Meeting Information
-Convene
-Pledge of Allegiance
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) Consider approval of Commission Orders
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Consider proposed questions for a non-binding advisory referendum of Douglas County voters on the November 7, 2006 general election ballot (Craig Sundell)
(3) Other Business
(a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
(c) Miscellaneous
(d) Public Comment
(4) Adjourn
Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., September 20, 2006 with all members present. Jones made a motion that the Board go into executive session at 5:30 p.m. with Dave Corliss, Interim City Manager, David Schaumur and Sue Hack, City Commissioners, and Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, to discuss acquisition of property. Motion was seconded by Jones and it carried unanimously. The Board returned to regular session at 6:35 p.m. No action was taken.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
CONSENT AGENDA 09-20-06
Jones moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
► Approval of Commission Order No. 06-171; and
► Approval of letter to Jefferson County Commissioners regarding the Lecompton Bridge Project (see text of letter follows)
September 20, 2006
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County, Kansas
PO Box 321
Oskaloosa, Kansas 66066
The Douglas County Commission decided on Monday to move forward with the engineering design work for the Lecompton Bridge, under the closed bridge option, whether or not Jefferson County chooses to continue their participation in the project. We are concerned that, if the design work is delayed any longer, it would not be possible to complete the majority of the work requiring bridge closure over the summer months of 2007.
We feel that any further delay of this decision would create a greater inconvenience to the residents of Douglas and Jefferson Counties, by necessitating that more of the work requiring closure would occur during the school year. Even under "Keep the Bridge Open" option, the bridge would be closed more days during the school year with many intermittent closings, unless this decision is made now, so most of the closed bridge period will occur during the summer months. We have been informed that a decision by the Secretary of Transportation would take up to two months, moving the construction work requiring bridge closure (under either option) beyond the summer months.
A critical piece of information in our decision: leaving one lane open will require full closure of the bridge for 50 to 60 days scattered over the 320 day project in 5-day increments. These closures are required for concrete pours. There would be, at most, 72-hour notice of these closures (longer notice would mean extending the 320 day time frame). Because of this, we are relatively certain that keeping one lane open will actually spread the construction over a greater portion of the school year, with the bridge actually closed on more school days than would be the case under the option that we chose.
Specifically, our analysis shows that full closure would effect 33 school days in the summer months, when we have daylight savings and relatively good weather. Partial closure would effect 40 school days scattered over 320 days in darker months and more adverse weather. On the basis of fewer school days impacted and better driving conditions, we believe that full closure is the safer option.
Another key issue was possible project delay. The 320 day option - because it stretches across more weather seasons and is technically more complex - is more vulnerable to delay. That's not to say that the 140 day project is certain... just significantly less vulnerable.
We also discussed construction quality. Keeping one lane open requires a joint down the center of the bridge. Such joints carry the risk of becoming a long term maintenance problem. Everyone agreed that not having a joint poses less risk of maintenance problems and the best chance of extending the life of the bridge. We therefore unanimously agreed on Monday to proceed immediately with design work on this project. We understand that the Jefferson County Commissioners are then placed in a position of not agreeing with our decision, but it is our hope that you will still be a partner in the project.
When our two commissions met in June of 2005, we knew there would be the question of whether we should close the bridge or leave one lane open during construction. And, the question of painting the bridge as a part of the project was undecided. Both commissions signed a letter of agreement to participate in the funding on the project with costs split between the counties based on our relative assessed valuations at the time that the project starts. We also agreed that Douglas County would take the lead in planning and supervising the project. At no time during our meeting did any of us say or imply that we would not participate in the project if we could not reach a unanimous consent on every issue related to the bridge.
In the spirit of working together, we need the Jefferson County Commissioners to tell us how you are willing to be a partner in the completion of the Lecompton Bridge project:
1) Jefferson County agrees to pay its share (currently estimated to be 10.7%) of the total project, including a share of the financial incentives for early completion, without endorsing the Douglas County Commission's decision to close the bridge.
We prefer this option, because we feel it enables both commissions to meet our previous commitments. This option would also enable both commissions to place funding in detour safety improvement, and contractor incentives to complete the project as early as possible
2) Jefferson County limits their financial commitment to its share (estimated to be 10.7%) of the engineering design work, and pays nothing toward the actual construction cost.
We feel that the Jefferson County Commissioners are committed, at a minimum, to its share of the engineering design costs, based on our previous public discussions and agreement. However, if Jefferson County chooses this option, it will be impossible for Douglas County to build incentive payments into the contract in order to expedite the project.
3) Jefferson County limits their financial commitment to its share of the design work (estimated to be 10.7%), and agrees to fund 100% of any financial incentives that are provided in the contract for the contractor to expedite the project, and some portion of safety improvements along the detour routes.
Under this option, the Jefferson County Commissioners would be able to determine the amount of financial incentives, and the number of detour safety improvements that you would be willing to fund. It would not be necessary for you to approve our decision to close the bridge, but you would be able to help expedite the project, and minimize the length of time that the bridge was closed. Since you have identified a strong desire to minimize the length of time that the bridge was closed and the safety of the detours, this option would provide a means for you to pursue these objectives, in spite of the disagreement between our two commissions.
