November 29, 2005 City Commission meeting minutes

November 29, 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. Student Commissioner Frei was present.

Mayor Highberger recognized Jim Owens for his outstanding contributions to the Lawrence community; Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, for his outstanding contributions to the City; and four Haskell Indian Nations University students for their actions during the Boardwalk Apartments fire.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of November 15, 2005.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of October 5, 2005; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of November 7, 2005; the Public Transit Advisory Committee meeting minutes of October 18, 2005; the Human Relations Commission meeting minutes of August 17, 2005; the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 24-26, 2005; the Lawrence Alliance meeting minutes of September 28, 2005; and the Public Health Board meeting minutes of September 19, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 403 vendors in the amount of $2,533,406.23; payroll from November 13, 2005 to November 26, 2005 in the amount of $1,566,751.88; and longevity payments in the amount of $347,251.92. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Helen Hartnett, Phil Hemphill, and Robert Mosely to the Community Commission on Homelessness to terms that expire December 31, 2008. Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the sole bid for stainless steel mixing equipment for the Utilities Department. The bid was:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

JCI Industries $47,400

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to JCI Industries, in the amount of $47,400. Motion carried unanimously. (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to reject all bids for the Access Management System for the Utilities Department because the specifications were written with conflicting information. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for elevator maintenance for the Public Works and Utilities Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

ThyssentKrupp $19,080

Interstate Elevator $20,100

General Elevator $23,556

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to ThyssenKrupp, in the amount of $19,080. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for a HOOT project at 805 Madeline Lane for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

CIovis Construction $16,437

Penny Construction Co., Inc. $16,300

Natural Breeze Construction, Inc. $15,197

Staff Estimate $16,000

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Natural Breeze Construction, Inc., in the amount of $15,197. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to permit parking on the Clinton Parkway Frontage Road in front of 3705 Clinton Parkway on Sundays 8:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” along the east side of Silicon Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to deny the request to establish “no parking” in front of Rieger Hall in the 1300 block of Ohio Street. Motion carried unanimously. (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7954, establishing/allowing parking along the south side of the Clinton Parkway Frontage Road in front of 3705 Parkway, 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7946, establishing “no parking” along the east side of Silicon Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7939, rezoning (Z-08-50-05) a tract of land approximately 4.50 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. Motion carried unanimously. (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7940, rezoning (Z-08-51-05) a tract of land 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. Motion carried unanimously. (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7943, 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. Motion carried unanimously. (12)

Ordinance No. 7932, establishing new bus zones along the south side of 15^th Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (13)

Ordinance No. 7944, establishing an “all way stop” at Constant Avenue and Becker Drive, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Genevieve Henry, 528 Walnut. Motion carried unanimously. (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-09-33-05) for Hedges Subdivision, a replat of Lots 16, 17 and part of 18, Block 8, University Place, a proposed one-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 0.319 acre, property is generally described as being located on Illinois Street, south of 17^th Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

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

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

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

2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement.

Motion carried unanimously. (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-09-35-05) for South School Addition, a one-lot residentially zoned subdivision containing approximately 20 acres and is the site of Broken Arrow Elementary and South Junior High School, property is generally described as being located on the east side of Louisiana Street, south of 27^th Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. A current copy of property tax statement.

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

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

2. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

3. Change the City Commission’s signature to the Mayor, Dennis Highberger and the City Clerk to Frank S. Reeb.

4. Addition of the following general notes to the Final Plat:

a. “It is the City’s intention to improve Louisiana Street in the future. USD 497 agrees to dedicate necessary right-of-way at such time project funding is provided for and design plans are prepared. The City’s request for dedication of right-of-way should be reasonable to accomplish the intersection design and the City will be responsible for any entrance reconstruction to USD 497 property.”

b. “The City is hereby granted a temporary right of entry to plant the required street trees pursuant to Chapter 21, Article 7, Section 21-708a of the City Subdivision Regulations.”

Motion carried unanimously. (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-09-37-05) for West/Sunset Hill School Addition, two-lots residentially zoned subdivision containing approximately 21.68 acres and is the site of Sunset Hill Elementary and West Junior High School, property is generally described as being located west of Crestline Drive between Harvard Drive and 9^th Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. A current copy of property tax statement.

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

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

2. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

Motion carried unanimously. (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-09-36-05) for Lawrence High School Addition, a one-lot residentially zoned subdivision containing approximately 37.9 acres, property is generally described as being located west of Louisiana Street between West 19^th and West 21^st Streets; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. A current copy of property tax statement.

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

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

Motion carried unanimously. (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the site plan (SP-10-79-05) for two building additions to a church, located at 3001 Lawrence Avenue, subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.

2. Submittal of public improvement plans to Public Works for right-turn lane improvements from Lawrence Avenue onto W. 31^st Street, to be constructed as part of the phase I improvements for this project.

3. Provision of the following modifications to the site plan:

a. Verify and correct the number of provided parking spaces with a corresponding revision to parking lot landscape calculation note 4.3.

b. Add a general note that site plan improvements (landscaping, parking lot island,

grading and right-turn lane on Lawrence Avenue) will be completed before occupancy of Phase I.

Motion carried unanimously. (20)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive a letter from Korb Maxwell of Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus, PC regarding the redevelopment project at 8^th and Pennsylvania Streets; and authorize initiation of a comprehensive amendment for the Planning Commission consideration. Motion carried unanimously. (21)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve placement of a memorial in front of Liberty Hall to honor Tim Griffith, long-time manager of Liberty Hall.

Mayor Highberger said Griffith was a good friend and was dearly loved and respected by everyone that knew him. He said the City Commission approved the request and hopefully, the placement of the memorial could be accomplished by December 7^th. He said if anyone needed details concerning the memorial service call Liberty Hall at 749-1972.

Commissioner Hack pulled from the consent agenda, the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission for an adult guard and/or flashing beacons at the school crossing on 27^th Street adjacent to Sunflower Elementary School. She said it was her understanding that there were members of the public that wanted to comment on this issue.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Marcus Dudley, a concerned parent that lived in that area, asked if the recommendation was a short-term remedy or if there would be a long-term remedy put into place to address this issue. Overall, the neighborhood was pleased with the quick review placed on their particular safety concern, but they were concerned about the flow of information moving forward.

Mayor Highberger said the item before the Commission was to approve an adult guard or a flashing beacon. He said if the City Commission approved the recommendation as written, the recommendation would go back to the Public Works Department so that a determination could be made and if further action was desired, the action would need to be initiated by one of the Commissioners or by staff. He said as far as he knew there was no long-term plan in place other than what was recommended by the Traffic Safety Commission.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, suggested that staff discuss this issue with the affected neighborhood. He said he understood that the neighborhood would like to see some traffic calming devices placed in their area.

Dudley said the neighborhood had concerns about excessive speed and blatant traffic violations. He said they realized that this would be an on-going problem because there were housing developments to the east and west that would impact traffic flow which in turn, impacted their children and pedestrians in that area. He said in the long-term, the area needed some type of traffic calming device around their crosswalk. He suggested that a long-term study be performed, but in the meantime, they were concerned about a short-term solution. He said they would prefer both the adult guard and flashing beacons as a short-term solution then they wanted to discuss long-term strategies.

Soules said staff would provide the City Commission a staff report concerning the beacons and the adult crossing guard issues by next week. He said staff would meet with the neighborhood to discuss policies and neighborhood concerns to help develop a plan.

Dudley asked if the City Commission approved the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation would financial resources be available immediately.

Soules said crossing guards were not budgeted for 2006. As far as the beacons were concerned, those costs could be paid for by funds from the Traffic Division. He said if the City Commission desired a crossing guard those costs would be more than $5,000 a year. He said staff would gather information for the City Commission.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he had watched children cross 27^th Street and it was an unsafe situation. He suggested that staff compile information regarding a crossing guard at that location for a short-term solution, until some long-term solution could be produced.

Dudley asked what the difference was between a pedestrian crossing, school crossing and appropriate signage.

Soules said a school crossing was a pedestrian crossing, but during a certain times it was a school crossing.

Commissioner Hack asked if the school crossing only applied to those times that school was in session.

Soules said correct.

Sean Smith, resident of Inverness Court, asked the City Commission to clarify whether the motion would use the word “and” rather than “or.” He also reminded the City Commission that half of the academic year was over and therefore, the price of for the crossing guard would be half.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the crossing guard would need to be hired for the entire year in 2006. He said staff could not get anyone hired before January.

Mayor Highberger said it would be left to the discretion of staff to come back with a recommendation of using one or both, a crossing guard and/or beacon. He said this issue would be on the City Commission’s agenda as a regular agenda item for discussion.

Smith asked the City Commission to note that the area of discussion was a high traffic area.

Dudley asked the City Commission if the crossing guard and/or beacon needed to be immediately paid by the City or could there be help from the school. He asked if school employees were able to be crossing guards or were there other possible solutions

Wildgen said the school district had never accepted that type of responsibility. School crossing guards have always been the City’s responsibility to make sure certain qualifications had been met.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not think the City Commission had any interest in putting a few dollars ahead of the safety of children or adults who lived in that area. He said they would move with as much speed as they possibly could to make that a safer situation which included receiving a report from staff.

Commissioner Rundle said he would not anticipate that there would be any great difficulty in coming up with those funds.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation for an adult guard and/or flashing beacons at the school crossing on 27^th Street adjacent to Sunflower Elementary School; and directed staff to meet with neighborhood representatives to discuss a long term plan for traffic control in the area. Motion carried unanimously. (22)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report Mike Wildgen said a draft Overweight Vehicle Ordinance was requested by the Police Department for additional regulations of those vehicles. He said staff would notify the trucking community and other contractors about this issue before placing that topic on a future agenda for consideration.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City had the tools to weigh vehicles to see if vehicles were in compliance.

