Commission Board Meeting on Wed, February 18, 2015 - 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM


Meeting Information

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2015

4:00 p.m.

-Consider approval of the minutes for January 14 and January 28, 2015

CONSENT AGENDA

(1) (a)  Consider approval of Commission Orders;

(b)  Authorization to solicit bids for Project Nos. 2014-20 and 2014-68, the rehabilitation of Bridge Nos. 18.00N-11.24E and 18.58N-11.50E, which respectively carry Route 438 and Route 7 over Baldwin Creek (Keith Browning

REGULAR AGENDA

(2) Consider options for recycling service for residents in the unincorporated area of Douglas County (Leslie Herring)-backup to follow Monday

(3) Consider tire recycling event in the County (Tresa Carter)

(4) Public Hearing on petition to vacate water rights to pond constructed in 1934 located on 1.47 acres in the Southeast Quarter of Section 34,T 13 S, R 21 E (Chad Voigt)

(5) Consider Home Rule Resolution relinquishing water rights to pond located on 1.47 acres in the Southeast Quarter of Section 34,T 13 S, R 21 E (Chad Voigt)

(6) Consider rejection construction bids for Project No. 2013-18, deck replacement for Bridge No. 08.74N-07.95E, Route 1039 bridge over Washington Creek at Lone Star town (Chad Voigt)

(7) Executive Session for the purpose of consultation with County Counselor on matters, which would be deemed, privileged under the attorney-client relationship. The justification is to maintain attorney client privilege on a matter involving Douglas County.

(8) (a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)  

 (b) Appointments

 -Board of Zoning Appeal (1) eligible for reappointment 10/2014

 -Douglas County Senior Services Board of Directors (2) positions

 (c)  Public Comment

 (d)  Miscellaneous

RECESS

RECONVENE

6:00 p.m.

(9) Consider a request for a Neighborhood Revitalization Area (NRA) from Eldridge Hotel, LLC, for a 15-year, 95% rebate for the incremental tax revenues for the property at 705 Massachusetts Street to expand the existing Eldridge Hotel located next to the property parcel. (Britt Crum-Cano)

(10) Adjourn

February 18, 2015

Flory called the regular meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 with all members present.

MINUTES 02-18-15

Flory moved to approve the minutes of January 14 and January 28, 2015. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.

CONSENT AGENDA 02-18-15

Flory moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:

►  Commission Order Nos. 15-014 and 15-015 (on file in the office of the County Clerk); and

►  Authorization for Public Works to solicit bids for Project Nos. 2014-20 and 2014-68, the rehabilitation of Bridge Nos. 18.00N-11.24E and 18.58N-11.50E, which respectively carry Route 438 and Route 7 over Baldwin Creek.

Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.

PUBLIC HEARING 02-18-15

Flory moved to open a public hearing to accept public comment on a petition for vacation and release of right to use water from Water Conservation Reservoir located on 1.47 acres in the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 14 South, Range 21 E, owned by Robert I. and Sharon M. Finley; and then determine that the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience by the vacation and release of the Water Conservation Reservoir Right.

No public comment was received.

Flory moved to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.

The Board determined there would no loss or inconvenience to the public by the vacation.

Gaughan moved to grant the petition on vacate water rights to pond constructed in 1934, 1.47 acres in the southeast quarter of section 34, Township 13 south, Range 21 east. Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0.



RESOLUTION 02-18-15

Gaughan moved to approve Home Rule Resolution 15-2-1vacating and releasing right to use water from Water Conservation Reservoir. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.

RECYCLING 02-18-15

Leslie Herring, Management Intern, presented recycling options to the County Commissioner for residents in the unincorporated area of Douglas County. The closing of Wal-Mart’s recycling facility has created a dilemma for the unincorporated residents who have been using that location as their central recycling drop off.

Herring stated Hamm, Inc. has expressed interest in contracting with Douglas County to provide recycling service to residents in the unincorporated area. The estimated cost for four unmanned recycling sites is $20,000 capital outlay and $25,920 annual operating expenses. Herring stated if the County were to look at creating recycling sites throughout the County we would also have to consider extra charges related to picking up non-recyclable materials dumped at the sites.

Yolanda Hargett, Community Living Opportunities (CLO), stated CLO would be willing to consider running a drop site or adding an additional route to this current pickup at $20 per pickup plus $1 per mile from the Lawrence city limit. However, they would have to consider added staff and a vehicle. They primarily drop off their collections at Hamm, Inc.

There was discussion of contacting the school district to see if they were open to using a few of the school sites as drop-offs for the unincorporated area with the County sharing recycling costs.

Kathy Richardson, City of Lawrence solid Waste Division, said the City plans to continue servicing drop-off bins located in various City parking lots for corrugated cardboard and ripple glass. Plastics can be taken to the 12th & Haskell recycle facility. The City is getting calls from county residents about where they can take recycling. They are just not aware of their drop-off options. There is a search function on the City of Lawrence website that will provide that information.

Staff will continue to explore options. No action taken.

