December 13 , 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.
Kent Hixson, City Manager of Mulvane, Kansas, and Faye Watson and Family, presented Mike Wildgen, City Manager, the Kansas Association of City/County Management Buford Watson Jr. Award for Excellence in Management.
With Commission approval Mayor Highberger proclaimed Friday, December 16th, 2005, as “Try Transit Day.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of November 29, 2005.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Public Incentive Review Committee meeting minutes of October 19, 2005, the Mental Health Board meeting minutes of August 30, 2005 and November 29, 2005; and the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of November 3, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 320 vendors in the amount of $2,072,475.43 and payroll from November 27, 2005 to December 10, 2005 in the amount of $1,475,908.30. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Salty Iguana Mexican Restaurant, 4931 West 6th; Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar, 1012 Massachusetts; and the Retail Liquor Licenses for Texas Jack Liquor, 3020 South Iowa, Ste: B; and Parkway Wine & Spirits, 3514 Clinton Parkway, Ste: B. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to reject the sole bid for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Manhole Replacement Project and set a new bid date of January 10, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to award bids for furniture at the Fire/Medical Station No. 5 to DBI, Inc. (KS State/US Communities Contracts) in the amount of $140,617.03; DBI, Inc. (Groups A, B, C, E, F, H, and K (non-contract items) in the amount of $41,855.74; and Contract Design Group (Groups, D, G, and J (non-contract items) in the amount of $14,465.00, for a total amount of $196,937.77. Motion carried unanimously. (2) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7946, rezoning (Z-05-34-05) 1.35 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District. The property is generally located on the south side of the 200 block of Perry Street. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
Ordinance No. 7947 rezoning (Z-09-43-04) 36.901 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development District) (the property is generally described as being located east of Monterey Way (extended) and north of Peterson Road), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6622, declaring the boundaries of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-10-82-05) for a parking lot and drainage detention basin addition to an existing church location at 3615 West 10th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.
2. Provision of the following modifications to the site plan:
a. Verify number of parking spaces and correct parking space calculation.
b. Bring the floor of the detention basin up to flowline out elevation 992. The drainage study provides enough data to support this reduction which will improve the outlet location concern.
c. Redirect the detention outlet pipe more northerly to remove impacts to adjacent property.
d. Provide a concrete gutter section from the outlet pipe to the street gutter to prevent flow over the sidewalk. This will require a checker plate crossing to carry sidewalk traffic. Submit a detail to the City Engineer for approval.
e. Relocate the detention overflow at the northeast corner of the basin to direct overflow north.
f. The flume draining the parking lot will scour the earth slope. Provide Armorloc Block or equivalent slope protection (not rip-rap) from the flume past the toe of slope and 5’ into the basin floor.
g. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
h. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
i. Per City Code 20-1431, report impervious surfaces in square feet on the face of the site plan:
Impervious Surface Summary
Lot #
Existing Summary Summary after project completion
Total Buildings # Total Buildings #
Total Pavement # Total Pavement #
Total Impervious # Total Impervious #
Total Pervious # Total Pervious #
Property Area # Property Area #
Motion carried unanimously. (6)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said as an update to the Northwest Study, Black & Veatch would organize a meeting with the property owners in the Baldwin Creek area at the first of the year.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Conduct a public hearing regarding the 2006 Stormwater funds and consider adopting Ordinance No. 7950 on first reading.
Ed Mullins, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He said when the 2005 budget was drafted there were some outstanding temporary notes for some stormwater projects. Since then, the stormwater temporary note had been retired and had been replaced with general obligation bonds.
It was staff’s interpretation, at that time, that all of those transactions would take place in the City’s Capital Projects Fund. Since the stormwater fund took those assets, it was appropriate to show that expense in the enterprise fund because that was where the assets were going to be shown. He said after receiving an interpretation from the City’s Auditors, it was decided that this was the correct way to place that approximate $5.2 million dollar temporary note payment in that fund.
In terms of fund balance it was a wash because the revenue came in from the temporary notes, but that revenue was used to pay back the principle. Since that showed an expense on the statement, it did increase the budget expenditures and as a result, it was appropriate to ask that the budget be increased which was done by conducting a public hearing. Once comments were received by conducting that hearing, an ordinance could be placed on first reading if appropriate.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7950, amending Ordinance No. 7816, increasing the appropriate funds for the storm water fund for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Consider a request from Mike Elwell regarding donation of land for expansion of tennis courts to the Sport to Sport Complex.
George Paley, Lawrence, presented the request on behalf of Mike Elwell. He said the City owned property that was to the north of the Sport to Sport building and Elwell was proposing to build two indoor tennis courts and was requesting donation of that City property behind the existing building to allow for those courts. Since Alvamar tennis courts closed three years ago, one use of that proposed tennis facility could be to house K.U.’s tennis tournaments. He said Elwell was a very brave man for embarking on this project and he suggested that everyone should support Elwell’s project.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Mayor Highberger said the idea of the indoor tennis courts was intriguing. He suggested that the City Commission direct staff to work with Elwell on an agreement for the donation of land. In exchange, he also suggested that the City could perhaps draft an agreement for the use of that facility or some other type of benefit to the City.
Commissioner Hack agreed with the Mayor. She said it would be a great opportunity for a partnership with Elwell, the University, and the City through the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said with a preliminary look at the land donation request, it appeared there were no issues or concerns from the Public Works or Parks and Recreation Departments. He said there had been some planning in the past about access on the west side. In fact, the plat for the ball diamond area showed that if there was a mutual agreement there would be some land platted for access that would help give access to the west side of acreage that the City owned to the north.
He said he had discussed with Elwell about trading some time for use of the facility for some of the City’s Parks and Recreation Programs.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he did not have any problems with Wildgen’s idea, but one concern he had was that the City protect its interest because the tax paying public-at-large had bought that park land and that did have a value.
Wildgen said approximately 10 years that proposed area was being looked at for an ice skating rink, so that area had previously been looked at for a public use.
Student Commissioner Frei said he was a tennis player for Lawrence High School and he thought it was a great plan and would be a good use for all the schools in this community.
Commissioner Schauner said he had no objection to what he heard earlier about working out a land swap agreement for a future use, but before entering into any more serious conversations about use of City money for any operational or maintenance purposes, he suggested staff bring back a report to the City Commission.
Wildgen said staff was not headed in that direction with that idea.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to direct staff to work with Elwell regarding donation of land for expansion of tennis courts to the Sport to Sport Complex and bring back a proposal for future Commission consideration. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Consider approving the following, subject to conditions, UPR-09-06-05: A request to extend the Use Permitted Upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter; 944 Kentucky/214 West 10th Street [supercedes Lawrence Open Shelter (UPR-01-01-03) and Community Drop-In Center (UPR-10-11-99)].
