October 25, 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.
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Highberger proclaimed Monday, Oct 31st as “Halloween Beggars Night.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 11, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Hospital Board meeting minutes of September 21, 2005; the Public Transit Advisory Committee meeting minutes of September 20, 2005; and the Hughes Center meeting minutes of October 10, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, approve claims to 361 vendors in the amount of $1,476,045.94. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for India Palace, 129 East 10th Street; Longhorn Steakhouse, 3050 Iowa; El Mezcal Mexican Restaurant 3050 Iowa; and Molly McGee’s, 2412 Iowa. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the purchase of Rural Water District No. 1 facilities in the Peterson Road and Monterey Way area in the amount of $28,126. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one track excavator for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Victor L. Phillips $77,535
Sellers Equipment Co. $85,151
Kan Equp, Inc. $90,000
Road Builders $97,202
Road Builders, Alternate (used unit) $82,469
Olathe Tractor $101,588
Murphy Tractor $104,760
Murphy Tractor & Equipment (used unit) $90,647
Martin Tractor $109,500
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Road Builders, Alternate (used unit), in the amount of $82,469. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for Hanscom-Tappan Addition, 2nd Plat Street, Storm Sewer Improvements for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $187,358.00
R.D. Johnson Excavating Co. $130,099.25
LInaweaver Construction Inc. $142,854.50
Meadows Construction Co., Inc. $208,604.10
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to R.D. Johnson Excavating Co., in the amount of $130,099.25. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for weatherization, storm windows, weather-stripping of doors and attic insulation for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were:
|
CONTRACTOR |
Storm windows |
Weather-stripping of doors |
Attic Insulation.
|
|
Kennedy Glass, Inc. |
$19,824.70 |
|
|
|
Advanced Glass & Mirror, Inc. |
$17,229.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Billy Construction |
|
$5,466.94 |
|
|
Midwest Insulation |
|
|
$14,912.00 |
|
Staff Estimate |
$19,900.00 |
$8,000.00 |
$16,000.00 |
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award storm windows to Advanced Glass & Mirror, in the amount of $17,229; weather-stripping of doors to Billy Construction, in the amount of $5,466.94; and Attic Insulation to Midwest Insulation, in the amount of $14,912. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Teresa Stevenson, 1238 Prairie Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve an agreement with Lawrence Free Net for the use of the Kasold Street Water Tower. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda for discussion, entering into a contract with Overfield Corporation, for an access management security system for the Utilities Department facility. He said concerning the amended Overfield Corporation bid on the locking system, he asked if that was an identical coverage for magnetic locks with unlimited number of electric strikes as per the bid from Huxtable & Associates.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said that he could not answer that question without looking at the bid, but staff could look at that concern and answer that question by next week.
Moved by Schauner seconded by Rundle, to defer for one week authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Overfield Corporation for an access management security system for Utilities Department facilities for $165,000. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Matt Tomc, President, The Woods on 19th Homeowners Association, pulled from the consent agenda for discussion, the Transportation Enhancement Application for Burroughs Creek Rail Trail. He said he was not standing in opposition of a plan that was not yet completed, but rather looking forward to the opportunity to review that plan. A draft version of the Plan was posted on the City’s Planning Commission’s website on Monday, but the Association had not had time to review that draft.
This project was important to their Association because the Woods on 19th currently had 15 homes abutting the BNSF Rail Corridor. Within the corridor there were two drainage ditches on each side of the railroad tracks and they had already experienced problems with some flash flooding issues along that drainage ditch this spring.
Other concerns were security associated with the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and the Rail Trail Project; potential loss of open space; not much information provided with the Transportation Enhancement Application; and the application process concerning the abutting landowners’ support and a resolution in favor. He said one of the recitals in that resolution stated that there had been appropriate, public input and due consideration and that was where their concern lies. In fact, until Monday, they really had not seen any details about the use of the property. He said based on his review of the Application, he came to an unqualified conclusion, that the public and neighboring landowner input was an important part of the application process.
He said in response to one of his concerns, the City Manager explained that perhaps his understanding was not entirely correct in that Transportation Enhancement Applications typically did not require the level of detail in planning that he had assumed; that the public involvement in the planning process was not necessarily to the extent that he had expected; that the purpose of the funding request regarding timing in relationship to the Corridor Plan not being completed was a result of the November 7th deadline for the fiscal year 2008 funding.
He said he noted in the draft released, that the planning process was very much still in the development stage for that plan. He said they had the desire to work with the committee and the City on the plan and its implementation. He said they interpreted the funding request a major step forward and a major commitment toward the advancement of the plan.
He said he had discussed with the City Manager a request that the application include more detail or a note or comment that public comment and input was an on-going process, but that request was to the City’s discretion.
In conclusion, they were looking forward in reviewing the Burrough’s Creek Plan and working with the committee and City Planners on the plan especially affecting drainage and other issues.
Mayor Highberger asked if Tomc was in opposition to the wording of any of the resolutions at this time.
Tomc said based on his conversation with the City Manager, he would not offer opposition to the resolutions with the exception that he made with the request that the application note that there was an on-going public discussion. He said the issue was that there had been significant public comment generated, but he did not feel that was the case.
Mayor Highberger noted that this project had been in the works for quite a while and was in the conceptual stage before The Woods neighborhood was constructed, but the Commission certainly did want neighbors’ input on the project to make sure that when this project was built, that it would be an asset to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Rundle said in the brick street project that part of the application included items from Horizon 2020, one of which was to restore brick streets. He said above that item it stated: “Create a comprehensive approach to infrastructure improvements on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.” He suggested that staff draft a report concerning to what extent that approach had been accomplished or to what extent that was still an idea and that approach was never implemented.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Transportation Enhancement Applications for Downtown Lawrence Streetscape/Pedestrian Improvement Project, Ohio Street-Brick Street Restoration, and Burroughs Creek Rail Trail; and authorize the Mayor to sign a Letter of Transmittal and approve respective Resolutions 6615, 6617 and 6614. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive report and briefing from Transit Administrator and KU officials concerning possible City-KU transit planning activities.
Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator, presented the staff report which read:
“Parking and transit have been under significant scrutiny at KU for over a decade. Due to:
1. Increased pressure from growing number of development projects on campus;
2. Student and faculty growth;
3. Increased number of vehicles on campus creating a congestion problem;
4. Limited amount of available parking;
5. Declining ridership on KU on Wheels bus system that once averaged over 10,000 trips per day and currently averages 9,000;
6. Environmental and quality concerns with the use of old buses;
7. Lack of accessible buses on fixed routes;
8. Limited knowledge that faculty and staff can use the student system.
In March 2005 Chance Management Advisors completed a “Ten-Year Parking Strategy Report” that challenged KU to “rethink” the way campus addresses parking and transit and to raise the expanding needs of the campus in a manner that is consistent with the level of quality expectations for a major research institution.