RECYLING EVENT 02-18-15

Tresa Carter, Sustainability Intern, presented the Board with a proposed tire recycling event for Douglas County for spring 2015. The County last held this event in 2000 and collected 30,000 tires. The sustainability team is concerned about the environmental effects of illegally dumped tires.

 

A grant application in the amount of $5,000 was submitted to Green Wish to help offsets costs, if funded. Recycling tires is expansive. Based on events from surrounding counties, a recycling even, depending on the amount of tires and number of events days could cost $33,000-$95,000. The sustainability team has volunteered to work the event. Public works has offered the old public works location as a site to host the event, and offered staff to assist. Champion Tire Recycling has been identified as a contractor to pick up the tires which will be recycled into something useful.

Thellman stated people can pay a fee when they buy new tires to have their old tires disposed of. However, she recently received an email from a Douglas County resident saying people were illegally dumping tires on his property and wanted to know what his options were for cleanup as paying for it himself would be expensive. Thellman said it would be interesting to explore what people might be willing to contribute if the County were to set an exchange program. She asked if the City has such a program.

Kathy Richardson, City of Lawrence solid Waste Division, said the City will pick up five tires per residence per year as part of the trash pickup.

It was discussed that historically there was state funding available when the County held the 2000 tire recycling event.  One direction could be to do a one-time event or the County could start budgeting to do an every two-year event knowing there would be a $40-$60K cost every time. Choosing to charge a fee would probably not make the event successful.

Doug Stephen, Public Works, suggested the County pickup the tires at the illegal dumpsites and absorb the cost.

It was the consensus of the Board for staff to explore more options and to put the item back on the agenda in 30 days for further discussion.

EXECUTIVE SESSION 02-18-15

At 5:00 p.m., Flory moved for the Board to recess to executive session for 20 minutes (until 5:20 p.m.) for the purpose of consultation with the County Counselor on matters, which would be deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship. The justification is to maintain attorney client privilege on a matter involving Douglas County. Attendees included Craig Weinaug, County Administrator; Sarah Plinsky, Assistant County Administrator; and Chris Berger, Steven’s and Brand, representing the County Counselor. Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0.

The Board returned to regular session 5:20 p.m.  No action was taken.

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 02-18-15

Flory moved to approve accounts payable in the amount of $2,207,372.49 to be paid on 02/19/15; and payroll for the following amounts and payout dates:

 7/11/2014           $903,662.77

 8/8/2014             $847,038.54

 8/22/2014           $855,720.95

 8/28/2014           $29,934.16

 9/19/2014           $897,828.96

 10/3/2014           $851,215.00

 10/17/2014         $842,116.82

 10/31/2014         $836,098.88

 11/14/2014         $941,463.54

 11/26/2014         $836,738.74

 12/1/2014           $41,853.39

 12/12/2014         $917,138.72

 12/24/2014         $854,310.84

 1/9/2015             $877,440.28

 1/23/2015           $872,180.39

 2/6/2015             $903,157.05

 2/6/2015             $3,787.39

Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.

APPOINTMENTS 02-18-15

Flory moved to approve the following appointments to the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Board: Judy Brynds, to fill the expired term of Ray David; Shaun Musick to fill the unexpired term of Carol Seager; and Sandy Praeger for a three-year term.

RECESS 02-18-15

At 5:26 p.m., the Board recessed until 6:00 p.m.

RECONVENE 02-18-15

At 6:00 p.m., the Board returned to regular session.

NRA/ELDRIDGE HOTEL 02-1815

The Board considered a request for a Neighborhood Revitalization Area (NRA) from Eldridge Hotel, LLC, for a 15-year, 95% rebate for the incremental tax revenues for the property at 705 Massachusetts Street. The goal is to expand the existing Eldridge Hotel located next to the property parcel. Britt Crum-Cano, Economic Development Coordinator, presented the item.

Nancy Longhurst, Eldridge Hotel and applicant, made a presentation to the Board. The project includes a $12.5 million expansion with 54 new hotel rooms, 50,000 square foot building on what is now a vacant lot. They expect to add 18 full-time positions. The Eldridge currently has 50 parking spaces in a private parking lot. The rest of the customers are expected to park in the area. Most of the clients arrive after hours when there is more downtown available parking. The applicant requests a 15-year, 95% rebate of the increased property taxes.

Crum-Cano stated she believes the project meets state and city NRA criteria. The base property taxes of the vacant lot are $4,922. Given the profit levels shown in the presentation on the cash flow analysis, it is reason to conclude the project would not proceed without public assistance. The project replaces an unproductive vacant lot of 42 years with productive space. It provides an opportunity to promote increased traffic to downtown Lawrence and supports the downtown infill development of the downtown corridor. The downside to project is the possible negative impact on downtown parking. Crum-Cano ran several cost scenarios.

