May 22, 2006

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 5:30 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Hack presiding and members Amyx, Dever, Chestnut and Highberger present.  

It was then moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the purpose of consultation with attorneys for the City on matters which would be deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship. The Douglas County Commission and their attorney will join the executive session. The justification is to maintain attorney client privilege on a matter involving both the City and Douglas County and a possible third entity.

The City Commission returned to regular session at 6:00 p.m., recessed for a short break, and resumed the regular meeting at 6:35 p.m.  

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:

Mayor Hack recognized the Lawrence Arts Commission 2007 Grant Award recipients.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes from May 8, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of April 12, 2007; the Community Commission on Homelessness meeting minutes of April 10, 2007; the Mechanical Code Board meeting minutes of April 30, 2007; and the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of May 7, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 396 vendors in the amount of $1,516,135.45.  Motion carried unanimously.          
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Retail Liquor License for Cork & Barrel Downtown, 901 Mississippi.  Motion carried unanimously.   

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the comprehensive housing rehabilitation for 2205 Learnard Avenue, 629 Missouri Street, 320 Crestline Drive for the Neighborhood Resources Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  2205 Learnard Ave   629 Missouri St.        320 Crestline Drive

Penny Construction                $28,748

T & J Holdings, Inc.                                                     $20,950                       $19,440

Old Home Store                      $38,149                       $31,695                       $17,605

Staff Estimate                         $24,426                       $21,545                       $21,563

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid for 629 Missouri Street, to T & J Holdings, in the amount of $20,950; 320 Crestline Drive to Old Home Store, in the amount of $17,605; and the bid for 2205 Learnard was declined because the bid exceeded the program limits.  Motion carried unanimously.         (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Duke’s Root Control, Inc., for $98,313.87 to compete the 2007 Chemical Root Control Program.  Motion carried unanimously.                (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the construction of the 14^th and Tennessee Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project.  The bids were:

Bidder	total
McLouth Excavating	$229,346.00
D.F. Freeman Contractors	$277,163.00
Heartland Midwest	$280,093.00
Linaweaver Construction	$297,960.00
Engineer’s Estimate	$237,945.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to McLouth Excavating for $229,346. Motion carried unanimously.                         (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7912, rezoning (Z-03-19-05) 4.883 acres from UR (Urban Reserve District) to RS7 (Single-Family Residential District), located south of 6^th Street and east of Stoneridge Drive (extended), Lots 2-13, Block 1, Stoneridge East Subdivision.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                 (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8110, rezoning (Z-03-20-05 & Z-03-21-05) 11.4 acres from UR (Urban Reserve District) to PRD (Planned Residential Development District), located south of 6^th Street and east of Stoneridge Drive (extended) Lot 1, Block 1, Stoneridge East Subdivision.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                       (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8109, concerning the towing and impounding of vehicles by the Lawrence Police Department.  Motion carried unanimously.                                              (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8111, concerning the unlawful hosting of minors consuming alcohol or cereal malt beverage.  This ordinance is necessary to comply with a State law change.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                 (7)

Ordinance No. 8105, authorizing a Special Use Permit (SUP-01-01-07) for a Nextel Cellular Telecommunications Tower for certain property located at 2101 Wakarusa Drive, was read as second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                       (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve the amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code for TA-01-01-07 and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                  (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” along the south side of Jordan Lane, and establish “no parking school days” along the west side of Oak Tree Drive adjacent to the school crossing at Vantuyl Drive, 3:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., Monday – Friday and 2:00 p.m. – 2:30 pm on Wednesday, and place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8112, establishing “no parking” along the south side of Jordan Lane, and establish “no parking school days” along the west side of Oak Tree Drive adjacent to the school crossing at Vantuyl Drive, 3:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., Monday – Friday and 2:00 p.m. – 2:30 pm on Wednesday.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to Administrative Policy No. 101, regarding the Lawrence Wastewater Management System Policy.  Motion carried unanimously.      (11)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said Big Rigs for Lil’ Kids was held at the Holcomb Sports Complex and was sponsored by the Parks and Recreation Department. 

Also, David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, was appointed to the Transportation Research Board to its Technical Task Force on roundabouts. 

Finally, he said Chief Bradford who traveled to Greensburg, Kansas, was doing well.  Corliss and he would be traveling to Greensburg on Wednesday to visit with Chief Bradford and Lawrence’s police officers as well.

Mayor Hack said it was important to remember people were sent to Greensburg from the City’s Police, Fire/Medical, Health Departments, as well as Emergency Preparedness and various County employees.  She said the City of Lawrence was glad to offer assistance to the citizens of Greensburg.                                                                                                        (12)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Conduct a public hearing on levying maximum assessments for Williamsburg Court and Williamsburg Place.

Mayor Hack called a public hearing on levying maximum assessments for Williamsburg Court and Williamsburg Place.  

David Corliss, City Manager, said this was a unique special assessment benefit district.  The property owners at this location lived on dedicated private streets and the City did not own the right-of-way for those streets.  He said in many cases developments construct streets to City standards to save money and also liked the advantages of the setback from the right-of-way.  He said the property owners had been in discussion with staff for a number of months concerning the condition of their private street.  He said for the first time, staff had established a benefit district whereby those property owners would pay the total costs for maintenance of their street.  At this point, the City Commission was conducting a hearing on the maximum assessments for those property owners, who would be liable, to pay over time.  Staff thought the actual costs were going to be less than the maximum assessments, but by law, staff liked to establish the maximum assessments, and once the project was completely finished, finalize those assessments based on the actual true costs. 

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report.  He said the maintenance work included curb and gutter replacement and mill and overlay work.  The bids for Phase I came in lower than the original estimate and those property owners would only be charged the actual costs of the project.  He said staff was asking the City Commission to adopt the maximum assessment ordinance so if problems occurred staff had the ability to repair those problems.  

Commissioner Amyx said since this was the first time the property owners would pay the entire cost of maintenance for their private streets, he asked if the assessment ran with the property in the event the property sold, and if the collection of those costs could happen at the time of that sale.

Corliss said the special assessment on those properties would be handled the same way as if it were a public street.  The only substantial difference was the City could not debt finance those costs.  The City’s Capital Improvement Reserve Fund would be used to pay those costs and then the assessments would come back to that fund.

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

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

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8106, setting the proposed maximum assessments for Williamsburg Court and Williamsburg Place.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                     (12)

Conduct public hearing on the issuance of health care facilities refunding and improvement revenue bonds by the City of Wichita, Kansas.

Mayor Hack called a public hearing on the issuance of health care facilities refunding and improvement revenue bonds by the City of Wichita, Kansas.

David Corliss, City Manager, said this facility was technically owned by the City of Wichita through an Industrial Revenue Bond that was issued for multiple facilities across the state.  Essentially what staff had done in the past to help the local facility was enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Wichita and all the other communities.  In this case, this was a refinancing of health care facility bonds and the City was facilitating that as well.  There was no cost or obligation on part of the City for this debt.  He said for some reason if the facility was unable to retire the debt, then the bond holders could not attack the City, they could only go after the assets of the facility.

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

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt Resolution No. 6723, authorizing the issuance of certain health care facilities refunding and improvement revenue bonds, not to exceed $28,000,000.  Motion carried unanimously.                                           (13)

Consider approving the following unanimous recommendations for traffic calming devices and pedestrian safety improvements from the Traffic Safety Commission.  Consider directing staff concerning current City practices regarding the funding of these improvements.

a)         To construct traffic calming devices on 27^th Terrace between Louisiana Street and Missouri Street.

b)         To construct traffic calming devices on Maine Street between 7^th Street and 9^th Street.   

c)         To construct traffic calming devices on 18^th Street between New Hampshire Street and Barker Avenue.   

d)        Construct a Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing on 31^st Street near Harrison Avenue.  

e)       Improve safety for pedestrians crossing 11^th Street at New Hampshire Street.   

David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, presented the staff report.  He said as with most of their traffic calming projects that were on the list, actual construction of what type of devices that would be constructed had not been discussed at this point.  Once getting to the point of having the funding, staff would meet with the neighborhoods in question and work out those details.  He said estimates were based on generalities.

The first area was at 27^th Terrace between Louisiana Street and Missouri Street, which was off Louisiana by the four-way stop in front of the junior high and elementary school.  He said that area had more traffic than normal because of that four way stop.  He said 27^th Street was a single way stop at Louisiana and during peak hours it was hard to get on to Louisiana, so people going to the school cut through the neighborhood down 27^th Terrace to get down to the school and/or on to Louisiana Street.  He said this area, along with all the areas in question, met at least the minimum requirements as set forth in the City’s policy to consider traffic calming devices. 

The second area was on Maine Street between 7^th Street and 9^th Street in Old West Lawrence.  The speeds in that area were enough above the posted speed limit to warrant consideration of traffic calming devices.  In this case, there was one four way intersection that a temporary traffic calming device could be placed if the neighborhood was interested and staff would work with the neighborhood.

The third area was 18^th Street between New Hampshire and Barker Avenue, behind the Dillon’s Store on Massachusetts Street.  There was a high percentage of traffic during the evening peak hour coming up New Hampshire, heading south, making a left turn and cutting through the neighborhood over to Barker Avenue.  He said when arriving at 19^th Street, it was much easier to get on 19^th Street at the roundabout than at the single way stop at New Hampshire and 19^th.  He said approximately 95% of the traffic during that peak hour was cut- through traffic and that traffic was not stopping at any of the residences along that street.  He said again, if the neighborhood chose, something temporary could be placed at that location, similar to what was done at Schwartz Road and 6^th Street.  He said a few years ago before the permanent, partial diverter was constructed, a temporary diverter was installed for a few months.

The other two recommendations from the TSC were pedestrian improvements.  One pedestrian improvement was at 11^th and New Hampshire which involved constructing a bulb-out on the south side of the street and removing the widening on the north side of the street which would make the crossing across the street much shorter for pedestrians.  He said that type of crossing could not be done on the other side of the street because there was a left turn lane at the current crossing and it was a very long distance across 11^th Street at that intersection.  He said that work would be done in-house using Street Division personnel. 

The last recommendation was a request from Cottonwood for pedestrian safety improvements out on 31^st Street.  He said the improvement would be similar to the project that was approved by the City Commission earlier this year for 11^th Street between New York and New Jersey.  Obviously there was more traffic on 31^st Street, the street was much wider, and traffic speeds were higher in that area.  He said the pedestrian improvement would be a mid-block crossing, but the exact location had not been determined.  He said the TSC and Cottonwood had ideas, and if approved, staff would meet with Cottonwood to find the best location to service their personnel.  He said it was a long way to any safe crossing which was Nieder Road where there was a signal.  He said those improvements would be made using current funding in the City’s budget.  He said some of that improvement would be done by the City’s Street Division which was building the sidewalks and ramps on each said, but the rest of the improvement needed to be contracted out because staff did not have specific equipment to construct foundations and things of that nature. 

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said the City Commission chose not to move forward with a traffic calming request made from residents along Trail Road.  The remainder of the other traffic calming requests had been approved, but not funded.  The City’s Traffic Calming Policy gave the City Commission the option to ask the adjacent property owners to fund some or all of those traffic calming devices.   He said staff was looking for City Commission direction.  He said it would be good to know if those projects would be funded, if not, other alternatives should be addressed.

Commissioner Chestnut asked about the ranking of 18^th Street and what the score of 14 meant.

Woosley said the reason 18^th Street met the criteria was if over 50% of the traffic during the peak hour was cut-through traffic, then the street warranted consideration of traffic calming devices.    

Soules said ideas were provided for traffic calming in those areas to give the City Commission tangible information on the cost of those projects.  He said when discussing ideas with the neighborhood, 70% of those people within 300 feet had to agree with the location of the traffic calming device.   

Commissioner Amyx asked if staff had looked at other alternatives in the event money was tight and asked if there were any ideas that could be done on a temporary basis.  He said a neighbor on Trail Road suggested things like a three way stops and knew using stop signs as traffic calming was something staff did not want to do.  He said the City was going through a budget cut and would not be able to fund big and expensive projects.  He asked what the City Commission could do to help.

Soules said streets were being narrowed out west.  He said they were looking at 11 foot lanes on 25^th Street.  George Williams Way would also be 11 foot lanes, but they were considering a median or some other traffic calming device to break up those seven lanes.  The existing infrastructure was wide and without some type of physical modification they would need to move the curb and gutter and there would be grading and stormwater issues.