Wildgen said no, but if the City Commission adopted the proposed ordinance, it was within the City’s budget to purchase that type of tool for weighing vehicles.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if there was a weigh station along K-10 Highway.

Wildgen said no. He said if the City adopted the ordinance the City would be able to weigh vehicles within the City limit, but not on K-10 Highway. He said the Highway Patrol regulated the weight of vehicles on state highways with portable scales. (23)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Receive presentation from Lawrence Douglas County Health Department regarding Avian (Bird) flu.

Kim Ens, Disease Control Program Coordinator, Lawrence/Douglas County Health Department, presented information regarding Avian (Bird) flu. She updated the City Commission on the Lawrence/Douglas County Health Department plans on a possible pandemic influenza which was a worldwide outbreak of a new virus. She said the Kansas Department of Health and Environment released their pandemic influenza plan which gave guidance to local health departments. Their plan included preparedness, prevention, disease monitoring, information dissemination, working with all the different partners, distribution of vaccine when the vaccine was available and mass health care.

She said during a pandemic, because of a potential shortage of the vaccine, it was important to note that there would be priority groups receiving the vaccination and possibly the anti-viral medication. Also, they would be asking the public to limit their activities or even cancel large public events to stop potential exposure. She suggested that in a pandemic situation that the public practice simple things such as: hand washing, covering coughs, and staying home if sick.

She said locally, they had been meeting with emergency responders to plan on how they would handle community medical care. She said the Lawrence/Douglas Health Department would be providing updates to the community. Also, a meeting would take place December 1^st at the Health Department at 7:00 p.m. concerning pandemic influenza and she encouraged the public to attend to ask questions to KDHE officials and local health department officials.

Commissioner Schauner said in simplest terms, they were talking about a severe flu that could have worldwide implications and that could kill millions of people.

Ens said correct.

The City Commission received the report. (24)

Conduct a public hearing on a proposed vacation of a platted turnaround at 800 Broadview.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said when this area was platted a temporary turnaround was included on this lot with the intent that “if” or “when” Broadview Drive was extended, the turnaround would be vacated. He said there were no current plans for this extension. All utilities, Historic Resources Administrator, and Fire/Medical Department concurred with the vacation pending City Commission’s direction.

Amyx asked if the other half of the turnaround was dedicated.

Soules said the other half was never dedicated.

Mayor Highberger called a public hearing.

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

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Order of Vacation of a platted turnaround at 800 Broadview. Motion carried unanimously. (25)

A request to rezone (Z-03-16-05) a tract of land approximately 2.59 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) to POD-1 (Planned Office Development District) The property is generally described as being located north of West 6^th Street between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road (Bauer Farm)

The request to rezone property located north of West 6^th between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road (Bauer Farm) was deferred at the request of a member of the public.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to defer the rezoning (Z-03-16-05) request indefinitely. Motion carried unanimously. (26)

TA-07-03-05: Consider Text Amendments to the City Zoning Code, Chapter 20, Sections 20-1314 and 20-2002.13 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, said sections pertaining to reduction of area of space and nonconformance which are solely the result of governmental takings for right-of-way, easement, or other governmental use(s).

TA-07-04-05: Consider Text Amendments to Article 12, of the City/County Subdivision Regulations; Chapter 21, of the Code of the City of Lawrence, that pertain to the enforcement and exceptions to building setbacks which are solely the result of governmental takings for public right-of-way, easements or other governmental uses.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said there were two different text amendments with positive recommendations from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission indicated that they thought the text amendments were appropriate, but that there should be a retro-active date to the provisions and recommended that the respective governing bodies provide a date as they adopted the enacting ordinances. A staff memo provided a recommendation that the retro-active date should be the original enactment date of the two text amendments which was keeping with the purpose of the text amendments to ensure that any property that was taken by the government either through condemnation or acquisition would not harm the property owner in respect to the setback requirements that were contained in the zoning code or in the provisions of the City’s Subdivision Regulations, Article 12 which was the extraordinary setback issue.

He said there was correspondence concerning that extraordinary setback and the history of that came from the Western Development Plan that was adopted by the governing body in late 1989 that provided a number of planning guidelines for the growth of the community in the western part, not only along 6^th Street, but also along 15^th Street and Clinton Parkway. He said it recommended that there would be an extraordinary easement along 6^th Street as the text amendment was finally adopted in 1991. There was a 50 foot setback along 6^th Street under the provisions of special statute in the planning enabling laws that allowed for City and County governing bodies to adopt extraordinary setbacks along major arterial streets. He said there had been some interest in completely repealing that setback, but that had not had extensive staff study or Planning Commission review

He said it was staff’s recommendation that the City Commission proceed with those text amendments. It was his understanding that the Planning Commission was separately reviewing the issue of whether or not to completely remove the 50 foot extraordinary setback.

The staff memorandum also pointed out that the provisions of Article 12, Chapter 21, were unique in a number of different respects. The ordinance had already gone to the Planning Commission because it was already in the joint subdivision regulations, but the City Commission would need to conduct a public hearing to actually consider notice on the adoption of the ordinance. He said if the Commission proceeded with any change to Article 12, Chapter 21, staff would take the direction that the City Commission provided on that language and staff would publish and establish a public hearing date where the City Commission would actually adopt the ordinance to affect that change.

Also, in the staff memorandum, it indicated that the City Commission might want to task the Planning Department in the coming months to take a look at whether or not the Commission wanted to consider using that extraordinary setback tool elsewhere in the community. The location he was thinking about was west of the SLT on 6^th Street. When the City Commission looked at the planning documents and how they had effectively built and expanded 6^th Street, it was fair to say that those setbacks had served one of their purposes which were to ensure that they were able to enlarge the street in the future.

The City Commission’s action was to consider the two text amendments and if the City Commission proceeded this evening with the changes to the provisions in Article 12, Chapter 21, the extraordinary 50 foot setback, then there would be a public hearing where the City Commission would formally adopt the ordinance for that text amendment.

Vice Mayor Amyx said when an earlier City Commission discussed the 50 foot setback, it was primarily for the expansion of 6^th Street in the future.

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said it was for the expansion of 6^th Street and greenspace.

Corliss said with the Western Development Plan, the concept at that time, was that it would be an easement. He said that easement would be used as greenspace easement to be landscaped and maintained by the developer or owner of the property. He said it served to some extent that purpose along 6^th Street as that area was developed, but it also served the purpose of ensuring that they had no structures in the way as they constructed 6^th Street. He said they acquired right-of-way on 6^th, but the City still had to buy the property interest. He said it was fair to say that they had built all of 6^th Street that they were going to out to the South Lawrence Trafficway. He said the City did not have a need for the extraordinary setback along 6^th Street to the SLT in order to preserve a corridor for future road expansion because they have built as much as they were going to build.

Commissioner Rundle said he thought it was built as a gateway for the beauty of the community.

Commissioner Hack asked Corliss to repeat the recommended effective dates if the amendments were approved.

Corliss read from the staff report the effective dates which read: “Ordinance 5034 enacted Ch. 20, Art. 10 and became effective on April 11, 1979. Ordinance 6146 regarding the 50’ setback along west 6^th became effective on January 31, 1991.” He said if the City Commission proceeded with directing staff to prepare an ordinance that was when acquisitions after that date would not negatively impact the setback requirements. He said that seemed to be a fair way to do it.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the extent of the City’s property interests.

Corliss said what was being discussed was setback requirements. The City did not have a property interest in regards to the setback because the setback was simply a land use regulation.

Commissioner Schauner said but with easements the City did.

Corliss said the City had right-of-way and in some cases the City had easements along the property corridor that the City obtained with the 6^th Street project. He said this was a setback requirement which “setting back from the right-of-way line no structure and no parking lots could be located.”

Commissioner Rundle said the letter received this afternoon raised some issues and he asked Corliss to elaborate on the comment of: “these revisions would not treat all the landowners along west 6^th Street in a uniform way, but also landowners along other federal and state highways and principle arterials”. He asked if those provisions should apply to all arterials.

Corliss said the provisions in Chapter 21 that the Planning Commission had recommended amending only apply to the specific 6^th Street Corridor between Monterey Way and referred to a county road which was now the South Lawrence Trafficway. It was a one particular location extraordinary setback. He said he was not sure about the reference to other arterial streets. He said the statute that the City enacted in 1991, the extraordinary setback, did allow governing bodies to establish extraordinary setbacks on other principal arterials, but this was the only principal arterial that the City had done so.

He said he was not sure if he understood, because the City wanted to be fair in all the things the City did, the uniformity concerns along west 6^th Street. He said it was probably accurate to say that the setback impacts properties differently depending upon how much right-of-way was acquired and if there were existing structures at that location, but he did not think that was a legal or policy defect.

Commissioner Rundle said there was a request that revised development plans and plats be at no cost.