Accordingly, Provost David Shulenburger appointed a Transit Task Force in May 2005 to include representation from students, faculty, staff, KU on Wheels and the City.
The Task Force was given the charge to conduct a transportation study to review legal issues, options for providing services, proposed routes, estimated costs, and methods for recovering costs. One of the first objectives identified for the Task Force was to consider the various possibilities for the coordination of transit efforts between, KU, KU on Wheels and the City Transit System.
The Task Force maintained its focus on the directive given by the Provost to address the provision of transit service that would be the best option for KU.
While research and discussion included an extensive evaluation of options to coordinate efforts with KUOW or the City Transit System, the Task Force came to recognize the many advantages (both in terms of financial impact and levels of service) of a coordinated system.
The Task Force met on a weekly basis throughout the summer, meeting with representatives from the FTA, KDOT, the City, and other university transit systems to gather information and evaluate the possible options. The Task Force then went through an intensive process to identify core values and a vision for the expanded transit system at KU. Identification of the service characteristics that would be required for an expanded system of transit followed in the process and included the goal of expanded, accessible service that would be available to the entire community.
Recommended Action Plan:
● Task Force recognized that it will be extremely difficult to provide an expanded transit system at KU under the desired service characteristics without federal funding to acquire buses;
● Task Forces recognized that in order to access federal funding to acquire buses, KU at minimum needs to coordinate efforts with the City Transit System;
● Task Force recommends implementing the coordination of efforts with the City, at a minimum, through a Memorandum of Agreement and that a technical expertise be sought to assist in the implementation process;
● The Task Force recognizes that implementation of the system would require a phased approach over a number of years;
● Service to the new 1,500 vehicle Park and Ride lot on West Campus to Main Campus for the Fall 2006 would be the anticipated start of the phased-in system; and
● The Task Force recognizes that student support and involvement is highly important.
The Task Force Final Report was submitted to the KU Parking Commission in late August. The Parking Commission was unanimous in agreeing to forward the Task Force report to Provost Shulenburger in the beginning of September for his review.
At the end of September, Provost Shulenburger sent out a memorandum KU staff, faculty and students and the City approving the following recommendations for future study and implementation:
1. Governance
2. Funding
3. Student Role
4. Vision Statement and Desired Characteristics for the System
5. Technical Expertise Necessary for Implementation of the System
6. Coordination with Implementation of the Parking Studies Recommendations
7. Phasing
Furthermore, the Provost appointed a Transportation Implementation Task Force, largely made up of the original members of the Transit Task Force, to serve on the Implementation Task Force. The Task Force may call upon other or appropriate representative stakeholders to act as consultants as needed. Danny Kaiser, Assistant Dean of Students and who also serves as the PTAC chairman will chair this Task Force.
The Provost then provided a list of target dates for implementation.
The Provost and staff at this time is seeking to determine the City Commission’s interest in working towards a coordinated system.
At this time, LTS does cooperate with KUOW. Both systems provide route maps and schedules on each other’s transit vehicles and LTS provides discounts to KU students that purchase both KUOW and LTS bus passes.
Ridership numbers on the “T” as of last Thursday indicate that the average daily ridership for fixed-route service continues to steadily increase and is at 1,445. In August of this year daily ridership averaged 1,266. Ridership is up almost 18% for the year.
Staff requests your direction on how you would like for us proceed with regard to addressing governance, service and legal issues.”
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Debra Kelley said the City transit system was set up wrong because it took 2.5 hours to get across town. She said it was very inconvenient to transfer four times to get across town and in order to get ridership up, then it needed to be more convenient for those people. She said K.U. on Wheels had worked through the years. She said along with the buses, they had the K.U. Lift which was a door to door service for students. She said the City needed a system that brought everybody to one destination and then expanded those people out to their final destination. The City did not need to merge with K.U. on Wheels to get ridership up or try to run their system because their system already ran well. Anyone could buy non-student bus passes and ride with K.U. on Wheels.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the bus company Kelley worked for served the entire community.
Kelly said no. She said their company did not just serve people on campus, but the outskirts of campus.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked how long did it take for their buses coming from the farthest point off of campus coming back to campus.
Kelley said all of their routes were set up on a half hour basis to get off campus to campus.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if there was a one hour turnaround.
Kelley said no, that it was a half hour turnaround. Most of the routes were designed to have two buses, one bus on one end and the other bus on the other end and then those buses met at one location. She said there had been some routes that had been eliminated such as the route to East Lawrence in which K.U. on Wheels did not have the funding to keep that route.
She said their bus routes went to 31st and Iowa, 6th and Frontier, downtown, and Orchard’s Corners, but that was as far as those buses went out.
She said people in wheelchairs might be two blocks from the bus stop to be able to catch a bus that was handicapped accessible. She said they did not want their students to have to go two blocks to catch a bus.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if whether one of the reasons for the merger was because of the request for federal funds that K.U. on Wheels could use.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the City had an operating allocation that would not increase much, but K.U. on Wheels needed, at some point, to tap the capital side. The City acquired their buses by an allocation and K.U. on Wheels needed to go through an MPO process to qualify for any kind of federal funding. He said the City did not want to get into a situation where they were competing and the City would need to get its own replacement list in the next year.
Vice Mayor Amyx said for a city of this size, this city was the recipient of federal monies that went into the bus systems. He asked if K.U. on Wheels did not have an opportunity to have access for federal funding for buses unless K.U. came to the City to incorporate their buses into the City’s bus system.
Wildgen said that was ultimately the concept, but he did not think it would go that quick. He said there was a lot of discussion about merging, but he did not know if that was the first step the City would envision. Right now, it was cooperation and part of this issue was governance and how would the City handle that situation. He said K.U. on Wheels needed to be able to access federal funds if they wanted federal money for new buses for the system whether it was their system or the City’s system. Once K.U. on Wheels tapped that federal money then they had to go through the same rules the City had to and there would probably be some advantages if there was an overall governing body of some kind and that was part of the discussion that the provost wanted to address.
He said there were models out there like with the City of Ames, Iowa that could be looked at.