Woosley said in some cases temporary devices could be constructed, for example, the University Place neighborhood.  On 18^th Street near Maine there was a temporary partial diverter and there were four temporary traffic calming circles within that neighborhood.  The traffic calming circles were not ideal because they could not be made as large as a permanent traffic circle because they did not have the luxury of a truck apron.  Those temporary traffic calming circles were helpful, but would not have the same result as the permanent circle.  He said they put in a temporary partial diverter at Schwartz Road and they could do the same thing on 18^th Street.  At the four way intersection, they could put in the temporary traffic calming circles.   The same thing was done in West Lawrence on Harvard Road and several other intersections in that area before funding became available.  He said stop signs were not a good device for speed control and many studies had shown when that was done, speeds mid-block went up higher than before and the situation was less safe. 

He said 10 to 15 years ago, the University Place Neighborhood came to the City Commission and the Commission approved stop signs and reduced speed limits in that area, which were lower than other areas in town, but they still had the problem.  The signing, by itself, did not really do the trick.  He said at the Traffic Safety Commission meeting, it was pointed out the police did an excellent job on Maine Street and the police were out there almost every single day and writing tickets, but had not solved their problem, either.  It really took something physical to actually get the speeds down in the area they really wanted in a residential area.

Vice Mayor Dever said if it was possible for the Commission to come to a conclusion to decide how to spend those funds and perhaps focus strictly on filling sidewalk gaps that were identified and maybe as a Commission decide how they wanted to move forward with traffic calming.  He said he was in favor of doing something substantial with the money and filling some voids in the sidewalks rather than trying to pick or choose a traffic calming device here and there especially with a list that long and perhaps the Commission did not know how they wanted to proceed with the devices.

Mayor Hack said she agreed there was the need for broader Commission discussion but perhaps this was not the time.  She said they tended to lump traffic calming into roundabouts and there were a lot of different options and while some might not be fond of roundabouts some think roundabouts were perfect and worked well and there was that ongoing debate.  She said the money situation was not debatable. 

She asked if 11^th and New Hampshire could be done in-house and 31^st Street could be partially in-house with funding they already had.

Woosley said there was a line item using gas tax which was called “non-mot” which was non-motorized which was for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 

Commissioner Highberger asked about whether the speed listed for the 18^th Street project was an average speed.

Woosley said it was the 85^th percentile speed.

Commissioner Highberger asked if there were a number of speeds higher.

Woosley said about 15% were higher.  Those speeds did not go really high because it was a one block length. 

Commissioner Amyx said he thought there was another part of the discussion that needed to happen and the Vice Mayor brought up a good point the Commission needed to have this discussion, but the City Commission needed to give the Traffic Safety Commission direction on what was expected.  He said as long as the requests continued to come to the Traffic Safety Commission and the TSC used a set of criteria through the policy of ranking, the TSC would continue to make recommendations.  He said there were people from University Place that had been on the ranking system since January 2004 with expectations that something was going to happen and the Commission kept looking at things that could be done in-house and other projects.  He appreciated Soules’ and Woosley’s recommendations and what they thought the City could afford, but they left people hanging with expectations that as soon as a recommendation was approved by the TSC, the recommendation would come to the City Commission where the recommendation was placed on a ranking list and the expectation that funds would be available next year, but that was not happening and probably would not happen.  He said the City Commission needed to look at how they would fund those projects and if traffic calming devices would be looked at, the way they were looked at for the last several years.

Mayor Hack asked about Commissioner Amyx’s preference.  She said from her perspective, people were coming to TSC meetings to get approval with the expectation the approval would happen.  Secondly, was the broader picture of financing which went with the policy decision and a discussion of various alternatives.

Soules said staff evaluated those recommendations seriously on whether those recommendations could be done in-house or not and also had to evaluate the workload.  He said there were times where staff could do smaller projects.  He said the crosswalk on 11^th Street could be fit in at some point at a minimal material cost.

Mayor Hack asked if there was a fairness issue with a project that came to the surface versus something that had been on the plate. 

Soules said over the last couple of years staff placed pedestrian issues ahead of other funding issues.  He said the pedestrian crossing issues were typically cheaper and something that could be handled in-house. 

Mayor Hack said if they divided those recommendations on the agenda into the three that were traffic calming and the two that were pedestrian issues, a case could be made for the pedestrian issues that fell into that same sidewalk conversation.  She said personally before she thought she could say “yes” or “no” to any of those recommendations, she would like to know costs, but also make the Traffic Safety Commission understand where the City was financially and it might be necessary to put those types of requests on hold for awhile, but perhaps not send staff out to do the traffic counts.  She said she hated to do that, but it was one of the service issues the Commission would be talking about later on that evening. 

Commissioner Highberger said he respectfully disagreed.  He said he thought the City Commission made a commitment to some degree. 

Mayor Hack said she was not talking about the current recommendations, but future recommendations.

Commissioner Highberger said he thought the City Commission made a commitment to future recommendations as well.  He said the Commission had a responsibility to make sure streets were safe.  He said he would like to see the City Commission look at the list going into this budget cycle, looking at the total funding costs, and developing a three, four, or five year plan, allocating a year’s worth of money into it.  He said he thought those recommendations were really important issues and did not want to discourage the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendations.  He said if there were things that did not meet the criteria, they were going to fall down to the bottom.  He was not sure he would approve putting the 18^th Street project on right now because the numbers were so low.  He understood the concern, but given their funding realities, it would be a long time before they would get to it.  He thought they needed to make a commitment to follow through on those requests. 

Mayor Hack said it was never as clean as one would like it to be.

Commissioner Chestnut said at some point, the City Commission needed to revisit the entire process because the process was really not functioning well.  Regardless of the funding situation, there always seemed to be a priority issue slid in because of the cost effectiveness.   He said he had heard dissatisfaction with the entire traffic calming situation, for instance, the mid block crossing on 31^st Street and how far were Harrison Avenue from Neider Road.  He said he was confused about the criteria. 

He said he agreed with Commissioner Highberger that if the Commission made commitments, then the Commission needed to fulfill those commitments.  As the Commission moved forward with this issue that would be the time to go back and look at the priority system to look for a better way of aligning recommendations with funding and make it work within a two year time window because some of those projects were going to be 3-5 years away.   

He said the Commission needed to think about implications such as the recommendation for traffic calming devices on Maine because there were a number of streets that connected between 9^th and 6^th Streets.  He said several of those streets had traffic lights and asked if they would end up moving that traffic three blocks down somewhere else.  He said the Commission had a partial commitment, but traffic calming would be placed in various areas and it might have an adverse effect.  He said he thought the process needed to be revisited. 

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

Amy McCarragher, Lawrence, said she lived on Trail Road.  She said she understood that it was decided not to place speed cushions on Trail Road at this point based on speed, volume, sidewalks, and other issues.  She said there were no sidewalks on Trail Road in certain areas on either side and the speed of traffic was 37+ miles per hour.   She said she did not understand why Trail was not on the list.

Mayor Hack said that was the broad conversation the Commission needed to address.  She said when Trail Road was deferred it was because certain criteria were not as critical as others as well as not having the finances for that project at this point.

McCarragher said her point was there were many children who lived on Trail Road.  She presented to the City Commission an article from Ford Motor Company which stated that if a pedestrian was struck with a car traveling 30 M.P.H., the pedestrian had a 70% chance of survival.  If the speed was increased 10 miles per hour, a pedestrian had a chance of survival at 10%.  She said that 10 M.P.H. that people were driving too fast on her road made a difference.  She said what would happen if the pedestrian was a 10 year old child on a bicycle or a two year old that darted out in front of a car.  She asked the City Commission to consider Trail Road because that area needed sidewalks, speed cushions, something to slow traffic down.  If the average speed was 37 M.P.H., it meant that people were going over 37 M.P.H. and if that person was traveling over 37 M.P.H. hit her neighbor’s child, she could not bring the child back.

She said Trail Road was a cut through road.  She said everyone could agree that speed cushions and sidewalks were important.  She said if those types of improvements were important for the new houses out west where the houses were not occupied, then it was definitely important for the older neighborhoods as well. 

She said Trail Road had no streets lights and people on that street exercised and walked their dogs at night with no street lights, no sidewalks and no speed cushions, which was a recipe for disaster.  A disaster might not happen tonight, next week, next month, or next year, but there was a possibility it could happen.  Again, she asked the Commission to consider Trail Road and to keep her updated.

Sharon Ashworth, Lawrence, said she was appearing on behalf of the University Place Neighborhood Association.  She said she wanted to reiterate their neighborhood support and desire for traffic calming devices and pedestrian crossings that had been approved for their neighborhood.  She said the number of children in their neighborhood continued to increase and the temporary devices placed in their neighborhood, at this point, had done a tremendous job.  The neighborhood really appreciated those temporary devices.  She said when funding came available, they hoped they could be funded when money was available.   

Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence, said she was also in a neighborhood that had been waiting about three years for traffic calming.  She asked that when the City Commission had discussions on this issue, to remember to invite those areas that had been waiting to be part of those discussions.

Bob Gent, Lawrence, said he lived by 18^th Street.  He said he realized the traffic volume of 360 cars did not seem like that much traffic, but for a street with only 12 houses, it was an awful lot when considering that those people were trying to save time by cutting through a very small neighborhood street and the only way to save any time was to drive like nuts, and that was what that traffic did.  He said the area had all types of vehicles cruising up and down that road as fast as they could with no consideration.  He said he also wanted to mention there were four children living on that street that were under four years old and a lot of pedestrians use that street to get to the businesses on Massachusetts Street.  He realized that money was limited, but a little bit of it would go a long way at that location.

Sharon Lodeska, Lawrence, asked if there was a particular reason the agenda stated “To construct traffic calming devices on Maine Street between 7^th Street and 9^th Street” while other proposed improvements were stated as “11^th and New Hampshire.”

Mayor Hack said it was because that was a request that came to the Traffic Safety Commission for those particular blocks.

Lodeska asked if 20 M.P.H. was a regular speed limit for a residential district.  She said Maine Street between 6^th and 9^th was posted at 20 M.P.H. and thought personally that was the reason the police were so successful with their speed traps on that street because it was an unusual speed limit and maybe responsible why there was a high number of people exceeding that speed limit.  She said she was neither for nor against the issue, but she wanted to bring up those points.

Kelly Barth, Lawrence, said she lived in the area of 8^th and Maine.  She said to reiterate some of the comments made to the Traffic Safety Commission, they had an increased problem lately because of the trucks that were taking fill dirt and sand from construction at the new football complex at the stadium.  She said it had become a real safety issue because trucks were traveling at 45–55 M.P.H., excessive rates of speed, carrying enormous amounts of material and that was a neighborhood with children, dogs, and elderly people which was a real concern.  However, the KU Police Department had been very responsive in trying to work with the contractor to get those trucks to take a different route.  She asked that the Old West Lawrence Neighborhood Association be notified of any discussions that would take place. 

Sharon Spratt, Cottonwood CEO, spoke about the recommendation to construct a mid block pedestrian crossing on 31^st Street near Harrison Avenue.  She said although the speed limit was at 40 M.P.H., people were going 50 and 60 M.P.H., but the police did a good job in that area.  She said there were not a lot of people that crossed at their particular location, but had some pedestrian traffic and also the “T” stopped at that location that caused some additional issues.  She said she did not know if the “T” stopped on the north side of 31^st Street, but at one point it did, and it was hard for staff members to cross. 

She said she realized and was considerate of the budget issues, but she wanted to speak on behalf of Cottonwood and the staff to have some type of way to slow people down or allow for some type of a crossing because the closest crossing was Nieder Road and nothing else to the west. 

She said on a personal note, she knew there were a lot of people who did not like the traffic calming, but she had worked with City staff years ago for their neighborhood and the traffic calming devices were very beneficial and slowed traffic in their neighborhood. 

Mayor Hack asked if Spratt had a roundabout in her neighborhood.

Spratt said she lived at Goldfield and Eldridge and their neighborhood had a traffic circle and speed humps.  She said they could hear traffic slowing down as they approached the traffic calming devices and if they did not have those devices, that traffic would be going much faster. 

Mayor Hack said she would like to look at this issue in terms of a bigger picture of budget issues, and also using the money for sidewalk gaps.  She said everyone knew that infrastructure improvements could not be done all at once.  She said if there was a possibility the Commission could slot some time during the budget conversations to discuss devoting money annually to those types of improvements and if they used the current ranking system would the Commission send people out for numbers as of today versus 2002, which might be an interesting exercise.  She asked if deferring those traffic calming recommendations, would meet with Commission approval.   

