Sir,
» you ready? Sharon,
>> I am ready. Thank you, ma'am.
» I am ready. Thank you, ma'am.
>> Next Friday.
» Next Friday.
>> We are going to call um the meeting the
» We are going to call um the meeting the
uh January [clears throat] 6th, 2026
meeting to order. Um, we have two
executive sessions before we start the
regular agenda at 5:45.
Um, each would be about 15 minutes. Um,
and then we'll start the regular agenda
at 5:45. So, I'd look for a motion on
the first executive session.
>> I move that we recess into an executive
» I move that we recess into an executive
session for approximately 15 minutes to
discuss matters related to a security
measure at city hall pursuant to KSA
754519
subsection B12. The justification is to
keep confidential security measures at
city hall where the disclosure of such
matters would jeopardize those security
measures that are in place which are
designed to protect persons and public
bodies using city hall. The city
commission will resume its regular
meeting in the city commission room at
approximately 5:16 p.m. after the
executive session has concluded.
>> Second
» Second
>> motion by commissioner Solos, a second
» motion by commissioner Solos, a second
by Commissioner Pian. All those in favor
say I.
>> I. I. Opposed passes five to zero. We
» I. I. Opposed passes five to zero. We
will be in recess for 15 minutes of
executive session.
We're coming back from executive session
and we have nothing to report and we are
now heading into our second executive
session. So, I'd look for a motion on
that. a motion to recess into executive
session for approximately 15 minutes to
discuss privilege legal communication
from the city's attorney regarding
litigation and state and local laws
pursuant to KSA754519B2.
The justification is to keep attorney
client privileged matters confidential
at this time. [snorts] The city
commission will resume its regular
meeting in the city commission room at
[snorts]
5 5:31 uh after the executive session is
concluded.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> Second. There's a [snorts] motion by
» Second. There's a [snorts] motion by
Vice um Mayor Courtney, a second by
Commissioner Pulling. All those in favor
say I.
>> I opposed. Passes 5-0. or we return at
» I opposed. Passes 5-0. or we return at
5:30.
from our second executive session. We
have nothing to report and uh we will be
in recess till 5:45 and we'll start the
regular agenda.
>> Thank you.
Sher, you ready?
>> I'm [snorts] ready.
» I'm [snorts] ready.
>> We're going to call the meeting back
» We're going to call the meeting back
into order here at 5:45.
Before we begin our agenda, I wanted to
acknowledge the events that occurred at
city hall yesterday morning. First and
foremost, I want to be clear. The safety
of our staff comes first. Their safety,
well-being, and care matter deeply to
this governing body and to me
personally.
Situations like this are certainly
unsettling, and we recognize the
emotional weight they can carry on
everyone. We are committed to supporting
team Lawrence as they take the time they
need and his operations return
thoughtfully and safely. I also want to
reassure the community that city hall is
safe and we continue to work closely
with our professional staff to ensure
our public buildings remain secure and
welcoming places. We appreciate the
rapid response of our police department
and are grateful for the the work of the
first responders who supported fellow
members of team Lawrence throughout the
day.
We've been especially heartened by the
many residents, neighbors, friends, and
loved ones who have reached out to
simply check in and offer support to
team Lawrence. That kind of care is a
powerful reminder of who we are as a
community. It reflects Lawrence at its
best. We care about each other. Tonight,
we move forward with the business of the
community. On behalf of the city
commission, thank you to our staff for
their professionalism and their
resilience. And thank you to our
community for their trust and care.
Thank you.
[sighs]
We'll now start with the rules of the
meeting. Sherry, if you could read
those.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Good evening,
» Thank you, Mayor. Good evening,
everyone. And if you would please
silence your cell phones. The primary
format for accessing the meeting is in
person at city hall. Virtual access
can't be guaranteed due to potential
technology issues. When the mayor calls
for public comment, please approach the
podium to indicate you wish to speak.
Virtual participants should use the
raise hand function.
[clears throat]
When prompted, select join as panelist.
There will be a brief delay as your role
changes. Once your name is called,
please unmute, turn [snorts] on your
camera, and state your name and zip code
before speaking. All comments will be
limited to 3 minutes. The city does
reserve the right to turn videos off or
mute participants.
>> Thank you, Sherry. Next on the agenda is
» Thank you, Sherry. Next on the agenda is
to approve the agenda. The city
commission reserves the right to amend,
supplement, or reorder the agenda during
the meeting. Do we have a motion on the
agenda?
I move to approve the agenda as is.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> Moved by Commissioner Devo, seconded by
» Moved by Commissioner Devo, seconded by
Commissioner Cos to approve the agenda.
All those in favor say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Opposed. Passes five to zero. Next is
» Opposed. Passes five to zero. Next is
the consent agenda. Items on the consent
agenda are considered under one motion
and approved by one motion. Members of
the governing body may remove items for
separate discussion if desired. Members
of the public may remove items
identified as quasi judicial for
separate discussion if desired. Members
of the public will be limited to three
minutes for comment. To begin, do any
commissioners have an item to remove
from the consent agenda?
>> Go.
» Go.
>> Mayor, I would like to briefly discuss
» Mayor, I would like to briefly discuss
items C3A.
Uh, I've got two claims questions and
C8A
on our incentive for our garage doors.
>> Sounds good. Any others?
» Sounds good. Any others?
>> Mayor, I have C6A
» Mayor, I have C6A
about the purchase of one truck and just
a quick question on C8B.
>> C8B.
» C8B.
Okay.
[snorts] Um, okay.
Any others? Seeing none, is is there a
motion with the exception of those four?
>> So moved.
» So moved.
>> Okay, there's a motion to approve the
» Okay, there's a motion to approve the
consent agenda with the exception of
C3A, C6A, 68A, and 68B.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> And there's a second by Commissioner
» And there's a second by Commissioner
Cos. All those in favor, please say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Opposed. The consent agenda passes 5 to
» Opposed. The consent agenda passes 5 to
zero. I probably should have noted there
were no quasi judicial items.
>> No.
» No.
>> Um, okay. Okay. So, we'll take those in
» Um, okay. Okay. So, we'll take those in
order. C uh 3A uh claims.
>> Okay. I've got two questions and I
» Okay. I've got two questions and I
recognize this given the circumstances
uh we may not get answers tonight, which
is fine. If I get a question on claims
from the public, I will typically pull
it so we can talk about it in public.
The first question I have is in regards
to Pride Promotions. It's a minimal
expense of a little over $1,800. there
was a grant tied to those purchases. I
just kind of want to know where that
expenditure falls within the grant. And
then the second question, we've got um
an individual by the name of Vernon. I
believe it's pronounced Heiny. H E I N E
in alphabetical order order. It is under
H.
And it is paying for mowing.
there is an individual by that name that
is deceased. I'd like confirmation that
we are not paying a deceased individual.
Um the
looks like maybe the PO number is 101 or
no the GL number is 101.0602-301701.
Uh check number 841781
maybe. Uh just some identifying moments.
Again, I don't see our finance folks
here, which is perfectly fine. If I can
get an email based on that, that would
be great.
>> You probably have resources
» You probably have resources
uh on here. We just This is There's
hundreds and hundreds of claims on here.
So,
>> um this is Do you want to hold this for
» um this is Do you want to hold this for
approval or
>> It is $2,400. You guys have already paid
» It is $2,400. You guys have already paid
I'm guessing you've already paid these.
>> No, this is an authorization to send
» No, this is an authorization to send
these checks out. That's why we do the
claims report each.
>> Um, let's then I want to hold those two.
» Um, let's then I want to hold those two.
Please hold those two and proceed with
the rest of the claims. Can you do that?
>> Um,
I think Michelle is coming on.
>> Yes. Uh, these claims have not been
» Yes. Uh, these claims have not been
remitted out yet and we are happy to
hold both of those claims and verify
their proceeding. That means you will
see them um after communication and
verification. They would reappear on
next week's claim.
>> That's great. Perfect. Thank you so
» That's great. Perfect. Thank you so
much.
>> Okay. Any other questions about the
» Okay. Any other questions about the
claims?
This is a public hearing item now that
it's been pulled. Any me member of the
public like to speak on the claims?
Anyone online like to speak about the
claims?
Yes, just
you do have one.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
>> I'm over now.
» Steven Watts.
>> Hi,
» Hi,
happy new year. Woohoo.
Hey, since we're in the claims arena,
please help me understand why the town
has spent $16,000
for fiscal year or for 2025
and it's continuing into 2026.
Coffee
for the luxurious administrative set. If
we provide coffee for staff, how about
providing it to everybody?
Please help me understand
why [clears throat] do quarter of a
million dollar executives
need subsidized coffee from the city of
Lawrence, which is so broke.
broke as a broke dick dog
is charging people to enter their parks.
It's just a question. Can we get an
answer? I've sent several emails about
it. No answers. There we go. Thank you.
[cough]
» Any other comments online?
>> No, mayor.
» No, mayor.
>> Bring it back to the commission for
» Bring it back to the commission for
comments or motions.
Sherry, in the motion, if we're going to
pull the claims minus those two, do we
need to note that in the motion?
>> I think we [clears throat] would defin
» I think we [clears throat] would defin
we would want to make approve the claims
with the exception of those two items.
>> So, so Commissioner Poland, do you have
» So, so Commissioner Poland, do you have
those uh do you have those accounts
noted that we're pulling?
>> I do.
» I do.
>> Pride Promotions and Vernon Heiny.
» Pride Promotions and Vernon Heiny.
>> Would you want to go ahead and make a
» Would you want to go ahead and make a
motion?
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
Um, I'd like to vote to approve claims
less the pride promotion for $1822
$1822.
[cough]
[clears throat] And Vernon Heiney,
Vernon C. Heiny. Um,
and forgive me, let me pull that back up
again. And it's an approximate amount of
$600. Do we need to be more specific?
>> 661.
» 661.
>> 661. Okay. Is there a second?
» 661. Okay. Is there a second?
>> I second that.
» I second that.
>> Motion by Commissioner Pulian, a second
» Motion by Commissioner Pulian, a second
by Commissioner De. All those in favor
say I. I.
>> Opposed. Nay.
» Opposed. Nay.
>> Nay. Passes 4 to1.
» Nay. Passes 4 to1.
That brings us to C 6A um which records
the armor equipment utili utilizing
source the royal rolloff container. Vice
Mayor Courtney.
So, this this purchase right here is it
says it's for 245,000. I looked up a
photo online of what it looks like. It
it's looks like a tow truck for heavy
vehicles. Is that a fair assessment?
[clears throat and cough] I guess this
might be an MSO question. I don't know
if anybody's available.
>> Just they are just
» Just they are just
to move them to panelists.
[clears throat]
» [clears throat]
» you [clears throat] you might want to
ask her question again. Vice Mayor Mike
Lawless is now on.
>> Okay, gotcha. So, looking at C6A for the
» Okay, gotcha. So, looking at C6A for the
bid for that rolloff container truck, is
it is it fair to say that's a tow truck
for heavy vehicles?
Well, uh, so Mike Lawless, uh, deputy
director for [clears throat] MSO.
[snorts]
The rolloff truck is for the, uh, it's
for solid waste, and it's for the big
rolloff tanks that we pull, um, that
contractors use to fill with trash from
construction or whatever they're doing,
and then we take that to the landfill.
So, that's the truck that we use to pull
those containers onto and deliver to the
landfill to empty.
>> Gotcha. And how often are we using
» Gotcha. And how often are we using
trucks like that?
>> Every [clears throat] day.
» Every [clears throat] day.
>> Every day.
» Every day.
>> We have I believe we have nine of those.
» We have I believe we have nine of those.
And typically we're using um five at a
time. Five every day. And then sometimes
um um we actually use more than that.
>> Okay. No, gotcha. I was just I was
» Okay. No, gotcha. I was just I was
curious if it was just a tow truck for
heavy trucks if like how often we were
actually towing our own machines. But if
we're using it, if we're using nine a
day, that makes sense.
>> Yeah. It's it's not a it's not a tow
» Yeah. It's it's not a it's not a tow
truck. It's actually to to move those uh
rolloff containers and um we pull about
35 of those every day. So we use in the
neighborhood of five trucks a day um to
handle that workload.
>> Gotcha. Okay. Uh and then kind of
» Gotcha. Okay. Uh and then kind of
probably uh Mr. Owens, one one more for
you. So when we make a large purchase
like these, are these amvertised over
the lifespan of the vehicles? So are
these like we spended like4 million from
this type of truck? Are we, you know,
deprecating that 20 30% like each year
as it goes through its life cycle?
>> You mean a depreciation?
» You mean a depreciation?
