Meeting Information
-Convene
-Consider approval of a Proclamation for "Bike Month" - (Lisa Hallberg)
-Consider approval of a Proclamation for "National Take-back Day"-(Steve Lewis)
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders; and
(b) Consider approval of a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners establishing sustainability goals for Douglas County departments (Eileen Horn)
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Consider authorization to solicit bids for pavement rehabilitation on Route 1061from N 1Road (Franklin County) to US-56 Highway (N 200 Road) - (Keith Browning)
(3) Consider awarding contract for pavement rehabilitation Project No. 2011-6 Route 1061 from US-56
(N 200 Road) to N 1200 Road (Keith Browning)
(4) Consider authorization to solicit bids for microsurfacing, Project No. 2011-12 Route 442 from Route 1029 (E550 Road) to US-40 Highway (Keith Browning)
(5) Other Business
(a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments:
Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission 05/31/11;
Property Crimes Compensation Board 04/30/11
(c) Miscellaneous
(d) Public Comment
(6) Adjourn
Flory called the regular session meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 with all members present.
PROCLAMATION 04-20-11
Lisa Hallberg, Lawrence Bicycle Advisory Council, read a proclamation declaring April 2011 as "Bike Month." Flory moved to approve the proclamation. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
PROCLAMATION 04-20-11
Sergeant Steve Lewis, Douglas County Sheriff's Office, read a proclamation declaring April 30, 2011 as "Prescription Drug Take-Back Day" and encouraged Douglas County patrons to turn in their unused and outdated prescription drugs to the Sheriff's deputies, who will be located in the court house parking lot on April 30. Flory moved to approve the proclamation. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
CONSENT AGENDA 04-20-11
Gaughan moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
► Commission Order No. 11-015 (on file in the office of the Clerk);
Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
Pulled from the Consent Agenda
SUSTAINABILITY 04-20-11
Gaughan moved to approve the adoption of Resolution 11-12 establishing sustainability goals for Douglas County departments. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0
PUBLIC WORKS 04-20-11
The Board considered awarding a contract for pavement rehabilitation Project No. 2011-6 Route 1061 from US-56 (N 200 Road) to N 1200 Road. Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, presented the item. The project entails milling a 2"-depth off the existing pavements, patching and overlaying the pavement with hot mix asphalt. The County received bids from six contractors as follows:
BID SUMMARY
COMPANY
BASE BID AMOUNT
ADD-ALTERNATE
COMBINED BID AMOUNT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
$1,614,182.60
$10,000.00
$1,624,182.60
R.D. JOHNSON
$1,149,787.70
$8,000.00
$1,157,787.70
HAMM INC.
$1,206,809.24
$6,000.00
$1,212,809.24
APAC - KANSAS
$1,244,018.10
$1,500.00
$1,245,518.10
O'DONNELL CONST.
$1,289,322.20
$8,000.00
$1,297,322.20
BETTIS ASPHALT
$1,364,417.60
$1,350.00
$1,365,767.60
KILLOUGH CONST.
$1,390,687.36
$16,000.00
$1,406,687.36
The base bid covers all milling, patching and overlay work. The add-alternate bid is for profilograph testing (measuring pavement smoothness) of the pre-project and post-project road surface. The bids came in below the engineer's estimate. Staff recommends the Board accept the low total bid from R.D. Johnson in the amount of $1,157,787.70. Funds are available in the Road & Bridge Fund 2011 from the Overlay line item ($344,520) and the Chip Seal line item ($790,000).The remaining funds needed ($23,267.70) are available from the CIP's Annual Contract Pavement Maintenance projects allocation of $500,000.
Flory opened the item for public comment. No comment was received.
Flory moved to accept the low total bid from R.D. Johnson and award a contract in the amount of $1,157,787.70 for Project No. 2011-6, pavement rehabilitation on Route 1061 from US-56 highway to N 1200 Road, and authorized the Public Works Director to approve change orders up to 5% of the contract amount. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
PUBLIC WORKS 04-20-11
Due to favorable bids received on several rehabilitation projects, including Project 2011-6, Keith Browning, Direct of Public Works, feels it would be fiscally prudent to seek bids on another two miles of pavement overlay to Route 1061, Project No. 2011-6. Considering recent bids from Project No. 2011-6, and including a 10% contingency, staff estimates the additional two miles of mill & overlay work to cost approximately $250,000. The proposed two-mile section of Route 1061 has been patched numerous times. A mill and overlay would prolong the life of the pavement. This section is currently scheduled for 2016. The Board would have the option of deciding not to award a contract for this work if bids were not favorable.