Galante said it was not just the idea of getting money to acquire those vehicles, but after taking possession of those vehicles, there were a number of regulatory requirements that they would be subject to. If the City was to work out an agreement with K.U. so they would have the ability to go after that federal money, then they would be subject to federal requirements that they were currently not subject to such as the Americans with Disabilities Act all the way to Buy America provisions in which all the vehicle parts would need to be made in America and other federal requirements that the City currently complied with and that the City needed to report to the federal government annually for compliance. He said that was one of the issues the Task Force discussed over the summer which was the understanding that if going after that pot of money, that with that came a whole level of responsibility that K.U. on Wheels currently did not need to handle.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Galante thought it was reasonable if the City were to operate the “T” in closer coordination with KU on Wheels, that each system operating independently could reduce the total fleet of those two operations to make it theoretically, at least, on the capital side and perhaps on the operating side, less expensive to operate the service.
Galante said he did not know if it would be less vehicles just based on what the Task Force was looking for in their expectations for service. For instance, on campus the expectation was that they wanted a frequency of ten minutes or less where a person could walk to a curb and know that a bus would come by at any minute. He said that would require an enormous amount of vehicles or very large vehicle that had capacity to move people.
He said the City’s system was not designed that way for high frequency. The City’s system was to go to as many areas as possible in the City. He said they could provide more frequency, but there were only two ways to provide that frequency. One way was by adding more buses to their routes to cut-down on the service time which the majority of their routes ran on a 40 minute schedule accept for two routes that ran on an 80 minute schedules. The other way was to cut back their service area.
He said when asking the question about if they could reduce the number of vehicles, the answer was “possibly”, but by reducing the vehicles that meant they would either reduce their service area or have a higher waiting time between buses.
Commissioner Schauner said if the “T” had direct access to campus to pick up and deliver passengers would that, in coordination with KU on Wheels program, provide for a smaller fleet.
Galante said what would help was one of the routes that went through KU was on an 80 minute frequency. He certainly thought that they should increase that frequency based on the level of ridership on that route. By doing that, that bus through campus, in a sense, would be providing additional service through that area of campus. If a student was at one end of campus and needed to get to the other side of campus, they could technically hop on a “T” bus to get across campus. He said it was a matter of recognizing each others’ bus passes in that the transit patron did not need the hassle of having to pull out a different identification to get onto each system.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the service interval currently was for KU on Wheels.
A member of the public said the interval was 30 minutes. He said there were approximately 20 different bus routes that went through campus and depending on exactly what bus route a person was getting on there were buses that stopped at certain bus stops every 10 minutes, but those buses were not all going to the same place or necessarily circling campus.
Galante said one of the things he had asked the Transportation Coordinator for K.U. was out of the 9,000 trips per day that they provided, how many trips were on and off campus. He said KU was currently compiling that information so that they could have detailed information.
Commissioner Rundle said based on the discussions with the other University communities with City/University cooperation, with the combination of the resources and coordination was it possible, at least in theory, that they would expand service as in more hours, more geographic area, and more frequency.
Galante said yes. He said where it would help the City was on the economy of scale where instead of having two separate maintenance facility there would be one facility in which costs could be shared in operating the maintenance facility or a fueling bay. That was where coordination on that level of an integrated system where the economy of scale really helped out. It would also help in vehicle acquisition, if they all went with the same type of vehicle when putting it out to bid, on an economy of scale, a discount could be received.
He said coordination might be everything from honoring each other’s bus passes to full blown consolidation. He said what staff was looking for was at what level, did the City Commission envision where staff should go with this issue.
Mayor Highberger said it was difficult to answer those questions as to specific direction on issues such as governance and how much coordination staff would like to see between the systems. He said his only preference would be to see staff move forward with coordination and he was willing to entertain whatever suggestions the committee had in terms of the degree of cooperation that it took to make the systems more efficient. Anything the staff could do to increase the frequency of service was going to help the system.
It was important that students remain having a voice of operations because the student ran bus system was something that the City had been proud of for many years. If the City’s bus system was going to serve students adequately, then there needed to be student input.
Commissioner Hack said she had a feeling she knew what the end goal should be which was for the bus system to be efficient and strive for cost savings. In the age of fuel increases and maintenance costs, the City was concerned about those issues, but there were complications with federal regulations that came in with a total merge. She said they wanted their ridership to continue to increase and staff had done a spectacular job with the “T”. She said to the extent that the City could work with KU, her direction was to continue the conversations and continue to build that relationship.
Wildgen said staff wanted to continue to participate in the provost study group.
Commissioner Schauner said if there was serious interest in having a fully merged system, it seemed that was a high hurdle to jump, even in the long run, based on the level of responsibility that was described, all of which came with good sized price tags. He said a short-term goal would be a transparency between the two systems so that a rider, whether a KU student or a citizen of Lawrence who did not go to KU, could see a bus and could understand that they could get on that bus and go where ever that bus route might take them. He said to the extent that they could achieve that transparency, in the short-run, seemed to be a good goal.
The longer-term goals struck him as difficult to accomplish even if they had to find service areas, for example KU was limited to servicing the campus and the “T” was limited to servicing the areas off campus. He supposed routes could be coordinated, but what he was hearing the report say was that KU on Wheels would struggle to find capital financing to keep a fleet of buses going that would be down a lot of the time because of their age. He said he did not know how the City managed to marry KU on Wheels need for capital and the City’s need for continuing capital and their common interest to have two efficient systems, whether there was one system or two systems. The old adage about “the devil was in the detail” might really apply with those lofty goals, and it might be difficult to actually pull a package of workable agreements together. He said he would certainly like to see the committee go forward and see what agreements they could reach, but it would be a tough challenge.
Galante said this issue would need to be definitely addressed on a phased approach. He said a person from KU who was a project manager for the Task Force could answer some of the questions that Commissioner Schauner had concerning what direction that KU was looking in addressing their mobility needs of campus in the near future.
Commissioner Schauner said perhaps it was too early to have that discussion with the City Commission, but he thought efficiency and continuing voice for students and transparency of systems to the extent staff could get more riders on the “T” through some sort of a shared transparency agreement struck him as a good idea.
Galante said from what he understood his task to be was to grow the system and this was a legitimate opportunity in which to grow the system.
Commissioner Rundle said the steps that were outlined in the campus task force report seem ambitious and he encouraged staff to do whatever they could to help keep those steps on track such as meeting the deadline for state programs and federal funding as well.