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Well, we don't pay taxes, so it doesn't
» Well, we don't pay taxes, so it doesn't
that doesn't have a bearing. But yeah,
we do we we do and I think this this
question came up with another fleet,
Adam. It's the same thing. We try and
manage that fleet not just by using
mileage but really assessing the
mechanical condition that our mechanics
assess it on and then what a secondary
market value might be. So it's always
trying to hit the sweet spot in that as
things change. Uh Robert Aaron is the
one that answered the question before
and so I I've learned from him and that
that is the right answer.
>> And when we have older trucks like this,
» And when we have older trucks like this,
do we get some do we sell this to other
municipalities get like some value back
from that?
>> Yes, there's a variety of ways. There
» Yes, there's a variety of ways. There
are actually municipal um auction sites
that kind of help us do that um more
conveniently. Sometimes we trade them
in. Um there's a variety of ways that we
might do that. Okay.
>> Are these falling under an enterprise
» Are these falling under an enterprise
fund like um it's under solid waste
>> in this case? Yes.
» in this case? Yes.
>> And solid waste is an enterprise fund.
» And solid waste is an enterprise fund.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> I would imagine. Okay. So there is a
» I would imagine. Okay. So there is a
depreciation tied to it but it has no
monetary value. Gotcha. Okay.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Okay. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate
» Okay. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate
Mr. Lawless. Appreciate the the answer
to that question.
>> Okay. Um any other questions?
» Okay. Um any other questions?
>> No.
» No.
>> No.
» No.
>> This is a public hearing item. Anyone
» This is a public hearing item. Anyone
have a question about um item C6A?
How about anyone online?
>> No, mayor.
» No, mayor.
>> Okay. I'll bring it back to the
» Okay. I'll bring it back to the
commission for either discussion or a
motion. Uh motion to approve the
purchase of one roll-off container truck
from Armor Equipment utilizing the
Sourcewell cooperative contract.
>> So second
» So second
>> second
» second
>> motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded
» motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded
by Commissioner De. All those in favor,
please say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Opposed. Passes 5 to zero. That brings
» Opposed. Passes 5 to zero. That brings
us to C8A which relates to the Amar
Company's development incentive. And I
believe Commissioner Polium pulled that.
Briefly, Brandon, would you mind just
kind of walking us through where we are
just for public's purpose? I don't need
much.
>> Yep. Um, the city has an economic
» Yep. Um, the city has an economic
development incentive policy that guides
this process. Um, the first step I
usually first step is the consultation
between staff and an a potential
applicant. Um and then uh the first step
for the commission is is this action
item on the agenda tonight which is um
accepting the the application. Um some
communities don't have that step. It's
kind of I think it's somewhat unique to
us but um that has been our first step.
City commission accepts the application
and then we will work then staff will
work with our consultants um our
financial adviser, bond counsel um and
any other consultants we need to. uh
those costs are funded by the applicant
through the funding agreement which is
also attached to the agenda.
>> So we will see this item again.
» So we will see this item again.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Great. Thank you very much.
» Great. Thank you very much.
>> Yes,
» Yes,
>> that's all I had.
» that's all I had.
>> And question inside the application it
» And question inside the application it
says you know Amar currently leases the
building and per company policy cannot
pursue expansion of a leased building.
Therefore Amar is seeking an option to
purchase the current site which then
opens the potential for expansion
investment. So just kind of if they
didn't purchase the entire entire site,
this IRB wouldn't happen. It's it's
dependent on them making that purchase.
>> Well, um that's that's a little cart
» Well, um that's that's a little cart
before the horse um because we we are
just receiving the application. So we
haven't started negotiating a
development agreement or um the terms of
the of a potential pilot payment in lie
of taxes through the IRB. Um so those
would be conversations that we'd have in
the future.
I think it's important to note that we
do not make it incredibly easy for
businesses to get these incentives. I
think there might be a little bit of our
community that um think maybe that we
just hand them out very generously
without any type of process. So, this is
really one of the reasons, right,
>> I I I brought this to the attention.
» I I I brought this to the attention.
Thank you again.
>> Appreciate that. And I I will take the
» Appreciate that. And I I will take the
opportunity just to acknowledge um
members of Amar's team are with us. Mike
Burnholds, the general manager of the lo
of the plant here. Um and then we do
have a couple joining us online. Uh Rob
Cheser
>> [clears throat and snorts]
» [clears throat and snorts]
>> um and Sean Mason from Amar.
» um and Sean Mason from Amar.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you all for being here and and
» Thank you all for being here and and
look forward to seeing how the
application goes. Any [clears throat]
other questions?
>> Not sir.
» Not sir.
>> Okay. This is a public hearing item. Any
» Okay. This is a public hearing item. Any
members of the public like to say
anything on this item?
Oh, Steve is going to say something.
Mayor, members of the commission, I I
don't want to take too much of your
time. I know you've got a busy schedule,
but I did want to say just a few words
on behalf of this application. Uh Amar
is one of the larger employers, not only
of the city of Lawrence, but in the
county. uh has been here for a number of
years and in the last particularly in
the last five years has done an
outstanding job of reworking their
business uh in in in a lot of ways it's
become much more productive much more
efficient and they've also instituted a
number of of policies within the company
that really have improved the the the
work environment uh the family
environment of the workplace uh and have
been very successful in that. In fact,
they're kind of a model within their
overall company. Uh so they've done a
great job uh and I think as has been
disclosed you know they're in a
situation where they have opportunities
for growth and there opportunities for
expansion but it's not you know not a
viable situation for them to be putting
investment into a building they don't
own. Uh so this is a critical step for
them not only to uh retain but also to
put them in a position to continue to
grow which they have intentions to do.
So I would, you know, humbly ask that
you give this strong consideration not
only this evening but throughout the
process.
>> Thank you.
» Any other any comments online?
>> No, mayor.
» No, mayor.
>> Okay, bring it back to the commission
» Okay, bring it back to the commission
for comments or a motion.
>> Um, I just want it to be known that um
» Um, I just want it to be known that um
I do support incentives for our
businesses. I am very grateful for Amar
and your presence in the community. Um I
know several people that work at the
organization. Um things that I will be
looking for in the future are jobs. So
when we look at incentives in general,
that is one of the things that I will
definitely give great consideration for
increase in jobs. So thank you.
>> Okay. Is any other comments or motions?
» Okay. Is any other comments or motions?
>> Yeah. Second that as well. A lot of kids
» Yeah. Second that as well. A lot of kids
on my a lot of [clears throat] parents
on my kids uh cub scouts are working at
work at AMR too. And so and to go along
with Commissioner Polling was saying uh
there'll be a question for me about are
those jobs in Lawrence or in Douglas
County and what that looks like. Just so
you know.
» Okay. When do we accept the economic
development incentive application from
Amar Company and we refer this to staff
for analysis and follow-up
recommendation?
Second
>> motion um by Commissioner Cos and second
» motion um by Commissioner Cos and second
by Commissioner Devo. All those in
favor, please say I. I.
>> Opposed? Passes 5 to zero. Last item
» Opposed? Passes 5 to zero. Last item
from the consent agenda is
>> There was also a motion um which is fine
» There was also a motion um which is fine
to do it separate. We'll need another
motion motion to authorize.
Oh, thank you, Sher. I also move that we
authorize the city manager execute a
funding agreement in in substantiality
the same as form as attached with the
applicant.
>> So second
» So second
>> I'll second that
» I'll second that
>> motion by commissioner sellers a second
» motion by commissioner sellers a second
by commissioner devil. All those in
favor please say I
>> I
» I
>> opposed. Now that passes five to zero.
» opposed. Now that passes five to zero.
Thank you Sher for catching that.
>> My apologies. um C8B um related um to
» My apologies. um C8B um related um to
the estates of Malama I think is how
they pronounce that and I think uh Vice
Mayor um Courtney pulled this.
>> Yeah. And so just a a question for MSO
» Yeah. And so just a a question for MSO
about this Okonnell [snorts] 25th.
There's a lot of growth that's been
happening uh to the east of OK and
happening uh to the east of Okonnell.
There's obviously at the north part of
Okonnell is the MSO plant and stuff like
that. I'm I I just sort of have like a
just kind of like a high level question.
When we have so much growth in an area
like that, how are we thinking about
sewer pump stations, what that can be
supported in the future when we accept
uh applications such as this?
» Don't know if
>> I'm looking to see who's on. I'm sorry.
» I'm looking to see who's on. I'm sorry.
>> No problem.
» No problem.
is not great.
>> You said high level. I can do a high
» You said high level. I can do a high
level city manager version of it.
[laughter] Um in [clears throat] they
can fill in the blanks. Um so anytime
we're looking at MSO looks at the
applications for these, they look at the
load that it will put on all of our
infrastructure. So those are
calculations that are done against our
storm water u or all of our master plans
for those utilities. Um, so we want to
make sure that we've put in the right
adequate uh capacity to take that
downstream. Um, and so that those are
the reviews that are done every time we
would see that plat. And that's for load
on our city streets uh turning radius,
any of the street uh load. That's for
our storm water system, the drainage
that takes that the capacity. That's for
our water system. Make sure that we have
adequate pressures that are built into
there. And that's also for our uh
wastewater capacity and making sure that
we're prepared all the way down the
system for that load. And most of those
are part of very large master plans that
are contemplating development years and
years ahead.
>> So Melissa's now in and so is Katherine.
» So Melissa's now in and so is Katherine.
This is her Katherine's item.
» Katherine. Melissa, anything to add?
[clears throat]
>> Mayor, I don't have anything to add
» Mayor, I don't have anything to add
unless Katherine does, but Craig's um
spot on and is high level.
>> Yeah, I don't have anything to add
» Yeah, I don't have anything to add
either. Commissioners,
>> does that answer you?
» does that answer you?
>> Yeah. No, I think that answers the
» Yeah. No, I think that answers the
question. And so, as we start getting
I'm just thinking like, hey, we're going
to start, you know, expanding in
different directions around town. And so
like if we do a couple plats here and
there, like
that pressure that we're putting on
roads, storm water, sewer, stuff like
that,
uh how do we know we're getting close to
the limit of what that can support? Is
that something that's like on the GIS
like the ArcGIS type thing or just kind
of curious about that? That's all those
those large system plans those are made
to contemplating uh a comprehensive plan
uh lays that out and integrates that. So
we're not only projecting we're
projecting many many many factors some
of them are the utility impacted factors
others are zoning financial there's the
comprehensive plan really does
contemplate all of those things and ties
all those pieces together but also then
each of those master plans that are
developed that that feed into that those
are um usually consultant studies that
talk about entire watersheds or entire
areas of pressure zones um and We are we
are hopefully decades ahead of the need
and a lot of our c comprehensive or um
capital improvement planning work is
loading those projects in in a timely
way so those improvements happen in time
to support whatever development needs
are planned and the the planning process
too is uh lays out the land use plan so
that we are we're saying this is how
much load we're wanting to have happen.
So, one affects the other and the other
uh maybe drives the first. So,
>> I appreci I appreciate you taking the
» I appreci I appreciate you taking the
time to explain that. Thanks.
>> That's all that's all I have for that.
» That's all that's all I have for that.
>> Okay. Uh any other questions about C8B
» Okay. Uh any other questions about C8B
from the commission? If not, it's a
public hearing item. Anyone like to
speak on C8B and the audience?
Seeing none, how about online?
>> No, ma'am.
» No, ma'am.
bring C8B back for comments or motions.
>> Um motion to accept the dedications of
» Um motion to accept the dedications of
utility easements and right ofway
associated with the final plat plat 2520
for estates of Malama in the city of
Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas located
at 2500 Okonnell Drive.
>> Second
» Second
>> motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded
» motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded
by um Commissioner Devo. All those in
favor, please say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Opposed? passes 520 to zero. That brings
» Opposed? passes 520 to zero. That brings
us to section E, which is the regular
agenda items. And regular agenda item
one and two, I assume we're going to do
together um related to um the uh well,
let's say the FIFA World Cup, but we'll
let Jeff talk us through that.
[clears throat]
Excuse me.
Sorry for the delay on that,
commissioners. Good evening. Jeff Drake
with planning development services. The
two amendments are really a tandem pair
for this item there. And what it is is
one item will amend the short-term
rental licensing code. The other amends
the land development code sections
related to short-term rentals. So, kind
of walk through in general what the the
purpose of this is. You had seen the
initiation a few months back, but just
as a reminder with the World Cup coming
up, we wanted to propose a change to the
amendments so that there was more
flexibility in related to those codes.
