Meeting Information
The County Commissioners will meet at 4:00 p.m. for administrative items and 6:35 p.m. for public interest items. Please see the 4:00 p.m. agenda for full details.
Gaughan called the regular meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 with all members present.
PROCLAMATION 03-27-13
Dan Partridge, Director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department made a presentation to the Board on declaring April 1 - 5, 2013 as "Public Health Week" in Douglas County. Gaughan moved to approve the proclamation. The motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
MINUTES 03-27-13
Gaughan moved to approve the minutes of February 20 and March 6, 2013. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
CONSENT AGENDA 03-27-13
Gaughan moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
► Commission Order Nos.13-013 (on file in the office of the Clerk); and
► Authorization to keep a 2003 Ford F-350 flatbed truck and spray unit in the Public Works fleet rather than selling through online auction;
► Received the 2012 County Engineer's Annual Report submitted to KDOT;
► Waive Purchasing Policy requirements and award a lump sum contract in the amount of $22,000.00 to Finney & Turnipseed, Transportation & Civil Engineering, LLC to provide engineering services to design a deck replacement project for Bridge No. 08.74N-07.95E, Project No. 2013-8; and
► Confirmed the emergency administration approval exercised by the County Administration to accept the Stop Loss Health Insurance proposal from Optum.
Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 03-27-13
Sarah Plinsky, Assistant County Administrator, stated the Kansas Head Start Association has approached Douglas County about partnering to help them receive Medicaid funds to provide Parent Health Literacy Services throughout Kansas. The services include a book entitled "What to do When Your Child Gets Sick" along with training practitioners. This education program is designed to cut down on unnecessary doctor and emergency room visits, missed school days for children, and missed work days for parents. The total annual funding for this project is $385,350 which includes a total matched sum of $192,675 provided by Kansas Head Start. The remaining funds will come from Medicaid. Because of restrictions on Medicaid funding, Medicaid funds must come through a government unit with the ability to tax. The County will be required to certify the match and draw down the Medicaid funds from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The County would then pass the funds on to Kansas Head Start.
Lori Alvarado, Executive Director; Deborah O'Neal; Project Director; and Eric Vaughan, Fiscal and Program Director, all with Kansas Head Start Association, discussed the project.
O'Neal stated the project teaches families how to take care of children in the middle of the night. There are presently 65 locations in the state using this program, which started in Lawrence, Kansas. They are currently working with Lawrence Memorial Hospital, WIC Clinic, Healthcare Access, and soon the Ballard Center.
Plinsky added this project is different from how we support other local agencies with this being a state program. She said she is confident there will can manage any liability issues. However, there will be fees associated with the county auditing process that will be incurred and will need to be picked up by Head Start.
Dan Partridge, Director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, supported the project.
Gaughan opened the item for public comment. No comment was received.
Flory moved to authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Kansas Head Start Association, the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Board, and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to provide Parent Health Literacy Services in an annual amount not to exceed $385,350 that includes $192,675 matching funds provided by the Kansas Head Start Association. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
SENIOR RETIREE TASK FORCE 03-27-13
The Board considered the approval of a request to fund a portion of a feasibility study for an intergenerational campus village in the amount of $12,500.00. This initiative is part of the recommendations received from the Retiree Attraction and Retention Task Force. Hugh Carter, City Commissioners and Retiree Taskforce member, made the presentation.
Dennis Domer, Taskforce Member, stated the program is looking to build a housing village that provides a range of services for all ages, with a variety of housing from Tenants to Homeowner opportunities, to affordable through higher end options. Domer discussed the possibility of partnering with the University of Kansas, the City of Lawrence and Lawrence Memorial Hospital to help develop the idea of a multi-generational community.
Once the feasibility study is completed, a new Board will determine options and possible funding solutions
Gaughan opened the item for public comment. No comment was received.
Flory moved to approve the request for $12,500 to fund a portion of a feasibility study for an intergenerational campus village. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
PURCHASING/JLE BUILDING 03-27-13
Jackie Waggoner, Purchasing Director, asked the Board to consider approval to access the U.S. Communities Contract for replacing the roof at the Judicial & Law Enforcement Building.
Staff recommends approval of using a U.S. Communities contract with The Garland Company, who has an excellent reputation as a full service installation and maintenance provider and has overseen projects for Douglas County, City of Lawrence and USD 497. The estimated cost of $625,000 provides for installation of the roof with a 30-year warranty, which includes annual maintenance. The service will allow shift work labor to allow continuity of operations during the installation. Project will take approximately 80 days.