Corliss said if the City Commission proceeded with the enactment of those two text amendments, the Planning Office would make administrative changes to the Development Plans to reflect the fact that while there had been acquisition of property interests with the 6^th Street project, pursuant to those text amendments, the property was in compliance with the setback requirements. He said the City would do whatever was necessary to file that so that the current property owner and any prospective successors or tenants would know that for setback purposes, the property was in compliance with the City’s laws.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Sally Howard, Kansas Department of Transportation Chief Counsel, said she had been working with Corliss on those text amendments, but the general impetus behind those text amendments was to treat landowners as fairly as possible and basically do as little harm as possible when right-of-way was acquired. KDOT attempted to accomplish that goal by defining what they were taking, not as right-of-way, but as an easement for public purposes and utilities. She said Judge Malone said that he did not care what KDOT called it, but it was still right-of-way and once the Judge said it was right-of-way, regardless of what KDOT named it, the Judge determined that the properties were not in compliance with the setback and that could have caused damage to the remainder and that was certainly never intended by the City nor the Department of Transportation and so they urged the City Commission to adopt the text amendments being proposed so that they could correct any potential problem that the landowners along that project might have suffered because of non-compliance with the 50 foot setback requirements.

Mayor Highberger asked if Howard knew the estimate of how much this would cost the taxpayers of Kansas if those amendments were not adopted or if the City Commission, in the alternative, did away with the minimum setback.

Howard said it was her recollection that the landowner was claiming approximately two million dollars in damages solely for the Northland property and that was the property that was set for trial in the next year.

Mayor Highberger said he understood the City’s share would be 20%.

Howard said she understood it was an 80/20 split.

Dan Watkins, representing the Bauer Farm Developers for the project between Folks Road and Wakarusa, north of 6^th Street, said he had written the City Commission a couple of letters regarding repealing the Subdivision Regulations for the 50 foot setback. He said they supported the zoning code amendments that limit damages, and made any takings that apply to normal setbacks and put people in non-compliance, to try to alleviate that situation. He said in terms of the 50 foot setback, the City in 1990 created this corridor for sound planning purposes and those planning purposes have been fulfilled.

He said Corliss made a good point in that the City annexed pieces of land either side of 6^th Street out to the SLT in order to accomplish the 6^th Street improvements and other issues along that corridor and the City Commission might want to consider that west of the SLT in putting the same type of setback out there now for the same type of reasons that were done 15 years ago. He said today, there was sufficient right-of-way between Folks Road and the SLT to allow the existing setback regulations to apply to this rather than a super setback. The 200 foot corridor that was envisioned was accomplished by using the setbacks in the zoning code. As he had said in his letters, the super setback had a particularly adverse affect on the type of new urbanism proposal that the Bauer Farm Project represented and they recognized that was a hybrid in some respects, particularly on the commercial end, but in terms of having a setback, 100 feet on either side of the center line was what was envisioned and provided a 25 setback now for that type of project. The standard that was needed in order to receive a waiver, under a normal setback, was a much lower standard than under a super setback. He said they were asking that this issue be addressed, whether it was now, or sometime soon through Planning staff recommendations and report back to the City Commission as how it would apply or if it should apply or where it should apply so that when the Bauer Farm Project came up that issue was resolved one way or another. He said they would like it resolved with normal setback applying from which waivers could be granted by the Planning Commission and the City Commission for good cause and not for a higher standard of total deprivation of use which was very difficult to meet. He asked that the City Commission direct staff to get this issue back on the table with some recommendations as soon as possible.

Mike Treanor, Lawrence, said in other communities, governing bodies were trying to push the buildings closer to streets rather than further away and creating a more friendlier pedestrian zone up close to the street. He said he heard different consultants and planners, state that as buildings get closer to the street and as tree planters and walkways were placed, things naturally slowed down and it also created a better aesthetic environment as long as there were some controls on the aesthetics of a building. He said the Planning Commission had a study group last year that initiated some design guidelines for retail development that had to do with the types of materials that were on the building that were facing the street and creating a friendly façade of the building that overlooked the street and perhaps placing parking behind the building which the purpose was for a more friendly environment along the street. He said what the City had now was a very unfriendly environment. The streets were wide and the speed of traffic was very fast and by design was the reason for the unfriendly environment.

He said they had recent experience in Overland Park. 69 Highway to Metcalf on 151^st Street was designed as a corridor with 0 to 20 foot maximum setbacks. Within that zone between the building and the curb, they were trying to create a pedestrian friendly environment. He suggested that might be a place to look at in how that works because they encouraged the building to come up closer, put the parking behind to create an area that was friendlier. At this point there was a basic buildable area of 250 feet wide. He said 135^th and Metcalf was the widest intersection that they could find which had 12 lanes. He said those building at 135^th and Metcalf were 25 feet off the road, again, trying to present a friendly façade to the street.

He said the City Commission was looking at a lot of different issues right now from Planning Commission groups and New Urbanism Committees that all have impact on the City in addition to the transportation issues.

Mayor Highberger said he supported the text amendments. He said it was a reasonable way to treat the property owners fairly and reduce costs to the City. He agreed he would like to look at the 50 foot setback fairly expeditiously to have the City Commission address that issue before Bauer Farms came before the City Commission for approval because removing that extraordinary setback fit in with some of the other goals that the City Commission was trying to achieve.

Commissioner Hack agreed with the Mayor. She said moving that issue to the top of the list would be helpful because it gave people a better sense of what the City was trying to do in the overall picture of the City’s larger arterials. She said having those setbacks that wide went exactly in the opposite direction of what this City was trying to move to, in terms of a more pedestrian friendly environment. She said the two text amendments made sense and she suggested moving forward. She said the super setback was not necessary or justified

Commissioner Schauner said he found it confusing that a couple neighbors along Kasold came to the City Commission and said that a sidewalk near a street, they considered to be pedestrian unfriendly.

Mayor Highberger said to make a pedestrian friendly sidewalk next to a street, it would need to be buffered either by parked cars, trees, or something to create a separation and there was not that type of space on Kasold.

Commissioner Schauner said if in fact they had as a planning tool an interest in a super setback west of the SLT, he asked if that could be accomplished and at the same time adopt those text amendments that would benefit or at least change the relationship along west 6^th from Folks to Wakarusa.

Corliss said those were two separate items. The Planning Commission’s recommendation dealt with the existing setback. If wanting to deal with establishing an extraordinary setback west of the SLT, staff would look at Planning Staff’s recommendation along with consultation with KDOT and most importantly in consultation with the County because everything west of the SLT on 6^th Street was outside of the current City limits and staff would need to have a good discussion with the County because it would be jointly adopted with the City and County. He said he saw that issue as something to think about and decide whether they wanted staff to study that issue in the coming months. He said both of those could not be done now because of the requirements of the statute to do the studying in consultation with KDOT to originally do the extraordinary setback. He said that had not been done yet, west of the SLT.

Commissioner Schauner asked if adopting those text amendments would prohibit the use of a super setback approach west of the SLT.

Corliss said he did not see a precedent issue.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the same would be true of areas within the City where there might be an interest in super setback an extension of 31^st Street, for example.

Corliss said no. He did not see a precedent problem.

Vice Mayor Amyx said when the City Commission gave direction to staff to proceed with those text amendments, he asked when would those text amendment be considered.

Corliss said the text amendments for the zoning regulations would be considered by the City Commission in the next couple of weeks as a consent agenda item unless the City Commission advises staff otherwise. He said there needed to be a 20 day notice for a public hearing for the actual adoption of the ordinance on the extraordinary setback amendment.

Vice Mayor Amyx said in that time frame in considering that request for the consideration of the super setback from Folks Road to Wakarusa Drive, he asked what would be the appropriate timeframe to consider that issue considering those two text amendments.

Finger said a subcommittee of the Planning Commission would meet December 6^th to discuss gateways. She said they had a mid-month review session on visioning, particularly regarding access ways, corridors, and gateways.

She said the Planning Commission wanted to work expeditiously on the gateways, but she was not sure that was the same timeframe as the Commission’s because the Planning Commission was looking at all of the different major arterials that were gateways into the City rather than just one road. She said staff could discuss with the Planning Commission about their recommendations for 6^th Street if the City Commission desired.

Vice Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission directed staff to proceed with the text amendments and if they were going to make a change in the super setbacks between Folks and Wakarusa, would the City Commission need to go back through the whole process.

Corliss said yes, but that would be staff’s recommendation. He said staff would like to get those text amendments on the books in an appropriate fashion for purposes that were currently before the City in regard to this litigation and the discussion of that corridor. If the City Commission made the policy determination that the City Commission wanted to reduce that setback or repeal that setback, then he suggested doing that.

Vice Mayor Amyx said the action that the City Commission would take left the 50 foot setback in place and if the City Commission wanted to consider a change, then the entire process would need to be addressed again.

Corliss said correct.

Commissioner Hack asked how long that process would take.

Corliss said as soon as the City Commission had a recommendation from the Planning Commission that the City Commission wanted to act upon regarding that 50 foot setback, as far as repealing it, then the City Commission would work their will on that repeal and then it would be done again as expeditiously as possible.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked if that recommendation had to come from the Planning Commission on reducing that super setback.

Corliss said yes.

Commissioner Hack asked if that was necessary and could the City Commission initiate the conversation.

Corliss said he believed it was the appropriate thing to do because it was in the subdivision regulations. The statute under which this was enacted did not refer to a Planning Commission recommendation. He said it did not provide for this type of extraordinary setback coming from the Planning Commission. He said the statute said it would be studied and the City Commission would be in consultation with KDOT and an ordinance would be adopted and that was done, but it was done before they had annexed all the way out in that area and it was with coordination with the County and because they had joint subdivision regulations, the City and County adopted it. He said he thought the City Commission needed to go through the same process again to repeal the provision in the subdivision regulations.

Commissioner Rundle asked if it was not possible to draft this in such a way that it would apply to whatever setback was in place.

Corliss said it could be written that way if that was the City Commission’s desire. He said if the City Commission wanted to give staff language or direction on drafting language to accomplish that, the City Commission could, but he was not sure he understood all of the ramifications yet.

Commissioner Rundle said he was in support of the text amendments, but he did not want to rush quite so hastily into the consideration of the 50 foot setback. He was glad to hear there would be Planning Commission discussion because he thought that was where it should start. He said he would like to make sure everyone understood why it was originally put in place and if those goals did not apply anymore, and if they could accomplish other goals through other means, then they should consider changing the setback.

Corliss said one issue the City Commission might want to consider was to ask the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the 50 foot setback on 6^th Street within a certain timeframe. He said that might give the Planning Commission an ability to prioritize their work in their areas of analysis and would be perhaps helpful to the Bauer Farms development as well. He said that was an option the City Commission might have when considering this issue.

Commissioner Hack said if it was Corliss’ feeling, from a legal standpoint, that the only way to really accomplish this task was to go through the process twice, then she would prefer to see a timeframe attached to this issue. She said she would rather not see this issue lumped into every single gateway and arterial.

Finger said it was the Planning Commission’s intent to have a recommendation from the subcommittee for their January meeting and whatever was recommended at that time, would probably be moved to a March meeting.

Vice Mayor Amyx said the first issue that needed to be addressed was to clean up the matter that Howard brought up. He said the City Commission needed to give the Planning Commission direction that the City Commission would like input back on this issue. He said after that January meeting, the City Commission could consider that 50 foot super setback. He suggested taking care of this matter first, and address the super setback in January and February.

Commissioner Schauner said he knew there was a sense of urgency by the Bauer Farm folks, but the old adage of “go slow” to “go fast” struck him as applicable here so it was done right rather than having to come back and go through the process a third time.

Commissioner Rundle said he hoped the Planning Commission could let the City Commission know if they could move this issue to the top of their list and get back to the City Commission at an early date.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve text amendments (TA-07-03-05) to the City Zoning Code, Chapter 20, Sections 20-1314 and 20-2002.13 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, said sections pertaining to reduction of area of space and nonconformance which are solely the result of governmental taking for right-of-way, easement, or other governmental use(s); and authorized drafting of ordinance for placement on future agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (27)

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve text amendments (TA-07-04-05) to Article 12, of the City/County Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 21, of the Code of the City of Lawrence, that pertain to the enforcement and exceptions to building setbacks which are solely the result of governmental takings for public right-of-way, easements, or other governmental uses; and authorized drafting of ordinance for placement on future agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (28)

Consider adoption of Ordinance No. 7938, creating a City misdemeanor offense of marijuana possession.

Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report. He said staff redrafted the very narrow issue in the ordinance of a minimum fine and exceptions to the imposition of that fine. He said there were two different versions of that ordinance before the Commission. Those ordinances were very similar in that they had adopted some of the language or basic concepts that Commissioner Schauner suggested at the last meeting regarding the idea of a departure under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines. The way it was drafted in the ordinance was to allow the judge to suspend “all” or “part” of the minimum fine which would be set at $300 based upon the finding that there were substantial and compelling reasons to do so.

The only difference between the two versions of the ordinances was that one ordinance left the substantial and compelling reason determination for the court entirely. The other version of the ordinance listed several factors that the court could consider in determining whether or not it would be appropriate to suspend a portion of that minimum fine which included:

1. The financial status of the defendant;

2. The amount of controlled substance or contraband possessed;

3. The lack of criminal history of the defendant;

4. Any drug treatment or educational program voluntarily completed by the defendant before sentencing but subsequent to being charged under this article; and

5. The defendant’s level of cooperation with law enforcement including the truthful identification of the source of the controlled substance or contraband possessed by the defendant.

He said those were the factors the courts could consider, but the way either ordinance was written, the court could consider other substantial and compelling factors. The way the words “substantial” and “compelling” were interpreted was that there had to be something that literally forced the court to adopt the position and reduce the fine below the minimum and it was a fairly high burden to meet under the existing case law.

Mayor Highberger said his understanding was the standard diversion fee in district court was $100.

Jerry Little, City Prosecutor, said the standard drug possession diversion fee was $100 plus court costs. The defendant would need to go through a drug program of some kind.

Mayor Highberger asked about the typical fine for first time possession.

Little said he was not sure there was a typical fine because it depended on that particular judge and his or her view of what the fine should be. The fines that he was aware of had been fairly minimal such as $25 or $50, plus court costs and possibly some drug treatment.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the issues that were outlined in the second version of the ordinance that gave the specific reasons the judge could consider were reasons that meet that high standard of case law in Kansas.

Miller said what the judge would need to find was that because of the existence of those things, that it did meet the substantial and compelling standard. In other words, those were some specific areas that the judge might look at that were relevant to drug cases, but whether or not those would meet the burden in any case would be determined by the facts and circumstances for that case.

Commissioner Hack said the significant difference between version one and version two of those ordinances was that one version listed the substantial and compelling reasons and the other ordinance did not.

Miller said correct. He said in one circumstance the court was given more direction about what to look at, the other circumstance the court would be left to its own decision making in determining what factors would constitute substantial or compelling factors.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the difference between district court and municipal court as far as the student financial aid and if there was any difference between a diversion in district or municipal courts as it related to someone’s student financial aid.

Miller said he did not know about student financial aid per se, but they were treated the same. There was a section in Chapter 12 of the Kansas Statutes that dealt with municipal court diversion that specifically discussed diversions for drug offenses and for alcohol offenses. The terms and conditions of those diversions and the laws that surround those diversion agreements would be identical to the ones in district court. He said the Commission needed to understand that diversion agreements and the terms and conditions of those were entirely based upon what the Prosecutor requires. For example, the City Prosecutor would be able to impose different conditions than district court would impose, but legally those conditions would have the same effect.

Mayor Highberger said a successful completion of a diversion program would not be a conviction in either district court or municipal court.

Miller said correct.

Commissioner Rundle said in Miller’s memo it stated that list was something that the court “might” consider.

Commissioner Hack asked, regarding version two of those ordinances, if those five factors would be the type of issues that a judge would consider in version one.

Miller said he could not speak for the court because the court could consider any factors that were relevant. The significance of having explicit factors was the same as the significance would be under the state sentencing guidelines it just gave the court something to look at that the court could understand within the legislative body’s consideration of the time the ordinance was passed.

Kim Richter, Lecompton, said she worked at KU Medical Center where she taught in the School of Medicine and she did federally funded research on substance abuse treatment. She proposed changing the proposed treatment requirements to requiring an individual evaluation. She said this might be more expensive for each individual because the individual would be responsible for the costs. Also, she suggested allowing the judge to have the discretion to waive the fees for personal hardship. The only treatment that had been shown to be effective for reducing marijuana use among adults was the treatment that was a part of the tiny excerpt of a manual that she had presented to the City Commission which was a ten session treatment for people who have met criteria for marijuana dependence.

She said it would not be appropriate for everyone who was arrested for marijuana possession, but possibly two out of ten people who would be arrested. The pretreatment assessment that was a part of that program which was a federally evaluated program was really thorough. She said she had attached the feedback form for that assessment. The evaluation collected information on how much people were using over the course of a month, problems that were associated with their using, reasons for quitting, and other issues. The evaluation would give people a really clear picture of their use and how it was affecting their lives. Although there had been no evaluation of use of this assessment alone, the information provided was very similar that was provided in brief interventions for border line alcohol problems which were shown to be effective.

She said judges could also be given the discretion of ordering more treatment if someone came up as being marijuana dependent from that evaluation. She said this was a better way to go than requiring a treatment that had no data to suggest that it was effective at all.

Commissioner Rundle asked if more drug treatment was currently available if it were designated by a judge.

Richter said there was a good treatment manual which probably required someone with a master’s degree to help with the assessments that were used for that treatment.

Laura Green, Lawrence, said she brought this issue to the City Commission’s attention because she was concerned that the criminal justice approach to drug treatment or drug use was not working. She said there was a real problem with people who abuse drugs and she did not, at any time, think that was not true. There had been some misconception about this draft ordinance in that it was decriminalizing and that they were taking a “wink” and a “ no look” approach, but that was far from the truth. The reason she brought this issue to the City Commission was because of the Higher Education Act. The drug provision provided that students lose their student loans and get kicked out of school. There had been a lot of data that showed that students that lose their loans did not go back to school.

She said regarding the Higher Education Act drug provision, a person could get a student loan back if they follow the rehabilitation clause. She said she called DCCCA, a drug and alcohol center, and found out from the program director that it took a lot of money to get that loan back. The person would need to attend an 8 week class which was two hours a day and two days a week; pay for a random drug testing, and other fees that went along with the conviction in the court or even the diversion. Even if a person received a diversion, that person would still incur those costs which would be approximately $1200 to $3300. She thought that fining a person would help someone who had a drug dependency problem, but she thought there were different categories of users.

She said people who abuse drugs need help. She said they did not need a $300 fine or an alcohol safety class where those people would meet other people who were arrested for DUI. She said there were recreational marijuana users all over town because everyone knew them. Those recreational marijuana users were responsible people, taxpayers, and homeowners. The truth was that the City had to do what was best for this community and she did not believe that was a $300 fine or that a slap on the hand class would help.

She said again, there were different classifications of marijuana users, but there were no different classifications for people who drink and drive. People who drink and drive should not do so because it was very dangerous. She said concerning people under 21 who drink, there were no classifications of Minors in Possession (MIP). She said she supported a drug evaluation. She said people who use illegal drugs might have other emotional disorders and those problems could be found with an evaluation and hoped that the City Commission would consider that thought. She said the City of Olathe had a court services division that looked more closely at the individual’s situation.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the difference between district and municipal courts as it pertained to the Higher Education Act.

Green said the Higher Education Act, Financial Application, Question 31, gave a guideline of how to answer the question on the financial application: “Have you been charged and convicted in State or Federal Court.” If a person had been charged and convicted in a Municipal Court, then that person could answer “no” to the question and that person could receive the financial aid.

Commissioner Schauner asked if a person could also answer the question “no” if he or she had been charged and entered a diversion and successfully completed the program

Green said she understood that question could be answered only if a person completed the rehabilitation class.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that was what the direction stated.

Green said she would take a look at that text and get back to Commissioner Schauner.

Richter said one issue she wanted to point out was the importance of going to trial and actually being held accountable for being in possession and that was where she differed from some of the other folks who were testifying. She said people who were arrested, might not go to district court because their case might get dropped because there were other priorities and that happened.

Green read the text from the financial application worksheet which stated: “Has the student ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs? A federal law suspends federal student aid eligibility for a student convicted under federal or state law of possession or sale of drugs not including alcohol and tobacco. If the answer to this question was “yes” then question 31 will help determine whether this law affects the student’s eligibility. Count only federal or state convictions, do not count convictions that have been removed from the student’s record. Do not count convictions that occurred before the student turned eighteen, unless the student was tried as an adult.”

She said when it stated “removed from their record,” she assumed that meant that person had completed the diversion and it had been removed from their record. She said it might be expunged, but that would not happen for three years.

Little said a diversion was not a conviction under state law. The case would be dismissed after the end of one year.

Green said then it was not expunged.

Little said no it was different.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the City Commission was to make the changes that were suggested would staff would need time to look at those changes.

Miller said that could be easily accomplished. He said there was a difference between Lawrence and Olathe and how municipal court worked. The main difference was that Olathe had their own court services agency and Lawrence did not which meant that Olathe had people who could perform drug evaluations and alcohol evaluations and write off the costs. In other words, not charge someone because the City of Lawrence would be requiring everyone to go through private agencies and he did not think there would be any potential unless the City wanted to subsidize evaluations. There was no potential for those people to have evaluations at no costs and that was an issue that needed to be considered. He said it would be easy to change the language of the ordinance to incorporate evaluations, compliance with those evaluations as opposed to the taking the ADSAP Class.

Commissioner Hack asked about the cost of the evaluation in Douglas County.

Miller said $150 or less.

Commissioner Hack asked if the ordinance could be written that if the judge imposed a fine of $300 and if part of the agreement was to be evaluated and upon completion of that evaluation that the $150 evaluation cost could be subtracted from the $300 fine.

Miller said that could be a consideration for fining.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was sufficient court service staff available in the municipal court to track that completion.

Little said the City had one Court Service Officer, Oscar Marino, who presently supervised anyone placed on probation along with other duties and he was not sure that Court Service Officer would have the time to adequately supervise those types of cases.

Commissioner Hack said the Commission needed to have a philosophical conversation of what they were trying to accomplish. Either they were trying to protect scholarships and/or trying to help people with drug problems, but if they were simply being the one to slap hands then that was a completely different situation.

Vice Mayor Amyx said one important issue was the need to help students keep their student loans. He said one major issue was the fact that they were talking about charging and convicting residents of Lawrence in Municipal Court. He said he supported the $300 fine, but he was not sure he was given enough reason why this particular offense should be tried in Municipal Court instead of District Court. He asked questions like: 1) Could they perform evaluations through District Court?”; and 2) Did they want to make sure that once someone completed a diversion agreement for first possession, would that continue to protect their student loan. He said if those things were already being met, why duplicate what was already being done.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said he wanted to make a follow up comment on the staffing issue. One of the things that he had mentioned when the Commission had considered this issue in the past was that staff was going to monitor the workload and caseload of Municipal Court, but they did not know the number that they would have and if it impacted the City Prosecutor’s Office or impacted Municipal Court, staff would be sure to let the City Commission know and ask for appropriate resources to do the professional job that staff was doing right now and be able to continue that.

Commissioner Schauner said he read where Congress was considering amending the loss of student aid eligibility.

Green said every seven years the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the Senate took up the Higher Education Act for rewrite. She said she heard today that they were taking 14 billon dollars out of the student loan pool. She said they had the ability to remove the drug provision, but they had not. They had until the end of the year to remove the drug provision, but it did not look like that would happen. She also said the ACLU had sued this week to have the drug provision removed on behalf of the 170,000 students that had lost their aid.

She commented that the second marijuana conviction in the State of Kansas was a felony and then a person was out of the game for receiving aid as well as the 1996 Welfare Act which denied aid, not only welfare aid, but job training, food stamps, and housing to anyone convicted of a felony drug offense in the State of Kansas. Women with children were the people that were the targets of the 1996 Welfare Act drug provision and the City of Lawrence felt that.

She said if there was a conviction and it was in Municipal Court, at least it was one slap on the hand. She said if a person had a problem, they could be caught and placed into treatment early. The District Court was not prosecuting those cases and they were not doing anything with those cases. She said if a person received a second offense that would be considered a felony and therefore that person would be done with financial aid and welfare benefits.

Commissioner Schauner said he was not sure now where he stood on this topic. He said the last time they discussed this topic he was supportive of a $300 fine with those departure issues attached, but he frankly thought that Vice Mayor Amyx made a good point that perhaps the City Commission should not move this type of infraction out of district court, but leave it right where it was. He said at least at this moment he did not think that the City Commission was sure if they wanted to be in the rehabilitation business or the fining business. He was not particularly comfortable with inserting a rehabilitation program that he did not know much about. He said it might be a good program, but he just heard about the program 15 minutes ago and that was not a good way to make public policy. He would rather that the City Commission did nothing about this issue at this point. He suggested that the City Commission have some more discussion about what their goal was. The sense he was getting based on what Green stated was that the district court was perhaps doing less harm to first time offenders than the City’s proposal might do, at least financially. He said he was leaning towards not adopting any ordinance that would move those first time offenses to Municipal Court.

Commissioner Highberger said there were several good reasons for adopting this ordinance. 1) It benefited students who did not unreasonably have their opportunity for student loans removed; 2) Reduced time requirements for police in prosecuting in an arrest; and 3) it frees up District Court resources for pursuing more serious crimes.

He said he liked Richter’s suggestion of having the screening rather than the class that might or might not address marijuana at all and it might be a way to reach people who really had dependent issues.

He said he could not support either ordinance as drafted because there was no justification for imposing a higher fine that was currently imposed in District Court. He said he could support the ordinances as drafted with judicial discretion for penalty or even a $100 minimum fine plus the change of the alcohol class to the screening options, but without those options, he could not support either version.

Commissioner Rundle said he voiced support of this concept the night that the City Commission was asked to consider it and he did not think there had been anything that caused him to wavier from that thinking. He said it might not be appropriate to consider a rehabilitation program at this time because the City Commission had not had time to review it, but it could be added later.

The League of Women Voters noted that this would have a disproportionate affect on poor middle class students as well as students of color and just as a college education was a potential step to a better situation in life, removing this opportunity from people on the first conviction seemed, by common sense, to lead to social costs for those people who did not move to a better station in life where they slide down a slippery slope.

He said he was going to invoke the advice of one of the keynote speakers at the summit that was held on the 50^th Anniversary of Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center, someone who lectured and worked in the field of public health at Harvard, said at that time there was a craze about three strikes and you were out in the public schools and the keynote speaker was acknowledging that particularly with young people and high school students, it was our job to offer guidance to steer them, give them a second chance and to exercise forgiveness and this issue was a one strike and you were out. Clearly on the second offense, the consequences were just as severe and the people who were thinking the City Commission were being soft, that should dissuade them of that point of view because this was a one time second chance that a person would have to clean up their act and he would like to see the Commission do something and if those compromises that were being supported led to that, then he was happy to support those compromises.

Commissioner Hack said she was not sure where the Commission was on this topic. She said she would like to see this infraction moved from District Court to Municipal Court and add Richter’s recommendations on assessments and treatments. She said she did not know whether it was the responsibility of government, but it was an obligation and was something that the City Commission might want to investigate and offer, but she also agreed with Commissioner Schauner in that she did not know a whole lot about that suggestion of rehabilitation. She said she appreciated the one strike in protecting scholarships, but that had never been her reason for moving this particular issue to district court. She said she could support either version 1 or version 2 and investigating Richter’s suggestion of counseling and assessment process at a later time. Version 1 and version 2 were basically the same. Version 1 would give the judge discretion to suspend the fine given certain circumstances and version 2 just enumerated those facts that the judge might consider, but she assumed the judge would take those factors into consideration anyway.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7938, striking the minimum fine of $300 and allowing the judge in each case to set the fine and approve the requirement of individual evaluations as proposed by Richter. Aye: Highberger and Rundle. Nay: Amyx, Hack, and Schauner. (29)

Commissioner Rundle suggested allowing the judge the flexibility to reduce or waive the fine because there would be opportunities in the future every time the fine structure was looked at to make adjustments. He asked if the Mayor would be willing to agree with that motion if there was a fine of $300.

Mayor Highberger said he could not support anything that had a higher fine than was imposed in district court because there was no justification for a higher fine.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading version 2 of Ordinance No. 7938, which listed factors that the court might consider in deciding whether a portion of the fine should be suspended and directed staff to review the individual treatment recommendation from Kim Richter.

Commissioner Schauner said before the City Commission voted on that motion, he would vote against Commissioner Hack’s recommendation because he would like to hear more about what Richter was suggesting and would like a report from City staff about the foreseeable impact of such a counseling approach in City court. He said he sensed that the City did not have the staff to fully implement and honor that system and he was not particularly interested in having to add more staff to Municipal Court.

Commissioner Rundle said a person that was convicted of that marijuana charge would need to seek private counseling and pay for that service.

Commissioner Schauner said what they would be getting to, would be an even greater cost that the Mayor had indicated a willingness to support. There would be a fine, perhaps reduced or eliminated by the judge if the judge found one or more of those departure factors, but then there would be a cost of some type of program and that trade-off was not written into the ordinance. He said he would like a more thoughtful approach from the City Commission.

Commissioner Hack said her thought was to adopt version 2 as written, with the possibility of looking at the cost implications unless the Commission did not want to do anything. She said there was no sense of urgency to adopt an ordinance other than the fact that Green had spent a lot of time on this issue. She said she would be comfortable waiting until they received more information and she would withdraw her motion and suggested tabling this issue until they received further information on implementing a rehabilitation program.

Commissioner Amyx asked if Commissioner Hack was suggesting looking into Richter’s evaluation program, how it would work in this ordinance, and structure the fine at a later date.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the fine would be levied in addition to the requirement of an evaluation.

Miller said yes. If there was a $300 fine, in addition would be the cost of the evaluation.

Vice Mayor Amyx said they could convict and fine someone, but were they helping those people in the end. He said looking at an evaluation program might be a better approach. He said the Commission needed to address staffing issues if they were considering an evaluation approach.

Commissioner Hack said the staffing issue might not be known until the City monitored this situation, but at least they might have a better idea of how much this program would cost to implement it.

Vice Mayor Amyx said one thing the City Commission had to their advantage was being able to rescind their motion.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to table the adoption on first reading, of Ordinance No. 7938 creating a City misdemeanor offense of marijuana possession and directed staff to review the individual treatment recommendation from Kim Richter. Motion carried unanimously. (30)

The City Commission took a 5 minute recess.

Receive Burroughs Creek Study.

Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented a summary of the Collaborative Planning Process which included citizens requesting the plan and an established planning team who would develop a vision for the plan, develop an action plan to include goals and objectives, offer community meetings for the general public to comment on the plan, adoption by the governmental bodies, and implementation of that plan.

The moratorium area was bounded on the east by Haskell Avenue, 9^th Street on the north and varies from Delaware, Pennsylvania, Learnard, and jogged and followed the eastern boundary of Haskell University. The temporary building moratorium was just from the portion of the study area, north of 23^rd Street. The study area extended south of 23^rd Street because of the existing Rails to Trails Project to create the continuity and incorporation with the new ideas.

She said East Lawrence, Barker, Brook Creek Neighborhood Associations, initiated and requested this plan. The building moratorium ordinance took effect upon its publication date of November 24, 2004 for a one year period which had now expired. The study committee was formed in December which was made up of representatives from each of the three neighborhoods, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Parks Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, industrial businesses along the corridor, and Parks and Recreation Department.

The area of concern from the plan was the abandoned BNSF Railroad corridor, residential infill development, and appropriate adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial and industrial areas. This area was historically an industrial area and a lot of the properties had gotten too small for modern and larger industrial areas. There had been quite a bit of redevelopment especially directly abutting the rail corridor.

Horizon 2020 was a legal, land use document and the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan was a document that further described how the Horizon 2020 elements applied to the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan Area. Some of the consistencies were multi-use recreational trails, recommendation of identifying, evaluating and designating of historic places, connectivity and pedestrian friendly government, and preservation of open space.

The first goal of the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan was to transform the abandoned rail corridor into a linear park and recreational trail that would allow connections between the pedestrian and bicycle facilities that were currently existing in this City. Some of the details were to acquire the abandoned rail corridor right-of-way which was currently in the process for the trunk sewer lines that ran through the corridor; pursue development of the rails-to-trails program from East 12^th to East 11^th Streets, pursue funding opportunities, and a park and recreational path development.

The committee had identified 1^st and 2^nd priority tiers. The first priority tier items that they felt were very important was the Sale Barn, 900 E 11^th; railroad spur between Maryland and Delaware Streets; 702 and 710 East 19^th Street. The second tiers were properties that they felt would benefit the trail and the park, but were not absolutely necessary. She said the Park and Recreational Path Development Committee recommended examining new trends in design and management, Intermodal Plan for all modes of transportation to travel safely together, incorporate existing trail south of East 23^rd Street, xeriscaping practices used, and public involvement in Park Master Plan Development.

The second goal of the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan was to emphasize new residential infill development in the Burroughs Creek study area and more industrial uses by encouraging neighborhood friendly reuse of underutilized commercial and industrial sites. The committee was not interested in running commercial/industrial development out of that area. She said they would like to see those underutilized sites be revitalized into something that could be beneficial to the neighborhood. She said their first point was to modify existing zoning to be consistent with land use, pursue tax incentive for residential, commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment, encourage new residential friendly development, and protect historic sites and neighborhood character.

The first tier was 5 rezonings that the committee recommended that the City Commission initiate that first tier upon approval of the plan. All of the medications to those rezonings would still allow the current use. The second tier would be initiated by the neighborhood association at a future date. She said they would also like to protect historic sites and neighborhood character of the area.

Mayor Highberger asked for more detail on the rationale for acquiring the two properties on 19^th Street.

Leininger said it was actually one large piece of property. The property owner was a committee member and they had discussed that that property would be a good trail head location. There was a sewer line that ran through that area and was a good midpoint. The committee felt that would be a great location for possibly picnic facilities and restrooms. She said the committee felt that was a priority piece of property.

Mayor Highberger asked about the replatting of the Huxtable property and the discussion about that area being a trail head location.

Leininger said she did not know anything about that discussion.

Mike Wildgen, said the Huxtable owner purchased the Davol property. The vacation of Oregon had not been completed because there was not action on that vacation. He said the City still owned the parcel on the east side.

Commissioner Rundle said Huxtable was going to develop trail as part of the tradeoff.

Commissioner Hack asked if Leininger had contacted property owners. She wanted to make sure if staff was changing the zoning that the property owners were in the loop.

Leininger said she contacted all of the property owners. She said according to the newspaper, Independence Inc., had made no decision concerning the rezonings. She said the only property owner that had not returned a phone call was the auto detailing shop, however, she had talked to the owner of the business, and he seemed okay with the rezoning as long as his business could remain. The only negative comment was from the Salvation Army who was against the rezonings.

Mayor Highberger asked what was the current use of 701 and 702 East 19^th Streets.

Leininger said those houses were two small rental houses.

Commissioner Hack asked Leininger if there had been more conversation with the Salvation Army.

Leininger said no. She said she had talked to the Salvation Army’s lawyer who made it very clear that they were against the rezonings and it would be detrimental to their project.

Commissioner Hack asked about the Salvation Army’s property zoning.

Leininger said half of that property was zoned M-2 and the other half was zoned M-1A.

Commissioner Hack asked what the proposed rezoning was for the Salvation Army.

Leininger said O-1.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the proposed timeline was for acquisition of Tier 1.

Leininger said when they started this project, legal staff asked them to send on to them any type of additional acquisition that the committee would like to see and they would like to try to look at those along with the corridor acquisition. She said she was not sure where that idea was sitting right now.

Wildgen said staff was actively pursuing the rail spur acquisition. Those properties were being appraised and the surveys were already completed. The sale barn property, staff briefed the City Commission on that appraisal and 702 and 710 East 19^th, there had been no action.

Mayor Highberger called for public comment.

Matt Tomc, President of the Woods on 19^thHomeowner’s Association, said when looking at the map basically in the center was a cluster of residential lots which was the Woods on 19^th. If not counting the new development, 50% of the abutting residential homeowners, because the lots were narrow, would reside within the Woods community. The area marked blue was as private park area and was marked for some sort of use agreement acquisition and he was not clear on that issue, but it belonged to the Association Inc., and the Woods on 19^th maintained that property. He said reassembling the 37 odd tracks were going to be somewhat of a challenge and coupled with the trail project that was going to take some time. He said they were going to take their time looking at everything and keeping the lines of communication open with the City Commission.

One of the problems he was facing was not having a lot of answers. One of the issues was that the project was the core of the plan and some of the nuts and bolts basic planning for the project had not yet materialized and the plan really was about the peripheral land use issues and some of the acquisition. He said it was hard for them to get to the plan without seeing more generalized nuts and bolts type issues. He said he sent a letter asking for some further study of this issue which would be good for the public, staff, abutting owners, and the Woods on 19^th. There were three issues that they were concerned about. One issue was the stormwater drainage on both sides. There were two drainage creeks extremely important in moving water when there was a flashflood type situation. At the very least they would like to keep those drainage creeks and not see those creeks interfered with. The most significant problems happened when construction was on-going and sometimes they would end up with situations where erosion or some fill material would end up getting pushed back into the drain which caused problems.

Another issue was the policing and security issues around the proposed trail and park. He said the trail advocates would say there was not a problem and on the other end of the spectrum, there would be private property owner argument that it would create a huge crime problem. He said it was a unique land use and there would be policing issues that would need to be addressed.

The third issue was the loss of greenspace. One of the 19^th Street properties that were being discussed was suppose to be an intended parking lot facility and obviously the people who lived in that area did not want to see a parking lot or public restrooms.

In general there were concerns about the width of what the actual path was going to be like and what type of facilities were going to be added. He said they did not want to see the wooded area and greenspace cleared out to make way for various improvements.

He suggested that the City Commission ask staff to look into providing general comments and direction regarding stormwater issues associated with those two creeks. Those creeks were not protected by any drainage easement and that issue needed to be looked into because it was a big concern for the residents. Near the 19^th Street intersection with the rail, they experienced water coming up in their backyards during rain and that issue should be examined.

He said regarding the policing and security, one issue that came up was the sexual assault incidents in the Naismith Valley Park Trail area which frightened people in the neighborhood especially people with small children. That was a good example of where some planning could really pay off in looking how to avoid those problems. Obviously, once some incident like that occurred, that could never be undone and they would like to see some examination of how they could avoid that type of situation happening in regard to that trail. It would be helpful to have city staff discuss that issue with the police department and report back to the Commission about what could be done.

Another issue was the cost of maintaining the trail in good condition. He said they definitely would not like to see the area fall in disrepair and suggested that the City Commission made sure there were adequate funds in place to keep the trail in good condition.

Also, there was concern about different types of vehicles traveling on the trail. He said they did not want to see motorized vehicles other than those necessary for handicapped accessibility.

He said at this point, their Neighborhood Association was going to take their time and look over the material and look forward to talking to staff about this project. He said they would want to wait to have some facts before they made a decision.

Janet Good, President, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said she had heard overwhelming support for this plan. She said there had been a great level of cooperation between East Lawrence, Barker, Brook Creek Neighborhood Associations, and the City. She said the entire City of Lawrence would appreciate the natural beauty and history of the area. It would be an opportunity to bring other people from the community into this neighborhood.

Eric Struckhoff, President Bicycle Advisory Committee, said as a member of this committee he had been gratified by the cooperation between Parks, residents, neighborhood associations, bicycle advisory committee, and developers that had projects within the moratorium area. He said this project did not begin with this committee, the idea of this rail to trail went back long before this committee even was formed. He said from a bicycling and transportation point of view, when looking at the development to the southeast of town, it was going to be an important link between Mary’s Lake, Prairie Park, and downtown. To get to those destinations via those great historic neighborhoods would be a nice trip. Although the project itself was kind of short for someone who wanted to take a long ride, it would be a great way to get to where a person was going in Lawrence.

He said looking into the future he would like to see that trail extended and completed in Prairie Park and Mary’s Lake and further north of 9^th Street. The Rails to Trails on the part of the BSNF that was not abandoned, he had seen a similar project work in Seattle, Washington with great success and it was beneficial both for neighborhoods and users of recreational facilities. He said his committee was unanimously behind this project.

Dayna Carlton, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said they worked all year on this committee and had good support from all segments of the community. She said she had lived in Burlington, Vermont for 20 years and their experience with bike trails was that people were buying houses so they could be near the bike trail and property values increased. She said their niece and nephew lived in an apartment that was unremarkable except for the fact it was near the bike trail and they stayed at that location for years because they could get to downtown by the bike trail. She said she had been to the community meetings and it was a little hard for people to visualize this trail which would be from Wakarusa to the Kaw River. She said in Vermont one of the things they did to get people across the water was the use of a ferry.

She said she lived 3 blocks from downtown and what they found was that because there were a lot of people out walking it was safer. She said this trail would be a draw for the community to come explore the history in this area.

Commissioner Rundle said he was excited to see this project move forward. He said it was important that staff and the neighborhood share any type of information and research that the folks of the Woods at 19th. It would strengthen the project if the people at The Woods could join in the implementation of the planning and making sure that anything that went in at 19^th Street took into account The Woods’ concerns about parking lot location and other issues so they could truly make this unanimously supportive. He did not want to move too rapidly forward on the rezonings until they could determine if there was neutral support and if there was conflict, he suggested having discussion and hopefully resolve that issue. He said the action was to include initiating those rezonings, but he thought those rezonings should be placed on a slower track. He said he would be happy to approve the plan and send the plan to the Planning Commission.

Mayor Highberger said he wanted everyone to be reassured as this project progressed, that the concerns of The Woods neighbors would be taken into consideration. He said his other concern with the plan was that he was not sure he could support taking out two affordable housing units for a rail head, but they could address that issue as it came through. He was supportive of the rezonings, but he would defer to Commissioner Rundle’s suggestion about waiting until there was more information. He said he would enthusiastically receive the study.

Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to offer a special thanks to the people on the committee who spent a whole lot of time with this project. He said obviously there were details that needed to be ironed out, but they should move forward with all do speed on tier 1 and get the project moving. He said he wanted to offer his support to The Woods residents, clearly the City Commission did not want to put something in their backyard that would be detrimental to their property values or safety. He said he was confident that the City Commission would take into account those issues and he invited The Woods residents to actively participate in this project.

Commissioner Hack thanked the committee for all their work. She echoed that one of the things they learned from a speaker who talked about transportation, that the more people brought to an area the safer it was because people become stewards of the area and it was as important to them as it was to the property owner to protect that area. The only concern she had was the rezoning. She said she wanted to make sure the City Commission did not buy into an argument and wanted to continue on a positive road.

Vice Mayor Amyx said it was good to see the amount of work that had gone on this project. To be able to put together a corridor plan from one river to another was impressive. He said the Commission did not want to have any detrimental outcome to the property owners in the area.

He said he shared the Mayor’s concern about those two houses on 19^th Street. He said as far as receiving and approving the plan, he did not have any problem moving ahead.

Moved by Rundle, seconded Hack, to receive the report and send the report to the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. (31)

Commissioner Rundle suggested that staff find out about the rezonings and if the property owners were willing and ready to move ahead as quickly as possible.

Wildgen said staff would bring a report back to the City Commission on the analysis of those rezonings.

Receive request from the Community Design Committee for consultation services.

Dan Warner, Planner, presented the report. He said one of the issues the committee was working on was developing a parallel new urbanism code that could be an option for developers to develop new urbanism projects in Lawrence.

The particular item that was before the City Commission was a request from the committee to hire a consultant to assist staff, Planning, and City Commission in reviewing development proposals that purport to be new urbanism. The consultant would review those projects based on various new urbanism principles and again assist staff in evaluating those projects. The intent was to have the consultant on board on a case by case basis. As those developments came along, the consultant would be asked to review those cases and help the City.

Commissioner Schauner asked what benchmarks the consultant would use in determining whether those projects were new urbanism or not.

Warner said those would be on established new urbanism principles and staff would ask the consultant to provide those principles and use those principles as the standards to review the projects. He said they would be looking at hiring a qualified consultant who was familiar with new urbanism projects.

Commissioner Hack said her concern was similar to what Commissioner Schauner expressed in how it would be determined who the expert was and the criteria. She said they knew they had a limited amount of money to work toward the goal of education charette and the parallel codes, but she would want to move on that charette process. She said she did not have those figures on what it would cost for that first phase of that charette and then on to the parallel codes.

Warner said since this would be a costly project there were obvious budget constraints in phasing the project and performing a visioning and charette process first that was a community wide effort and then come back and do a parallel code. Cost wise, he was not sure how that was broken out. He said they were probably looking at spending 75% on the first half and 25% on the second half.

Commissioner Hack said the first half of the project could give people an idea whether they wanted to proceed with the second half. If the public or developers were not interested in pursuing this issue, then to have the parallel codes, would not make any sense. This was an awkward situation because she wanted to move ahead with new urbanism, but she was not comfortable supporting this request.

Commissioner Rundle said Commissioner Hack expressed his concerns. He said this seemed like an intermittent step but even before they would take that step, it seemed that they would have to have a discussion on if they were supporting new urbanism projects. He said they needed to proceed with that process to decide how new urbanism was going to come alive in this community before they start entertaining new urbanism projects. He said they needed to figure out what new urbanism was going to be in Lawrence before they could bring in any kind of consultant to access actual projects.

Commissioner Hack said each project was so different depending upon the location, size, and mix. There were certain qualities that each project had, but they were all different which made it tricky.

Commissioner Schauner said it was too early in the game to be looking for a consultant because what was needed in a consultant would depend on largely on what they wanted new urbanism to mean in Lawrence. To believe there was some sort of agreed upon mantra for new urbanism struck him as a little naive.

Commissioner Hack added and what would new urbanism look like at an intersection of two very busy streets versus new urbanism that looked further out with more distance. Those were some critical issues. There were people in this community and individuals on staff who could look at a project and make those types of presentations to the Planning Commission and then to the City Commission. She said she would like the City Commission to consider to begin moving toward getting some more concrete numbers and draft an RFP for that education charette process because that would tell them what it would look like in Lawrence.

Commissioner Schauner said assuming they got through step 1, there was some value to person with the ability to pick up their briefcase and leave town in evaluating projects rather than relying on people who lived in Lawrence even though people who lived in Lawrence might have a lot of qualification to do the work, in some ways, what he was looking for, was objective opinions. He said he suggested tabling this issue until they get through step 1.

Commissioner Hack said they had never, as a City Commission, sat down with the Design Committee to discuss this as part of their bigger visioning process. She said they needed to move ahead with the broader community visioning process and she suggested that process be part of their goal setting conversation.

Commissioner Schauner said he hoped that the community visioning process was a major driver in their January goal setting conversation because that issue was a critical element.

Commissioner Rundle said the City Commission had never officially stated that they were behind moving forward with new urbanism. He said being behind new urbanism was a safe assumption on everyone’s part, but they still needed to have a public meeting and declare that was the City Commission’s intent.

Vice Mayor Amyx said the Burroughs Creek Project was a new urbanism project. He said they were better off spending money down the line in trying to evaluate the projects that were going to be before the City Commission. He said there were people on staff that were able to make recommendations.

Mayor Highberger said there might have been some miscommunication between him and Marguerite Ermeling, member of the Community Design Committee. He said it was his understanding that there was an interest in seeking a consultant for either drafting a code for a specific project or moving forward with the Community Design Committee. He said the way this request was stated he did not support the request.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to table the request. Motion carried unanimously (32)

Provide direction to staff concerning 2006 Kansas Legislative Policy Statement.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said it was that time of the year to start thinking about the new legislative session which would convene in January. The City Commission traditionally provided a policy statement reflecting priorities for the session. He said he had attached last year’s policy statement and included the League of Kansas Municipalities policy statement.

In the memorandum placed in the City Commission packet, staff highlighted some of those issues. Some of those issues were not new to the City Commission’s consideration. He said a number of municipal officials were concerned about the likely consideration of what euphemistically was called TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) that would seek to impose either statutory or constitutional limits on state and perhaps local government spending and revenue collection. He said they traditionally opposed those types of measures based primarily on the philosophical belief that local taxing and spending needs needed to be based on local decisions and not artificial state mechanisms. He said that was an appropriate item for the City Commission to consider in the 2006 Policy Statement and perhaps stronger language they had in the earlier policy statement concerns about those types of limitations on the City Commission’s authority.

He also pointed out that the interest the legislators had shown in ensuring that condemnation powers that government had and were not abused in taking of property for economic development purposes in response to the United States Supreme Court decision, during their last term that came out of Connecticut and the City Commission was familiar with those issues. The League of Municipalities policy statement was helpful in that area where they recognize that it might be appropriate to look at some of the procedures and the limitations in that area as far as the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, but that they did not want to go so far as to hurt traditional condemnation powers and perhaps allow some economic development purposes to be accomplished through condemnation which might be an area that the Commission might want to provide specific direction.

The telecommunications industry was likely to make another push of reducing their authority in the management of right-of-way and the collection of franchise fees. There was some significant legislation in Texas this past year, regarding the entrance of telecommunication firms. To the cable industry, staff thought it was likely to be an effort in Kansas as well. They had a statement in the past, but he wanted to highlight that as an area of concern.

He said the League has so far indicated that they were going to try to invest quite a bit of time in trying to seek improved investment authority for municipalities. That was something they argued with in the past and in some cases they had provided testimony as to the financial impact that it had on the community.

He said he wanted to put those issues on the radar screen, ask for any comments that the City Commission might have, but it was not the only time that they could start working on that statement. He said he would start preparing that statement and ask others, at the staff level, for input. He said staff would place this issue on the agenda on the 13^th or 20^th of December again to see if they wanted to adopt the statement that he renewed or if the City Commission had particular items that they wanted staff to research. He said they could talk philosophically about how staff was involved during the legislative session. He said he monitored the information staff received from the League of Municipalities and staff had good communication with the legislative delegation and encouraged elected officials to attend, not only what the League sponsored, but when there were bills of interest for the City Commission to go and testify. It had been his observation in attending this event for a few years now that it was always better for elected officials in the legislature to hear from other elected officials, such as locally elected City Commissioners, than it was to hear from a staff person. He said he liked to have the elected officials attend and make presentations whenever possible.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss had any sense of issues other than TABOR and perhaps eminent domain issues that were likely to come up that could infringe upon the City’s revenue or spending authority.

Corliss said in addition to perhaps the attack on franchise fees, there had been an interest on attacking the ability of municipalities to enact excise taxes which was something the City opposed last year. Mayor Rundle, at the time, included a letter in a packet where staff fought against that bill that would have limited the City’s ability to enact an excise tax. A number of Johnson County cities had already done so and when they were looking on the fiscal feasibility study, their ability to consider enactment of development fees was something that staff would be concerned about. He said that was not current revenue, but possibly a future revenue source that they would want to protect the City’s ability to do that. He said the City was not making a commitment to do that at this time, but they would want to preserve the authority to pursue that. As you know, there were any number of bills that were introduced. A lot of those bills needed monitoring, but would not necessarily have the legs to be pursued. There were not a lot of revenue sources that they received from the State.

Commissioner Schauner said he was thinking as much about the State’s attempt to restrict the City’s local ability to raise revenue as opposed to getting more money from them.

Corliss said if the State did not pursue something like a TABOR which was a spending limit usually as it had been crafted in other states where it allowed for some cost of living or inflationary growth based on spending or revenues. Kansas did have, for a number of years, a property tax lid and that was repealed in its most recent incarnation. It was a result of the reappraisal in the late 1980’s and it stuck around for a few years. He said there might be renewed interest in that property tax lid.

There was a lot of interest in the legislature about the fact that there was the bracket creep of assessed valuations that municipalities benefit from and this community had benefited from as well. There had been attempts to do it backdoor where they say increased assessed valuation could be increased by so much per year which would be an indirect way to get at a revenue source. That was opposed not only because of that, but because there were still people who remember the mess that the City had that got them into reappraisal in the 1980’s and they wanted at least genuine numbers at the County level and whether or not there should be restrictions elsewhere. There were any number of different ways that legislators would try to respond to the concerns about taxes and spending.

Mayor Highberger said this was the opportunity to forward any further items to Corliss and Corliss would come back with a proposed policy statement to the legislature.

Corliss said staff would come up with something that would be helpful (33)

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Mayor Highberger said he had asked staff to look at the possibility of applying for the American Institute for Architects Sustainable Design Team Program for 2006. It tied into the visioning process. He said he was at the AIA State Meeting and there were some local AIA architects who were interested in this process and it would potentially cost the City $5,000 to match the $15,000 in services provided by the AIA, but it would potentially help the City identify ways to make this City more sustainable in design. (34)

CALENDAR ITEM:

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner to approve the 2006 meeting list. (35)

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Dennis Highberger, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMER 29, 2005

1. Bid – Stainless steel mixing equip, Utilities, to JCI Industries for $47,400.

2. Bids – Reject for Access Mgmt System for Utilities, due to specs written with conflicting info.

3. Bid – Elevator maintenance for Public Works & Utilities, to ThyssentKrupp for $19,080.

4. Bid – HOOT project at 805 Madeline Ln, to Natural Breeze Construction for $15,197.

5. TSC – Permit parking on Clinton Pkwy Frontage Rd, 3705 Clinton Pkwy on Sundays, 8 – 12:30 pm.

6. TSC – Adult guard and/or flashing beacons, school crossing 27^th adjacent to Sunflower Elementary School.

7. TSC – “No parking” E side of Silicon Ave.

8. TSC – “No parking” front of Rieger Hall, 1300 blk of Ohio.

9. Ordinance No. 7954 – 1^st Read, allow parking along the S side of Clinton Pkwy Frontage in front of 3705 Pkwy from 8 to 12:30 pm.

10. Ordinance No. 7946, 1^st Read, “No parking” E side of Silicon Ave.

11. Ordinance No. 7939 - 1^st Read, rezone (Z-08-50-05) 4.50 acres, from PRD-2 to PID-1, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between Wakarusa & Research Park Dr.

12. Ordinance No. 7940, 1^st Read, rezone (Z-08-51-05) 3880 acres, from PRD-2 to M-1, N of Bob Billings Pkwy between Wakarusa & Research Park Dr.

13. Ordinance No. 7943, 1^st Read, rezone (Z-07-46-05) 10.281 acres from A to RS-2, 515 Monterey Way.

14. Ordinance No. 7932, 2^nd Read, bus zones S side of 15^th.

15. Ordinance No. 7944, 2^nd Read, “all way stop” Constant Ave & Becker Dr.

16. Mortgage Release – 528 Walnut, Genevieve Henry.

17. Final Plat – (PF-09-33-05) Hedges Sub, University Pl, .0319 acre, Illinois, S of 17^th.

18. Final Plat – (PF-09-35-05) S School Add, 20 acres, Broken Arrow Elementary & S Jr. H.S., E side of Louisiana, S of 27^th.

19. Final Plat – (PF-09-37-05) West/Sunset Hill School Add, 21.68 acres, W of Crestline between Harvard & 9^th.

20. Final Plat – (PF-09-36-05) Lawrence High School Add, 37.9 acres, W of Louisiana between W 19^th & W 21^st.

21. Site Plan – (SP-10-79-05) 2 bldg add to a church, 3001 Lawrence Ave.

22. Letter received – Korb Maxwell of Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus, redevelopment project, 8^th & Penn.

23. City Manager’s Report.

24. Avian Bird Flu, Health Dept.

25. Public Hearing – Vacation, 800 Broadview.

26. Rezone – (Z-03-16-05) 2.59 acres from PRD-2 to POD-1, N of W 6^th between Wakarusa & Folks, (Bauer Farm)

27. Text Amendment – (TA-07-03-05) 20-1314 & 20-2002.13, reduce area of space & nonconformance as a result of governmental taking of R-O-W, easement or other governmental uses.

28. Text Amendment – (TA-07-04-05) 21-12, enforcement & exceptions to bldg setbacks, as a result of governmental taking of R-O-W, easement or other governmental uses.

29. Ordinance No. 7938 – 1^st Read, misdemeanor offense of marijuana possession.

30. Burroughs Creek Study.

31. Community Design Committee – Consultation services.

32. 2006 KS Legislative Policy Statement.