He said it seemed obvious that the students assess themselves essentially a tax for their bus system. To combine the resources of the City’s public funds and that resource was a wonderful opportunity. The taxpayers would take heart in that the City was getting new funding essentially if the City could somehow make this system, so the students and the citizens had some enhanced services.
He said rather than trying to figure out what direction to give staff, following those models that had already been invented in other communities was a good idea. He said staff should let the City Commission know as soon as possible where the City was in a distinct situation so if they could not follow those roadmaps, that the City figure out what unique hurdles were in Lawrence and address those issues as soon as possible.
Galante said the dialogue for the Task Force throughout the summer was fantastic. A lot of people brought a variety of opinions and lot to the table and not everyone agreed on things, but he did not think the meeting ever got ugly at any point. Everyone recognized that there was an opportunity and it was just a matter of figuring out how best to put it together. He said there might not be an exact roadmap, but they could find something that would work.
Vice Mayor Amyx said it seemed KU on Wheels had an aging system and the City needed to coordinate efforts in making sure there was an upgrade to the bus system. He said it was time to put together some type of agreement between the two bus systems to make it work. He said there was a lot of vacancy on the “T” to help provide transportation. If KU on Wheels did not get assistance for upgraded vehicles, more people would be forced to drive. Therefore, there would be a need for more parking spaces. He suggested putting both the transit systems together to make it work for everyone’s benefit. (9)
Receive staff memorandum and draft ordinance creating a City Code prohibition on the possession of marijuana.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report. He said at the Commission meeting of September 6th, the City Commission directed that an ordinance be drafted illegalizing the possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia within the City. The ordinance before the City Commission did that by essentially mirroring language that was found in state statutes on the same subject.
The City of Lawrence could not illegalize the portions of state statute dealing with the possession of marijuana, drug paraphernalia or simulated control substances that would be a felony under state law. The City could only illegalize those things that would be misdemeanors under state law.
As far as drug possession was concerned, it illegalized the possession of marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which was the synthetic equivalent of marijuana or what some people call the active ingredient in marijuana. In terms of drug paraphernalia, it illegalized the possession of any paraphernalia that was used to ingest, inject or prepared for controlled substances. It did not however, illegalize anything that was used to produce control substances because under state law that was a felony. He said it also illegalized the possession of simulated controlled substances, but not the sale of simulated controlled substances because once again, under state law, that would be a felony.
The penalty for any violation of any of the ordinance that was proposed was the same as state law which was up to one year in jail or up to a $2,500 penalty and was equivalent to a Class A misdemeanor under Kansas Statute. The only significant change between the requirements of this ordinance and the requirements of state law was based somewhat on the input that staff heard at the time of the last meeting that dealt with the need for some sort of treatment to be administered or ordered for people who fall under the prohibitions of the ordinances. He said what was in the ordinance was a provision that made it mandatory for the judge to order the attendance of at least a level I alcohol and drug safety action program which was an equivalent educational requirement that could be found for someone who was charged with a minor in possession charge or for driving under the influence charge. He said in that situation it would be across the board for all three offenses, however in each offense, the judge would have within his or her discretion, the opportunity to order additional treatment if necessary based upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
He said at the end of the memo, the City Commission could find a comparative table of what other cities did. Some cities did impose minimum fines which were something that could be considered if staff was directed. Most cities did have the same penalty range as the state as far as maximums were concerned. Some cities imposed treatment requirement such as Olathe and Overland Park. He said treatment requirements could be ordered based upon the requirements of probation or diversion.
In any circumstance, when someone was charged with the possession of marijuana or diverted for the possession of marijuana, state law required, if laboratory services were performed by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI), that a $400 court cost be assessed for transferal to the KBI to pay for their lab services. The City did not need to pay for the lab services and it was essentially funded by the people who violate the law. That provision was included in the ordinance for compliance with state law.
Vice Mayor Amyx said because of the potential for a jail sentence, he asked if there was possibility for the need of an appointed attorney.
Miller said this was an issue that was punishable by a jail term so there would be a right to a court appointed attorney in this situation.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City could be put into a situation of picking up attorney fees.
Miller said right now the City picked up attorney fees regarding driving under the influence, batteries, and other offenses that was punishable by jail terms. He expected that system would continue.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service Director, said the City had a contract with Douglas County Legal Aid Society to provide legal services for qualifying defendants and this would be an item that they might very well represent. Otherwise, those defendants would have the right to select an attorney on their own.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the City paid a set amount each year.
Corliss said correct, the City paid a set amount each year.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was the need for additional prosecutorial assistance if this ordinance were to be enacted.
Corliss said one of the issues that staff might want to advise the City Commission was that they would monitor the caseload to see what the impact would be on the prosecutor’s office and municipal court. If the numbers were in the range that staff thought was likely perhaps five to ten per month, then it would probably not be that big of an impact. If those numbers go significantly above that amount, one of the key points that the prosecutor and Miller could speak to, was the adjudication in the prosecution of those types of cases were more time intensive than a number of citations that they dealt with in Municipal Court because there were evidentiary issues such as the prosecutors might have to defend a suppression motion if there was an issue about how that evidence was obtained. It was possible that the defendant might be represented by counsel that would seek to engage the prosecutor’s office quite a bit in conferences and that would take up quite a bit of time. He said staff would monitor that, but staff was not making that part of the request at this time.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be lab work costs associated with this issue. He said when prosecuting those cases, did staff have some additional need for laboratory assistance to identify the substance that the City did not currently need.
Miller said essentially it would be provided by the KBI, and there would be no out-of-pocket expense for the City. That expense was borne, more or less solely by the individuals who were convicted of violations that required a lab service. This was already in place, regarding district court prosecution. It was not just testing for drugs or drug paraphernalia, but something as simple as testing for finger prints on an item that could invoke that portion of the statutes and require that a $400 court costs be added.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that $400 went to cover the cost of lab work and so forth.
Miller said correct. The $400 went to the KBI.
Commissioner Schauner asked what additional revenue the City would generate as a result of enacting this ordinance that would cover perhaps, the City’s additional costs.
Miller said it would be solely based upon the fine structure. Court costs would not be any different for this offense than any other offense, at least under the current ordinance structure. He said it would be based upon where within that $0 dollar to $2,500 dollar range the judge tended to assess the fines.
Commissioner Amyx asked if that range was solely up to the judge.
Miller said yes. The way the ordinance was written, it was a discretionary call on behalf of the judge.
Vice Mayor Amyx said since the City was being asked to take over this issue from the district court, he asked if staff should know what the break even point was so the City did not need to pick up additional costs.