Gaughan opened the item for public comment.
Thellman moved to approve accessing the U.S. Communities contract with The Garland Company in the amount not-to-exceed $625,000 for a roof replacement of the Judicial & Law Enforcement Center. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
HERITAGE CONSERVATION COUNCIL/FREEDOM FRONTIER 03-27-13
The Heritage Conservation Council and Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area asked the County Commission to approve a partnership that would award Douglas County Heritage Conservation Grants related to Freedom's Frontier themes to be passed through Freedom's Frontier, and bring with the 2013 Heritage Conservation grant cycle. This process, Restricting Giving Grant opportunities, would allow Freedom Frontier to leverage federal funding through the National Park Service. No fees or overhead will be taken from the Restricted Giving Grants. Jeanette Blackmar, Grant Coordinator, Heritage Conservation Council, presented the item.
Julie McPike, Freedom's Frontier, discussed how the partnership would assist advancing the Freedom's Frontier network.
Steve Nowack, Director of Watkins Museum, stated Watkins has received funding through the pass-through grant process and received the full grant amount with no delays in funding. He added the Board of Directors of Watkins also supports this proposal. He said any opportunity to support Freedom Frontier and receive the ability to leverage other grant money is a good idea.
There was discussion on the possibility of using 2012 funds that have been obligated but not drawn down to be added to the Freedom Frontier grant process. Any retroactive contracts modified would have to come back to the board for approval.
It was the consensus of the Board to support the Freedom Frontier's Restricted Giving Grant Opportunity.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 03-27-13
Gaughan moved to approve accounts payable in the amounts of $298,658.08 paid on 03/21/13 and $159,113.49 to be paid on 03/28/13. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
RECESS 03-27-13
At 5:30 p.m. the Board recess until 6:35 p.m.
RECONVENE 03-27-13
The Board returned to regular session at 6:35 p.m.
PLANNING 03-27-13
The Board held a public meeting to consider a revised phasing schedule for Big Springs Quarry. Big Springs Quarry was approved with Conditional Use Permit CUP-12-09-06 and is located at 2 North 1700 Road, Lecompton. Mary Miller, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Staff, presented the item.
Miller stated the applicant wants to skip to Phase 6 of the phasing schedule so they can share a road while doing the phasing in Shawnee County. The benefit to approving the rephasing would be the south quarrying would be done all at one time and not return to that area again. Staff interpreted this request as appropriate to bring to the County Commission for consideration. In the staff report, no negative impacts were identified because of 1) no physical change to the quarrying activity, off-site physical impacts will remain the same; and 2) based on the amount of communications received by the property owners. Miller stated notification was provided as a courtesy, as it was not legally required, to all property owners within 1,000 ft. of the property. Staff stated surrounding property owners, Nichols and Henry's, contacted staff and had no concerns. Staff received one request for information, which was sent, with no following concerns. A representative for Bart Christian asked for more time to determine if there will be negative impacts from the rephrasing. If the Board determines the impacts to be substantial, the item can be returned to the Planning Commission requiring an amended CUP.
Flory asked if the original CUP mandated a sequencing of the phasing. Miller replied there was no specific condition on sequencing. Only you must finish the reclamation before moving on.
Flory asked if the original CUP stated quarrying was permitted on the entire tract of all six phases. Miller stated "that is correct." Flory said if Big Springs were to quarry in Phase 6, the reclamation conditions would remain the same. Miller responded "that is correct." The applicant discussed their intentions of revising the phasing when they brought the reclamation plan to the County Commission.
Thellman stated according to Staff's memo, phasing was not a requirement of the original CUP. She asked if it was not required, why it was done. Miller stated staff asked for an operation plan. The intent was probably to quarry in those phases but didn't have the opportunity to quarry simultaneously.
There was discussion over whether a phase can be re-quarried once it has been reclaimed. Miller stated the owner would have to have a new CUP.
John Hutton, representing Mid States Materials, stated the CUP itself d s not state the quarry has to be developed in any particular order. Phases 1-6 are only a way to determine portions of the quarry. It could have been presented alphabetically. However, there is a business reason to modify the phasing. Hutton said he is not even sure it is for this body to consider. His client's outlined plan is rational.
Gaughan opened the item for public comment.