We assume that the painting portion of the project is not in question, as that will occur later, and can be done while the bridge is open to traffic. Whether of not the bridge is closed during construction, it was determined that removing the existing lead-based paint and repainting the superstructure is needed to maximize the life of the bridge. Under either construction option, re-painting would be done after opening the bridge to traffic. For any of the three above options, we would expect Jefferson County to contribute its share (estimated to be 10.7%) of the cost to repaint the steel superstructure.
The Douglas County Commission is committed to the safe completion of this project. Toward that end, we will take every action within our means and jurisdiction to enhance safety along the detour routes during bridge closure. We have already begun discussing improved signage and other traffic controls, increased law enforcement presence, and a meeting with KDOT to further consider safety enhancement for this project.
Obviously, there are collateral concerns such as impacts of bridge closure upon the Perry-Lecompton School District. The Douglas County Commission will look to the Jefferson County Commission to identify such concerns and recommend how they might best be mitigated during the project. To the extent that mitigating concerns and offering construction incentives involves additional funding, we expect Jefferson County to fund those efforts with an earmarked reinvestment of some of the $330K if it is withdrawn from this project.
We recognize that decisions such as this are difficult as both boards have had to balance: 1) the need to provide the safest possible bridge that will serve us for a long time, 2) the need to minimize the number of bridge closings, and 3) the need to keep costs as low as possible. This decision has forced us as elected officials to balance these needs. After much public discussion, and with every intent to abide by our previous agreements on this project, the majority of each board has chosen to balance these factors differently.
We encourage you to call any one of us if you have questions and we look forward to your response.
Bob Johnson Charles Jones Jere McElhaney
Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner
785-331-6884 785-218-1012 785-865-6038
Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
REFERENDUM 09-20-06
Craig Sundell, Chair for the political Action Committee, Kansas for Common Sense and Accountability (KCSA), led a discussion explaining why Douglas County should have a non-binding, advisory referendum placed on the November 7, 2006 voting ballot to include the issues of (1) completion of the South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT) along the 32nd Street corridor and (2) tax relief for senior citizens. Sundell expressed concern that State and Federal authorities may be confused about the City's and County's intensions on the SLT and believes a citizens' vote would accelerate the progress on this project. He also believes a local vote on property tax relief for senior citizens can have an impact on statewide relief. Sundell stated that a non-binding referendum establishes a base from which a gauge can be used to measure where people are on an issue. He believed that by initiating the discussion, the Kansas Legislature will be forced to look at these issues.
Jones stated these are important complex issues. However, the Douglas County Commission has no power to alter property taxes. Tax relief would fall under an amendment to the Kansas Constitution. The SLT would also fall under an amendment to the Constitution because we are seeking federal funding. If Douglas County were to pay for the improvements, property owners would see a mill levy increase of about 10 mills, or an approximate 33% increase in property taxes. Therefore, we must rely on federal funding. A vote on these two issues would not instill democracy, but rather would result in a sense of frustration and cynicism because there would be no empowerment with the vote. Johnson stated that no one is bound by the vote on these issues. It's a public opinion poll; he d s not support the idea of a referendum.
Johnson further stated, "However, I think we are creating an opportunity for you and your cause to get in front of the people. Therefore, I feel this discussion is worthwhile." McElhaney commented that a non-advisory referendum is a one time shot to get people to the polls. We are a representative form of government, and people shouldn't be showing up to vote on just a referendum. They should have the right to participate all year.
Johnson opened the issue for public comment.
Michael Caron, 315 Park Hill Terrace, Executive Director of Save the Wakarusa Wetlands, spoke in opposition of putting a non-advisory referendum regarding the SLT on the ballot.
Les Hannon, 5504 Plymouth Drive, discussed his experience in City planning and suggested the governing bodies in Lawrence and Douglas County develop a Master Plan for long-range planning to set parameters for roads and various structures being built.
Raylin Butler, Muskogee Creek Nation from Tulsa, OK, a junior at Haskell University, commented there are no easy solutions to these issues and she respects the Commissioners' and public's responses. Butler feels Haskell's presence is important to this community and d s not want the public to blame Haskell University for the delay on the SLT project.
Johnson closed the public comment. Sundell requested that the Board make a formal vote for public record.
Jones made a motion to respectfully deny the request to include a non-binding advisory referendum of Douglas County voters on the November 7, 2006 general election ballot. The motion was seconded by McElhaney and it carried unanimously.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 09-20-06
Jones moved to approve manual checks in the amounts of $70.00 be paid on 09/18/06, and $494.80 to be paid 09/20/06. Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS 09-20-06
The Board entertained questions from Megan Bracciano, a 9th grader at Southwest Junior High School, for a Biology project concerning the placement of the SLT through the wetlands.
Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting. Jones seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Bob Johnson, Chairman Jere McElhaney, Member
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Charles Jones, Member
Time and Date