Steve Miles, County Appraiser, stated concerns that in the actual plan, under Section 7 terms of the plan, paragraph three, there is a paragraph that may change the analysis based on the charts shown in the backup. Miles said several years ago in some of the other neighborhood revitalization plans the County was concerned the market fluctuation and mill levy could cause the increment to fluctuate. Language was prepared to lock that increment in as of the first year it was eligible. “The owner of the property at the time of the property taxes are paid will be eligible for a property tax rebate on the incremental taxes associated with improvements to the property. The tax increment will equal the property tax assessment against the property for the first year or after the improvements are completed (i.e determined including the value such improvements add to the assessed value of the property) reduced by property tax assessed against the property for the base year (the year the plan is approved) (i.e. determined without the value that the improvements add to the assessed value of the property). The tax increment will then remain constant throughout the term of the rebate program. The tax rebate will be determined based on the tax increment (in the tax table)”. The intent is the first year eligible for the increment, the increment amount was figured and the tax was assessed at that and rebated based on that increment.  The rebate increment was to remain constant throughout the term of the NRA plan. It was not meant to change. This makes projections simpler and takes the fluctuation of the market out of the equation.

Gaughan asked how many NRAs the County has done with the language as described. Miles replied four out of the six NRAs approved contain the language he described.  And that language is included in the 705 Massachusetts proposal. The language sets the rebate the first year that the project is eligible for a rebate.

Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, clarified the calculations of the rebates that Crum-Cano has done don’t reflect the language that is written in the document. If it reflected the language in the document the numbers wouldn’t change from year to year, they would be staying at the same base year which lowers the amount abated over time.

Gaughan asked Crum-Cano if she prepared the documents based upon the language Miles described.

Crum-Cano replied she was under the assumption that the base property value would be affected every year or by the mill levy change. Weinaug replied there are two things that make up the tax: the value of the property and the other is the mill levy. The mill levy goes up and down and generally, barring a recession, the property value goes up.

Flory stated it is his understanding we set the fixed amount of the rebate on the year of completion that carries through for 15 years, but it won’t be at 95% because of the property value varies.

Gaughan said it would be 95% of the original improvement and will remain constant. 

Plinsky said the increment is shown changing every year, but the plan reads the increments will remain constant.

Flory asked the applicant if he understands this to be true.

David Longhurst, applicant, replied no, though he understands what is being read. 

Plinsky said one of the problems that comes up is when the amount changes every year it takes a lot of staff work to make these calculates, especially with multiple NRAs in existence.  We have constant language for 9 Delaware, 1101 and 1115 Indiana, and 1106 Rhode Island. We do not have that language for 1040 Vermont.

Weinaug stated the Commission can decide to do it either way, by calculation or language of the abatement.

Diane Stoddard, Assistant City of Lawrence Manager, stated the City Commission approved the 95% over the period of time based on Crum-Cano’s analysis.

Thellman stated she wanted to discuss the parking impact of the expansion and how it will affect neighboring business.

Crum-Cano stated the parking has been researched. The expansion is in a zoned area where parking is not required.

Longhurst stated there are 314 parking spaces available in the parking garage by the Lawrence Library and the hotel has a 50 space lot. He feels that is adequate available parking.

Flory stated he wants to support downtown and infill. We have historical significance that wants to expand. This lot has been sitting for 40 years and we’ve gotten peanuts for taxes. In light of the other projects we supported at 95% , he feels 95% for 15 years is right for this project. We continue to receive 100% of the tax rate. In this case because it will enhance the value of the adjourning property we will see an increase there.  Getting 5% on something for 15 years is better than getting 100% of nothing.  These types of projects he feels are misunderstood. Flory said he does feel strongly that the language that is written in the agreement should be in future agreements. This applicant however, came in with the understanding of what the city said. He doesn’t think it’s fair on the applicant to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Gaughan asked how changing to a different term will affect staff. He suggested a 75% rebate. Miles replied the change in term or percentage creates a different problem that staff has to work out. Staff is willing to comply though it is more of a bookkeeping issue than an actual insolvable problem.

Thellman stated is seems like it would lessen the work considerably if we stay at 95% and then cut it off. We need to work on this from a County perspective.

Weinaug stated once the Commission decides to do a different term than other taxing bodies, everything has to be done manually. The work involved is still significant. Weinaug suggested the Commission chose what they feel is the best policy.

Thellman said this is a great project. The parking description helped, but she still feels downtown has a parking issue. Looking at the 15-year match, Thellman said Commission Flory has suggested at 95% NRA and Commissioner Gaughan suggested 75%, so she proposed an 85% NRA. Thellman said she is troubled with the City or staff establishing a rebate at the highest possible rate with the longest years because it doesn’t leave room for negotiation.

Flory opened the item for public comment. No comment was received.

Flory moved to approve the NRA with at 85% for 15-years conditioned upon the language of the agreement being clarified to carry out the intent of the City rather than the literal language on the rebate amount, that it would increase if the property value increased as opposed to being static; and that the revision based upon what staff comes up with be included making it clear that any joining of parcels would not impact the tax that the rebate goes only to the new section even if the parcels are joined. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0. 

Flory moved to adjourn the meeting; Gaughan seconded and the motion carried 3-0.

____________________________  ____________________________

 James E. Flory, Chair                       Mike Gaughan, Vice-Chair

ATTEST:

 ___________________________   _____________________________  

Jamie Shew, County Clerk                  Nancy Thellman, Member



 

Location

County Courthouse
1100 Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, KS 66044, USA