David Buffo, attorney for Lone Oak LLC, stated he disagrees with Mr. Hutton's view of the request. In his opinion, the original application from Martin Marietta was contemplated and the intent to quarry in sequential phases was clear, and setup to provide certainty to the surrounding property owners. Buffo feels the request is a modification to the CUP and proper public notice to fully evaluate the affects of the change has not been made. He feels the original application was clear for the quarry to be quarried in sequential phases with the last phase being Phase 6. Buffo stated the Board d s not have jurisdiction to move this request forward. The change should go through the Planning Commission.
Bart Christian, Lone Oak, LLC, stated the rephasing order creates a problem for the Lone Oak Gun Club. He feels he didn't receive sufficient notice of this meeting and couldn't prepare properly. He said any change to the CUP will impact the neighboring landowners.
Bill Best, 1604 E 50 Road, said he owns property adjacent to the south of Phase 6 and bought his property knowing the phase order. He stated he didn't received notification of this meeting and felt the letter should have been sent certified.
Michelle Best, 1604 E 50 Road, stated because she didn't receive notice of the meeting she didn't have time to do her homework on what to do with her property. She signed her mortgage with the understanding the last phase would be Phase 6.
Staff had a copy of the certified property ownership list and verified during the meeting the Bests were on the list, and verified with the Bests the address listed was correct.
Hutton commented that the only certainty we have is the date on the CUP. He feels the Bests seem mainly concerned about reclamation and suggested they speak with Mary Miller as she has all the information on reclamation. He added Big Springs won an award from the State of Kansas for reclamation.
Gaughan moved to close the public comment. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
Flory stated the idea of a phase means only one section will be quarried at a time, and then there is a reclamation process. He feels the intention of the Commission who approved the original CUP was to grant the CUP with an orderly process, where one part is quarried and reclaimed, and then another part is quarried and reclaimed and so on. It is not in the documentation or the minutes of a specific sequencing of phasing or that the Commission intended for the applicant to go in 1thru 6, consecutive order. Any person that purchased surrounding property had to know or should have been explained they are buying property that borders a segment of land that the government has authorized the owner to quarry for resources. Flory said in his opinion, this is not a request to amend the CUP. It is rather a request to state what the applicant proposes to do, which was stated to the planning department. He made a request for an interpretation of what he proposed to do, "Is quarrying in Phase 6 prohibited by the CUP. Flory said it is not. He stated he is glad staff sent out notices about the meeting, going beyond what is legally required. The neighboring property owners have a right to come make their comments. Flory stated in his opinion it is rational to move to Phase 6. It makes sense and it is reasonable. Specific sequences of the phases were not mandated in the original CUP. Flory stated he heard the concerns of the neighbors and understood them, but d sn't find them compelling. Anyone owning surrounding property during the 30-year CUP period knows there will be quarrying. Depending upon how fast they quarry, they could now be in Phase 6. Nothing prohibits that. If Mid States wants to stop quarrying on the Douglas County portion and wait 10 years, they can. There is a 30-year window the operator is given to operate. Flory said tonight is a question of interpretation and we are the body to make that interpretation. Based on documents and what he has heard, he sees nothing in the CUP that prohibits moving to Phase 6. He d s not see this as an amendment or modification but as a request, and not prohibited as long as all others conditions on the CUP are met.
Gaughan stated he d s not disagree with a lot of what Commissioner Flory said. He d s question however, the order of the phasing. Looking at the original conditions under reclamation and review, it says "The Phase 1 reclamation plan shall be submitted prior to the quarrying activities in Phase 2. Any subsequent quarry plan shall be submitted prior to the opening of the following phase." Gaughan interprets the term "phase" to mean time and "tract" to mean land. Somewhere along the line the concepts were combined. Gaughan asked, Can you do want you want within the 720 acres. He answered "yes" you can, but we cannot dismiss the time expected. To change in the conditions, it means changing the numbers on the phasing. That means it may have to go back to the Planning Commission to reorder the phases. Flory disagreed.
Thellman agreed with Gaughan and says a lay person would assume an order of the phasing as 1 thru 6. She agrees with the request, but feels we need to set the phasing sequence in writing. However, it won't change the outcome.
Gaughan moved to send the request to re-sequence the phasing to the Planning Commission for consideration and to return a recommendation to the County Commission. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 2-1 with Flory in opposition.
Flory moved to adjourn the meeting; Gaughan seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
____________________________ ____________________________
Mike Gaughan, Chair Nancy Thellman, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Jim Flory, Member
Time and Date