Lisa Pool, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the Lawrence Community Shelter was located at the northeast corner of Kentucky and 10th Street. The property was zoned RO-1 (Residence Office District) and RO-1 zoning also existed to the north, south, and west and those properties included residences, offices uses, and religious institutions. She said C-3 (Central Commercial District) was located to the east and included a public parking lot.
The UPR request was seeking to combine the sites of existing UPR’s which were for the Lawrence Open Shelter and the Community Drop-In Shelter. The UPR was also seeking to create a patio area to the east of the building, between the building and the existing parking spaces. In addition, it also was seeking to increase the shelter’s overnight capacity from 28 to 31 guests.
One key point related to this application was that on November 30, 2004, the City Commission approved the expansion of the shelter to accommodate a total capacity of 30 overnight persons (28 guests + 2 staff). The City had not received formal complaints regarding the Shelter in its four years of operation and UPR’s were subject to review at any time through Section 20-1613 of the zoning regulations which established criteria and process for amendment, suspension, or revocation of approved UPR’s.
She said staff had recommended approval of the UPR. On November 16, 2005, the Planning Commission also recommended approval with by a 9-1 vote, subject to the revised conditions. The Planning Commission recommended that the UPR be permitted for one year and expire December 2006, and also added conditions which established criteria to be met within a one year time period. A valid protest petition had been submitted for the UPR in which a super majority vote was required to pass the application.
Helen Hartnett, Co-chair, Community Commission on Homelessness, said their Commission was established for this very reason to be able to make recommendations to the City and County Commissions on issues related to implementing the Task Force plan and dealing with issues related, in Lawrence, to homeless services and agency concerns. For this reason, she was asking on behalf of the Community Commission on Homelessness, that the City Commission table this decision and allow the Commission on Homelessness to do its work allowing them to gather data to make informed decisions and provide the City Commission with the necessary information.
Mayor Highberger asked if either of the current UPR’s expiration dates were imminent.
Pool said one of the UPR’s expiration dates was imminent.
Hartnett asked for a temporary extension to go along with the request to table the decision.
Brandy Sutton, downtown business owner, said in 1999 the Community Drop-In Shelter, a predecessor to the Lawrence Community Shelter (LCS) received a UPR to use the facility at 944 Kentucky also known as 214 West 10th for daytime social service provisions to the homeless of Lawrence. LCS assured staff that all activities would be contained within that building in order to avoid problems with loitering and littering accumulation. In the review process, City staff recommended that conditions be applied to the UPR to mitigate and monitor potential spillover affects such as loitering, littering, and alcohol consumption off-premises.
In 2003, the Lawrence Open Shelter, also a predecessor to LCS, was granted a UPR to use an additional portion of that same building for a homeless shelter, administrative activities, and eventually providing structured programs for guests, such as counseling, medical consultations, and vocational training.
If the operation was not adequately monitored and loitering was permitted to occur, City staff noted that nearby property owners and residences might perceive that as a negative impact.
LCS, in this request, indicated that no weapons, illegal substances, or alcohol consumption would be permitted in the shelter environs and loitering would not be allowed. She said City staff stated: “It will be imperative that the LCS operators were diligent in implementing the operating procedures identified in the application to minimize potential negative impacts to nearby residences and property owners.” Again, at that time, it was stated that this should not impact or affect adjacent property owners as the activities would be contained indoors and there would be strict oversight of the operation policies.
She said LCS had not complied with those promises to the City. This year the police had investigated a death, dealt with suicidal incidences, served warrants, and investigated crimes such as battery, sexual battery, aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, trespassing, theft, criminal damage to property, public consumption of alcohol, and urinating in public, all at the LCS facility. She informed the City Commission about the statistic concerning the Police and Fire/Medical Departments and those statistics did not include surrounding areas. In addition, LCS neighbors were dissatisfied with the situation as it currently existed. This was evident by the letters submitted to the City Commission, as well as the protest petition which required 4 of the City Commissioners to allow that problem to continue to exist unfettered for the next 5 years.
LCS was back again to extend their UPR for additional 5 years and expand their facility to allow additional overnight occupants who engage in alcohol and substance abuse. When LCS was asked about those problems at the Planning Commission, LCS stated that they had operating policies which were designated and designed to minimize the impact on surrounding neighbors. Obviously, those procedures were not being enforced and LCS staff was not monitoring their guests.
She said if the UPR had been granted to any business, this City Commission and the City would have revoked that UPR by now. Unfortunately, homelessness was a problem in this community, but the City needed to determine whether or not they wanted to jeopardize the safety and well being of their children and neighborhoods in order to assist a handful of individuals who had chosen drugs and alcohol as a way of life.
She said LCS should not be permitted to expand, at this time, and should not be granted five years to get the situation under control at the expense of the citizens of this community. She suggested that LCS be given a 6 month extension on its current UPR to continue operations as it currently was and allow the City’s newly formed Homeless Services Commission, the new case managers that would be starting at the first of this year and LCS, to work on a plan to correct those problems.
Herman Leon, Lawrence, said he is a neighbor of the Open Shelter and a volunteer in an organization that lived across the street. He said no one coming from a well organized atmosphere would like to come upon something that symbolically manifested chaos in such a concentrated form and people were repelled by that chaos.
He said one particular Sunday he was struck by the loitering at the Open Shelter because there were a number of children under the age of 12 years old, along with women. He said he assumed that the women and children were being supervised by some professional organization. He said what those kids, fathers, and mothers were being called besides loiters, might help solve this very painful problem that was causing a lot of trouble.
He said their organization served 150 people by volunteers who, at times, brought their children along so their children could learn about people who were having trouble. Also, some of those volunteers brought their children to implement their religious convictions to serve those in need. He said loiterers were human beings. He said those children and adults had the right to have a place where they could call their own to meet.
Loring Henderson, Director Lawrence Community Shelter, said what they were asking for was to add three more sleeping spaces, a five year UPR, and the removal of a site plan condition regarding the responsibility for the loitering within 150 feet of the Shelter. He said in discussions with the Police and the City’s Planning Department staff who checked with the City’s attorney, this was not an enforceable condition because 150 feet included other persons’ private homes, public parking spaces, and two churches.
He said he would like the City Commission and the community at-large to understand the number of successes and programs that went on at the Lawrence Community Shelter. He said it was not a place of where there was no accountability and not a place for people to come part time. He said concerning case managers, they had a graduate student from the K.U. School of Social Welfare and four night time monitors and one of those monitors was a licensed, masters degree, social worker. He said during the night time they had a lot of successes with folks who were concerned with alcohol and substance abuse and need to go to a detoxification facility in Kansas City or Topeka.