Miller said he thought it would be difficult to determine what the break even point on a criminal charge was because there was no control over the supply of that charge. It was a situation where the Police Officers find violations. If looking at the charts on page 3 of the memo, it showed the amount of police reports for each statutory classification that existed. The problem was that not everything that would otherwise be prosecutable in Municipal Court was prosecutable because they could be attached to a felony violation. For example if someone was arrested for felony driving under the influence and the Police found marijuana, the court here was not entitled to exercise jurisdiction because of compulsory joinder issues. The two charges essentially had to be tried in one place and that would be the district court. Not every report where marijuana was found generated an arrest, sometimes some of those numbers would be reports where an amount of marijuana was found, but no one to link that marijuana to with probable cause or approaching beyond a reasonable doubt could be found so there would not be a criminal charge filed based upon that. He said it was fairly fact specific in that regard. He said he did not know how it would be anticipated what the cost of prosecution for that type of charge compared to any of the other charges.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the current ordinance could be amended to add a minimum fine.
Miller said yes.
Commissioner Hack asked what other communities had as minimum fines.
Miller said six communities were surveyed and Salina did not have any ordinances on minimum fines. Out of the other five communities, Overland Park had a $200 minimum fine and their ordinance departed significantly from state law in that it was structured much more like the DUI statute rather that the possession of marijuana. Olathe had mandatory treatment, but did not have a minimum fine. Topeka, Wichita, and Manhattan all adopted the Class A misdemeanor standard which was $0 to $2500 and $0 to $365.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City Prosecutor would have right to not prosecute in Municipal Court, but be able to refer it to District Court.
Jerry Little, City Prosecutor, said correct. If they saw a case that might be more appropriately prosecuted in District Court, he would send it over to the District Attorney’s Office. If the District Court would not prosecute, the Municipal Court would.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if there was a minimum or maximum possession amount stated in the ordinance.
Little said there was no minimum or maximum amount.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Laura Green, Drug Policy Forum, said she came before the City Commission on September 6th and proposed this ordinance. She said the ordinance, from her perspective, was very similar to the state statute. She pointed out that the alcohol and drug safety course that was recommended might or might not contain a section on marijuana. She encouraged the Commission to take a look at what the course content was so that it was specific to the crime that had been committed. If asking someone to learn more about the dangers of marijuana, then the class might need a section on that issue.
She asked if the efficacy of the class would deter more violations and that was another subject she would like to know more about and she might contact DCCCA.
She said she went to the prosecutor’s office and there were many flyers available to the public. She said there were licensed treatment centers and she wondered if all of those attending treatment centers would be getting the same course, was the content the same, and would it really address the problems that came with drug abuse. In addition, there was a flyer available at the prosecutor’s office that tells a person what to do when arrested for DUI or even speeding. She suggested that if this ordinance was passed that someone draft a flyer telling a person what to do if they were arrested for marijuana.
She said the FBI Crime report was released last week and for all of 2004 over 770,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana last year. This was a huge number and the highest number of people arrested for marijuana ever. That number was more than all the people that were ever arrested for all the violent crime combined in this country. She said they were spending a lot of time and effort arresting people for marijuana. Eighty-nine percent of those arrests were for possession which was over 630,000 Americans arrested for possession of marijuana last year. She said she would submit that those number that Miller had in his memorandum, represented a significant amount of arrest for marijuana as well.
She said the low priority had be been discussed on this matter and she would not want this ordinance to be used to increase those numbers. If the Police were finding that they were arresting 400 people next year, then she would like the opportunity to come back and talk with the City Commission about that issue and what was the City gaining by all of those arrests.
Vice Mayor Amyx said there had been several weeks to consider this ordinance. He said he had a lot of concerns, but a lot of that was from his own lack of understanding of what went on in the courts. He suggested that staff look at the minimum fine of $300 to $2500 range and continue to support the $400 for the lab work and to look at what type of programs were available. He asked if the City Commission made this decision to bring possession of marijuana into Municipal Court was that decision final or could the Commission repeal that decision.
Corliss said at any time, the ordinance could be repealed. There was no statutory requirement to have a Municipal Court, but staff thought it was a good idea and it certainly helped the community in a number of ways and it clearly helped the district court. He said there was no statutory requirement for the City to keep a certain offense with the City.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he thought the number of marijuana offenses would go up in a year.
Mayor Highberger said he respectfully disagreed with the Vice Mayor on a couple of points. Personally he felt that marijuana should be dealt with like alcohol and tobacco, but the Commission did not have that type of authority. He said this was a relatively minor policy change. The primary beneficiary would be the district attorney’s office. Moving less serious offenses to municipal court made sense. Also, he did not support a minimum fine and would like to leave that discretion with the judge as with almost of the City’s other criminal statutes.
He said he had a few questions about the classes, but he would go ahead and support the ordinance as drafted.
Commissioner Rundle said he echoed the Mayor’s sentiments. If the City Commission approved the ordinance on first reading, and find out between now and second reading that the classes were not relevant then that section could be modified.
Corliss said he did not put the ordinance on the agenda for first reading. He suggested waiting until November 8th for first reading and staff would have more information about the programs that were offered.
He said if this issue proceeded staff would put together some type of informational brochure to make sure individuals that have inquires about what happened if they received a citation or were under prosecution.
Commissioner Schauner said he supported going forward with the ordinance. He said he was somewhere between the Mayor and the Vice Mayor on the minimum fine issue.
He said $300 was probably too steep for a minimum fine. He said a fine that was more related to the kind of offense that would be seen was appropriate such as a $50 minimum fine.
He said it would be interesting to see what they would produce over a one year period of time in terms of number of cases prosecuted and what difference that made in the ability of the City’s current staff to handle that case load. He said he did not know that just because they had an ordinance that they would see more of those offenses. He said he supported the ordinance, but he thought there should be a minimum fine although he thought it should be in a $50 range, instead of a $300 range. He said he did not want to make it such a financial burden on people that it became confiscatory.
Commissioner Hack said the questions and comments had centered around the issue of decriminalizing marijuana and that was one thing that was extremely important that people understood that was not what the City Commission was doing. In fact, the City Commission could not do that statutorily. She said she was supportive of placing this ordinance on first reading, but she also would like to find out about the classes because she would not like to see that concept eliminated.
She said she would like those court costs monitored. She was not sure how she felt about the fine, but the discrepancy between $50 and $300 was huge. She suggested perhaps leaving it up to the discretion of the judge was fine. She said she wanted to make sure that they monitored the expenses on the Municipal side and should it become cost prohibitive for the City then the City needed to make adjustments in court costs.
