, but she thought they could do both and the sooner they came to that decision, the better. She was not sure they were going to blend those two documents in the way that the Planning Commission wanted the City Commission to do right now.
Commissioner Schauner said it struck him as they either needed more roads or less development. If continuing to develop at greater densities, you require greater ability to carry people and if you can’t carry the people, it was doing a disservice to people who would build there and think they could get downtown in less than an hour. He said they needed to be honest with themselves and the citizens about the choices that were being made. He said they either find an east/west connector or they needed to adjust the density.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if they adjust the density in the northwest they would also need to reconsider density in the southeast.
Commissioner Schauner said maybe, somewhere in the southeast, or some place in the UGA to the south. He said he was not talking about the global density, but density in the part of town where they were having some connectivity issues some ability to move people from one direction to the other.
Mayor Highberger said he did not see a majority to approve the amendment. He said if the City Commission tabled this matter then they could address it in the future and they could take other further action as appropriate.
Finger said there were several actions possible including tabling it, deny it by a super majority vote, or defer any decision until after the County Commission had also considered this issue.
Commissioner Rundle asked when the County Commission would consider this issue.
Finger said the County Commission should consider this issue tomorrow.
Commissioner Rundle said he would vote against the denial. He said this issue needed to go back with this conversation to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Schauner said the Planning Commission, acting as the MPO, had the responsibility to do that Transportation 2025 update as per federal mandate. Where did they stand in the hierarchy of decision making? He asked if they would trump the City Commission’s decisions or did the City Commission trump their recommendations. He asked how that worked.
Finger said obviously the City Commission had the veto authority, but through the authorization of the MPO, the Planning Commission actually had the final say for transportation planning.
Ahrens said the MPO process was designed to be a cooperative process. He said they had one of the most unique MPO’s in the United States because they had no elected officials serving on the MPO. In fact, there were several in the US that still had that structure, Lawrence being one of those. In most instances, there were elected officials in the varying governing bodies that served on the MPO Boards which made it more of a cooperative process. The MPO, by federal regulation, was charged with developing the long-range transportation plan that identified the major transportation needs of the region and it was required to have a 20 year horizon on it.
As the Director mentioned the MPO did not have any funding authority attached to them, especially in this City’s instance, where the MPO was the Planning Commission. Therefore, they could place projects on the long-range transportation plan as recommended projects to implement, however, before any of the projects could happen then either the City or County Commissions or KDOT would have to step forward to fund and actually program a project. He said that was how the MPO worked in this region.
Commissioner Schauner said from what he heard Ahrens say that the MPO trumped the City Commission with respect to the decision on transportation planning, but they did not have any control over the City’s purse strings.
Ahrens said correct. The MPO could amend or adopt the Transportation Plan and put certain projects in it, however they could not make those projects actually happen on the ground.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to deny the proposed amendment to Horizon 2020. Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (16)
Finger said staff would use the text of the meeting as specific reasons for why the City Commission wanted this issue to return.
Review staff report concerning 2005 Senate Bill 77 regarding racial profiling.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, said racial profiling by law enforcement officers was a practice that has long been illegal. Last year however, in the latest regular legislative session, the legislature passed Senate Bill 77 which institutes state statutory cause of action for racial profiling. In addition to that however, it also imposed certain record keeping, reporting requirements, mandatory policies and procedures that the City had to follow to comply with the law and also involved the Kansas Human Rights Commission in the investigation of allegations for racial profiling. Tonight the reason for this presentation was that one of the requirements when it came to polices and procedures that they needed to have in place by July 1, 2006 was a Citizens Advisory Board on the subject of racial profiling. The reason they presented this issue so far in advance however, was because a Citizen Advisory Board needed to, by statutory mandate, participate in the formation of policies that the police department needed to implement.
Ordinance No. 7936 which encapsulated on form what that Board might look like. It established a seven member advisory board for the purpose of advising the Police Department in policy development, education, community outreach, and communications related to racial profiling in addition to that general statement there was a list of about 7 specific duties that would have those duties, in his opinion exceed what the statutory mandate would be, in other words they go beyond what the statutory requirement was. In addition to the 7 members that would be required to reflect the racial and ethnic makeup of the community, there was also an ex-officio non-voting member from the Police Department as the Police Departments delegate. The members would serve standard staggered terms and other than that it would operate like most other boards and advisory commissions.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the creation of the Citizens Advisory Board was everything that needed to get them to the next step.