Commissioner Chestnut said he was fine with that idea.  He said at some point, the Commission needed to prioritize the projects the Commission had made commitments to.  He said the City Commission might want to change their direction and give the Traffic Safety Commission different instruction like reviewing the matrix and how decisions were made and prioritized.  He said regarding the traffic calming devices, the City Commission needed to have a broader discussion about moving forward because he did not want to work on the currently approved projects for two or three years and pile on another list that would perpetuate.   

Mayor Hack said the hard part was every situation was different and the physical dynamics of every road and narrowing lanes on one road worked on some, roundabouts work on others, speed bumps and cushions work on others.  She said Woosley did the best job of explaining why one thing worked a lot better than others and how it all fit together. 

Commissioner Highberger said he would prefer to act on those items now by placing those proposed traffic calming devices on the list, including the Trail Road project.

Commissioner Amyx said he did not disagree with Commissioner Highberger’s request, but he would move to defer those items for a period up to a one month in order to have discussions during their budget process.  He said the City Commission needed some idea if they were going to proceed with those particular projects.        

Commissioner Highberger asked if the Commission would be deferring all five items.

Mayor Hack said yes, but asked about Commissioner Highberger’s thoughts.

Commissioner Highberger said regarding the last two items which was more of a pedestrian safety issue, it seemed there was a possibility of funding those items under existing resources.   

Mayor Hack said she thought those two items could be addressed with existing funding, but in fairness to the other items, it seemed fair to place all of those items together.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to defer all five of the items for up to a period not to exceed 30 days.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                         (14)

Receive draft Domestic Registry Ordinance

Mayor Hack said regarding this item, since three City Commissioners had information about the domestic registry for approximately three months and two Commissioners had not, she would like some Commission discussion prior to the time of public comment which might direct public comment into a way that would answer questions from the Commission discussion.   She said she did not want anyone to think she did not value public comment.

Commissioner Highberger said he had talked to a lot of people about this issue and he wholeheartedly supported this item.  He said former Mayor Amyx asked if this issue was an action for local government and thought it was a reasonable question.  He said he thought the issue was something the state should take care of, but the federal and state government had failed the City on this item, just like so many other issues that trickled down to the local level.  He said if they were going to have the kind of City they wanted and life they wanted, they would need to handle this issue at the city level.  He said he was really proud to live in the only county in the state that turned down the gay marriage amendment a couple of years ago.  He said given that, this was not about marriage, but having a way for people who lived in Lawrence to publicly register their partnership which would help a number of the City’s local citizens to obtain benefits for their partners that were not available now because of the laws.

He said given the Attorney General’s opinion, he suggested limiting this domestic registry to local residents of the City of Lawrence.  He said he would have a question if it was feasible or practical to extend the registry to employees of businesses located in the City of Lawrence.  He said there were not any black and white issues that came before the City Commission.  He said he knew this issue was not clear cut for all the Commissioners, but he appreciated their open mindedness and willingness to consider this issue.  

Mayor Hack said she appreciated that for some it was more of a struggle than others.  She said she looked at this issue in two parallel tracks and one track was what her head told her which was something that conveyed benefits to either same sex or differing sex individuals who were in committed relationships, but who were unable through insurance contracts to receive insurance as members of a family.  She said with the Attorney General’s opinion, the City staff was working hard to draft an ordinance that would withstand legal challenge.  She said the City was not conveying any additional rights based on this issue. 

She said the other track was the heart side which was not a hard decision for her at all and she supported this registry.  She said the governing body could recognize the diversity with people and relationships and the definition of what a family was.  She said when two people committed their lives to each other she thought they were not circumventing anyone by allowing for that partnership to register.  She said there were suggestions from staff about the logistics of how that should work and having something online to register and then should the desire be to remove the registry, that would be online and the administrative costs would be borne by the individuals desiring to register.  She agreed with Commissioner Highberger that this registry was something Lawrence could be proud of and needed to move forward with the registry.

Commissioner Chestnut said he appreciated all the input from everyone on both sides of this issue.  He said he thought he would receive more e-mails with the hearing on the Wal-Mart issue, but that was not the case.  He said he had plenty of correspondence and had the opportunity to talk to a lot of people on both sides of the issue.  He said from his standpoint, it was a much more difficult decision.  As part of the faith community and a committed Christian, he did support the Kansas marriage amendment and he was viewing this issue from that standpoint, but he was also looking at this issue as a public official and reading the ordinance as it was written.  As the ordinance was written, it stated clearly that first of all the Attorney General’s office said it was not in conflict with the marriage amendment, that the ordinance stated it should not be constructed as the recognition of any relationship that was prohibited by the state.  This came as a campaign issue and one that had a lot of high level of exposure in the community and he said that was one of his first criteria for looking at it and that opinion came back.  Secondly, he had a lot of e-mail responses as to what the commitment was the City had to make and how the ordinance was written, he thought the online access was a great idea and granted 24 hour access to people.  He said from that aspect he did not think there was going to be a significant cost to the City and that was a question he had for staff that was answered. 

Finally, there was a memo from legal staff to discuss legal liability because one of the questions he had was if they walk into a situation, for whatever reason, where they extended this opportunity and there was some sort of reliance and there was a legal liability, at least to this point there had not been anything in case law across the country on that issue. 

He had a lot of comments on both sides of this issue, especially addressing the broader social issues that were involved in this issue.  He agreed it did not grant any rights and did not think it was an endorsement of any particular lifestyle, but it would provide possibly some access to health care and other benefits in a variety of relationship situations and to that end, he thought it was worthwhile.

Commissioner Amyx said he wanted to thank everyone for giving him the opportunity to discuss this item.  He said two years ago Commission candidates were asked whether or not they would support the marriage amendment and he said no.  He said he needed to clarify that any initiative the State of Kansas had since reappraisal, he had not voted for and he would not vote for any initiative from the State in any way. 

He said this was probably one of the harder issues that he had to deal with because he considered this issue to be the responsibility of the State of Kansas.  He said he was not sure that creating an ordinance was the right way to handle this issue. 

He said he needed to look at the other local governments and how it was going to affect those governments in the way they did business.  He asked if the City would immediately pay benefits to follow the City’s ordinance which was an issue that needed to be addressed.  Private business would make its own decision on providing benefits, but by the City Commission initiating an ordinance, he asked what the City’s responsibility to City employees and partners would be. 

He said this issue was an extremely hard decision when faced with a vast majority of the people in the room supporting this ordinance.  He said it would be easy to say “yes” and go on, but sometimes a person needed to question what they did, and that was what he was doing.   

Commissioner Chestnut said he did not see this issue as incremental or as a situation where this was one step in a number of steps toward considering benefits for partners in the City.  Again, he looked at this issue based on the ordinance as it was drafted and what the facts were today.  He said he thought it was important to be forthright with the fact he would not support anything going forward from that issue.  He said this domestic registry gave opportunity to citizens to have some access to benefits they might not have now, but he did not think it provided the City with any obligation in going any further in extending benefits and thought that was entirely different matter and quite honestly, one where they would run into possible conflict.  He said he thought that was stated directly in the Attorney General’s opinion.  He said the way he interpreted it was to say that it was a ruling based on the ordinance as it was constructed and written, and anything further than that, would be overstepping, from their interpretation, the City’s bounds. 

Vice Mayor Dever said this was a campaign issue, one that he felt not capable of expressing an opinion on at the time of the campaign.  Subsequent to the campaign, in the last 45 days, he had received an incredible amount of information from a number of people.  He said City staff was able to digest the information and present that information in an incredibly simple and tangible way.  He said Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, came up to the table and decided he could handle the workload without additional cost to the City.  He said Reeb demonstrated this was something the community could do, but they could do without unintended consequences because it was stated clearly what the City was trying to accomplish.  He said the City would charge a fee that was commensurate with the level of effort that would be required for any new service that the City offered.  He said in a budget crunch and asking staff to take cut backs, he could not, in good conscious, ask for more money to do something they had not already planned on doing this year.  He said he wanted to make sure that everyone understood the City staff had been incredible in bringing the City Commission up to speed along with all the great e-mails and conversations he had with people.  He said with the information provided, he was able to come to some quick conclusions and he was comfortable with how the ordinance was written and the way it would be administered by the City.

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

Carl Burkhead, Lawrence, spoke against the proposed ordinance.  He said he submitted his concerns to the City Commission via e-mail, and was only going to talk about the ones he thought were most significant as far as their considerations.  He said item three on his list read that although there was no blood or other related disease identifying test for potential gay partners, there should be such a requirement for the consideration of legalized gay partnerships by the City.  This was because of the higher incidence of HIV/AIDS with the gay community state wide.  He said as a personal note, when he ran for the City Commission in 1995, about 85% of the HIV/AIDS death in Kansas were due to men having sex with men.  That data was based on KDHE mortality information, which was not now as readily available despite the advent of the Internet.  Such tests had identified those that had the potential to spread that disease and other sexually transmitted diseases.  Requiring the test should eliminate the legal recognition of those couples as partners who tested positive if the ordinance was passed.  Of course those who were affected would not need to seek a City partnership which was another significant problem.  He said the promotion of the gay lifestyle by a gay registry without the safeguards could lead to significant community health problems affecting health and life issues for every citizen.  He said they should recall the recent case involving the Lawrence man with HIV/AIDS who had sex with several women.  Actually, this episode should prompt health officials and government leaders at every level of government to consider mandatory tests for such individuals, both registered and unregistered infected persons since the rest of the population was at risk.

He said as a technical issue, the proposed ordinance indicated a waiting period of 90 days for the dissolution of a gay partnership did not speak well of a committed relationship as required by the proposed ordinance.  An indefinite duration was ambiguous; at least most marriages were intended to last until death, although it was recognized that about half of legalized marriages did not last that long.

He said the City Clerk accounted for a number of gays registered in other cities, but they did not report on the number of dissolutions and other data related to the dissolutions.  That data could include information about the length of the partnerships, causes of the dissolution similar to that required for legal basis for divorce and the recording of divorce information for legal marriages and divorces; for example incompatibility, adultery and so on.  If the gay partnership data did not exist or was limited, perhaps the City should keep records to validate the reasons for the dissolutions in an attempt to preserve the partnership in case the ordinance was approved. 

John McFarland spoke against the proposed ordinance.  He said he was a local resident, a Christian pastor, a counselor at Advocate Pregnancy Services, and the Secretary of the Lawrence Association of Evangelicals, even though he was not speaking for that group at this time.  He said let there be no question that no matter what the nomenclature was, all efforts to have DPR since 1985 in West Hollywood, this was about putting a stamp of approval upon a sexual lifestyle.  He said he was speaking against the ordinance because it was likely to hurt other segments of the community as well. 

He said opposite sex pairs would also have the privilege of signing up.  He said one would think there were enough co-habiting relationships averaging less than five years and providing a poor foundation for children who came into those shaky homes.  As a counselor at Advocate Pregnancy Services, he regularly saw desperate young women just learning they were pregnant, kind of living with their parents or a boyfriend and that boyfriend who was reconsidering the relationship at that moment.  He said that girl was scrambling around town looking for any help and he was glad she came to them, but was sorry that she needed to do so and sorry the feeling of quickening life within her was bringing fear instead of joy and that her life was going to be pretty tough for everyone in the next 20 years. 

He asked if they wanted to make it more likely that they, by nature selfish people, would opt for the low commitment high benefit union called a domestic partnership instead of the marriage union, all studies showed it was better, by far, for their youngest and neediest citizens.  Hilary Rodham Clinton wrote, “Every society requires a critical mass of families that fit the traditional ideal, both to meet the needs of most children and to serve as a model for other adults raising children in difficult settings.  They were at risk of losing that critical mass in America today.”  Simply put by decreasing the benefits which came uniquely to traditional marriages, they increased the likelihood that people would not choose to sacrifice for the good of others by entering into the best, most demanding and most enduring human relationships.  He said in France, civil solidarity pacts were created for homosexuals so that they could file joint tax returns, receive welfare and unemployment benefits and other things.  The arrangement, of course, was made available to everyone.  Because those pacts were easier to enter and exit and they imposed fewer legal obligations, many heterosexual couples entered into those pacts rather than getting married.  He asked the City Commission to vote against this issue.

Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence, on behalf of the Grass Roots Action, said they supported the domestic partner registration.  In a country that promised equal opportunity, it was time they actually provide equal opportunity.  They believed that married or unmarried domestic partners in committed relationships should have equal access to health insurance, the right to visit partners in intensive care as family members.  As of March 2006, 49% of the Fortune 500 companies offered health benefits to their employees’ domestic partners.  Employers faced challenges when relocating employees from a state or a city with same sex partner recognition to a state or a city that actively limited legal status of same sex partners.  If the City Commission wanted to bring jobs to Lawrence, they needed to assure these companies they acknowledged domestic partnership and care about equality and a high quality of life for all employees.  Lawrence needed to be a welcoming community, not a barrier to employers who wished to provide domestic partner health benefits.  It was time to truly have equal rights for everyone and provide a better place for companies to settle. 

Hilda Enoch, Lawrence, thanked the Commission for listening to the people and trying to be as fair as possible to all of the citizens who lived in this community and thanked them for what would probably be a vote they could all be proud of. 

Janet Majure, speaking on behalf of Mainstream Coalition, said Mainstream’s main purpose was to promote and defend the separation of church and state and she wanted to reiterate something that Commissioner Chestnut said, which was it was a civic decision, not a faith decision, and in supporting it they were supporting the city stated mission to provide excellent City services and the values on the website talked about fairness.  She thought it was a fair ordinance and appreciated whatever support the City Commission could give it. 

Forrest Swall, said as a member of PFLAG (Parents, Families, Friends of Lesbian, Gays, and Transgender), he and his wife wanted to thank the Commission for creating this opportunity to talk to them about a matter that impacted not only several hundred Lawrence citizens who happened to be gay and lesbian, but also on a number of heterosexual couples who lived together as domestic partners.  He said they were parents of three children who grew up mostly in Lawrence, graduated from the public schools as well as the university. They were proud of their children, now adults with families of their own and living and working in their respective communities.  Their daughter, Tara, their middle child, happened to be lesbian and had been in a beautiful relationship with her companion Casey for 22 years.  Her partner was an educator as well and might consider relocating to Lawrence sometime in the future.  This proposed ordinance could well make a difference in their decision.  He said their relationship was not unique.  There were even a larger number of citizens in Lawrence who would be impacted with the establishment of a domestic partner registry.  That broader number included family members, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, children, siblings and close friends.  Everyone in the room had acquaintances and family members, sons or daughters, siblings, close relatives or friends who were gay or lesbian living together in domestic partner relationships.  He said they probably have older relatives as well as friends who were likewise living in valued partner relationships.  He said he and his wife were present to represent the hundreds of parents, family members and friends living in this community who would find the creation of a domestic partner registry of value to their children and families and friends numbering in the thousands who knew first hand of the importance of this modest act of consideration.  He said he and wife were present speaking on behalf of a large, relatively hidden part of this community, who yearn for an expression of justice and fairness for their own children, their family members and their friends, for those remarkable citizens of Lawrence who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered as well as straight.

Paula Schumacker, League of Women’s Voters, said they had fought since 1920 to make democracy work for all citizens.  She said they did this at the local, state and national levels.  There were Leagues in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Hong Kong.  Regarding a domestic partnership registry, the local League of Women Voters fully supported the national position on social policy, equal opportunity, which read in part, “The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the Federal Government shares with other levels of government the responsibility to provide equal opportunity for education, employment, and housing for all persons in the United States regardless of their race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation or disability.”  In a nutshell, all levels of government should do what they could to promote equality.  She said they also believed that government programs should be well thought out, economically feasible, and accountable.  While there were structure and cost issues to be worked out on the proposed domestic partnership registry, the local League of Women Voters believed those could be resolved and that the net benefits of the registry would improve democracy.  The League of Women Voters of Lawrence, Douglas County firmly supported the proposed domestic partnership registry for the City of Lawrence.   

Kelly Barth, Lawrence, said the City Commission could rest assured that in coming to speak on this issue, she was not seeking City Commission approval or blessing of her relationship.  She said she and her partner, Lisa Grossman, were domestically registered in their hearts.  For the past 10 years they have shared each other’s successes and failures, hopes and dreams, shared meals, paid bills, nursed each other back to health.  She said it was not her job as a citizen of Lawrence to assuage any personal discomfort caused by the reality of her relationship and it was not the City Commission’s job to tell her whether or not her life was correct.  It was the City Commission’s job to ensure that citizens were treated fairly and equitably.  She asked the City Commission to approve the domestic partnership registry in Lawrence.  

David Reynolds, Lawrence, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance.  He said he submitted previous comments and did not plan to amplify on those comments.  He asked Commissioner Highberger that he did not understand what he said when Commissioner Highberger approved it, but he talked about existing Lawrence businesses and insurance.  He asked if Commissioner Highberger was stating he preferred this ordinance require that local businesses provide insurance.

Commissioner Highberger said he was going to ask legal counsel if they could have the registry apply to people who worked for Lawrence businesses to make people who were employees of local businesses eligible to sign up.  He said it looked like under the Attorney General’s recommendation, if the City followed that recommendation, the City would need to limit the registry to people who resided in Lawrence.  He said his question for counsel was could they make eligible for the registry people who were employed by employers who were located in Lawrence, but do not live in Lawrence.  He said he was not talking about requiring anyone to provide anything.

Reynolds said he believed the domestic partner registry could have a negative impact on the economic development requirements.  He said the reason was that through this registry, it would create a situation where companies could be forced to provide insurance and possibly other benefits which would increase the costs because normally those companies would not be required to provide them.  He said if the Commission was saying they wanted someone to be insured that was living outside the city limits of Lawrence, the Commission would be forcing an arbitrary requirement that they might or might not otherwise want to do.  He said additionally, because of the precedent this would set, it would not only affect the company’s Lawrence based operation, but because of what went on in internal communications, it could spill over to other operations outside of Lawrence.  He said it was another reason for companies to eliminate Lawrence from consideration.  Lawrence was already facing huge public relations issues in the area of economic development and it would really not need to overcome any more hurdles.

He said there was a lot of conversation regarding this ordinance had nothing to do with creating legal rights.  It had everything to do with creating rights that were going to be gained and/or pushed thus really the concern was not whether or not this ordinance granted specific rights.  They were already talking about the reach of the program and the right to be insured and providing benefits.  By definition, the reach of this ordinance started to create issues.

Sylvie Ruth said she was speaking on behalf of Sylvia Stone, who died a few years ago because she was lesbian.  She did not have health insurance, was working two part time jobs, a total of 60 hours a week.  Her partner, Allison, did have a full time job and had she been in a heterosexual marriage, she would have been able to be covered under her health insurance.  When Sylvia got sick with a cold, she could not go to the doctor because she could not afford it.  When the cold developed into pneumonia she was reluctant to go to the doctor.  When it finally landed her in the hospital, it was three weeks before she died.  The interventions cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  If they were worried about the cost, the hospitals ended up incurring huge costs to cover her care.  Those costs were spread over the community instead of the insurance companies.  The costs were her life, her partner ended up losing the house they bought together because it forced the sale of the house to cover the hospital costs, and they all lost a good friend.  All of the things they heard about happened during that time and in order for Allison to visit her partner, she had to have the consent of Sylvia’s family.  Had some members of her family been there, she might not have had the consent.   Allison was not able to primarily put on the funeral that Sylvia would have wanted because her parents, sisters and brothers had first say.  It covered over to other areas of their lives.  She said she could not say why Sylvia had to die at age 43, but maybe the reason was so she could come and talk about her. 

Ray Mehl, Lawrence, said he had some concerns about this proposed ordinance.  He said he did not represent any right wing conservative organization and did not represent any religious organization, even though he did attend church.  He said he had compassion on anyone seeking health insurance for any reason.  He thought everyone should be covered one way or another.  He said he would like to look at this ordinance from a different angle and one that had not been talked about, which was from the angle of the traditional family.  He said what would be caused by passing this ordinance in the manner it was written would be further erosion of the traditional family.  They would be starting a precedent in Lawrence which would affect many families emotionally. 

He said he was for anyone obtaining insurance however they could, however he did not see why they needed to approach it in this manner.  He said there were loopholes in the ordinance and thought the City opened itself for litigation down the road and appreciated what Commissioner Chestnut said about accepting the ordinance as it was written, but he thought there was going to be a way the agenda was being pushed was going to seek gaps in the windows and would open the door for other things coming down the road.  He saw the city was not only going to be hurt by this ordinance, but the City would find lawsuits and further litigation down the road.  He said he thought he represented a lot of families in the city that appreciated the traditional values that families have. 

Sharon Ashworth spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.  She said the family values issue came up so she had to say that she was a heterosexual, was married and was a mom.  She was at a loss to explain to her young daughter that while they lived in the United States of America, a country that prided itself in demanding equal treatment before the law and equal rights, however there were some people in this society that essentially did not count.  She said she would be at a loss to provide any rational argument why this was so, but at least if they passed the domestic registry, she would be able to tell her daughter that she lived in a city that at least gave some measure of recognition and respect to all the families that she saw living around her, people that she simply thought of as their families, friends and neighbors. 

Diane Silver, spoke in support of the proposed domestic registry.  She said she was a freelance writer and a blogger.  She said she was there to talk about her personal experience.  She was very blessed to have a wonderful family, she and her life partner were together for 7 years and raising a child together, and as could happen to every family, her partner became ill and died of breast cancer.  She said like any widow, she faced many hardships.  She had to figure out how to raise a child alone suddenly, which was not easy.  She had to figure out how to deal with all the money issues.  One of the things that came up that was particularly difficult was an insurance company for a while refused to deal with her because they said it was a housekeeper situation.  She said what they meant by that was that she was the housekeeper who had moved in to take care of her and then take all of her money.  She said the really horrible thing about it was she had no legal way to prove that she was not.  She asked how she would prove it if society said they could not get registered, they could not get married, they could not get anything.  She said luckily her lawyer, David Brown, was able to help a lot and they were able to win that fight, but only for one reason, because she was an activist with her partner and were on TV.  If they had not been in that situation, they would not have won that fight.  She said that was why she supported the registry; it was the right and fair thing to do. 

Reverend Peter Luckey spoke in favor of the domestic partner registry.  He said a registry would provide for accessibility for same sex people to be with their loved ones at a critical time of their life.  In short, he thought it was the right thing to do, it was decent, it was humane, it was good for Lawrence, and it was good for humanity.  He said he was very much in favor of the domestic partner registry. 

Mike Rundle, Lawrence, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.  He said he thought it was very important to accord the proper respect due to those who found this and other proposals in conflict with Christian values and teachings.  He said it brought to mind that he was much honored to receive the support of citizens from other religious backgrounds and among his most moving experiences as an elected official included events such as those in celebrating Hindu traditions and Native American traditions.  He said it brought him to the general reminder that they agreed as Americans to follow American values that he believed were as sacred as any personal religious piece any of them might have.  American democratic values were encompassing rather than exclusive and thought that it was a proposal that followed on that vein.  He said they were difficult decisions and best made when they were all joining in the discussion and trust their elected officials would weigh the information carefully and make a good decision.  

Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.  She said she was not sure if she would feel compelled to speak to this issue tonight or not, but after hearing some of the public comment she did want to say a little bit from her perspective as a member of the faith community.  She said she had been reading a very interesting book by the author of the name Chris Hedges and a passage stood out the other evening as she was reading it and wanted to share it.  It said, “Democracy was not the enemy of faith.  Democracy keeps religious faith in the private sphere, ensuring that all believers had an equal measure of protection and practice mutual tolerance.  Democracy set no religious ideal, it simply ensures co existence.  It permits the individual to avoid being subsumed by the crowd which seeks to tell all citizens what to believe, how to behave and how to speak.  The call to obliterate the public and the private wall that keeps faith the prerogative of the individual means the obliteration of democracy.”  She said she thought that context could apply here tonight and especially wanted to thank Commissioner Chestnut for explaining where he stood on the issue from his faith perspective and also from his public servant perspective.  She said that was very helpful for her to hear that and really appreciated it and applauded him for the decision that he had made and how he saw that issue.  She hoped that the other Commissioners were struggling with the issue, too, they could take the concept that it was really not a faith issue or religious issue and was a service that she thought would be fabulous for Lawrence to provide so many of its citizens. 

Maggie Childs, Chair, Lawrence/Douglas County Chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.  She said the ordinance was very carefully crafted to not require anyone to do anything.  It would only make it easier for current employees to access benefits already offered by certain private companies.  A registry might help only a few people in ways that might be unpredictable.  In those cases, the potential the registry had to help was very profound. 