Flory opened the item for public comment. No comment was received.
Flory moved to authorize staff to solicit bids for pavement rehabilitation on Route 1061 from N 1 Road to US-56 highway (N 200 Road). Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
PUBLIC WORKS 04-20-11
The Board considered a request to solicit bids for microsurfacing for Project No. 2011-12, Route 442 from Route 1029 (E550 Road) to US-40 Highway, as laid out in the 2010 work session with the Board of County Commissioners. Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, presented the item. The plan is to solicit bids for a Base Bid to include microsurfacing for both travel lanes and both paved shoulders 36' in total width; and an Alternate Bid for both travel lanes 24' in total width chip and sealing both 6'-wide paved shoulders using smaller aggregate cover material. Staff estimates the cost to be approximately $100,000.
Flory opened the item for public comment. No comment was received.
Thellman moved to authorize the Public Works Director to solicit bids for Project No. 2011-12, microsurfacing Route 442 from Route 1029 (E 550 Road) to US-40 highway. Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0.
PUBLIC WORKS 04-20-11
Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, asked the Board to consider a walk-on item regarding the approval of a Contract for Highway Purposes for Project No. 0454050, Road No. 285 Route 1023 (E 150 Rd) for the purchase of right- of-way culvert/fence project from Jacqualine Lea B ka of Overbrook, Kansas.
Flory moved to approve the right-of-way request with Jacqualine Lea B ka at the above described location. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 04-20-11
Flory moved to approve accounts payable in the amount of $358,386.85 to be paid on 04/21/11; and a manual check in the amount of $50,432.00 paid on 04/14/11. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
MISCELLANEOUS 04-20-11
Flory stated he wanted to make comments regarding the action made by the BOCC on the Environmental Chapter 16 of Horizon 2020 at the April 13, 2011 meeting. "I think it's probably an understatement to say I was a little bit frustrated with the haste of the action. I thought about it a lot since then and I still think we gave too short of a shrift to this significant issue. I think there are provisions in the chapter, questions of whether they're within in the scope of Horizon 2020 were not considered and I'm not faulting the Planning Commission. I just don't think they were. And then in studying it further, I think I know why they weren't and that's because this is probably the first time the Planning Commission, I know it's the first time this Commission, has dealt with a completely new chapter instead of looking at amendments or tweaking the language of things before. This was an entirely new chapter and so it probably wasn't thought whether we need to look at the scope. D s this really belong in 20201/2 And so that discussion wasn't had. The other discussion that wasn't had that I talked about was the balancing of the individual property rights and the regulatory nature that this chapter would be pursuing. One thing I found of significant interest that came out of the public comment, that is I guess Tom Kern would be considered public, Chamber of Commerce Chair or leader, is his mention of an incentive based approach. He suggested that we'd be better served in a guideline document by having an incentive based approach to environmental concerns and I really wanted to pursue that and find out what he meant by that. I've talked with Tom a little bit earlier today and I asked that he fill me on it. And I think that he has some really good ideas that would make the chapter much more palatable to the existing landowners and perhaps future parties that have some of the items that are of concern on their properties, how we can deal with those. Maybe even so far as a separate taxing classification if someone wished to have their property designated in a certain way. In other words, there are all kinds of things. The other thing that I still don't understand is my question of Scott (McCullough) when he said this is development triggered and I find nothing that would lead me to understand that. I think it needs clarifications. I guess what I'm saying is that I continue to have a number of questions. I voted against it. I didn't vote against it because I don't want an environmental chapter. I voted against it because I didn't think it was ready to go to the City Commission. We had a number of I think we had 14 people address the commission, 12 of which , 12 very reasonable citizens and stakeholders that asked us to take a little more time, spend a little more time in discussion, receive more input. I looked at the Planning Commission minutes and clearly there was very little input or debate. I was at a town hall meeting that was not called for this purpose by any stretch it wasn't even called by me with representative Ann Mah and Senator Francisco last night at Clinton. This was the single item of discussion more than any. There were a number of people there. I asked of the people here how many knew that this chapter may affect their property was under consideration. One person and he had just heard about it a few days earlier from Bobbie Flory who of course was one of the people who addressed us. It's clear to me that a majority of the rural property owners are unaware and are concerned. They are very concerned. Several stakeholders I think were caught off guard. And this moved through perhaps under their radar. And I have no doubt and I'm not even insinuating that planning staff, they made all the necessary requisite legal notifications no doubt about it. But unlike a minor amendment, this is a major topic for county property owners and I just think fundamental fairness requires this Commission, not the City Commission, but this commission to listen more, look more, look for alternatives and try to come up with a product that we can move on to the City Commission with a little more agreement. So in that regard, and why I say that is because 95% or 99% of the property that will be impacted by this to whatever extent it is impacted, is outside the corporate limits of the City of Lawrence. So asking the City Commission to take an active role and listen to rural property owners and stakeholders in rural area, it's not really their job, it's ours. And I would like to do that. So, I guess the only recourse I have at this point is to move that we reconsider. That we rescind our initial vote, set this on an agenda for a fuller discussion, more input from stakeholders, get some input from Tom Kern on the incentive based approach that he mentioned, what ideas he has which he believes would be more business friendly and not adversely impact economic development and job creation. At least hear him out, get some more information and maybe come up with a better product. With all that said I would entertain anybody's comments. But my intention is to make a motion and see where it g s from there."