She said she would not support an ordinance that was not enforced as all other ordinances. She did not think this ordinance was going to be enforced more or less stringently than any other ordinances. She supported placing the ordinance on first reading.
Mayor Highberger asked if he heard from three of the City Commissioners that they were opposing the minimum fine.
Commission Hack said correct.
Mayor Highberger said that fine could be altered by amendment.
Corliss said first reading of the ordinance would be placed on the City Commission’s consent agenda on November 8th with some additional information about the courses that were part of the referrals.
Mayor Highberger said he was not sure they had a consensus on the minimum fine and suggested that the first reading of the ordinance be placed on the regular agenda.
Commissioner Schauner said his question about the treatment program was his anecdotal information about the City’s current alcohol programs was that they did not produce a significant amount of reduction in the amount of drinking and driving for example. He said he would like some better information about how successful programs that dealt with the use of marijuana or drug addition and what type of results were produced. He said he sensed those courses were not highly productive.
Miller said a level one ADSAP class was 8 hours long. He said there was only so much solvency of a drug problem that a person could get in 8 hours. Perhaps another option would be, however it would be a more expensive option for the people who were convicted, was asking everyone who was convicted to obtain an drug and alcohol evaluation to find what was best for them as opposed to what was best as a general matter. He said that was what happened in terms of DUI’s when someone was convicted of DUI right now. He said that would be an option, but typically those evaluation would cost approximately $150 a piece. A level one ADSAP class cost approximately $60 and with every additional requirement that was added, especially for people who did not have insurance or did not have a method of funding, it placed a burden on the people who might not have the money, but were ordered to attend programs or else they would be thrown into jail for example, condition of probation. The question was very difficult and the answers were not very easy.
Vice Mayor Amyx said it sounded as though they were creating a “cottage industry” with the expansion of all the programs as a result of this ordinance.
Miller said as the ordinance was written currently, it would take advantage of the “cottage industry” that had grown up around DUI enforcement and the “cottage industry” that had grown up around enforcement of minor in possession of alcohol laws. He said as the ordinance was written now, it would take advantage of a structure that was already in place instead of inventing a new structure. He said he did not have any idea whether the structure would have any sort of solvency in terms of people’s drug problems.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City’s current “cottage industry” around alcohol had any solvency.
Miller said the first thing that was heard, when prosecuting a case and someone comes back into court after being caught for a first, second or third time where they were doing the same things over and over, if a person did not have some sort of treatment or if helped was not offered, then the system failed them. The reason the system failed them was because for a lot of people who were charged with drug or alcohol offenses at least the argument was going to be that there was an addiction problem. If you don’t start somewhere, funneling them into a treatment system where they had some chance of finding the appropriate level of treatment for them, then the argument was going to be that the legislation that was before them, failed them. That was the philosophical better reason for having some sort of treatment just introducing someone into the treatment apparatus so if they really wanted help, they could continue finding help. (10)
Receive presentation from HNTB concerning the access management project for 23rd Street.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said HNTB was providing engineering services for the 23rd Street Project. Approximately one year ago, the City received an Economic Development Grant from the Kansas Department of Transporation for an access management project. HNTB and City staff had been working with neighbors and property owners out on 23rd Street.
Scott Heavin, Deputy Project Manager, said their goal was to bring the City Commission up to speed on some of the activities that were taking place with this project and receive some acknowledgement from the Commission to move forward into the design phase of that plan.
He said he wanted to rehash the 12 step process that their firm developed for the design phase and the community involvement phase associated with this project. He listed the 12 steps to the design plan:
Step 1 Review the project corridor and original corridor study report;
Step 2 Present project approach to the City Commission;
Step 3 Initial communications with business owners by letter. Conduct phone survey;
Step 4 Facilitate initial one-on-one meetings with owners;
Step 5 Report to Commission on comments/concerns from owner meetings;
Step 6 NHTB work phase to review/evaluate the owner comments and City Commission comments and make adjustments to access improvement plan, as required;
Step 7 After conceptual plans for modifications have been made, conduct second round of business owner meetings, as required;
Step 8 Formalize access management improvements based on steps 1-7;
Step 9 Final presentation of access management improvements to the City Commission;
Step 10 Begin preliminary plan production;
Step 11 Assist Public Works Staff/City of Lawrence with negotiations and appraisal process; and
Step 12 Bidding and administration services.
He said regarding parameters of the plan which were from Iowa to Louisiana, he said they started with the 23rd Street Corridor Study which was developed and approved in 2002. He said with that study being approved in 2002, some of the plans had already been developed and also some changing of the businesses and uses, so they decided to take a fresh approach to look at the entire four blocks again in which they identified some additional improvements that could help improve traffic safety in that area. He said in a one mile section in that area there were 55 existing curb cuts and the plan was to reduce 17 of those curb cuts through merging and consolidations.
Ultimately, the next step in the process was to get more detailed design information so that they could start looking at some of the specifics and fine tune the concept plan. He said working with Public Works and Planning staff the goal for the project was to get volunteer signing of public access easements or agreements which basically taking two adjacent property owners and merge the access into one at the property line or an existing access and define the limits onto one another’s property so that the business’ customers had the ability to use that site and it would basically would lock in the improvement that they were proposing with their plan.
He said the second time around, after they met with 25 owners and met internally with the design team about some of the owners concerns and suggestions, he categorized all the people they met with in three groups with the middle group being the largest percentage and the first and last group being a smaller percentage. The first group was “optimistic” about the plan and seemed agreeable to the terms of an access management agreement document between them and an adjacent business owner.
The second group which made up the largest majority of the people they talked to was categorized as “cautiously optimistic.” He said what he meant by “cautiously optimistic” was that when they laid out the plan, they showed the improvements to the business owners and tenants in which they seemed open to the proposal and did not have any specific concerns, but they took a “wait and see” attitude such as” waiting to see the design details, specific documents that highlighted the public access agreement, and how maintenance was carried forward. He said the next time they meet with this group, they wanted to be able to provide more detailed information to that group.
The final group, a small percentage of the people they talked to were reluctant, not optimistic about the plan that was shown on paper, nor providing an access agreement with and adjacent property owner. Basically, it could be summed up as that those business owners liked how things were operated today and they did not really want to see any change.
He highlighted 4 block sections of the plan to the City Commission.