Miller said after the Citizens Advisory Board was created the Police Department would need to generate policies in response to the requirements of the bill, but that was the only action the governing body would need to make.
Commissioner Schauner said with respect to Item No. 7: “Reviewing and rendering advise to the City Commission, City Manager or Chief of Police on any other related duties that area assigned to it” was that intended to be related to other matters relating to racial profiling only or was there a broader definition for “other related duties”.
Miller said right now the way it was written would be intended to be racial profiling related regarding to what would be assigned. He said it was supposed to be a “catch all” provision so that if thinking of something that would be relevant for that particular advisory board to do that wasn’t specifically spelled out in the list of duties, that they would be able to do that.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Laura Green, Lawrence, said when looking at Item No. 7 she was also concerned whether this was to be a Citizen Advisory Board for police oversight or Citizen Advisory Board for racial profiling. She though it could be clarified by clarifying the name of the board.
The next thing that she noticed was No. 3 in the first section of the “whereas” establishing a board to help prevent the illegal practice of racial profiling. She said she was not sure the intent of the Board was to help prevent racial profiling. They would be overseeing the policies and procedures that would lead to reducing the possibility of racial profiling and she thought that was a heavy responsibility for a citizen board to help prevent racial profiling by the City Police Department. She said the Police Chief would then appoint someone on the board as a member and the way the statute read was that it was an independent citizen’s advisory board and she was not sure why they would need a member of the Police Department. Also, that section stated that no members would be paid, but she believed that if there was a member from the Police Department that policeman would be paid.
In 1.2206 stated that subsequent meetings could be called by the chair person or the Chief of Police. She said she was wondering who the board actually reported to. Did they report to the City Commission or to the Chief or City Staff.
Generally, there were some reporting requirements in the statute for the Police Department by January 31st of each year they would send a report to the Attorney General’s office. The way the ordinance was written was that the annual report would come to the board by February 1st and that would be after the requirement for the state. She thought maybe they could make it so that the board itself would receive the report for review before the report was then forwarded to the state.
There were several requirements in the statute for the Police Department such as establishing the internal procedures and policies and they wondered if the responsibility of the board would be to oversee those processes of creating that documentation or internal procedures and it was important to note that the burden really rested on the Law Enforcement Agency to create those requirements for the statute.
There had been some studies done in the State of Kansas on racial profiling. One was done by the Place Foundation, a non-profit in Washington where they profiled 7 jurisdictions in the State of Kansas such as Wichita, Hutchinson, and other large and small jurisdictions. She said it was important to understand that racial profiling was the concern no matter where they were in Kansas. The purpose of the study was to answer a basic question or law enforcement agencies in Kansas engaged in racial/ethnic profiling simply stated that the answer was “yes.”
She said they found that through the data that they collected over a four month period that really no place in Kansas was exempt from small cities such as Park City, Osage County, or the Kansas Highway Patrol. While this study was commissioned by the legislature and it was paid for, the statute did not address how they as a community would know if they had racial profiling in this community. It did say that there would be a 15 member board appointed to determine how the data would be collected, but this Commission or the Board would need to decide who was going to use the data and what way they were going to use the data. Those were important enough for the Commission to consider putting into the ordinance what methodology was going to be used. Would there be a social sciences person on the board that would take that data and give the feedback that the City needed. Racial profiling was so difficult to determine that without collecting the data and without really using the methodology that the Department of Justice provided because they provided excellent publications. For example, the community oriented policing service or COPS program which assists cities in using that data and finding out if the City had a problem and what could be done about it. They had also found that these types of citizen review boards working in conjunction with the Police Department in collecting that data helped bring that public awareness and get the dialogue started.
She said she was with the Drug Policy Forum of Kansas. She said drug policy and racial profiling were very closely tied issues. She said she was also a member of the Citizens Police Academy and she had some experience with the Lawrence Police Department. She said she just wanted to give her opinion on how she read through that document concerning racial profiling. She said that it might be a good way to use this ordinance to establish an oversight board with those additional responsibilities and if not, then making sure that it was specific to racial profiling.