Gaughan stated he would be willing to have a conversation about this. He said what tends to happen is, we work three years on a project working through the process and then our instincts are to spend three more years on it. He is not sure Horizon 2020 is the document to set this specific type of policy but it comes down to the judgment of the City or County Commission and the actual rules that's behind the policy that's in 2020. His stated his intention last week was to get to the point when we are debating substance rather than theory. He agrees Tom Kern may have some good ideas. Gaughan stated he d sn't want to see this process held up. He said last week he heard comments of "start over." That seems unreasonable. He d sn't want the document laden with so many amendments and changes that when it moves forward it d sn't resemble itself.
Flory stated his intention is not to stop or delay it. We only listened to the public comment for two hours and we didn't talk about it amongst ourselves, we voted. His intension is to get a good product. The regulation is where the rubber meets the road. But the building principles that lead us to that regulation, that's the foundation of the house. He feels there are some things in there that shouldn't be. He d sn't agree with Commissioner Harris that all there has to be is a connection to quality of life to be included as environment. When a major piece of legislature affects so many, he feels it needs discussion. This project fell under the radar of the rural area. Flory stated he owes it to the people he represents to try to open this for more discussion and get comments and information. He really wants to know what Tom Kern thinks about the incentive plan. Flory stated he's not talking three years or even three months, but he feels it deserves more discussion then what it has received so far.
Thellman stated she is torn because she understood Flory say at the meeting that he didn't think this chapter even belonged in the comprehensive plan due to his cross-examination of staff, and regarding his comments on air quality or disposable of waste, water, or healthy life styles having no place in the comprehensive plan. Thellman commented we have philosophical differences of what the comprehensive plan can be for our community. It's not strictly a development book, but sets out community values and vision, higher principles for our future and not just what development can or can't do. She said she was taken back at the beginning of the meeting at what sounded like a "do over and d sn't belong in the comprehensive plan." Thellman stated she has great respect for Flory, but they do have some differences on certain things. She stated she was also concerned as the meeting went along with the majority of statements from people saying they hadn't been invited or didn't know about the chapter. Some of the records show otherwise. Changes were made reflecting their comments. It's frustrating to know from the beginning some of those voices were heard. Drafts were put out there and comments were made. It hasn't been done in secret or with the intention of leaving important people out of the process or people who feel that they needed to have a voice. Some parts of our community are really plugged in due to a lot of development and tension in other parts of the community and they are not in that place. It's not possible to make everyone aware of these things. That's part of why we appoint our planning commissioners and have a process to get the word out.
There was further discussion on conversations brought up at the April 13, 2011 meeting. It was confirmed that Flory can make a motion to rescind the action taken on April 13 as the Commission d s not follow Robert's Rules.
Flory moved to reconsider the issue of Chapter 16, rescinding the April 13, 2011 vote and to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion. The motion died for lack of a second. No action was taken.
Thellman moved to adjourn the meeting; Gaughan seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
________________________ _________________________
Jim Flory, Chair Mike Gaughan, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________ __________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Nancy Thellman, Member
Time and Date