He said this project was funded as a KDOT Economic Development Project. The City/State agreement for the project stated that KDOT would contribute 75% of the construction costs, and the City paid the remaining 25%. The conceptual cost estimate with some contingencies based on the plan that was provided and was a little over what the estimated funding was $770,000.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Heavin had any predictive sense of what impact on moving traffic and reducing accidents that this amount of work would do.
Heavin said if taking a look at the plan, a lot of the things that they were trying to accomplish were right out of the Corridor Study where it basically described that if they could take the mid-block section and reduce the number of conflict opportunities within that mid-block section then it would hopefully lower the accident rate. He said they tried to take a look at, not only the number of access points or curb cuts, but how did those access points line up with access points on the north and south.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the goal of this project was for traffic safety and to eliminate points of conflict. He said when looking at that street and the businesses that produced a large number of customers, he asked if it was safe to say anymore that 23rd Street was more of an east/west collector street rather than a business street.
Heavin said he thought there was a combination of both. He said he would not be able to estimate without having more of an origin destination study. He said they also performed a phone survey, to survey citizens of Lawrence and their perception of that street. He said they received a good sample of the people that were going into do business and not people just passing through.
Vice Mayor Amyx said on the corner of 23rd and Ousdahl was Hobby Lobby. He said one of the recommendations was to close one of the entrances to Hobby Lobby on 23rd Street and the only other entrance to Hobby Lobby would be at Ousdahl. He asked if there was any concern of stacking at 23rd and Ousdahl.
Heavin said he did not think there would be any stacking on the left or right of 23rd and Ousdahl because there were the side road entrances. He said when they had spoken to those business owners a lot of those business owners said that they relied on those side street entrances, a lot more than they did with the entrances on 23rd Street. He said the point was to try and put that entrance more mid-block so it was more usable.
Commissioner Schauner said if all of those curb cuts on the proposal were closed, he asked if they were in essence creating frontage roads through the creation of those cross access agreements.
Heavin said in a couple of areas yes. He said that was an issue they wanted to take a look at because some of the comments heard were that if closing too many curb cuts then a lot of traffic would be funneled to one access point where there was not a lot of off-set anyway. He said design issues such as that, might help to prioritize where they could or could not do that type of design. He said feasibility of the design improvements would be one of the issues that would come forward as they received the survey and entered into the more detailed design.
Commissioner Schauner said if in fact they did create some defacto frontage roads, especially on the western end between Iowa and Ousdahl, he asked would they move the conflict opportunities off of 23rd Street and onto those parking lots. He said in other words, would they be taking an existing problem and perhaps moving that problem onto the parking lots as they created those cross access agreements.
Heavin said that problem could be possible if they tried to over do it by closing too many curb cuts and that was why they tried to stagger the closure of those curb cuts. He said they had talked to the business owners about striping improvements or arrows, once getting behind the curb and into the parking lot, to help channel traffic. He said they had to be very aware of how many curb cuts they were trying to reduce and what was feasible because they did not want to take a problem that was on 23rd Street and push it by 20 feet onto parking lots.
Mayor Highberger said approximately one year ago, a study was conducted to look at design upgrades for 23rd Street. He asked if Heavin had time to review that study.
Heavin said no.
Mayor Highberger suggested that Heavin review that study and find out if what they were recommending was compatible with that study.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said they had not received a final copy of that document, but they had an interim draft.
Mayor Highberger asked staff to share that draft with Heavin.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Patrick Dority, Postal Carrier, said he wanted voice his opinion based on experience and sprinkled with a little common sense. He said as a postal carrier, and he carried mail down 23rd Street, he thought the plan was a total mistake and that they were not addressing the real issue of what was causing the problem. The real issue was the amount of traffic on 23rd Street and he did agree with Commissioner Schauner in that it would create a bottleneck in all of the parking lots. He said he had been delivering to this street for 5 to 6 years and he knew the business owners and managers by first name. He said anytime he brought this issue up to those owners and managers they just shook their heads and said curb cuts were not the answer to the problem. The true problem was that the street was both a destination street and a through street. It was the only a four lane street or more that went through the City east to west with two larger cities on both sides.
He said since they had the freedom to drive any street in this City, people were going to drive the least resistance, even though 23rd Street was not a good thoroughfare going from east to west through the City, but it was probably best as far as least resistance. He said he knew this through experience because he spent two hours a day on that stretch of road delivering mail.
He suggested that the City Commission eat lunch at Arby’s or Perkins and count the number of semi trucks, dump trucks, and cement trucks that went down that street. He asked the question of why those trucks would want to go down that street with all of the stop lights. He said it was because it was the path with the least resistance. He said if those trucks were going to go the trouble of shifting all of those gears and stopping at all of those stop lights, there were plenty of other people that go down that street because it was the path of least resistance. He said the solution in his opinion was to build the by-pass. That was only way traffic would get through or around the City.
He said he was glad the problem had been identified, but the plan was just window dressing and it would not solve the problem. He said the traffic would be put into those parking lots and traffic would be trying to get out of the bottlenecked parking lots. I
He said the really unique and wonderful thing about this stretch of road was that it was only a mile long and had every fast food franchise on that street which made it convenient for those bus loads of kids coming in for an event. He asked how that bus driver would be able to navigate those access points and those bus loads of kids would end up going somewhere else. He said he thought that plan would hurt the businesses on 23rd Street. He said it was only going to take a couple of times of being bottlenecked in the parking lots and those people would go somewhere else for lunch. He said it was a big mistake and most of the people who he had talked with were opposed to the plan. He said he had not heard a good reason why a by-pass was not put in on the outside of the City. He said everyone agreed with that concept. He said the facts were that they would not fix the problem on 23rd Street with that plan.
He suggested saving the money to build a road that was attached to the bridge to nowhere that was located on South Iowa Street.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought he knew part of the answer to this issue. He asked if adding a lane on each side of this stretch of the street made any significant difference in the ability of the street to handle either destination traffic or through traffic putting aside the expense.
Soules said he did not have an answer, but the cost would be phenomenal.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not thinking about the costs, but whether it would provide a better solution. Since the by-pass was a solution that the City did not directly control and the cost of that by-pass was also fairly substantial and there was some dispute about whether that location of a road that far away made a meaningful difference or impact on 23rd Street which was another question.
Finger said this access study was a result of the Transportation Corridor Study that was done for 23rd Street all the way from Iowa out to the City limits to the east. She said when that study was done, one of the aspects that KDOT Corridor Manager met with and discussed with Trans Systems who was performing the study was what about expanding the road. The response was that they could expand it to three or four lanes each side and there would be enough traffic to fill it. She said as far as KDOT was concerned, however wide that street was made there would be enough traffic to fill it and they did not think it was the solution. She said KDOT wanted to find a response to the issue rather than create more and more lanes.