And what we're proposing is an
alteration to the amendments that would
run in the end of May through basically
the end of July that would remove a
couple of sections for we see in the
code for the land development code. It
would change the owner occupied and
non-owner occupied permissions and allow
a wider variety of uses. So, owner
occupied and non-owner occupied
short-term rentals could expand as part
of that process. As part of the rental
licensing code, we would remove a couple
things and then include what's called an
inspection reciprocity. And I'll start
with that one first. So, if a property
is licensed in the long-term rental
program and has been inspected and gone
through the process is that we would
roll that inspection over to the
short-term rental process because it
would have cleared those marks, would
have been found to be insufficient on
that and just roll that over as part of
that under the current short-term rental
licensing code. An entity can't have
more than three short-term rentals in
the city of Lawrence. We would
temporarily remove that cap. So, if an
apartment complex had 20, 25, 30 units
and would like to use all 30 of those
units for short-term rentals, a
possibility for the duration of the
World Cup allowance, that would be a
possibility that would be available for
that time span. And we'd also include
some language in there to make sure that
when somebody is applying that they do
they're aware that it is a short, no pun
intended here, a short short-term
rental. uh it's only for the duration of
that World Cup between the May 25th
through July 31st or whatever day the
commission finds fit to end the process
on that one and that if they would at
the conclusion of that then the
short-term rental code would go back in
place and those previous restrictions
that we currently have would come back
on the books. So, just as a as a quick
recap, it is it really amending two
different chapters, but really it's the
same process or excuse me, the same
project in just two different portions
of the city code. And with that, I'd be
happy to stand for any questions related
to those.
>> I have a couple questions, Jeff, which I
» I have a couple questions, Jeff, which I
think I know the answer to, but there
have been questions I've been getting.
So, okay, let's say I want to rent my
house out during the World Cup. Um, I
have to apply for a short-term rental
license,
>> correct? would be apply for a short-term
» correct? would be apply for a short-term
rental license and we would inspect the
unit to ensure it meets the property
maintenance code specifications.
>> But if I have a long-term rental that I
» But if I have a long-term rental that I
already rent out and it's already
licensed, I wouldn't have to get us
apply for the short-term rental.
>> Would have to get a short-term rental
» Would have to get a short-term rental
license if you were going to include it
and in that process. But if you were
inspected recently, then we would roll
that inspection over as a reciprocity.
So you wouldn't have to have a second
inspection that we've already seen the
unit on.
>> Okay. So you would have to apply. You
» Okay. So you would have to apply. You
just would need an inspection
>> potentially. Correct. But again, if I
» potentially. Correct. But again, if I
wanted to do my house and I don't have a
license, I would have to have an
inspection, apply and have an inspection
done.
>> That's correct.
» That's correct.
>> Correct. Um, and then I know there's a
» Correct. Um, and then I know there's a
lot of questions about the two things
we're passing tonight don't do not
contain an end date on them.
>> That's correct.
» That's correct.
>> And um, tell us what we should do if we
» And um, tell us what we should do if we
want an end date on these.
>> We would recommend an end date on those.
» We would recommend an end date on those.
And what we have prepared was the second
stage of this as we noted in the first
one is the initiation of a text
amendment to put the code back as it was
with an effective date on July 31st to
kind of rewind it to what it is tonight
effectively. Um so that we were going to
recommend that we're going to bring an
initiation forward on that one. However,
you can also recommend or excuse me, you
can also initiate that text amendment
tonight if you would like to just to
kind of close that loop and get that
process rolling on that. Um, we were
anticipating July 31 only because it was
the end of a calendar month and it was
also at past the conclusion of all the
World Cup events. So, if somebody wanted
to stay in town after the events
[clears throat] in Kansas City were
concluded, that gave them some time and
space for people to en enjoy the area
and see some different sites, but there
is no real particular ending date that
you could choose from any number of
dates on that.
>> But we could go ahead tonight and make
» But we could go ahead tonight and make
that motion to initiate to to have an
end date.
>> Absolutely.
» Absolutely.
>> Okay. And uh Okay. Well, those are just
» Okay. And uh Okay. Well, those are just
some of the clarifications. I know
people are asking other questions for
Jeff at this time.
>> I I do um
» I I do um
explain some differences to me on owner
occupied versus nonowner occupied, the
intent behind
uh the difference in fee costs, etc. The
spirit of it. Can you kind of walk
through that a little bit?
I think I I think I can try. There is no
difference in fees between an owner
occupied and a non-owner occupied
short-term rental.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> So, it's just if you're applying for a
» So, it's just if you're applying for a
short-term rental, you're usually
applying for the application, the
inspection fee, and those are the the
same regardless of of owner occupancy or
not in that process.
>> Okay. Thank you for that.
» Okay. Thank you for that.
>> So, owner occupancy is depends upon um
» So, owner occupancy is depends upon um
is it your primary residence?
effectively for a short version of a of
a long definition. It's effectively if
you're spending the majority of your
time in the residence and it's your your
place of residence and you're renting it
out as a short-term rental. And so, um,
a great example would be, and we've seen
this happen where a professor gets a,
uh, sbatical or tenorship at another
university and they rent the house for
three months because they're here to
either participate in function or
something like that. They're not
necessarily vacating the residence, but
they're also not going to be there. So
they can elect to do that process. Um so
really if the property is non-owner
occupied as a function of the land
development code on where it is
permissible to do a non-owner occupied
short-term rental where it just depends
in certain districts you can do an owner
occupied and others you can't just do
those. So it's really the change in the
occupancy for land use purposes.
>> Okay. And then um last I think last
» Okay. And then um last I think last
question
two parts. How are we doing on PE
keeping up on inspections
in terms of these short-term rentals
now? And how are are we setting
ourselves up for failure if we're having
a tough time today? Um, which I have
heard. I haven't gotten any confirmation
from staff one way or the other, but uh
we stand to have a lot of shortterm
rentals come up. How are we going to
handle that uh that burden that
additional burden of inspection?
>> Sure. And if I understand your question,
» Sure. And if I understand your question,
are are we caught up on inspections
currently? For sure.
>> Yes. Are we managing the inspections
» Yes. Are we managing the inspections
today in a timely manner?
>> We are. Yes.
» We are. Yes.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> It's not the it's not the same as the
» It's not the it's not the same as the
long-term rental program which has the
three or the six year depending upon the
number of violations. To be in the
short-term rental program, you have to
be inspected and we do that on the in
the interval of every couple years which
is in the ordinance. So if you have
that, we are meeting that mark on that.
>> Uh the reason we have the amendment
» Uh the reason we have the amendment
before you now in January instead of
later on is because that gives us some
time and runway for people to start
applying for the program, be ready to go
through those inspections. So when the
ordinance becomes effective, they could
already be well in place to take
advantage of that process. That also
gives our staff time to start inspecting
those units in advance of that to help
make sure that we're not holding anybody
back on that. And we do have a great
team that does go out and do those
inspections. And so they are up to speed
and up to date on those items currently.
We just wanted to give them some runway
and give applicants time to understand
what's the expectation the code's going
to be and then what are those minimum
life safety standards that we would be
looking for in a property.
>> Okay. And I love that you guys are
» Okay. And I love that you guys are
getting ahead of it. That is excellent.
Are we uh do we have a plan in place on
notifying folks? Right. Because we give
them the opportunity. It doesn't mean
that they necessarily take it to get
their application in early. Last thing I
want is for us to have an overload and
and you guys are kind of caught off
guard. Do we have anything that we can
do to let people know, hey yo yo, get
your stuff going now?
>> Absolutely. We've been working with
» Absolutely. We've been working with
communications to get some frequently
asked questions together. Some of the
things we normally get is just part of
the process, but then also kind of a
campaign to kind of help. Here's what's
happening. Here's what you can do.
Here's who to reach out to. Okay. We're
on the same same wavelength on that
part.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
» Okay, great. Thank you.
>> And I think as a followup to that
» And I think as a followup to that
question, at least my understanding
there might be some discussion among
unified command on the housing division
with explore Lawrence and you and all
that to do some public education on on
what it means to be an Airbnb holder and
things, not just regulations, but how
you do it, how do you be successful at
it, that sort of thing. that is. Yeah,
that's exactly some of the stuff that
we're working on. And I will be the
first to admit I'm probably not the most
knowledgeable on how to be successful at
a short-term rental. Um, but we
definitely want to help get people
connected to those that are and and make
that available. And that is part of the
process that we're working on.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Um, just as to help communications out,
» Um, just as to help communications out,
if if I wanted a short-term rental,
where would I find that? Could I go to
the website? How would I do that?
>> You could definitely go to the website.
» You could definitely go to the website.
Uh you could also go to EPL portal and
apply for a license on that one and you
could also give us a phone call at
8327700
and we'll be able to help out with get
that process started too. So we always
make sure that we have staff available
that can answer those calls and help
out.
>> Thank you. Other questions at the moment
» Thank you. Other questions at the moment
>> and so if an individual person wanted to
» and so if an individual person wanted to
and apologies for not looking this up
ahead of time if they wanted to apply
for a short short-term rental how much
does that cost?
might have the numbers a little bit off
here, but usually the application fee is
around $17 and the inspection fee is
about 50. So, you end up being about $67
in total an application.
>> Gotcha. And how many how much how many
» Gotcha. And how many how much how many
people are on staff doing inspections?
>> We have a team of four in code
» We have a team of four in code
compliance. We have two specifically
dedicated to both long-term and
short-term rental inspections. And they
go through quite a number of properties
and they've seen a number over the
years.
>> Gotcha. And I I did look beforehand. So,
» Gotcha. And I I did look beforehand. So,
we have 140 homes on Verbbo. We got 168
on Airbnb and so that team is doing
those inspections on a regular basis
>> as they're licensed and required to.
» as they're licensed and required to.
Yes.
» I'll just note that I am in favor adding
the end date tonight getting it closing
that loop as you called it.
>> Yeah, same.
» Yeah, same.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
But other questions at this point? And
then the status of the the short-term
rentals, if we put an end date on it,
they're no longer short-term rentals
after that fact. It would be what they
are right now. They if they wanted to,
they could go through the process again
like they could right now, but they
wouldn't like carry over after going
through this,
>> right? Yeah. We would have that you'd be
» right? Yeah. We would have that you'd be
licensed for the duration of those 60
odd days, give or take a few in there.
And then if you wanted to come back and
do it as a more uh permanent or a more
uh constant item there, you could go
through the normal process which has
about a 2-year expiration if I remember
correctly. Is there any concern,
especially on the apartment side of
things, that
people may be blocked from getting
rentals in this period because there'd
be such a lucrative opportunity with
this with the World Cup. It's something
we've been watching for a good number of
months right now to understand what that
dynamic is. And it's kind of hard to pin
down since it's usually a contractual
arrangement between two private parties,
but we've not seen a lot of people
shifting their kind of their dates
around. So, we're seeing very similar
lease terms that we would normally see
in non-World Cup years particularly.
Again, that might be a possibility or
some renters may have an interest in
doing that because they don't want to
have to deal with a sublet or pay for
rent in a property they're not going to
be in for the duration. And so there
might be some of that, but we're not
seeing a lot of changes in that leasing
at this point in time. And usually those
leases do run from year to year. So we
would have expected to have seen that,
you know, kind of in the fall leading up
to this.
>> And do you guys code enforcement when
» And do you guys code enforcement when
we're talking enforcement, are you
cross-checking Airbnb with VBO?
>> Yes, we do look at that. We also look at
» Yes, we do look at that. We also look at
a couple of other platforms that we see
pretty active in the community, too.
>> Okay, great.
» Okay, great.
Okay, if there's no other questions,
thank you, Jeff. We'll open this up to
um public and you have three minutes.
>> Uh my name is Aaron Nice 66049. Um I am
» Uh my name is Aaron Nice 66049. Um I am
here today as a resident, landlord, and
an Airbnb operator. Um I don't believe
that the city should relax uh
requirements or ordinances for the World
Cup. We do have insufficient transient
housing for large KU games, all the
other sports events that are housed
here. To me, this really feels like it's
going to be a cash grab for the
corporate owner corporate owned
apartment complexes, especially places
like the Lynx who they can just stop.
They can start denying new leases during
till now until the World Cup just so
that they're close. Everyone's going to
want to stay towards Rockchock Park,
close to I7, everything. I think it's
just going to be a handout to
corporations and not people that
actually live in the city. Um, I also
worry about enforcement once the period
is ended. Who's going to go? Like, if
these people just leave it open, what's
going to stop them from just keeping
their Airbnb going? It's going to take
forever. If there's a flood of new
short-term rentals, it's going to take
forever for the city to get around and
check everybody, actually enforce the
ordinances. Um, so I just don't think
that also I think that it's going to
limit housing for people who live here.
Also, it's going to take anybody whose
lease is about due. Landlords aren't
going to be renting to them. like if
there your lease is up the next month,
landlord is just going to hold that
empty until the World Cup comes hoping
that they'll get a windfall of money
from that and these people that are
moving or even if their lease is ending
and the landlord just decides to not
renew, they're not going to be able to
find housing in town. So, I think it's a
bad decision to lack the ordinances for
that short period. we have the
infrastructure here already and I just
and I don't see any planning on how to
actually enforce shutting these new
short-term short-term rentals down. So I
I would hope the city would not go
through with this and at least think
about the ramifications to the actual
citizens before they follow through
rather than this imaginary windfall
that's not guaranteed to come.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Hi, my name is Sheri Ellen Becker. I
live on Holiday Drive 66049.
And um thank you for the opportunity.
You know, people really care about this
issue because it's their homes and their
neighborhoods that you're talking about.
I think you guys hear, you know,
short-term rental, you know, adding
extra hotel space, and we hear
neighborhood invasion, and there's a
real dichotomy of how people the the
basic way that they approach this
situation. And where we are right now is
the result of a lot of hard work on the
part of the staff and the city
commission to get to the rules that we
have now. Right now we have some modicum
of enforcement in that the application
says do you apply for non non-owner
occupied or owner occupied but that's up
to you to say what you want and there's
no real teeth in that application. And I
can show you applications from half a
dozen other cities where you've got to
show voter registration or um insurance
vehicle, you know, insurance vehicles
and other things that prove that you
really live there because I know there's
one in my neighborhood and I've gone
there with my missing cat flyers looking
for Charlie and they say, "This is an
Airbnb lady. Nobody lives here." And but
that's that's not what we're here to
talk about tonight. We're talking about
this temporary need during when we are
going to see increased visitors during
the World Cup time. And I think even if
you're in the neighborhood invasion
camp, you still understand that need.
But we we don't understand why there's
no sunset on it, why that can't be in
the ordinance. I mean, it seems to me
that if you really were going to sunset
it, you could figure out a way to put it
in there. And and it comes down,
unfortunately, to trust.
You know, sometimes the commission says
things and then years later or sometime
later they'll say, "Well, we said it,
but it's not codified,
so it doesn't really mean anything."
Those were words and these are actions.
So, I'm asking you to put it into action
and put the sunset clause into this so
we can rest easy. And thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Christina McKenna 66046
um for the Coalition for Collaborative
Governments. Uh we we're submitting
feedback based on information we've
gathered from several neighborhood
advocates who have been involved in the
city's short-term rental policy
development and enforcement. The two
amendments before you tonight include
temporary provisions. Only one of two
agenda items reports states the dates as
Mayor Finkel mentioned and Mr. Crook
verified. So we're just suggesting that
um a nice deadline is actually in put in
place as well. We're agreeing with that.
Um, the second half of one of these
amendments applies to 11 zoning
districts and the planning commission
report states it'll be a permanent
amendment. The agenda item report
includes no information about the
reasoning and impact of that portion of
it. So, we request that you discuss any
implications of the permanent change
before passing that ordinance. Um, also
as a historical context, two ordinances
were passed in October of 2020 to
prohibit non-owner occupied short-term
rentals and single dwelling residential
zones to protect neighborhoods. It
allowed non-owner occupied ones in other
zoning districts with licensing. It also
established a general cap of three units
per owner. And the Lawrence Association
of Neighborhoods has spent years
advocating for robust short-term rental
licensing and inspection program. During
these conversations, the city
acknowledged they didn't have the
adequate staff, which I know was
commented on tonight, um to monitor the
complaints or enforce regulations or
violations of the rental regulations.
So, the city approved the better
sheeting for one and a half additional
staff positions, but they weren't
filled. So, it's nice to hear that
they're ahead on these inspections. Um,
we did have a coalition member with an
owner occupied short-term rental report
that her owner occupied rentals
inspected every two years, but she and
others report the city was unable to
maintain inspections for apartments,
which are likely non-owner occupied
units. So, again, that was good to hear
that those are ahead. actually.
Um, and a logistical question related to
the city's inspection requirements, like
my friend Aaron had mentioned, is how
would they resend the resin the licenses
afterward as well as just continuing to
keep up with the extra inspections that
will be required. Thank you.
>> Thank you. [clears throat]
» Other comments in the room?
>> If not, oh,
» If not, oh,
>> sorry, Mayor. Thank you. Yes,
» sorry, Mayor. Thank you. Yes,
>> I didn't hear all of that,
» I didn't hear all of that,
unfortunately.
[clears throat] Um, so I I I
do want to say that um it's interesting
that we might consider um
uh a rep reprieve for regular
homeowners. Um,
as much as I appreciate staff's
comments, neighborhoods know that there
are already short-term rentals that are
um, illegal, quote unquote, or not
lawful outside of policy. Um, I
appreciate what Commissioner Courtney
asked, which is about Verbbo. If I
understand Verbbo, Verbbo is
specifically non-owner occupied. So, um,
if you're seeing non-owner occupied on
Verbbo, then you have to look at each
individual one and find out what their,
um, zoning is, and I appreciate what
staff has said, but again, they only
have four people in code enforcement,
and and it is unclear to neighborhoods,
um, that that is being enforced at this
time. Um, I think it's great for
homeowners to have a one-time windfall
um for this option when it comes around,
but again, as some others have said, we
don't have a guarantee of a sunset.
Could this be uh a backdoor into uh
creating an opportunity for these to
basically remove affordable housing and
accessible housing um people in big
cities or cities with um uh a large
amount of transient guest tax to pull
actual housing offline. So I hope you
guys will think about that. I would also
remind everyone that [snorts] if you
stay in housing more than 30 days, you
don't actually get the uh transient gas
tax. So, um while it's nice that we're
having all these nice visitors after 30
days, we're not getting transient gas
tax. Uh the people who have those units,
they'll get money. That's fine. They'll
pay their taxes, but we're not getting
transient gas tax out of it. Thank you.
Thank you. Other
comments in the room? If not, how about
online?
>> We do have a few
» We do have a few
[clears throat]
» Julie Jones.
» Julie, we can't hear you.
» [snorts]
» I still can't hear you.
[laughter]
» Brian Enez, why don't you say something
just to make sure we can hear hear
somebody?
Can you hear me?
>> Okay, we can hear you.
» Okay, we can hear you.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
>> thank you. Just checking.
» thank you. Just checking.
>> Just just FYI while you got me real
» Just just FYI while you got me real
quick, mayor. I'm just online to answer
any questions that um may be deferred to
me that Jeff may not have the answer to.
>> Yep. We'll we'll get to you back in a
» Yep. We'll we'll get to you back in a
second. Julie, one more try there. If
not, we might go to someone else and
then come back to you and give you
another chance. Okay, let's go to the
others and then we'll come back to
Julie. Okay.
Chris Flowers.
» Hi. Uh, this is Chris Flowers. Um,
I just want to start with how will this
affect long-term rentals? Has staff
studied that? Um, cuz I'm going to ask
you this. Will the need for long-term
rentals decrease at all? Cuz I'm going
to say no. The the need for long-term
renters is going to be the same. And
what's what's the purpose of having caps
on how many uh short-term rentals a land
loaner land owner can own? I thought the
purpose of that was to protect the
long-term rental market. So now the
demand, we're saying, well, the demand
for short-term rentals is going to
increase, but the demand for long-term
rentals isn't going to decrease at all.
And how is it I I I just I don't
understand. Like the need for short-term
rentals is going to be at an all-time
high. So doesn't that mean the need for
protection for long-term rentals is
going to be at its highest? Like why are
you doing away with the protection just
when the the pe the long-term renters
are going to need the protection the
most? I looked it up and it's saying
some of the like some of these
short-term rentals are going to go for
300% more than they would normal during
the World Cup. And the short-term
rentals are already much more than
long-term rentals are. So you're going
to have situations where it's going to
be more
landlords could possibly make more money
just renting out a a unit for a month
during World Cup than they would uh
doing it as a long-term rental for the
summer. And my first place I rented at
was Metobrook. And it was when I was
coming out of the dorm housing and I
signed up for a summer rental for and it
was until August. It was like end of May
till like June and July. like could
Meadow Brook start like their the units
they rent for the summer, could they
just not rent it out to Lawrence
residents and instead give it to uh the
visitors? Cuz if that's going to happen,
it's going to definitely increase the
rents. And so my main question is, has
staff looked at what the the what's
going to happen to the long-term rental
market? Because if not, how are you
going to go through with this when the
whole purpose of these like the the caps
on the short-term rental units is to
protect the long-term rental market? And
I don't know, it's just it's kind of
it's kind of shady to me to be honest
that you're not going to have any kind
of info on what we potentially think's
going to happen to the long-term rental
market when you're doing away with a
protection to that market. And also, I
would just like to point out, I don't
think this was a city commission thing
brought like
originally directive. I think this is
something city staff came up with their
own with on their own and what they're
doing is doing away with those
protections that a former city
commission did put in place. So, I'm
throwing that out there. Um,
>> thank you, Chris.
» thank you, Chris.
>> Thank you.
» Let's see. Julie can see if we can hear
Julie real quick.
>> Yeah, she's still in. Well, she does.
Okay.
>> Why' you bring Mr. Watts over?
» Why' you bring Mr. Watts over?
>> Yep.
Thank you. It's also impressive to know,
Brad, that you can actually see people's
hands raised. So, in the future, I'm
going to know when I'm being wholly
ignored.
[gasps]
Here we go. Now, I want to let Mr. Crick
know that his operation is topnotch. I
mean, they do the best they can with
what they have in an extremely
poperri of programs and there's really
nothing to argue about in there. And the
same can be said for Mr. Gimenez's
operation which I have found to be
extremely responsive once you get to
somebody that you you know it takes a
little while but irrespective they're
doing the best they can with what they
have and I have no reason to assume that
it's going to be any different when this
uh uh windfall [clears throat] of the
World Cup comes to Lawrence. What are
you guys going to do when it doesn't
turn out exactly as you want? I don't
know. Let's hope that it does. But my
main comment was on it centers around
the the commenter there in your office
or there in the whatever you call it
room talking about stuff. Um there's a
leash ordinance about cats. Why is your
cat running around outside
unprotected?
Please put your cat on a leash. Thank
you.
» Okay, Julie, we'll give you one more
chance here. See if we can hear you.
» Here. I'm going to try moving her back
and then back in if that helps. It
should just take a less than a minute.
>> Okay, let's [snorts] give that a try.
» Okay, let's [snorts] give that a try.
>> That will help if anything.
» That will help if anything.
>> [clears throat]
[snorts]
» Unfortunately, we cannot hear you,
Julie. Sorry about that.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, bring it back
to the commission for for questions or
comments. And Jeff or Brian, I both
here. I have a couple questions for you.
Um Jeff probably for you first which is
um
there's a reference to part of the
amendment being permanent as opposed to
temporary. Um can you speak to that?
>> So one of the things we've excuse me one
» So one of the things we've excuse me one
of the things we identified during the
land development code cleanup is the
table that is currently in the land
development code is incorrect. And so
what we were proposing to do was to
change for the World Cup here and then
bring back the amendment to correct that
table as part of the cleanup amendment.
However, the timing of that really puts
a wrench in in a couple of things
because we would do the cleanup
amendment, then have an amendment that
would undo it, and then potentially have
another amendment that would have to
come back and get that all replaced. So,
instead of doing that as part of the
cleanup amendment, we're going to do
that as the follow-up as part of that
initiated amendment to put everything
back, but then put it back in the way
that it should be in the code, not in
the error that we've identified. So,
[laughter]
>> it's a little complex. I
» it's a little complex. I
>> think we followed that. It's yeah, a
» think we followed that. It's yeah, a
little complex on the timing, but we
wanted to make it as easy to follow as
possible and also ensure that we didn't
inadvertently put the mistake back into
the code when we were trying to put the
code back to its right spot. So, we did
identify an error in there. We would
like to clean it up after we get the
World Cup amendment through the process.
So, the amendment we bring back would be
the version for the cleanup of the land
development code to get that corrected
for you.
>> Okay. So would you suggest we assuming
» Okay. So would you suggest we assuming
and I think I hear that at least three
of us want to make a motion tonight to
initiate a text amendment on a given
date. Would we initiate the check text
amendment to return it um at the same
time initiate text amendment for the
cleanup? I would recommend initiating an
amendment to
restore the code with the with cleaned
up text. And that'll give us enough
direction to put the chapter 5 text back
as it currently is, but allows us the
opportunity to put the chapter 20 text
back as it should have been that we've
identified as as needing cleaned up.
>> So, restore the code with the cleanup
» So, restore the code with the cleanup
text
>> if if that would be the commission's
» if if that would be the commission's
prerogative. Yes. Mhm.
>> And then we can decide what the date is
» And then we can decide what the date is
if it's if we agree on July 31st or some
other date.
>> Absolutely. Yes.
» Absolutely. Yes.
>> Okay. So, we'll include a date in that
» Okay. So, we'll include a date in that
in that motion. Um
obviously a concern about um was raised
from some of the speakers about after
this is over and the law changes um how
do we go about revoking these licenses
or checking to see if they're still
going? How would we do that? the
licenses [clears throat] are that kind
of the short short-term rental license
again for the lack of a better
description. They expire on the ending
date. And so at that point, they don't
have a short-term rental license when it
goes to expiration. They could apply for
a new short-term rental license. And if
they don't go for that, then we would go
through the notice and order procedures
in the code to have that affixed in the
code. Should be go to courts if
necessary and those kind of things. But
when they're licensed and we know that,
we can also then follow up a little
easier as part of that process to know
who is a part of that short-term
process. So, my apologies. My part of
the shortterm rental license process. I
got to find a much better way of
phrasing that. I apologize.
>> STR STR,
» STR STR,
>> but it goes through that kind of a
» but it goes through that kind of a
limited process. There we go. Um, then
if they're in the part of the the
short-term rental process, it is the the
two-year standard process. That gives us
an opportunity on that. And Brian and
the team have also been looking at ways
of how to do that process as the
closeout procedure. And so we do have a
good working knowledge of what that
would look like from a staff perspective
and also what we would expect
potentially for going through that
process if somebody is non-compliant at
the end of the process.
>> And maybe this is for you or for Brian.
» And maybe this is for you or for Brian.
Um some questions about maybe some
unlicensed short-term windows in town.
what what's the process we go through to
try to catch those to to get bring
people into compliance?
>> So, we always try to go through the
» So, we always try to go through the
various platforms to see if we can
identify those. We also have people that
will submit to us through um online
forms, let us know that my neighbor's
got a short-term rental or that. And so,
as you all know, code compliance works
on a on a kind of reaction basis on that
one. We respond to those kind of
concerns when they come up. And we have
a lot of people that do let us know
about those. So if somebody does have
one of those, they could file it with us
and then we could be able to follow up
and check on that.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
those are my questions. Other questions
for Jeff or
>> So if if I may, mayor, I'd like to just
» So if if I may, mayor, I'd like to just
add one a couple comments that Jeff
didn't hit on specifically. We are going
to create a specific case type for these
Red Bull units during this World Cup
period of time.
Um so when that date sunsets we will
have a list of just these licenses that
were issued for World Cup that we can
follow up on.
>> So Brian with sorry go ahead. So Brian,
» So Brian with sorry go ahead. So Brian,
just to follow up on that, if we were,
which I I would like to for the c the
commission to discuss this with that
sunset, if we were wanting to have
different enforcement fines and
penalties for that,
um cuz currently the fine or penalty is
what up to 2500.
>> Uh don't have the code in front of me. I
» Uh don't have the code in front of me. I
know that was what the longterm is. I
think the short-term STR followed the
same LTR ordinance. I think that is
correct. Okay.
Okay. Thank you.
>> And Randy turned his camera on, so I
» And Randy turned his camera on, so I
don't know if he had a comment on that.
>> Now, this is Randy Lin, deputy city
» Now, this is Randy Lin, deputy city
attorney. I just wanted to make sure and
clarify that, you know, we can't sunset
and repeal without having the ordinances
already in place because once it's
repealed, then there won't be anything.
So, we'll have to bring back new
ordinances to uh fix those. We can do
that at any time and make those new
ordinances effective at the termination
date of this program.
» So,
um, if I hear what you're saying, if we
did want to change something on the
restored code, we could say bring back a
text amendment that changes the
penalties
after July 31st. Well, that you know, we
we could there's certain limitations
regarding the amounts that we can charge
to municipal court. That might be the
maximum already, but we would look into
that and if we could bring in more, we
we'll we'll bring that to your
attention.
>> Okay. Well, if it's not necessarily
» Okay. Well, if it's not necessarily
more, if it was wanting us to if we know
that the max is 25, if we just wanted we
wanted to also include language that
would revoke any license or sus suspend
their ability to
apply for a short-term rental license
for, let's say, up to a year.
>> That would not go through the criminal
» That would not go through the criminal
or municipal court. But yes, we could
include language that if they are in
violation and are found guilty of a
violation that they would not be able to
obtain a license for a period of time.
Yes, we could we can put a suspension
period in that. I believe that may exist
already.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Other questions, comments?
» Other questions, comments?
>> Um I mean the answer is pretty obvious,
» Um I mean the answer is pretty obvious,
but I kind of want to dig into it a
little bit. What is driving this? Right.
So we obviously are expecting the World
Cup. We're hearing, you know, um, hotels
are booking up in Manhattan already. Um,
whether whether that's true or not, I've
certainly not confirmed it. But
overarching, we want to react to what
could be a really great um economic
endeavor, economic development endeavor,
albeit temporary. Do we have any data
that backs
what to expect as far as people coming
in? Um
what effects have h what what effects
have the the World Cup specifically or
maybe even a Super Bowl uh that other
cities have had or are we just saying we
need more short-term rentals? because I
will tell you my concern
um is alienating existing
uh residents for this if we don't know
for sure what what the benefit will be.
Um
are there a lot of people asking to turn
their homes into short-term rentals?
That's another question I have. So, let
me stop there. See if you have anything
to respond with. I just threw a lot at
you.
>> It's okay. I hope I get them I get them
» It's okay. I hope I get them I get them
back in the right order. I I promise
I'll probably already forgot. [snorts]
>> So, best the best statistic I've heard
» So, best the best statistic I've heard
for this, it's the World Cup is
effectively like holding the Super Bowl
seven times consecutively and it's kind
of it's in Kansas City and we're in that
radius where people are looking at it.
We'd anticipate there probably going to
be, you know, since we're very close in
to a lot of area, there's going to be
people of interest that will be, you
know, going to Kansas City for those
games and have that interest. And as you
know, Lawrence is also potentially in
the running for base camp and that would
be a long-term duration event and people
tend to want to be around those teams
when they they have their sites. And so
that is [clears throat] another, you
know, potential interest that we have in
there. And just knowing the amount of
people coming,
>> you know, we just know we don't have
» you know, we just know we don't have
enough hospitality rooms that are
potentially there. And so we were
putting this forward as an option for
consideration just as to help
accommodate some of those different
changes that we might be seeing in the
market. And there's no real good way to
say that it's going to be this much at
this kind of an interval. But what we've
seen in previous examples and the
conversations that you've had is we
would expect that to be a large [snorts]
amount of people coming to the area for
a duration.
>> They might be here for a week or two or
» They might be here for a week or two or
if their team does really well, they
might be here for three or four
depending upon how it goes. Um so it's
kind of hard to pin down since there's a
lot of unknown variables. We don't know
are we a base camp or who that would be.
But we do know is there's going to be
the games in Kansas City and there's
going to be a lot of people trying to
find accommodation and we're within a
pretty good driving distance and with
the transportation links that we have to
Kansas City, it does make us a very
attractive option for a lot of people.
[snorts]
Um I think your third question was about
the alienation of
>> Well, I I that was kind of a general
» Well, I I that was kind of a general
comment, right? We have a lot of folks
that are concerned about these
short-term rentals and I certainly
appreciate that for sure. Um, which is
why I would be interested if there are
any penalties that they're actually
higher than what they would normally be.
Right? If we're going to allow people to
come in and uh disrupt a neighborhood um
very quickly, very temporarily, I want
to make sure that it the juice is worth
the squeeze, so to speak, for the city.
Um, have we reached out and I've
personally been to two Super Bowls, so I
certainly appreciate what one Super Bowl
does to a community. Have we had
conversations with any communities
uh that have had major events come in?
May not have to be the World Cup, but
we've certainly got parallels to some
extent specific to short-term rentals
and how they've responded to it
because I would like to see that. We've
talked to a lot of communities about
different programs they run and where
I've worked at previously had some
events that were long duration events
that were not maybe Super Bowl
equivalent, [snorts] but they were
longer running. And I've had
conversations with my counterparts
there. And they've noted it's very
similar to what you see during skiing
season in the mountains or if you have a
beach town, you see kind of a spike
going into the summer months between
Memorial Day and Labor Day and those
kind of things. But they also said it's
it's wildly unpredictable in the
conversation. So it can just depend on
who, when, where, why, and what the
market prices are at, if people are even
interested. So there's not a a good, you
know, thumb, you can't really get your
thumb on it necessarily all the time.
But they did say is, you know, the
conversations has been that you're going
to see probably increases in people and,
you know, you will see people that will
put things out there that are probably
not safe for habitation. And so if you
can get ahead of those and have those
inspections and ensure some of that,
that goes a long way to making sure that
the community is safe overall, too.
>> And I would jump in and say I've been to
» And I would jump in and say I've been to
involved in quite a few of of the
meetings related to the World Cup, and
you know, this is certainly something
I've been asking about for a while now.
You know, they that the the World Cup um
group out of um um Kansas City that's
leading this effort, and of course, we
have Unified Command working on this.
They say if we're a base camp, we should
expect 15,000 people to be here. 15,000
is the number we should count on. If
we're not a base camp, it'd be, you
know, maybe 8 to 10,000.
And, you know, clearly they think we'll
be a base camp. We don't know that for
sure. Um, obviously we've been included
in the bus route, you know, to have
buses every day. Um, and so, um, you
know, certainly, you know, the demand is
out there. I would then add that I know
Kansas City, Missouri, Lanexa, Shaune,
they've all passed similar ordinances to
this. Um, we're actually in a a more
unique situation than some of those
places because we have talking to some
of the cohorts and and commissioners in
other places, you know, we have a pretty
strong um July 31st turnover date, which
is different than Lanexo Shaunie or
whatever that some of these concerns
like that Chris brought up about if
someone has a a long-term unit in Shaune
coming open in May, do they hold it
waiting for June and July and then rent
it out to long-term folks. Whereas in
Lawrence, we have a much stronger
turnover date on July, you know, July
31st. We don't have a lot that come open
in May anyway.
>> Um I will know I've talked to quite a
» Um I will know I've talked to quite a
few land I mean some landlords. There
are a few landlords who did do 10-month
leases with their um you know leading
into this year thinking about this in
ahead. And um I do know other landlords
who are offering students
out of the summer. We'll let you lease
out on May 31st, short-term rental it,
and then bring it back on August 1st as
a long-term rental with students again.
So, I've talked to um you know,
landlords who um are definitely talking
to their tenants about are you going to
be here this summer? Do you want to be
here this summer? If you don't want to
be here this summer, you know, this
could be an opportunity if this passes.
Um,
>> and I and that I will say I've had other
» and I and that I will say I've had other
conversations and my thought is we do
empty to some extent over the summer. Do
we happen to have numbers by chance?
Could we get with KU and find out how
many? We may not have those numbers. I
think it pretty pretty good to have how
many students leave in the summer. You
know what I mean?
>> We know from [snorts] the Census Bureau
» We know from [snorts] the Census Bureau
and the data that we have and because
the effects of both Haskell and Baker on
town about 15,500 students will leave
between May and come back in August.
Okay.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Um, so, uh, one
» Um, so, uh, one
>> Yeah. Yeah. No,
» Yeah. Yeah. No,
>> one thing. Would it be possible to take
» one thing. Would it be possible to take
a three-minut break uh before we go?
>> You want to take a break?
» You want to take a break?
>> Yeah. Just a quick Let's take a break.
» Yeah. Just a quick Let's take a break.
>> Yeah, we'll take a fiveminut break and
» Yeah, we'll take a fiveminut break and
we'll be back.
>> Thanks.
» Thanks.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
[laughter]
Okay, we will bring the meeting back
after short recess and we're on the
discussion of regular items um one and
two or or in the question stage. Um I
guess I'll just go ahead and kind of
continue you know my thoughts. I I am in
in support of these two
um changes with [cough] the additional
um amendment to um you know initiate the
check text amendment to return it to at
least the July 31st although you know I
might do something slightly earlier July
29th or you know something just because
we know the turnover date is going to be
on August 1st. Um, and I support that.
Um, because I do think, um, you know,
again, we could be wrong. We could not
be a we we cannot be a team. We cannot
be a host city and we also could be a
host city and no one comes. [laughter]
But, um, I think the, um, I think the
the safer bet is to know that, um, we
need this additional housing to have the
people in our community get the full
benefit of it. Certainly cities in
Kansas City are doing it. Even I've I've
I've talked to um folks in other
surrounding cities farther away than us
who are also considering this. Um and
and um again I've talked to quite a few
landlords um who do think um this will
be a pos you know certainly could be a
possibility and um talking with Explore
Lawrence and some of the folks on the on
the team. Um you know I think this is
something that will be useful to the
city as long as it's shortterm and um so
anyway that's why I stand on it.
Jeff, have we had any communications
with the university as to what they hope
to
what they're pl not hope to what they're
planning to do? We have. Yes. They're
part of the team that I I get to work
with as part of the housing prompt for
the unified command and and KU housing
is a member of that and they've, you
know, let us know is that they're going
to have a lot of their normal operations
that they're going to still be running
the summer camps and the different
events and so they're not going to have
a large amount of capacity in there. And
part of what we're also having
conversations with them is about is um a
little bit of continuity of operations
for them. If people are trying to go
through new story, new new student
orientation, where are they going to
stay during the World Cup? Or if there
somebody's coming for any of those
transfer days or special events that
they do,
>> they need to make sure they've got space
» they need to make sure they've got space
for people that might not be able to
find a hotel or short-term rental in
Lawrence. They might be staying in a
residence hall for that period. So,
there's a little bit of that that we're
looking for. We're also keeping an eye
and having the conversations for first
responders and emergency workers that
might be coming into the community as
part of this that you know that might be
coming from uh western Kansas and coming
in to be here for a few days to
alleviate different supports and so
making sure that they've also got
housing space too. So there's not a a
lot of depth in university housing as
you might think when you start kind of
adding up all those different factors.
>> Good to know. sense.
» Couple couple questions for me.
» The former mayor Shipley brought up the
question about the transient guest tax
if it goes over 30 days. The So, if
you're a normal person and you do this
and you say, "Hey, you're going to rent
out your place for 31 days, something
like that." Is the transient tax does
that affect you for 30 days and then one
day after that you lose access to that?
Would you be able to explain? explain
that. That'd be a little bit beyond my
ability. Unfortunately, I tend to deal
more in land use, not in finance and
taxation. I I will part that I do know
is that once you overstay a certain
period, you actually have long-term
rental rights to properties. And so,
instead of going through what we do in a
short-term rental, you go through the
eviction process of a long-term rental
process. And so, that's the part I do
know. I don't have to know much about
how the transient guest tax is applied
and how that process works with the
state.
>> I do apologize.
» I do apologize.
>> And I can answer it, you know, again
» And I can answer it, you know, again
slightly. This the state law obviously
has a has a transit guest tax and it
applies obviously to transients. So
that's the 30 days. So obviously if you
rent your if if you have a long-term
lease, a three-month lease or a one-year
lease, you don't pay a transit guest
tax, right? So it's only for that. So
the question is the term of the lease
and then whether or not you're paying
the appropriate tax on the term of the
lease. So, I mean, I I think um um Miss
Shipley's point is if in some ways if
you if you lease your house out to
somebody for 32 days, um you wouldn't
have to pay the transient guest tax to
the state. Um, [clears throat] and you
know, now how Airbnb does that, how VBRO
does that, if you do, uh, you know, a
two week and a two week, but two week
and a 3 week, well, then yes, you owe
transit guest tax on on both of those.
But those are all state laws, so there's
nothing we can do to change that one way
or the other. Um, and a lot of that will
have to will depend on how,
you know, the if you're using a service
to monitor that, they that's their
responsibility, you know, the VBRO
versus, you know, an Airbnb and and and
their duty to collect that tax and remit
it.
I guess my my second question is so
we're we're relaxing this for places
that have or organizations that have
more than three rooms. That's that or
three houses or three places for people
to stay, right? That's one of one one of
the things
>> one of the things [snorts] and
what's the way to ask this question? So,
you know, in a lot of ways that would
be, you know, larger apartment
complexes, stuff like that, places in
town that have a lot of space. It could
be, you know, a landlord who has, you
know, four home, stuff like that. On the
if there is if they're going to be in
these long-term spaces for these
short-term rentals, is there any thought
of killing two birds with one stone by
being like, hey, we're going to going to
actually as part of this do the
long-term evaluation for some of these
that will turn into long-term so that
rather than just do a short-term
evaluation of what that looks like.
Well, I guess one question would be, is
the evaluation for a short-term
inspection different than the long-term
inspection?
>> It is not.
» It is not.
>> Is not. Okay. So, in in a way, if this
» Is not. Okay. So, in in a way, if this
is opened up and we allow more spaces to
be filled in town, doing these
inspections will actually give us better
visibility of what the status is of a
lot of longerterm rentals
>> potentially. Yes.
» Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think the two I
mean obviously I think there's three
categories. You know the the one
category mentioned by one our first
speaker is you know places like the
links who have 30 open rooms um renting
those out you know for you know June and
July. Um and I think the second is you
know the people who um you know and and
we know this from you know folks in you
know um at a National League of Cities
conference they did these presentations
from um both Omaha with the College
World Series and Augusta with um the
>> Masters. Yeah,
» Masters. Yeah,
>> the masters that, you know, they have
» the masters that, you know, they have
these rules and and you know, people
leave for a month, go on vacation, rent
their house out for $10,000 and go on
vacation, come back a month later and
and and do that. And you know, both
Omaha and um [clears throat] Augusta
have um you know, kind of uh um been
doing this for years. And so that's kind
of the model at the National League of
Cities that many of these cities across
the country who are host cities are
looking at. Um and so you know certainly
some people now how many people want to
leave their house and give it up for a
month or 3 weeks? I don't know how many
people that will be but I think that's
the second category. And then the third
category like I said would be the you
know the the the long-term rental houses
not the apartment complexes where um you
know people h are renting to students.
The students are gone and then they're
renting them out you know for a period
of time.
This would allow all of those which
aren't allowed. Now,
>> um I I'll I'll make the statement in
» um I I'll I'll make the statement in
general that
I really want Lawrence to be prepared
for this impressive event. Whether it
will come to fruition or not, I really
I prefer being prepared a lot more than
not being prepared. I'll say that. Now,
what I would like to see though is I
want to know how the entirety of this
community will be benefiting from having
an additional 15,000 people. So,
obviously sales tax will be coming in.
Hopefully, the gu the hotel guest tax
will come. I would like to see if we can
ensure that we're able to capitalize.
You know, we are within the 30 days. I
would like to protect those folks um
that short-term rentals are on their uh
block and I want I would love to see
this is all in a hypothetical world up
for discussion. I'd like to see heavier
penalties. If you're going to if it's
going to be a windfall then the
community should be benefiting as well.
And I certainly love the idea of people
being able to capitalize on some empty
space. Uh I'm not overly concerned about
us um jeopardizing long-term rentals
simply based on the fact that we have a
decent size amount of the population
leave every summer. If I think uh if
that were not the case that would um I
would probably feel differently.
Um, so let's have that discussion as far
as, okay, we're going to see an
additional sales tax. Um, we're
overarching. Maybe we can mitigate some
property tax with that. Maybe we can
make improvements. Let's make it very
known what this will do for the
community. and let's make darn sure that
people are not going to come in and
jeopardize
uh safety or disrupt people's lives as
it pertains to their neighborhood. So,
how do we do that? Those are some for me
personally, those are some conversations
I would love to have. I am in favor of
this as long as we're controlling it and
and it's a benefit to the community.
That's that's my approach.
I don't know. I think part of the answer
to that is if someone could talk about
unified command and how we have these
different groups, housing being one of
them, but we're trying to look at some
of those and you know, as well as the,
you know, we obviously increase the
transit guest tax
>> um for the purpose like many communities
» um for the purpose like many communities
around us to help capitalize on that and
we cover some of the costs we know of
police and fire and so forth. But I know
Brandon, I don't know if you're on
unified command. I think
>> I can jump in here a little bit. Um and
» I can jump in here a little bit. Um and
we are planning a more comprehensive
update. Uh the the commission requested
it before the end of last year. Um so
we'll have members of the invite command
here. We're uh planning on January 20th.
Um so we'll be able to give you an idea
of the different branches um and the
work that they're doing and the
preparations um to date. Um and that'll
be actually around the time that we
might start finding out about um hosting
a team here as well. Um I do just want
to kind of caution um everyone listening
and and the commissioners, we are not
expecting um in terms of of government
revenues, tax revenues necessarily a
windfall. These types of events um are
major consumers of public services. Um
and so uh we are starting first um with
more of a continuity of operations
[laughter] approach and how do we
[snorts] make sure um that businesses
can continue functioning and people in
our comm our community members can
continue going about their daily lives.
We'll get into more of that when we do
our comprehensive presentation. But I do
kind of want to temper um community
expectations that this might um uh be a
windfall uh to the city government or
some of our other local governments
here. We do hope and we are trying to
set it up so that our businesses can
benefit greatly from this and we've had
good participation from this so far.
» Just a couple of quick thoughts. um what
I the idea that this is pretty much
inevitable and so I do appreciate
um because there's several of us who
brought this up um including myself to
for us to get a jump start on this so
that we know what we knew what the data
was telling us about what we could
possibly expect as far as numbers of
just people wanting to attend and be in
the area. that doesn't necessarily
include those um individuals that might
be traveling um to be close to their
teams uh in proximity. So there's a lot
of different variables at that are at
play at this. And so the idea is that we
needed to put something in place to
attempt to mitigate as much as possible
because this is going to be organized
chaos. [laughter]
We're it is what it is. And I think that
has been that is that has been a tone
and a sentiment that has been stated and
shared across the board even with the
Kansas City uh 2026 group. So there's
going to be organized chaos. What I app
there are aspects of the um major event
ordinance that was put into place in
Missouri that I appreciate in parts not
so much. um you know they have some
specific language around
um owner occupied as it relates to
density. I think that is something to be
said for a community like that here. Not
so much. Um and that's getting a little
too deep in the weeds that I just don't
think that we
that we're not going to have that big of
a lift as a Kansas City would or even a
Johnson County would. Um will this
impact long-term rentals? Yes, it will.
Um the risk may not be as horrible, but
the idea is that just because the World
Cup is coming doesn't mean that people
aren't won't relocate here for jobs, you
know, move here, move out, life still
goes on for the less 600,000 people who
will be participating in World Cup. So
yes, if we do, you know, this is going
to have an impact. um where we have to
balance that and where I've been trying
to balance that in my mind is that is
the idea of those short-term
units, short-term rental units that are
currently operating without being
licensed, whether we call those illegal,
whatever. I mean, in in the world of
childcare licensing, you you call those,
you know, unlicensed facilities. So, are
do we will we have some unlicensed units
here? We do. We know we have some now.
Um, so what can we put in place to give
it teeth to say if you are doing this
and we find out that you are doing this,
not only will you lose your ability to
license and if you are a current
short-term rental license or you have a
license with us, you will lose that for
a certain period of time and you will
have to charge and we'll have you'll
have to be assessed you will be assessed
a penalty or a fine for that. Those are
some of the things I think that we can
put into place. Um, oh yeah, no one
really wants to see me. Um, those are
some things that I do believe we can put
into place that can help balance some of
this
organized chaos that's going to happen.
That also gives us a little bit of it's
not that windfall, but is there's
additional money that could be in place
to, you know, for the point of with
public, you know, public safety and
things that are going to um put a little
pressure on our our coffers because of
this event that's happening 45 minutes
away from us. So, you know, doing this
mitigates to a certain point or at least
puts the community to say, "Hey, some of
y'all want to do this. We know you want
to. Some of you have already been
testing the waters and doing it
illegally. So, do what's right. Do
what's best. Register. Do it for this
this time period. And if we find out
that you're still doing it illegally or
we find out that you're doing it
afterwards, we're going to take that
ability for you to do it away for a
certain period of time and we're going
to take some money away from you. So, I
think, you know, we're not going to
solve all the problems with this, but we
have to look at this as a
a a
strategy solution that is going to at
least create accountability
and that aligns with the current system
that we have. so that we can be able to
offset any type of cost incurrence as
well as additional stressors that we're
going that we are going to see. We are
going to see it. 600,000 people are not
going to find a place to stay in Kansas
City and they may not find it in Johnson
County and hell they may not even want
to be in KCK. They probably want to come
here because there's something about
here.
>> So, we need to prepare ourselves for
» So, we need to prepare ourselves for
that. This is not the best. This is not
tier one. This isn't a diamond, but it's
going to give us something that we need
to do to better prepare ourselves.
>> Yeah, I agree. I think it's also kind of
» Yeah, I agree. I think it's also kind of
underscores
our desire to not have a black market
during this period of time where we have
everybody available out in the open
doing the right thing and in a safe way,
too. So people aren't doing it to try to
get away with it, but they're actually
trying to comply with the rules and the
and the requirements. So I I'd have to
say that um I'm in favor of this. I
think we need to have a sunset date and
it needs to make sense, but I don't
think we need to be an expert in what
that day is. Whether it's July 29th or
July 31st, I don't think it really
matters too much except we just need to
have a defined date so that we don't
leave this open so that other areas of
town are are un unexpectedly impacted,
you know, long term by this.
And
>> as you guys jump in, I'd just say, you
» as you guys jump in, I'd just say, you
know, I do think um I lean towards the
July 29th date only be for two reasons.
One, it gives us a little time before
that turnover date. And two, it gives us
a chance not to have 60 days. You know,
it it could it could increase the chance
you could have a a transit guest tax
>> um possibility without having a full 60
» um possibility without having a full 60
or 61 days, right? Um
>> you could end up having a a short-term
» you could end up having a a short-term
rental situation.
>> That was kind of what I was hoping we
» That was kind of what I was hoping we
could Yeah. do. So I think if we do like
July 29th that also give us you know
again people are thinking then about you
know turning that over and getting
someone in on on you know August
[clears throat] 1st.
>> The last game is the 11th in Kansas
» The last game is the 11th in Kansas
City. Sorry
>> 11th or the 15th maybe.
» 11th or the 15th maybe.
>> Yes. The the quarterfinal game in Kansas
» Yes. The the quarterfinal game in Kansas
City is July 11th.
>> Yeah. [clears throat]
» Yeah. [clears throat]
And you know the if we're a host city
for a team that is
eliminated and they go home before July
11th, you know the team coming, you
know, I think they said that if the
seeds hold, it could be Portugal versus
Argentina.
>> You know, you could have a whole new
» You know, you could have a whole new
slew of people coming in just for that
July 11th game.
>> They'll know that they're coming a week
» They'll know that they're coming a week
or so before that. They come in and rent
for, you know, eight days or something.
um if our team is still playing then of
course we still could have a lot of
those filled. Um so a couple
possibilities there. So there could
certainly be a date between you know
shortly after July 11th and you know the
July 29th. But and then I do think we
can include in there when they bring us
back that initiate text amendment. we
could have Randy and Jeff look at
penalties and and you know bring that
back to us and consider that
>> as part of that motion to bring that
» as part of that motion to bring that
back in in the text amendment process.
>> Yeah, I think that's good.
» Yeah, I think that's good.
>> I'm kind I'm concerned that the 29th is
» I'm kind I'm concerned that the 29th is
not enough turnover time. Again, if the
last match is the 11th, if we say two
weeks, if people want to lolly gag
around two weeks after that, that puts
us around the 25th, 26,
then that gives any of these
non-owner occupied folks, i.e. apartment
complexes, that gives them at least a
week
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> before their
» before their
looks like Sundays, July 26th.
>> Sunday's the 26th. So yeah, that I mean
» Sunday's the 26th. So yeah, that I mean
I could support that.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
>> comments on this end.
» I I was really just swayed by
Commissioner C's argument because I I
think there's something we can do here
that will again clear something else up,
which is, [snorts] you know, there's a
concern that we have illegal or
non-sanctioned um Airbnbs or verbos and
stuff like that. And I I think if we put
the penalties in place for this
afterwards and then do
um you know do those evaluations, be
able to work with uh Jeff's team to be
able to figure out like are people
abusing this that we can know going
forward what those penalties will be and
I think a lot of existing
uh neighborhoods and people would
benefit from having the teeth of that as
part of this. I I also think just
thinking about being able to to uh
evaluate more rentals around town as
part of this whole process, too, to make
sure that they're up to speed as part of
the uh inspection process. That can be a
benefit to this whole thing whole thing
as well. So, I was kind of on the
[clears throat] fence about it, but I am
going to vote yes for this based on
based on that. I don't see Brian, but
just to re uh just to remind me and
Jeff, you you could as well
for folks who are wanting to report.
So, if someone was wanting to report a,
you know, a an Airbnb, a short-term
rental [snorts] unit in their comm in
their neighborhood that they know is not
or they suspect that it is not licensed.
What is that? Is there a dedicated line
or link or what is the process pathway
to someone wanting to report that?
[snorts]
>> Quite a number of ways. Um you could
» Quite a number of ways. Um you could
send an email to us. You could give us a
phone call. We have online through
cclickfix. You can report those uh
through uh that app and also that
website. Um we have people that uh will
mail us letters. Uh so any number of
ways that we do it. We work on that like
I mentioned complaint based process. So
any any way that somebody can get us
information we will definitely be acting
on that.
>> Okay.
Randy, you turned your camera on. I
don't know if you had something you
wanted to say before we make a Okay,
just checking. [clears throat] Just
checking. Well, um, certainly if there's
more comments, we could do that. I think
what I'm thinking listening to the
conversation is we might have three
motions. motion on agenda item one, a
motion on agenda item two, and then a
third motion that we initiate a text
amendment to restore the code with the
cleanup text with an end date of July
26th and bring back um additional
penalties um
as part of that. And I think our
discussion is about maybe going to the
2500 and suspending licenses. But we'll
let the let that initiation and then
bring that back to us and we can go
through that.
>> So that's why I'm thinking three motions
» So that's why I'm thinking three motions
is
>> yes.
» yes.
>> That's the case. Would anyone like to
» That's the case. Would anyone like to
try those motions?
Motion to approve a temporary text
amendment to chapter 6, article 13,
division 2, short-term residential
rental property code to allow greater
flexibility for short shortterm rentals
during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Adopt on
first reading ordinance number 10153.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> Second. A motion by Vice Mayor Courtney,
» Second. A motion by Vice Mayor Courtney,
a second by Commissioner Cos as it
relates to regular agenda item one. All
those in favor, please say I. I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Opposed? Passes 5. Is there a second
» Opposed? Passes 5. Is there a second
motion on regular agenda item number
two?
>> Before the motion, I just wanted just
» Before the motion, I just wanted just
one clarification point. So, this is
just cleaning up something that you guys
found in the text
>> of the of the of the LDC.
» of the of the of the LDC.
>> This would make the change for the World
» This would make the change for the World
Cup. The amendment we'd be be bringing
back to
reset would be the cleanup one. So, it
would correct the error we've identified
in the code. Okay.
>> We wouldn't be bringing back the exact
» We wouldn't be bringing back the exact
same text that's in there today. We'd be
bringing back the cleanup version if you
initiate the amendment to put it revert
back.
>> Okay. Just wanted to double check that.
» Okay. Just wanted to double check that.
Okay. Thank you.
>> So, there's a motion on regular agenda
» So, there's a motion on regular agenda
item number two.
Motion to approve text amendment at
AMDT25
uh 007 to chapter 20, the land
development code of the city of
Lawrence, Kansas to update the accessory
use table to allow nonowner occupied
short-term rental uses to be permitted
accessory uses in the R1 residential low
density and R2 residential low density
to districts. Also update the accessory
use table to allow owner occupied
short-term rental uses to be permitted.
accessory uses in the R3, R4, R5, M1,
M2, M3, CCD, ILG, and P1 districts.
Based on the findings present in the
staff report, adopt on first reading
ordinance number 10176.
>> Seconded.
» Seconded.
>> So motion by Vice Mayor Kney, a second
» So motion by Vice Mayor Kney, a second
by um Commissioner Devo. All those in
favor, please say I.
>> I. I.
» I. I.
>> I.
» I.
>> The opposed. Passes five to zero. And
» The opposed. Passes five to zero. And
then I'm looking for a third.
>> So on the third one, do I need to
» So on the third one, do I need to
specify the language as far as fines and
penalties or can
>> No, I think just initiate they bring
» No, I think just initiate they bring
back penalty
>> related to short-term rentals. Okay. So
» related to short-term rentals. Okay. So
I move that we initiate a text amendment
uh with clean up that Wait, hold on.
Yeah. So, I move that we initiate a text
amendment with cleanup l with cleanup
text to sunset
to July 26, 2026 and to have staff bring
back language related to fines and
penalties
as it relates to short-term rentals.
>> I second that.
» I second that.
>> Okay. Sherry and Jeff and Craig,
» Okay. Sherry and Jeff and Craig,
everyone
>> understand the motion?
» understand the motion?
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Um and so motion by Commissioner Cos, a
second by um Commissioner Dever. All
those in favor, please say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Opposed. That passes 5 to zero.
» Opposed. That passes 5 to zero.
>> Thank you very much, Jeff and others.
» Thank you very much, Jeff and others.
Thank you. Um that ends our regular
agenda, but brings us to the work
session items. A work session provides
an opportunity for the city commission
to discuss items in greater detail. The
commission will take no binding action
on the items presented during this time.
Woke session topics are eligible for
public comment. Members of the public
will be limited to three minutes for
comments. And this work session is to
receive a presentation on the proposed
affordable housing incentive policy. And
I believe Leah is online to present
this.
Hi, good evening, mayor and
commissioners. I'm Leah Rosland,
affordable housing administrator uh for
the city of Lawrence. Uh please give me
just a moment while I share my screen.
[clears throat]
Okay. Um, good evening again. Thank you
for the opportunity to present the
proposed affordable housing incentive
policy.
The goal of this work session is to
provide a clear overview of the policy.
I'll share the purpose, how it connects
to our adopted housing goals, the types
of h incentives proposed, and incentive
requirements. We are eager to hear your
feedback tonight.
This policy builds on prior commission
direction, community engagement, and our
shared vision of a Lawrence where
housing is affordable, accessible, and
dignified for everyone.
This policy advances the city's
strategic plan, strong, welcoming
neighborhood KPIs 5, six, and seven.
This policy additionally meets the
city's commitments to effective and
efficient processes, steward, sound
fiscal stewardship, and equity and
inclusion.
I'm sorry. Give me just some sec.
[clears throat]
This [clears throat] policy advances our
strategic goals by focusing incentives
on the types of housing least available
and most needed in our community to
decrease housing stress, especially for
very low and low-income households, our
local workforce, families with children,
people with disabilities, and seniors.
The policy is designed with the
overarching goal of ensuring that our
public investments have the greatest
possible impact for the community and
serve the highest public good.
Additional goals are to provide
transparency, clarity, and fairness for
applicants in the community.
We [clears throat] leverage a toolkit of
incentives to bridge financial gaps and
encourage development that meets
affordability goals. I will provide an
overview of each incentive type in the
next few slides.
So, first tax incentives. This policy
recommends tax incentives including
reinvestment housing incentive districts
or RIDs, industrial revenue bonds, IRBs,
and neighborhood revitalization areas,
NRAs. IRBs and NRAs have already been
provided for affordable housing under
their current economic development
policy.
If approved, moving forward, affordable
housing projects would need to meet the
criteria outlined and apply under this
policy. Reinvestment housing districts
would be a new tool for Lawrence, but is
a statewide incentive already offered
throughout many Kansas community.
[clears throat]
Currently, [gasps]
uh I'm sorry, uh moving on to affordable
housing trust funds. Currently, the
affordable housing trust fund is
provided only as a grant. Under the
proposed policy, projects with the
guaranteed period of affordability of 99
years would be eligible for grants.
Projects with lower periods of
affordability would be eligible for
lowterest loans, which is a standard
practice among many communities with
local trust funds for projects uh with
more limited periods of affordability.
» [clears throat]
>> Additional proposed and city city
» Additional proposed and city city
incentives include public land donations
and fee waivers. Through this policy, a
process for requesting municipal land
donations and fee waivers would be
formalized and streamlined. Fee waivers
are one of the most frequently utilized
mechanisms municipalities across the
country and the state employed to
generate affordable housing development.
However, unfortunately, as we've
discussed, our own internal policies
create barriers in maximizing the
leverage of this incentive. While we can
provide some fee wavers through PDS,
system development charges cannot be
waved per resolution 7231,
I would suggest that this is one of the
more vital policy considerations for the
commission to consider.
Now that I've reviewed incentives, I'll
cover eligibility
in the proposed policy. Requirements for
minimum years of affordability ensure
long-term community benefit and protect
public investment in incentivizing
extended affordability periods. This
requirement is a critical policy uh
decision for the commission to consider.
And so I'm going to provide just a very
brief primer on this item.
» [clears throat]
>> In order to receive public subsidy for
» In order to receive public subsidy for
building affordable housing, developers
agree to making the units affordable for
low and moderate income households,
meaning that rents are restricted so
that they are generally not higher than
30% of the household income. And they
agree to do this for a designated period
of time. At the end of the mandated
period of affordability, the housing may
then be converted to market rate
housing, meaning that the owner may
charge the highest possible rent. within
local market conditions. That also means
that when affordability ends, the public
investment no longer serves as a benefit
to the public and vulnerable households
are put at risk for displacement and
homelessness when rents increase to more
than what they can afford. Kansas and
federal low-income housing tax credits
require a 30-year affordability period.
Some states have longer.
Many municipalities have local
municipalities have longer. Uh the city
has aligned with the state litec 30-year
requirement. Although the AHOB attempts
to prioritize projects with 99 or more
years of affordability or we often refer
to as affordability in perpetuity or
permanent affordability.
This policy further operationalizes that
priority and proposes that to receive
significant incentives, a 99-year
affordability period would be required.
The policy also proposes that a 50-year
minimum period of affordability to
receive lowinterest loans and any one uh
types of tax incentive [laughter]
proposes that projects must meet minimum
affordability percentages ensuring
deeper affordability for those most in
need with a focus on family and
accessible units. based on initial
developer feedback and to be more in
alignment with state litec. The draft
policy was already updated and greatly
reduced the requirements for targeted
housing types. In the revised draft um
as you can see um in yellow up to 20% of
units may be income targeted for
households up to 120% AMI. I want to
note that this would also be a
significant policy change for Lawrence
as currently projects must serve
households at or under 80% AMI to
receive subsidy the same as LITC and um
HUD. Enabling some units to serve
moderate and middle inome households
helps us to build more of the missing
middle housing stock in addition to
helping to uh increase project
feasibility.
to provide an example of what them this
might look like. Say a project will be
building 10 new affordable homes in this
policy. Out of those 10, two of them may
be income targeted to households up to
120 uh% AMI. Four of them would be
income targeted to households uh between
60 and 80, 8% AMI, and four would be
income targeted to households at or
under 60% AMI. In addition, the project
must include at least two units that are
three or more bedrooms fully accessible
or income targeted for 30% or below AMI.
In this scenario, the developer elects
to build one family housing unit for
households at up to 80% AMI and one
additional fully accessible unit for
households up to 60% AMI. This ensures
that with every develop fin development
finance with public subsidy, the
community is gaining a minimal amount of
the units that advance the city's
targeted housing goal.
To get a [clears throat] better
understanding of how AMI translates into
actual household income, I've included
this chart. AMI is based on family size,
so it makes it a little complicated to
give one number. So, I've included AMI
levels for one, two, and four person
households. Just as an example, the AMI
percentage in bold represents households
traditionally eligible for affordable
housing. I've also included a chart with
typical wages in Lawrence to give you an
idea of the workforce this housing
supports. This data is from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics and represents the
mean annual wage in Lawrence for some
common jobs that are essential to our
community.
Moving on, the policy also includes
accessibil uh accessibility standards
that ensure that publicly subsidized
housing is usable and welcoming to all
so that homes may be used by a wide
range of occupants including all ages
and abilities.
In the interest of time, I'm just going
to note that the policy also includes
requirements pertaining to the criteria
shown here, all of which are fairly
standard and covered in the policy
itself. I'm happy to provide any
additional detail upon request.
The agenda item packet includes the
policy original draft used for community
engagement and an updated redline draft
reflecting changes made based on
community feedback. The redline version
provides additional clarity and language
and explicitly broadens eligibility
criteria um to make clear that the
intent is not just new development but
also rehabs, conversion um from market
rate to affordable etc. The final policy
will additionally be streamlined by
removing administrative processes and
design standards into separate
accompanying documents.
[clears throat]
We aim for timely implementation with
your feedback shaping the final policy
which we anticipate bringing for
approval by the end of this quarter. One
important note on implementation, some
components of the policy will need to be
phased in based on funding availability.
For example, we don't have any
additional resources allocated in 2026
to cover fee waiverss. As we have
discussed recently, all 2026 affordable
housing trust funds have been fully
allocated. Due to these and other budget
constraints, full implementation of all
elements of the policy will not be
possible until 2027.
staff would value the following uh
specific guidance from the governing
body in addition to um to any any
discussion you may have. But I want to
provide um additional clarity on what
we're asking for in a couple of these
items because I don't think my slide is
very clear. So for the first item
regarding broader focused goals, the
question really is, is the commission's
priority to broadly and primarily
support larger multifamily rental
projects or be more targeted to drive
development of the housing types that
are most needed in advancing goals such
as affordable home ownership,
family-sized, accessible, and deeply
affordable units that don't normally
come with those larger multifamily,
typically LITC projects.
Regarding the last um item uh regarding
additional incentives, the question is
is the commission is interested in
exploring additional land use incentives
and expediated review processes. I'm
happy to provide further explanation for
any of these items at your request. Um
this concludes the presentation but I'm
happy to leave this slide up as it may
help to guide uh your discussion and
we'll stand for any questions. Thank you
so much.
>> Thank you Leah. questions for Leah.
» Thank you Leah. questions for Leah.
Who would like to start?
I guess I can start. Well, people
and I will say I um sadly started with
the the first version before I realized
there was a second redline version. I
started writing down questions and then
I realized, hey, they answered some of
these. Um, so, um, my notes are a
little, uh, confused, but I do have a, I
mean, a couple couple questions and
trying to think through how these would
work. Um,
you know, thinking about and I'll jump
around a little bit. I mean, I I
certainly understand the idea of
trying to get more three-bedroom units
because that's a, you know, low-inccome
three-bedroom units is a is a priority.
I know. But how would that would would h
putting that requirement in would that
keep us from doing like senior housing
projects that they probably don't need
three bedrooms in senior housing
projects and and how would we work that
policy
in and try to balance those two?
Um in that requirement um the 20% of
more targeted units, it's like a menu of
options that the developer can choose.
So it's either three or more bedrooms
for families or fully accessible units
that would be great for seniors to age
in place or um units that are income
targeted for AMIs uh at 30% or below.
>> Okay, so that's a an option, not a
» Okay, so that's a an option, not a
single requirement. Okay, thank you. I
missed that. I missed that. Um,
so you know, of course, we've done quite
a few LITC projects that have less than
50 years.
Um, and
[snorts]
looking across the state and and you
know, I know you mentioned some
communities have longer periods. I mean,
do we expect if we adopted this that
we'd never have a LITC project again in
the city, or would we expect LITC
projects to come and be okay with the
the 50-year loan, or or how do you see
that playing out in practice?
Based on um the data from other
communities that have
many periods of affordability,
[clears throat]
we would not see any reduction in LITC
projects to be anticipated. Um Vermont,
the whole state requires permanent
affordability and they have continued to
have a wait list. Um LITC projects still
are very competitive.
Um, and a lot of the local
municipalities that we often look at to
compare Lawrence to, many of those local
municipalities have uh required longer
periods of affordability. Uh, many
require permanent or permanent 99 years
of affordability. And again, they have
not seen any reduction that um continues
to be a very competitive program. And
what has shown to reduce litech projects
is the amount of credits available
through through the program itself.
>> Yeah,
» Yeah,
>> we know that's a problem. [snorts] Um
» we know that's a problem. [snorts] Um
>> so then tell me h [laughter] how would
» so then tell me h [laughter] how would
the loan repayment work? Um is that a
loan that they're making payments on for
the 50 years? Is a is a loan repayment
due at the end of the 50 years? H how
does that practically work?
That's something that staff would need
to um develop policies and procedures
for. First, we wanted to get
commission's um interest in exploring
that um as an option and if the
commission is interested, then we'll
move into what those administrative
details uh would be. I do want to note
and Danny might be able to speak more to
this, but our uh division currently
operates loans through the CDBG program.
So we do have some idea and a mechanism
for operating loans.
>> Yeah. I just didn't know like with a
» Yeah. I just didn't know like with a
LITC project or whatever there's a
50-year for example instead of 999 and
just just trying to understand how that
payment payment back would work. Um
there in section
uh section I think 28 there's some
language in there about um sites being
ineligible or may be eligible or
whatever in when wetlands
um I I think the original version said
if it had a significant impact on
wetlands I think the the the secondary
version said they'd just be ineligible
if there was any wetlands involved. Um,
and I guess if we went with the first
version of impact on wetlands, who would
make that decision
um the impact versus
um I mean I think the second way would
be cleaner but also more limiting. So I
just wondered the thought process on
those two options.
Um, that's a really good question,
Mayor. And, um, I'm wondering if Jeff
might have some ideas. That's not
something that we've um, discussed. That
language was uh, copied, borrowed from,
uh, Kansas Litec policies.
Um, and we have not discussed internally
how that would be implemented or
enforced.
>> And just so I'm clear, which is was the
» And just so I'm clear, which is was the
first language,
>> correct? the second language the
» correct? the second language the
application is ineligible or is it the
first language about the impact that's
in the lit language
>> the the original draft language was from
» the the original draft language was from
litec
>> okay typically wetlands get delineated
» okay typically wetlands get delineated
by a federal agencies effectively it's
not something that the city typically
lays out or works with so if it gets
delineated as part of that process with
one of the federal agencies it usually
shows up on the maps and we usually
follow that process because it's pretty
extensive to be displayed on that and
there's also So, a lot of changes
that'll occur from time to time on that
is what constitutes a wetlands or how
wetlands are governed under federal
laws. And so, it's kind of hard to
sometimes keep up with all the different
changes, but we usually just rely on
that as part of our standard process.
>> Okay. And I guess that relates um and
» Okay. And I guess that relates um and
not not for you, Jeff, I don't think. Um
but uh you know I know there's knowing
that there's a limited number of LITC
um projects going to be available in the
state of Kansas. Um
you know I wondered about something in
the policy
that um
you know helped us you know be in line
for LITC projects. I mean this this this
would be an example for example this
example of wetlands. I mean if if the
state determines it does not have an
impact on wetlands if we use that
language could we just accept that and
not have to do our own evaluation.
Um you know I of course this came up a
couple weeks ago. Another thought was,
you know, the the points related to fee
waiverss. And I know we can't do fee
waiverss per se, but you know, allowing
people to be if they get LITC approval,
they'll automatically
receive a fee waiver so that the points
can be maximized and therefore they have
a better chance of ultimately receiving
it. I guess I'm just trying to think out
loud is have you seen any policies that
somehow um
you know
help LITC people you know our community
get awarded some of the limited LITC.
Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. There are um several
» Yeah. There are um several
um categories for which projects receive
points based on local support. as we've
discussed fee waiverss, um below
interest loans is another one, municipal
land donations is another one and then
other types of local uh grants like uh
CDBG for example or home could could be
considered in that. Um so those are
those are the ways that the applications
would score higher. I think your
question about, you know, automatically
providing fee waiverss or other types of
incentives for LITC projects, I guess
that's really, you know, that's a policy
question for the commission to consider
is the intent um as I understand it and
as I've discussed with KHRC, the intent
is to gauge the local community's
support of a particular project. How
much is your local community behind it?
How much does this project reflect the
needs of your local community? And
that's indicated through things like fee
wavers and loans or grants, etc.
Um, so does our community, you know, do
we want to,
um, I guess use incentives as a way of
prioritizing certain projects or do we
want to take what Kansas
um, you know, the state um,
believes to be the most vital or, you
know, the best project for our
community. I think really that's the
question.
>> I see.
» I see.
Um,
[snorts]
okay. I was checking here. We did change
the caps from the first version to the
second. Okay, that's good. I'm looking
at the affordable housing part.
>> Um,
my question in this is I'm in in uh part
eight, which is the affordable housing
trust fund
process.
Um [cough] section five is the
affordable housing trust fund procedure
of part 8.
>> What page?
» What page?
>> Um it is page 90 of 158.
» Um it is page 90 of 158.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
[snorts] Um,
I guess my
I see how I would ask this question.
Well, first of all, is is the procedure
set out in in section five here on page
8990? Is that what we do now or is there
a suggestion in changing
um the procedure? I I think it's similar
to what we do now, but I I guess I was
Let me ask it that way first.
» Currently, the the policy outlines a
procedure um from the affordable housing
uh trust fund no notice of funding
opportunity and is similar to how we run
the process. Now, I think a ch um a
change would be to consider if we want
to continue if we do adopt this policy,
does it make sense to continue to only
have an annual application cycle? Um my
uh my recommendation is that that does
not work for development projects. um
that it perhaps would make more sense
for a developer to submit one incentive
application which can be analyzed,
reviewed, and considered for approval um
with all the incentives requested at one
time including trust funds. That would
mean a change in how we run the trust
fund process.
>> And does that is what proposed in here
» And does that is what proposed in here
does that make that change or is that
something because I tend to agree with
you. I I mean I read this and I thought
to myself that's pretty limiting. I mean
we talk about having one meeting and
then a second meeting by video and this
and that and that seemed pretty detailed
for policy. Um and I mean and then I did
write down this idea of only doing it
once a year. Um so the way it's written
now is it does it have that flexibility
or is that something we could look at?
I would suggest that we revise it. And I
don't know if Jeff or Danny want to
speak more to this, but
um we we um went back and forth on, you
know, do we do we present um the
affordable housing trust fund as it's
currently conducted? Or do we also
recommend simultaneously that perhaps
the affordable housing advisory board
has a portion of the trust funds that's
within their purview to allocate or
recommend awards for and that perhaps
another pot of funds would be available
for incentives that would come with
staff recommendation. But since
currently all of the affordable housing
trust funds are um per ordinance
connected to the affordable housing
advisory board,
um I was hesitant to put a policy
recommendation that would be contrary to
another [snorts] current policy similar
to fee waiverss if that makes I hope I'm
making sense.
>> I think I think you make sense and I do
» I think I think you make sense and I do
think that's something I'm I'm
interested in. Um,
and obviously we can talk about that,
but I do think having more flexibility
to I mean we've we've had some
disjointed projects come through where
we're doing OI projects and then later
we have Ahab, we have to wait on Ahab
and we're not considering them all at
the same time, all the incentives
together and then we have to wait to see
if Ahab's going to approve it and all
that. I mean, it it does seem to make
sense to me to have a a way to run a a
whole procedure together and not
do that. So, that is something I'm
interested in. Okay, I have
um
one more question, then I'll let other
people ask questions. Um
this is 14B.
What was Let's see. