[0:09] Sir,

[0:12] » you ready? Sharon,

[0:14] >> I am ready. Thank you, ma'am.

[0:17] » I am ready. Thank you, ma'am.

[0:17] >> Next Friday.

[0:18] » Next Friday.

[0:18] >> We are going to call um the meeting the

[0:22] » We are going to call um the meeting the

[0:22] uh January [clears throat] 6th, 2026

[0:24] meeting to order. Um, we have two

[0:26] executive sessions before we start the

[0:28] regular agenda at 5:45.

[0:31] Um, each would be about 15 minutes. Um,

[0:34] and then we'll start the regular agenda

[0:35] at 5:45. So, I'd look for a motion on

[0:39] the first executive session.

[0:41] >> I move that we recess into an executive

[0:43] » I move that we recess into an executive

[0:43] session for approximately 15 minutes to

[0:44] discuss matters related to a security

[0:46] measure at city hall pursuant to KSA

[0:48] 754519

[0:50] subsection B12. The justification is to

[0:53] keep confidential security measures at

[0:55] city hall where the disclosure of such

[0:57] matters would jeopardize those security

[0:58] measures that are in place which are

[1:01] designed to protect persons and public

[1:03] bodies using city hall. The city

[1:05] commission will resume its regular

[1:06] meeting in the city commission room at

[1:08] approximately 5:16 p.m. after the

[1:10] executive session has concluded.

[1:13] >> Second

[1:14] » Second

[1:14] >> motion by commissioner Solos, a second

[1:16] » motion by commissioner Solos, a second

[1:16] by Commissioner Pian. All those in favor

[1:18] say I.

[1:19] >> I. I. Opposed passes five to zero. We

[1:22] » I. I. Opposed passes five to zero. We

[1:22] will be in recess for 15 minutes of

[1:24] executive session.

[15:06] We're coming back from executive session

[15:08] and we have nothing to report and we are

[15:10] now heading into our second executive

[15:11] session. So, I'd look for a motion on

[15:14] that. a motion to recess into executive

[15:16] session for approximately 15 minutes to

[15:18] discuss privilege legal communication

[15:19] from the city's attorney regarding

[15:21] litigation and state and local laws

[15:23] pursuant to KSA754519B2.

[15:26] The justification is to keep attorney

[15:28] client privileged matters confidential

[15:30] at this time. [snorts] The city

[15:31] commission will resume its regular

[15:33] meeting in the city commission room at

[15:36] [snorts]

[15:37] 5 5:31 uh after the executive session is

[15:40] concluded.

[15:41] >> Second.

[15:42] » Second.

[15:42] >> Second. There's a [snorts] motion by

[15:43] » Second. There's a [snorts] motion by

[15:43] Vice um Mayor Courtney, a second by

[15:46] Commissioner Pulling. All those in favor

[15:47] say I.

[15:48] >> I opposed. Passes 5-0. or we return at

[15:51] » I opposed. Passes 5-0. or we return at

[15:51] 5:30.

[32:31] from our second executive session. We

[32:33] have nothing to report and uh we will be

[32:35] in recess till 5:45 and we'll start the

[32:38] regular agenda.

[32:41] >> Thank you.

[44:20] Sher, you ready?

[44:21] >> I'm [snorts] ready.

[44:24] » I'm [snorts] ready.

[44:24] >> We're going to call the meeting back

[44:26] » We're going to call the meeting back

[44:26] into order here at 5:45.

[44:29] Before we begin our agenda, I wanted to

[44:32] acknowledge the events that occurred at

[44:35] city hall yesterday morning. First and

[44:38] foremost, I want to be clear. The safety

[44:40] of our staff comes first. Their safety,

[44:43] well-being, and care matter deeply to

[44:45] this governing body and to me

[44:47] personally.

[44:48] Situations like this are certainly

[44:50] unsettling, and we recognize the

[44:52] emotional weight they can carry on

[44:54] everyone. We are committed to supporting

[44:56] team Lawrence as they take the time they

[44:58] need and his operations return

[45:00] thoughtfully and safely. I also want to

[45:03] reassure the community that city hall is

[45:06] safe and we continue to work closely

[45:08] with our professional staff to ensure

[45:10] our public buildings remain secure and

[45:13] welcoming places. We appreciate the

[45:16] rapid response of our police department

[45:18] and are grateful for the the work of the

[45:20] first responders who supported fellow

[45:23] members of team Lawrence throughout the

[45:24] day.

[45:26] We've been especially heartened by the

[45:28] many residents, neighbors, friends, and

[45:30] loved ones who have reached out to

[45:32] simply check in and offer support to

[45:35] team Lawrence. That kind of care is a

[45:37] powerful reminder of who we are as a

[45:39] community. It reflects Lawrence at its

[45:42] best. We care about each other. Tonight,

[45:45] we move forward with the business of the

[45:47] community. On behalf of the city

[45:49] commission, thank you to our staff for

[45:52] their professionalism and their

[45:53] resilience. And thank you to our

[45:55] community for their trust and care.

[45:57] Thank you.

[46:02] [sighs]

[46:03] We'll now start with the rules of the

[46:05] meeting. Sherry, if you could read

[46:07] those.

[46:07] >> Thank you, Mayor. Good evening,

[46:09] » Thank you, Mayor. Good evening,

[46:10] everyone. And if you would please

[46:11] silence your cell phones. The primary

[46:14] format for accessing the meeting is in

[46:16] person at city hall. Virtual access

[46:19] can't be guaranteed due to potential

[46:21] technology issues. When the mayor calls

[46:24] for public comment, please approach the

[46:26] podium to indicate you wish to speak.

[46:29] Virtual participants should use the

[46:31] raise hand function.

[46:33] [clears throat]

[46:34] When prompted, select join as panelist.

[46:38] There will be a brief delay as your role

[46:40] changes. Once your name is called,

[46:42] please unmute, turn [snorts] on your

[46:44] camera, and state your name and zip code

[46:47] before speaking. All comments will be

[46:49] limited to 3 minutes. The city does

[46:51] reserve the right to turn videos off or

[46:53] mute participants.

[46:56] >> Thank you, Sherry. Next on the agenda is

[46:59] » Thank you, Sherry. Next on the agenda is

[46:59] to approve the agenda. The city

[47:00] commission reserves the right to amend,

[47:02] supplement, or reorder the agenda during

[47:04] the meeting. Do we have a motion on the

[47:06] agenda?

[47:08] I move to approve the agenda as is.

[47:10] >> Second.

[47:11] » Second.

[47:11] >> Moved by Commissioner Devo, seconded by

[47:13] » Moved by Commissioner Devo, seconded by

[47:13] Commissioner Cos to approve the agenda.

[47:15] All those in favor say I.

[47:17] >> I.

[47:17] » I.

[47:18] >> Opposed. Passes five to zero. Next is

[47:21] » Opposed. Passes five to zero. Next is

[47:21] the consent agenda. Items on the consent

[47:23] agenda are considered under one motion

[47:25] and approved by one motion. Members of

[47:27] the governing body may remove items for

[47:29] separate discussion if desired. Members

[47:32] of the public may remove items

[47:33] identified as quasi judicial for

[47:35] separate discussion if desired. Members

[47:37] of the public will be limited to three

[47:39] minutes for comment. To begin, do any

[47:42] commissioners have an item to remove

[47:44] from the consent agenda?

[47:46] >> Go.

[47:46] » Go.

[47:46] >> Mayor, I would like to briefly discuss

[47:50] » Mayor, I would like to briefly discuss

[47:50] items C3A.

[47:54] Uh, I've got two claims questions and

[47:58] C8A

[48:00] on our incentive for our garage doors.

[48:05] >> Sounds good. Any others?

[48:06] » Sounds good. Any others?

[48:06] >> Mayor, I have C6A

[48:09] » Mayor, I have C6A

[48:09] about the purchase of one truck and just

[48:12] a quick question on C8B.

[48:16] >> C8B.

[48:18] » C8B.

[48:18] Okay.

[48:20] [snorts] Um, okay.

[48:23] Any others? Seeing none, is is there a

[48:25] motion with the exception of those four?

[48:28] >> So moved.

[48:30] » So moved.

[48:30] >> Okay, there's a motion to approve the

[48:32] » Okay, there's a motion to approve the

[48:32] consent agenda with the exception of

[48:33] C3A, C6A, 68A, and 68B.

[48:37] >> Second.

[48:38] » Second.

[48:38] >> And there's a second by Commissioner

[48:40] » And there's a second by Commissioner

[48:40] Cos. All those in favor, please say I.

[48:43] >> I.

[48:44] » I.

[48:44] >> Opposed. The consent agenda passes 5 to

[48:47] » Opposed. The consent agenda passes 5 to

[48:47] zero. I probably should have noted there

[48:49] were no quasi judicial items.

[48:50] >> No.

[48:51] » No.

[48:51] >> Um, okay. Okay. So, we'll take those in

[48:53] » Um, okay. Okay. So, we'll take those in

[48:53] order. C uh 3A uh claims.

[48:56] >> Okay. I've got two questions and I

[48:59] » Okay. I've got two questions and I

[48:59] recognize this given the circumstances

[49:01] uh we may not get answers tonight, which

[49:04] is fine. If I get a question on claims

[49:05] from the public, I will typically pull

[49:08] it so we can talk about it in public.

[49:11] The first question I have is in regards

[49:14] to Pride Promotions. It's a minimal

[49:16] expense of a little over $1,800. there

[49:19] was a grant tied to those purchases. I

[49:24] just kind of want to know where that

[49:25] expenditure falls within the grant. And

[49:28] then the second question, we've got um

[49:31] an individual by the name of Vernon. I

[49:35] believe it's pronounced Heiny. H E I N E

[49:39] in alphabetical order order. It is under

[49:42] H.

[49:44] And it is paying for mowing.

[49:47] there is an individual by that name that

[49:50] is deceased. I'd like confirmation that

[49:53] we are not paying a deceased individual.

[49:56] Um the

[49:59] looks like maybe the PO number is 101 or

[50:02] no the GL number is 101.0602-301701.

[50:07] Uh check number 841781

[50:10] maybe. Uh just some identifying moments.

[50:13] Again, I don't see our finance folks

[50:15] here, which is perfectly fine. If I can

[50:17] get an email based on that, that would

[50:18] be great.

[50:18] >> You probably have resources

[50:21] » You probably have resources

[50:21] uh on here. We just This is There's

[50:24] hundreds and hundreds of claims on here.

[50:26] So,

[50:27] >> um this is Do you want to hold this for

[50:29] » um this is Do you want to hold this for

[50:29] approval or

[50:33] >> It is $2,400. You guys have already paid

[50:36] » It is $2,400. You guys have already paid

[50:36] I'm guessing you've already paid these.

[50:38] >> No, this is an authorization to send

[50:40] » No, this is an authorization to send

[50:40] these checks out. That's why we do the

[50:42] claims report each.

[50:44] >> Um, let's then I want to hold those two.

[50:46] » Um, let's then I want to hold those two.

[50:46] Please hold those two and proceed with

[50:48] the rest of the claims. Can you do that?

[50:52] >> Um,

[50:55] I think Michelle is coming on.

[50:59] >> Yes. Uh, these claims have not been

[51:01] » Yes. Uh, these claims have not been

[51:01] remitted out yet and we are happy to

[51:03] hold both of those claims and verify

[51:07] their proceeding. That means you will

[51:09] see them um after communication and

[51:11] verification. They would reappear on

[51:13] next week's claim.

[51:14] >> That's great. Perfect. Thank you so

[51:16] » That's great. Perfect. Thank you so

[51:16] much.

[51:19] >> Okay. Any other questions about the

[51:20] » Okay. Any other questions about the

[51:20] claims?

[51:23] This is a public hearing item now that

[51:25] it's been pulled. Any me member of the

[51:27] public like to speak on the claims?

[51:32] Anyone online like to speak about the

[51:34] claims?

[51:38] Yes, just

[51:40] you do have one.

[51:41] >> Okay,

[51:41] » Okay,

[51:42] >> I'm over now.

[51:50] » Steven Watts.

[51:53] >> Hi,

[51:55] » Hi,

[51:55] happy new year. Woohoo.

[51:59] Hey, since we're in the claims arena,

[52:02] please help me understand why the town

[52:05] has spent $16,000

[52:08] for fiscal year or for 2025

[52:13] and it's continuing into 2026.

[52:17] Coffee

[52:18] for the luxurious administrative set. If

[52:22] we provide coffee for staff, how about

[52:25] providing it to everybody?

[52:29] Please help me understand

[52:32] why [clears throat] do quarter of a

[52:35] million dollar executives

[52:39] need subsidized coffee from the city of

[52:44] Lawrence, which is so broke.

[52:48] broke as a broke dick dog

[52:53] is charging people to enter their parks.

[52:57] It's just a question. Can we get an

[52:59] answer? I've sent several emails about

[53:01] it. No answers. There we go. Thank you.

[53:06] [cough]

[53:08] » Any other comments online?

[53:10] >> No, mayor.

[53:12] » No, mayor.

[53:12] >> Bring it back to the commission for

[53:14] » Bring it back to the commission for

[53:14] comments or motions.

[53:19] Sherry, in the motion, if we're going to

[53:20] pull the claims minus those two, do we

[53:22] need to note that in the motion?

[53:25] >> I think we [clears throat] would defin

[53:27] » I think we [clears throat] would defin

[53:27] we would want to make approve the claims

[53:29] with the exception of those two items.

[53:31] >> So, so Commissioner Poland, do you have

[53:33] » So, so Commissioner Poland, do you have

[53:33] those uh do you have those accounts

[53:36] noted that we're pulling?

[53:37] >> I do.

[53:39] » I do.

[53:39] >> Pride Promotions and Vernon Heiny.

[53:42] » Pride Promotions and Vernon Heiny.

[53:42] >> Would you want to go ahead and make a

[53:43] » Would you want to go ahead and make a

[53:43] motion?

[53:44] >> Yeah.

[53:46] » Yeah.

[53:46] Um, I'd like to vote to approve claims

[53:51] less the pride promotion for $1822

[53:55] $1822.

[53:57] [cough]

[53:58] [clears throat] And Vernon Heiney,

[54:00] Vernon C. Heiny. Um,

[54:04] and forgive me, let me pull that back up

[54:07] again. And it's an approximate amount of

[54:10] $600. Do we need to be more specific?

[54:12] >> 661.

[54:13] » 661.

[54:13] >> 661. Okay. Is there a second?

[54:16] » 661. Okay. Is there a second?

[54:16] >> I second that.

[54:17] » I second that.

[54:17] >> Motion by Commissioner Pulian, a second

[54:19] » Motion by Commissioner Pulian, a second

[54:19] by Commissioner De. All those in favor

[54:20] say I. I.

[54:22] >> Opposed. Nay.

[54:23] » Opposed. Nay.

[54:24] >> Nay. Passes 4 to1.

[54:27] » Nay. Passes 4 to1.

[54:27] That brings us to C 6A um which records

[54:33] the armor equipment utili utilizing

[54:35] source the royal rolloff container. Vice

[54:37] Mayor Courtney.

[54:41] So, this this purchase right here is it

[54:43] says it's for 245,000. I looked up a

[54:46] photo online of what it looks like. It

[54:47] it's looks like a tow truck for heavy

[54:50] vehicles. Is that a fair assessment?

[54:52] [clears throat and cough] I guess this

[54:53] might be an MSO question. I don't know

[54:54] if anybody's available.

[54:56] >> Just they are just

[54:59] » Just they are just

[54:59] to move them to panelists.

[55:03] [clears throat]

[55:10] » [clears throat]

[55:19] » you [clears throat] you might want to

[55:20] ask her question again. Vice Mayor Mike

[55:22] Lawless is now on.

[55:24] >> Okay, gotcha. So, looking at C6A for the

[55:27] » Okay, gotcha. So, looking at C6A for the

[55:27] bid for that rolloff container truck, is

[55:31] it is it fair to say that's a tow truck

[55:32] for heavy vehicles?

[55:35] Well, uh, so Mike Lawless, uh, deputy

[55:38] director for [clears throat] MSO.

[55:39] [snorts]

[55:40] The rolloff truck is for the, uh, it's

[55:43] for solid waste, and it's for the big

[55:45] rolloff tanks that we pull, um, that

[55:48] contractors use to fill with trash from

[55:51] construction or whatever they're doing,

[55:53] and then we take that to the landfill.

[55:55] So, that's the truck that we use to pull

[55:58] those containers onto and deliver to the

[56:01] landfill to empty.

[56:03] >> Gotcha. And how often are we using

[56:04] » Gotcha. And how often are we using

[56:04] trucks like that?

[56:06] >> Every [clears throat] day.

[56:07] » Every [clears throat] day.

[56:07] >> Every day.

[56:08] » Every day.

[56:08] >> We have I believe we have nine of those.

[56:10] » We have I believe we have nine of those.

[56:10] And typically we're using um five at a

[56:14] time. Five every day. And then sometimes

[56:18] um um we actually use more than that.

[56:23] >> Okay. No, gotcha. I was just I was

[56:25] » Okay. No, gotcha. I was just I was

[56:25] curious if it was just a tow truck for

[56:26] heavy trucks if like how often we were

[56:28] actually towing our own machines. But if

[56:31] we're using it, if we're using nine a

[56:33] day, that makes sense.

[56:34] >> Yeah. It's it's not a it's not a tow

[56:36] » Yeah. It's it's not a it's not a tow

[56:36] truck. It's actually to to move those uh

[56:39] rolloff containers and um we pull about

[56:43] 35 of those every day. So we use in the

[56:46] neighborhood of five trucks a day um to

[56:48] handle that workload.

[56:50] >> Gotcha. Okay. Uh and then kind of

[56:53] » Gotcha. Okay. Uh and then kind of

[56:53] probably uh Mr. Owens, one one more for

[56:55] you. So when we make a large purchase

[56:56] like these, are these amvertised over

[56:59] the lifespan of the vehicles? So are

[57:01] these like we spended like4 million from

[57:03] this type of truck? Are we, you know,

[57:06] deprecating that 20 30% like each year

[57:10] as it goes through its life cycle?

[57:11] >> You mean a depreciation?

[57:13] » You mean a depreciation?

[57:13] >> Yeah.

[57:13] » Yeah.

[57:13] >> Well, we don't pay taxes, so it doesn't

[57:15] » Well, we don't pay taxes, so it doesn't

[57:15] that doesn't have a bearing. But yeah,

[57:17] we do we we do and I think this this

[57:19] question came up with another fleet,

[57:21] Adam. It's the same thing. We try and

[57:22] manage that fleet not just by using

[57:24] mileage but really assessing the

[57:26] mechanical condition that our mechanics

[57:28] assess it on and then what a secondary

[57:30] market value might be. So it's always

[57:32] trying to hit the sweet spot in that as

[57:34] things change. Uh Robert Aaron is the

[57:37] one that answered the question before

[57:38] and so I I've learned from him and that

[57:40] that is the right answer.

[57:41] >> And when we have older trucks like this,

[57:43] » And when we have older trucks like this,

[57:43] do we get some do we sell this to other

[57:45] municipalities get like some value back

[57:48] from that?

[57:49] >> Yes, there's a variety of ways. There

[57:50] » Yes, there's a variety of ways. There

[57:50] are actually municipal um auction sites

[57:53] that kind of help us do that um more

[57:57] conveniently. Sometimes we trade them

[57:59] in. Um there's a variety of ways that we

[58:02] might do that. Okay.

[58:03] >> Are these falling under an enterprise

[58:05] » Are these falling under an enterprise

[58:05] fund like um it's under solid waste

[58:10] >> in this case? Yes.

[58:11] » in this case? Yes.

[58:11] >> And solid waste is an enterprise fund.

[58:14] » And solid waste is an enterprise fund.

[58:14] >> Yeah.

[58:14] » Yeah.

[58:14] >> Yes.

[58:15] » Yes.

[58:15] >> I would imagine. Okay. So there is a

[58:16] » I would imagine. Okay. So there is a

[58:16] depreciation tied to it but it has no

[58:18] monetary value. Gotcha. Okay.

[58:20] >> Okay.

[58:21] » Okay.

[58:21] >> Okay. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate

[58:23] » Okay. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate

[58:23] Mr. Lawless. Appreciate the the answer

[58:24] to that question.

[58:25] >> Okay. Um any other questions?

[58:29] » Okay. Um any other questions?

[58:29] >> No.

[58:30] » No.

[58:30] >> No.

[58:31] » No.

[58:31] >> This is a public hearing item. Anyone

[58:32] » This is a public hearing item. Anyone

[58:32] have a question about um item C6A?

[58:39] How about anyone online?

[58:41] >> No, mayor.

[58:42] » No, mayor.

[58:42] >> Okay. I'll bring it back to the

[58:44] » Okay. I'll bring it back to the

[58:44] commission for either discussion or a

[58:46] motion. Uh motion to approve the

[58:47] purchase of one roll-off container truck

[58:49] from Armor Equipment utilizing the

[58:51] Sourcewell cooperative contract.

[58:54] >> So second

[58:55] » So second

[58:55] >> second

[58:56] » second

[58:56] >> motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded

[58:58] » motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded

[58:58] by Commissioner De. All those in favor,

[59:00] please say I.

[59:01] >> I.

[59:01] » I.

[59:01] >> I.

[59:02] » I.

[59:02] >> Opposed. Passes 5 to zero. That brings

[59:05] » Opposed. Passes 5 to zero. That brings

[59:05] us to C8A which relates to the Amar

[59:08] Company's development incentive. And I

[59:11] believe Commissioner Polium pulled that.

[59:13] Briefly, Brandon, would you mind just

[59:16] kind of walking us through where we are

[59:18] just for public's purpose? I don't need

[59:21] much.

[59:22] >> Yep. Um, the city has an economic

[59:24] » Yep. Um, the city has an economic

[59:24] development incentive policy that guides

[59:26] this process. Um, the first step I

[59:30] usually first step is the consultation

[59:32] between staff and an a potential

[59:33] applicant. Um and then uh the first step

[59:37] for the commission is is this action

[59:40] item on the agenda tonight which is um

[59:43] accepting the the application. Um some

[59:46] communities don't have that step. It's

[59:48] kind of I think it's somewhat unique to

[59:50] us but um that has been our first step.

[59:52] City commission accepts the application

[59:54] and then we will work then staff will

[59:57] work with our consultants um our

[59:58] financial adviser, bond counsel um and

[1:00:01] any other consultants we need to. uh

[1:00:03] those costs are funded by the applicant

[1:00:06] through the funding agreement which is

[1:00:08] also attached to the agenda.

[1:00:10] >> So we will see this item again.

[1:00:11] » So we will see this item again.

[1:00:11] >> Yes.

[1:00:12] » Yes.

[1:00:12] >> Great. Thank you very much.

[1:00:13] » Great. Thank you very much.

[1:00:13] >> Yes,

[1:00:14] » Yes,

[1:00:14] >> that's all I had.

[1:00:15] » that's all I had.

[1:00:15] >> And question inside the application it

[1:00:17] » And question inside the application it

[1:00:17] says you know Amar currently leases the

[1:00:19] building and per company policy cannot

[1:00:20] pursue expansion of a leased building.

[1:00:22] Therefore Amar is seeking an option to

[1:00:24] purchase the current site which then

[1:00:26] opens the potential for expansion

[1:00:28] investment. So just kind of if they

[1:00:31] didn't purchase the entire entire site,

[1:00:33] this IRB wouldn't happen. It's it's

[1:00:35] dependent on them making that purchase.

[1:00:38] >> Well, um that's that's a little cart

[1:00:40] » Well, um that's that's a little cart

[1:00:40] before the horse um because we we are

[1:00:43] just receiving the application. So we

[1:00:44] haven't started negotiating a

[1:00:45] development agreement or um the terms of

[1:00:48] the of a potential pilot payment in lie

[1:00:50] of taxes through the IRB. Um so those

[1:00:52] would be conversations that we'd have in

[1:00:54] the future.

[1:00:55] I think it's important to note that we

[1:00:58] do not make it incredibly easy for

[1:01:02] businesses to get these incentives. I

[1:01:05] think there might be a little bit of our

[1:01:08] community that um think maybe that we

[1:01:10] just hand them out very generously

[1:01:13] without any type of process. So, this is

[1:01:15] really one of the reasons, right,

[1:01:17] >> I I I brought this to the attention.

[1:01:19] » I I I brought this to the attention.

[1:01:19] Thank you again.

[1:01:19] >> Appreciate that. And I I will take the

[1:01:22] » Appreciate that. And I I will take the

[1:01:22] opportunity just to acknowledge um

[1:01:24] members of Amar's team are with us. Mike

[1:01:26] Burnholds, the general manager of the lo

[1:01:28] of the plant here. Um and then we do

[1:01:31] have a couple joining us online. Uh Rob

[1:01:33] Cheser

[1:01:34] >> [clears throat and snorts]

[1:01:35] » [clears throat and snorts]

[1:01:35] >> um and Sean Mason from Amar.

[1:01:37] » um and Sean Mason from Amar.

[1:01:37] >> Thank you.

[1:01:39] » Thank you.

[1:01:39] >> Thank you all for being here and and

[1:01:41] » Thank you all for being here and and

[1:01:41] look forward to seeing how the

[1:01:43] application goes. Any [clears throat]

[1:01:45] other questions?

[1:01:46] >> Not sir.

[1:01:47] » Not sir.

[1:01:48] >> Okay. This is a public hearing item. Any

[1:01:49] » Okay. This is a public hearing item. Any

[1:01:49] members of the public like to say

[1:01:51] anything on this item?

[1:01:54] Oh, Steve is going to say something.

[1:02:04] Mayor, members of the commission, I I

[1:02:06] don't want to take too much of your

[1:02:07] time. I know you've got a busy schedule,

[1:02:09] but I did want to say just a few words

[1:02:11] on behalf of this application. Uh Amar

[1:02:14] is one of the larger employers, not only

[1:02:16] of the city of Lawrence, but in the

[1:02:17] county. uh has been here for a number of

[1:02:20] years and in the last particularly in

[1:02:21] the last five years has done an

[1:02:22] outstanding job of reworking their

[1:02:25] business uh in in in a lot of ways it's

[1:02:28] become much more productive much more

[1:02:30] efficient and they've also instituted a

[1:02:32] number of of policies within the company

[1:02:35] that really have improved the the the

[1:02:38] work environment uh the family

[1:02:40] environment of the workplace uh and have

[1:02:42] been very successful in that. In fact,

[1:02:44] they're kind of a model within their

[1:02:46] overall company. Uh so they've done a

[1:02:48] great job uh and I think as has been

[1:02:52] disclosed you know they're in a

[1:02:54] situation where they have opportunities

[1:02:55] for growth and there opportunities for

[1:02:57] expansion but it's not you know not a

[1:03:01] viable situation for them to be putting

[1:03:03] investment into a building they don't

[1:03:04] own. Uh so this is a critical step for

[1:03:07] them not only to uh retain but also to

[1:03:11] put them in a position to continue to

[1:03:12] grow which they have intentions to do.

[1:03:15] So I would, you know, humbly ask that

[1:03:17] you give this strong consideration not

[1:03:19] only this evening but throughout the

[1:03:20] process.

[1:03:22] >> Thank you.

[1:03:26] » Any other any comments online?

[1:03:29] >> No, mayor.

[1:03:30] » No, mayor.

[1:03:30] >> Okay, bring it back to the commission

[1:03:32] » Okay, bring it back to the commission

[1:03:32] for comments or a motion.

[1:03:34] >> Um, I just want it to be known that um

[1:03:39] » Um, I just want it to be known that um

[1:03:39] I do support incentives for our

[1:03:42] businesses. I am very grateful for Amar

[1:03:44] and your presence in the community. Um I

[1:03:46] know several people that work at the

[1:03:48] organization. Um things that I will be

[1:03:52] looking for in the future are jobs. So

[1:03:54] when we look at incentives in general,

[1:03:56] that is one of the things that I will

[1:03:59] definitely give great consideration for

[1:04:02] increase in jobs. So thank you.

[1:04:04] >> Okay. Is any other comments or motions?

[1:04:08] » Okay. Is any other comments or motions?

[1:04:08] >> Yeah. Second that as well. A lot of kids

[1:04:10] » Yeah. Second that as well. A lot of kids

[1:04:10] on my a lot of [clears throat] parents

[1:04:11] on my kids uh cub scouts are working at

[1:04:13] work at AMR too. And so and to go along

[1:04:16] with Commissioner Polling was saying uh

[1:04:17] there'll be a question for me about are

[1:04:19] those jobs in Lawrence or in Douglas

[1:04:21] County and what that looks like. Just so

[1:04:22] you know.

[1:04:26] » Okay. When do we accept the economic

[1:04:28] development incentive application from

[1:04:30] Amar Company and we refer this to staff

[1:04:34] for analysis and follow-up

[1:04:36] recommendation?

[1:04:37] Second

[1:04:39] >> motion um by Commissioner Cos and second

[1:04:41] » motion um by Commissioner Cos and second

[1:04:41] by Commissioner Devo. All those in

[1:04:43] favor, please say I. I.

[1:04:45] >> Opposed? Passes 5 to zero. Last item

[1:04:49] » Opposed? Passes 5 to zero. Last item

[1:04:49] from the consent agenda is

[1:04:50] >> There was also a motion um which is fine

[1:04:53] » There was also a motion um which is fine

[1:04:53] to do it separate. We'll need another

[1:04:54] motion motion to authorize.

[1:04:57] Oh, thank you, Sher. I also move that we

[1:04:59] authorize the city manager execute a

[1:05:01] funding agreement in in substantiality

[1:05:04] the same as form as attached with the

[1:05:07] applicant.

[1:05:08] >> So second

[1:05:09] » So second

[1:05:09] >> I'll second that

[1:05:10] » I'll second that

[1:05:10] >> motion by commissioner sellers a second

[1:05:12] » motion by commissioner sellers a second

[1:05:12] by commissioner devil. All those in

[1:05:14] favor please say I

[1:05:16] >> I

[1:05:17] » I

[1:05:17] >> opposed. Now that passes five to zero.

[1:05:19] » opposed. Now that passes five to zero.

[1:05:19] Thank you Sher for catching that.

[1:05:21] >> My apologies. um C8B um related um to

[1:05:26] » My apologies. um C8B um related um to

[1:05:26] the estates of Malama I think is how

[1:05:29] they pronounce that and I think uh Vice

[1:05:30] Mayor um Courtney pulled this.

[1:05:32] >> Yeah. And so just a a question for MSO

[1:05:35] » Yeah. And so just a a question for MSO

[1:05:35] about this Okonnell [snorts] 25th.

[1:05:37] There's a lot of growth that's been

[1:05:39] happening uh to the east of OK and

[1:05:41] happening uh to the east of Okonnell.

[1:05:43] There's obviously at the north part of

[1:05:44] Okonnell is the MSO plant and stuff like

[1:05:46] that. I'm I I just sort of have like a

[1:05:49] just kind of like a high level question.

[1:05:51] When we have so much growth in an area

[1:05:53] like that, how are we thinking about

[1:05:56] sewer pump stations, what that can be

[1:05:59] supported in the future when we accept

[1:06:04] uh applications such as this?

[1:06:11] » Don't know if

[1:06:12] >> I'm looking to see who's on. I'm sorry.

[1:06:14] » I'm looking to see who's on. I'm sorry.

[1:06:14] >> No problem.

[1:06:15] » No problem.

[1:06:15] is not great.

[1:06:19] >> You said high level. I can do a high

[1:06:21] » You said high level. I can do a high

[1:06:21] level city manager version of it.

[1:06:23] [laughter] Um in [clears throat] they

[1:06:26] can fill in the blanks. Um so anytime

[1:06:28] we're looking at MSO looks at the

[1:06:30] applications for these, they look at the

[1:06:32] load that it will put on all of our

[1:06:34] infrastructure. So those are

[1:06:36] calculations that are done against our

[1:06:37] storm water u or all of our master plans

[1:06:41] for those utilities. Um, so we want to

[1:06:44] make sure that we've put in the right

[1:06:45] adequate uh capacity to take that

[1:06:48] downstream. Um, and so that those are

[1:06:50] the reviews that are done every time we

[1:06:52] would see that plat. And that's for load

[1:06:55] on our city streets uh turning radius,

[1:06:58] any of the street uh load. That's for

[1:07:01] our storm water system, the drainage

[1:07:04] that takes that the capacity. That's for

[1:07:06] our water system. Make sure that we have

[1:07:08] adequate pressures that are built into

[1:07:10] there. And that's also for our uh

[1:07:13] wastewater capacity and making sure that

[1:07:15] we're prepared all the way down the

[1:07:17] system for that load. And most of those

[1:07:19] are part of very large master plans that

[1:07:22] are contemplating development years and

[1:07:24] years ahead.

[1:07:26] >> So Melissa's now in and so is Katherine.

[1:07:28] » So Melissa's now in and so is Katherine.

[1:07:28] This is her Katherine's item.

[1:07:36] » Katherine. Melissa, anything to add?

[1:07:39] [clears throat]

[1:07:40] >> Mayor, I don't have anything to add

[1:07:41] » Mayor, I don't have anything to add

[1:07:41] unless Katherine does, but Craig's um

[1:07:43] spot on and is high level.

[1:07:47] >> Yeah, I don't have anything to add

[1:07:49] » Yeah, I don't have anything to add

[1:07:49] either. Commissioners,

[1:07:51] >> does that answer you?

[1:07:52] » does that answer you?

[1:07:52] >> Yeah. No, I think that answers the

[1:07:54] » Yeah. No, I think that answers the

[1:07:54] question. And so, as we start getting

[1:07:56] I'm just thinking like, hey, we're going

[1:07:57] to start, you know, expanding in

[1:07:58] different directions around town. And so

[1:08:00] like if we do a couple plats here and

[1:08:02] there, like

[1:08:04] that pressure that we're putting on

[1:08:06] roads, storm water, sewer, stuff like

[1:08:09] that,

[1:08:11] uh how do we know we're getting close to

[1:08:13] the limit of what that can support? Is

[1:08:16] that something that's like on the GIS

[1:08:18] like the ArcGIS type thing or just kind

[1:08:20] of curious about that? That's all those

[1:08:22] those large system plans those are made

[1:08:24] to contemplating uh a comprehensive plan

[1:08:28] uh lays that out and integrates that. So

[1:08:30] we're not only projecting we're

[1:08:32] projecting many many many factors some

[1:08:34] of them are the utility impacted factors

[1:08:37] others are zoning financial there's the

[1:08:41] comprehensive plan really does

[1:08:42] contemplate all of those things and ties

[1:08:43] all those pieces together but also then

[1:08:46] each of those master plans that are

[1:08:48] developed that that feed into that those

[1:08:51] are um usually consultant studies that

[1:08:54] talk about entire watersheds or entire

[1:08:57] areas of pressure zones um and We are we

[1:09:00] are hopefully decades ahead of the need

[1:09:04] and a lot of our c comprehensive or um

[1:09:07] capital improvement planning work is

[1:09:09] loading those projects in in a timely

[1:09:12] way so those improvements happen in time

[1:09:14] to support whatever development needs

[1:09:16] are planned and the the planning process

[1:09:19] too is uh lays out the land use plan so

[1:09:22] that we are we're saying this is how

[1:09:24] much load we're wanting to have happen.

[1:09:27] So, one affects the other and the other

[1:09:30] uh maybe drives the first. So,

[1:09:34] >> I appreci I appreciate you taking the

[1:09:35] » I appreci I appreciate you taking the

[1:09:36] time to explain that. Thanks.

[1:09:37] >> That's all that's all I have for that.

[1:09:39] » That's all that's all I have for that.

[1:09:39] >> Okay. Uh any other questions about C8B

[1:09:43] » Okay. Uh any other questions about C8B

[1:09:43] from the commission? If not, it's a

[1:09:46] public hearing item. Anyone like to

[1:09:48] speak on C8B and the audience?

[1:09:52] Seeing none, how about online?

[1:09:54] >> No, ma'am.

[1:09:56] » No, ma'am.

[1:09:56] bring C8B back for comments or motions.

[1:10:01] >> Um motion to accept the dedications of

[1:10:03] » Um motion to accept the dedications of

[1:10:03] utility easements and right ofway

[1:10:05] associated with the final plat plat 2520

[1:10:08] for estates of Malama in the city of

[1:10:10] Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas located

[1:10:12] at 2500 Okonnell Drive.

[1:10:15] >> Second

[1:10:16] » Second

[1:10:16] >> motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded

[1:10:18] » motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded

[1:10:18] by um Commissioner Devo. All those in

[1:10:21] favor, please say I.

[1:10:23] >> I.

[1:10:23] » I.

[1:10:23] >> Opposed? passes 520 to zero. That brings

[1:10:28] » Opposed? passes 520 to zero. That brings

[1:10:28] us to section E, which is the regular

[1:10:29] agenda items. And regular agenda item

[1:10:32] one and two, I assume we're going to do

[1:10:34] together um related to um the uh well,

[1:10:41] let's say the FIFA World Cup, but we'll

[1:10:43] let Jeff talk us through that.

[1:10:47] [clears throat]

[1:10:48] Excuse me.

[1:10:57] Sorry for the delay on that,

[1:10:58] commissioners. Good evening. Jeff Drake

[1:11:00] with planning development services. The

[1:11:02] two amendments are really a tandem pair

[1:11:04] for this item there. And what it is is

[1:11:06] one item will amend the short-term

[1:11:08] rental licensing code. The other amends

[1:11:10] the land development code sections

[1:11:11] related to short-term rentals. So, kind

[1:11:14] of walk through in general what the the

[1:11:16] purpose of this is. You had seen the

[1:11:18] initiation a few months back, but just

[1:11:20] as a reminder with the World Cup coming

[1:11:22] up, we wanted to propose a change to the

[1:11:23] amendments so that there was more

[1:11:24] flexibility in related to those codes.

[1:11:27] And what we're proposing is an

[1:11:29] alteration to the amendments that would

[1:11:30] run in the end of May through basically

[1:11:33] the end of July that would remove a

[1:11:35] couple of sections for we see in the

[1:11:36] code for the land development code. It

[1:11:38] would change the owner occupied and

[1:11:40] non-owner occupied permissions and allow

[1:11:42] a wider variety of uses. So, owner

[1:11:44] occupied and non-owner occupied

[1:11:46] short-term rentals could expand as part

[1:11:47] of that process. As part of the rental

[1:11:50] licensing code, we would remove a couple

[1:11:52] things and then include what's called an

[1:11:53] inspection reciprocity. And I'll start

[1:11:55] with that one first. So, if a property

[1:11:57] is licensed in the long-term rental

[1:11:58] program and has been inspected and gone

[1:12:01] through the process is that we would

[1:12:02] roll that inspection over to the

[1:12:03] short-term rental process because it

[1:12:05] would have cleared those marks, would

[1:12:06] have been found to be insufficient on

[1:12:08] that and just roll that over as part of

[1:12:10] that under the current short-term rental

[1:12:12] licensing code. An entity can't have

[1:12:14] more than three short-term rentals in

[1:12:16] the city of Lawrence. We would

[1:12:17] temporarily remove that cap. So, if an

[1:12:18] apartment complex had 20, 25, 30 units

[1:12:22] and would like to use all 30 of those

[1:12:24] units for short-term rentals, a

[1:12:25] possibility for the duration of the

[1:12:27] World Cup allowance, that would be a

[1:12:28] possibility that would be available for

[1:12:30] that time span. And we'd also include

[1:12:33] some language in there to make sure that

[1:12:34] when somebody is applying that they do

[1:12:36] they're aware that it is a short, no pun

[1:12:39] intended here, a short short-term

[1:12:40] rental. uh it's only for the duration of

[1:12:42] that World Cup between the May 25th

[1:12:45] through July 31st or whatever day the

[1:12:47] commission finds fit to end the process

[1:12:49] on that one and that if they would at

[1:12:52] the conclusion of that then the

[1:12:53] short-term rental code would go back in

[1:12:55] place and those previous restrictions

[1:12:56] that we currently have would come back

[1:12:58] on the books. So, just as a as a quick

[1:13:00] recap, it is it really amending two

[1:13:02] different chapters, but really it's the

[1:13:04] same process or excuse me, the same

[1:13:06] project in just two different portions

[1:13:07] of the city code. And with that, I'd be

[1:13:09] happy to stand for any questions related

[1:13:11] to those.

[1:13:12] >> I have a couple questions, Jeff, which I

[1:13:14] » I have a couple questions, Jeff, which I

[1:13:14] think I know the answer to, but there

[1:13:16] have been questions I've been getting.

[1:13:17] So, okay, let's say I want to rent my

[1:13:20] house out during the World Cup. Um, I

[1:13:22] have to apply for a short-term rental

[1:13:24] license,

[1:13:25] >> correct? would be apply for a short-term

[1:13:26] » correct? would be apply for a short-term

[1:13:26] rental license and we would inspect the

[1:13:28] unit to ensure it meets the property

[1:13:29] maintenance code specifications.

[1:13:31] >> But if I have a long-term rental that I

[1:13:33] » But if I have a long-term rental that I

[1:13:34] already rent out and it's already

[1:13:35] licensed, I wouldn't have to get us

[1:13:37] apply for the short-term rental.

[1:13:39] >> Would have to get a short-term rental

[1:13:40] » Would have to get a short-term rental

[1:13:40] license if you were going to include it

[1:13:41] and in that process. But if you were

[1:13:43] inspected recently, then we would roll

[1:13:45] that inspection over as a reciprocity.

[1:13:46] So you wouldn't have to have a second

[1:13:48] inspection that we've already seen the

[1:13:49] unit on.

[1:13:50] >> Okay. So you would have to apply. You

[1:13:52] » Okay. So you would have to apply. You

[1:13:52] just would need an inspection

[1:13:54] >> potentially. Correct. But again, if I

[1:13:55] » potentially. Correct. But again, if I

[1:13:56] wanted to do my house and I don't have a

[1:13:58] license, I would have to have an

[1:14:00] inspection, apply and have an inspection

[1:14:02] done.

[1:14:03] >> That's correct.

[1:14:03] » That's correct.

[1:14:03] >> Correct. Um, and then I know there's a

[1:14:06] » Correct. Um, and then I know there's a

[1:14:06] lot of questions about the two things

[1:14:08] we're passing tonight don't do not

[1:14:10] contain an end date on them.

[1:14:12] >> That's correct.

[1:14:13] » That's correct.

[1:14:13] >> And um, tell us what we should do if we

[1:14:16] » And um, tell us what we should do if we

[1:14:16] want an end date on these.

[1:14:17] >> We would recommend an end date on those.

[1:14:19] » We would recommend an end date on those.

[1:14:19] And what we have prepared was the second

[1:14:21] stage of this as we noted in the first

[1:14:22] one is the initiation of a text

[1:14:24] amendment to put the code back as it was

[1:14:26] with an effective date on July 31st to

[1:14:29] kind of rewind it to what it is tonight

[1:14:32] effectively. Um so that we were going to

[1:14:34] recommend that we're going to bring an

[1:14:35] initiation forward on that one. However,

[1:14:37] you can also recommend or excuse me, you

[1:14:39] can also initiate that text amendment

[1:14:40] tonight if you would like to just to

[1:14:42] kind of close that loop and get that

[1:14:43] process rolling on that. Um, we were

[1:14:45] anticipating July 31 only because it was

[1:14:48] the end of a calendar month and it was

[1:14:50] also at past the conclusion of all the

[1:14:51] World Cup events. So, if somebody wanted

[1:14:53] to stay in town after the events

[1:14:55] [clears throat] in Kansas City were

[1:14:57] concluded, that gave them some time and

[1:14:58] space for people to en enjoy the area

[1:15:00] and see some different sites, but there

[1:15:02] is no real particular ending date that

[1:15:04] you could choose from any number of

[1:15:06] dates on that.

[1:15:07] >> But we could go ahead tonight and make

[1:15:09] » But we could go ahead tonight and make

[1:15:09] that motion to initiate to to have an

[1:15:11] end date.

[1:15:11] >> Absolutely.

[1:15:12] » Absolutely.

[1:15:12] >> Okay. And uh Okay. Well, those are just

[1:15:16] » Okay. And uh Okay. Well, those are just

[1:15:16] some of the clarifications. I know

[1:15:17] people are asking other questions for

[1:15:18] Jeff at this time.

[1:15:20] >> I I do um

[1:15:23] » I I do um

[1:15:24] explain some differences to me on owner

[1:15:28] occupied versus nonowner occupied, the

[1:15:32] intent behind

[1:15:34] uh the difference in fee costs, etc. The

[1:15:38] spirit of it. Can you kind of walk

[1:15:39] through that a little bit?

[1:15:41] I think I I think I can try. There is no

[1:15:43] difference in fees between an owner

[1:15:45] occupied and a non-owner occupied

[1:15:46] short-term rental.

[1:15:47] >> Okay.

[1:15:47] » Okay.

[1:15:48] >> So, it's just if you're applying for a

[1:15:49] » So, it's just if you're applying for a

[1:15:50] short-term rental, you're usually

[1:15:51] applying for the application, the

[1:15:52] inspection fee, and those are the the

[1:15:54] same regardless of of owner occupancy or

[1:15:57] not in that process.

[1:15:57] >> Okay. Thank you for that.

[1:15:58] » Okay. Thank you for that.

[1:15:58] >> So, owner occupancy is depends upon um

[1:16:02] » So, owner occupancy is depends upon um

[1:16:02] is it your primary residence?

[1:16:03] effectively for a short version of a of

[1:16:05] a long definition. It's effectively if

[1:16:07] you're spending the majority of your

[1:16:08] time in the residence and it's your your

[1:16:09] place of residence and you're renting it

[1:16:11] out as a short-term rental. And so, um,

[1:16:14] a great example would be, and we've seen

[1:16:15] this happen where a professor gets a,

[1:16:18] uh, sbatical or tenorship at another

[1:16:20] university and they rent the house for

[1:16:22] three months because they're here to

[1:16:24] either participate in function or

[1:16:26] something like that. They're not

[1:16:28] necessarily vacating the residence, but

[1:16:30] they're also not going to be there. So

[1:16:31] they can elect to do that process. Um so

[1:16:34] really if the property is non-owner

[1:16:36] occupied as a function of the land

[1:16:38] development code on where it is

[1:16:39] permissible to do a non-owner occupied

[1:16:41] short-term rental where it just depends

[1:16:43] in certain districts you can do an owner

[1:16:45] occupied and others you can't just do

[1:16:47] those. So it's really the change in the

[1:16:48] occupancy for land use purposes.

[1:16:51] >> Okay. And then um last I think last

[1:16:54] » Okay. And then um last I think last

[1:16:54] question

[1:16:56] two parts. How are we doing on PE

[1:16:58] keeping up on inspections

[1:17:01] in terms of these short-term rentals

[1:17:03] now? And how are are we setting

[1:17:06] ourselves up for failure if we're having

[1:17:08] a tough time today? Um, which I have

[1:17:11] heard. I haven't gotten any confirmation

[1:17:13] from staff one way or the other, but uh

[1:17:16] we stand to have a lot of shortterm

[1:17:19] rentals come up. How are we going to

[1:17:21] handle that uh that burden that

[1:17:24] additional burden of inspection?

[1:17:26] >> Sure. And if I understand your question,

[1:17:28] » Sure. And if I understand your question,

[1:17:28] are are we caught up on inspections

[1:17:29] currently? For sure.

[1:17:30] >> Yes. Are we managing the inspections

[1:17:32] » Yes. Are we managing the inspections

[1:17:32] today in a timely manner?

[1:17:34] >> We are. Yes.

[1:17:35] » We are. Yes.

[1:17:35] >> Okay.

[1:17:35] » Okay.

[1:17:35] >> It's not the it's not the same as the

[1:17:37] » It's not the it's not the same as the

[1:17:37] long-term rental program which has the

[1:17:38] three or the six year depending upon the

[1:17:40] number of violations. To be in the

[1:17:42] short-term rental program, you have to

[1:17:43] be inspected and we do that on the in

[1:17:45] the interval of every couple years which

[1:17:46] is in the ordinance. So if you have

[1:17:48] that, we are meeting that mark on that.

[1:17:50] >> Uh the reason we have the amendment

[1:17:52] » Uh the reason we have the amendment

[1:17:52] before you now in January instead of

[1:17:54] later on is because that gives us some

[1:17:55] time and runway for people to start

[1:17:57] applying for the program, be ready to go

[1:17:59] through those inspections. So when the

[1:18:01] ordinance becomes effective, they could

[1:18:02] already be well in place to take

[1:18:04] advantage of that process. That also

[1:18:06] gives our staff time to start inspecting

[1:18:08] those units in advance of that to help

[1:18:09] make sure that we're not holding anybody

[1:18:11] back on that. And we do have a great

[1:18:13] team that does go out and do those

[1:18:14] inspections. And so they are up to speed

[1:18:16] and up to date on those items currently.

[1:18:18] We just wanted to give them some runway

[1:18:19] and give applicants time to understand

[1:18:22] what's the expectation the code's going

[1:18:23] to be and then what are those minimum

[1:18:25] life safety standards that we would be

[1:18:26] looking for in a property.

[1:18:28] >> Okay. And I love that you guys are

[1:18:30] » Okay. And I love that you guys are

[1:18:30] getting ahead of it. That is excellent.

[1:18:33] Are we uh do we have a plan in place on

[1:18:36] notifying folks? Right. Because we give

[1:18:39] them the opportunity. It doesn't mean

[1:18:40] that they necessarily take it to get

[1:18:43] their application in early. Last thing I

[1:18:45] want is for us to have an overload and

[1:18:49] and you guys are kind of caught off

[1:18:51] guard. Do we have anything that we can

[1:18:53] do to let people know, hey yo yo, get

[1:18:56] your stuff going now?

[1:18:57] >> Absolutely. We've been working with

[1:18:58] » Absolutely. We've been working with

[1:18:58] communications to get some frequently

[1:19:00] asked questions together. Some of the

[1:19:02] things we normally get is just part of

[1:19:03] the process, but then also kind of a

[1:19:04] campaign to kind of help. Here's what's

[1:19:06] happening. Here's what you can do.

[1:19:07] Here's who to reach out to. Okay. We're

[1:19:09] on the same same wavelength on that

[1:19:11] part.

[1:19:11] >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[1:19:13] » Okay, great. Thank you.

[1:19:13] >> And I think as a followup to that

[1:19:15] » And I think as a followup to that

[1:19:15] question, at least my understanding

[1:19:17] there might be some discussion among

[1:19:19] unified command on the housing division

[1:19:22] with explore Lawrence and you and all

[1:19:25] that to do some public education on on

[1:19:28] what it means to be an Airbnb holder and

[1:19:31] things, not just regulations, but how

[1:19:34] you do it, how do you be successful at

[1:19:36] it, that sort of thing. that is. Yeah,

[1:19:37] that's exactly some of the stuff that

[1:19:38] we're working on. And I will be the

[1:19:40] first to admit I'm probably not the most

[1:19:41] knowledgeable on how to be successful at

[1:19:43] a short-term rental. Um, but we

[1:19:45] definitely want to help get people

[1:19:46] connected to those that are and and make

[1:19:48] that available. And that is part of the

[1:19:49] process that we're working on.

[1:19:51] >> Yeah.

[1:19:52] » Yeah.

[1:19:52] >> Um, just as to help communications out,

[1:19:55] » Um, just as to help communications out,

[1:19:55] if if I wanted a short-term rental,

[1:19:58] where would I find that? Could I go to

[1:19:59] the website? How would I do that?

[1:20:01] >> You could definitely go to the website.

[1:20:02] » You could definitely go to the website.

[1:20:02] Uh you could also go to EPL portal and

[1:20:05] apply for a license on that one and you

[1:20:07] could also give us a phone call at

[1:20:09] 8327700

[1:20:11] and we'll be able to help out with get

[1:20:12] that process started too. So we always

[1:20:14] make sure that we have staff available

[1:20:15] that can answer those calls and help

[1:20:16] out.

[1:20:17] >> Thank you. Other questions at the moment

[1:20:21] » Thank you. Other questions at the moment

[1:20:21] >> and so if an individual person wanted to

[1:20:23] » and so if an individual person wanted to

[1:20:23] and apologies for not looking this up

[1:20:25] ahead of time if they wanted to apply

[1:20:26] for a short short-term rental how much

[1:20:28] does that cost?

[1:20:31] might have the numbers a little bit off

[1:20:32] here, but usually the application fee is

[1:20:34] around $17 and the inspection fee is

[1:20:36] about 50. So, you end up being about $67

[1:20:38] in total an application.

[1:20:40] >> Gotcha. And how many how much how many

[1:20:42] » Gotcha. And how many how much how many

[1:20:42] people are on staff doing inspections?

[1:20:45] >> We have a team of four in code

[1:20:46] » We have a team of four in code

[1:20:46] compliance. We have two specifically

[1:20:48] dedicated to both long-term and

[1:20:49] short-term rental inspections. And they

[1:20:51] go through quite a number of properties

[1:20:53] and they've seen a number over the

[1:20:54] years.

[1:20:55] >> Gotcha. And I I did look beforehand. So,

[1:20:57] » Gotcha. And I I did look beforehand. So,

[1:20:58] we have 140 homes on Verbbo. We got 168

[1:21:00] on Airbnb and so that team is doing

[1:21:03] those inspections on a regular basis

[1:21:05] >> as they're licensed and required to.

[1:21:07] » as they're licensed and required to.

[1:21:07] Yes.

[1:21:10] » I'll just note that I am in favor adding

[1:21:12] the end date tonight getting it closing

[1:21:15] that loop as you called it.

[1:21:17] >> Yeah, same.

[1:21:19] » Yeah, same.

[1:21:19] >> Yes.

[1:21:20] » Yes.

[1:21:20] But other questions at this point? And

[1:21:23] then the status of the the short-term

[1:21:25] rentals, if we put an end date on it,

[1:21:26] they're no longer short-term rentals

[1:21:28] after that fact. It would be what they

[1:21:31] are right now. They if they wanted to,

[1:21:32] they could go through the process again

[1:21:34] like they could right now, but they

[1:21:36] wouldn't like carry over after going

[1:21:37] through this,

[1:21:38] >> right? Yeah. We would have that you'd be

[1:21:40] » right? Yeah. We would have that you'd be

[1:21:40] licensed for the duration of those 60

[1:21:44] odd days, give or take a few in there.

[1:21:46] And then if you wanted to come back and

[1:21:47] do it as a more uh permanent or a more

[1:21:51] uh constant item there, you could go

[1:21:53] through the normal process which has

[1:21:54] about a 2-year expiration if I remember

[1:21:56] correctly. Is there any concern,

[1:21:58] especially on the apartment side of

[1:21:59] things, that

[1:22:03] people may be blocked from getting

[1:22:05] rentals in this period because there'd

[1:22:07] be such a lucrative opportunity with

[1:22:10] this with the World Cup. It's something

[1:22:12] we've been watching for a good number of

[1:22:14] months right now to understand what that

[1:22:16] dynamic is. And it's kind of hard to pin

[1:22:18] down since it's usually a contractual

[1:22:19] arrangement between two private parties,

[1:22:21] but we've not seen a lot of people

[1:22:23] shifting their kind of their dates

[1:22:26] around. So, we're seeing very similar

[1:22:27] lease terms that we would normally see

[1:22:29] in non-World Cup years particularly.

[1:22:31] Again, that might be a possibility or

[1:22:33] some renters may have an interest in

[1:22:35] doing that because they don't want to

[1:22:36] have to deal with a sublet or pay for

[1:22:38] rent in a property they're not going to

[1:22:40] be in for the duration. And so there

[1:22:41] might be some of that, but we're not

[1:22:42] seeing a lot of changes in that leasing

[1:22:45] at this point in time. And usually those

[1:22:47] leases do run from year to year. So we

[1:22:49] would have expected to have seen that,

[1:22:51] you know, kind of in the fall leading up

[1:22:53] to this.

[1:22:56] >> And do you guys code enforcement when

[1:22:58] » And do you guys code enforcement when

[1:22:58] we're talking enforcement, are you

[1:23:00] cross-checking Airbnb with VBO?

[1:23:02] >> Yes, we do look at that. We also look at

[1:23:04] » Yes, we do look at that. We also look at

[1:23:04] a couple of other platforms that we see

[1:23:06] pretty active in the community, too.

[1:23:07] >> Okay, great.

[1:23:10] » Okay, great.

[1:23:10] Okay, if there's no other questions,

[1:23:12] thank you, Jeff. We'll open this up to

[1:23:14] um public and you have three minutes.

[1:23:18] >> Uh my name is Aaron Nice 66049. Um I am

[1:23:21] » Uh my name is Aaron Nice 66049. Um I am

[1:23:21] here today as a resident, landlord, and

[1:23:23] an Airbnb operator. Um I don't believe

[1:23:26] that the city should relax uh

[1:23:28] requirements or ordinances for the World

[1:23:30] Cup. We do have insufficient transient

[1:23:33] housing for large KU games, all the

[1:23:35] other sports events that are housed

[1:23:36] here. To me, this really feels like it's

[1:23:39] going to be a cash grab for the

[1:23:40] corporate owner corporate owned

[1:23:42] apartment complexes, especially places

[1:23:44] like the Lynx who they can just stop.

[1:23:46] They can start denying new leases during

[1:23:48] till now until the World Cup just so

[1:23:51] that they're close. Everyone's going to

[1:23:52] want to stay towards Rockchock Park,

[1:23:54] close to I7, everything. I think it's

[1:23:57] just going to be a handout to

[1:23:58] corporations and not people that

[1:23:59] actually live in the city. Um, I also

[1:24:02] worry about enforcement once the period

[1:24:04] is ended. Who's going to go? Like, if

[1:24:06] these people just leave it open, what's

[1:24:09] going to stop them from just keeping

[1:24:10] their Airbnb going? It's going to take

[1:24:12] forever. If there's a flood of new

[1:24:14] short-term rentals, it's going to take

[1:24:16] forever for the city to get around and

[1:24:17] check everybody, actually enforce the

[1:24:20] ordinances. Um, so I just don't think

[1:24:23] that also I think that it's going to

[1:24:25] limit housing for people who live here.

[1:24:27] Also, it's going to take anybody whose

[1:24:29] lease is about due. Landlords aren't

[1:24:31] going to be renting to them. like if

[1:24:33] there your lease is up the next month,

[1:24:34] landlord is just going to hold that

[1:24:36] empty until the World Cup comes hoping

[1:24:39] that they'll get a windfall of money

[1:24:40] from that and these people that are

[1:24:43] moving or even if their lease is ending

[1:24:45] and the landlord just decides to not

[1:24:46] renew, they're not going to be able to

[1:24:48] find housing in town. So, I think it's a

[1:24:51] bad decision to lack the ordinances for

[1:24:54] that short period. we have the

[1:24:56] infrastructure here already and I just

[1:24:59] and I don't see any planning on how to

[1:25:00] actually enforce shutting these new

[1:25:02] short-term short-term rentals down. So I

[1:25:06] I would hope the city would not go

[1:25:07] through with this and at least think

[1:25:10] about the ramifications to the actual

[1:25:11] citizens before they follow through

[1:25:13] rather than this imaginary windfall

[1:25:15] that's not guaranteed to come.

[1:25:18] >> Thank you.

[1:25:19] » Thank you.

[1:25:19] >> Thank you.

[1:25:29] Hi, my name is Sheri Ellen Becker. I

[1:25:31] live on Holiday Drive 66049.

[1:25:35] And um thank you for the opportunity.

[1:25:37] You know, people really care about this

[1:25:39] issue because it's their homes and their

[1:25:43] neighborhoods that you're talking about.

[1:25:46] I think you guys hear, you know,

[1:25:47] short-term rental, you know, adding

[1:25:50] extra hotel space, and we hear

[1:25:53] neighborhood invasion, and there's a

[1:25:56] real dichotomy of how people the the

[1:26:00] basic way that they approach this

[1:26:02] situation. And where we are right now is

[1:26:06] the result of a lot of hard work on the

[1:26:08] part of the staff and the city

[1:26:10] commission to get to the rules that we

[1:26:12] have now. Right now we have some modicum

[1:26:16] of enforcement in that the application

[1:26:20] says do you apply for non non-owner

[1:26:25] occupied or owner occupied but that's up

[1:26:27] to you to say what you want and there's

[1:26:30] no real teeth in that application. And I

[1:26:32] can show you applications from half a

[1:26:35] dozen other cities where you've got to

[1:26:36] show voter registration or um insurance

[1:26:42] vehicle, you know, insurance vehicles

[1:26:44] and other things that prove that you

[1:26:46] really live there because I know there's

[1:26:48] one in my neighborhood and I've gone

[1:26:49] there with my missing cat flyers looking

[1:26:52] for Charlie and they say, "This is an

[1:26:54] Airbnb lady. Nobody lives here." And but

[1:26:58] that's that's not what we're here to

[1:27:00] talk about tonight. We're talking about

[1:27:02] this temporary need during when we are

[1:27:05] going to see increased visitors during

[1:27:07] the World Cup time. And I think even if

[1:27:10] you're in the neighborhood invasion

[1:27:12] camp, you still understand that need.

[1:27:16] But we we don't understand why there's

[1:27:19] no sunset on it, why that can't be in

[1:27:22] the ordinance. I mean, it seems to me

[1:27:26] that if you really were going to sunset

[1:27:28] it, you could figure out a way to put it

[1:27:30] in there. And and it comes down,

[1:27:33] unfortunately, to trust.

[1:27:36] You know, sometimes the commission says

[1:27:38] things and then years later or sometime

[1:27:41] later they'll say, "Well, we said it,

[1:27:43] but it's not codified,

[1:27:45] so it doesn't really mean anything."

[1:27:48] Those were words and these are actions.

[1:27:50] So, I'm asking you to put it into action

[1:27:53] and put the sunset clause into this so

[1:27:56] we can rest easy. And thank you.

[1:27:59] >> Thank you.

[1:28:10] » Christina McKenna 66046

[1:28:13] um for the Coalition for Collaborative

[1:28:14] Governments. Uh we we're submitting

[1:28:16] feedback based on information we've

[1:28:18] gathered from several neighborhood

[1:28:19] advocates who have been involved in the

[1:28:21] city's short-term rental policy

[1:28:22] development and enforcement. The two

[1:28:25] amendments before you tonight include

[1:28:26] temporary provisions. Only one of two

[1:28:28] agenda items reports states the dates as

[1:28:31] Mayor Finkel mentioned and Mr. Crook

[1:28:33] verified. So we're just suggesting that

[1:28:35] um a nice deadline is actually in put in

[1:28:38] place as well. We're agreeing with that.

[1:28:40] Um, the second half of one of these

[1:28:41] amendments applies to 11 zoning

[1:28:43] districts and the planning commission

[1:28:44] report states it'll be a permanent

[1:28:46] amendment. The agenda item report

[1:28:48] includes no information about the

[1:28:50] reasoning and impact of that portion of

[1:28:51] it. So, we request that you discuss any

[1:28:53] implications of the permanent change

[1:28:55] before passing that ordinance. Um, also

[1:28:58] as a historical context, two ordinances

[1:29:01] were passed in October of 2020 to

[1:29:03] prohibit non-owner occupied short-term

[1:29:05] rentals and single dwelling residential

[1:29:07] zones to protect neighborhoods. It

[1:29:09] allowed non-owner occupied ones in other

[1:29:11] zoning districts with licensing. It also

[1:29:13] established a general cap of three units

[1:29:15] per owner. And the Lawrence Association

[1:29:17] of Neighborhoods has spent years

[1:29:18] advocating for robust short-term rental

[1:29:20] licensing and inspection program. During

[1:29:23] these conversations, the city

[1:29:24] acknowledged they didn't have the

[1:29:25] adequate staff, which I know was

[1:29:27] commented on tonight, um to monitor the

[1:29:29] complaints or enforce regulations or

[1:29:31] violations of the rental regulations.

[1:29:33] So, the city approved the better

[1:29:35] sheeting for one and a half additional

[1:29:36] staff positions, but they weren't

[1:29:38] filled. So, it's nice to hear that

[1:29:40] they're ahead on these inspections. Um,

[1:29:44] we did have a coalition member with an

[1:29:45] owner occupied short-term rental report

[1:29:47] that her owner occupied rentals

[1:29:49] inspected every two years, but she and

[1:29:51] others report the city was unable to

[1:29:52] maintain inspections for apartments,

[1:29:54] which are likely non-owner occupied

[1:29:56] units. So, again, that was good to hear

[1:29:57] that those are ahead. actually.

[1:30:00] Um, and a logistical question related to

[1:30:02] the city's inspection requirements, like

[1:30:04] my friend Aaron had mentioned, is how

[1:30:06] would they resend the resin the licenses

[1:30:08] afterward as well as just continuing to

[1:30:10] keep up with the extra inspections that

[1:30:12] will be required. Thank you.

[1:30:14] >> Thank you. [clears throat]

[1:30:19] » Other comments in the room?

[1:30:22] >> If not, oh,

[1:30:25] » If not, oh,

[1:30:25] >> sorry, Mayor. Thank you. Yes,

[1:30:27] » sorry, Mayor. Thank you. Yes,

[1:30:27] >> I didn't hear all of that,

[1:30:29] » I didn't hear all of that,

[1:30:29] unfortunately.

[1:30:30] [clears throat] Um, so I I I

[1:30:35] do want to say that um it's interesting

[1:30:38] that we might consider um

[1:30:42] uh a rep reprieve for regular

[1:30:45] homeowners. Um,

[1:30:48] as much as I appreciate staff's

[1:30:50] comments, neighborhoods know that there

[1:30:54] are already short-term rentals that are

[1:30:57] um, illegal, quote unquote, or not

[1:31:00] lawful outside of policy. Um, I

[1:31:04] appreciate what Commissioner Courtney

[1:31:06] asked, which is about Verbbo. If I

[1:31:08] understand Verbbo, Verbbo is

[1:31:10] specifically non-owner occupied. So, um,

[1:31:14] if you're seeing non-owner occupied on

[1:31:16] Verbbo, then you have to look at each

[1:31:19] individual one and find out what their,

[1:31:21] um, zoning is, and I appreciate what

[1:31:24] staff has said, but again, they only

[1:31:26] have four people in code enforcement,

[1:31:28] and and it is unclear to neighborhoods,

[1:31:31] um, that that is being enforced at this

[1:31:33] time. Um, I think it's great for

[1:31:37] homeowners to have a one-time windfall

[1:31:39] um for this option when it comes around,

[1:31:44] but again, as some others have said, we

[1:31:46] don't have a guarantee of a sunset.

[1:31:48] Could this be uh a backdoor into uh

[1:31:53] creating an opportunity for these to

[1:31:56] basically remove affordable housing and

[1:31:58] accessible housing um people in big

[1:32:02] cities or cities with um uh a large

[1:32:07] amount of transient guest tax to pull

[1:32:10] actual housing offline. So I hope you

[1:32:13] guys will think about that. I would also

[1:32:16] remind everyone that [snorts] if you

[1:32:18] stay in housing more than 30 days, you

[1:32:22] don't actually get the uh transient gas

[1:32:24] tax. So, um while it's nice that we're

[1:32:28] having all these nice visitors after 30

[1:32:30] days, we're not getting transient gas

[1:32:32] tax. Uh the people who have those units,

[1:32:36] they'll get money. That's fine. They'll

[1:32:38] pay their taxes, but we're not getting

[1:32:40] transient gas tax out of it. Thank you.

[1:32:42] Thank you. Other

[1:32:47] comments in the room? If not, how about

[1:32:50] online?

[1:32:50] >> We do have a few

[1:32:53] » We do have a few

[1:32:53] [clears throat]

[1:33:05] » Julie Jones.

[1:33:10] » Julie, we can't hear you.

[1:33:24] » [snorts]

[1:33:27] » I still can't hear you.

[1:33:30] [laughter]

[1:33:34] » Brian Enez, why don't you say something

[1:33:36] just to make sure we can hear hear

[1:33:38] somebody?

[1:33:41] Can you hear me?

[1:33:42] >> Okay, we can hear you.

[1:33:44] » Okay, we can hear you.

[1:33:44] >> Okay,

[1:33:45] » Okay,

[1:33:45] >> thank you. Just checking.

[1:33:46] » thank you. Just checking.

[1:33:46] >> Just just FYI while you got me real

[1:33:48] » Just just FYI while you got me real

[1:33:48] quick, mayor. I'm just online to answer

[1:33:51] any questions that um may be deferred to

[1:33:53] me that Jeff may not have the answer to.

[1:33:56] >> Yep. We'll we'll get to you back in a

[1:33:57] » Yep. We'll we'll get to you back in a

[1:33:57] second. Julie, one more try there. If

[1:34:00] not, we might go to someone else and

[1:34:01] then come back to you and give you

[1:34:02] another chance. Okay, let's go to the

[1:34:06] others and then we'll come back to

[1:34:07] Julie. Okay.

[1:34:18] Chris Flowers.

[1:34:26] » Hi. Uh, this is Chris Flowers. Um,

[1:34:30] I just want to start with how will this

[1:34:32] affect long-term rentals? Has staff

[1:34:35] studied that? Um, cuz I'm going to ask

[1:34:38] you this. Will the need for long-term

[1:34:40] rentals decrease at all? Cuz I'm going

[1:34:43] to say no. The the need for long-term

[1:34:46] renters is going to be the same. And

[1:34:48] what's what's the purpose of having caps

[1:34:52] on how many uh short-term rentals a land

[1:34:56] loaner land owner can own? I thought the

[1:34:59] purpose of that was to protect the

[1:35:01] long-term rental market. So now the

[1:35:05] demand, we're saying, well, the demand

[1:35:07] for short-term rentals is going to

[1:35:09] increase, but the demand for long-term

[1:35:12] rentals isn't going to decrease at all.

[1:35:15] And how is it I I I just I don't

[1:35:19] understand. Like the need for short-term

[1:35:22] rentals is going to be at an all-time

[1:35:24] high. So doesn't that mean the need for

[1:35:28] protection for long-term rentals is

[1:35:30] going to be at its highest? Like why are

[1:35:32] you doing away with the protection just

[1:35:36] when the the pe the long-term renters

[1:35:39] are going to need the protection the

[1:35:40] most? I looked it up and it's saying

[1:35:43] some of the like some of these

[1:35:45] short-term rentals are going to go for

[1:35:47] 300% more than they would normal during

[1:35:50] the World Cup. And the short-term

[1:35:52] rentals are already much more than

[1:35:55] long-term rentals are. So you're going

[1:35:57] to have situations where it's going to

[1:35:59] be more

[1:36:01] landlords could possibly make more money

[1:36:04] just renting out a a unit for a month

[1:36:08] during World Cup than they would uh

[1:36:10] doing it as a long-term rental for the

[1:36:12] summer. And my first place I rented at

[1:36:14] was Metobrook. And it was when I was

[1:36:16] coming out of the dorm housing and I

[1:36:20] signed up for a summer rental for and it

[1:36:22] was until August. It was like end of May

[1:36:25] till like June and July. like could

[1:36:29] Meadow Brook start like their the units

[1:36:31] they rent for the summer, could they

[1:36:33] just not rent it out to Lawrence

[1:36:34] residents and instead give it to uh the

[1:36:38] visitors? Cuz if that's going to happen,

[1:36:41] it's going to definitely increase the

[1:36:43] rents. And so my main question is, has

[1:36:48] staff looked at what the the what's

[1:36:51] going to happen to the long-term rental

[1:36:53] market? Because if not, how are you

[1:36:55] going to go through with this when the

[1:36:57] whole purpose of these like the the caps

[1:37:01] on the short-term rental units is to

[1:37:04] protect the long-term rental market? And

[1:37:06] I don't know, it's just it's kind of

[1:37:09] it's kind of shady to me to be honest

[1:37:11] that you're not going to have any kind

[1:37:13] of info on what we potentially think's

[1:37:17] going to happen to the long-term rental

[1:37:19] market when you're doing away with a

[1:37:21] protection to that market. And also, I

[1:37:25] would just like to point out, I don't

[1:37:26] think this was a city commission thing

[1:37:29] brought like

[1:37:31] originally directive. I think this is

[1:37:33] something city staff came up with their

[1:37:35] own with on their own and what they're

[1:37:37] doing is doing away with those

[1:37:40] protections that a former city

[1:37:42] commission did put in place. So, I'm

[1:37:45] throwing that out there. Um,

[1:37:47] >> thank you, Chris.

[1:37:48] » thank you, Chris.

[1:37:48] >> Thank you.

[1:37:54] » Let's see. Julie can see if we can hear

[1:37:56] Julie real quick.

[1:37:57] >> Yeah, she's still in. Well, she does.

[1:38:03] Okay.

[1:38:05] >> Why' you bring Mr. Watts over?

[1:38:06] » Why' you bring Mr. Watts over?

[1:38:06] >> Yep.

[1:38:23] Thank you. It's also impressive to know,

[1:38:27] Brad, that you can actually see people's

[1:38:29] hands raised. So, in the future, I'm

[1:38:31] going to know when I'm being wholly

[1:38:33] ignored.

[1:38:36] [gasps]

[1:38:36] Here we go. Now, I want to let Mr. Crick

[1:38:40] know that his operation is topnotch. I

[1:38:43] mean, they do the best they can with

[1:38:45] what they have in an extremely

[1:38:49] poperri of programs and there's really

[1:38:53] nothing to argue about in there. And the

[1:38:55] same can be said for Mr. Gimenez's

[1:38:57] operation which I have found to be

[1:39:00] extremely responsive once you get to

[1:39:03] somebody that you you know it takes a

[1:39:06] little while but irrespective they're

[1:39:08] doing the best they can with what they

[1:39:10] have and I have no reason to assume that

[1:39:13] it's going to be any different when this

[1:39:16] uh uh windfall [clears throat] of the

[1:39:19] World Cup comes to Lawrence. What are

[1:39:21] you guys going to do when it doesn't

[1:39:23] turn out exactly as you want? I don't

[1:39:26] know. Let's hope that it does. But my

[1:39:28] main comment was on it centers around

[1:39:33] the the commenter there in your office

[1:39:37] or there in the whatever you call it

[1:39:41] room talking about stuff. Um there's a

[1:39:45] leash ordinance about cats. Why is your

[1:39:48] cat running around outside

[1:39:51] unprotected?

[1:39:53] Please put your cat on a leash. Thank

[1:39:55] you.

[1:40:00] » Okay, Julie, we'll give you one more

[1:40:02] chance here. See if we can hear you.

[1:40:11] » Here. I'm going to try moving her back

[1:40:14] and then back in if that helps. It

[1:40:16] should just take a less than a minute.

[1:40:19] >> Okay, let's [snorts] give that a try.

[1:40:20] » Okay, let's [snorts] give that a try.

[1:40:20] >> That will help if anything.

[1:40:24] » That will help if anything.

[1:40:24] >> [clears throat]

[1:40:44] [snorts]

[1:41:10] » Unfortunately, we cannot hear you,

[1:41:12] Julie. Sorry about that.

[1:41:16] Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, bring it back

[1:41:19] to the commission for for questions or

[1:41:22] comments. And Jeff or Brian, I both

[1:41:25] here. I have a couple questions for you.

[1:41:27] Um Jeff probably for you first which is

[1:41:31] um

[1:41:33] there's a reference to part of the

[1:41:34] amendment being permanent as opposed to

[1:41:36] temporary. Um can you speak to that?

[1:41:39] >> So one of the things we've excuse me one

[1:41:41] » So one of the things we've excuse me one

[1:41:41] of the things we identified during the

[1:41:42] land development code cleanup is the

[1:41:44] table that is currently in the land

[1:41:45] development code is incorrect. And so

[1:41:47] what we were proposing to do was to

[1:41:49] change for the World Cup here and then

[1:41:51] bring back the amendment to correct that

[1:41:53] table as part of the cleanup amendment.

[1:41:54] However, the timing of that really puts

[1:41:56] a wrench in in a couple of things

[1:41:58] because we would do the cleanup

[1:41:59] amendment, then have an amendment that

[1:42:00] would undo it, and then potentially have

[1:42:02] another amendment that would have to

[1:42:03] come back and get that all replaced. So,

[1:42:05] instead of doing that as part of the

[1:42:06] cleanup amendment, we're going to do

[1:42:08] that as the follow-up as part of that

[1:42:09] initiated amendment to put everything

[1:42:11] back, but then put it back in the way

[1:42:13] that it should be in the code, not in

[1:42:14] the error that we've identified. So,

[1:42:16] [laughter]

[1:42:17] >> it's a little complex. I

[1:42:18] » it's a little complex. I

[1:42:18] >> think we followed that. It's yeah, a

[1:42:19] » think we followed that. It's yeah, a

[1:42:19] little complex on the timing, but we

[1:42:20] wanted to make it as easy to follow as

[1:42:22] possible and also ensure that we didn't

[1:42:23] inadvertently put the mistake back into

[1:42:25] the code when we were trying to put the

[1:42:26] code back to its right spot. So, we did

[1:42:29] identify an error in there. We would

[1:42:31] like to clean it up after we get the

[1:42:32] World Cup amendment through the process.

[1:42:34] So, the amendment we bring back would be

[1:42:36] the version for the cleanup of the land

[1:42:38] development code to get that corrected

[1:42:39] for you.

[1:42:40] >> Okay. So would you suggest we assuming

[1:42:44] » Okay. So would you suggest we assuming

[1:42:44] and I think I hear that at least three

[1:42:46] of us want to make a motion tonight to

[1:42:49] initiate a text amendment on a given

[1:42:51] date. Would we initiate the check text

[1:42:54] amendment to return it um at the same

[1:42:57] time initiate text amendment for the

[1:42:59] cleanup? I would recommend initiating an

[1:43:02] amendment to

[1:43:04] restore the code with the with cleaned

[1:43:06] up text. And that'll give us enough

[1:43:07] direction to put the chapter 5 text back

[1:43:10] as it currently is, but allows us the

[1:43:12] opportunity to put the chapter 20 text

[1:43:14] back as it should have been that we've

[1:43:16] identified as as needing cleaned up.

[1:43:18] >> So, restore the code with the cleanup

[1:43:21] » So, restore the code with the cleanup

[1:43:21] text

[1:43:21] >> if if that would be the commission's

[1:43:23] » if if that would be the commission's

[1:43:23] prerogative. Yes. Mhm.

[1:43:24] >> And then we can decide what the date is

[1:43:27] » And then we can decide what the date is

[1:43:27] if it's if we agree on July 31st or some

[1:43:30] other date.

[1:43:31] >> Absolutely. Yes.

[1:43:31] » Absolutely. Yes.

[1:43:31] >> Okay. So, we'll include a date in that

[1:43:34] » Okay. So, we'll include a date in that

[1:43:34] in that motion. Um

[1:43:37] obviously a concern about um was raised

[1:43:39] from some of the speakers about after

[1:43:42] this is over and the law changes um how

[1:43:45] do we go about revoking these licenses

[1:43:48] or checking to see if they're still

[1:43:50] going? How would we do that? the

[1:43:51] licenses [clears throat] are that kind

[1:43:53] of the short short-term rental license

[1:43:54] again for the lack of a better

[1:43:55] description. They expire on the ending

[1:43:57] date. And so at that point, they don't

[1:43:59] have a short-term rental license when it

[1:44:01] goes to expiration. They could apply for

[1:44:03] a new short-term rental license. And if

[1:44:05] they don't go for that, then we would go

[1:44:06] through the notice and order procedures

[1:44:08] in the code to have that affixed in the

[1:44:10] code. Should be go to courts if

[1:44:12] necessary and those kind of things. But

[1:44:14] when they're licensed and we know that,

[1:44:16] we can also then follow up a little

[1:44:17] easier as part of that process to know

[1:44:19] who is a part of that short-term

[1:44:20] process. So, my apologies. My part of

[1:44:23] the shortterm rental license process. I

[1:44:26] got to find a much better way of

[1:44:27] phrasing that. I apologize.

[1:44:28] >> STR STR,

[1:44:30] » STR STR,

[1:44:30] >> but it goes through that kind of a

[1:44:32] » but it goes through that kind of a

[1:44:32] limited process. There we go. Um, then

[1:44:34] if they're in the part of the the

[1:44:35] short-term rental process, it is the the

[1:44:36] two-year standard process. That gives us

[1:44:38] an opportunity on that. And Brian and

[1:44:40] the team have also been looking at ways

[1:44:42] of how to do that process as the

[1:44:44] closeout procedure. And so we do have a

[1:44:46] good working knowledge of what that

[1:44:47] would look like from a staff perspective

[1:44:48] and also what we would expect

[1:44:50] potentially for going through that

[1:44:52] process if somebody is non-compliant at

[1:44:54] the end of the process.

[1:44:56] >> And maybe this is for you or for Brian.

[1:44:58] » And maybe this is for you or for Brian.

[1:44:58] Um some questions about maybe some

[1:45:02] unlicensed short-term windows in town.

[1:45:04] what what's the process we go through to

[1:45:06] try to catch those to to get bring

[1:45:08] people into compliance?

[1:45:09] >> So, we always try to go through the

[1:45:11] » So, we always try to go through the

[1:45:11] various platforms to see if we can

[1:45:13] identify those. We also have people that

[1:45:15] will submit to us through um online

[1:45:19] forms, let us know that my neighbor's

[1:45:21] got a short-term rental or that. And so,

[1:45:23] as you all know, code compliance works

[1:45:24] on a on a kind of reaction basis on that

[1:45:26] one. We respond to those kind of

[1:45:28] concerns when they come up. And we have

[1:45:30] a lot of people that do let us know

[1:45:31] about those. So if somebody does have

[1:45:33] one of those, they could file it with us

[1:45:34] and then we could be able to follow up

[1:45:35] and check on that.

[1:45:37] >> Okay,

[1:45:39] » Okay,

[1:45:39] those are my questions. Other questions

[1:45:41] for Jeff or

[1:45:43] >> So if if I may, mayor, I'd like to just

[1:45:46] » So if if I may, mayor, I'd like to just

[1:45:46] add one a couple comments that Jeff

[1:45:48] didn't hit on specifically. We are going

[1:45:51] to create a specific case type for these

[1:45:54] Red Bull units during this World Cup

[1:45:56] period of time.

[1:45:59] Um so when that date sunsets we will

[1:46:02] have a list of just these licenses that

[1:46:04] were issued for World Cup that we can

[1:46:06] follow up on.

[1:46:09] >> So Brian with sorry go ahead. So Brian,

[1:46:12] » So Brian with sorry go ahead. So Brian,

[1:46:12] just to follow up on that, if we were,

[1:46:15] which I I would like to for the c the

[1:46:17] commission to discuss this with that

[1:46:19] sunset, if we were wanting to have

[1:46:22] different enforcement fines and

[1:46:24] penalties for that,

[1:46:26] um cuz currently the fine or penalty is

[1:46:30] what up to 2500.

[1:46:33] >> Uh don't have the code in front of me. I

[1:46:35] » Uh don't have the code in front of me. I

[1:46:35] know that was what the longterm is. I

[1:46:36] think the short-term STR followed the

[1:46:39] same LTR ordinance. I think that is

[1:46:40] correct. Okay.

[1:46:42] Okay. Thank you.

[1:46:45] >> And Randy turned his camera on, so I

[1:46:47] » And Randy turned his camera on, so I

[1:46:47] don't know if he had a comment on that.

[1:46:50] >> Now, this is Randy Lin, deputy city

[1:46:52] » Now, this is Randy Lin, deputy city

[1:46:52] attorney. I just wanted to make sure and

[1:46:55] clarify that, you know, we can't sunset

[1:46:58] and repeal without having the ordinances

[1:47:00] already in place because once it's

[1:47:02] repealed, then there won't be anything.

[1:47:05] So, we'll have to bring back new

[1:47:06] ordinances to uh fix those. We can do

[1:47:09] that at any time and make those new

[1:47:11] ordinances effective at the termination

[1:47:14] date of this program.

[1:47:18] » So,

[1:47:20] um, if I hear what you're saying, if we

[1:47:22] did want to change something on the

[1:47:24] restored code, we could say bring back a

[1:47:27] text amendment that changes the

[1:47:29] penalties

[1:47:30] after July 31st. Well, that you know, we

[1:47:34] we could there's certain limitations

[1:47:36] regarding the amounts that we can charge

[1:47:38] to municipal court. That might be the

[1:47:39] maximum already, but we would look into

[1:47:41] that and if we could bring in more, we

[1:47:43] we'll we'll bring that to your

[1:47:44] attention.

[1:47:45] >> Okay. Well, if it's not necessarily

[1:47:47] » Okay. Well, if it's not necessarily

[1:47:47] more, if it was wanting us to if we know

[1:47:48] that the max is 25, if we just wanted we

[1:47:51] wanted to also include language that

[1:47:54] would revoke any license or sus suspend

[1:47:56] their ability to

[1:47:59] apply for a short-term rental license

[1:48:01] for, let's say, up to a year.

[1:48:04] >> That would not go through the criminal

[1:48:06] » That would not go through the criminal

[1:48:06] or municipal court. But yes, we could

[1:48:08] include language that if they are in

[1:48:11] violation and are found guilty of a

[1:48:13] violation that they would not be able to

[1:48:15] obtain a license for a period of time.

[1:48:17] Yes, we could we can put a suspension

[1:48:18] period in that. I believe that may exist

[1:48:21] already.

[1:48:21] >> Yeah.

[1:48:23] » Yeah.

[1:48:24] >> Okay.

[1:48:26] » Okay.

[1:48:26] >> Other questions, comments?

[1:48:27] » Other questions, comments?

[1:48:27] >> Um I mean the answer is pretty obvious,

[1:48:30] » Um I mean the answer is pretty obvious,

[1:48:30] but I kind of want to dig into it a

[1:48:32] little bit. What is driving this? Right.

[1:48:34] So we obviously are expecting the World

[1:48:36] Cup. We're hearing, you know, um, hotels

[1:48:40] are booking up in Manhattan already. Um,

[1:48:43] whether whether that's true or not, I've

[1:48:45] certainly not confirmed it. But

[1:48:48] overarching, we want to react to what

[1:48:50] could be a really great um economic

[1:48:54] endeavor, economic development endeavor,

[1:48:56] albeit temporary. Do we have any data

[1:49:00] that backs

[1:49:03] what to expect as far as people coming

[1:49:07] in? Um

[1:49:13] what effects have h what what effects

[1:49:15] have the the World Cup specifically or

[1:49:18] maybe even a Super Bowl uh that other

[1:49:20] cities have had or are we just saying we

[1:49:23] need more short-term rentals? because I

[1:49:26] will tell you my concern

[1:49:28] um is alienating existing

[1:49:32] uh residents for this if we don't know

[1:49:35] for sure what what the benefit will be.

[1:49:38] Um

[1:49:40] are there a lot of people asking to turn

[1:49:42] their homes into short-term rentals?

[1:49:43] That's another question I have. So, let

[1:49:45] me stop there. See if you have anything

[1:49:47] to respond with. I just threw a lot at

[1:49:50] you.

[1:49:50] >> It's okay. I hope I get them I get them

[1:49:52] » It's okay. I hope I get them I get them

[1:49:52] back in the right order. I I promise

[1:49:54] I'll probably already forgot. [snorts]

[1:49:56] >> So, best the best statistic I've heard

[1:49:59] » So, best the best statistic I've heard

[1:49:59] for this, it's the World Cup is

[1:50:01] effectively like holding the Super Bowl

[1:50:02] seven times consecutively and it's kind

[1:50:05] of it's in Kansas City and we're in that

[1:50:07] radius where people are looking at it.

[1:50:09] We'd anticipate there probably going to

[1:50:10] be, you know, since we're very close in

[1:50:13] to a lot of area, there's going to be

[1:50:14] people of interest that will be, you

[1:50:15] know, going to Kansas City for those

[1:50:17] games and have that interest. And as you

[1:50:19] know, Lawrence is also potentially in

[1:50:20] the running for base camp and that would

[1:50:22] be a long-term duration event and people

[1:50:24] tend to want to be around those teams

[1:50:26] when they they have their sites. And so

[1:50:29] that is [clears throat] another, you

[1:50:30] know, potential interest that we have in

[1:50:31] there. And just knowing the amount of

[1:50:33] people coming,

[1:50:34] >> you know, we just know we don't have

[1:50:35] » you know, we just know we don't have

[1:50:35] enough hospitality rooms that are

[1:50:37] potentially there. And so we were

[1:50:38] putting this forward as an option for

[1:50:40] consideration just as to help

[1:50:42] accommodate some of those different

[1:50:43] changes that we might be seeing in the

[1:50:44] market. And there's no real good way to

[1:50:47] say that it's going to be this much at

[1:50:50] this kind of an interval. But what we've

[1:50:51] seen in previous examples and the

[1:50:53] conversations that you've had is we

[1:50:55] would expect that to be a large [snorts]

[1:50:57] amount of people coming to the area for

[1:50:58] a duration.

[1:50:59] >> They might be here for a week or two or

[1:51:01] » They might be here for a week or two or

[1:51:01] if their team does really well, they

[1:51:02] might be here for three or four

[1:51:04] depending upon how it goes. Um so it's

[1:51:06] kind of hard to pin down since there's a

[1:51:08] lot of unknown variables. We don't know

[1:51:09] are we a base camp or who that would be.

[1:51:12] But we do know is there's going to be

[1:51:13] the games in Kansas City and there's

[1:51:14] going to be a lot of people trying to

[1:51:15] find accommodation and we're within a

[1:51:17] pretty good driving distance and with

[1:51:19] the transportation links that we have to

[1:51:20] Kansas City, it does make us a very

[1:51:22] attractive option for a lot of people.

[1:51:24] [snorts]

[1:51:25] Um I think your third question was about

[1:51:27] the alienation of

[1:51:28] >> Well, I I that was kind of a general

[1:51:30] » Well, I I that was kind of a general

[1:51:30] comment, right? We have a lot of folks

[1:51:32] that are concerned about these

[1:51:35] short-term rentals and I certainly

[1:51:37] appreciate that for sure. Um, which is

[1:51:40] why I would be interested if there are

[1:51:42] any penalties that they're actually

[1:51:43] higher than what they would normally be.

[1:51:45] Right? If we're going to allow people to

[1:51:47] come in and uh disrupt a neighborhood um

[1:51:51] very quickly, very temporarily, I want

[1:51:53] to make sure that it the juice is worth

[1:51:56] the squeeze, so to speak, for the city.

[1:51:58] Um, have we reached out and I've

[1:52:00] personally been to two Super Bowls, so I

[1:52:02] certainly appreciate what one Super Bowl

[1:52:04] does to a community. Have we had

[1:52:06] conversations with any communities

[1:52:10] uh that have had major events come in?

[1:52:14] May not have to be the World Cup, but

[1:52:15] we've certainly got parallels to some

[1:52:18] extent specific to short-term rentals

[1:52:21] and how they've responded to it

[1:52:24] because I would like to see that. We've

[1:52:27] talked to a lot of communities about

[1:52:28] different programs they run and where

[1:52:29] I've worked at previously had some

[1:52:31] events that were long duration events

[1:52:33] that were not maybe Super Bowl

[1:52:34] equivalent, [snorts] but they were

[1:52:36] longer running. And I've had

[1:52:37] conversations with my counterparts

[1:52:38] there. And they've noted it's very

[1:52:40] similar to what you see during skiing

[1:52:42] season in the mountains or if you have a

[1:52:44] beach town, you see kind of a spike

[1:52:46] going into the summer months between

[1:52:47] Memorial Day and Labor Day and those

[1:52:49] kind of things. But they also said it's

[1:52:51] it's wildly unpredictable in the

[1:52:53] conversation. So it can just depend on

[1:52:54] who, when, where, why, and what the

[1:52:57] market prices are at, if people are even

[1:52:58] interested. So there's not a a good, you

[1:53:01] know, thumb, you can't really get your

[1:53:03] thumb on it necessarily all the time.

[1:53:05] But they did say is, you know, the

[1:53:06] conversations has been that you're going

[1:53:08] to see probably increases in people and,

[1:53:11] you know, you will see people that will

[1:53:13] put things out there that are probably

[1:53:14] not safe for habitation. And so if you

[1:53:16] can get ahead of those and have those

[1:53:18] inspections and ensure some of that,

[1:53:19] that goes a long way to making sure that

[1:53:21] the community is safe overall, too.

[1:53:24] >> And I would jump in and say I've been to

[1:53:27] » And I would jump in and say I've been to

[1:53:27] involved in quite a few of of the

[1:53:29] meetings related to the World Cup, and

[1:53:32] you know, this is certainly something

[1:53:33] I've been asking about for a while now.

[1:53:35] You know, they that the the World Cup um

[1:53:38] group out of um um Kansas City that's

[1:53:42] leading this effort, and of course, we

[1:53:43] have Unified Command working on this.

[1:53:45] They say if we're a base camp, we should

[1:53:47] expect 15,000 people to be here. 15,000

[1:53:51] is the number we should count on. If

[1:53:52] we're not a base camp, it'd be, you

[1:53:54] know, maybe 8 to 10,000.

[1:53:56] And, you know, clearly they think we'll

[1:53:58] be a base camp. We don't know that for

[1:54:00] sure. Um, obviously we've been included

[1:54:02] in the bus route, you know, to have

[1:54:04] buses every day. Um, and so, um, you

[1:54:08] know, certainly, you know, the demand is

[1:54:10] out there. I would then add that I know

[1:54:13] Kansas City, Missouri, Lanexa, Shaune,

[1:54:15] they've all passed similar ordinances to

[1:54:17] this. Um, we're actually in a a more

[1:54:20] unique situation than some of those

[1:54:22] places because we have talking to some

[1:54:25] of the cohorts and and commissioners in

[1:54:27] other places, you know, we have a pretty

[1:54:29] strong um July 31st turnover date, which

[1:54:34] is different than Lanexo Shaunie or

[1:54:36] whatever that some of these concerns

[1:54:38] like that Chris brought up about if

[1:54:41] someone has a a long-term unit in Shaune

[1:54:46] coming open in May, do they hold it

[1:54:48] waiting for June and July and then rent

[1:54:50] it out to long-term folks. Whereas in

[1:54:53] Lawrence, we have a much stronger

[1:54:54] turnover date on July, you know, July

[1:54:56] 31st. We don't have a lot that come open

[1:54:58] in May anyway.

[1:55:00] >> Um I will know I've talked to quite a

[1:55:02] » Um I will know I've talked to quite a

[1:55:02] few land I mean some landlords. There

[1:55:04] are a few landlords who did do 10-month

[1:55:06] leases with their um you know leading

[1:55:10] into this year thinking about this in

[1:55:11] ahead. And um I do know other landlords

[1:55:15] who are offering students

[1:55:18] out of the summer. We'll let you lease

[1:55:20] out on May 31st, short-term rental it,

[1:55:23] and then bring it back on August 1st as

[1:55:25] a long-term rental with students again.

[1:55:27] So, I've talked to um you know,

[1:55:29] landlords who um are definitely talking

[1:55:32] to their tenants about are you going to

[1:55:33] be here this summer? Do you want to be

[1:55:35] here this summer? If you don't want to

[1:55:36] be here this summer, you know, this

[1:55:38] could be an opportunity if this passes.

[1:55:40] Um,

[1:55:41] >> and I and that I will say I've had other

[1:55:43] » and I and that I will say I've had other

[1:55:43] conversations and my thought is we do

[1:55:46] empty to some extent over the summer. Do

[1:55:49] we happen to have numbers by chance?

[1:55:52] Could we get with KU and find out how

[1:55:54] many? We may not have those numbers. I

[1:55:56] think it pretty pretty good to have how

[1:55:58] many students leave in the summer. You

[1:56:00] know what I mean?

[1:56:01] >> We know from [snorts] the Census Bureau

[1:56:02] » We know from [snorts] the Census Bureau

[1:56:02] and the data that we have and because

[1:56:04] the effects of both Haskell and Baker on

[1:56:06] town about 15,500 students will leave

[1:56:08] between May and come back in August.

[1:56:09] Okay.

[1:56:10] >> Okay.

[1:56:11] » Okay.

[1:56:12] >> Um, so, uh, one

[1:56:14] » Um, so, uh, one

[1:56:14] >> Yeah. Yeah. No,

[1:56:15] » Yeah. Yeah. No,

[1:56:15] >> one thing. Would it be possible to take

[1:56:16] » one thing. Would it be possible to take

[1:56:16] a three-minut break uh before we go?

[1:56:19] >> You want to take a break?

[1:56:20] » You want to take a break?

[1:56:20] >> Yeah. Just a quick Let's take a break.

[1:56:21] » Yeah. Just a quick Let's take a break.

[1:56:21] >> Yeah, we'll take a fiveminut break and

[1:56:23] » Yeah, we'll take a fiveminut break and

[1:56:23] we'll be back.

[1:56:24] >> Thanks.

[1:56:24] » Thanks.

[1:56:24] >> Thank you.

[1:56:25] » Thank you.

[1:56:25] >> Yeah.

[1:56:28] » Yeah.

[1:56:28] [laughter]

[2:01:24] Okay, we will bring the meeting back

[2:01:27] after short recess and we're on the

[2:01:29] discussion of regular items um one and

[2:01:32] two or or in the question stage. Um I

[2:01:36] guess I'll just go ahead and kind of

[2:01:37] continue you know my thoughts. I I am in

[2:01:40] in support of these two

[2:01:42] um changes with [cough] the additional

[2:01:46] um amendment to um you know initiate the

[2:01:50] check text amendment to return it to at

[2:01:53] least the July 31st although you know I

[2:01:56] might do something slightly earlier July

[2:01:58] 29th or you know something just because

[2:02:00] we know the turnover date is going to be

[2:02:02] on August 1st. Um, and I support that.

[2:02:07] Um, because I do think, um, you know,

[2:02:10] again, we could be wrong. We could not

[2:02:12] be a we we cannot be a team. We cannot

[2:02:15] be a host city and we also could be a

[2:02:17] host city and no one comes. [laughter]

[2:02:20] But, um, I think the, um, I think the

[2:02:24] the safer bet is to know that, um, we

[2:02:28] need this additional housing to have the

[2:02:31] people in our community get the full

[2:02:32] benefit of it. Certainly cities in

[2:02:34] Kansas City are doing it. Even I've I've

[2:02:37] I've talked to um folks in other

[2:02:39] surrounding cities farther away than us

[2:02:41] who are also considering this. Um and

[2:02:46] and um again I've talked to quite a few

[2:02:49] landlords um who do think um this will

[2:02:53] be a pos you know certainly could be a

[2:02:54] possibility and um talking with Explore

[2:02:57] Lawrence and some of the folks on the on

[2:02:59] the team. Um you know I think this is

[2:03:02] something that will be useful to the

[2:03:05] city as long as it's shortterm and um so

[2:03:09] anyway that's why I stand on it.

[2:03:12] Jeff, have we had any communications

[2:03:14] with the university as to what they hope

[2:03:17] to

[2:03:19] what they're pl not hope to what they're

[2:03:21] planning to do? We have. Yes. They're

[2:03:23] part of the team that I I get to work

[2:03:25] with as part of the housing prompt for

[2:03:26] the unified command and and KU housing

[2:03:29] is a member of that and they've, you

[2:03:30] know, let us know is that they're going

[2:03:32] to have a lot of their normal operations

[2:03:34] that they're going to still be running

[2:03:35] the summer camps and the different

[2:03:37] events and so they're not going to have

[2:03:38] a large amount of capacity in there. And

[2:03:41] part of what we're also having

[2:03:42] conversations with them is about is um a

[2:03:45] little bit of continuity of operations

[2:03:47] for them. If people are trying to go

[2:03:48] through new story, new new student

[2:03:49] orientation, where are they going to

[2:03:51] stay during the World Cup? Or if there

[2:03:53] somebody's coming for any of those

[2:03:55] transfer days or special events that

[2:03:57] they do,

[2:03:57] >> they need to make sure they've got space

[2:03:59] » they need to make sure they've got space

[2:03:59] for people that might not be able to

[2:04:00] find a hotel or short-term rental in

[2:04:02] Lawrence. They might be staying in a

[2:04:04] residence hall for that period. So,

[2:04:06] there's a little bit of that that we're

[2:04:07] looking for. We're also keeping an eye

[2:04:09] and having the conversations for first

[2:04:11] responders and emergency workers that

[2:04:13] might be coming into the community as

[2:04:15] part of this that you know that might be

[2:04:16] coming from uh western Kansas and coming

[2:04:18] in to be here for a few days to

[2:04:21] alleviate different supports and so

[2:04:23] making sure that they've also got

[2:04:24] housing space too. So there's not a a

[2:04:26] lot of depth in university housing as

[2:04:28] you might think when you start kind of

[2:04:29] adding up all those different factors.

[2:04:32] >> Good to know. sense.

[2:04:36] » Couple couple questions for me.

[2:04:43] » The former mayor Shipley brought up the

[2:04:45] question about the transient guest tax

[2:04:46] if it goes over 30 days. The So, if

[2:04:49] you're a normal person and you do this

[2:04:51] and you say, "Hey, you're going to rent

[2:04:52] out your place for 31 days, something

[2:04:54] like that." Is the transient tax does

[2:04:56] that affect you for 30 days and then one

[2:04:58] day after that you lose access to that?

[2:05:01] Would you be able to explain? explain

[2:05:03] that. That'd be a little bit beyond my

[2:05:05] ability. Unfortunately, I tend to deal

[2:05:06] more in land use, not in finance and

[2:05:08] taxation. I I will part that I do know

[2:05:10] is that once you overstay a certain

[2:05:12] period, you actually have long-term

[2:05:14] rental rights to properties. And so,

[2:05:16] instead of going through what we do in a

[2:05:17] short-term rental, you go through the

[2:05:18] eviction process of a long-term rental

[2:05:20] process. And so, that's the part I do

[2:05:23] know. I don't have to know much about

[2:05:24] how the transient guest tax is applied

[2:05:26] and how that process works with the

[2:05:27] state.

[2:05:28] >> I do apologize.

[2:05:29] » I do apologize.

[2:05:29] >> And I can answer it, you know, again

[2:05:31] » And I can answer it, you know, again

[2:05:31] slightly. This the state law obviously

[2:05:34] has a has a transit guest tax and it

[2:05:37] applies obviously to transients. So

[2:05:39] that's the 30 days. So obviously if you

[2:05:42] rent your if if you have a long-term

[2:05:43] lease, a three-month lease or a one-year

[2:05:45] lease, you don't pay a transit guest

[2:05:46] tax, right? So it's only for that. So

[2:05:49] the question is the term of the lease

[2:05:51] and then whether or not you're paying

[2:05:53] the appropriate tax on the term of the

[2:05:54] lease. So, I mean, I I think um um Miss

[2:06:00] Shipley's point is if in some ways if

[2:06:04] you if you lease your house out to

[2:06:05] somebody for 32 days, um you wouldn't

[2:06:08] have to pay the transient guest tax to

[2:06:10] the state. Um, [clears throat] and you

[2:06:13] know, now how Airbnb does that, how VBRO

[2:06:16] does that, if you do, uh, you know, a

[2:06:20] two week and a two week, but two week

[2:06:23] and a 3 week, well, then yes, you owe

[2:06:25] transit guest tax on on both of those.

[2:06:28] But those are all state laws, so there's

[2:06:29] nothing we can do to change that one way

[2:06:31] or the other. Um, and a lot of that will

[2:06:35] have to will depend on how,

[2:06:38] you know, the if you're using a service

[2:06:40] to monitor that, they that's their

[2:06:44] responsibility, you know, the VBRO

[2:06:46] versus, you know, an Airbnb and and and

[2:06:48] their duty to collect that tax and remit

[2:06:51] it.

[2:06:53] I guess my my second question is so

[2:06:56] we're we're relaxing this for places

[2:06:59] that have or organizations that have

[2:07:01] more than three rooms. That's that or

[2:07:03] three houses or three places for people

[2:07:05] to stay, right? That's one of one one of

[2:07:07] the things

[2:07:07] >> one of the things [snorts] and

[2:07:12] what's the way to ask this question? So,

[2:07:14] you know, in a lot of ways that would

[2:07:15] be, you know, larger apartment

[2:07:16] complexes, stuff like that, places in

[2:07:18] town that have a lot of space. It could

[2:07:20] be, you know, a landlord who has, you

[2:07:22] know, four home, stuff like that. On the

[2:07:26] if there is if they're going to be in

[2:07:30] these long-term spaces for these

[2:07:31] short-term rentals, is there any thought

[2:07:33] of killing two birds with one stone by

[2:07:34] being like, hey, we're going to going to

[2:07:36] actually as part of this do the

[2:07:38] long-term evaluation for some of these

[2:07:40] that will turn into long-term so that

[2:07:43] rather than just do a short-term

[2:07:44] evaluation of what that looks like.

[2:07:45] Well, I guess one question would be, is

[2:07:46] the evaluation for a short-term

[2:07:48] inspection different than the long-term

[2:07:50] inspection?

[2:07:51] >> It is not.

[2:07:52] » It is not.

[2:07:52] >> Is not. Okay. So, in in a way, if this

[2:07:56] » Is not. Okay. So, in in a way, if this

[2:07:56] is opened up and we allow more spaces to

[2:07:59] be filled in town, doing these

[2:08:01] inspections will actually give us better

[2:08:03] visibility of what the status is of a

[2:08:05] lot of longerterm rentals

[2:08:07] >> potentially. Yes.

[2:08:12] » Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think the two I

[2:08:15] mean obviously I think there's three

[2:08:16] categories. You know the the one

[2:08:18] category mentioned by one our first

[2:08:20] speaker is you know places like the

[2:08:22] links who have 30 open rooms um renting

[2:08:26] those out you know for you know June and

[2:08:29] July. Um and I think the second is you

[2:08:33] know the people who um you know and and

[2:08:36] we know this from you know folks in you

[2:08:39] know um at a National League of Cities

[2:08:41] conference they did these presentations

[2:08:43] from um both Omaha with the College

[2:08:46] World Series and Augusta with um the

[2:08:49] >> Masters. Yeah,

[2:08:50] » Masters. Yeah,

[2:08:50] >> the masters that, you know, they have

[2:08:52] » the masters that, you know, they have

[2:08:52] these rules and and you know, people

[2:08:54] leave for a month, go on vacation, rent

[2:08:56] their house out for $10,000 and go on

[2:09:01] vacation, come back a month later and

[2:09:03] and and do that. And you know, both

[2:09:05] Omaha and um [clears throat] Augusta

[2:09:07] have um you know, kind of uh um been

[2:09:11] doing this for years. And so that's kind

[2:09:13] of the model at the National League of

[2:09:14] Cities that many of these cities across

[2:09:16] the country who are host cities are

[2:09:18] looking at. Um and so you know certainly

[2:09:21] some people now how many people want to

[2:09:23] leave their house and give it up for a

[2:09:26] month or 3 weeks? I don't know how many

[2:09:28] people that will be but I think that's

[2:09:29] the second category. And then the third

[2:09:31] category like I said would be the you

[2:09:33] know the the the long-term rental houses

[2:09:36] not the apartment complexes where um you

[2:09:39] know people h are renting to students.

[2:09:41] The students are gone and then they're

[2:09:43] renting them out you know for a period

[2:09:45] of time.

[2:09:48] This would allow all of those which

[2:09:49] aren't allowed. Now,

[2:09:52] >> um I I'll I'll make the statement in

[2:09:55] » um I I'll I'll make the statement in

[2:09:55] general that

[2:09:59] I really want Lawrence to be prepared

[2:10:02] for this impressive event. Whether it

[2:10:05] will come to fruition or not, I really

[2:10:10] I prefer being prepared a lot more than

[2:10:13] not being prepared. I'll say that. Now,

[2:10:17] what I would like to see though is I

[2:10:20] want to know how the entirety of this

[2:10:22] community will be benefiting from having

[2:10:26] an additional 15,000 people. So,

[2:10:30] obviously sales tax will be coming in.

[2:10:32] Hopefully, the gu the hotel guest tax

[2:10:35] will come. I would like to see if we can

[2:10:37] ensure that we're able to capitalize.

[2:10:42] You know, we are within the 30 days. I

[2:10:44] would like to protect those folks um

[2:10:49] that short-term rentals are on their uh

[2:10:52] block and I want I would love to see

[2:10:55] this is all in a hypothetical world up

[2:10:58] for discussion. I'd like to see heavier

[2:11:00] penalties. If you're going to if it's

[2:11:02] going to be a windfall then the

[2:11:04] community should be benefiting as well.

[2:11:07] And I certainly love the idea of people

[2:11:10] being able to capitalize on some empty

[2:11:13] space. Uh I'm not overly concerned about

[2:11:18] us um jeopardizing long-term rentals

[2:11:22] simply based on the fact that we have a

[2:11:26] decent size amount of the population

[2:11:28] leave every summer. If I think uh if

[2:11:31] that were not the case that would um I

[2:11:34] would probably feel differently.

[2:11:36] Um, so let's have that discussion as far

[2:11:41] as, okay, we're going to see an

[2:11:43] additional sales tax. Um, we're

[2:11:46] overarching. Maybe we can mitigate some

[2:11:49] property tax with that. Maybe we can

[2:11:51] make improvements. Let's make it very

[2:11:53] known what this will do for the

[2:11:56] community. and let's make darn sure that

[2:11:59] people are not going to come in and

[2:12:02] jeopardize

[2:12:04] uh safety or disrupt people's lives as

[2:12:08] it pertains to their neighborhood. So,

[2:12:10] how do we do that? Those are some for me

[2:12:13] personally, those are some conversations

[2:12:16] I would love to have. I am in favor of

[2:12:20] this as long as we're controlling it and

[2:12:23] and it's a benefit to the community.

[2:12:25] That's that's my approach.

[2:12:27] I don't know. I think part of the answer

[2:12:29] to that is if someone could talk about

[2:12:30] unified command and how we have these

[2:12:33] different groups, housing being one of

[2:12:35] them, but we're trying to look at some

[2:12:37] of those and you know, as well as the,

[2:12:39] you know, we obviously increase the

[2:12:40] transit guest tax

[2:12:42] >> um for the purpose like many communities

[2:12:45] » um for the purpose like many communities

[2:12:45] around us to help capitalize on that and

[2:12:47] we cover some of the costs we know of

[2:12:49] police and fire and so forth. But I know

[2:12:51] Brandon, I don't know if you're on

[2:12:52] unified command. I think

[2:12:53] >> I can jump in here a little bit. Um and

[2:12:55] » I can jump in here a little bit. Um and

[2:12:55] we are planning a more comprehensive

[2:12:57] update. Uh the the commission requested

[2:13:00] it before the end of last year. Um so

[2:13:02] we'll have members of the invite command

[2:13:04] here. We're uh planning on January 20th.

[2:13:07] Um so we'll be able to give you an idea

[2:13:09] of the different branches um and the

[2:13:11] work that they're doing and the

[2:13:12] preparations um to date. Um and that'll

[2:13:15] be actually around the time that we

[2:13:17] might start finding out about um hosting

[2:13:20] a team here as well. Um I do just want

[2:13:23] to kind of caution um everyone listening

[2:13:26] and and the commissioners, we are not

[2:13:29] expecting um in terms of of government

[2:13:32] revenues, tax revenues necessarily a

[2:13:34] windfall. These types of events um are

[2:13:37] major consumers of public services. Um

[2:13:40] and so uh we are starting first um with

[2:13:43] more of a continuity of operations

[2:13:45] [laughter] approach and how do we

[2:13:47] [snorts] make sure um that businesses

[2:13:49] can continue functioning and people in

[2:13:51] our comm our community members can

[2:13:52] continue going about their daily lives.

[2:13:54] We'll get into more of that when we do

[2:13:56] our comprehensive presentation. But I do

[2:13:58] kind of want to temper um community

[2:14:00] expectations that this might um uh be a

[2:14:03] windfall uh to the city government or

[2:14:05] some of our other local governments

[2:14:06] here. We do hope and we are trying to

[2:14:08] set it up so that our businesses can

[2:14:10] benefit greatly from this and we've had

[2:14:12] good participation from this so far.

[2:14:19] » Just a couple of quick thoughts. um what

[2:14:23] I the idea that this is pretty much

[2:14:25] inevitable and so I do appreciate

[2:14:28] um because there's several of us who

[2:14:29] brought this up um including myself to

[2:14:32] for us to get a jump start on this so

[2:14:34] that we know what we knew what the data

[2:14:37] was telling us about what we could

[2:14:39] possibly expect as far as numbers of

[2:14:42] just people wanting to attend and be in

[2:14:44] the area. that doesn't necessarily

[2:14:46] include those um individuals that might

[2:14:49] be traveling um to be close to their

[2:14:52] teams uh in proximity. So there's a lot

[2:14:54] of different variables at that are at

[2:14:56] play at this. And so the idea is that we

[2:14:59] needed to put something in place to

[2:15:02] attempt to mitigate as much as possible

[2:15:04] because this is going to be organized

[2:15:06] chaos. [laughter]

[2:15:08] We're it is what it is. And I think that

[2:15:10] has been that is that has been a tone

[2:15:13] and a sentiment that has been stated and

[2:15:15] shared across the board even with the

[2:15:17] Kansas City uh 2026 group. So there's

[2:15:21] going to be organized chaos. What I app

[2:15:23] there are aspects of the um major event

[2:15:27] ordinance that was put into place in

[2:15:29] Missouri that I appreciate in parts not

[2:15:31] so much. um you know they have some

[2:15:34] specific language around

[2:15:37] um owner occupied as it relates to

[2:15:39] density. I think that is something to be

[2:15:41] said for a community like that here. Not

[2:15:44] so much. Um and that's getting a little

[2:15:46] too deep in the weeds that I just don't

[2:15:48] think that we

[2:15:51] that we're not going to have that big of

[2:15:53] a lift as a Kansas City would or even a

[2:15:56] Johnson County would. Um will this

[2:15:59] impact long-term rentals? Yes, it will.

[2:16:02] Um the risk may not be as horrible, but

[2:16:05] the idea is that just because the World

[2:16:06] Cup is coming doesn't mean that people

[2:16:08] aren't won't relocate here for jobs, you

[2:16:11] know, move here, move out, life still

[2:16:13] goes on for the less 600,000 people who

[2:16:16] will be participating in World Cup. So

[2:16:19] yes, if we do, you know, this is going

[2:16:22] to have an impact. um where we have to

[2:16:26] balance that and where I've been trying

[2:16:28] to balance that in my mind is that is

[2:16:30] the idea of those short-term

[2:16:34] units, short-term rental units that are

[2:16:37] currently operating without being

[2:16:38] licensed, whether we call those illegal,

[2:16:40] whatever. I mean, in in the world of

[2:16:42] childcare licensing, you you call those,

[2:16:44] you know, unlicensed facilities. So, are

[2:16:47] do we will we have some unlicensed units

[2:16:49] here? We do. We know we have some now.

[2:16:52] Um, so what can we put in place to give

[2:16:55] it teeth to say if you are doing this

[2:16:59] and we find out that you are doing this,

[2:17:02] not only will you lose your ability to

[2:17:04] license and if you are a current

[2:17:06] short-term rental license or you have a

[2:17:09] license with us, you will lose that for

[2:17:11] a certain period of time and you will

[2:17:13] have to charge and we'll have you'll

[2:17:15] have to be assessed you will be assessed

[2:17:17] a penalty or a fine for that. Those are

[2:17:20] some of the things I think that we can

[2:17:22] put into place. Um, oh yeah, no one

[2:17:25] really wants to see me. Um, those are

[2:17:28] some things that I do believe we can put

[2:17:30] into place that can help balance some of

[2:17:33] this

[2:17:35] organized chaos that's going to happen.

[2:17:36] That also gives us a little bit of it's

[2:17:39] not that windfall, but is there's

[2:17:41] additional money that could be in place

[2:17:42] to, you know, for the point of with

[2:17:45] public, you know, public safety and

[2:17:46] things that are going to um put a little

[2:17:50] pressure on our our coffers because of

[2:17:54] this event that's happening 45 minutes

[2:17:56] away from us. So, you know, doing this

[2:18:01] mitigates to a certain point or at least

[2:18:03] puts the community to say, "Hey, some of

[2:18:06] y'all want to do this. We know you want

[2:18:08] to. Some of you have already been

[2:18:10] testing the waters and doing it

[2:18:12] illegally. So, do what's right. Do

[2:18:15] what's best. Register. Do it for this

[2:18:19] this time period. And if we find out

[2:18:21] that you're still doing it illegally or

[2:18:23] we find out that you're doing it

[2:18:24] afterwards, we're going to take that

[2:18:26] ability for you to do it away for a

[2:18:28] certain period of time and we're going

[2:18:29] to take some money away from you. So, I

[2:18:32] think, you know, we're not going to

[2:18:33] solve all the problems with this, but we

[2:18:35] have to look at this as a

[2:18:40] a a

[2:18:42] strategy solution that is going to at

[2:18:44] least create accountability

[2:18:46] and that aligns with the current system

[2:18:48] that we have. so that we can be able to

[2:18:51] offset any type of cost incurrence as

[2:18:54] well as additional stressors that we're

[2:18:57] going that we are going to see. We are

[2:18:59] going to see it. 600,000 people are not

[2:19:02] going to find a place to stay in Kansas

[2:19:04] City and they may not find it in Johnson

[2:19:07] County and hell they may not even want

[2:19:08] to be in KCK. They probably want to come

[2:19:11] here because there's something about

[2:19:12] here.

[2:19:13] >> So, we need to prepare ourselves for

[2:19:15] » So, we need to prepare ourselves for

[2:19:15] that. This is not the best. This is not

[2:19:18] tier one. This isn't a diamond, but it's

[2:19:21] going to give us something that we need

[2:19:23] to do to better prepare ourselves.

[2:19:26] >> Yeah, I agree. I think it's also kind of

[2:19:30] » Yeah, I agree. I think it's also kind of

[2:19:30] underscores

[2:19:31] our desire to not have a black market

[2:19:34] during this period of time where we have

[2:19:35] everybody available out in the open

[2:19:37] doing the right thing and in a safe way,

[2:19:39] too. So people aren't doing it to try to

[2:19:42] get away with it, but they're actually

[2:19:44] trying to comply with the rules and the

[2:19:46] and the requirements. So I I'd have to

[2:19:48] say that um I'm in favor of this. I

[2:19:50] think we need to have a sunset date and

[2:19:52] it needs to make sense, but I don't

[2:19:54] think we need to be an expert in what

[2:19:56] that day is. Whether it's July 29th or

[2:19:59] July 31st, I don't think it really

[2:20:00] matters too much except we just need to

[2:20:02] have a defined date so that we don't

[2:20:05] leave this open so that other areas of

[2:20:07] town are are un unexpectedly impacted,

[2:20:10] you know, long term by this.

[2:20:14] And

[2:20:14] >> as you guys jump in, I'd just say, you

[2:20:16] » as you guys jump in, I'd just say, you

[2:20:16] know, I do think um I lean towards the

[2:20:18] July 29th date only be for two reasons.

[2:20:21] One, it gives us a little time before

[2:20:23] that turnover date. And two, it gives us

[2:20:26] a chance not to have 60 days. You know,

[2:20:29] it it could it could increase the chance

[2:20:32] you could have a a transit guest tax

[2:20:35] >> um possibility without having a full 60

[2:20:37] » um possibility without having a full 60

[2:20:37] or 61 days, right? Um

[2:20:40] >> you could end up having a a short-term

[2:20:42] » you could end up having a a short-term

[2:20:42] rental situation.

[2:20:43] >> That was kind of what I was hoping we

[2:20:45] » That was kind of what I was hoping we

[2:20:45] could Yeah. do. So I think if we do like

[2:20:47] July 29th that also give us you know

[2:20:50] again people are thinking then about you

[2:20:53] know turning that over and getting

[2:20:54] someone in on on you know August

[2:20:56] [clears throat] 1st.

[2:20:57] >> The last game is the 11th in Kansas

[2:21:01] » The last game is the 11th in Kansas

[2:21:01] City. Sorry

[2:21:02] >> 11th or the 15th maybe.

[2:21:05] » 11th or the 15th maybe.

[2:21:05] >> Yes. The the quarterfinal game in Kansas

[2:21:07] » Yes. The the quarterfinal game in Kansas

[2:21:07] City is July 11th.

[2:21:10] >> Yeah. [clears throat]

[2:21:12] » Yeah. [clears throat]

[2:21:12] And you know the if we're a host city

[2:21:15] for a team that is

[2:21:18] eliminated and they go home before July

[2:21:20] 11th, you know the team coming, you

[2:21:22] know, I think they said that if the

[2:21:25] seeds hold, it could be Portugal versus

[2:21:27] Argentina.

[2:21:29] >> You know, you could have a whole new

[2:21:30] » You know, you could have a whole new

[2:21:30] slew of people coming in just for that

[2:21:32] July 11th game.

[2:21:33] >> They'll know that they're coming a week

[2:21:36] » They'll know that they're coming a week

[2:21:36] or so before that. They come in and rent

[2:21:38] for, you know, eight days or something.

[2:21:41] um if our team is still playing then of

[2:21:44] course we still could have a lot of

[2:21:46] those filled. Um so a couple

[2:21:48] possibilities there. So there could

[2:21:50] certainly be a date between you know

[2:21:52] shortly after July 11th and you know the

[2:21:55] July 29th. But and then I do think we

[2:21:57] can include in there when they bring us

[2:21:59] back that initiate text amendment. we

[2:22:02] could have Randy and Jeff look at

[2:22:04] penalties and and you know bring that

[2:22:07] back to us and consider that

[2:22:10] >> as part of that motion to bring that

[2:22:11] » as part of that motion to bring that

[2:22:11] back in in the text amendment process.

[2:22:15] >> Yeah, I think that's good.

[2:22:17] » Yeah, I think that's good.

[2:22:17] >> I'm kind I'm concerned that the 29th is

[2:22:19] » I'm kind I'm concerned that the 29th is

[2:22:19] not enough turnover time. Again, if the

[2:22:22] last match is the 11th, if we say two

[2:22:25] weeks, if people want to lolly gag

[2:22:28] around two weeks after that, that puts

[2:22:29] us around the 25th, 26,

[2:22:33] then that gives any of these

[2:22:37] non-owner occupied folks, i.e. apartment

[2:22:40] complexes, that gives them at least a

[2:22:42] week

[2:22:43] >> Yeah.

[2:22:43] » Yeah.

[2:22:43] >> before their

[2:22:46] » before their

[2:22:46] looks like Sundays, July 26th.

[2:22:48] >> Sunday's the 26th. So yeah, that I mean

[2:22:50] » Sunday's the 26th. So yeah, that I mean

[2:22:50] I could support that.

[2:22:51] >> Okay,

[2:22:54] » Okay,

[2:22:54] >> comments on this end.

[2:22:57] » I I was really just swayed by

[2:23:00] Commissioner C's argument because I I

[2:23:02] think there's something we can do here

[2:23:03] that will again clear something else up,

[2:23:07] which is, [snorts] you know, there's a

[2:23:09] concern that we have illegal or

[2:23:12] non-sanctioned um Airbnbs or verbos and

[2:23:15] stuff like that. And I I think if we put

[2:23:17] the penalties in place for this

[2:23:19] afterwards and then do

[2:23:22] um you know do those evaluations, be

[2:23:25] able to work with uh Jeff's team to be

[2:23:27] able to figure out like are people

[2:23:28] abusing this that we can know going

[2:23:31] forward what those penalties will be and

[2:23:33] I think a lot of existing

[2:23:36] uh neighborhoods and people would

[2:23:37] benefit from having the teeth of that as

[2:23:41] part of this. I I also think just

[2:23:43] thinking about being able to to uh

[2:23:46] evaluate more rentals around town as

[2:23:49] part of this whole process, too, to make

[2:23:51] sure that they're up to speed as part of

[2:23:52] the uh inspection process. That can be a

[2:23:55] benefit to this whole thing whole thing

[2:23:58] as well. So, I was kind of on the

[2:23:59] [clears throat] fence about it, but I am

[2:24:01] going to vote yes for this based on

[2:24:03] based on that. I don't see Brian, but

[2:24:06] just to re uh just to remind me and

[2:24:08] Jeff, you you could as well

[2:24:11] for folks who are wanting to report.

[2:24:14] So, if someone was wanting to report a,

[2:24:17] you know, a an Airbnb, a short-term

[2:24:20] rental [snorts] unit in their comm in

[2:24:22] their neighborhood that they know is not

[2:24:25] or they suspect that it is not licensed.

[2:24:29] What is that? Is there a dedicated line

[2:24:32] or link or what is the process pathway

[2:24:35] to someone wanting to report that?

[2:24:36] [snorts]

[2:24:37] >> Quite a number of ways. Um you could

[2:24:38] » Quite a number of ways. Um you could

[2:24:38] send an email to us. You could give us a

[2:24:40] phone call. We have online through

[2:24:42] cclickfix. You can report those uh

[2:24:44] through uh that app and also that

[2:24:47] website. Um we have people that uh will

[2:24:50] mail us letters. Uh so any number of

[2:24:51] ways that we do it. We work on that like

[2:24:53] I mentioned complaint based process. So

[2:24:55] any any way that somebody can get us

[2:24:57] information we will definitely be acting

[2:24:58] on that.

[2:24:59] >> Okay.

[2:25:04] Randy, you turned your camera on. I

[2:25:05] don't know if you had something you

[2:25:06] wanted to say before we make a Okay,

[2:25:08] just checking. [clears throat] Just

[2:25:10] checking. Well, um, certainly if there's

[2:25:13] more comments, we could do that. I think

[2:25:15] what I'm thinking listening to the

[2:25:18] conversation is we might have three

[2:25:20] motions. motion on agenda item one, a

[2:25:23] motion on agenda item two, and then a

[2:25:25] third motion that we initiate a text

[2:25:29] amendment to restore the code with the

[2:25:30] cleanup text with an end date of July

[2:25:33] 26th and bring back um additional

[2:25:38] penalties um

[2:25:41] as part of that. And I think our

[2:25:42] discussion is about maybe going to the

[2:25:45] 2500 and suspending licenses. But we'll

[2:25:47] let the let that initiation and then

[2:25:50] bring that back to us and we can go

[2:25:52] through that.

[2:25:54] >> So that's why I'm thinking three motions

[2:25:55] » So that's why I'm thinking three motions

[2:25:56] is

[2:25:57] >> yes.

[2:25:58] » yes.

[2:25:58] >> That's the case. Would anyone like to

[2:25:59] » That's the case. Would anyone like to

[2:25:59] try those motions?

[2:26:02] Motion to approve a temporary text

[2:26:04] amendment to chapter 6, article 13,

[2:26:06] division 2, short-term residential

[2:26:07] rental property code to allow greater

[2:26:09] flexibility for short shortterm rentals

[2:26:12] during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Adopt on

[2:26:15] first reading ordinance number 10153.

[2:26:19] >> Second.

[2:26:19] » Second.

[2:26:19] >> Second. A motion by Vice Mayor Courtney,

[2:26:22] » Second. A motion by Vice Mayor Courtney,

[2:26:22] a second by Commissioner Cos as it

[2:26:25] relates to regular agenda item one. All

[2:26:26] those in favor, please say I. I.

[2:26:28] >> I.

[2:26:29] » I.

[2:26:29] >> Opposed? Passes 5. Is there a second

[2:26:33] » Opposed? Passes 5. Is there a second

[2:26:34] motion on regular agenda item number

[2:26:36] two?

[2:26:38] >> Before the motion, I just wanted just

[2:26:40] » Before the motion, I just wanted just

[2:26:40] one clarification point. So, this is

[2:26:42] just cleaning up something that you guys

[2:26:44] found in the text

[2:26:46] >> of the of the of the LDC.

[2:26:49] » of the of the of the LDC.

[2:26:49] >> This would make the change for the World

[2:26:52] » This would make the change for the World

[2:26:52] Cup. The amendment we'd be be bringing

[2:26:54] back to

[2:26:56] reset would be the cleanup one. So, it

[2:26:59] would correct the error we've identified

[2:27:00] in the code. Okay.

[2:27:01] >> We wouldn't be bringing back the exact

[2:27:03] » We wouldn't be bringing back the exact

[2:27:03] same text that's in there today. We'd be

[2:27:04] bringing back the cleanup version if you

[2:27:06] initiate the amendment to put it revert

[2:27:08] back.

[2:27:08] >> Okay. Just wanted to double check that.

[2:27:10] » Okay. Just wanted to double check that.

[2:27:10] Okay. Thank you.

[2:27:13] >> So, there's a motion on regular agenda

[2:27:14] » So, there's a motion on regular agenda

[2:27:14] item number two.

[2:27:19] Motion to approve text amendment at

[2:27:20] AMDT25

[2:27:22] uh 007 to chapter 20, the land

[2:27:24] development code of the city of

[2:27:25] Lawrence, Kansas to update the accessory

[2:27:28] use table to allow nonowner occupied

[2:27:30] short-term rental uses to be permitted

[2:27:32] accessory uses in the R1 residential low

[2:27:35] density and R2 residential low density

[2:27:38] to districts. Also update the accessory

[2:27:40] use table to allow owner occupied

[2:27:41] short-term rental uses to be permitted.

[2:27:44] accessory uses in the R3, R4, R5, M1,

[2:27:47] M2, M3, CCD, ILG, and P1 districts.

[2:27:52] Based on the findings present in the

[2:27:53] staff report, adopt on first reading

[2:27:55] ordinance number 10176.

[2:27:58] >> Seconded.

[2:27:59] » Seconded.

[2:27:59] >> So motion by Vice Mayor Kney, a second

[2:28:03] » So motion by Vice Mayor Kney, a second

[2:28:03] by um Commissioner Devo. All those in

[2:28:06] favor, please say I.

[2:28:07] >> I. I.

[2:28:08] » I. I.

[2:28:08] >> I.

[2:28:09] » I.

[2:28:09] >> The opposed. Passes five to zero. And

[2:28:12] » The opposed. Passes five to zero. And

[2:28:12] then I'm looking for a third.

[2:28:14] >> So on the third one, do I need to

[2:28:15] » So on the third one, do I need to

[2:28:15] specify the language as far as fines and

[2:28:18] penalties or can

[2:28:18] >> No, I think just initiate they bring

[2:28:20] » No, I think just initiate they bring

[2:28:20] back penalty

[2:28:21] >> related to short-term rentals. Okay. So

[2:28:23] » related to short-term rentals. Okay. So

[2:28:23] I move that we initiate a text amendment

[2:28:25] uh with clean up that Wait, hold on.

[2:28:28] Yeah. So, I move that we initiate a text

[2:28:30] amendment with cleanup l with cleanup

[2:28:33] text to sunset

[2:28:36] to July 26, 2026 and to have staff bring

[2:28:41] back language related to fines and

[2:28:44] penalties

[2:28:46] as it relates to short-term rentals.

[2:28:49] >> I second that.

[2:28:50] » I second that.

[2:28:50] >> Okay. Sherry and Jeff and Craig,

[2:28:53] » Okay. Sherry and Jeff and Craig,

[2:28:53] everyone

[2:28:55] >> understand the motion?

[2:28:57] » understand the motion?

[2:28:57] >> Okay.

[2:28:58] » Okay.

[2:28:58] Um and so motion by Commissioner Cos, a

[2:29:01] second by um Commissioner Dever. All

[2:29:04] those in favor, please say I.

[2:29:05] >> I.

[2:29:06] » I.

[2:29:06] >> I.

[2:29:07] » I.

[2:29:07] >> Opposed. That passes 5 to zero.

[2:29:10] » Opposed. That passes 5 to zero.

[2:29:10] >> Thank you very much, Jeff and others.

[2:29:13] » Thank you very much, Jeff and others.

[2:29:13] Thank you. Um that ends our regular

[2:29:16] agenda, but brings us to the work

[2:29:17] session items. A work session provides

[2:29:19] an opportunity for the city commission

[2:29:21] to discuss items in greater detail. The

[2:29:23] commission will take no binding action

[2:29:24] on the items presented during this time.

[2:29:27] Woke session topics are eligible for

[2:29:28] public comment. Members of the public

[2:29:30] will be limited to three minutes for

[2:29:32] comments. And this work session is to

[2:29:34] receive a presentation on the proposed

[2:29:36] affordable housing incentive policy. And

[2:29:39] I believe Leah is online to present

[2:29:42] this.

[2:30:00] Hi, good evening, mayor and

[2:30:01] commissioners. I'm Leah Rosland,

[2:30:03] affordable housing administrator uh for

[2:30:05] the city of Lawrence. Uh please give me

[2:30:07] just a moment while I share my screen.

[2:30:19] [clears throat]

[2:30:23] Okay. Um, good evening again. Thank you

[2:30:26] for the opportunity to present the

[2:30:28] proposed affordable housing incentive

[2:30:30] policy.

[2:30:33] The goal of this work session is to

[2:30:35] provide a clear overview of the policy.

[2:30:38] I'll share the purpose, how it connects

[2:30:39] to our adopted housing goals, the types

[2:30:42] of h incentives proposed, and incentive

[2:30:44] requirements. We are eager to hear your

[2:30:46] feedback tonight.

[2:30:50] This policy builds on prior commission

[2:30:52] direction, community engagement, and our

[2:30:54] shared vision of a Lawrence where

[2:30:57] housing is affordable, accessible, and

[2:30:59] dignified for everyone.

[2:31:01] This policy advances the city's

[2:31:03] strategic plan, strong, welcoming

[2:31:05] neighborhood KPIs 5, six, and seven.

[2:31:09] This policy additionally meets the

[2:31:10] city's commitments to effective and

[2:31:13] efficient processes, steward, sound

[2:31:15] fiscal stewardship, and equity and

[2:31:17] inclusion.

[2:31:18] I'm sorry. Give me just some sec.

[2:31:21] [clears throat]

[2:31:26] This [clears throat] policy advances our

[2:31:28] strategic goals by focusing incentives

[2:31:30] on the types of housing least available

[2:31:32] and most needed in our community to

[2:31:34] decrease housing stress, especially for

[2:31:37] very low and low-income households, our

[2:31:39] local workforce, families with children,

[2:31:41] people with disabilities, and seniors.

[2:31:44] The policy is designed with the

[2:31:45] overarching goal of ensuring that our

[2:31:47] public investments have the greatest

[2:31:49] possible impact for the community and

[2:31:51] serve the highest public good.

[2:31:53] Additional goals are to provide

[2:31:54] transparency, clarity, and fairness for

[2:31:56] applicants in the community.

[2:32:00] We [clears throat] leverage a toolkit of

[2:32:01] incentives to bridge financial gaps and

[2:32:03] encourage development that meets

[2:32:05] affordability goals. I will provide an

[2:32:07] overview of each incentive type in the

[2:32:10] next few slides.

[2:32:13] So, first tax incentives. This policy

[2:32:16] recommends tax incentives including

[2:32:18] reinvestment housing incentive districts

[2:32:21] or RIDs, industrial revenue bonds, IRBs,

[2:32:24] and neighborhood revitalization areas,

[2:32:26] NRAs. IRBs and NRAs have already been

[2:32:29] provided for affordable housing under

[2:32:32] their current economic development

[2:32:34] policy.

[2:32:35] If approved, moving forward, affordable

[2:32:37] housing projects would need to meet the

[2:32:39] criteria outlined and apply under this

[2:32:41] policy. Reinvestment housing districts

[2:32:44] would be a new tool for Lawrence, but is

[2:32:46] a statewide incentive already offered

[2:32:48] throughout many Kansas community.

[2:32:52] [clears throat]

[2:32:56] Currently, [gasps]

[2:32:57] uh I'm sorry, uh moving on to affordable

[2:33:00] housing trust funds. Currently, the

[2:33:01] affordable housing trust fund is

[2:33:03] provided only as a grant. Under the

[2:33:06] proposed policy, projects with the

[2:33:07] guaranteed period of affordability of 99

[2:33:10] years would be eligible for grants.

[2:33:12] Projects with lower periods of

[2:33:14] affordability would be eligible for

[2:33:16] lowterest loans, which is a standard

[2:33:19] practice among many communities with

[2:33:20] local trust funds for projects uh with

[2:33:23] more limited periods of affordability.

[2:33:28] » [clears throat]

[2:33:28] >> Additional proposed and city city

[2:33:31] » Additional proposed and city city

[2:33:31] incentives include public land donations

[2:33:34] and fee waivers. Through this policy, a

[2:33:37] process for requesting municipal land

[2:33:38] donations and fee waivers would be

[2:33:40] formalized and streamlined. Fee waivers

[2:33:43] are one of the most frequently utilized

[2:33:45] mechanisms municipalities across the

[2:33:47] country and the state employed to

[2:33:49] generate affordable housing development.

[2:33:52] However, unfortunately, as we've

[2:33:54] discussed, our own internal policies

[2:33:56] create barriers in maximizing the

[2:33:58] leverage of this incentive. While we can

[2:34:01] provide some fee wavers through PDS,

[2:34:04] system development charges cannot be

[2:34:06] waved per resolution 7231,

[2:34:09] I would suggest that this is one of the

[2:34:11] more vital policy considerations for the

[2:34:13] commission to consider.

[2:34:17] Now that I've reviewed incentives, I'll

[2:34:19] cover eligibility

[2:34:21] in the proposed policy. Requirements for

[2:34:24] minimum years of affordability ensure

[2:34:26] long-term community benefit and protect

[2:34:28] public investment in incentivizing

[2:34:30] extended affordability periods. This

[2:34:33] requirement is a critical policy uh

[2:34:35] decision for the commission to consider.

[2:34:37] And so I'm going to provide just a very

[2:34:39] brief primer on this item.

[2:34:46] » [clears throat]

[2:34:46] >> In order to receive public subsidy for

[2:34:48] » In order to receive public subsidy for

[2:34:48] building affordable housing, developers

[2:34:50] agree to making the units affordable for

[2:34:53] low and moderate income households,

[2:34:55] meaning that rents are restricted so

[2:34:57] that they are generally not higher than

[2:34:59] 30% of the household income. And they

[2:35:02] agree to do this for a designated period

[2:35:04] of time. At the end of the mandated

[2:35:07] period of affordability, the housing may

[2:35:09] then be converted to market rate

[2:35:10] housing, meaning that the owner may

[2:35:12] charge the highest possible rent. within

[2:35:16] local market conditions. That also means

[2:35:18] that when affordability ends, the public

[2:35:20] investment no longer serves as a benefit

[2:35:23] to the public and vulnerable households

[2:35:25] are put at risk for displacement and

[2:35:27] homelessness when rents increase to more

[2:35:29] than what they can afford. Kansas and

[2:35:32] federal low-income housing tax credits

[2:35:34] require a 30-year affordability period.

[2:35:37] Some states have longer.

[2:35:40] Many municipalities have local

[2:35:42] municipalities have longer. Uh the city

[2:35:45] has aligned with the state litec 30-year

[2:35:47] requirement. Although the AHOB attempts

[2:35:50] to prioritize projects with 99 or more

[2:35:53] years of affordability or we often refer

[2:35:55] to as affordability in perpetuity or

[2:35:58] permanent affordability.

[2:36:00] This policy further operationalizes that

[2:36:03] priority and proposes that to receive

[2:36:05] significant incentives, a 99-year

[2:36:07] affordability period would be required.

[2:36:10] The policy also proposes that a 50-year

[2:36:13] minimum period of affordability to

[2:36:15] receive lowinterest loans and any one uh

[2:36:18] types of tax incentive [laughter]

[2:36:25] proposes that projects must meet minimum

[2:36:27] affordability percentages ensuring

[2:36:29] deeper affordability for those most in

[2:36:31] need with a focus on family and

[2:36:33] accessible units. based on initial

[2:36:36] developer feedback and to be more in

[2:36:38] alignment with state litec. The draft

[2:36:41] policy was already updated and greatly

[2:36:43] reduced the requirements for targeted

[2:36:45] housing types. In the revised draft um

[2:36:49] as you can see um in yellow up to 20% of

[2:36:52] units may be income targeted for

[2:36:54] households up to 120% AMI. I want to

[2:36:58] note that this would also be a

[2:36:59] significant policy change for Lawrence

[2:37:01] as currently projects must serve

[2:37:03] households at or under 80% AMI to

[2:37:06] receive subsidy the same as LITC and um

[2:37:10] HUD. Enabling some units to serve

[2:37:12] moderate and middle inome households

[2:37:14] helps us to build more of the missing

[2:37:16] middle housing stock in addition to

[2:37:18] helping to uh increase project

[2:37:20] feasibility.

[2:37:25] to provide an example of what them this

[2:37:27] might look like. Say a project will be

[2:37:30] building 10 new affordable homes in this

[2:37:33] policy. Out of those 10, two of them may

[2:37:36] be income targeted to households up to

[2:37:38] 120 uh% AMI. Four of them would be

[2:37:42] income targeted to households uh between

[2:37:44] 60 and 80, 8% AMI, and four would be

[2:37:47] income targeted to households at or

[2:37:49] under 60% AMI. In addition, the project

[2:37:52] must include at least two units that are

[2:37:55] three or more bedrooms fully accessible

[2:37:57] or income targeted for 30% or below AMI.

[2:38:01] In this scenario, the developer elects

[2:38:03] to build one family housing unit for

[2:38:05] households at up to 80% AMI and one

[2:38:08] additional fully accessible unit for

[2:38:10] households up to 60% AMI. This ensures

[2:38:13] that with every develop fin development

[2:38:15] finance with public subsidy, the

[2:38:18] community is gaining a minimal amount of

[2:38:19] the units that advance the city's

[2:38:21] targeted housing goal.

[2:38:28] To get a [clears throat] better

[2:38:29] understanding of how AMI translates into

[2:38:31] actual household income, I've included

[2:38:33] this chart. AMI is based on family size,

[2:38:36] so it makes it a little complicated to

[2:38:37] give one number. So, I've included AMI

[2:38:40] levels for one, two, and four person

[2:38:42] households. Just as an example, the AMI

[2:38:45] percentage in bold represents households

[2:38:47] traditionally eligible for affordable

[2:38:49] housing. I've also included a chart with

[2:38:51] typical wages in Lawrence to give you an

[2:38:53] idea of the workforce this housing

[2:38:55] supports. This data is from the Bureau

[2:38:57] of Labor Statistics and represents the

[2:38:59] mean annual wage in Lawrence for some

[2:39:01] common jobs that are essential to our

[2:39:03] community.

[2:39:05] Moving on, the policy also includes

[2:39:08] accessibil uh accessibility standards

[2:39:10] that ensure that publicly subsidized

[2:39:12] housing is usable and welcoming to all

[2:39:14] so that homes may be used by a wide

[2:39:16] range of occupants including all ages

[2:39:19] and abilities.

[2:39:21] In the interest of time, I'm just going

[2:39:23] to note that the policy also includes

[2:39:25] requirements pertaining to the criteria

[2:39:27] shown here, all of which are fairly

[2:39:29] standard and covered in the policy

[2:39:30] itself. I'm happy to provide any

[2:39:32] additional detail upon request.

[2:39:36] The agenda item packet includes the

[2:39:38] policy original draft used for community

[2:39:41] engagement and an updated redline draft

[2:39:43] reflecting changes made based on

[2:39:45] community feedback. The redline version

[2:39:48] provides additional clarity and language

[2:39:50] and explicitly broadens eligibility

[2:39:52] criteria um to make clear that the

[2:39:55] intent is not just new development but

[2:39:57] also rehabs, conversion um from market

[2:40:00] rate to affordable etc. The final policy

[2:40:03] will additionally be streamlined by

[2:40:05] removing administrative processes and

[2:40:07] design standards into separate

[2:40:08] accompanying documents.

[2:40:11] [clears throat]

[2:40:13] We aim for timely implementation with

[2:40:15] your feedback shaping the final policy

[2:40:17] which we anticipate bringing for

[2:40:19] approval by the end of this quarter. One

[2:40:22] important note on implementation, some

[2:40:24] components of the policy will need to be

[2:40:26] phased in based on funding availability.

[2:40:28] For example, we don't have any

[2:40:30] additional resources allocated in 2026

[2:40:33] to cover fee waiverss. As we have

[2:40:36] discussed recently, all 2026 affordable

[2:40:39] housing trust funds have been fully

[2:40:40] allocated. Due to these and other budget

[2:40:43] constraints, full implementation of all

[2:40:45] elements of the policy will not be

[2:40:47] possible until 2027.

[2:40:51] staff would value the following uh

[2:40:53] specific guidance from the governing

[2:40:55] body in addition to um to any any

[2:40:59] discussion you may have. But I want to

[2:41:01] provide um additional clarity on what

[2:41:03] we're asking for in a couple of these

[2:41:05] items because I don't think my slide is

[2:41:07] very clear. So for the first item

[2:41:09] regarding broader focused goals, the

[2:41:11] question really is, is the commission's

[2:41:14] priority to broadly and primarily

[2:41:16] support larger multifamily rental

[2:41:18] projects or be more targeted to drive

[2:41:21] development of the housing types that

[2:41:23] are most needed in advancing goals such

[2:41:25] as affordable home ownership,

[2:41:27] family-sized, accessible, and deeply

[2:41:29] affordable units that don't normally

[2:41:31] come with those larger multifamily,

[2:41:34] typically LITC projects.

[2:41:37] Regarding the last um item uh regarding

[2:41:40] additional incentives, the question is

[2:41:42] is the commission is interested in

[2:41:44] exploring additional land use incentives

[2:41:46] and expediated review processes. I'm

[2:41:49] happy to provide further explanation for

[2:41:52] any of these items at your request. Um

[2:41:54] this concludes the presentation but I'm

[2:41:56] happy to leave this slide up as it may

[2:41:58] help to guide uh your discussion and

[2:42:00] we'll stand for any questions. Thank you

[2:42:02] so much.

[2:42:04] >> Thank you Leah. questions for Leah.

[2:42:09] » Thank you Leah. questions for Leah.

[2:42:09] Who would like to start?

[2:42:13] I guess I can start. Well, people

[2:42:16] and I will say I um sadly started with

[2:42:20] the the first version before I realized

[2:42:22] there was a second redline version. I

[2:42:24] started writing down questions and then

[2:42:25] I realized, hey, they answered some of

[2:42:27] these. Um, so, um, my notes are a

[2:42:31] little, uh, confused, but I do have a, I

[2:42:33] mean, a couple couple questions and

[2:42:36] trying to think through how these would

[2:42:37] work. Um,

[2:42:41] you know, thinking about and I'll jump

[2:42:44] around a little bit. I mean, I I

[2:42:45] certainly understand the idea of

[2:42:48] trying to get more three-bedroom units

[2:42:51] because that's a, you know, low-inccome

[2:42:52] three-bedroom units is a is a priority.

[2:42:55] I know. But how would that would would h

[2:42:59] putting that requirement in would that

[2:43:02] keep us from doing like senior housing

[2:43:04] projects that they probably don't need

[2:43:07] three bedrooms in senior housing

[2:43:08] projects and and how would we work that

[2:43:11] policy

[2:43:13] in and try to balance those two?

[2:43:17] Um in that requirement um the 20% of

[2:43:21] more targeted units, it's like a menu of

[2:43:24] options that the developer can choose.

[2:43:26] So it's either three or more bedrooms

[2:43:28] for families or fully accessible units

[2:43:31] that would be great for seniors to age

[2:43:33] in place or um units that are income

[2:43:37] targeted for AMIs uh at 30% or below.

[2:43:41] >> Okay, so that's a an option, not a

[2:43:44] » Okay, so that's a an option, not a

[2:43:44] single requirement. Okay, thank you. I

[2:43:45] missed that. I missed that. Um,

[2:43:50] so you know, of course, we've done quite

[2:43:52] a few LITC projects that have less than

[2:43:55] 50 years.

[2:43:57] Um, and

[2:44:00] [snorts]

[2:44:01] looking across the state and and you

[2:44:03] know, I know you mentioned some

[2:44:04] communities have longer periods. I mean,

[2:44:07] do we expect if we adopted this that

[2:44:09] we'd never have a LITC project again in

[2:44:12] the city, or would we expect LITC

[2:44:14] projects to come and be okay with the

[2:44:17] the 50-year loan, or or how do you see

[2:44:20] that playing out in practice?

[2:44:24] Based on um the data from other

[2:44:27] communities that have

[2:44:30] many periods of affordability,

[2:44:32] [clears throat]

[2:44:33] we would not see any reduction in LITC

[2:44:36] projects to be anticipated. Um Vermont,

[2:44:40] the whole state requires permanent

[2:44:42] affordability and they have continued to

[2:44:46] have a wait list. Um LITC projects still

[2:44:49] are very competitive.

[2:44:52] Um, and a lot of the local

[2:44:54] municipalities that we often look at to

[2:44:57] compare Lawrence to, many of those local

[2:45:00] municipalities have uh required longer

[2:45:03] periods of affordability. Uh, many

[2:45:06] require permanent or permanent 99 years

[2:45:09] of affordability. And again, they have

[2:45:11] not seen any reduction that um continues

[2:45:14] to be a very competitive program. And

[2:45:17] what has shown to reduce litech projects

[2:45:20] is the amount of credits available

[2:45:22] through through the program itself.

[2:45:25] >> Yeah,

[2:45:25] » Yeah,

[2:45:26] >> we know that's a problem. [snorts] Um

[2:45:28] » we know that's a problem. [snorts] Um

[2:45:28] >> so then tell me h [laughter] how would

[2:45:30] » so then tell me h [laughter] how would

[2:45:30] the loan repayment work? Um is that a

[2:45:34] loan that they're making payments on for

[2:45:35] the 50 years? Is a is a loan repayment

[2:45:37] due at the end of the 50 years? H how

[2:45:39] does that practically work?

[2:45:43] That's something that staff would need

[2:45:45] to um develop policies and procedures

[2:45:49] for. First, we wanted to get

[2:45:50] commission's um interest in exploring

[2:45:54] that um as an option and if the

[2:45:57] commission is interested, then we'll

[2:45:58] move into what those administrative

[2:46:01] details uh would be. I do want to note

[2:46:03] and Danny might be able to speak more to

[2:46:05] this, but our uh division currently

[2:46:08] operates loans through the CDBG program.

[2:46:11] So we do have some idea and a mechanism

[2:46:13] for operating loans.

[2:46:15] >> Yeah. I just didn't know like with a

[2:46:18] » Yeah. I just didn't know like with a

[2:46:18] LITC project or whatever there's a

[2:46:20] 50-year for example instead of 999 and

[2:46:23] just just trying to understand how that

[2:46:24] payment payment back would work. Um

[2:46:30] there in section

[2:46:36] uh section I think 28 there's some

[2:46:38] language in there about um sites being

[2:46:41] ineligible or may be eligible or

[2:46:44] whatever in when wetlands

[2:46:48] um I I think the original version said

[2:46:52] if it had a significant impact on

[2:46:54] wetlands I think the the the secondary

[2:46:57] version said they'd just be ineligible

[2:47:00] if there was any wetlands involved. Um,

[2:47:04] and I guess if we went with the first

[2:47:06] version of impact on wetlands, who would

[2:47:11] make that decision

[2:47:14] um the impact versus

[2:47:18] um I mean I think the second way would

[2:47:20] be cleaner but also more limiting. So I

[2:47:22] just wondered the thought process on

[2:47:24] those two options.

[2:47:27] Um, that's a really good question,

[2:47:29] Mayor. And, um, I'm wondering if Jeff

[2:47:32] might have some ideas. That's not

[2:47:33] something that we've um, discussed. That

[2:47:36] language was uh, copied, borrowed from,

[2:47:40] uh, Kansas Litec policies.

[2:47:43] Um, and we have not discussed internally

[2:47:46] how that would be implemented or

[2:47:47] enforced.

[2:47:48] >> And just so I'm clear, which is was the

[2:47:51] » And just so I'm clear, which is was the

[2:47:51] first language,

[2:47:52] >> correct? the second language the

[2:47:54] » correct? the second language the

[2:47:54] application is ineligible or is it the

[2:47:57] first language about the impact that's

[2:47:59] in the lit language

[2:48:01] >> the the original draft language was from

[2:48:03] » the the original draft language was from

[2:48:03] litec

[2:48:04] >> okay typically wetlands get delineated

[2:48:07] » okay typically wetlands get delineated

[2:48:07] by a federal agencies effectively it's

[2:48:10] not something that the city typically

[2:48:11] lays out or works with so if it gets

[2:48:13] delineated as part of that process with

[2:48:15] one of the federal agencies it usually

[2:48:17] shows up on the maps and we usually

[2:48:18] follow that process because it's pretty

[2:48:20] extensive to be displayed on that and

[2:48:22] there's also So, a lot of changes

[2:48:24] that'll occur from time to time on that

[2:48:25] is what constitutes a wetlands or how

[2:48:28] wetlands are governed under federal

[2:48:29] laws. And so, it's kind of hard to

[2:48:31] sometimes keep up with all the different

[2:48:32] changes, but we usually just rely on

[2:48:34] that as part of our standard process.

[2:48:36] >> Okay. And I guess that relates um and

[2:48:40] » Okay. And I guess that relates um and

[2:48:40] not not for you, Jeff, I don't think. Um

[2:48:43] but uh you know I know there's knowing

[2:48:46] that there's a limited number of LITC

[2:48:50] um projects going to be available in the

[2:48:52] state of Kansas. Um

[2:48:58] you know I wondered about something in

[2:49:00] the policy

[2:49:01] that um

[2:49:06] you know helped us you know be in line

[2:49:09] for LITC projects. I mean this this this

[2:49:12] would be an example for example this

[2:49:14] example of wetlands. I mean if if the

[2:49:17] state determines it does not have an

[2:49:19] impact on wetlands if we use that

[2:49:22] language could we just accept that and

[2:49:24] not have to do our own evaluation.

[2:49:27] Um you know I of course this came up a

[2:49:30] couple weeks ago. Another thought was,

[2:49:33] you know, the the points related to fee

[2:49:35] waiverss. And I know we can't do fee

[2:49:36] waiverss per se, but you know, allowing

[2:49:39] people to be if they get LITC approval,

[2:49:41] they'll automatically

[2:49:44] receive a fee waiver so that the points

[2:49:48] can be maximized and therefore they have

[2:49:50] a better chance of ultimately receiving

[2:49:52] it. I guess I'm just trying to think out

[2:49:54] loud is have you seen any policies that

[2:49:58] somehow um

[2:50:01] you know

[2:50:03] help LITC people you know our community

[2:50:06] get awarded some of the limited LITC.

[2:50:09] Does that make sense?

[2:50:11] >> Yeah. There are um several

[2:50:15] » Yeah. There are um several

[2:50:15] um categories for which projects receive

[2:50:18] points based on local support. as we've

[2:50:21] discussed fee waiverss, um below

[2:50:24] interest loans is another one, municipal

[2:50:27] land donations is another one and then

[2:50:30] other types of local uh grants like uh

[2:50:33] CDBG for example or home could could be

[2:50:36] considered in that. Um so those are

[2:50:41] those are the ways that the applications

[2:50:43] would score higher. I think your

[2:50:45] question about, you know, automatically

[2:50:49] providing fee waiverss or other types of

[2:50:51] incentives for LITC projects, I guess

[2:50:54] that's really, you know, that's a policy

[2:50:57] question for the commission to consider

[2:50:59] is the intent um as I understand it and

[2:51:02] as I've discussed with KHRC, the intent

[2:51:05] is to gauge the local community's

[2:51:08] support of a particular project. How

[2:51:11] much is your local community behind it?

[2:51:13] How much does this project reflect the

[2:51:15] needs of your local community? And

[2:51:17] that's indicated through things like fee

[2:51:19] wavers and loans or grants, etc.

[2:51:22] Um, so does our community, you know, do

[2:51:25] we want to,

[2:51:28] um, I guess use incentives as a way of

[2:51:30] prioritizing certain projects or do we

[2:51:32] want to take what Kansas

[2:51:35] um, you know, the state um,

[2:51:39] believes to be the most vital or, you

[2:51:42] know, the best project for our

[2:51:44] community. I think really that's the

[2:51:46] question.

[2:51:47] >> I see.

[2:51:49] » I see.

[2:51:49] Um,

[2:51:53] [snorts]

[2:51:54] okay. I was checking here. We did change

[2:51:57] the caps from the first version to the

[2:51:59] second. Okay, that's good. I'm looking

[2:52:01] at the affordable housing part.

[2:52:03] >> Um,

[2:52:07] my question in this is I'm in in uh part

[2:52:10] eight, which is the affordable housing

[2:52:12] trust fund

[2:52:14] process.

[2:52:15] Um [cough] section five is the

[2:52:18] affordable housing trust fund procedure

[2:52:21] of part 8.

[2:52:23] >> What page?

[2:52:25] » What page?

[2:52:25] >> Um it is page 90 of 158.

[2:52:29] » Um it is page 90 of 158.

[2:52:29] >> Okay.

[2:52:31] » Okay.

[2:52:31] [snorts] Um,

[2:52:36] I guess my

[2:52:44] I see how I would ask this question.

[2:52:46] Well, first of all, is is the procedure

[2:52:48] set out in in section five here on page

[2:52:51] 8990? Is that what we do now or is there

[2:52:53] a suggestion in changing

[2:52:56] um the procedure? I I think it's similar

[2:52:59] to what we do now, but I I guess I was

[2:53:01] Let me ask it that way first.

[2:53:06] » Currently, the the policy outlines a

[2:53:09] procedure um from the affordable housing

[2:53:13] uh trust fund no notice of funding

[2:53:15] opportunity and is similar to how we run

[2:53:18] the process. Now, I think a ch um a

[2:53:21] change would be to consider if we want

[2:53:25] to continue if we do adopt this policy,

[2:53:27] does it make sense to continue to only

[2:53:29] have an annual application cycle? Um my

[2:53:33] uh my recommendation is that that does

[2:53:36] not work for development projects. um

[2:53:40] that it perhaps would make more sense

[2:53:42] for a developer to submit one incentive

[2:53:45] application which can be analyzed,

[2:53:47] reviewed, and considered for approval um

[2:53:52] with all the incentives requested at one

[2:53:54] time including trust funds. That would

[2:53:56] mean a change in how we run the trust

[2:53:58] fund process.

[2:54:01] >> And does that is what proposed in here

[2:54:03] » And does that is what proposed in here

[2:54:03] does that make that change or is that

[2:54:05] something because I tend to agree with

[2:54:07] you. I I mean I read this and I thought

[2:54:11] to myself that's pretty limiting. I mean

[2:54:13] we talk about having one meeting and

[2:54:15] then a second meeting by video and this

[2:54:17] and that and that seemed pretty detailed

[2:54:20] for policy. Um and I mean and then I did

[2:54:25] write down this idea of only doing it

[2:54:27] once a year. Um so the way it's written

[2:54:30] now is it does it have that flexibility

[2:54:33] or is that something we could look at?

[2:54:36] I would suggest that we revise it. And I

[2:54:39] don't know if Jeff or Danny want to

[2:54:40] speak more to this, but

[2:54:43] um we we um went back and forth on, you

[2:54:48] know, do we do we present um the

[2:54:51] affordable housing trust fund as it's

[2:54:53] currently conducted? Or do we also

[2:54:56] recommend simultaneously that perhaps

[2:54:58] the affordable housing advisory board

[2:55:01] has a portion of the trust funds that's

[2:55:03] within their purview to allocate or

[2:55:06] recommend awards for and that perhaps

[2:55:09] another pot of funds would be available

[2:55:11] for incentives that would come with

[2:55:13] staff recommendation. But since

[2:55:15] currently all of the affordable housing

[2:55:17] trust funds are um per ordinance

[2:55:20] connected to the affordable housing

[2:55:23] advisory board,

[2:55:25] um I was hesitant to put a policy

[2:55:27] recommendation that would be contrary to

[2:55:31] another [snorts] current policy similar

[2:55:33] to fee waiverss if that makes I hope I'm

[2:55:36] making sense.

[2:55:37] >> I think I think you make sense and I do

[2:55:40] » I think I think you make sense and I do

[2:55:40] think that's something I'm I'm

[2:55:41] interested in. Um,

[2:55:45] and obviously we can talk about that,

[2:55:47] but I do think having more flexibility

[2:55:50] to I mean we've we've had some

[2:55:53] disjointed projects come through where

[2:55:54] we're doing OI projects and then later

[2:55:58] we have Ahab, we have to wait on Ahab

[2:56:00] and we're not considering them all at

[2:56:02] the same time, all the incentives

[2:56:04] together and then we have to wait to see

[2:56:06] if Ahab's going to approve it and all

[2:56:08] that. I mean, it it does seem to make

[2:56:10] sense to me to have a a way to run a a

[2:56:13] whole procedure together and not

[2:56:18] do that. So, that is something I'm

[2:56:19] interested in. Okay, I have

[2:56:22] um

[2:56:25] one more question, then I'll let other

[2:56:26] people ask questions. Um

[2:56:30] this is 14B.

[2:56:32] What was Let's see. Um

[2:56:36] where did I see this?

[2:56:40] non-residential meet the I wrote this

[2:56:42] down. I'm trying to find the right spot.

[2:56:44] Non-residentidential

[2:56:46] meets the e um economic development

[2:56:48] policy.

[2:56:50] Um

[2:56:52] I think those that was up earlier as one

[2:56:54] of the eligibility criteria that the

[2:56:56] non-residential

[2:56:58] portion of any project meet the economic

[2:57:01] development policy. I guess I wanted to

[2:57:03] understand a little bit more what that

[2:57:05] meant. Would that mean they have to have

[2:57:06] meet our policy of certain wages, that

[2:57:10] sort of thing, or what do we mean by

[2:57:12] that eligibility requirement?

[2:57:18] Yeah, just as you stated mayor that um

[2:57:21] or any commercial component to the

[2:57:23] project um

[2:57:26] that that that component would also need

[2:57:28] to meet the criteria under economic

[2:57:29] development because affordable housing

[2:57:31] is not going to be evaluating

[2:57:34] um the strengths or um benefit to the

[2:57:38] commercial component of any project.

[2:57:41] But I guess what I'm

[2:57:44] and maybe the work would a work live be

[2:57:48] considered. I mean, I think about some

[2:57:49] of the projects we've done where we've

[2:57:50] had the work live component on the first

[2:57:52] floor and I don't think we've put any

[2:57:55] requirements on what the work part of

[2:57:58] that is meeting our economic development

[2:58:01] policy like

[2:58:03] um you know base wages or anything like

[2:58:08] that, job growth or is that what this

[2:58:10] means or would this be like purely

[2:58:12] commercial like if we're having a

[2:58:15] someone wants to put a coffee shop on

[2:58:17] the first Well, I I guess I don't

[2:58:19] understand that what we're trying to

[2:58:20] accomplish there. Leah, is it more like

[2:58:23] so I mean we've had a couple of folks

[2:58:25] bring together [clears throat] bring to

[2:58:27] us mixeduse developments where to your

[2:58:30] point where there is commercial on the

[2:58:31] bottom some iteration of commercial on

[2:58:33] the bottom housing on top. But the idea

[2:58:35] of if from a from a floor from the the

[2:58:41] total gross of the the number the the

[2:58:46] square footage exceeds.

[2:58:49] What this is saying is that if it

[2:58:50] exceeds 25% of if the commercial part

[2:58:54] exceeds 25% of the total gross floor

[2:58:59] number then this is not an affordable

[2:59:02] housing project. Therefore, a dollar

[2:59:05] should not be there. It should go it

[2:59:07] should meet the requirements of the

[2:59:08] economic development policies and

[2:59:10] procedures.

[2:59:11] >> Did I correct? Okay.

[2:59:12] » Did I correct? Okay.

[2:59:12] >> Okay, that helps me. Thank you. Thank

[2:59:14] » Okay, that helps me. Thank you. Thank

[2:59:14] you for that.

[2:59:15] >> Thank you.

[2:59:16] » Thank you.

[2:59:16] >> That I was mixing it. Yeah.

[2:59:19] » That I was mixing it. Yeah.

[2:59:19] There it is. Okay, that's the 25%. Okay,

[2:59:22] those are at least the start of my

[2:59:23] questions. Other questions people have

[2:59:26] at the moment?

[2:59:28] >> I I do have

[2:59:31] » I I do have

[2:59:31] I'm I'm trying to do a comment here. So,

[2:59:33] in regards to the revolving loan piece

[2:59:36] um with [snorts and clears throat] some

[2:59:37] of the language, I guess, so I'll get to

[2:59:39] that in comments because I I do

[2:59:41] appreciate that coming before us. I

[2:59:44] guess my question would be Danny for so

[2:59:47] with with some of the pol with if any of

[2:59:49] the policy changes that we implement

[2:59:51] tonight is that going to affect our

[2:59:52] current um

[2:59:55] CDGB um because we just did a we just

[2:59:59] reup the plan so would we need to make

[3:00:02] modifications to

[3:00:05] to our plan um how we've implement how

[3:00:07] we've strategized dollars?

[3:00:09] >> Uh good evening. Um it should not affect

[3:00:11] » Uh good evening. Um it should not affect

[3:00:12] our plan. um

[3:00:14] we would have a very robust educational

[3:00:17] piece if there's ever any crossing of

[3:00:20] the two different funding sources

[3:00:22] >> just because the uh anytime you put a

[3:00:25] » just because the uh anytime you put a

[3:00:25] dollar of federal funds in something it

[3:00:27] drastically changes a project. So um in

[3:00:31] terms of what we have we would not have

[3:00:33] to change anything. It would just be the

[3:00:35] educational piece on the other end.

[3:00:36] >> Okay.

[3:00:39] » Okay.

[3:00:39] And then um

[3:00:42] because some of the stuff around and I

[3:00:45] could be jumping ahead as far as the

[3:00:47] kind of the the the layout and the

[3:00:49] design of

[3:00:52] of a loan program. So let's say we we we

[3:00:55] go full charge with this and we start to

[3:00:57] expand it and we look at you know are

[3:01:00] there CDFIs

[3:01:03] of you know in the region that we could

[3:01:05] have access to you know or working with

[3:01:07] some of our local financial institutions

[3:01:09] to to be a part of that CRA aspect of

[3:01:14] it. Um,

[3:01:17] well,

[3:01:20] is is that kind of and I may be putting

[3:01:22] words in in folks mouth, but is that

[3:01:24] kind of what you were thinking about as

[3:01:26] related to the loan program so that we

[3:01:28] have additional dollars to leverage

[3:01:32] against AHAB dollars in order to if that

[3:01:36] was something we chose to do.

[3:01:37] >> Um, I think that all options are on the

[3:01:39] » Um, I think that all options are on the

[3:01:39] table for that. uh we just have our no

[3:01:42] interest loans right now that that we

[3:01:44] do. So I I think the the point of saying

[3:01:48] that we had it with CDBG was just that

[3:01:49] we already have kind of our work in

[3:01:51] working with finance. So that would be

[3:01:53] again we were kind of just trying to

[3:01:55] determine the appetite and if that's

[3:01:56] something that the commission was

[3:01:58] interested in and then we would really

[3:02:00] fully dive in and explore that

[3:02:02] >> and that's handled internally as far as

[3:02:04] » and that's handled internally as far as

[3:02:04] the

[3:02:06] >> with the dollars of the loans. Okay.

[3:02:08] » with the dollars of the loans. Okay.

[3:02:08] Yes. Yes.

[3:02:10] Okay.

[3:02:10] >> The interest adds another element to

[3:02:12] » The interest adds another element to

[3:02:12] that though that I

[3:02:14] >> Yeah.

[3:02:14] » Yeah.

[3:02:14] >> I don't know about [laughter]

[3:02:16] » I don't know about [laughter]

[3:02:16] Okay, that's good. That That's what I

[3:02:18] have for now.

[3:02:19] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:02:21] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:02:21] >> Other [snorts] questions?

[3:02:22] » Other [snorts] questions?

[3:02:22] >> Yeah, I have a couple.

[3:02:23] » Yeah, I have a couple.

[3:02:23] >> Okay.

[3:02:24] » Okay.

[3:02:24] >> Um, in general, when we talk first, let

[3:02:27] » Um, in general, when we talk first, let

[3:02:27] me make a quick comment and thank you

[3:02:29] for all of your uh diligence getting out

[3:02:32] in the community and getting the

[3:02:34] feedback. Along those lines, did we

[3:02:36] include the school board in any way when

[3:02:39] we talk about this policy?

[3:02:44] We met with the school district

[3:02:47] um [clears throat] as uh as staff um

[3:02:52] protocol was that we work with other

[3:02:54] district staff. Um not reach out

[3:02:57] directly to school board. Um, so we did

[3:03:00] meet with district staff, the assistant

[3:03:02] superintendent, and did let them know

[3:03:05] that we'd be happy to have further

[3:03:06] meetings. Um,

[3:03:09] um, and Jeff can

[3:03:11] >> Yeah. Did you get any in that? [snorts]

[3:03:14] » Yeah. Did you get any in that? [snorts]

[3:03:14] >> Well, they primarily um were focused on,

[3:03:19] » Well, they primarily um were focused on,

[3:03:19] I think, tax incentives and wanting to

[3:03:22] ensure that that the community sees a

[3:03:25] benefit to the district.

[3:03:27] um particular on um an incentive like an

[3:03:31] NRA where where they're voting to

[3:03:33] approve.

[3:03:35] >> Okay.

[3:03:37] » Okay.

[3:03:37] Um if I may, I see Shannon Alry, um CEO

[3:03:43] of Lawrence Douglas County Housing

[3:03:44] Authority. Would you possibly mind

[3:03:46] coming in and

[3:03:49] uh giving a high level giving some

[3:03:52] feedback if you don't mind? uh having

[3:03:55] worked with you, I know you you know uh

[3:03:57] affordable housing. I'd love to hear

[3:03:59] what you have to say.

[3:04:00] >> Sure. And is this I think I'm good. Um

[3:04:04] » Sure. And is this I think I'm good. Um

[3:04:04] so and the other thing that I'll say is

[3:04:06] I was one of the original people on the

[3:04:09] affordable housing advisory board. So

[3:04:12] kind of been involved as this process

[3:04:14] has has evolved. Um, and I think the the

[3:04:19] thing I like best about this is the

[3:04:22] difference between the grant and the

[3:04:24] loan because from the housing

[3:04:26] authorities perspective, we are in favor

[3:04:29] of every single affordable housing unit

[3:04:32] we can get on the ground. Um, I voted

[3:04:35] for when I was on that board for all the

[3:04:38] LITC projects, but the difference that

[3:04:41] we constantly found was,

[3:04:44] you know, we try to put a matrix

[3:04:46] together. Well, a LITC project might be

[3:04:48] might bring, you know, 80 units for 30

[3:04:53] years, but [clears throat] the those of

[3:04:56] us in like nonprofit tenants, US,

[3:05:00] Habitat, maybe we were only bringing

[3:05:02] four units. Um, but the difference in

[3:05:06] those models is that the housing

[3:05:08] authority, 70% of everybody we assist is

[3:05:11] at or below 30% of AMI. So, I can never

[3:05:16] make a proform work, right? Unless I get

[3:05:20] a lot of money from you all. I mean,

[3:05:22] it's just basic. Um, because when you

[3:05:26] can only charge rent based on 30%, you

[3:05:28] saw that number, $21,000.

[3:05:31] I mean, you cannot rent in this town at

[3:05:34] that level unless you're renting from

[3:05:36] one of us. So, we've always had that

[3:05:39] rub. And so what I like about this

[3:05:42] policy is the real difference of how do

[3:05:44] we assist

[3:05:47] affordable housing at that very low end

[3:05:50] without discouraging

[3:05:53] LITC because I think we want both. And

[3:05:56] and you know I will say like I mean

[3:06:00] union at the loop we have a hundred

[3:06:01] vouchers. We have a ton of vouchers at

[3:06:04] Bethl. We have vouchers in every LITC

[3:06:08] project. And so that's the sort of, you

[3:06:11] know, unenviable task that the staff had

[3:06:14] and that you have is where do you sort

[3:06:17] of cut that and and figure out how do

[3:06:20] you incentivize both without

[3:06:24] making it impossible for those of us on

[3:06:27] the nonprofit/government

[3:06:29] end of it to to put a deal together um

[3:06:33] and not killing LITC. So So those are my

[3:06:36] sort of high level. So, can I follow up

[3:06:38] and ask why why does the loan help? I

[3:06:42] guess when I read this, I thought the

[3:06:44] loan would discourage LITC. You seem to

[3:06:46] say that helps the balance. How does

[3:06:48] that

[3:06:48] >> Well, because I mean and and Rebecca

[3:06:52] » Well, because I mean and and Rebecca

[3:06:52] Buford is is she's the first of us out

[3:06:54] there trying to do a LITC deal and

[3:06:56] probably can speak better, but I mean

[3:06:59] people all over the country do LITC

[3:07:01] without any Ahab money without right. I

[3:07:05] mean, we're one of the very few uh

[3:07:08] cities who has a affordable housing tax.

[3:07:12] I mean, people do LITC all over the

[3:07:14] country um without that money.

[3:07:19] >> But there is that soft money difference

[3:07:23] » But there is that soft money difference

[3:07:23] that they're trying to figure out a way

[3:07:25] to make up. And so if you can if you can

[3:07:28] sort of help them out, but then like if

[3:07:32] you look at that and somebody's renting

[3:07:34] at 80 most of the units are at 80% of

[3:07:38] AMI, well that's not very far off

[3:07:41] market, right? So how come then they

[3:07:45] wouldn't be able to pay back that back

[3:07:47] into a fund to do more affordable

[3:07:50] housing? That would be my thought on it

[3:07:52] is isn't that then a way we're

[3:07:54] generating future funds to pay back into

[3:07:58] more affordable housing.

[3:07:59] >> Appreciate that. Go ahead. You have

[3:08:01] » Appreciate that. Go ahead. You have

[3:08:01] other questions.

[3:08:03] >> No, Shannon, thank you. Um I really do

[3:08:06] » No, Shannon, thank you. Um I really do

[3:08:06] appreciate your feedback.

[3:08:08] >> Thank you.

[3:08:10] » Thank you.

[3:08:10] >> And you still get your three minutes

[3:08:11] » And you still get your three minutes

[3:08:11] later if you want. [laughter]

[3:08:14] >> Um other questions before we open it up

[3:08:17] » Um other questions before we open it up

[3:08:17] and then

[3:08:18] >> Yeah, just a quick question. So Leah, um

[3:08:19] » Yeah, just a quick question. So Leah, um

[3:08:19] I go back to your elig eligibility

[3:08:22] criteria slide on the period of

[3:08:24] affordability. I know that for the 99

[3:08:26] it's you you can use that combination

[3:08:30] under the 50-year

[3:08:32] uh there's the idea of the IRBs and the

[3:08:35] NRA. Um, is it the would it be your

[3:08:39] thought that

[3:08:43] you know the IRBs are the abatement

[3:08:44] piece and the NRA as it relates to

[3:08:46] housing is kind of the rebate aspect of

[3:08:48] it and not necessarily using abatement

[3:08:50] under the NRA.

[3:08:54] [snorts]

[3:08:55] >> I'm not sure I understand your question.

[3:08:57] » I'm not sure I understand your question.

[3:08:57] I apologize. Commissioner just cuz I

[3:08:59] know that sometimes when we when we get

[3:09:01] some of these projects the idea that we

[3:09:04] have the abatement piece and we have the

[3:09:06] the rebate piece and I know sometimes

[3:09:07] the question comes in when we deal with

[3:09:09] the abatement piece that has the impact

[3:09:11] of the county and the school board. So,

[3:09:16] >> is it the idea that by utilizing a IRB

[3:09:19] » is it the idea that by utilizing a IRB

[3:09:19] for

[3:09:21] 50-year affordable housing projects? Is

[3:09:23] this maybe to maybe direct it more

[3:09:26] towards an IRB? facility abatements on

[3:09:28] more of the sales tax of supplies and

[3:09:30] not necessarily the abatement of

[3:09:32] property tax or what were your I mean

[3:09:35] I'm I'm I'm going deeper into this maybe

[3:09:37] than

[3:09:39] the policy question posed but that's

[3:09:41] kind of where my brain is going on this

[3:09:44] >> um well like for LITC applications it

[3:09:48] » um well like for LITC applications it

[3:09:48] explicitly named sales tax exemption so

[3:09:51] I would assume that most LITC projects

[3:09:54] would favor the IRB but really the

[3:09:56] intent is that for significant tax

[3:10:00] incentives for a project that we're

[3:10:02] receiving a significant community

[3:10:04] benefit, which is why there's that

[3:10:06] language of, you know, one type of tax

[3:10:09] incentive, most likely an IRB um for 50

[3:10:12] years or fewer years of affordability

[3:10:16] and then any combination of incentives

[3:10:18] for the permanent affordable housing

[3:10:21] projects,

[3:10:22] >> right? So, it's just it's about the

[3:10:23] » right? So, it's just it's about the

[3:10:23] braiding and blending of the different

[3:10:25] opportunities to use these things.

[3:10:27] >> Correct.

[3:10:27] » Correct.

[3:10:27] >> Okay.

[3:10:27] » Okay.

[3:10:28] >> Yes,

[3:10:28] » Yes,

[3:10:28] >> you got me there.

[3:10:30] » you got me there.

[3:10:30] >> I did think of one more question and and

[3:10:32] » I did think of one more question and and

[3:10:32] you raised this and I think maybe you

[3:10:34] should talk about more for

[3:10:36] consideration. You talk about resolution

[3:10:37] 7231

[3:10:39] and maybe explain that and what the what

[3:10:43] you're looking for direction from us on.

[3:10:48] Well, I suppose um direction on whether

[3:10:51] the commission is interested in

[3:10:53] exploring

[3:10:55] um that resolution um including

[3:10:59] potentially revising it or at least

[3:11:01] exploring the implications of revising

[3:11:03] it, perhaps having more um analysis

[3:11:06] done. Um

[3:11:07] >> let's I'm not sure everyone knows what

[3:11:10] » let's I'm not sure everyone knows what

[3:11:10] 7231 is. The new folks

[3:11:12] >> I'm googling it now. [laughter]

[3:11:15] » I'm googling it now. [laughter]

[3:11:15] you might you might give an overview of

[3:11:17] what 7231 is and then

[3:11:19] >> Yeah. So it um pertains to water and

[3:11:22] » Yeah. So it um pertains to water and

[3:11:22] sewage revenue bonds um and states that

[3:11:26] no services or facilities uh provided by

[3:11:29] the system will quote be furnished to

[3:11:32] any user without a reasonable charge

[3:11:34] being made therefore. So that language

[3:11:37] has been interpreted um to preclude any

[3:11:40] system development charge fee waivers

[3:11:42] which are the largest of fee waivers um

[3:11:45] incurred by projects.

[3:11:49] >> And [clears throat]

[3:11:50] » And [clears throat]

[3:11:50] if we if we did even change that

[3:11:53] tomorrow um that wouldn't change some of

[3:11:56] the bonds we already have in place,

[3:11:58] would it? Or could we retroactively

[3:12:00] change that?

[3:12:02] Well, I think that that's um would need

[3:12:06] to be explored more.

[3:12:08] >> Yeah.

[3:12:10] » Yeah.

[3:12:10] >> Okay. Anyway, that's the issue we talked

[3:12:12] » Okay. Anyway, that's the issue we talked

[3:12:12] a little bit about the other day about

[3:12:13] not being able to just wave the fees and

[3:12:16] instead having to award them money to

[3:12:18] pay us for the fees because our bond our

[3:12:21] resolution and thus our bond documents

[3:12:23] say we can't wave fees. And if if we

[3:12:27] want to change that

[3:12:28] >> and that was under a revenue

[3:12:30] » and that was under a revenue

[3:12:30] >> or did it matter? Do you remember?

[3:12:32] » or did it matter? Do you remember?

[3:12:32] >> Yeah. Our revenue bonds is why

[3:12:34] » Yeah. Our revenue bonds is why

[3:12:34] >> they were only issuing revenue on this.

[3:12:36] » they were only issuing revenue on this.

[3:12:36] I don't know.

[3:12:37] >> I don't know. I don't know bond laws as

[3:12:39] » I don't know. I don't know bond laws as

[3:12:39] it pertains to this actually. Yeah.

[3:12:41] >> Well, it wasn't applicable to it, but it

[3:12:42] » Well, it wasn't applicable to it, but it

[3:12:42] was used as guidance in order to give us

[3:12:44] that direction.

[3:12:45] >> Okay. Well, other questions? We'll we'll

[3:12:47] » Okay. Well, other questions? We'll we'll

[3:12:48] open it up for public comment. Then

[3:12:49] we'll bring it back and make comments

[3:12:51] and then um again we're going to send

[3:12:55] Leah and others back to work on this and

[3:12:56] bring back. So we're not voting on this

[3:12:58] tonight. Yeah.

[3:12:59] >> So we're giving feedback but just want

[3:13:01] » So we're giving feedback but just want

[3:13:01] to make sure everyone's on the same page

[3:13:02] but go ahead vice mayor.

[3:13:03] >> Yeah. Uh uh two two two things uh Leah.

[3:13:06] » Yeah. Uh uh two two two things uh Leah.

[3:13:06] So the first one you mentioned in there

[3:13:08] about below interest loans. Could you

[3:13:10] explain how that would function to this?

[3:13:15] So that so the um proposed affordable

[3:13:18] housing trust fund loans for projects

[3:13:21] with fewer than 99 years of

[3:13:24] affordability

[3:13:26] um would qualify for points under the

[3:13:29] LITC application as a lowterest loan or

[3:13:32] below market interest uh loan which is

[3:13:35] why I mentioned that language

[3:13:36] specifically

[3:13:38] and I think that I believe I'll have to

[3:13:40] fact check but I believe that's defined

[3:13:42] as 1% or less.

[3:13:45] So it would generate a minimal amount of

[3:13:48] additional leverage or revenue to uh

[3:13:51] continue to support projects for through

[3:13:53] the trust fund.

[3:13:57] » And then the the other question I have

[3:13:58] and

[3:14:00] this is this is not a gotcha question. I

[3:14:02] I swear I I I am generally curious what

[3:14:04] you think about this in in terms of the

[3:14:06] presentation you gave. You talked about

[3:14:08] SWN56 and 7. And so on the Lawrence

[3:14:12] website where it has the KPIs it looks

[3:14:14] like seven we are on track with that it

[3:14:17] has it was the middle of 2024 we were

[3:14:20] able to get uh 20.9 uh affordable

[3:14:22] housing units but for 5 6 and 7 we've

[3:14:26] basically been off track for over 5

[3:14:28] years. And so my my just my question is

[3:14:32] how do you see this going forward kind

[3:14:34] of rectifying either getting us closer

[3:14:37] with percentage of households that are

[3:14:38] experiencing housing stress getting us

[3:14:40] below what looks like about 17 18% for

[3:14:43] the past 5 years into something that is

[3:14:46] again below 15 and on track.

[3:14:49] Yeah. So how do you see this achieving

[3:14:51] those goals?

[3:14:54] » Um well in in a few ways. So part of the

[3:14:58] intent of targeting particular housing

[3:15:02] types is to help us to progress in those

[3:15:05] goals. Um Shannon mentioned um

[3:15:10] [laughter] you know how um sorry Shannon

[3:15:13] mentioned tennis to homeowners was

[3:15:14] there. Tennis to homeowners has

[3:15:16] primarily developed our affordable

[3:15:18] housing um home ownership units.

[3:15:23] um that requires deeper subsidy. Um

[3:15:27] those you know one to seven unit home

[3:15:31] ownership units generally will not

[3:15:34] qualify for LITC. Um and um it just it

[3:15:40] requires a community commitment to make

[3:15:42] that happen. We have not seen

[3:15:44] applications for new affordable home

[3:15:47] ownership units through the trust funds

[3:15:50] in several years. It's just very very

[3:15:53] difficult uh to to pencil out right now.

[3:15:56] It's nearly impossible. And so part of

[3:15:58] this policy is saying, "Hey, our

[3:16:00] community wants to make a commitment to

[3:16:02] home ownership." Another example is a

[3:16:05] commitment to homeowner or to affordable

[3:16:08] units for populations at 30% AMI or

[3:16:11] below, which feeds into decreasing the

[3:16:14] point in time count of homelessness.

[3:16:17] um the the projects, you know, serving

[3:16:19] 40 to 80% AMI are needed and valuable

[3:16:23] for our community, but those aren't

[3:16:25] generally the housing units that people

[3:16:28] are transitioning into out of um

[3:16:30] houselessness. We need deeply affordable

[3:16:33] units to meet that commitment.

[3:16:37] Um

[3:16:39] I I also want to say that we although S

[3:16:43] SWN7

[3:16:44] uh we have been on track for that. Um we

[3:16:50] I I hesitate to even say this, we might

[3:16:52] need to look at that um indicator

[3:16:55] because now the affordable housing sales

[3:16:57] tax is also being used to provide

[3:17:00] revenue to um emergency homeless

[3:17:03] services. And so that leverage is going

[3:17:06] to change. Um as as mentioned, deeply

[3:17:11] affordable housing, transitional

[3:17:14] housing, um supportive housing requires

[3:17:17] much deeper subsidy.

[3:17:20] I hope I've answered that question.

[3:17:22] >> Oh, thank you. I I appreciate that. I

[3:17:23] » Oh, thank you. I I appreciate that. I

[3:17:23] took some good notes on that. Thank you.

[3:17:29] Okay, we might have some more questions

[3:17:31] for you, Leah, after public comment, but

[3:17:32] we'll open it up to public comment. Um,

[3:17:35] anyone like to speak on this item. We

[3:17:37] have three minutes.

[3:17:43] John M66049,

[3:17:45] you may have stolen my thunder, but I am

[3:17:48] going [laughter] to plow ahead with what

[3:17:49] I've written down with access to safe

[3:17:51] and affordable housing and essential

[3:17:54] services that help them thrive. Okay,

[3:17:56] that's an important metric that should

[3:17:59] apply to the whole entire policy,

[3:18:02] especially one that's so large,

[3:18:03] impactful, and expensive.

[3:18:06] As reported by the city, and I'm not

[3:18:08] giving my opinion here. I'm reporting

[3:18:10] for what the city says. Most progress

[3:18:12] indicators are off track of the stated

[3:18:15] goals. The goals are defined and

[3:18:19] measured. I'm not going to comment on

[3:18:21] how they're measured or even if those

[3:18:22] are good goals, but they are published

[3:18:24] as part of the overall uh policy.

[3:18:27] For example, number one, residents who

[3:18:30] perceive the city as a good or very good

[3:18:32] place to live, it's off track from its

[3:18:35] goals. Households, the owners or renters

[3:18:38] that are experiencing housing stress,

[3:18:40] it's off track from its goals. Count of

[3:18:43] people experiencing homelessness. So, we

[3:18:46] have a target for reducing that. It's

[3:18:48] off track from its goals. City

[3:18:51] infrastructure cost per new residential

[3:18:53] unit for multifamilies. It's off track

[3:18:56] for its goals. City infra infrastructure

[3:18:59] cost per new residential unit single

[3:19:02] family. It's off track for its goals.

[3:19:06] Connectivity of healthy food providers

[3:19:08] by transit, bike routes, or sidewalks.

[3:19:10] It's off track.

[3:19:12] Residential units within a half mile of

[3:19:14] city green space not achieved at all.

[3:19:18] Residential units within a half mile of

[3:19:20] a school or library off track.

[3:19:23] This is an interesting interesting one.

[3:19:25] Leverage the affordable housing sales

[3:19:28] tax dollars to maintain and create more

[3:19:30] affordable housing. Well, that's on

[3:19:32] track, which means to me we're great at

[3:19:34] spending money, great at putting up

[3:19:36] units, but whether we're achieving the

[3:19:38] goals of why we're bothering to put up

[3:19:40] units or to offer units doesn't seem

[3:19:43] like we're successful.

[3:19:45] So, the in bottom line, affordable

[3:19:47] housing incentive policy ought to have

[3:19:49] sensible objective outcomes. Maybe these

[3:19:52] aren't the right ones. They've been

[3:19:53] around for a while, and I'm not sure

[3:19:55] they're even updated. However, a serious

[3:19:58] review is needed to ensure that

[3:19:59] objectives are measurable and tied to

[3:20:02] relevant successive successful metrics.

[3:20:06] Thank you.

[3:20:07] >> Thank you,

[3:20:09] » Thank you,

[3:20:09] [clears throat]

[3:20:13] » Christina McKenna 66046.

[3:20:16] Um, the collaboration for collaborative

[3:20:18] governance thanks the city of Lawrence

[3:20:19] for proposing the affordable housing

[3:20:21] initiatives policy. We appreciate its

[3:20:24] wide variety of incentive options, clear

[3:20:26] application and accountability

[3:20:28] processes, and very long-term

[3:20:30] affordability. This proposal reflects

[3:20:32] our community's compassionate commitment

[3:20:34] to increasing sustainable, transparent,

[3:20:36] and consistently affordable housing

[3:20:37] opportunities for its residents. We also

[3:20:40] appreciated the city's community

[3:20:41] engagement about this policy that Leo

[3:20:43] Rosland facilitated and in which our

[3:20:44] coalition participated. We hope the co

[3:20:47] the commission will support this policy

[3:20:49] and its continued development. And we

[3:20:51] believe it can be a great model for what

[3:20:53] can be achieved when the city of

[3:20:54] Lawrence, the many devoted affordable

[3:20:56] housing advocates and community

[3:20:58] organizations and engaged residents

[3:21:00] collaborate towards a shared goal. We

[3:21:02] have several suggestions and questions

[3:21:03] about this policy we hope you'll

[3:21:05] consider, including figuring out ways

[3:21:06] for it to support affordable home

[3:21:08] ownership options as well as affordable

[3:21:10] rental options even for those in the

[3:21:12] middle class. The proposed policy

[3:21:15] currently requires the development of

[3:21:16] multiple units to be eligible for these

[3:21:18] incentives incentives and developments

[3:21:20] that have received them are generally

[3:21:22] multi-unit apartment complexes that

[3:21:24] residents rent. Our coalition suggests

[3:21:26] this policy increases options for

[3:21:28] applying these incentives to more home

[3:21:30] ownership options. It could include

[3:21:32] expanding the eligibility requirements

[3:21:34] to apply to smaller scale developments,

[3:21:36] including single properties for homes

[3:21:38] individuals can buy, own, and build

[3:21:39] equity themselves. It could increase

[3:21:42] affordable home ownership in Lawrence

[3:21:43] and could also support the

[3:21:44] rehabilitation and adapted use of

[3:21:46] existing structures. Additionally, in

[3:21:49] the past, affordable housing has

[3:21:50] primarily been provided by existing

[3:21:52] housing stock rather than new

[3:21:53] construction. We believe it might be

[3:21:55] valable valuable for the city to discuss

[3:21:57] options that could support creating more

[3:21:59] affordability for existing individual

[3:22:01] housing units. This could increase the

[3:22:03] affordable housing supply faster than

[3:22:05] building new units can do. We're

[3:22:07] grateful the city staff has already

[3:22:08] started to integrate community feedback

[3:22:10] into this proposal and hope to continue

[3:22:12] the city will continue to do so. And

[3:22:14] it's not just affordable housing, but

[3:22:16] also the sustainable housing. So

[3:22:17] sometimes maybe more accurately called

[3:22:20] attainable housing for everyone. Thank

[3:22:23] you.

[3:22:23] >> Thank you.

[3:22:29] » Hello Melinda Ball 046. I'm presenting

[3:22:33] some additional suggestions and

[3:22:35] questions from the Coalition for

[3:22:37] Collaborative Governance. The proposed

[3:22:39] policy includes language that

[3:22:41] prioritizes the preservation,

[3:22:43] rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of

[3:22:45] existing buildings, which our coalition

[3:22:47] appreciates. Our neighborhood advocates

[3:22:50] also request that the policy eliminate

[3:22:52] incentives for demolitions of existing

[3:22:54] buildings by disallowing incentives for

[3:22:57] lots that are vacant because of demos.

[3:23:00] We request that the pol policy

[3:23:02] strengthen its flood plane and wetland

[3:23:04] protections by requiring sites be

[3:23:07] ineligible if it if it is within a

[3:23:10] federally designated flood plane and by

[3:23:13] adhering to the broader definition of

[3:23:15] wetland prior to the recent sacket va

[3:23:18] ruling. We like the commission to

[3:23:21] consider whether this policy would could

[3:23:24] incentivize the use of local businesses

[3:23:26] including contractors, lumber shops,

[3:23:29] landscapers, window suppliers, and other

[3:23:31] building trades. We also like to request

[3:23:34] that the city gather and integrate

[3:23:36] feedback from the Lawrence School Board

[3:23:38] about this proposed policy as they also

[3:23:42] need to approve some of the proposed

[3:23:44] incentives. This topic was addressed at

[3:23:46] the candidate forum [snorts] our

[3:23:48] coalition hosted in October and school

[3:23:50] board members expressed a desire to be

[3:23:52] involved in this type of policy

[3:23:54] development. We also have a few

[3:23:56] financial questions about this policy.

[3:23:58] Has the city studied the fiscal impact

[3:24:00] of the property tax rebates and sales

[3:24:02] tax exemptions on the city's budget and

[3:24:05] on the city's ability to provide city

[3:24:07] services for the additional housing

[3:24:09] generated by this policy? that is what

[3:24:11] are the costs of services for these

[3:24:14] developments and how does that compare

[3:24:15] to the tax revenue the city will not be

[3:24:18] receiving. Miss Rosland told us that

[3:24:21] this will be studied in on a case-byase

[3:24:24] basis. Due this due to the scale of this

[3:24:26] new policy, we suggest that the city

[3:24:28] consider a more comprehensive assessment

[3:24:31] of the financial effects of this policy.

[3:24:34] Relatedly, we are curious if the city

[3:24:36] compared their financial situation to

[3:24:38] communities they modeled their policy

[3:24:40] proposed on to ensure that these

[3:24:43] incentives align with our community's

[3:24:46] specific financial needs. Finally, we'd

[3:24:49] like to suggest some additional benefits

[3:24:50] that could be added to the policy at no

[3:24:52] cost to the city. These include density

[3:24:55] bonuses that allow denser development

[3:24:57] than the current zoning allows,

[3:24:59] expedited permitting, and land use

[3:25:01] concessions where when appropriate for

[3:25:04] the neighborhood. Thank you.

[3:25:06] >> Thank you.

[3:25:11] » I have the comments in the room.

[3:25:13] Christina,

[3:25:21] » good evening commission. um and 66049

[3:25:24] Christina Gentry. Um pe speaking as a

[3:25:28] resident and a public servant. Um I urge

[3:25:32] um that the Lawrence City Commission and

[3:25:34] community to support an affordable

[3:25:36] housing incentive policy that ensures

[3:25:39] housing in perpetuity.

[3:25:42] Um this is not merely an abstract

[3:25:44] policy. It is a vital investment in our

[3:25:46] community's core stability and future.

[3:25:48] By keeping homes permanently affordable,

[3:25:51] we prevent the displacement of our

[3:25:52] neighbors and pro and provide families,

[3:25:55] particularly vulnerable populations like

[3:25:58] the many single family women head of

[3:25:59] household in our county, in our city,

[3:26:03] the stable foundation that they need to

[3:26:05] survive and to thrive. In Lawrence,

[3:26:07] female households with no spouse or

[3:26:10] partner present make up 8.7% of all

[3:26:13] households, with 5.8% having their own

[3:26:16] children under the age of 18.

[3:26:18] This represents a significant portion of

[3:26:20] the population that could benefit from

[3:26:22] housing stability measures. A

[3:26:24] preliminary report on unhoused people in

[3:26:27] Douglas County indicated that nearly 51%

[3:26:30] of those experiencing homelessness

[3:26:32] identified as female, a higher rate than

[3:26:35] national or state trends. This disparity

[3:26:38] underscores the particular

[3:26:39] vulnerabilities faced by women in

[3:26:41] securing and maintaining stable housing.

[3:26:44] Speaking to cost burden and income, many

[3:26:47] households in the Kansas City region,

[3:26:49] including Lawrence, experience

[3:26:50] significant housing cost burdens with

[3:26:53] the greatest shortage for residents at

[3:26:55] the 30 and 50% median income levels. We

[3:26:58] spoke on that today. Um, but research

[3:27:01] consistently shows that housing

[3:27:03] stability leads to better health

[3:27:05] outcomes, improved educational

[3:27:07] achievements for children, and a more

[3:27:09] robust local economy. For individuals

[3:27:12] who are currently costbururdened,

[3:27:14] perpetual affordability frees up

[3:27:17] resources for essentials like health

[3:27:19] care and education. The data which shows

[3:27:22] a disproport disproportionate number of

[3:27:25] women experiencing homelessness in our

[3:27:27] county makes it clear that targeted

[3:27:29] support is necessary. Incentivizing

[3:27:32] community needs through perpetual

[3:27:34] affordability will help us build a more

[3:27:36] resilient, equitable, and connected Lord

[3:27:39] for generations to come. Thank you.

[3:27:49] » See no other comments in the room. Um,

[3:27:51] how about online? Oh, David, will you

[3:27:54] speak on this one?

[3:27:55] >> Yeah, go ahead.

[3:27:58] » Yeah, go ahead.

[3:27:58] >> Hi, David Baston. Uh, tonight's agenda

[3:28:01] » Hi, David Baston. Uh, tonight's agenda

[3:28:01] item is the affordable housing incentive

[3:28:04] policy. a big step to add more

[3:28:07] affordable units through tax breaks,

[3:28:09] grants, loans, land donations, and and

[3:28:12] fee waiverss. The goal is to increase

[3:28:15] supply for low to moderate income

[3:28:17] residents, reducing housing stress and

[3:28:22] make Lawrence more affordable. But but

[3:28:24] we already have a policy that does the

[3:28:26] exact opposite of that. Ordinance number

[3:28:29] 10121

[3:28:31] passed in April of 25

[3:28:34] caps most homes at four adults, four to

[3:28:38] five adults per per house. This rule was

[3:28:42] passed to please a few complainers about

[3:28:44] residents, not based on facts, but

[3:28:47] public health or public health concerns.

[3:28:50] A commissioner told me it's meant to

[3:28:52] stop students from overcrowding homes.

[3:28:54] There's no proof that it fixes anything.

[3:28:56] Another [clears throat] called it a

[3:28:58] terrible one-sizefits-all policy that

[3:29:00] drives up rent and hits renters the

[3:29:03] hardest. Described

[3:29:06] as just a compromise to pacify

[3:29:08] complainers driven by politics, not

[3:29:12] evidence. Sounds pretty ridiculous when

[3:29:14] you hear it out loud, doesn't it? Uh

[3:29:17] we're telling grown adults how many

[3:29:19] people can live together. Uh and this uh

[3:29:22] you might want to look at this when you

[3:29:24] uh look at the World Cup too because

[3:29:26] only four adults can live or can be in

[3:29:28] any one house. So that's something you

[3:29:30] can look at there. Also uh it shrinks

[3:29:33] our housing stock. A five bedroomedroom

[3:29:35] house that could easily uh

[3:29:39] support 7 to eight people. Now legally

[3:29:42] sits half empty. that forces more people

[3:29:45] to comple compete uh with fewer homes

[3:29:48] driving rent costs up. Uh 2025 Lawrence

[3:29:53] rents has jumped 7% on average. Uh and

[3:29:58] that's higher than the national trend. U

[3:30:02] these caps make it worse by blocking

[3:30:04] shared living in our tight market. Um

[3:30:10] let's see. If we're serious about

[3:30:12] affordable housing incentive policy

[3:30:14] tonight, we can keep a rule that uh

[3:30:19] actively reduces the housing we already

[3:30:23] have. Repeal this ordinance. Uh stop

[3:30:26] bias rulings rules and complaints and

[3:30:30] start basing them on facts. Thank you.

[3:30:38] » Seeing none in the room, how about

[3:30:39] online? We do have a few.

[3:30:49] » Daniel Brown.

[3:30:57] » Oh,

[3:30:58] >> go ahead.

[3:30:58] » go ahead.

[3:30:58] >> Hello.

[3:31:00] » Hello.

[3:31:00] >> Hi. Uh, Daniel Brown, 66044.

[3:31:04] » Hi. Uh, Daniel Brown, 66044.

[3:31:04] Um, I work at Independence Incorporated.

[3:31:06] Uh we are a resource center for folks

[3:31:08] with disabilities here in Lawrence. Um

[3:31:10] I'm also the program manager of our

[3:31:12] accessible housing program. Uh which is

[3:31:14] a program that helps [snorts] folks with

[3:31:16] disabilities here in Lawrence get

[3:31:17] accessibility modifications for their

[3:31:19] homes like wheelchair ramps, accessible

[3:31:21] showers, grab bars, things like that. Um

[3:31:23] through my work over the years, I've

[3:31:25] seen firsthand um the struggles that

[3:31:27] folks with disabilities have um here in

[3:31:30] Lawrence and finding affordable housing

[3:31:31] that's accessible to them. Um and

[3:31:34] there's many reasons for this. Um, one

[3:31:36] of them is just the the housing stock

[3:31:38] here in Lawrence. Some of it is is older

[3:31:40] and it was built prior to federal um

[3:31:43] accessibility requirements being

[3:31:45] implemented. Um, also there's some

[3:31:48] housing that's exempt from those um

[3:31:50] accessibility requirements like single

[3:31:51] family homes, duplexes, triplexes, uh,

[3:31:54] multi-story town homes. Um there's also

[3:31:57] um many units in larger housing

[3:32:00] complexes, even newer complexes that

[3:32:02] don't have elevators. Um where it's just

[3:32:04] those grand floor units that are

[3:32:06] required to meet those minimum

[3:32:07] accessibility requirements. Um also many

[3:32:10] larger complexes don't have or have few

[3:32:13] if any um fully accessible units. So

[3:32:16] what this means for folks with

[3:32:17] disabilities, particularly physical

[3:32:19] disabilities, folks who are seniors,

[3:32:21] folks wanting to age in place, it's just

[3:32:23] that there's significantly fewer options

[3:32:25] for them um regarding housing,

[3:32:28] particularly finding and maintaining um

[3:32:31] accessible housing that's affordable to

[3:32:33] them. So feel like this proposed housing

[3:32:36] incentive policy helps to address some

[3:32:38] of that by expanding accessibility

[3:32:41] requirements. Um it also extends the

[3:32:44] period of affordability um to ensure

[3:32:46] affordable and accessible housing um is

[3:32:49] available to current residents um and

[3:32:51] also to future generations. So I would

[3:32:54] urge the commission um to maintain these

[3:32:57] proposed requirements in any housing

[3:32:59] incentive policy that's ultimately um

[3:33:01] approved by the commission. Um thank you

[3:33:03] very much.

[3:33:05] >> Thank you.

[3:33:13] Marielle Ferrero.

[3:33:18] » Good evening, commissioners. Um, this is

[3:33:21] Maria Pereo. Um, Lawrence resident and

[3:33:24] uh, honored to be a member of the

[3:33:26] affordable housing advisory board and

[3:33:28] the accessibility and affordable housing

[3:33:30] work group that is a part of the place

[3:33:32] for everyone plan. um here to just add

[3:33:34] my voice of support to the affordable

[3:33:37] housing incentive policy and to the

[3:33:41] opportunity to continue um developing

[3:33:44] this policy. Um, as you all have

[3:33:46] learned, there are a lot of uh changes

[3:33:49] but good components to this and um,

[3:33:52] incredibly underlined. So, I'll only

[3:33:53] underscore what um, the the CEO of uh,

[3:33:56] Lawrence Douglas County Housing

[3:33:58] Authority, Shannon Ory, stated is that

[3:34:00] this is an opportunity to utilize our

[3:34:03] housing trust funds and have an

[3:34:05] opportunity to continue to reinforce

[3:34:08] that we do want LITC projects in this

[3:34:11] community. As you know, our affordable

[3:34:13] housing trust fund is not big and we

[3:34:16] struggle every year to be able to decide

[3:34:20] how those funds are um awarded. And

[3:34:24] almost every year it is um way less than

[3:34:27] what we receive in applications. This

[3:34:29] gives us an opportunity to expand our

[3:34:31] incentives and to focus that trust fund

[3:34:33] or how it's named in this presentation

[3:34:36] as a grant to the projects that may not

[3:34:39] qualify for LITC or projects that could

[3:34:42] be not only deeply affordable which is

[3:34:44] below that 30 at or below that 30% AMI

[3:34:48] but would be affordable in perpetuity or

[3:34:51] have that 99-year requirement. uh we

[3:34:54] have opportunity to put um projects that

[3:34:58] are a path to home ownership which was

[3:35:00] echoed um in a previous commenters that

[3:35:02] maybe we're not focusing on that. I

[3:35:04] stated during our application process

[3:35:07] this year that we did not have any home

[3:35:09] ownership projects. This is an

[3:35:11] opportunity to start moving in that

[3:35:12] direction. The things that we uh need to

[3:35:15] maintain in this policy moving forward

[3:35:18] is that affordability requirement. To

[3:35:21] expand on that and to utilize our funds,

[3:35:24] taxpayer dollars to make sure that our

[3:35:27] housing is affordable in perpetuity is

[3:35:30] incredibly important and something we

[3:35:32] need to underscore. Knowing that LITC

[3:35:34] projects will still be awarded, knowing

[3:35:36] that LITC projects are still a

[3:35:38] cornerstone of affordable housing, this

[3:35:40] is the opportunity to do more. And this

[3:35:43] is the opportunity to provide housing

[3:35:45] that makes sense for our community. As a

[3:35:48] charge for AHAB, we are looking at our

[3:35:51] goals for the next several years and

[3:35:54] [snorts] this is in alignment with the

[3:35:55] projects and goals we want to see and we

[3:35:58] will be revising that after we get the

[3:36:00] affordable housing study. Um, so I'm

[3:36:02] incredibly excited to see this. I hope

[3:36:04] you all champion and encourage a

[3:36:06] continued exploration on these

[3:36:08] incentives and I hope that we can have

[3:36:11] affordable, sustainable housing in

[3:36:13] perpetuity in our community. Thank you.

[3:36:42] There you go. [snorts]

[3:36:48] » I'm sorry if I just moved you in. You

[3:36:50] could go ahead and speak. I'm not sure.

[3:36:54] >> Okay. Can you hear me?

[3:36:55] » Okay. Can you hear me?

[3:36:55] >> Yes.

[3:36:55] » Yes.

[3:36:55] >> Yes. Bob, go ahead.

[3:36:56] » Yes. Bob, go ahead.

[3:36:56] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:36:57] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:36:57] >> Your name? Uh Bob McKesc 66046.

[3:37:02] » Your name? Uh Bob McKesc 66046.

[3:37:02] Um I'm commenting from my experience as

[3:37:05] a wheelchair user since 1968 as a result

[3:37:09] of a car accident and current

[3:37:11] information and referral specialist job

[3:37:14] at Independence Inc. where I respond to

[3:37:17] among other things many requests for

[3:37:19] information and assistance finding

[3:37:22] affordable and accessible housing in

[3:37:24] Lawrence.

[3:37:26] I strongly support the city of Lawrence,

[3:37:29] Kansas adopting the affordable housing

[3:37:31] incentive policy and encourage you to

[3:37:35] approve the policy, extend the period of

[3:37:38] afford affordability in perpetuity

[3:37:42] keeping the all the universal design

[3:37:44] requirements in place that apply to city

[3:37:48] supported affordable housing

[3:37:50] developments. Uh accessible design is

[3:37:54] rooted in the principle that everyone

[3:37:56] should have equal access and usability

[3:37:59] of the built environment. Universal

[3:38:01] design creates spaces, livable spaces

[3:38:04] that are inclusive, accommodating, and

[3:38:07] can be used by people of all ages and

[3:38:10] levels of ability. Accessibility is not

[3:38:13] a special need. It's universal. Uh

[3:38:16] nationally, according to the Centers for

[3:38:18] Disease Control and Prevention, one in

[3:38:20] four adults lives with a disability and

[3:38:24] nearly 40% of all adults over 65 have

[3:38:27] mobility limitations.

[3:38:30] Yet less than 6% of homes are accessible

[3:38:34] to people with even moderate physical

[3:38:36] impairments. And that that is consistent

[3:38:40] with our experience here in in working

[3:38:43] with people that are looking for

[3:38:45] accessible affordable housing. Um

[3:38:50] [clears throat and cough]

[3:38:51] clearly most homes, apartments, and

[3:38:52] houses don't include basic accessibility

[3:38:55] features. They're not their traditional

[3:38:58] standard. Uh so and they are needed by

[3:39:01] people as they age, experience a change

[3:39:03] in health, adapt to or recover from

[3:39:06] injuries or care for loved ones. So most

[3:39:09] of us or our family members will need

[3:39:12] accessible housing at some point in our

[3:39:14] lives. The the vast majority of older

[3:39:17] adults want to stay in their homes and

[3:39:19] age in place.

[3:39:21] So including universal design

[3:39:23] accessibility from the start is smarter,

[3:39:27] more inclusive, and far more

[3:39:28] cost-effective than retrofitting later.

[3:39:32] So, I respectfully ask you to approve

[3:39:35] when the time is right or when you when

[3:39:37] you're deciding that to uh approve the

[3:39:40] affordable housing incentive policy to

[3:39:43] enable more affordable universally

[3:39:46] designed accessible housing to be

[3:39:48] available to the many Lawrence residents

[3:39:51] who need it.

[3:39:53] Thank you.

[3:39:54] >> Thank you.

[3:40:03] Jeffrey Hepler.

[3:40:07] » Hey y'all. Jeffrey Hler 66044. Uh thank

[3:40:11] you mayor, vice mayor, commissioners.

[3:40:14] Um, I just wanted to speak to this as uh

[3:40:18] a person who

[3:40:21] rents from tenants to homeowners and

[3:40:24] feels very blessed to be able to do so

[3:40:27] because if I'm being truthful, I don't

[3:40:30] know that I could live here if I didn't

[3:40:33] have subsidized rent from them. and

[3:40:40] I don't know if I'd be able to do my job

[3:40:44] here

[3:40:45] serving serving children.

[3:40:50] >> Um

[3:40:52] » Um

[3:40:52] I guess I want to share my share my

[3:40:54] vision. Here's what I'm here's what I'm

[3:40:55] thinking because I do want to be a

[3:40:57] homeowner here. I I I used to be a

[3:41:00] homeowner. I had 10 acres up by Perry

[3:41:02] Lake and um you know it kind of kills me

[3:41:06] to be a tenant now and not be able to

[3:41:07] take care of this place like I would

[3:41:08] like to.

[3:41:12] But my vision is, you know, having a

[3:41:15] tiny house here in Lawrence in a tiny

[3:41:17] neighborhood with um communal gardens

[3:41:22] and fruit trees and um you know,

[3:41:26] universal design.

[3:41:32] » Yeah, I guess that's all I have to share

[3:41:33] on that. I do hope that we support

[3:41:36] affordable housing, very affordable

[3:41:39] housing in the future because yeah, most

[3:41:42] people are paying 50% plus on their

[3:41:44] their incomes on on housing. That's just

[3:41:47] the reality we live in and it's driving

[3:41:50] people away and

[3:41:53] >> they can't escape it.

[3:41:56] » they can't escape it.

[3:41:56] >> Thank you all for listening. Um I

[3:41:58] » Thank you all for listening. Um I

[3:41:58] appreciate your service. Yeah. Thank you

[3:42:00] all for your com the comments from the

[3:42:02] public. That's very eloquent.

[3:42:04] [clears throat]

[3:42:05] >> Thank you,

[3:42:11] » Rhysa Williams.

[3:42:15] >> Hi there. I kind of want to just share a

[3:42:17] » Hi there. I kind of want to just share a

[3:42:17] little bit of my insight. I appreciate

[3:42:20] all the effort that's being put into

[3:42:22] this. Um, [clears throat] I kind of want

[3:42:23] to echo what Jeffree said.

[3:42:26] Um, my personal experience being that

[3:42:29] I'm a single mother of three boys, um, I

[3:42:32] have a voucher. I would still be in my

[3:42:35] 400 I'm sorry, 600 square foot

[3:42:40] tiny duplex with four kids um, had I not

[3:42:43] gotten a house a housing voucher. Um, so

[3:42:47] I understand like things are definitely

[3:42:50] hard. Um,

[3:42:52] and I appreciate that Christina shared

[3:42:54] those um,

[3:42:56] statistics regarding the percentages of

[3:42:58] women with children in the community

[3:43:00] that really do need that affordable

[3:43:02] housing. Um, I also was previously a

[3:43:06] housing case manager for Lawrence

[3:43:07] Community Shelter. So, I see that aspect

[3:43:10] of this. We have multiple individuals

[3:43:14] who want to be housed.

[3:43:16] They're working hard. They're trying,

[3:43:20] but they they they can't they can't find

[3:43:22] anywhere to rent. Nobody will rent to

[3:43:24] them. We break down barriers and they

[3:43:27] just continue to have more barriers. So,

[3:43:30] um

[3:43:33] yeah, the other part of that is I have a

[3:43:36] aging disabled mother. Um I'd like to

[3:43:40] see some

[3:43:42] smaller units like everyone said with

[3:43:46] ADA accessibility. Um, so I really

[3:43:49] really appreciate everything that's gone

[3:43:51] into everything everyone's saying

[3:43:53] tonight. Just from the bottom of my

[3:43:55] heart, I appreciate it. Thank you,

[3:44:04] » Mo Horowitz.

[3:44:06] [clears throat]

[3:44:08] >> Hi. Um, thank you so much for

[3:44:10] » Hi. Um, thank you so much for

[3:44:10] considering the proposed steps to create

[3:44:13] more affordable, accessible housing. I

[3:44:17] can't stress strongly enough the

[3:44:19] difference this would make in people's

[3:44:20] lives and I really appreciate everything

[3:44:24] in Leah's presentation. I believe that

[3:44:27] to s sustainably meet the needs of our

[3:44:30] community, the housing trust fund should

[3:44:33] require a 99-year affordability period

[3:44:36] for all new development in order to

[3:44:38] decrease displacement and increase

[3:44:40] stability. But I just want to talk a

[3:44:42] little bit more about the reasons to

[3:44:44] improve app improve the incentive

[3:44:46] policies, [snorts] universal design

[3:44:48] requirements, and increase accessibility

[3:44:50] since as a disabled person with a

[3:44:53] disabled spouse, that's what I know

[3:44:54] best. Our shortage of accessible housing

[3:44:57] puts disabled Lancians at higher risk of

[3:45:01] household accidents, abuse, joblessness,

[3:45:03] homelessness, and and social isolation.

[3:45:06] Systemic abbleism keeps disabled people

[3:45:09] poor. The Department of Labor estimates

[3:45:12] disabled canons earn 68 cents on the

[3:45:15] dollar. A 2025 academic study of more

[3:45:18] than,00 disabled adults found on average

[3:45:22] we spend 20% of that lower household

[3:45:24] income on disability related goods and

[3:45:27] expenses.

[3:45:28] Um, our city's latest housing market

[3:45:31] analysis found one in four disabled

[3:45:34] community members live in housing that

[3:45:36] does not meet our access needs and

[3:45:38] disabled [clears throat] renters usually

[3:45:40] go without the accessibility

[3:45:41] modifications they need. Incorporating

[3:45:44] universal design features into

[3:45:47] affordable housing goes a long way to

[3:45:48] meeting those needs and freeing up

[3:45:51] disabled people to focus on other parts

[3:45:53] of our lives, including the parts that

[3:45:55] lift people out of poverty. Um, not only

[3:45:58] is that better for disabled people, it

[3:46:01] also helps create more spending power in

[3:46:04] Lawrence. And the last thing I want to

[3:46:06] add is increasing accessible affordable

[3:46:09] housing stock can literally save

[3:46:11] people's lives in ways that may not be

[3:46:13] obvious right away. Um the most

[3:46:17] comprehensive meta study to date

[3:46:19] estimates that nationally disabled

[3:46:21] people are one and a half times more

[3:46:23] likely to be abused than non-disabled

[3:46:26] people. People are just more likely to

[3:46:28] leave their abusers when they can find

[3:46:30] housing that is safe, healthy, and

[3:46:32] accessible. Thank you very much.

[3:46:47] Barry, you're on mute. I can't hear you.

[3:47:06] » Okay, sorry about that.

[3:47:08] >> No problem.

[3:47:09] » No problem.

[3:47:09] >> Thanks for everyone. Um I agree with a

[3:47:12] » Thanks for everyone. Um I agree with a

[3:47:12] lot of the comments that people have

[3:47:14] made about um [clears throat]

[3:47:17] universal design

[3:47:20] uh and the importance of that

[3:47:22] uh long-term availability of these

[3:47:26] units. I'm just going to point out that

[3:47:30] um

[3:47:32] up until now a lot of our uh

[3:47:37] incentives have incentivized

[3:47:41] studios and onebedrooms.

[3:47:44] Um

[3:47:46] certainly there is a need and a market

[3:47:48] for that, but I think there is

[3:47:51] definitely a need for what I'm going to

[3:47:54] call familyfriendly housing.

[3:47:57] >> [snorts]

[3:47:57] » [snorts]

[3:47:57] >> Um, our school district despite the fact

[3:48:01] » Um, our school district despite the fact

[3:48:01] that the city is growing

[3:48:05] uh is losing students and I think part

[3:48:09] of that is because there is a lack of

[3:48:12] affordable housing for uh school age

[3:48:16] children in our town. And so I think

[3:48:19] this is a very important need that needs

[3:48:22] to be prioritized.

[3:48:25] Uh the other thing I think is important

[3:48:29] is that we need to uh create a better

[3:48:33] path for homeownership for people. Um

[3:48:38] not everyone wants to be a homeowner,

[3:48:40] but a lot of people do and can't and it

[3:48:45] should be affordable and it should be a

[3:48:49] part of our affordable housing strategy.

[3:48:52] This is how people

[3:48:54] um build uh generational wealth. Uh have

[3:48:59] something of value to pass on to their

[3:49:02] children and give them a leg up in life

[3:49:06] so that uh you know they have that

[3:49:10] opportunity. Uh we we're losing a lot of

[3:49:14] that with our um high taxes. That's

[3:49:18] another issue. But um I think when we're

[3:49:22] looking at affordability, making sure

[3:49:25] that we don't price people out of their

[3:49:28] homes that they currently own is another

[3:49:32] piece that this policy maybe can't

[3:49:35] address, but something that I think

[3:49:38] needs to be part of the conversation.

[3:49:41] Thank you so much for um all of

[3:49:44] everyone's work on this and for the

[3:49:47] community prioritizing it.

[3:49:51] >> Thank you.

[3:49:53] » Thank you.

[3:49:53] >> That's all the comments, Mayor.

[3:49:55] » That's all the comments, Mayor.

[3:49:55] >> Thank you, Sherry. Okay, bring it back

[3:49:57] » Thank you, Sherry. Okay, bring it back

[3:49:57] to the commission for comments. Once

[3:50:00] again, we're giving direction um to Leah

[3:50:03] and staff to continue to work on this

[3:50:06] and uh so we have to make final votes

[3:50:08] here, but uh certainly give direction

[3:50:10] and I think as we do that um you know I

[3:50:15] think to a certain extent Leah is

[3:50:17] looking for three of us to if if we give

[3:50:20] some something specific do three of us

[3:50:23] support that or you know at least

[3:50:25] something so they don't bring us back

[3:50:26] something that you know we we vote but

[3:50:29] again some of This discussion is

[3:50:30] probably going to be broader based. We

[3:50:31] don't have to you know get to three on

[3:50:33] everything but um so anyone who wants to

[3:50:37] start make some comments.

[3:50:39] >> Um yeah I'll go ahead and start.

[3:50:41] » Um yeah I'll go ahead and start.

[3:50:41] >> Okay.

[3:50:42] » Okay.

[3:50:42] >> Uh just going through the policy

[3:50:43] » Uh just going through the policy

[3:50:43] guidance slide. So as far as broader

[3:50:45] focus um

[3:50:49] you know I think for I think that it

[3:50:52] should be it should be broad. So, um, as

[3:50:54] far as the AMIs, we should be looking at

[3:50:56] anywhere from 30 to 120. I think the the

[3:51:00] matter of it's not necessarily the

[3:51:01] eligibility piece. It's more that I want

[3:51:03] to see us focus on that missing middle

[3:51:05] type of housing, which we do not have

[3:51:08] here. That speaks to a lot of what

[3:51:10] several folks have talked about tonight.

[3:51:12] Um because just housing policies in this

[3:51:15] country have always been about single

[3:51:17] family, detached or multif family

[3:51:19] because which is apartments which is the

[3:51:22] only thing that

[3:51:24] it's a long story but any short but any

[3:51:26] I think the broad focus should be across

[3:51:28] all across all of the AMIs but more

[3:51:30] specifically to strategies of building

[3:51:34] that missing middle type of housing. So

[3:51:36] those triplexes, duplexes, town houses,

[3:51:37] walkups, condos, because when you do

[3:51:40] that, you hit the broader spectrum of

[3:51:42] individuals of that need family housing.

[3:51:45] Um that can be rentals as well as a

[3:51:49] pathway to home ownership. Not home

[3:51:51] ownership should not be relegated to a

[3:51:53] single family detach. Home ownership

[3:51:55] could be a condo, it could be a duplex,

[3:51:56] it could be a townhouse. And these are

[3:51:58] things that we don't have a lot of in

[3:51:59] our community that developers are not

[3:52:01] building, which private developers are

[3:52:03] not going to do it. We're going to have

[3:52:04] to we need to have these types of

[3:52:06] incentives in order to get whether it's

[3:52:08] local developers or even some of those

[3:52:10] outside developers that are in other

[3:52:13] regions that do this work and do it

[3:52:15] great who would love to do this work

[3:52:17] here with several of our partners. So

[3:52:20] that's for part one.

[3:52:21] >> Yeah.

[3:52:22] » Yeah.

[3:52:22] >> Okay.

[3:52:23] » Okay.

[3:52:23] Um, as far as the period of

[3:52:25] affordability,

[3:52:27] um, you know, I think we should be

[3:52:30] aggressive and say we want permittive,

[3:52:33] we want affordability for perpetuity.

[3:52:35] Um, I think that should be the priority.

[3:52:37] That doesn't mean we can't prioritize

[3:52:39] other pieces, but that should be the

[3:52:41] main priority, especially if we're going

[3:52:43] to talk about other policy strategies,

[3:52:47] incentive strategies when we start

[3:52:50] looking at which is whether it's a RHID,

[3:52:52] it's IRBs, you know, compounded with

[3:52:55] some low interest loan, revolving loan,

[3:52:57] whatever, whatnot. Um because that is

[3:53:00] that is the tool that we can use because

[3:53:02] state statute limits us um in other

[3:53:05] aspects. So, while we can't mandate,

[3:53:08] this is telling developers that if you

[3:53:10] want to do this work and you're really

[3:53:12] intentional about doing this work and

[3:53:13] helping us meet our strategic plan

[3:53:16] metrics, whether they stay or we reeval,

[3:53:19] we readress those since it's time for us

[3:53:22] to do that. Um, that we will then have a

[3:53:26] cadre of incentive packages that we can

[3:53:28] offer them for being a good partner for

[3:53:30] us in that. So, definitely should

[3:53:32] prioritize

[3:53:34] um perpetuity. Um, but it doesn't mean

[3:53:36] we can't look at other aspects. I think

[3:53:38] what I what I was able to research, you

[3:53:40] know, everyone always talks about 20 to

[3:53:42] 30 years is the sweet spot. That's just

[3:53:45] best practice. That's the bare minimum.

[3:53:46] That's scraping the floor where you

[3:53:48] really start to get into

[3:53:51] municipalities that offer those robust

[3:53:53] loans and incentives is when you're

[3:53:55] looking at 40 to 50 year. And then

[3:53:57] anything o over 50 years is where you're

[3:53:59] getting into those deep subsidies and

[3:54:01] that's where you're starting to make

[3:54:02] that's where you start to make headway.

[3:54:04] So, if we want to really continue to

[3:54:05] chip away at this in a way that is very

[3:54:07] intentional and that we're going to

[3:54:09] drive affordability and drive ownership,

[3:54:12] then we need to start looking at

[3:54:14] perpetuity.

[3:54:15] Okay. So, um low interest loans,

[3:54:20] as soon as I, you know, Leah talked

[3:54:22] about this, go with it. Um I shared with

[3:54:25] her and I do have a couple of resources

[3:54:28] of spending some time in Salt Lake City

[3:54:30] and what they've been able to do with

[3:54:31] their with their revolving loan um

[3:54:34] program to the point that Miss Alry

[3:54:36] started stated about when you have that

[3:54:38] loan piece then you start to reinvest

[3:54:40] money and then you can start to gain

[3:54:41] interest which means you're f you're

[3:54:44] you're adding and you're acrewing more

[3:54:46] money that could be utilized. So um

[3:54:49] these are tools we haven't used. I don't

[3:54:51] know if it's timidity or just not having

[3:54:54] the drive or the willingness to do it.

[3:54:56] Um, but there are CDFIS, you know,

[3:55:00] there's not many I don't think we have

[3:55:01] any now in the state of Kansas, but it

[3:55:03] doesn't mean there's not opportunities

[3:55:04] for us. CRA, we need to be very

[3:55:07] innovative in in how we can start to

[3:55:10] look at our financial institutions in

[3:55:12] our community and say if you really

[3:55:14] believe in this community and you

[3:55:16] believe in what our strategic plan is

[3:55:19] about and what we're trying to do for a

[3:55:20] place for everyone, then we need you to

[3:55:22] get on board and start uh being good

[3:55:24] partners in this and that means being a

[3:55:25] CRA uh institution and provide and being

[3:55:28] a resource for us in this in this piece.

[3:55:31] So, I definitely would like to see us uh

[3:55:34] have staff bring something back to us

[3:55:35] what that look like because it's a

[3:55:36] proven uh it's a proven uh solution that

[3:55:40] works and it has worked in several um

[3:55:42] commun communities and municipalities

[3:55:44] across the country. So, we have that um

[3:55:46] fee waivers and land donations. I think

[3:55:48] that speaks to 7231. So, I think the

[3:55:51] broader piece of this is that if we need

[3:55:52] staff to to bring that back or res, you

[3:55:54] know, that we take a look at that, I

[3:55:56] think we should just leave it under that

[3:55:57] and not necessarily get into the minutia

[3:55:59] of that piece. And as far as

[3:56:01] consideration of of additional

[3:56:03] incentives, um I know some of the things

[3:56:06] out of the little book and as well as

[3:56:08] some things that that came to my mind, I

[3:56:10] know the city of Dallas has done some

[3:56:12] things around targeted zones, whether

[3:56:14] it's infill zone incentives or overlays

[3:56:17] where, you know, we've we've had some

[3:56:19] very interesting infield projects come

[3:56:22] before us and we've we've done a lot of

[3:56:24] arguing around it, but maybe we can get

[3:56:26] ahead of this if we identify areas um

[3:56:29] within our community that would be that

[3:56:32] would be great opportunities for infield

[3:56:34] development and create incentive

[3:56:36] packages around that. That's something

[3:56:38] for us to continue uh to look into. Um

[3:56:41] we have one potential census track that

[3:56:43] could be a great opportunity for us as

[3:56:46] far as opportunity zone. Um the governor

[3:56:48] gets to pick 58 out of 212 in the state.

[3:56:51] It would be great if we could make one

[3:56:53] of those um 58

[3:56:56] >> the one that I think that'd be quite

[3:56:58] » the one that I think that'd be quite

[3:56:58] marketable for us in that. And the other

[3:57:00] one is um that I know we kind of talked

[3:57:02] about it in design standards, but I know

[3:57:04] I think there was city of Overland Park

[3:57:06] passed their pre-approved design so that

[3:57:08] they have a certain design housing

[3:57:10] designs that are pre-approved by um by

[3:57:14] planning that can go through and so that

[3:57:15] kind of speeds up that permitting and

[3:57:17] and and design process. So, just a

[3:57:20] couple of things there with that.

[3:57:23] >> Thank you.

[3:57:24] » Thank you.

[3:57:24] >> Yeah, I think I'm just going to since

[3:57:25] » Yeah, I think I'm just going to since

[3:57:25] she touched on a lot of those items, I

[3:57:27] just wanted to reinforce um the the

[3:57:29] concept of perpetuity is great in on

[3:57:33] paper. I think a lot of these projects

[3:57:35] are designed and built to maybe last 50

[3:57:37] years. I think HUD might have

[3:57:38] restrictions on how long they'll place a

[3:57:40] loan on a property like this, but let's

[3:57:42] just say 50 years is a reasonable period

[3:57:44] of time to get out of a an apartment

[3:57:47] complex or even a single family home

[3:57:49] without a lot of reinvestment or or um

[3:57:52] improvements. Um those structures are

[3:57:54] not going to probably be around for 100

[3:57:55] years. So we're we're in the question I

[3:57:57] have is if we do have a rule or some

[3:57:59] requirement of perpetuity, what happens

[3:58:02] if these units age out and they're no

[3:58:05] longer suitable for habitation and does

[3:58:07] that person now responsible for

[3:58:09] resupplying the market with those units

[3:58:11] again in the future or are they off the

[3:58:13] hook? You know, because those because

[3:58:15] you know, real estate andor buildings

[3:58:17] have an expected useful life and and

[3:58:19] whether we want them to last 100 years

[3:58:21] or not, frankly, they're just probably

[3:58:23] won't. And so we need to be realistic

[3:58:25] about that, too. So I'm I'm in favor of

[3:58:27] of setting um high goals for those um

[3:58:30] properties. Um but I also want to make

[3:58:32] sure we don't overshoot our expectations

[3:58:35] on how long these buildings will

[3:58:36] actually last and and be useful. And um

[3:58:39] also I'm I think um I'm also with

[3:58:42] Commissioner Sers. I think if we can

[3:58:43] incentivize or create an opportunity

[3:58:46] zone or have an area that we've already

[3:58:48] targeted for certain incentives that

[3:58:50] might draw outside developers to our

[3:58:51] community who aren't familiar with

[3:58:53] Lawrence and who may be shy um may be a

[3:58:56] good opportunity for them to come in and

[3:58:58] and see what it's like to build in our

[3:59:00] community. And then um the 7231 um

[3:59:03] requirements relative to um funds and

[3:59:07] fee wavers relative to those um revenue

[3:59:10] funds. I think I'd like to make sure we

[3:59:12] have as many tools as possible. So, if

[3:59:14] we can touch on that, I would be also in

[3:59:16] favor of that. So, that would be at

[3:59:17] least two people would be interested in

[3:59:19] in seeing that move forward. And um and

[3:59:23] I think that's pretty much it as far as

[3:59:25] um not touched on already.

[3:59:28] >> Okay.

[3:59:30] » Okay.

[3:59:30] >> Comments on this end?

[3:59:34] » It's so much

[3:59:38] » uh I'm just going to make some comments.

[3:59:39] I really do appreciate everything that

[3:59:41] you guys have said. More importantly,

[3:59:43] I'm very grateful for the public's

[3:59:46] um comments.

[3:59:48] I'm appreciative uh KPIs. I would a lot

[3:59:53] of what I'm thinking about is more

[3:59:54] operational which would come after

[3:59:57] implementation.

[3:59:58] Um we haven't talked about I'm in case

[4:00:02] it's not obvious, I'm I'm not a fan of

[4:00:04] building in the flood plane. So, if

[4:00:07] there's anything involved in that

[4:00:09] regard, if we can avoid that, that'd be

[4:00:11] great. But, um,

[4:00:15] by and large, let me just say thank you

[4:00:16] to the community. Thank you very much to

[4:00:19] the staff and and the commission that

[4:00:21] has been working on this previous to me

[4:00:23] getting here. Uh, and I would be in

[4:00:26] favor of pretty much everything that you

[4:00:28] guys have talked about thus far,

[4:00:29] Commissioner Sers, uh, Commissioner

[4:00:31] Deber,

[4:00:33] because we will have an opportunity to

[4:00:35] come back to this.

[4:00:36] >> Oh, yeah.

[4:00:37] » Oh, yeah.

[4:00:37] >> And the only other point I want to make

[4:00:39] » And the only other point I want to make

[4:00:39] is I really [clears throat] am

[4:00:40] interested involving the school board if

[4:00:42] there's any way we can

[4:00:44] in general meet with them. I once a

[4:00:48] quarter sounds easy, but it tends to be

[4:00:51] arduous with schedules, etc. is if we

[4:00:54] could maybe approach meeting them and

[4:00:56] maybe this could be one of the topics

[4:00:58] they would certainly be affected by it.

[4:01:00] Um if it's nothing more than a work

[4:01:02] session that would be great. Um,

[4:01:08] » are you just so Commissioner Pain, are

[4:01:10] you thinking like as far as just a

[4:01:12] better

[4:01:16] cuz I think only certain aspects I mean

[4:01:19] I guess when you say speak more to the

[4:01:22] school board on this, is there something

[4:01:25] specific to that? Because I know not all

[4:01:28] pieces of this is it more of like

[4:01:30] strategies around types of housing. Are

[4:01:33] you thinking about it as it relates to

[4:01:37] potential IRBs and RAS which do impact

[4:01:40] the school board because of that vote

[4:01:41] because not everything that could be

[4:01:43] that could potentially be done would

[4:01:45] necessarily need to involve the school

[4:01:47] board. So I guess I want to be able to

[4:01:50] understand because I don't want us to

[4:01:51] have a meeting to have a meeting but

[4:01:53] what in specific if there's anything

[4:01:55] specific or at least guidelines

[4:01:58] framework outline of what what that

[4:02:00] meeting would look like. I would like to

[4:02:02] hear what their um perspective is on

[4:02:08] housing as it affects their families and

[4:02:11] the children coming into the school. I

[4:02:13] think that would be some valuable

[4:02:14] information and you're absolutely right.

[4:02:16] Um there is a lot that does not pertain

[4:02:20] to them or would affect them. I would

[4:02:23] really like their just their feedback on

[4:02:26] the plan that we have that would affect

[4:02:29] them. So

[4:02:31] [snorts]

[4:02:32] >> an overarching discussion on it really

[4:02:35] » an overarching discussion on it really

[4:02:35] kind of more to involve them in in the

[4:02:38] process. I've heard from many board

[4:02:40] members uh in the past 6 to 8 months

[4:02:43] that they not many a few let me say that

[4:02:46] that they would really value kind of

[4:02:48] being involved more uh just not for any

[4:02:52] other reason than communication

[4:02:54] and [clears throat] understanding in

[4:02:55] general not just with this but with city

[4:02:59] affairs anything that might affect them

[4:03:02] any kind of tax incentives etc. So maybe

[4:03:05] just an opportunity to hear what they

[4:03:08] have to say. [snorts]

[4:03:10] >> Um and it doesn't have to be today

[4:03:13] » Um and it doesn't have to be today

[4:03:13] obviously that we start orchestrating

[4:03:15] this but

[4:03:18] um I would like to see something and

[4:03:21] they may not even be interested and if

[4:03:22] that's the case that makes it easy.

[4:03:24] >> Yeah.

[4:03:25] » Yeah.

[4:03:25] >> Um

[4:03:29] that's I I feel like that's we've we've

[4:03:31] bitten off a little bit. I think we've

[4:03:33] got given a lot for staff to think about

[4:03:35] thus far. I'm good. [snorts]

[4:03:39] >> I mean, you know, to add to a couple

[4:03:42] » I mean, you know, to add to a couple

[4:03:42] things that were say said, the idea of

[4:03:44] the zone in the overlay district to get

[4:03:46] developers interested, I'm definitely

[4:03:48] interested in hearing more about that.

[4:03:49] But also around homes that are below AMI

[4:03:52] 30%. Um,

[4:03:55] you know, when you talk about

[4:03:57] affordability,

[4:03:59] you know, 60% of people can't afford a

[4:04:01] medical emergency, 40% don't have $500

[4:04:04] in the name, and 20% don't have enough

[4:04:05] food. So when we talk about the budget

[4:04:09] going forward and we talk about this, if

[4:04:12] we're going to make a dent in

[4:04:14] homelessness, if we're [snorts] going to

[4:04:16] make a dent with transitional housing to

[4:04:17] pick people up off their feet, I think

[4:04:20] we need to focus on the AMI30, what that

[4:04:22] looks like, and what we can do to move

[4:04:26] the needle so that the KPIs that we have

[4:04:28] show that people are less stressed about

[4:04:31] owning homes, about renting, and that

[4:04:34] the line for people experiencing

[4:04:36] homelessness continues to go down and so

[4:04:38] I know this is a active thing that we'll

[4:04:40] be working on over time but those are my

[4:04:43] initial thoughts at this moment.

[4:04:47] >> Um great I'll make a few comments but

[4:04:50] » Um great I'll make a few comments but

[4:04:50] Shannon I might ask you a question. Can

[4:04:53] you tell me what the waiting list now is

[4:04:54] for vouchers?

[4:04:56] I mean

[4:04:57] >> and uh the housing authority we have a

[4:04:59] » and uh the housing authority we have a

[4:05:00] combined waiting list. So all public

[4:05:02] housing units and vouchers are on it,

[4:05:05] but the voucher list is about 460 people

[4:05:09] and and I will say that as I said 70% of

[4:05:12] our people are at or below 30% of AMI. A

[4:05:16] third of everybody we serve um is are

[4:05:19] disabled and uh we have about 70% of our

[4:05:24] families are headed by single female

[4:05:26] head of household. So, um, we really are

[4:05:31] serving the the that end of the spectrum

[4:05:36] and and to and you know, historically we

[4:05:40] have our public housing because HUD gave

[4:05:42] us the money to do it. That program

[4:05:45] doesn't exist anymore. So, all of those

[4:05:48] units are are 60 years old and we've

[4:05:53] kept them right wellmaintained.

[4:05:57] um because quite frankly we have to and

[4:06:01] so every additional unit we bring on we

[4:06:05] bring on in perpetuity

[4:06:07] and pe nobody pays more than 30% of

[4:06:10] their income to to live with us. So, so

[4:06:13] that was my point earlier is is whatever

[4:06:16] this plan does and I and I hope we do as

[4:06:20] much in the full spectrum just keep an

[4:06:23] eye to this bottom part because the

[4:06:26] performers don't work. We can't do it

[4:06:28] with rent. We have to do it with

[4:06:32] you know government funding.

[4:06:33] >> Yeah. And I think Thank you, Shannon. Um

[4:06:37] » Yeah. And I think Thank you, Shannon. Um

[4:06:37] and you know I I agree basically with

[4:06:42] that. I mean I think this policy as as

[4:06:45] has as has been mentioned we need um to

[4:06:48] be able to um I I focus on poopurityity

[4:06:52] and focus on um you know 30% of AMI but

[4:06:56] we also need to be ready to um you know

[4:07:00] be able to have large number of units

[4:07:02] come online that we can keep our voucher

[4:07:05] list from becoming too long and using

[4:07:07] those vouchers. You know, I think you

[4:07:10] know, we got this affordable housing tax

[4:07:12] at the right time that and we focused

[4:07:15] and were able to get a large number of

[4:07:18] LITC projects in this community by

[4:07:21] having this at the right time, getting

[4:07:23] two or three a year um for several years

[4:07:26] that other communities couldn't compete

[4:07:28] with. And and I think that, you know, I

[4:07:31] I feel good about that approach. I do

[4:07:34] think going forward we know that the

[4:07:36] LITC projects will not be as readily

[4:07:39] available and in in that scenario I

[4:07:43] think it makes me think of two things.