Miller said that 15 member Commission was appointed by the Governor and reported to the Governor and the Legislature. They were the people who were suggesting design for the statistical methodology that would be used for citation by citation reporting so that racial profiling could be detected when it occurred. The important thing to know about the bill that was passed was that there was no specific methodology that had been adopted at this point. Senate Bill 77 did not include any sort of method to determine whether racial profiling was happening statistically. He anticipated that would be taken up on a statewide level during the next legislative session.
Regarding some of the other questions that Green asked, the concern about the Police Department or specifically the Police Chief being able to have someone present at the board meetings and that somehow making it not an independent advisory board or the ability of the Police Chief to call for meeting, it was very difficult for the Police Chief to solicit advise if he did not have the capability of calling the board to meet to give him that advise. He said when he was drafting the ordinance he did not view that as some sort of abrogation of the independent judgment of the people who would comprise the board itself although that of course would be something that was very easy to change.
Commissioner Hack said the appointed liaison was a non voting member and would not be paid for advisory board work. She asked if that was the way the policy and advisory boards agreed that they could not be paid to be on an advisory board. She understood Green’s concern that to have a Police designee on the board would violate the policy that stated that a person could not be paid to be on a board.
Miller said they would view the person who was appointed as performing the normal duties of an employee of the City of Lawrence. He said he or she would not be paid for being on the board, but be paid as an employee of the City of Lawrence.
Mayor Highberger said this was a good start concerning this matter. He said given the duties of advisory board were to help develop the policies for implementing the racial profiling requirements, he felt okay about placing that on for first reading soon and moving forward with this issue, but before July 1, 2006, he would like to have a study session or give some consideration to the idea of giving some expanded authority to the Citizens Advisory Board. He said this was an idea that he had been resistant to during his term on the City Commission, but if they were appointing a body to oversee one aspect of the police department, it made sense to him to expand that to a Citizens Advisory Board that would have a broader mandate to look at citizen concerns regarding police practice. He said he was not going to suggest doing that now, but he did want to take a look at that concept by July 1, 2006.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if this Board would be in place of the other Board that was being discussed earlier.
Mayor Highberger said if they decided to make changes, that they would modify this ordinance to expand the duties of the Board, but he sensed they needed to more forward in having this Board provide input into the development of the policies. He would recommend that they move forward with this draft or something close to that draft at this time.
Vice Mayor Amyx agreed. He said the law was clear on what they needed to have and this was just something that most people would want in place. He said he would like to have the discussions that were mentioned. Whether or not they agreed with the review board in the expansion of what they saw as the responsibility of that board, he thought it was important to get that Advisory Board under the terms that were suggested, the way the ordinance was written and then they could have that discussion on whether or not they wished to expand any or all parts of that ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner said when item 6 stated that the Board would need to report to the City Commission from time to time regarding its activities, he would like to see that report be on a regular date, perhaps a February 1st date, the same day they made their annual report with respect to statistics. He said it might be a good time to have a report to the City Commission as well with that data as well as an update on their activity.
Mike Wildgen, asked if Commissioner Schauner wanted an on or before date.
Commissioner Schauner said on or before the date they filed their report, February 1st.
Mayor Highberger suggested taking a look at the data from February 1, 2005 to make sure it was consistent.
Miller said regarding the reporting, this was a supplemental reporting requirement that wasn’t contained in the statute. The Police Department, as a matter of state law, would need to produce the report to the Attorney General. The reason this was included in the ordinance was to ensure that this Board would get an identical copy of the same report so that they know what was taking place and the information that had been transmitted. The reason the date was later, was so that they could make certain that the actual report had been transmitted at that time to the attorney general. He said they could certainly make those dates similar if the City Commission desired.
Mayor Highberger said his preference would be for their board to receive the report before it went to the Attorney General.
Commissioner Rundle said if there were any other little statutory things that were brought up that they could incorporate editorially into this issue, he would like staff to do that.
Mayor Highberger noted that this issue was not on first reading at the present time. He said the City Commission would receive a draft ordinance at some future agenda and there was still opportunity to discuss any of the fine points that they needed to. He said the direction from the City Commission would be to proceed and take into account the comments that were made and put it on the agenda as appropriate.
Commissioner Hack asked if Commissioner Rundle was asking Miller to incorporate everything that had been discussed.