Heavin said with his experience working within that one mile segment of 23rd Street was that they were dealing with a tight situation and if cost were not an issue, still to widen out to get those three lanes, they would probably be left with remnants of land that probably would not be developable and the City would need to take the businesses and buildings in order to get that three lanes and would be left with nothing in some areas.
Commissioner Rundle asked if this funding had multiple year application and did the funding need to be expended in a finite time period.
Soules said this was a single year grant application. If the City was successful, they hoped they would be able to receive future funding for projects of a similar nature in that area.
Commissioner Rundle said if this project could not be done at once, could the funding be spent over several years?
Soules said KDOT probably would prefer it if the City spent it for one project.
Mayor Highberger said he agreed that the City should build a by-pass. He thought the by-pass should be built somewhere other than the 32nd Street alignment, but it was certainly an issue he was interested in. He said whichever route was chosen for a southern by-pass, there was not funding available for the near future. He said he did not know how much impact the by-pass would have on 23rd Street. There had been traffic studies that addressed that question and his memory was clear on the original impact study for the by-pass was that 90% of the traffic on 23rd Street had the original destination on 23rd Street and 10% of the traffic was through traffic of some degree. The later impact study showed somewhat higher numbers for through traffic. The by-pass would serve some important needs, but he did not think it would solve the traffic problem on 23rd Street. He said obviously this plan would not solve the traffic problem either. He said it should reduce the number of accidents, but it was not going to take any traffic off of 23rd Street.
He said he shared concerns about what this plan would do to traffic in the parking lots, but despite that issue, he was generally supportive of the plan, but he would like to hear more before committing to spending any money.
He said he was not really interested in pursuing condemnation for this project at this point. He said the traffic problem was largely because there was no grid system and that was exactly the problem the Commission was looking at when they were talking about 6th Street last week and the lack of more cross streets. He said there was no place to go north and south between Iowa, Louisiana, and Haskell and that was ultimately why everyone ended up on 23rd Street.
He said he supported moving forward with the project, but he wanted to see more details before giving a final approval.
Commissioner Hack said the Commission would be making a mistake if they did not at least explore the next phase of the actual design work. The only way they would find out if it was going to work or going to create those bottlenecks was to study the plan further. She said this was an opportunity for the City Commission to see if something could be done to mitigate some of the accident concerns. She said it was not going to change the traffic, but if it eliminated some of those contact points in the center lane, the better off 23rd Street would be.
Vice Mayor Amyx said that the Commission should consider some type of improvement to 31st Street. He said if the traffic way was to go south of the Wakarusa River that was fine. He said he believed 31st Street needed to be a 40 mph roadway to Noria Road or connected into Highway 10 and it would need to be a road that somehow connected into the road to nowhere. He said they would need a road to move traffic from east to west and back to the north.
He said another problem would be started when a new Highway 59 was completed coming from the south and the City Commission should be discussing some type of direction on whether or not they would want four lanes of traffic coming up Iowa Street. He said 23rd and Iowa Streets were still state highways and that was how they were designed.
He said he would not be involved in condemnation of properties along 23rd Street. He said the City Commission needed to be realistic and discuss east/west traffic and the only way that could be done other than the by-pass south of the Wakarusa, if that was where it was headed, then 31st Street needed to be looked at as an improved roadway.
Commissioner Rundle said he was generally agreeable with moving ahead, but he was throwing in his vote against condemnation.
Commissioner Schauner said did not have much to add to the discussion. He said what the City Commission was trying to do was to retro-fit 30 years of questionable decision making with respect to what this road had become and there was not a good, easy, or cheap fix. He said they should move forward to see what options were available. He said let’s first do no harm and come up with a proposal that would make it better, not just shift the problem off on somebody else. (11)
Receive letters from Hillcrest Neighborhood Association task force and Pinckney Neighborhood Association task force regarding studying zoning as part of the HOP District Plan recommendations.
Michelle Leininger, Planner, said the City Commission had received Hillcrest and Pinckney Neighborhood Associations’ recommendation regarding zoning in the HOP area, but there had been one change in the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association’s recommendation in which 1515 West 7th Street was described as being RM-3 and proposed as RM-1. There had been some recent discussions with the property owner and the owner would like the property to be down zoned to RM-2 instead of RM-1.
Gwen Klingenberg presented a map of the area and discussed the Pinckney proposal. She said they were asking that at least 4 single family homes be given consideration of an RS type zoning of some form.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to initiate the recommended rezonings. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said concerning the HOP area discussion, the moratorium ordinance would expire December 10th and staff was not planning on bringing anything back unless the City Commission directed staff otherwise. He said those text amendments would not have gone through the process by that time.
Commissioner Rundle asked about what was the earliest possible time for those amendments to go through the Planning Commission.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said those amendments would go on the Planning Commission’s December meeting and be back to the City Commission in January.
Corliss asked if he should draft an ordinance for the end of January.
Commissioner Highberger said yes.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 8:50p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
___________________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Rural Water District No. 1 – Peterson & Monterey area for $28,126.
2. Bid – 1 Track excavator to Road Builders Alternate (used unit) for $82,469.
3. Bid – Hanscom-Tappan Add, 2nd Plat to R.D. Johnson, for $130,099.25.
4. Bid – Weatherization to Storm windows to Advanced Glass & Mirror for $17,229; weather-stripping of doors to Billy Construction for $5,466.94; and Attic Insulation to Midwest Insulation for $14,912.
5. Contract – Utility Dept to Overfield Corp for $165,000.
6. Transportation Enhancement Application Ohio Street-Brick Street Restoration; and Burroughs Creek Rail Trail approve Res 6615, 6613 & 6614.
7. Subordination Agreement – 1238 Prairie Ave, Teresa Stevenson.
8. Free Net – Kasold St Water Tower agreement.
9. Transit Administrator & KU Officials – KU Transit Planning Activities.
10. City Code prohibition of possession of marijuana.
11. Access Management Project 23rd Street.
12. HOP District Plan recommendations.
13. Text Amendment (TA-07-03-05) 20-1314 & 20-2002.13, reduction of area or space & nonconformance, governmental taking of R-O-W, easement & other governmental uses.
14. Text Amendment (TA-07-04-05) 21-12, enforcement & exceptions to building setbacks, enforcement & exception to building setbacks, governmental taking for public R-O-W, easements or other governmental uses.