[4:07:45] One, it makes me think we need to focus

[4:07:48] on, you know, some of the things as this

[4:07:51] policy really highlights areas we've not

[4:07:54] made as big a dent in. Home ownership,

[4:07:56] 30% AMI, perpetuity. I think that's a

[4:07:59] good thing to focus on, but [snorts] I

[4:08:01] want this I guess I want to be sure the

[4:08:04] policy puts us in a place where we can

[4:08:08] if there's only going to be two LITC

[4:08:10] projects in the state, you know, do we

[4:08:13] have a shot at one of those? So, we're

[4:08:15] probably not going to get one every

[4:08:16] year, maybe not every other year, but um

[4:08:19] having a policy that lets us um you

[4:08:22] know, do a tenure homeowners project

[4:08:24] that's lit based, you know, combined and

[4:08:27] and and have that advantage. And so, I

[4:08:29] [snorts] do um like that kind of dual

[4:08:32] approach. I do think we need to look at

[4:08:35] the process and the idea of just having

[4:08:38] one allocation

[4:08:40] once a year with certain deadlines. I do

[4:08:43] not think puts us in the best position

[4:08:46] to um jump on those opportunities. And I

[4:08:50] think that's true not only of LITC type

[4:08:52] projects, but I think it's true of

[4:08:54] tenure homeless projects or housing

[4:08:56] authority. Someone says, "Hey, I have a

[4:08:58] duplex. I want to, you know, sell to the

[4:09:00] housing authority or, you know, work

[4:09:03] with tent homeowners and sell it to them

[4:09:05] for something cheap." And they're

[4:09:06] looking around going, "Well, we don't

[4:09:08] have any money for that." And we can

[4:09:09] apply, you know, seven months from now

[4:09:11] and then get money the year later. I

[4:09:13] mean, I think we need to have some

[4:09:14] flexibility in the [snorts] process so

[4:09:17] that we can take advantage of the

[4:09:20] opportunities that will not that that

[4:09:22] that that present themselves. And so I

[4:09:24] think I I do want to look at that

[4:09:26] process and and maybe this policy should

[4:09:29] not be that that um section 8 about the

[4:09:32] pol the procedure. I don't think this

[4:09:34] policy should be so prescriptive on what

[4:09:37] our procedure is. And I think we need to

[4:09:40] um as a policy think about how we can be

[4:09:43] readily available on jumping on the

[4:09:46] right opportunities and having some

[4:09:47] flexibility there. Um so I'd like to see

[4:09:51] that. I'd like to see um you know

[4:09:54] looking at 7231 and looking at fee

[4:09:57] waiverss. I think that is a possibility

[4:09:59] to expand um what we can do um and you

[4:10:05] know with the limited dollars we have

[4:10:07] and and give us some possibilities on

[4:10:09] LITC but also on on you know other type

[4:10:13] projects. So I think we want to look at

[4:10:14] that.

[4:10:16] Um

[4:10:18] I I I do agree wholeheartedly with

[4:10:21] Commissioner Cos on that home we need

[4:10:24] home ownership projects that aren't just

[4:10:27] single family detached and that this

[4:10:30] policy should maybe even make that

[4:10:33] explicit that you know um you know again

[4:10:36] condos

[4:10:37] >> diversity

[4:10:38] » diversity

[4:10:38] >> you know duplexes forlexes that that all

[4:10:42] » you know duplexes forlexes that that all

[4:10:42] um encouraging home ownership projects

[4:10:44] that aren't just one or the

[4:10:46] Um, not to say we can't have single

[4:10:48] family, you know, projects. Um, but I I

[4:10:51] I think we need to to talk about that

[4:10:55] more generally. Um, I would say

[4:11:00] I I I like the, you know, I understand

[4:11:02] the 50 versus the 99 years. I think we

[4:11:04] need some flexibility there.

[4:11:07] >> [snorts]

[4:11:07] » [snorts]

[4:11:07] >> And I guess that would lead me to, you

[4:11:09] » And I guess that would lead me to, you

[4:11:09] know, the one language that threw me off

[4:11:12] is this part two eligibility that um it

[4:11:16] starts by saying no application

[4:11:18] requested for affordable housing shall

[4:11:20] be considered or approved unless it

[4:11:24] meets these eligibility requirements.

[4:11:26] And then we have like, you know, three

[4:11:29] pages of eligibility requirements, but

[4:11:31] not [clears throat] every project

[4:11:33] applies to each of those. It's it's it

[4:11:35] and then some of those aren't even

[4:11:38] requirements. They're things like we

[4:11:40] would prefer that. And so I think that

[4:11:43] language needs to be modified um to say

[4:11:46] these are the things we're looking at.

[4:11:47] But I don't I don't like that language

[4:11:49] that says it will not be considered or

[4:11:51] approved

[4:11:53] and and maybe there are 10 things or

[4:11:56] five things that we want in that sort of

[4:11:58] category, but the rest I think there's a

[4:12:00] mismatch here that we need to change

[4:12:03] that language a little bit and have that

[4:12:05] flexibility um to to consider a good

[4:12:09] project because again, you know, one

[4:12:12] thing, you know, um you know, again, I

[4:12:15] can make up all sorts of things.

[4:12:17] scenarios in which and and one of the

[4:12:19] questions was about the flood plane, but

[4:12:21] let's say there's a house in the Balkan

[4:12:23] neighborhood that backs up,

[4:12:25] you know, to

[4:12:26] >> to

[4:12:27] » to

[4:12:27] >> the to Brook Creek. Does that mean if

[4:12:29] » the to Brook Creek. Does that mean if

[4:12:30] that person wants to give the house to

[4:12:31] tenants to homeowners, but it has a

[4:12:33] flood plane in its backyard, we can't

[4:12:36] support that project because its

[4:12:39] backyard backs up to Brook Creek? I mean

[4:12:42] it seems to me that that is too

[4:12:44] stringent to say no project that you

[4:12:47] know um has you know again it's backyard

[4:12:52] has a you know has some flood plane in

[4:12:54] it that we can't do that. So I mean I

[4:12:57] understand the point of you know trying

[4:12:59] to protect the flood plane but we have a

[4:13:01] lot of um you know properties that have

[4:13:03] a small portion of their backyard in the

[4:13:06] flood plane and I I think some of those

[4:13:08] are ones we might want to consider. Um

[4:13:11] so again I think a little flexibility I

[4:13:14] in how that we apply that um is the

[4:13:18] other thing I would say. Um and finally

[4:13:21] I would say I mean I I do think we want

[4:13:23] to encourage you know three bedrooms. I

[4:13:25] think if you if you know and when I talk

[4:13:27] to schoolboard members of course they're

[4:13:29] most interested in you know units that

[4:13:32] bring kids. So they're they're

[4:13:34] interested in you know um three-bedroom

[4:13:37] units. they're interested in um you know

[4:13:41] home ownership a and of course um

[4:13:44] workforce housing. I mean again nothing

[4:13:47] against the school board. Many of them

[4:13:48] aren't as focused on where do college

[4:13:50] students live or where seniors live.

[4:13:53] That's not their two constituencies. But

[4:13:56] we I think have to look at all those. We

[4:13:58] have to look at where the seniors live.

[4:13:59] We have to look at where college

[4:14:00] students live in this town. And so I

[4:14:03] certainly want to work with the school

[4:14:05] board. Um but I do think we have to

[4:14:07] balance those a little bit. Um but

[4:14:10] generally I mean I think this is in the

[4:14:12] right direction. I very much appreciate

[4:14:13] the work on this. Like I said I started

[4:14:16] looking at the one that hadn't been

[4:14:17] changed [laughter] and then when I

[4:14:20] looked at the one that did change once I

[4:14:22] figured out that there was a second

[4:14:23] redline version I was very happy to see

[4:14:26] the work the clear work that's gone into

[4:14:28] this to make it better and to consider

[4:14:30] those balancing of of those areas. So, I

[4:14:34] I I mean, I know a lot of work has been

[4:14:35] in this, you know, I think we have some

[4:14:37] work to go, but I think we're heading in

[4:14:39] the right direction and um and I look

[4:14:41] forward to seeing a few more revisions,

[4:14:43] seeing this work through a little bit

[4:14:45] and and bringing back some of those

[4:14:46] other items.

[4:14:48] Mayor, I may add that maybe for that

[4:14:49] eligibility section that perhaps maybe

[4:14:52] because we're dealing with different

[4:14:54] things where there's RHID, IRB, NRA that

[4:14:58] maybe that gets that we create maybe

[4:15:00] like a matrix so that we can

[4:15:02] >> see where there's maybe potential

[4:15:04] » see where there's maybe potential

[4:15:04] eligibility [clears throat]

[4:15:04] overlays.

[4:15:06] Um sound because I know there were some

[4:15:08] things as far as you know the

[4:15:10] accessibility piece the threebedroom

[4:15:12] that those should be non-negotiables but

[4:15:13] maybe for the additional aspects of that

[4:15:16] section maybe a matrix to kind of lay

[4:15:18] those out if it's by if we're thinking

[4:15:20] about that's for all

[4:15:23] all projects or if it's specific to

[4:15:26] different types of projects whether it's

[4:15:27] IRB or so on and so forth. Yep.

[4:15:30] >> Yes. I thought

[4:15:33] » other comments, Leah, any

[4:15:37] We threw a lot at you. Um,

[4:15:40] >> anything you need more specific on at

[4:15:42] » anything you need more specific on at

[4:15:42] this point? I know there'll be a lot

[4:15:44] more work being done, more public

[4:15:46] comment and so forth, but

[4:15:50] >> um yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, would you

[4:15:53] » um yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, would you

[4:15:53] mind if I just clarified um what I heard

[4:15:56] the commission speak to this evening?

[4:15:59] Um, okay. So, I hear that the commission

[4:16:01] is generally interested in also having

[4:16:03] the policy incentivize smaller scale and

[4:16:06] homeownership opportunities in addition

[4:16:09] to the larger multif family

[4:16:10] developments. That's correct.

[4:16:13] [clears throat] Um, does the commission

[4:16:14] think the policy strikes a good balance

[4:16:16] currently but uh with requiring the most

[4:16:19] needed units? So when we talk about that

[4:16:21] 30% over low AMI accessible in family

[4:16:24] units um does 20% uh seem like a good

[4:16:29] balance

[4:16:31] to move forward with? [clears throat]

[4:16:33] >> Yeah, I think the the the way you

[4:16:34] » Yeah, I think the the the way you

[4:16:34] amended that in the second goround I

[4:16:36] think that strikes the balance.

[4:16:38] >> Okay. Um I may need additional clarity

[4:16:42] » Okay. Um I may need additional clarity

[4:16:42] on the uh period of affordability for uh

[4:16:46] the second draft that we bring back. Um,

[4:16:48] I've heard different commissioners um

[4:16:51] say generally supportive of

[4:16:53] affordability in perpetuity and some

[4:16:55] hesitation. Um, I'm wondering if I could

[4:16:58] perhaps get some additional clarity or

[4:17:00] guidance on that so we can bring a draft

[4:17:02] back that um is closer to what the

[4:17:04] commission is interested in policy-wise.

[4:17:07] >> Yeah. So my my only point I think was I

[4:17:09] » Yeah. So my my only point I think was I

[4:17:10] don't want to focus on the length or

[4:17:12] term of something being 100 years when

[4:17:14] the asset itself will be unlikely to

[4:17:17] sustain that period of time. So for us

[4:17:19] to get caught up in length of a term

[4:17:22] that will not be attainable for me seems

[4:17:25] um unreasonable thing to focus on. I'd

[4:17:27] rather focus on things that we know will

[4:17:29] occur 50 years more than likely. And you

[4:17:33] know, if that's going to be something

[4:17:35] that'll stop a project from happening,

[4:17:37] um, I doubt because most developers

[4:17:39] won't probably imagine the asset will

[4:17:41] last 100 years to begin with, but and

[4:17:43] they'll probably come anyway. But I just

[4:17:45] want to make sure we aren't putting up a

[4:17:46] roadblock, potential roadblock on a

[4:17:48] length of time that's not even possible.

[4:17:50] And so I just leave it at that.

[4:17:52] >> Is that be So could it be more of

[4:17:54] » Is that be So could it be more of

[4:17:54] because the perpetuity comes in the the

[4:17:57] land, not necessarily the asset. Mhm.

[4:18:00] >> So it' be so to prioritize the 99% is

[4:18:03] » So it' be so to prioritize the 99% is

[4:18:04] not to prioritize the actual unit. It's

[4:18:06] prioritizing that the land. That's

[4:18:08] right. Okay.

[4:18:09] >> And that's what I want. And then the

[4:18:10] » And that's what I want. And then the

[4:18:10] land could get rebuilt like just if you

[4:18:12] tear down the old one and build new

[4:18:14] affordable. That's what I would rather

[4:18:15] have than

[4:18:16] >> focus on the asset itself being

[4:18:17] » focus on the asset itself being

[4:18:18] maintained for 100 years versus

[4:18:21] >> let's let's get 50 years out of it, redo

[4:18:23] » let's let's get 50 years out of it, redo

[4:18:23] it or you know re-rebuild with a new

[4:18:25] version of what

[4:18:27] >> okay

[4:18:28] » okay

[4:18:28] >> normal. Um,

[4:18:29] » normal. Um,

[4:18:29] >> okay. This time Randy turned his camera

[4:18:31] » okay. This time Randy turned his camera

[4:18:31] on, so he might have something to say.

[4:18:33] >> Yeah. Uh, this is Randy Liy, deputy city

[4:18:35] » Yeah. Uh, this is Randy Liy, deputy city

[4:18:35] attorney. We have to be a little careful

[4:18:37] regarding tying up land in perpetuity.

[4:18:39] So, that's why we have typically set

[4:18:40] them up at 99 years. We don't want to

[4:18:43] keep something or tie it up. We might

[4:18:46] run into problems regarding the legality

[4:18:48] of such a thing. So, that's why we've

[4:18:50] set things at 99 years, but it could be

[4:18:52] something less than that. We don't like

[4:18:53] to go beyond 99 years. Randy, can you

[4:18:55] explain the rule against

[4:18:58] [laughter] that? That I can't.

[4:19:00] >> Just kidding. Just kidding. I have to go

[4:19:01] » Just kidding. Just kidding. I have to go

[4:19:01] back a long way back to law school, but

[4:19:03] that's actually that's has to do with

[4:19:04] wills and [laughter]

[4:19:06] trusts and so it's a little bit

[4:19:08] different, but at the same time, we

[4:19:10] can't really tie up land for

[4:19:12] >> gotcha.

[4:19:12] » gotcha.

[4:19:12] >> You know, a covenant or something like

[4:19:14] » You know, a covenant or something like

[4:19:14] that in perpetuity. We have to set some

[4:19:16] type of limitation on it.

[4:19:17] >> Yeah.

[4:19:18] » Yeah.

[4:19:18] >> So, we have done 99 years as no one will

[4:19:21] » So, we have done 99 years as no one will

[4:19:21] hear. will be alive in 99 years, but we

[4:19:23] could make it 50 years. We could make it

[4:19:26] whatever the commission says. We just

[4:19:27] can't make it in perpetuity. It just has

[4:19:30] to be some period of time. So it's not

[4:19:33] tied up indefinitely.

[4:19:35] >> Yeah. So like land donations could be

[4:19:37] » Yeah. So like land donations could be

[4:19:37] perpetuity, you know, whatever or 99

[4:19:39] years. But I just mean I'd like to have

[4:19:41] flexibility in how we apply those terms

[4:19:43] if possible in a matrix even depending

[4:19:45] on the

[4:19:46] >> thing. I think Lee, I think we I mean I

[4:19:49] » thing. I think Lee, I think we I mean I

[4:19:49] think I think you're heading in the

[4:19:51] right direction. Maybe just a little

[4:19:52] more flexibility I think on the units,

[4:19:56] you know, versus the land and maybe um

[4:20:01] some of the, you know, land donations

[4:20:03] for sure, you know, 99 years, but maybe

[4:20:06] some flexibility on the on the low end

[4:20:08] there. Um I I think is what we're kind

[4:20:11] of looking for. I don't know. or just

[4:20:13] the ability to have that option to wave

[4:20:15] it from 99 to 50 or whatever we want to

[4:20:18] do

[4:20:19] >> if that's possible.

[4:20:20] » if that's possible.

[4:20:20] >> Yeah. And again, yeah, I guess that's

[4:20:22] » Yeah. And again, yeah, I guess that's

[4:20:22] what I maybe that's another way to put

[4:20:25] it.

[4:20:26] I I think the policy

[4:20:29] I think we support the policy of 99 type

[4:20:31] years, but we don't want to be so tied

[4:20:35] in that we miss out on a great project

[4:20:37] that we all think is a great project

[4:20:38] because it's 50 years, you know. Um and

[4:20:43] and so giving us a little bit of

[4:20:45] flexibility there.

[4:20:47] >> Exactly.

[4:20:48] » Exactly.

[4:20:48] >> That's helpful. Thank you. Um and if I

[4:20:51] » That's helpful. Thank you. Um and if I

[4:20:51] could just ask one additional clarifying

[4:20:53] question. I did not hear discussion on

[4:20:56] um commission's interest in exploring

[4:20:57] additional land use or expediated review

[4:21:00] processes.

[4:21:03] » Well, I um we didn't talk I mean a few

[4:21:06] people mentioned that. I would say I

[4:21:07] think under the new development code

[4:21:09] we've we've put a lot of things into

[4:21:11] place that um as far as density and

[4:21:15] density bonuses and allowed a lot more

[4:21:17] density. [clears throat] Um I am and

[4:21:20] some of those were not yet even seen

[4:21:23] getting used yet. So I'm not sure

[4:21:25] personally I want to dive into changing

[4:21:27] some of the the code and you know the

[4:21:30] development density side of the code

[4:21:31] until we see how some of it works.

[4:21:34] However, the permitting side and the and

[4:21:38] the procedure side I I mean I might be

[4:21:40] open to and Commissioner Cos mentioned

[4:21:43] the the pre-esigned pre-approved design

[4:21:46] you know that Oland Park has done and

[4:21:49] you know I could you know see where that

[4:21:52] could be a benefit with you know

[4:21:54] especially like the housing authority

[4:21:55] intends for homeowners you know coming

[4:21:57] up with a design they you know agree on

[4:21:59] and you know we're going to build this

[4:22:02] one we're going to build it [snorts] you

[4:22:04] or those, you know, four designs and and

[4:22:05] and these, you know, get pre-approved. I

[4:22:08] like that idea. So, that kind of process

[4:22:10] certainly I'm supportive of.

[4:22:13] And again, I'm I'm not opposed to a

[4:22:15] density bonus or whatever, but I don't

[4:22:18] think that's where we need to spend our

[4:22:19] time at this stage because we have a

[4:22:22] code that we're still working through.

[4:22:26] I mean, Leah, for what it's worth, I

[4:22:28] didn't bring it up tonight, and I mean,

[4:22:30] we can talk about it more with as we

[4:22:33] navigate more with the land development

[4:22:34] code. I mean, I am interested in us

[4:22:37] exploring how to expand those, you know,

[4:22:39] expand or lean into byite approvals. Um,

[4:22:44] but I I don't want to shock the system

[4:22:47] right now, but [laughter]

[4:22:49] perhaps [snorts] we can ease into that

[4:22:51] once we get another iteration of this.

[4:22:54] >> [snorts]

[4:22:54] » [snorts]

[4:22:54] >> and I've softened some people up.

[4:22:56] » and I've softened some people up.

[4:22:56] >> That's where I'm at, too.

[4:22:58] » That's where I'm at, too.

[4:22:58] >> Okay. Any other questions, Leo? Any

[4:23:01] » Okay. Any other questions, Leo? Any

[4:23:01] other comments people want to make here

[4:23:03] before we close this? And look forward

[4:23:05] to the continued work.

[4:23:07] Thank you. And I know the whole Ahab

[4:23:09] committee has been working hard on this

[4:23:11] and then you know the folks who have

[4:23:12] been been weighing in. Appreciate that.

[4:23:14] So, okay. Thank you.

[4:23:18] Okay. Let's jump here towards the end of

[4:23:21] the agenda here. That brings us to

[4:23:23] commission items um and reviewing the

[4:23:26] future agenda. Um I do have a commission

[4:23:30] item I want to talk a little bit about

[4:23:33] um which is the city manager search um

[4:23:37] and I have talked to SG

[4:23:41] um and and moving ahead. Our consultant

[4:23:44] is going to be um his name is Doug

[4:23:48] Thomas. Um Clay who is here um um on

[4:23:52] behalf of SGR is is not going to delete

[4:23:54] it. It's going to be Doug Thomas. Doug

[4:23:56] is um a 35 year um city manager in

[4:24:01] Maryland, Michigan, and Florida. Worked

[4:24:03] [snorts] mostly in university

[4:24:05] communities. He's going to send me his

[4:24:07] resume and I'll send it out to all of

[4:24:08] you um so you don't have to remember all

[4:24:11] this. But his last location was

[4:24:12] Lakeland, Florida, a town of about

[4:24:15] 125,000.

[4:24:16] He has been leading, he's been at SGL

[4:24:19] for 10 years doing recruitment, priority

[4:24:21] based budgeting, best management

[4:24:24] practices, as well as um you know,

[4:24:26] working with communities. He is

[4:24:28] currently leading the city of Waco's um

[4:24:31] search. He's there right now down to

[4:24:34] their four finalists in Waco. He's done

[4:24:36] a lot of work in Leach um and a lot of

[4:24:39] other university towns. he's often

[4:24:40] assigned to university towns given his

[4:24:42] background. Um so um the next steps and

[4:24:47] what what we need to start thinking

[4:24:49] about is you know the next step as we've

[4:24:52] talked about will be kind of the

[4:24:54] position profile process and Doug will

[4:24:58] come here for you know probably three

[4:25:00] days. He'll meet with all of us

[4:25:02] individually. He'll meet with senior

[4:25:04] staff and department heads. Um do a 360.

[4:25:08] Um and then he's going to meet with

[4:25:11] basically whoever we tell him to meet

[4:25:13] with or ask him to meet with. And so we

[4:25:16] all need to be thinking about who we

[4:25:18] want him to meet with. Um you know, be

[4:25:20] it you know, whoever um members of the

[4:25:24] community, county, school board,

[4:25:27] chamber, KU, land, whoever that is. Um,

[4:25:31] I'm going to be asking each of you to

[4:25:33] give me three or four people we think

[4:25:35] you should meet with. So, be thinking

[4:25:37] about that. Um, and then we need to be

[4:25:40] thinking about as what do we want, you

[4:25:44] know, this is up to us, what we want the

[4:25:46] process to be. You know, he said in some

[4:25:48] towns he hosts a town hall meeting.

[4:25:51] Well, he stands up and lets the town

[4:25:54] come in. Um, obviously they can do a

[4:25:57] survey for us where we we pay them extra

[4:26:00] to do a survey, but he said, you know,

[4:26:03] towns like ours, we have a survey

[4:26:05] process. So, he could also, for

[4:26:07] basically no extra charge, work with us

[4:26:10] to come up with questions and we issue

[4:26:11] the survey and get the information back.

[4:26:14] Um, and anything else someone thinks he

[4:26:18] should do to create that position

[4:26:20] profile and process. Um and you know

[4:26:23] that would then you know help him come

[4:26:26] up with a position description, a

[4:26:28] brochure, candidate attributes, ideal

[4:26:31] candidate, that sort of thing. And then

[4:26:33] we move on and you know talk about ads

[4:26:36] and ad placements, launch the job search

[4:26:38] and you know we can talk about the later

[4:26:40] process. Um, so, um, I guess what I want

[4:26:46] you guys to start thinking about, um,

[4:26:49] I'll send send an email out to you with

[4:26:51] his information and, um, then you'll

[4:26:54] each be able to talk to him if you have

[4:26:56] something to say like, I think you

[4:26:57] should do this. This is the information

[4:26:59] I want to be part of this process and

[4:27:03] we'll get going. Um, you know, as he

[4:27:05] said to me, he's our consultant. um you

[4:27:07] know and he's working for the five of us

[4:27:10] and and you know some of that might be

[4:27:12] in a big meeting but some of that will

[4:27:14] just be one-on-one and he'll work to to

[4:27:16] try to get the information you need to

[4:27:18] make your best decision. Um but the one

[4:27:20] thing I I will be asking for in the next

[4:27:23] week or two will be who do you think he

[4:27:25] should meet with while he's here so we

[4:27:27] can get those scheduled while he's here

[4:27:30] um and then find times for him to meet

[4:27:32] with each of us. Obviously, if those

[4:27:35] three days don't work, he can do Zoom

[4:27:36] meetings. He can, you know, whatever if

[4:27:38] they don't line up with everything. But

[4:27:41] anyway, that's the process. We're going

[4:27:43] to um um again get some more

[4:27:46] information. We'll email that out about

[4:27:48] what you guys start thinking about that

[4:27:49] so we can get the get the project

[4:27:51] running.

[4:27:51] >> As in a town as unopinionated as ours,

[4:27:53] » As in a town as unopinionated as ours,

[4:27:53] is he going to be bored? [laughter]

[4:27:56] >> He said he's worked in a few university

[4:27:57] » He said he's worked in a few university

[4:27:57] towns and so he's he's he's he's ready

[4:28:00] for the for the conversation. Um and so

[4:28:04] and so that's kind of the next steps

[4:28:07] there and so look for that and hopefully

[4:28:10] you know in the next few weeks we'll be

[4:28:11] scheduling those dates to to get the the

[4:28:14] process going.

[4:28:16] Okay, other commission items.

[4:28:21] » Um I I'm going to come in. I'm just I'm

[4:28:26] this is the third meeting where I've

[4:28:27] been like I really have things to say

[4:28:30] but it's late and after yesterday I

[4:28:32] don't want to drag our staff any longer.

[4:28:35] But I do want staff to know that um I

[4:28:38] will advocate for any support that you

[4:28:40] guys need in regards to yesterday.

[4:28:43] >> Yes.

[4:28:44] » Yes.

[4:28:44] Um, I'm going to make it real real quick

[4:28:46] about anything that we bring forward the

[4:28:49] especially the affordable housing um

[4:28:52] incentive plan.

[4:28:55] I'm a numbers person. So, just an FYI, I

[4:29:00] like modeling. I know I like knowing

[4:29:01] what the effect of the community or of

[4:29:03] our of our budget, etc. debt load. Um,

[4:29:07] so any policy moving forward right now,

[4:29:10] obviously, we're real high level. Um,

[4:29:12] but with the affordable housing, I'm

[4:29:14] really interested in seeing some

[4:29:15] modeling on how these incentives are

[4:29:17] going to work. Um,

[4:29:20] and then I think actually for staff, I

[4:29:24] had requested an update on

[4:29:28] uh we're doing a project on 27th over by

[4:29:31] Mallisters

[4:29:33] and we had that road opened up less than

[4:29:35] a year ago. So, I was just hoping I

[4:29:37] could get some updates. I've had a few

[4:29:39] calls from that. Other than that, thank

[4:29:41] you guys um for [clears throat]

[4:29:44] everything that you do staff-wise and uh

[4:29:48] that's it.

[4:29:49] >> Excellent. Yeah.

[4:29:51] » Excellent. Yeah.

[4:29:51] >> I mean, yeah, if we're going down the

[4:29:52] » I mean, yeah, if we're going down the

[4:29:52] line, yeah, I mean, I would echo that

[4:29:54] for staff that, you know,

[4:29:58] uh, me mental health is health and if

[4:30:01] people have experienced trauma, it's

[4:30:04] very important to use the EAP here to be

[4:30:08] able to find people who can help with

[4:30:09] that. And it may not be something that

[4:30:11] pops up right away, but if that is

[4:30:13] something that comes up over time or if

[4:30:15] you're having anxiety or panic attacks,

[4:30:17] you know, please use the resources that

[4:30:19] we have to talk about that your mental

[4:30:20] health is as important as your physical

[4:30:22] health. So, I would just want to add

[4:30:24] that. The [snorts] only other thing here

[4:30:26] for the future stuff would be I would

[4:30:28] like to know each month at the end of

[4:30:30] the month what the the memberships look

[4:30:33] like at the rec centers, what that looks

[4:30:35] like, what the uptake is. Um, that's

[4:30:38] something we do via via email. It's

[4:30:39] something we could talk about here, but

[4:30:40] I would just would like to know those

[4:30:42] numbers going forward.

[4:30:44] >> Absolutely agree with that.

[4:30:47] » Absolutely agree with that.

[4:30:47] Commission of future.

[4:30:49] >> Just to add on to that, I had somebody

[4:30:50] » Just to add on to that, I had somebody

[4:30:50] telling me that they were concerned

[4:30:52] about how hard it was to use our website

[4:30:55] to apply for the permit. Just say it

[4:31:00] took them 20 or 30 minutes. So, if we

[4:31:02] could streamline that process to collect

[4:31:03] the fees, I don't know if that's true or

[4:31:05] not, but that's something I was told. It

[4:31:06] took a little longer paid to

[4:31:10] >> just to buy one

[4:31:11] » just to buy one

[4:31:11] >> to to buy a pass. Yeah. I mean, just

[4:31:13] » to to buy a pass. Yeah. I mean, just

[4:31:13] leave it that. Yeah.

[4:31:13] >> Is it going through track? Is it

[4:31:15] » Is it going through track? Is it

[4:31:15] >> I don't know. They're using it. It's

[4:31:17] » I don't know. They're using it. It's

[4:31:17] through our regular parks and recck

[4:31:19] service.

[4:31:19] >> Yeah. So, it's Rec Track. Yes. It isn't

[4:31:21] » Yeah. So, it's Rec Track. Yes. It isn't

[4:31:21] the most userfriendly.

[4:31:22] >> I don't know if that's a one-off or user

[4:31:25] » I don't know if that's a one-off or user

[4:31:25] error. I'm just pointing out that maybe

[4:31:26] it is not set up for multiple high

[4:31:29] volume transactions and perhaps um that

[4:31:32] might be the problem. But just wanted to

[4:31:34] bring that up. That's something somebody

[4:31:35] brought up. So,

[4:31:37] >> okay.

[4:31:39] » okay.

[4:31:39] Okay. If nothing else, uh we have one

[4:31:42] item on the city manager's report.

[4:31:43] >> Yeah. The only item is we uh rarely but

[4:31:46] » Yeah. The only item is we uh rarely but

[4:31:46] occasionally have emergency repair. This

[4:31:48] was the case uh we had um a major um

[4:31:52] break in pump station. Had to uh fix it

[4:31:54] immediately. Um so we by policy make

[4:31:58] sure to report that publicly and make

[4:32:01] sure that you're aware of it. And that's

[4:32:03] what we did here.

[4:32:05] Yeah. So, just follow up on that. Since

[4:32:06] that was in my neighborhood, there were

[4:32:08] a lot of people who communicated with me

[4:32:09] to say

[4:32:11] we could do better with communication of

[4:32:12] what that looked like. People, you know,

[4:32:14] all of a sudden there was a, you know,

[4:32:16] break in the road, there was a pipe over

[4:32:17] it, there was egress issues coming out

[4:32:19] of it, and

[4:32:22] I don't know exactly how we communicated

[4:32:24] to people, but there was definitely an

[4:32:25] understanding that this was broken. They

[4:32:28] didn't have an idea when the ETA was,

[4:32:30] what this would look like. Just passing

[4:32:32] that along going forward.

[4:32:36] [snorts]

[4:32:38] >> Okay. Um, see manager report is a public

[4:32:40] » Okay. Um, see manager report is a public

[4:32:40] hearing item. Any member of the public

[4:32:42] like to make a comment on the city

[4:32:45] manager's report

[4:32:47] online?

[4:32:48] >> No, mayor.

[4:32:50] » No, mayor.

[4:32:50] >> Uh, calendar items.

[4:32:53] » Uh, calendar items.

[4:32:53] Um, any comments on the on the calendar?

[4:32:57] There is the legislative breakfast on

[4:32:59] Friday um for the chamber and then end

[4:33:02] of the [laughter]

[4:33:04] end of the month is the chamber annual

[4:33:05] meeting.

[4:33:08] Um

[4:33:11] any other

[4:33:14] Craig, we have the hold on the city

[4:33:16] commission retreat on the 5th and 6th.

[4:33:19] We have an update on the Should we keep

[4:33:21] holding those dates or do we should?

[4:33:23] >> Yes, that's what we have scheduled.

[4:33:25] » Yes, that's what we have scheduled.

[4:33:25] Okay. I'll update the invites.

[4:33:27] >> Yeah. So, it's more than a hold at this

[4:33:29] » Yeah. So, it's more than a hold at this

[4:33:29] point. It's a

[4:33:30] >> Okay.

[4:33:30] » Okay.

[4:33:30] >> Well, I just heard from Nancy today just

[4:33:32] » Well, I just heard from Nancy today just

[4:33:32] confirming she wanted to make sure we

[4:33:34] had the location at BTBC as well. So,

[4:33:36] we're just trying to coordinate

[4:33:37] locations. Yeah. We'll get it updated.

[4:33:39] >> Yeah. And if if it I mean, I don't know

[4:33:41] » Yeah. And if if it I mean, I don't know

[4:33:41] if it's both the full days or if it's

[4:33:43] half one half day, full day, whatever.

[4:33:45] Just Yeah. Update that and get that out

[4:33:46] and we get that on our calendar.

[4:33:48] >> Yes. By the end of the week, I'll have

[4:33:50] » Yes. By the end of the week, I'll have

[4:33:50] that updated. Is that good?

[4:33:52] >> Oh, [clears throat] that's fine.

[4:33:52] » Oh, [clears throat] that's fine.

[4:33:52] >> Yes.

[4:33:53] » Yes.

[4:33:53] >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

City Commission - Jan 06 2026

Transcript