Commissioner Rundle said all of those points that were raised Miller could review to make sure that anything that was omitted, could be addressed in a report.
Miller said all of those points would be addressed in the policy that was adopted. Normally, Police Department policies were not adopted by ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner said complying with the statutory requirements would be a matter of Police Department policy, not stated in this ordinance.
Commissioner Rundle said this should be an important tool to help the police be more effective and it should be approached in that way and that was the way it was drafted.
Mayor Highberger said when this issue was brought back, he asked staff to include a memo addressing some of the points that were raised so that the City Commission knew what the decision points were. (17)
Review current policy and consider establishing new policy on City take-home vehicles.
Commissioner Rundle said obviously with the spike in fuel costs there was already work underway among staff departments in looking at this issue. He said he wanted the Commission to take a look at the current policy. Some of the examples the City Manager had provided to the City Commission, he had a clearer way of specifying the purpose and procedures for assigning take home cars. He said he would like to see City vehicles assigned on the basis of need and he would certainly like to see the adequate input of all of the street level staff that was going to be affected by this issue.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said staff could bring that report back to the City Commission.
Commissioner Hack said one issue that continually was brought up at their goal setting sessions was the vision of the iceberg that Carol Nalbandian talked about. She said personally she saw this issue as being below the iceberg. She said she understood Commissioner Rundle’s concern about budget and performance audits, but she saw this as a policy that they hired managers to do. She said she was not going to say she would not discuss this issue, but it was just her personal feeling.
Commissioner Rundle said he saw this issue as tens of thousands of dollars the City could have been using every time they struggled whether or not they would have another crossing guard and avoid adding some staff person. He said certainly they did not need to be out there creating the policy on take home cars, but whenever something was not working, they needed someway to be able to assess that problem and make an improvement.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to direct staff to provide a report addressing the issues raised in the October 17th memo from Commissioner Rundle regarding take home vehicles. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Continued
Consider a motion to recess into executive session for the purposes of: 1) consultation with attorneys for the city on matters which would be deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship; and 2) possible real estate acquisition. The justification for the executive session is to keep attorney client matters privileged and possible terms and conditions of real estate acquisition confidential at this time.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
After returning from executive session at 8:55 p.m., Commissioner Rundle said he was willing to reconsider his vote on the Kasold Street improvements.
It was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to bring the Kasold Drive street improvements decision back for Commission consideration in two weeks. Aye: Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Amyx and Hack. Motion carried.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner , to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Resolution No. 6616 – KDOT, Kasold Dr Bridge Improvements.
2. Engineering Services – Kasold Dr Bridge Improvments.
3. Central Maintenance Garage – Makeup air unit to Huxtable for $38,180.
4. Ordinance No. 7935 – 2nd Read, “no parking” W side of Lawrence Ave from 150’ N of Bob Billings Pkwy to Applegate Ct.
5. Site Plan – (SP-09-75-05) 829 Mass, Brown’s Shoe Fit Co.
6. Site Plan – (N-10-04-05/SP-06-55-05) Eldridge Hotel, 701-705 Mass.
7. UPR - (UPR-08-05-05) wireless tower, 1800 Naismith Dr.
8. UPR – (UPR-08-04-05) New Horizons Tae Kwan Do Studio, 3200 Clinton Pkwy.
9. Rezone – (Z-08-50-05) 4.950 acres, PRD-2 to PID-1, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between Wakarusa Dr. & Research Park Dr.
10. Rezone – (Z-08-51-05) 3.880 acres, PRD-2 to M-1, N of Bob Billings Pkwy, between Wakarusa Dr & Research Park Dr.
11. Subordination Agreement – Cynthia Wisdom, 1049 Home Circle.
12. Rezone (Z-07-46-05) 2 week deferral, 10.281 acres from A to RS-2, 515 Monterey Way.
13. Amendment (CPA-2005-02) ¼ mile radius for neighborhood parks send back to Planning Commission.
14. City Manager’s Report.
15. RFP – Carnegie Library, 90 day deadline.
16. Amendment (CPA-2005-1) Chapter 8, Transportation Element.
17. 2005 Senate Bill 77 racial profiling.
18. Policy – Take home vehicles.
19. Executive Session.