In the first eleven months of 2005, the Shelter had served 363 different people though the Lawrence Community Shelter, Day and Night Programs. He said 23 people found a job through their Back to Work Program which was a job coaching program that they did on a consulting bases with Cottonwood. That consultant worked with those people, defining jobs, writing resumes, training for interviews, and finding jobs. He said 31 people had moved into housing, 21 people had entered into detoxification or rehabilitation, and 39 people received medical (including mental health) and dental care.
He said LOS recently received a significant grant from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. He said that grant was entrepreneurial small business grant which was $10,000 for planning and $50,000 a year for three years, to work with homeless and low income people to develop jobs and small businesses. The LOS was also very active with coalitions and collaborations with other service providers. Also, there was a database in the pike for better data collection called the Homeless Management Information System which they were the lead and coordinating agency for ten agencies in this City.
Beginning in January 1st, the City was funding four new case managers and the Shelter was participating in how those case managers would be used in the City.
Henderson said since the building and the location was the focus of this discussion, one area he would like to focus on was the inadequacy of the building. Because so much was going on, the lack of space was harsh on the Shelter. He said they shared desks for staff people; the handicapped accessibility met codes for the first floors, but there were meeting rooms down below that they could not utilize for handicap accessibility; and they had to go outside to get inside because there was no connection inside. He said the building was just too small and it was on the edge of a neighborhood. This was not a place where he had said he wanted the Shelter to stay forever. In the past, they had looked at 51 different sites in Lawrence before they found the current site.
He said when the Lawrence Open Shelter was started, which he was initially involved with, they did make an agreement to keep the Kentucky Street side clear and that had been done. There was a wood fence that was not in good condition and they were replacing that fence with the patio that was on the site plan. They had placed lights in the alley that went between the Shelter’s building and the house to the north.
The examples that were given for some of the instances of egregious violation of some sort at the Shelter were old examples and he discussed those complaints. He said when there were instances of this sort the Shelter had not been contacted by the neighbors except for Hemphill, one of the neighbors. He suggested that everyone be vigilant together when something happens and instantly make a phone call if something happened.
He said they had supervised breaks for smoking for the evening shelter and perimeter checks in which they had done from the very beginning.
In addition, there was a newspaper for the homeless called “Change of Heart” and in the next addition, he was going to write the front page article which would be a public education effort to educate the homeless community on courtesies and loitering.
He said there was a small wall next to the shelter that was a congregating spot and was the location that the police went to on many occasions. He said he had discussed with Parks and Recreation, the idea of tearing that wall down and in view of all the concerns that was an idea he would continue to ask to be dealt with in some way.
He said he could not deny that the number of police calls had dramatically increased, but to some degree there was an explanation that the program had grown significantly and was now a 24/7 operation. One of the reasons people were coming to the Shelter was because of their programs such as job assistance, housing, transportation, and medical care.
He said they had a meeting with the police to discuss the number of police calls and the police saw no problem because the police were appreciative that the Shelter made those calls. He said he was not saying that it was not serious that there were significant number of calls to the police, but that was an attempt on the Shelter’s part to deal with situations quickly.
In addition, if someone was criminally trespassing, the first call would be a warning, and those trespassing would not be arrested. Every time they wanted to get someone off a property and they had been previously warned, they would need to make a second call on that individual.
Again, he said the additional sleeping spaces, the five year UPR, and the deletion of the 150 foot condition were what the Shelter was asking for. He said he would like to move to a better Shelter someday.
Kent Hayes, Homeless Outreach Specialist with Bert Nash, said he spent as much time at the Community Shelter as at Bert Nash. He said his job primarily was to work with the severely, emotionally disturbed individuals who were also homeless to try and get those individuals in for services, housings, jobs, and support system. At this point, he estimated that 70% of the people who were homeless had some form of mental illness. About 40% of that total population had severe mental illness, known as SPMI. He said severe emotionally disturbed individuals were people who 30 years ago would have been in hospitals, nursing care centers, or group care home, but today they were on the street. Part of the concern was finding places for those individuals. The concern that the neighbors and businesses in the area had was the same concerns that the staff at the Lawrence Community Shelter and Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center had, were all the same. He said he would guess that 80% of the problems were caused by people who were severely and emotionally disturbed. No matter how hard people in the community wanted that to stop and how hard Henderson and his staff worked, they could not keep control of those individuals who were in need of care. The crime from his perspective was that they had that many homeless people who were emotionally disturbed. He said what amazed him was that the Lawrence Community Shelter’s work they did with those types of individuals, in spite of those individuals handicaps. He said he worked with the LOS with those individuals in housing issues, but the process took anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to get those individuals housed. He said what was needed was more group home or boarding type of environments where the mental health community could provide attendant care workers. Severe, persistent, mentally ill people were as handicapped as paraplegics.
He said the four new case managers that the City was going to provide would make a tremendous difference. He said the case managers at LOS and Salvation Army worked hard and they worked together as a team to try to find placement for those people. He said finding places for those individuals would solve many problems.
Cari Honguton, Plymouth Congregational Church, embraced the Community Shelter as a neighbor. She said as part of their mission to address the homelessness issue in this community, they made a conscious decision to remain centrally located, downtown and create an effective downtown ministry. Clearly downtown had a high concentration of resources for people in need of the Community Shelter and they wanted to continue to be one of those easily accessible resources. She said they had made regular financial contributions, provided holiday gifts, cleaned the shelter, funded identification papers for people looking for work, and had provided a washer and dryer for the Shelter. Most importantly they were next door offering ministry and guidance. She said Plymouth wanted to continue to strengthen that relationship and make a long term commitment to the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Peter Zacharias, downtown business owner, speaking on behalf of Downtown Lawrence Incorporated (DLI), said this issue came to his attention when his daughter, who lived in the 10th and Ohio area, started having problems with the people who hung out at the Homeless Shelter. He said twice they had to call the police to have individuals removed from his daughter’s apartment. Personally, at his business, he had a fire set at the back of his building by the homeless, people relieving themselves, and camping out on his roof.
He said DLI had a vested interest in providing a clean and safe environment for civic and commercial activities in downtown Lawrence. He said he was present to speak about the request for the renewal of the UPR for the Lawrence Community Shelter. The DLI had been investigating solutions to problems related to homelessness for the last couple of years. Although they were disappointed that the downtown retail business community was not represented, they were pleased that the City had taken a step to form a Commission to address those issues. One only needed to take a stroll through downtown Lawrence to see the negative effect that homelessness had on the community center. The City as well as private business owners have heavily invested in downtown and as merchants, they were quite concerned that their investments continued to provide jobs and benefit for those that live and work in Lawrence.
In 2003 the Lawrence Community Shelter opened and the Shelter promised no weapons, no illegal substances, no loitering, and no alcohol consumption would be permitted on their shelter environs. Further, they promised to minimize the effect on surrounding neighbors by containing the activities indoors and only allowing smoking on the east side courtyard. The Shelter had broken their word to the City and the citizens of Lawrence. LCS has become the problem which the City of Lawrence, the neighborhood and planning staff had feared. LCS had allowed excessive loitering, criminal activity to take, and a center of disruption for the neighborhood and downtown. On any given day there were numerous individuals loitering the City’s street, parking lots, and surrounding grounds.
He said the LCS stated that they were working with the Police, but he had a concern about the costs associated with those Police calls. He said LCS could not monitor the individuals that were currently using their services and could not and were not enforcing the rules. LCS had failed to comply with their current UPR’s and should not be allowed to continue those violations, disruptions to the neighborhood, or excessive use of City resources.
He said they were asking that the LCS not be permitted to expand at this time and not be granted the 5 year extension to bring the situation under control at the expense of the citizens of this community. He suggested that LCS be given a 6 month extension on its current UPR to continue operations and allow the Homeless Commission’s newly formed commission, new case managers, and the LCS to work on a plan to correct those massive problems.
James Dunn, speaking on behalf of the Oread Neighborhood Association, read a prepared letter:
“On behalf of the Oread Neighborhood Association’s Board, I have been directed to convey, by a majority vote of the Directors of the Board, a request that the Commission grant a one (1) year extension of the Use Permitted Upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter.
In the Board’s discussion of the Use Permitted Upon Review request, the following concerns were presented:
1. The City Commission’s designation overnight occupancy limit appears to over extend the building’s capacity to serve;
2. The unavailability of property monitors between 5 p.m., when the day facility closes, and 8 p.m., when the overnight shelter opens;
3. It is anticipated Community Commission on Homelessness, within a year, will develop a long-range plan to address homelessness in Lawrence; and
4. Minimization of the congregation of guests on south front porch area and maximization of the patio area use on the north side of the property.”
Bob Everhart, Lawrence, said from his personal experience he has not had any negative experience with the homeless people from the Shelter.
Randy Dyke, Lawrence, said he was there to defend the Lawrence Community Shelter because they have done wonderful work with the homeless. He said Henderson and his staff and the LCS had their hands full trying to keep control.
Laura Green supported the request for the extension. She said there was some hysteria going on that really was not warranted.
Richard Hagerman said he wanted to present a point of view of a person who has been homeless for about a year and a half. He said there was a generalization about the homeless community. He said in his experience at the Lawrence Open Shelter and the Drop-In Center people who were trying to get out of their situation had to put up with bullying drunks and other types of aggression. He said not all homeless were the same. There were also good people along with people who needed help. He said the issue of the really aggressive predatory type people had not been addressed except as a reaction to pressure from the outside and he did not think there was any interest in addressing that issue from the people who ran those shelters.
Bethany Roberts, Attorney for Kansas Legal Services and Secretary of the Coalition for Homeless Concerns, said they were pleased to work with the LCS and they had a grant from the Social Security Administration called the Kansas Homeless Outreach Project and Evaluation. This grant provided for a variety of things and they had received very favorable response from the community shelter. The grant’s goal was to help remove some of the legal barriers to homelessness by providing disability benefits or some of the other legal problems that might face homeless persons and to get them into stable housing. The project goal also required an intense case management approach which they had continued success with through the Lawrence Community Shelter. When they first received the grant for Douglas County, they contacted several area agencies in order to collaborate with those agencies so they could help to provide the outreach they needed to give to the homeless persons in the area. No agency was as willing to cooperate as the Lawrence Community Shelter.
She said they meet with clients regularly at LCS and transported those clients to social security hearings and doctor’s appointments and they had never felt threatened or uncomfortable at LCS. She said she was disappointed to hear from some fellow residents the assumption that everyone that was homeless was either on drugs or alcohol because that was disrespectful to the homeless population and not a very accurate depiction of the type of people they dealt with. She said they were hopeful that the UPR would be approved and that they would be able to continue to outreach that very deserving and needy population through their affiliation with the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Lynn Dawson, Paralegal, Kansas Legal Services, said the case managers at the Shelter went above and beyond trying to solve problems for the homeless. She thought the clients at the Shelter were very well under control and they would like to support that imitative.
Bob Harwood, Lawrence, said he had been a volunteer at the shelter for about a year. He said it had been his observation that the general perception from the public was that most of the people at the Shelter were substance abusers, but that was not the case. He said there had been allegations that the Shelter’s clients were going outside to drink in the evening, but in his observation, when it was 10:00 pm, anyone who went outside was accompanied by a staff member at all times. They made regular checks around the building and the grounds. If anyone was caught drinking on the property, they would receive a two week ban and that amount of time went up as people were caught drinking.
Many of the police calls were not because of fights, but for someone who had been banned from the property and it was not the Shelters place to take the law into their own hands and take them off the property. There were a number of people who they did not have room for and those were the people that might be seen after 10:00 pm. If the shelter had greater capacity there might be fewer of those people out. Denying those people a place to stay would only exacerbate the problem and perhaps make it worse. He said the City Commission could deny the extension on the Shelter’s permit, but that did not make the problem go away.
Phil Bentzinger, Cottonwood Services, said they had been in a partnership over the last 6 months to help guests of the LCS to find jobs in the community. He said they had traditionally served people with developmental disabilities, but branched out and expanded their service delivery a few years ago working with people in non custodial parent programs and various other partnerships. He said taking advantage of their network of employers they had more that 200 people working in the Lawrence area. He said Henderson and his staff screen the applicants to their program and they were working with some of the folks that were more job ready and they had been able to find quite a few jobs in the community and also found housing for some of those people. He said they supported the Shelter’s initiative in extending the UPR.
Carol Pilant, Lawrence, said she did not work in the shelter as much as Henderson, but was there more often than not. She said some of the clients felt that the Shelter was their home. She requested the Commission renew the UPR for five years.
Phil Hemphill, Lawrence, said, as neighbors, all they had asked was that the Shelter live up to the promises that they made when the UPR was initially approved. He said it begged the question of why wasn’t the City Commission asking the hard questions of the LCS and why, after three years, did this situation seem to be out of control.
He said speaking as a new member of the Community Commission on Homelessness, he said he hoped to make a difference in that position.
Hilda Enoch, Lawrence, said she had been following homeless issues for more that 20 years. She said Henderson had made a remarkable contribution to this community. She thought they should be discussing how to build a better shelter and other issues. To shut down the only shelter or limit it in anyway would not help the community’s issues. She said she had been waiting 20 years for the community to take the responsibility of building an adequate shelter or adding room and supplementing that with transitional housing that was needed in this community both for people with mental issues and people with drinking problems. She said they also needed a detoxification center so that the community did not need to ship people out who were the community’s problems. She said she appreciated that at least this City Commission had established guidelines along with a Commission on Homelessness to look into what could be done about this issue.
Don Huggins, Lawrence Community Shelter, member of the KU Faculty, said part of what made Lawrence a good community to live and work in was that it was a progressive and compassionate community of people who cared for people. He had been a volunteer with the former Lawrence Open Shelter and the Drop-In Center and now Lawrence Community Shelter, for approximately 2 years. He was active in drug and alcohol addiction programs for over 10 years both as someone in recovery and as a supporter of recovery efforts within this community. His experience as a volunteer at the Community Shelter had allowed him to help people who were experiencing homelessness, addictions and mental illness. The LCS and its staff worked hard and long to provide the many services that they were called upon to provide and the Shelter provided those services on a budget that was sparse to say the least. The LCS depended on community volunteers with many backgrounds to accomplish its mission. He said he was especially proud of the many KU students that spent some of their evenings assisting the night monitor with the supervision and oversight that was necessary in making the Shelter a safe home for their guests. The students and guests learn a lot about each other and about circumstances and what circumstances could bring to a person’s life.
During the two years he had spent volunteering at the night Shelter and the day portion of the LCS, he had seen the shelter become safer and a more program orientated facility. It was not in the business of warehousing people, but in the business of getting people back into the productive and responsible citizenry of this community and he was proud to be a small part of that.
Nancy Odle, NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness), informed the City Commission on issues concerning mental illness and homelessness. She said there were no places to place those types of individuals, but there was a place called the Shelter where they could begin to help those individuals with case management and mental health intervention. Mental Health outreach for the homeless was not simple. A compassionate, responsive community was necessary and loss of community exacerbated mental illness. She said first and foremost for those individuals was a shelter, a warm place to stay and someone to talk to. Preventing recurrent homelessness by providing access to community services was the most effective answer for this community.
Reverend Joe Alford, Founder, Director, and Chaplin of the Jubilee Café, said they fed breakfast to the homeless and needy persons on Tuesday’s and Friday’s. He said he felt a particular kinship with LINK, LOS, LCS, Salvation Army, and many other agencies that served the homeless population in Lawrence. He said one of the things they did when asking people to volunteer their services was to treat their guests with dignity and respect. He supported the Lawrence Community Shelter and its application for a five year extension.
Lew Hinshaw, Board of Directors of the Lawrence Community Shelter, said he had witnessed the melding of two Boards that formerly operated independently, the Board of the Lawrence Open Shelter and the Board of the Community Drop-In Center. One of the steps in melding those two boards was a Board planning and training retreat and was one of the experiences he had that taught him that the Board of the Lawrence Community Shelters was composed of people who really had a heart for homeless people and were invested in the issue of homelessness. He said those people were interested in learning whatever they could to do the job of a Board of Director’s and that job was to see that the work of the Shelter was done effectively and correctly. He hoped that the City Commission would grant a five year extension of the UPR for the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Bob Schumm, downtown business owner, said he agreed with everything he had heard. He said one side was suggesting all the goodness that the Shelter was doing for everyone and that was a wonderful opportunity for people and the beneficiaries were receiving very fine service. On the other hand, there were property owners and neighbors who were asking for management and to follow through on the promises that had been made. He said what was before the City Commission was a land use issue, a Use Permitted Upon Review, and did not have too much to do with the social cause of things. He said by the admission of the Shelter itself, they were becoming so successful that they were outgrowing their facility. That begged the question of why would someone want a 5 year extension when the Shelter was suggesting that they were out of room right now and they needed a larger facility that the City needed to sponsor. On the other hand, if there were legitimate complaints by the neighbors, business owners, and by the people who had to occupy the same space downtown, why would the City give up its right and opportunity to properly manage the situation? If this was any other use, that was causing comments and concerns, he doubted the City Commission would extend a UPR to a lengthy period of five years. He said it seemed reasonable that the City Commission would want to keep the extension at a reasonably short period of time, such as one year, especially with regard to this issue at hand. He said the same level of service was going to be offered to the clients that enjoy the service right now. If the Shelter was managed properly in a year it would be extended again. He said in the meantime maybe this was the wake up call the City needed to say they needed to get going on an appropriate facility that worked for everyone. He said what he was hearing was this was not working. He encouraged the Commission to extend the UPR, but only for one year.
Mark Cline, Lawrence, said the Lawrence Community Shelter had problems, but he thought they were losing perspective in being portrayed as harshly as it was because they were evaluating it by an unfair set of criteria. People raised complaints about its location, but they should look at the new location of the proposed Salvation Army Shelter because it was more than a mile from the downtown bus system hub.
Helen Hartnett, Co-Chair of the Community Commission on Homelessness, reiterated that they were asking the City Commission to table this vote and place the decision, at least for now, in the hands of the Commission on Homelessness to do some studying and make recommendations to the City Commission.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked Linda Finger, Director of Planning, if the City Commission concurred with the Planning Commission’s recommendation or made any changes that they were to make to the conditions would those changes need to go back to the Planning Commission.
Finger said it depended on if the changes were substantial then yes. If the changes were more fine tuning and the intent was still there, but were making clarifying revisions then no, but because of the petition that was filed, the City Commission needed a 4-1 vote to take any action.
Vice Mayor Amyx said because of the permit deadline, he asked if the City Commission was going to ask the Planning Commission to look at this issue, specifically to look at condition no. 4, and he asked about the length of time the Planning Commission needed to look at this issue.
Finger said when looking at past history, she thought it would be 6 to 9 months and still be a reasonable timeframe.
Commissioner Rundle said he was thinking about a much shorter time frame and he had an indication that they could come back in 2 months.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he thought a specific task needed to be considered under that UPR and it seemed that the 6 items listed under Condition No. 4 were items that needed to be addressed to take care of the problems of the neighborhood and the land use issue of the UPR. He said if the City Commission could work out those details, 90% of the problem would be taken care of.
Mayor Highberger said he concurred. He said he was supportive of the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the Oread Neighborhood’s suggestion. He said he would support an extension of the UPR with current conditions and table the new proposed conditions made by the Lawrence Community Shelter and ask that the Commission on Homelessness draft a report to the City Commission in three months.
Commissioner Hack said she appreciated the comments that people had concerning the work that the Shelter provided. She said she was excited about the opportunities for the four new case managers because it would help a great deal. She also appreciated the concerns of the neighbors and adjoining business owners and hoped that everyone involved could work together as a team to make sure both sides were being addressed.
Commissioner Schauner said he could not help but think of the story of Solomon and splitting the baby as people spoke on this issue. He said in many ways, he thought the City Commission was being asked to make a decision which probably did not have a right or wrong answer. Ultimately what the City Commission would be put in the position of doing was trying to make a decision based on balancing what appeared to be competing interests. He suspected there was more in common with this issue than what some of the conversation might have suggested. He said he would echo Commissioner Hack’s comments that this was a compassionate community and City Commission. At the same time, this Commission and this community had an expectation that no one’s rights were absolute. The key was how to find a short-term or long-term solution that honored the rights of the community land owners, neighbors, and business operators and the rights and needs of those who were mentally ill or suffer from addictions or other difficulties. Unfortunately, that was a decision that the State’s Legislature, a few years ago, decided to abandoned when they put this whole mental illness, and homelessness problem into the communities and now the communities were dealing with the aftershock of the legislature’s indefensible decision making in attempt to balance the State’s budget.
He said he was very supportive of the Mayor’s suggestion to table the decision for now, allow the Commission on Homelessness three months to bring back a report to the City Commission as to how it might ask the Community Shelter make whatever changes were appropriate in order to satisfy those four conditions, and continue the existing UPR under the current conditions.
Commissioner Rundle said he was sorry they were not discussing a solution that would demonstrate to Hemphill, Hartnett and others who had been waiting patiently much of the time and at times understandably frustrated and impatiently for some long-term solution. He said he wanted to echo people’s comments that spoke to the mischaracterization of clients of the shelter and placing the blame solely on the Shelter. He said they needed a partnership in the community and needed to expect responsibility on the part of everyone. He said when they were looking into this issue they tried to get a complete set of costs attributed to the homelessness, but they were unable to get sufficient accounting numbers because the data was not there. In every other community money spent on an effective solution was always less than the money they spent on an unplanned way. He said he was confident that if they could get carefully crafted programs fully funded that would bring solutions that everybody would be able to notice.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to extend UPR 10-11-99 and UPR 01-01-03 for three months, to table the decision on UPR-09-06-05, and to refer the matter to the Commission on Homelessness Concerns for a report with special emphasis on the special conditions of UPR 09-06-05, Condition No. 4 (a-f). Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Z-09-60-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 0.17 acre from RO-2 (Residence-Office) District to C-1 (Inner-Neighborhood Commercial) District. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of East 13th Street and Haskell Avenue, 1246 Haskell.
Lisa Pool, Planner, presented the staff report. She said Haskell Avenue was a minor arterial and RS-2, single-family residential zoning, existed in each direction. The use of the area was predominantly residential. However, there was quite a mix of community facilities, commercial, and light industrial uses within the vicinity of that property. The intent of the applicant was to rezone the properties to allow for a hair care establishment. The applicant would utilize the existing 817 square foot building. She said the applicant’s proposed use for C-1 zoning allowed for uses which were compatible with residential uses such as book stores, sit down restaurants, studios for professional work, and office uses. The small lot size of 7,356 square feet would restrict uses from those requiring high levels of traffic and parking spaces.
She said an accompanied site plan was also submitted and was currently being reviewed by staff and it would need to include a view reducing screen of 4 to 6 feet in height as well as the removal of the garage door.
Staff recommended approval as did the Planning Commission on a 5-4 vote on November 14th. It was important to note there was also a protest petition associated with this application which required a 4 out of a 5 vote from the City Commission.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission should consider everything they had dealt with in the last several months on this piece of property.
Pool said the garage door would still be an issue.
Vice Mayor Amyx said under the issue of land use, he asked if it would be appropriate to zone that area C-1.
Pool said as far as the C-1 zoning for this particular property, the building that was there now met the setback requirement. She said this site plan was going to be changing the use, looking at the parking requirements, adding that view reducing screen for the C-1 zoning adjacent to residential properties. She said there were not a lot of changes that needed to take place.
Mayor Highberger asked if the occupancy would be still conditioned on compliance with the site plan which would require removal of the garage door for instance.
Pool said yes.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if everything that was discussed at an earlier City Commission meeting, concerning this property, would need to be done including the new site plan that had been submitted.
Pool said correct.
Greg Polk, applicant, said 1246 Haskell Avenue has had some controversy in the past, but the past was the past and it was time to move on and discuss the future with the new owner. He said he was in the process of selling the property to Janine Coulter who was a business owner who currently rents a building in downtown Lawrence.
He said this rezoning would allow Coulter the opportunity to own a building in a neighborhood where she grew up and Coulter planned on opening a hair care facility establishment on that site. There had been some concerns from the neighborhood that Coulter might not stay on that site if it was zoned C-1, but he did not think that was a possibility. Coulter’s intentions were to continue with her hair care facility in which she had a business and financial plan along with an interior plan for the site. Coulter was a community leader responsible for the Juneteenth Celebration and was a person of character who would follow through on her projects. The C-1 inner neighborhood zoning was close to the RO-2 zoning on some of the same types of developments that could be at that location. In the RO-2, medical related offices were allowed, chiropractic, dental, or outpatient surgery, professional or governmental offices, such as accounting, architecture, insurance sales, real estate offices or a law firm or any other similar uses. The C-1 inner neighborhoods zoning allowed for bicycle sales, dry cleaners, food store, hair care establishment or professional offices which were somewhat of the same types of uses. He said he did not feel the C-1 inner neighborhood zoning would generate more traffic into the neighborhood. He asked that the City Commission consider the C-1 rezoning.
Janine Coulter, life time resident of Lawrence, asked that the City Commission approve the rezoning for 1246 Haskell Avenue from RO-2 to C-1. The Planning Commission voted to pass the rezoning and she asked the City Commission to also pass the rezoning. Historically, that property had been commercial. She said she had the opportunity to meet four people from the Brookcreek Neighborhood Association. She said one gentleman stated that the Brookcreek Neighborhood Association passed the idea and several members suggested that it would be nice to have a hair care establishment.
She said she was also met with zoning opposition. She said she could not change or undo any business dealings that occurred prior to the purchase of that property and she knew she would be a good neighbor. With the beauty trends and health issues changing, so did the needs of her business. She said she wanted to invest in her business and meet the demands of her clientele. She said she felt this property would help her meet her demands in that she had clients who lived in the neighborhood, the property was wheelchair accessible, and had easy access. She said she could keep renting, however, she desired to own her own business. She said more minority owned businesses were needed in this community to help build an economic base. She asked the City Commission to vote “yes” to the rezoning.
Bryan Wyatt, Lawrence, said this request was consistent with Horizon 2020. Some of the concerns that the neighborhood had about residential were not valid because that lot was too small for a buildable lot. He said keeping this type of buffer zone between the commercial in the area and Coulter’s business being a hair grooming establishment would be a nice asset to the neighborhood. He said Planning Commissioner Haase had made a comment that the RO-2 allowed pet grooming, but not people grooming and it was unfortunate that they were there asking for a rezoning. He requested that the City Commission grant the rezoning. He said Coulter would be a good business person and neighbor to the neighborhood.
Susan Miller, Brookcreek Neighborhood Association Treasurer, read a letter from a Richard Heckler, a member of the association, which explained the association’s stance against the rezoning of that property to C-1. The letter read:
“This is about the quality of neighborhood life in which their neighborhood must, in all reality, do what is necessary to maintain that comfortable level for which we are constantly striving. It would be best if the City Government and respecting neighborhoods could work together as partners. Let’s face it, we all enjoy harmony.
Tonight, we have a situation that has created some controversy for the neighborhood due to violation of a site plan. We feel that the request the City Commission made, regarding the initial site plan, needs to be honored and respected by the applicant. To date, that has not occurred. We are curious as to why. Sometimes it seems as if site plan violations do not matter and in this particular incident, it was being swept under the rug. This is not an acceptable precedent. We feel that question concerning the initial site plan should be resolved before moving on to the substitute site plan. What steps can the City Commission take to rectify this matter?
1246 Haskell was surrounded by residential properties, which means all decisions should be carefully thought out. We must keep in mind the parents and children living in those surrounding residential areas. Believe me, there are many families in this immediate area which make zoning a critical issue so as not to invade the family circles. The following zonings do not take that into consideration. Our four reasons against the rezonings are:
1. Other C-1 uses could be moved in when the beauty salon is gone. This could be 15 -20 years on down the line;
2. The new zoning code will allow an even broader range of uses in the equivalent CN-1 zone that will replace C-1 in the future;
3. This one small lot could be expanded by the owner buying adjacent properties and building a bigger intrusive development; and
4. This lot, C-1 zone, could be up zoned to C-2 with other uses.
Basically they find the above zonings inappropriate to the family life-style, Brookcreek chooses to preserve. Of course, we are aware of the beauty salon that is a prospective buyer of the property and a variety of zoning were presented as to how this might work. However, the residential zoning is our zone of choice. The Planning Commission was not unanimous in their decision which in my mind leaves this matter open to serious debate.”
Miller said she personally would like to add that Brookcreek Neighborhood Association was the steward of their neighborhood. They strived to keep their neighborhood residential and they appreciated any and all support in keeping the area that way.
She said they also wished to maintain the current RS-2 zoning for that property.
Mayor Highberger said he had given this issue a lot of thought and he had read all of the letters submitted by the Brookcreek Neighborhood Association. He said it was very hard for him to disagree with a neighborhood association recommendation, but he pointed out that the current zoning was RO-1 not RS-2. He said he did not see the harm to the neighborhood in rezoning to C-1. He said he lived within a block of a commercial neighborhood center that was even bigger than this area and he thought it was great. He said he thought those neighborhood uses, the C-1 and what could be CN-1 was a great addition for a neighborhood and he thought this was a perfect location for that type of zoning.
He said the concerns from the neighborhood on what could happen, no matter what the City Commission did today, somebody could rezone that area or adjacent properties. He said he did not think anyone on the current City Commission was interested in expanding commercial zoning into existing residential uses, but he could not speak for future Commissions. He said with all do respect to the neighborhood, he disagreed and he thought the rezoning with that particular use would be a great asset to the neighborhood. He supported the rezoning request.
Commissioner Schauner asked what if this sale fell through and in the mean time the City rezoned this area to C-1. He asked if they could conditionally rezone the area on the completion of the sale.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said a zoning could not be conditioned based upon a person because zoning was with the land and not the individual.
Commissioner Schauner asked if a Special Use or a Use Permitted Upon Review was available, in that circumstance, with the current zoning for that applications use.
Finger said no.
Vice Mayor Amyx said this body would always have the authority, if the sale was not completed, to initiate rezoning of that property.
Finger said the City Commission, Planning Commission, or property owner all had the ability to initiate rezoning of property.
Commissioner Schauner said his only concern about down zoning was that the owner of the property that was going to be down zoned unilaterally without their consent might believe that was a taking of one kind or another and damage the inherent values of their property in which he thought the City was seeing that in some current litigation. He said he was torn on this issue. Part of the problem was putting aside the trauma of the last time the City Commission discussed that piece of property. He said he thought the Mayor was taking the right position because the use he saw proposed for this location seemed like a good fit for the neighborhood. He said on balance, moving to this proposed zoning or even the new code zoning classification was not inconsistent with an appropriate use for that location. He said he was concerned that what apparently was done was move from one site plan that had never been completed to another site plan which it now placed the onus on the prospective purchaser of that property to complete work and do things which the seller of that property was obligated to do under the prior site plan. To that extent, he was not at all happy with the sort of transference of obligation from the current property owner to the prospective property owner. He said despite his concerns, and in the best interest of this applicant, buyer, and the neighborhood, he would support the rezoning application.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he remembered getting involved with the rezoning on the north end of 14th and Massachusetts Streets where there was a lot of the same type of concern on the intrusion of commercial development in that area and the effect on the Junior High School, but it turned out to be a good place to shop. He said unfortunately this was a way that Coulter would correct a problem that had been going on for a long time and it was time to settle the problem. He said he did not have any problems changing the zoning.
Commissioner Rundle said he was also torn on this issue. He said he was very supportive of Brookcreek Neighborhood Association and he honestly hoped there could be negotiations between the two to resolve any concerns. Under the new owner’s particular use, he did not see a conflict with the goals of the neighborhood. There were valid concerns of what might happen in the future to the area, but he encouraged the new owner, if that happened, to consider taking steps to prevent that from happening. One of the concerns that had also been voiced, but that did not come up at this meeting, was the lack of clear and consistent enforcement of the City’s guidelines as they were developing areas. He said this had been one of those cases where there was grey area the way things were handled over time. He said he thought this neighborhood wanted that type of practice to stop to get to a point of a revised zoning code. He said they needed to get to some point where everybody could have confidence and understanding of the City’s regulations.
Commissioner Hack said the area was a great spot for Coulter’s business and she thought it would add a lot to the neighborhood. She said she appreciated the neighbors’ concerns, but thought this business was a perfect fit and Coulter would make a good neighbor. She was in support of the rezoning.
Commissioner Rundle said he as also in support of approving the rezoning.
Commissioner Schauner said the City Commission would like to extend Coulter their best wishes in her successful venture and also wanted to extend its support to the neighborhood and that the neighborhood should not view this as an anti neighborhood vote, but rather a vote in which they were trying to balance interests between the neighborhood’s long-term planning interests that the City Commission did support and balance those interests with this particular business owner.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to direct staff to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for a rezoning (Z-09-60-05) of approximately 0.17 acre from RO-2 (Residence-Office District) to C-1 (Inner-Neighborhood Commercial District). The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of East 13th Street and Haskell Avenue, 1246 Haskell; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Receive staff memo regarding racial profiling and consider adopting Ordinance No. 7936, on first reading.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report. He said on October 18th he briefed the City Commission on the requirements of Senate Bill 77 from the last legislative session which was concerned with the subject of racial profiling.
At that particular meeting, he also proposed an ordinance that could be adopted to meet the statutory requirements of establishing an Advisory Board on the subject of racial profiling. There were several comments that were made regarding possible changes to the ordinance language and those changes were made with all the suggestions given at that meeting. Those changes were:
1. The annual required report of the Police Department to the Lawrence Citizen Advisory Board was changed from no later than February 1 of each year to no later than January 31 of each year. This date is the deadline for an identical report to be filed with the Kansas Attorney General. In addition, the ordinance mandates that the report to the Advisory Board take place prior to the transmittal of the report to the Attorney General;
2. A requirement that the Advisory Board report to the City Commission regarding its activities at the first regularly scheduled City Commission meeting following January 31 of each year has been added;
3. The language empowering the Advisory Board to review and render advice on such other matters as are assigned by the City Commission, City Manager or Chief of Police has been explicitly limited to matters relating to racial profiling;
4. Certain matters involving the ex officio, nonvoting member of the Advisory Board have been clarified. First, the limitation against receiving payment for service on the board has been limited to the voting members of the board. The ex officio member, who is a City employee, is not prohibited from being compensated for serving. Second, further clarification has been offered regarding the ex officio member’s term of office by specifying that the Chief of Police’s designee will serve at the pleasure of the Chief of Police;
5. Finally, as there was some objection to the third recital contained in the original ordinance, that recital was deleted. Its deletion should have no effect on the operation of the ordinance.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Laura Green, Drug Policy Forum, said the ordinance as it was written was called establishing the Lawrence Citizen Advisory Board, but the name of the Board did not evoke anything. She said she spoke to Miller about her concern and Miller said staff was trying to avoid using the word racial profiling advocacy, but she noted that there was the Douglas County Advocacy Council For Aging. She said staff might want to change the name in the ordinance to Racial Profiling Community Outreach Board or Racial Profiling Community Education Board. She said those names would evoke the mission of the Board. She said she sent staff some information from the Bureau of Justice. The Bureau of Justice did some reporting on the different types of Boards in different cities which went from educational/outreach boards that did not make true policy to boards where citizens partnered with the Police Department to investigate complaints.
She said the only other issue was when the board received the annual report for review. She said she thought the board should have opportunity for comment.
She said the Mayor had mentioned that he was interest in some kind of advisory board that had more of an oversight function and this board did not have that function. She encouraged the City Commission to consider having a study session as a group to consider the different types of oversight boards that could be put into place to partner with the Police Department in reviewing citizen complaints. Cities that had that type of partnership had a better working relationship and made the citizens feel that they had input into the inner workings of the Police Department.
James Dunn asked what happened to the Lawrence Alliance because he thought that was an appointed body that dealt with those types of issues.
Mayor Highberger said that board was reconstituted and were meeting regularly at this time.
Commissioner Rundle said that board’s charge was more general to make sure this City remained free of discrimination of any kind. He said the board that was being discussed focused on a specific purpose that was set out by state statute.
David Corliss said he and Miller struggled with the name of that board. He said he did not know if they had come up with the best name, but that was something, once the board was established, the board could struggle with the name of the board and they might be best apt to come up with something more appropriate.
Commissioner Rundle said it would seem that having the word “police” in that ordinance would be helpful.
Commissioner Hack said she did not want the ordinance to sound like they were advocating or teaching racial profiling. She suggested that something more benign would be better all around.
Mayor Highberger said the City Commission’s action was to meet the statutory requirements so that the board could be constituted to participate in drafting the City’s policy. He said he still wanted to discuss in the spring a discussion on whether to expand the duties of this board to have a broader function. He said the City Commission might want to discuss that issue at their goals setting retreat to see if there was any point in even talking further about that issue. He said since the City Commission was going through the trouble of constituting this advisory board, it would be nice that the board have more of a function than it did at this time. He said the City Commission needed to establish a board right now just to meet the City’s statutory requirements. He said he did not have a strong opinion about the name of the board, but suggested that the name could be changed to “Citizens Advisory Board on Racial Profiling.”
Commissioner Schauner suggested not renaming the board at this time and suggested placing the ordinance on first reading and allowing the board itself to propose a different name.
Commissioner Hack said in terms of the timeframe when the board received the data, the board might suggest when they would want to receive the data. She said she did not want to place date constraints any more than they were already placed.
Commissioner Rundle said the board should have material ahead of time to make adequate review. He said one week seemed to be a common standard. He supported receiving that information in a timely fashion even if it was in draft form a week ahead of time.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7936, establishing the Lawrence Citizen Advisory Board. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 9:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid – Reject sole bid Wastewater Treatment Plant Manhole Replacement, new bid date Jan 10th.
2. Bid – Furniture for Fire/Med No. 5 to DBI & Contract Design Group totaling $19,937.77.
3. Ordinance No. 7946 – 1st Read, Rezone – (Z-05-34-05) 1.35 acres, M-2 to RS-2, S side of 200 Blk Perry St.
4. Ordinance No. 7947 – 2nd Read, Rezone – (Z-09-43-04) 36.901 acres from RS-2 to PRD-1, E of Monterey Way & N of Peterson.
5. Resolution No. 6622 – Declare boundaries, City of Lawrence.
6. Site Plan – (SP-10-82-05) parking lot & drainage detention basin, church at 3615 W 10th.
7. Ordinance No. 7950 – 1st Read, increase appropriate funs for storm water fund Jan 1, 2005.
8. Sport to Sport Complex – Request for the City to donate land.
9. UPR – (UPR-09-06-05) Lawrence Community Shelter, 944 Kentucky/214 W 10th .
10. Rezone – (Z-09-60-05) .17 acre from RO-2 to C-1, NE corner of E 13th & Haskell, 1246 Haskell.
11. Ordinance No. 7936 – 1st Read, Establish Lawrence Citizen Advisory Board-racial profiling.