She said if examining data from states and countries that have instituted same sex marriage, which was not what they were doing, but some people saw those as a continuum.  She said heterosexual traditional marriage rates had been going up in places that had begun to recognize same sex partnerships and she thought it was because if people register as partners or sign up for civil unions or whatever the format might be, they were indicating that they wanted to make a public commitment which was saying those people value long term public commitment which was what a marriage was.  She said she thought in the 21^st Century the traditional system of marriage was one size that did not fit everyone anymore.  There were older couples that would lose social security benefits if they married, there were people who had other financial reasons who could get married legally, but chose not to for certain financial reasons and this would give them a way to indicate they had an enduring, emotional, financial commitment to each other.  She said she also wanted to say she was working for Universal Health Care in which case they would not need a registry for a lot of people, but for the moment it would increase the number of people who could easily access benefits that were already out there. 

Steve Maceli, Lawrence, said there was a saying that you get what you paid for and this could be applied to so many situations, especially the quality of employees a business hires and attempted to retain.  As a business owner, he made a concerted effort to increase the benefits for his full time employees because he knew it was directly related to job performance, job satisfaction, and ultimately the quality of the product the company produces.  Two years ago his business advisor recommended that he accumulate three months operating expenses before he started offering health insurance.  In the meantime, some of his employees without health insurance could have gotten sick or had an accident.  He decided to get health insurance anyway.  His employees knew he was doing the best for them and in turn they tried to do the best for him.  He was proud to say that Maceli’s paid 100% of their monthly health premiums.  Looking outside Lawrence for models of good HR policy was easy; simply look at the Fortune 500 companies that employed millions of people.  It already been mentioned that 268 of the Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits to their employees.  Although few of those companies have headquarters in Kansas, most have branches, stores or offices.  Office Depot, Home Depot, JC Penney’s, Sears, Radio Shack, CBS, UPS, US Bank, Target, Nationwide, Gap, AT&T, Countrywide, Conoco Phillips, City Group, Blockbuster, Borders, Best Buy, American Farm Insurance, Allstate, Starbucks, McDonalds, H&R Block, and Ford Motor Company all offer domestic partner benefits to their employees.  US Bank, which had a highly visible branch on Massachusetts Street and also across the street from the Capitol in Topeka, offered domestic partner benefits.  He said on page two of the employee handbook, one found a note on terminology.  The term partner referred to a domestic partnership which was defined as an ongoing and committed spouse-like relationship between advocates of the same or opposite gender.  On page two it showed how highly a company valued its families.  He said Maceli’s inspired to do the same and he was inspired to do the same.  The establishment of domestic partner registry was recognition of what was happening both nationally and locally in the business community.  It was his goal to include domestic partners in his employees under Maceli’s health care umbrella.  Presently, of the 12 full time employees that work for him, three were in long term committed relationships, but not legally married.  That was 25% of his full time employees and they were all heterosexual.  He said this simple, random sample demonstrated it was not just a gay issue.  He said he would bet there were far more opposite sex couples living as domestic partners than same sex.  All they had to do was open their eyes and look around their work places. 

Commissioner Highberger said he wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding.  The ordinance they were considering did not require any business to do anything and he thought as Maceli pointed out, there were a lot of businesses that wanted to give benefits to partners of their employers, but for various reasons needed some sort of proof of that relationship and this ordinance would help.  He said he thought it could be good for economic development because it showed those companies at that place that they agreed with those companies and wanted to help provide good benefits to their partners.  

He said he did not understand how this ordinance would hurt anyone’s marriage.  It gave more people the opportunity to express their committed relationships.  He said he did not understand that concept and he would be happy to discuss that issue.  

He asked Toni Wheeler, Legal Services Director, about the employment issue.

Toni Wheeler, Director of Legal Services, said the Attorney General did recommend in the opinion that in order to stave off a challenge, the City might want to consider a residency requirement that would limit the registration to the City of Lawrence.  He said Commissioner Highberger, as she understood it, wanted to know whether they could broaden that to extend to employers that might have employees outside the City of Lawrence. 

Wheeler said the Home Rule Amendment said that a governing body had the right to pass ordinances that determine the local affairs, so that was the limiting language.  She said from a drafter’s standpoint, she would want to know whether that would apply to employers such as Wal-Mart that had a national presence.  She asked if it was the Commission’s intent to extend it to any employee of Wal-Mart that could register in the City of Lawrence.

Commissioner Highberger said it would be employees of people physically located in the City of Lawrence, so it would be local Wal-Mart employees.

Wheeler said she thought an argument could be made that was a local concern if it was limited in that way and not open to nationwide Wal-Mart employees.  She said she thought that could be done, but as the Attorney General pointed out, this had not been litigated and had not been a Kansas appeals court that had looked at those issues and that court might find that was beyond the Home Rule authority of the City.

Mayor Hack asked if it would be Wheeler’s recommendation for the City Commission to consider the ordinance as written and perhaps ask for an additional opinion on Commissioner Highberger’s question rather than putting it in and perhaps having to negate the entire process.

Wheeler said that would be the mechanism to move it forward and go forward with the ordinance as it had been drafted and reviewed by the Attorney General. 

Vice Mayor Dever asked if the Commission investigated it, what would be the process.

Mayor Hack said they could amend the ordinance.

Vice Mayor Dever asked if they would vote on the amendment.

Mayor Hack said if it would be the will of the Commission to add it as an amendment to the ordinance.  They could then amend the ordinance.

Commissioner Chestnut said he appreciated all of the public comments.  He said he did not think this was a church/state issue, but an ordinance that was very strictly defined for cost and benefit.  He said clearly there was a great divergence of opinion about the broader social issues that were implicated.  He said he wanted to restate from his standpoint he made fairly clear they could guess some of his opinions on some broader issues, but was really trying to be a very literal constructionist on what the issues were now and that was where he was declaring his support.

Commissioner Highberger said it was his understanding under state law, they would not be legally allowed to extend benefits to same sex partners.  He asked if that was a correct interpretation.

David Corliss, City Manager, said he did not know if staff had investigated it since the adoption of the amendment.  He said the way they looked at it in the past, they had that ability.  He asked if Commissioner Highberger meant for City employees.

Commissioner Highberger said yes.

Corliss said it had been a while since they looked at it.  He said staff had not been asked to look at it recently.

Commissioner Highberger said he thought they could settle that issue.

Mayor Hack said the Commission could look at the ordinance and perhaps receive a report from staff about implementation and she thought they needed to have some general agreement if they were thinking about online registration, assuming it passed.  She asked if they were in support of online registration and dissolution of the partnership.

Commissioner Chestnut said he was in favor of the process that was recommended for expedience for both the City and for citizens because with the online access, a person could register whenever they wanted.

Mayor Hack asked if his pleasure would be to include that in the vote.  She said they talked about August 1^st for implementation.

Corliss said staff needed to draft the forms, asking all the correct questions that would comply with the ordinance along with making the form simple and straight forward which would take about 45 days.  If it was the Commission’s will to proceed with the ordinance, staff would make a priority to work on that form.  He said the ordinance would be place on first reading at the City Commission’s June 12^th meeting and following the next week with second reading, but August 1^st, would be the effective date.  He said they would be working with the online segment as well so it could be quickly posted. 

He said staff wanted to make sure that City employees were all on the same page when answering questions.  He said the City did not have a department for this function, but thought it was appropriately housed in the City Clerk’s Office.  He said the time frame was pretty aggressive to an extent, but also reasonable to the desire to get this ordinance implemented. 

Corliss said a residency requirement would be added to the draft ordinance.

Vice Mayor Dever said he wanted to make sure of the residency requirement because he did not want to be part of creating something that was going to have any legal implications in deference to the State of Kansas with the Attorney General.  He said he wanted to make sure to identify the fees that were associated with the domestic registry, in light of the City’s budget constraints.

Commissioner Chestnut asked if staff was looking into home rule as far as the people who work in Lawrence, but did not reside in the City of Lawrence.  He asked if staff was going to pursue that issue with the Attorney General to see if it came up as a separate amendment.

Corliss said if the Attorney General was able to provide the City with an opinion, the Commission would see that opinion plus a draft ordinance.         

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack           , to direct staff to place an ordinance on first reading June 12, 2007, establishing a domestic partner registry to include a residency requirement.  Aye:  Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger.  Nay:  Amyx.  Motion carried.    (15)

The Commission took a 10 minute break at 8:55 and resumed the meeting at 9:05

Receive staff briefing 2007 Budget Issues

David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report.  He said in the past few week’s staff had been talking about the 2007 budget and the challenges in the 2007 budget and he wanted to highlight why staff was having that discussion.  He said in the 2006 budget staff did not meet the City’s sales tax projections and exceeded slightly the amount of expenditures over revenue that was budgeted in 2006.  He said staff had learned in the past few months that the City was unlikely to achieve the 2007 budgeted sales tax numbers by a little bit over one million dollars.  He said staff was hopeful that they were wrong, but it did not look like that was going to happen.  He said there were significant concerns particularly as gasoline prices seemed to be continued on the rise. 

Staff traditionally spent 97% of the City’s annual budget.  In light of the downturn in revenue, both the fund balance in 2007 and the sales tax projections indicate the City was not going to meet expected revenues.  Also, in talking to individual Commissioners about their concerns the City was substantially spending more than bringing in, he had been challenged to look at budgets only spending 94% of planned expenditures.  Essentially that $3.3 million figure was from a combination of only normally spending 97%, which was about $1.5 million and also it was projected if staff did not do anything in the budget to have expenditures over revenues of about $1.4 million.  He said both those numbers added up to a little bit over $3.3 million.  The 94% was exactly that number, but the 94% was simply a target the City Commission had asked staff to look at and what that would attempt to accomplish with the City’s budget. 

He said in response to those directions, he had stopped the hiring processes on a number of different positions which were outlined in the memorandum.  He said he was trying not to impact basic City services, but it would have an impact on their ability to provide service.  He said he already mentioned the challenges in Frank Reeb’s Department where they traditionally get a Management Assistant, an internship position that was able to help them out a lot.  Beth Frailey-Krishtalka who was now working in the Utility Department was in that position and was a position they were not going to fill along with a Personnel Specialist in the Administrative Services Department that would not be filled. 

The Human Relations Director position was one they were continuing to study, but did not have plans to fill that position given the budget considerations.  Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, was serving as the Interim Director, Toni Wheeler, the Legal Services Director was providing a lot of valuable legal support along with others in the Legal Department for those functions so they were able to continue the functions in that department. 

He said there had been a vacancy with Court Clerk II, a position in the Municipal Court.  Staff decided not to fill that position, which would be a challenge because one of the things they wanted to do was continue to provide excellent services in the Municipal Court, but did not want to hamper their ability to send out the notices and all those types of things from a revenue standpoint. 

The Parks and Recreation Director position had a number of qualified applicants and he advised that department they were not to proceed with hiring that position.  Ernie Shaw, Superintendent Recreation and Operations, was present to talk about impacts to the Parks and Recreation budget and Shaw had agreed to continue to serve in the interim position.  Shaw and all the other people working for him had a strong teamwork environment and their pledge not to have noticeable reductions in services because of that status. 

The Zoning Enforcement Officer position in Planning and Development Services Department, which was still the Neighborhood Resources Department, that position would be budgeted as one merged department.  They were not filling the Plans Examiner position, which was a recommendation from the Matrix Report.  He continued to think there was value in that position and there was not a lot of development activity, but they were working more to get more activity.  They would continue to look at that position and given the economic consideration, staff was not able to fill that position, unless the Commission directed him to do otherwise. 

He and Commissioner Chestnut were continuing to work on the City Auditor position and had done a first cut of the resumes and would continue to work on that position as well as the Assistant City Manager position, which would help staff in a lot of the transition areas as far as some of the department heads and other vacancies that would be in the City Manager’s Office. 

Regarding the Economic Development Programs Coordinator position, the best job description was found in his 2007 budget transmittal letter where he saw that position as someone who could help staff in reviewing economic development incentive applications that could help with the retail marketing analysis, the retention and attraction of retail in the downtown which could help the City with the Neighborhood Revitalization Act.  He was still going to make a recommendation and staff had a really good proposal for the downtown area and some of their targeted neighborhoods and would make a recommendation to proceed.  He said he did not know how he was going to staff it because it was going to be a staff intensive type of program but this person could help with some of the analysis in that area as well and take some of the responsibilities of monitoring of tax abatements or at least a good assistant to Reeb.  He said it might be better housed in a different position.  They might want more definition of that position as they proceeded on. 

Staff had sent letters to the outside agencies that their expenditures from the City would need to be reduced by 6% which was communicated to the Health Department as well.  They also met with Bruce Flanders, Library Director and Terry Liebold, a board member from the Lawrence Public Library because he wanted to make sure they all understood the library’s impact.  A separate mill levy for the library was established and it was not sales tax dependent.  The same amount of property tax dollars would be received in that fund as would otherwise by taking the amount of money transferred to the Library down 6%, it would increase their fund balance for 2008 and reduce property tax pressure on that fund.  They talked that through and were a unique situation and did not want it to be confused with other outside agencies.  He said one of the discussions that every Commission he ever worked for had an outside agency and what it meant and how they made that distinction and he anticipated they would have that discussion. 

One helpful area to discuss was some of the areas they were looking at for expenditure reductions and service impact.  He said staff would be looking at an 18 month budget and what would the rest of this year look like from expenditures and then on to 2008.  It did not do a lot of good to tell the Police Department to defer the equipment expenditures budgeted in 2007, when the Police Department had to have it in the first quarter of next year and the money was not budgeted for that year.  He said staff had to think through those consequences not only for 2007, but obviously for 2008 and it was particularly timely since this was now the time to build the 2008 budget.  He said one of the ways the City could reduce the 2007 expenditures was spend money out of the Equipment Reserve Fund or Capital Improvement Reserve Fund.  He said those were one time expenditures, and if those funds were not replenished, it could not be used as a base to build the 2008 budget.  He thought City staff had a lot of concerns about the positions he listed, but staff had the desire to work through that through the rest of the year. 

He said one of the major concerns which staff would discuss on June 12^th was the Transit Department.  The City had consistently reduced the Transit Mill Levy over time.  They increased it for 2007, but brought it down substantially living off of fund balance in the Transit Department.  The City could not sustain the existing Transit services with the current mill levy in Transit.  He did not know if it was ironic, but this was at a time where the City really wanted to provide transit services as an opportunity for the community given gas prices and talking about cutting back on transit services was counterintuitive.  He said staff would be challenged with that issue and the Commission would receive a number of clear options because there were multiple moving parts because if the contract was altered too much with MV Transportation, MV could reopen the contract.  As the Commission might know, in MV Transportation’s contract there was no fuel escalation clause, which had been greatly to the benefit of the City.  If the City reopened the contract, he was not sure MV would suggest that stay.  He said the City would be renegotiating the MV contract in the early part of 2008 because it expired in the end of 2008.  Staff was not prepared to make those decisions at this time, but would work to make decisions by the June 12^th meeting.  He said the City Commission would receive recommendations such as fare increases, but he did not think it was fair to the City Commission or the public to discuss fare increases which were essentially necessary to get through this year for some of the para-transit concerns and then think the City was out of the woods regarding transit, because the City would not be.  He said unless the City Commission wanted to increase the mill levy for transit, they would be talking about a service reduction in transit.      

He said some of the items looked at as possible areas of expenditure cuts were in the Police Department and Fire/Medical Department.  He said he wanted to be clear that everything was on the table with the exception of street maintenance unless the City Commission told him to look at cutting street maintenance which he wanted to discuss.  He was not recommending cutting any of the City’s contractual service for street maintenance.  They were looking at a number of economies in the Public Works Department, but their contractual services for street maintenance would not be cut.  He said the City could run it at 20 mills and 30 mills, and either one had consequences, but staff would do it with a strong, professional attitude and provide the best services staff could with the resources given.  One of the key things when looking at the general fund was personnel and when they looked at personnel they looked at the Police Department and Fire Department. 

One current activity by the Police Department was they were fairly deep into the active recruitment for a new Police Department Academy, but no one was hired or the City had not devoted money to buying uniforms.  There were opportunities in delaying the academy until 2008 which would save about $206,000 which staff was looking at that option.  He told the Commissioners if there were a place where he would probably add to the budget other than a wage adjustment would be something they would talk about in June and July and it would probably be personnel in the Police Department.  He said in his professional recommendation that was probably the area they were thinnest as far as staffing. 

He could not recommend without having some strong consultations with the school district that they would cut school crossing guards which from August to December would save the City $47,000.  He said he could not recommend that idea, but he was talking to Randy Weseman for the opportunity for the School District to share in the costs for school crossing guards and for school resource officers into next year’s budget, but not in 2007. 

Staff was also looking at the number of positions in the Fire/Medical Department and some of the requirements.  Again, it was very much heavily personnel driven, but if 6% was done to those departments he thought it was very difficult when they had personnel and basic municipal functions to maintain. 

The positions that he had looked at, most recently, had been positions that were more at the administrative side of government, although they were all providing City services.  They were looking at a number of their other items as well.  He said some of the larger items were included in the Parks and Recreation Department.  Ernie Shaw and Mark Hecker, and others in the Parks and Recreation Department had come up with a list of how to trim services.  He said there would be noticeable service reductions, like mowing.  There would also be a loss of some part time staff.  Staff was talking about some things at the swimming pool.  He said he wanted staff to explain why they were looking at those ideas.  He said the Parks and Recreation staff had some good arguments about why if cutting costs in the recreation side, do they cut costs on things that make the City money, essentially pay for themselves.  Whereas the swimming pool did not pay for itself and they wanted to continue to operate it. 

Staff was recommending the City completely eliminate their contingency.  That meant when the City received a request that was not budgeted, the answer would be to find the money elsewhere because that was how this type of issue was handled in the past when a group had come in and missed the City’s budget time, but sometimes the City had been able to find money from contingency.  The City paid a healthy chunk of the PlaceMakers expenditure last year and it was not budgeted, but staff was able to call together contingency funds. 

He said the transfer that was made to the Housing Trust Fund would be eliminated and staff was looking at other transfers in certain reserve funds that staff thought they could continue to operate.  There were certain statutory requirements, for example Worker’s Compensation in which certain guidelines needed to be met.  When looking at the list of possible expenditure reductions, staff was trying to give an idea of service impact and how the City could get by.  Regarding training opportunities, all the different budgets had been gone through and not as much training would be done or travel for training as done in the past. 

He said the capital outlay purchases could be delayed, but could not indefinitely defer.  He said that issue had been gone through when they talked about infrastructure. 

On June 4^th and 5^th, staff would be meeting regarding budget hearings.  The meeting would be sloppy because the budgets the departments submitted were not based on the fact those departments were now asked for a certain level of cuts.  Staff would be listening to the City Commission about priorities, both as to what the Commission wanted to work through this year and next year and then staff could finalize the cuts.  One of the issues that Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, was currently working on was going into the places where positions were frozen or affirmed staff wanted cut and essentially freezing that money. 

One issue of importance was to continue to maintain customer service outlook.  The City was not like other businesses and people in Lawrence could not shop and choose and go to a different City government, which meant the City had to perform with the right professional attitude.  In reading the City’s recent survey, the City received relatively good marks in that area and staff needed to keep those marks which meant the City needed highly motivated, well trained employees.  He said he would fight fairly aggressively for City employees because those employees were doing the work and he knew the Commission would join him as well.

He said if the City was fortunate with sales tax numbers and there was a continuing debate about how to forecast sales tax, he would forecast what the City had in 2006.  In the memorandums showed what the result would be if they were able to achieve 94% and 95% level of expenditures, keeping in mind if the City showed 95%, they were essentially telling everyone not to spend 94% because they could not land on a dime with those types of expenses that rolled in and out throughout the year.  

He said staff was up to the challenge and he had tried to be open with City employees about what was going on.  He said he had indicated that everything was on the table and staff would be responsive to City Commission direction. 

Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, said most of the issues were going to come from salary savings by doubling up and adjusting responsibilities.

Corliss said his plan was to listen to Commission comment and direction.  He said he wanted staff from Parks and Recreation to discuss the recreational fund and its special challenges.  He said staff was making cuts at this point, but he did not want to negate the opportunity for the department heads to talk to the City Commission in order for the Commission to see some of the consequences.  The Commission might have some better ideas.  He said he did not want to cut an expenditure this year and find out they did not want to cut that expenditure next year.            

Commissioner Amyx said he wanted to make a comment about Corliss and his staff.  He said he did not think people understood the situation that happened over the last year.  When the Commission tried to forecast and Corliss gave them everything needed to guess expenditures 18 months down the road, it was a tough call and City employees had done a good job at helping the Commission through that situation.

He said he made comment about present and past City Commissioners and anytime there had been important projects in this community, the Commission had always figured out a way to do those projects.  He said staff had made some solid recommendations on how the City could produce some savings to help the City get through this leaner time.

He said the City employees needed to understand they were the backbone of this organization.  He said the City would see things over the next couple of years pick up and things were going to be great, but the City was in a holding pattern for now.  He thanked City employees for their efforts and the recommendations that were made.

Commissioner Chestnut said he spent some time with Corliss and Van Saun about those issues and wanted to echo Commissioner Amyx’s comments.  He said he was very satisfied with the work that had been done to look at the opportunities to reduce some of those expenditures, but also what was at risk and what could be added back. He said the preliminary numbers given for 2006 was the first time the Commission saw those numbers and to put it in perspective to the public was if the City had the same deficit in 2006, the City would spend the fund balance down in three years to zero.  He said it was a dynamic the City had to get their arms around, but it had to be done responsibly and at a level of service the public had been used to expecting. 

Mayor Hack said she agreed.  She said when talking about the level of service, they were talking about the people who were providing those services.  She said this budget issue was not fun and no one would wish it on anyone. 

Commissioner Highberger said if looking at the 2006 numbers, the deficit spending looked pretty enormous, but for the most part that was a conscious effort.  If looking at the fund balance percentages from previous years, the fund balance was at a level that the previous Commission thought was excessive and that was also a conscious decision.  He said if he had his way that ending number would be a mill higher, but it was intentional and they were at a position where it could not done anymore. 

Commissioner Chestnut said he was not disagreeing and understood that it was a conscious decision.  He said unfortunately, that spending down of the fund balance had built itself into the infrastructure of the City and now they had to figure out how to scale it back a bit and that was the challenge. 

Mayor Hack said previously the fund balance was replenished because it was the combination of the City either not spending as much or the City took more funds in.  She said the City had more funds than needed, but the City spent those funds on legitimate issues however, with increased cost, not receiving that sales tax money and not having those balances replenished, placed the City in that situation.     

Commissioner Amyx said two years ago when the City Commission was going through the budget process and staff had worked hard along with the Commission in making recommendations, the mill levy had been reduced by half a mill and the majority of the Commission made a decision to go ahead and use fund balances to reduce the mill levy down by another mill without reducing expenditures.  He said regarding the savings of the one mill reduction by using the fund balances, he asked if this issue would have been an item on the agenda.

Corliss said it was not one mill, but one mill and a half.  He said there would be more property tax revenue, but would still have the same issues with sales tax.  There would also be a very significant issue the assessed valuation was not growing like it was in the past.  He said the City Commission would be having a different conversation, but a similar conversation as they tried to build the 2008 budget.  He said one other key issue was that in his discussions with the Commission, a majority of the Commission had stated raising the mill levy was not the first option to look at, but cutting expenditures and the consequences of that.  He said when they were building the 2007 budget they were knowledgeable about those issues.  There was not a challenge to look at the expenditure versus the mill levy at that time.

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

David Smith, speaking on behalf of Grassroots Action, said he was speaking to call the City Commission to delay any decision about the City Manager’s proposed cuts in human services until the public had time to properly review and discuss this proposal.  They have not yet had that time or that discussion.  In his opinion there were two essential issues, the first issue was the justification for the proposed cuts was a projection by the Finance Director that sales tax revenues would fall in the foreseeable future.  He said before proceeding to cut services on that basis, they were entitled to double check this projection.  Only if the projection was accurate was there a pressing need to discuss spending reductions.  The accuracy of the current projection was not self evident.  He said he formally called upon the City to share with all interested citizens, including independent experts, the data and analysis used by the Finance Director to compute the projections they were now considering.  The method used, time series regression analysis was well known to social scientists.  As a sociologist, he knew that an analysis of this kind could vary greatly in quality and accuracy.  Before making a vital decision that would deprive the public of valued services, they owe it to themselves to be sure they were right and there were many people on campus and elsewhere who were competent to decide that question.  He said they should reexamine the data to be certain the projections were accurate.  Only if that proved to be true, would the discussion of spending cuts be in order.

He said he was talking to a colleague who was a veteran of time series analysis and he confirmed what a lot of people in the field knew which was that time service multiple regressions were notoriously difficult to perform reliably.  It behooved them to have multiple eyes veteran experienced regression analysts to look at the data to make sure they were genuinely facing the crisis that was reported.

The second point was the issue of process.  The memorandum from the City Manager which the Commission was now considering was addressed to Commission just last Thursday.  That memo cited another memorandum from the Finance Director which had only been available since last Friday.  In other words, the community had significantly less than a week to hear about the proposed cuts, let alone consider the cuts carefully.  He said it was far from enough time to permit full democratic discussion.  The public service cuts proposed were serious and would affect many Lawrence citizens.  The least the City could do was to give those citizens enough time.  He proposed a minimum of 60 days, to review and discuss the facts and options.  Once cut, services were extremely hard to restore.  They were talking about basic human services affecting disadvantaged youth, library users, city employees, and many others.  Rushing to a decision would be a disservice to a great many people. 

He said he would like to reiterate he was calling for two things: first the City share all relevant data and analysis used to compute the projections they were discussing and second, if in fact, those projections were authenticated and proved to be valid in the eyes of a number of independent experts, that they proceed to a careful, deliberate discussion involving sustained public hearings and opportunities by the public to weigh in on priorities. 

Scott Heidner, President, Lawrence Humane Society Board of Directors, said on behalf of the Board he asked the City Commission to reconsider the proposed budget cuts for the Lawrence Humane Society.  He said he wanted to start by saying thank you for the funding received from the City and the hard work of the staff and employees, many of whom they worked with on almost a daily basis and to let the Commission know they also understood that the City Commission, as the City’s representatives, were in a difficult situation with revenues declining and so many needs and they were competing with many very deserving organizations for scarce funds.  He said he wanted to talk about the value the money given to the Humane Society brought to the City.  If there was ever a streamlined non profit organization, it was the Lawrence Humane Society.  He said Midge Grinstead, held their budget together on band aids and her own unpaid overtime for many years.  The value that came from the support given to the Humane Society was almost immeasurable.  A cut of this size, unfortunately, would leave them with no recourse but to cut services.  Their staff worked so hard and their volunteers, it was amazing and humbling to see how much time and blood, sweat and tears they put into the organization without pay.   

He said Grinstead was present to talk in more detail about their finances and possible proposed cuts, but the macro level of what they were facing, they had a building that was crumbling around them right now, they had an Executive Director that was already cramping a budget so tight that she repeatedly refused the modest pay increases they tried to give her, and they had no end in sight for the animals that need their care and attention on behalf of the City.  He said they would appreciate any efforts they could make to reconsider the proposed budget cuts. 

Midge Grinstead, Director of the Lawrence Humane Society, said when she returned back from Greensburg, she was shocked to see a letter from the City stating that their 2007 budget had been cut by almost $17,000, which meant July 1^st when the checks rolled out, she was $17,000 short.  She said normally, she would be up for a challenge, but they were in a $620,000 renovation required by the Kansas Animal Health Department now.  She raised half that money and the rest they would have to get a loan.  She expended all of her grants and everything she could on that project, so it became critical when looking at $17,000 which probably did not sound like a lot to everyone else. 

The City of Lawrence was responsible for 68% of all the dogs, 65% of all the cats that came into the facility.  They received funds at less than 1/3 of that when they were responsible for 2/3.  They have not asked for more money and try really hard.  She said she worked very hard to help and realized this was a moot point, but they had to come tonight and had to ask the City Commission to rethink their budget cut.  They helped an awful lot of people and were not just for animals and worked with more children than anyone else but the Lawrence School Board.  She said they did so many things for the community and that $17,000 had a huge impact.

Eric Schmitendorf, formerly of Lawrence, said when he lived in Lawrence he was living on Social Security Disability income and attending the University of Kansas.  He was a volunteer at the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center from 1986 – 1990.  He began attending KU in 1991 and attended full-time for one semester and part-time through 1996.  During his time at KU he was Vice President of KU Homeless Coalition, a student organization, which successfully undertook some very successful awareness raising activities during a couple of semesters then the organization faded away because prosperity was returning to Lawrence and the country as a whole and the homeless issue seemed to recede.  Right now in his personal opinion and gut feeling was that times were getting a little bit tougher and it was time to tighten their belts. 

Charitable organizations using private donations had taken over many of the social services “workload” of this community and many others.  He thought the history of Lawrence especially showed that neighbors, faith based organizations, churches, private charitable organizations, get together and help and manage their money more efficiently and effectively and get the help to the people who were not riding along on the system, but really need the services. 

Ernie Shaw, Interim Parks & Recreations Director, said the Parks general fund and Recreation actually make revenue.  In Recreation their revenue they generated out of fees and charges, whether those were for sporting events or facility rentals amounted to $1.4 and $1.5 million a year.  They received sales tax of about $1.4 million and of their $3.2 million was the property and etc.  Over the years their property tax and other things had gone down because of the sales tax and their ability to generate revenue.  In order to generate revenue, they had to have all their classes and hired between 300 and 400 part-time staff a year.  He said he thought they had almost $1 million worth of part time money to pay for staff from the pools to the special events, to the special population programs they offered.

The Parks side was their support and without those employees mowing fields, dragging fields, cleaning shelters, cleaning restrooms, their department could not generate the money on the other side.  He said when they started cutting, they tried to look at this issue in a business sense.  He said if anyone owned a business, they would look at things that did not generate revenue. 

He said in the summer with playgrounds they make about 50% back on those and charge about 70 cents an hour per child and they got lunch at a lot of sites.  What they tried to do was take programs where they could save money and hopefully not have the public feel they were saving money, and one idea was the pools.  Obviously, the pools had the most staff at the most time and the first thing they looked at was safety.  Whatever they did they had to be safe and stay within guidelines with their camps and playgrounds.  They had ratios they had to stay with staff and their pools they could not open a pool unless they had every station set.  At their pools they had something like $160 - $180 an hour at a pool to staff.  He said they looked at figures and over a number of years and found out that there were few people paying between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening to get in.  He said it probably would not affect revenue a lot and might be some inconvenient for the person that came in at 7:00 and wanted to swim at 9:00, but would have to come earlier to get their two hours in.  It was not a major impact and with the last recommendation, there was about $20,000 they could save.  They needed to save somewhere between $170,000 and $200,000 on the recreation side.  He said when they figured their budgets, they figured so many activities and figured staffing for all those activities and some of those activities might not be filled to have that activity so they would save money on those. 

In the Parks, money needed to be spent on mowing the grass because of the season, but not cutting the grass was easy since the last two or three years their department had not been able to buy mowers and those mowers were falling apart anyway. 

He said the pool was one of those things that was going to make an impact, but did not think people would notice it as much with an hour in the evening and some hours on the weekends once school was back into session there were very few people Monday through Friday that wanted to swim and on Saturday and Sunday they were recommending they were open from 1 – 6 and could still save some money.  A lot of their programs they could say they could cut an aerobics class, they would lose $500 and save a $10 an hour instructor, which did not make sense to do that, which was how the majority of their programs ran.

Jimmy Gibbs, Aquatic Manager, said it seemed like any time they looked at doing anything with the swimming pool it brought about most of the people in the community.  He said they really looked at a lot of their programs and looked at doing three things. 

First, was to reduce their expenditures, but when reducing their expenditures, they were looking at the times, the areas, and the programs that were going to cause the least amount of impact on the customers.  At the Aquatic Center, during the summertime in the evenings, they did not have a lot of people that came in the evenings which was an area that was looked at.  They could reduce their expenditure, just in staff, about $120 an hour.  Over the course of the summer one hour of the Outdoor Aquatic Center’s operations was the equivalency of $11,000.  One hour reduced their overall expenditures about $11,000 of the outdoor pool alone.  They looked at some places and knew that in aquatics a simple change of closing at 8:00 instead of 9:00 throughout the course of the summer could have a great impact on the level of expenditures while they were still not having a great impact upon their customers and still being able to provide services, which was what they were looking to do.  They knew that many of the other areas that were funded out of the recreation fund could not have that type of impact.  They could cancel an aerobics program or a special populations program where sometimes their entire budget, for an entire summer might be $25,000 or $30,000.  He said he could very easily make that amount up in a very short amount of time and still not impact their customers as much. 

Commissioner Highberger asked about the ending fund balance in the Recreation Fund for 2006 and the projected fund balance if those cuts were not made. 

Shaw said the outdoor pool opened on Saturday and staff was getting ready to sell passes and would like to move in a direction where people knew the pool hours. 

Mayor Hack asked if Shaw was asking for a pool decision this evening prior to Memorial Day.

Shaw said yes because staff needed to know if the issue of pool hours was going to be looked at because customers needed to know what hours they were buying pool passes for. 

Mayor Hack asked about the percentage of expenditures.

Ed Mullins, Finance Director, said staff was projecting 7.5%.

Commissioner Amyx asked if the savings was $20,000 over the season for one hour.

Shaw said they had some different options, but if closing that one hour, it amounted approximately to $16,000.

Gibbs said the one hour closing down at the outdoor pool was about $11,000 over the course of the summer.  If they were to combine both the indoor and outdoor aquatic centers, closing at 8:00 P.M. was saving approximately $16,000 which was up to a point when school went back into session.  He said when school went back into session, then the Outdoor Aquatic Center operated Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 1 – 9.  What was proposed was after school went back into session to just operate the outdoor aquatic center from 1-6 on Saturdays and Sundays through Labor Day.  He said they were still being able to provide service through that traditional summer season, Memorial Weekend through Labor Day and still have the ability to generate some revenue and provide service. 

Vice Mayor Dever asked if not operating on Friday was in that formula as well.

Gibbs said yes.  The total amount if shutting down at 8:00 P.M. at both facilities through the time school went back and after school went back operate Saturdays and Sundays only would be a cost savings of approximately $19,100 based on statistics in 2007.

Shaw said to go along with that, in 2006 by closing an hour they only generated $443 between 8:00 and 9:00 in 2006 for that time.  He said that was figured in the equation and for the Saturday and Sunday they would have generated about $1,300 in 2006 of revenue compared to the spending that they did. 

Corliss said the Parks and Recreation fund balance was still not inappropriate at the end of 2006.  He said he would not recommend it and the Commission would see a recommendation staff was working on as far as the pool fees for next year. 

Mayor Hack said she felt awkward making decisions that saved money here and there.  She said she appreciated any efforts, but she did not think that she was the one who should make that decision.  She said staff knew the pool and how it worked and the level of public service was something to consider as well. She said if it was Corliss’ thought to compress all the departmental issues and give the City Commission ideas for 2007/2008.  She said she wanted someone to comment on what Smith stated about sales tax dollars. 

Corliss said he had not had a chance to talk to Shaw and Gibb’s very much about their memo given all the other work in the last couple of days.  He said he wanted the Commission to get the benefit of the illustration staff had been working on.  He said he had not counted the days sufficiently enough to know that Parks and Recreation needed to know that information at this time, but should have figured that out since Memorial Day weekend was coming up.  The projections in the Recreation Fund showed a declining fund balance, but it was not something the City would not be able to live with in that fund because it had protections in other funds and they would be seeing some revenue increase recommendations as well for that fund.  He said he was alright with not proceeding with cutting hours from the pool. 

He said he wanted to get a sense from the Commission about some of the larger items such as the police recruit academy, but a decision did not need to be made at this time.  He said his plan for June 4^th and 5^th was to give some clear policy choices to make.  He said they were taking money out of the different budgets for travel, EGov, and salaries for the positions that were frozen and some of the other things that had been done.  He said they were proceeding with those things so staff could meet those targets the Commission illustrated and if staff was not able to, they would let the Commission know those consequences. 

Mayor Hack said she appreciated Shaw’s comments about needing the parks to provide the venue for the recreation activities that did make the City money.  She said often times they were looking for cuts as an automatic money saver when they were not.  She said she was not at all trying to diminish staff’s comments by saying she did not feel capable making that kind of decision because Parks and Recreation was in better shape with the cuts that were made than others.  She said with the pool staying open until 9:00 it was still light out and helped a lot of kids have something to do until 9:00 and stay out of law enforcement’s hands when they were in the pool.

Shaw said staff agreed 100% and their challenge was that $20,000.  He said Parks and Recreation had 10 different divisions and the pool was the likely place to pull that $20,000 from to reach their 5% to 6% goal.  He said if they had to take the $20,000 from any other division, it could not be done without completely wiping out a program. 

Corliss said he did not need any general direction on specific programs, but just the direction the Commission was asking staff to proceed.  He said he was asking the City Commission to help him find a budget that met what the City Commission wanted to end up with.  He said the Commission would hear about the needs from the different departments. 

Mayor Hack said ultimately, the City Manager was going to want City Commission input on the personnel issues such as filling vacant positions, input on the reduction to outside agencies, and the general fund expenditures.

Corliss said one of the reasons why he sent the letter to the outside agencies was because he wanted to let those agencies know as soon as possible the direction he thought he was under.  He said the Commission could obviously change that direction. He said he did not want the outside agencies to read about this issue in the newspaper and wanted the agencies to know about the dollar number. 

Commissioner Amyx said staff was on the right track and it was admirable that Corliss looked at everything from top to bottom.  He said Corliss carried out everything he asked to have done in looking at a 94% expenditure of the 2007 Budget.  He said he would recommend that on the 4^th and 5^th of June, information be provided to the Commission along with continuing to operate with the recommendations that were made to the City Commission.  He said he would not be surprised that collectively, as a group, the Commission might make a couple of political decisions.  He said he felt confident with staff’s recommendations to the City Commission.  He said if something was not currently done, there was no way the Commission could give the City Manager a directive to increase the mill levy next year or some other source of funding. 

Corliss said he did not disagree with that analysis.  The Commission would need to wrestle with what was the right mill levy level for the city organization.  He said he was going to strongly recommend to not reducing personnel in some of the City’s core functions. 

Commissioner Chestnut said he agreed with Commissioner Amyx.  He said a good job was done in coming up with a recommendation for 2007 which was an 18 month process.  He said based on receiving more detail, the Commission needed to reconsider putting back some things and look at other areas of consideration.  He said he would like to approach 2008 with making some revenue assumptions that were reasonable on sales tax and obviously they would come a lot closer on property tax because the assessed value growth could be predicted and see what could be done to operate inside that revenue stream without increasing the mill.  He said they needed to start talking about what was reasonable with the mill levy.  He said it was important to understand everything was moving in the right direction, including the 2007 Budget because it was projecting a smaller deficit than in 2006 and with this short fall, they were just trying to shore that up and go in the right direction which was the approach he would like to take..

Commissioner Highberger said he would agree and disagree somewhat.  He appreciated what Corliss had done and thought Corliss followed Commission direction, but he wanted to make sure they did not cut more than needed.  In looking at the projected fund balance for the cuts, there was still at 20% fund balance in the general fund which he thought was a very healthy fund balance which those fund balances were used as a cushion in the case of short falls.  He said he felt comfortable going down a little lower with the obvious understanding that the farther they went this year, the less cushion they had for the years after this. 

He said his main reservation was with the retroactive cutbacks on the outside agencies.  He said a lot of those agencies provided social services to people who were really in need.  He said a person called who was concerned the City was balancing the budget on the backs of the neediest people in the City which he shared that thought to some extent.  He said a number of those agencies built their budgets around amounts the City had committed.  He said if staff could reduce the reduction the City was asking for from those agencies somewhat, he would be happier. 

He said regarding cuts in positions, there was one position he would like to see moved forward which was the position of the Economic Development Coordinator.  He said if that position was implemented, it could pay for itself.  He said independent financial analysis on just one tax abatement or one economic development proposal that position could pay for it self for several years, for example the Berry Plastics abatement.  He said there was an initial proposal that was negotiated by the Chamber of Commerce.  He said the problem he saw in the whole process was the Chamber negotiated the package without any consideration of the City’s budgetary impacts and the Chamber brought the City a deal in which the City did not have a chance to have any independent analysis and then the Commission tried to hash it out in public meetings, which was not the place to hash out those abatements.  He thought it needed to be done before they got to that level.  He said with the Berry Plastics abatement, with some discussion, they were able to come up with another $120,000 for the school district that was not there before.  Unfortunately, that was discussed in public and if they could have an independent economic analysis before hand, the City could have negotiated that position and gotten the return for the City in a much smoother process.  He said one thing the City could get out of that position was better deals for the City’s economic development activity along with a smoother process. 

Mayor Hack said she would agree with Commissioner Highberger on some of the outside agency funding.  She said it was not an enormous segment of the City’s budget, but it was an enormous segment for the Lawrence Humane Society.  He said the Humane Society was in an odd situation in that a lot of the reason their numbers went up was in response to City ordinances about wandering dogs and cats.  It was hard to reconcile putting in an ordinance about vicious dogs and at the same time saying the City would not give the Humane Society as much funding as they had to implement that ordinance and she thought some of the programs for young people were vital.  She said in learning more about those agencies, a person leaned the values in terms of saving the City money in law enforcement and other expensive social services, but they could have that discussion as they looked at outside agencies. 

In terms of personnel, she did not want to get into an economic development conversation right now, but would respectfully disagree the City did not have the opportunity for independent analysis, particularly when it went to the University of Kansas.  She did think it was a collaborative partnership between the three entities and that deals were not brought to the City already completed.  She said the City had the ability for input, but that issue could be discussed on another day. 

She said she did like the job description for the Economic Programs Coordinator.  She said she liked the idea of looking at an analysis of the City’s incentives and tax abatements were one of several options and opportunities.  The Commission might decide they were too aggressive in some areas and not enough in others.  She thought they had some issues with the retail market, downtown retention, attraction of businesses and certainly the revitalization acts which were wonderful opportunities.  She said the City could keep that position very busy because those were all positive things that generated money.  She said it was wise to hold off on the other positions.  She said she wanted a more serious discussion about outside agencies. 

She said the School District was on a different fiscal situation than the City.  She said if the City waited to make that decision about School Resource Officers and Crossing Guards as being a shared responsibility, the School District was going to have its budget made and the City might not be able to capitalize on sharing that responsibility and the City needed to be more mindful of the School District’s budget cycle.  She said the WRAP Program (Working to Recognize Alternative Possibilities) was also the same way because the WRAP workers were hired for the academic year as opposed to the calendar year like the City’s budget. 

Commissioner Dever said he wanted to make sure the Commission addressed Smith’s comments about the veracity of their regression or non regression analysis.  He said it was important the City did not wait 60 days to figure out whether or not there was a problem because then they would be 60 days behind.  He thought it was important for people to look at the numbers and determine whether or not there was a problem.  He said he was quite sure they would come to the same conclusion which was the City was going to have an economic shortfall and he did not think anyone was glad or pushing this issue.  He said he thought it was important to address Smith’s questions because it shot to the question of why they were having that discussion and thought that needed to be addressed. 

He said he was not in favor of spending down the fund balance any further because the City was at a point of facing even more economic hardship and clearly, the mill levy did not need to be raised at this point in time.  He said the City needed to decrease their expenditures. 

He said he was also in favor of reevaluating outside agencies. 

Mayor Hack said she appreciated staff’s work to get everyone to this point because it was not easy. 

Corliss said he would have Ed Mullins, Finance Director, and others respond to Smith’s comments about sales tax.  He said Mullins memo noted the following: “Either method is defensible.  Neither method is good at projecting when a trend change will occur.“  He said all of this was based on history and forecasting forward.  He said the City did not know when the trends were going to change, such as gas or lousy weather in April meant that when they got that sales tax payment, they were not going to get a lot of things that were weather dependent such as automobile sales and those kinds of things.  He said the City could not predict a lot of those things on trends or the variables that happened. 

Commissioner Chestnut said he had done a lot of budgeting and with the data provided, he was confident the City was on solid ground as far as projecting the short fall.  He said there were two pieces, analysis piece and an intuitive piece.  The intuitive part said with gas prices and what the City’s economic situation looked like for the summer would have an affect.  He said to some extent, all of the regression analysis in the world, they could reasonably predict there would be some challenges in at least the short term.  He said what 2008 would look like was a whole other ball game. 

He said he also wanted to echo Vice Mayor Dever about starting now because he thought they were in a much better position to make reasonable and intelligent decisions about it instead of pursuing another 90 days or 120 days down the line and then looking at a pretty significant situation and had a lot less opportunity to have impact.  He thought considering it now would be more responsible and they would make better decisions.  He said if they were all not so good now in 60, 90 or 120 days from now, it was not like they stop collecting sales tax data if it reversed itself then they could also look at the upside and revisit some of the decisions.  He did not think they were precluded from doing that, but thought they should give clear direction now to shape themselves in a way that was really going to approximate where the City was going to be.

Corliss said he thought staff’s direction was the following: 1) Direct the Finance Director and others to comment on Smith’s budget analysis; 2) Pool hours would not be changed; 3) Continue to work on the items the Commission wanted to see some progress on as far as reductions to 94% of expenditures; and, 4) Meet with Department Heads to discuss the impacts in those departments and what those departments would be forecasting in 2008.

He said staff would talk about other items as well during that budget time, but he had not gotten direction on rescinding the letter he sent to outside agencies.  He said the letter stated the amount of the cut and directed staff to perform the internal controls to make sure the City did not pay those agencies, but it did not mean the City Commission could not release the money to those agencies.

Mullins said most of those payments were not scheduled to be made until July.

Mayor Hack said she would rather wait to make sure the issues concerning those agencies were fully discussed with the City Commission to allow those agencies to indicate the impact of that cut.

Commissioner Chestnut said effectively those agencies were working toward figuring out that short fall just as the City was.  He said the decision would probably be made before July 1 and guessed that it would be more like June 15^th because the Commission would be through their discussions.                                                                                                                   (16)

PUBLIC COMMENT:              None.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

05/29/07	●         City Commission meeting cancelled – 5^th Tuesday
06/05/07	●          City Commission meeting starts at 12:00 p.m. A light agenda is planned.  ●          Utility Revenue Bond Sale
06/12/07	●          Transit System Issues
TBD	●       Salvation Army Site Plan and Rezoning; ●       Retail Marketing Analysis Code provisions ●       Neighborhood Revitalization Act proposals for target neighborhoods and downtown; NRA policy statement ●       Special Use Permit information for Alcohol Establishments and Entertainment Venue Ordinance   ●      Adoption of Joint City Ordinance No. 8097, and County Resolution No. ____, to replace Chapter Seven – Industrial and Employment Related Land Use, in Horizon 2020  with a revised Chapter 7 entitled “Chapter 7 – Industrial and Employment Related Land Use in Horizon 2020, CPA-2004-02 Edition”, and repealing the existing chapter.

(17)

COMMISSION ITEMS:  None.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Dever, to adjourn at 10:50p.m. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                              

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Sue Hack, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 22, 2007

1. Bid – Comprehensive Housing Rehab, 2205 Learnard-bid exceeded program limit, 629 Missouri to T&J Holdings for $20,950 and 320 Crestline to Old Home Store for $17,605.

2. Contract – 2007 Chemical Root Control Program with Duke’s Root Control for $98,313.87. 

3. Rezoning – (Z-03-91-05) 4.883 acres, UR to RS7, S of 6^th & E of Stoneridge.

4. Rezoning – (Z-03-20-05 & Z-03-21-05), 11.4 acres, UR to PRD, S of 6^th and E of Stoneridge.

5. Ordinance No. 8109 – 1^st Read, towing & impound vehicles by LPD.

6. Ordinance No. 8111 – 1^st Read, unlawful hosting of minors consuming alcohol or CMB.

7. Ordinance No. 8105- 2^nd Read, (SUP-01-01-07) for Nextel Cellular Telecommunications Tower for 2101 Wakarusa Drive.

8. Text Amendments – (TA-01-01-07) Development Code.

9. Ordinance No. 8112 – 1^st Read, “No parking”, S side of Jordan Ln. & “no parking school days” W side of Oak Tree at Vantuyl 3:30 – 4:00 pm, Mon – Fri & 2:00 – 2:30 pm, on Wed. 

10. Amendment – Administrative Policy 101, Lawrence Wastewater Mgmt System Policy.

11. City Manager’s Report.

12. Ordinance No. 8106 – 1^st Read, Set max assess for Williamsburg Ct & Williamsburg Pl.

13. Resolution No. 6723 – Health care facilities revenue bonds not to exceed $28,000,000.

14. Traffic Calming Devices – 27^th Terr between Louisiana & Missouri, Maine between 7^th & 9^th, 18^th between New Hamp & Barker, pedestrian crossing 31^st near Harrison Ave, and pedestrian crossing 11^th at New Hamp.  

15. Domestic Registry ordinance.

16. 2007 Budget Issues. 

17. Future Agenda Items.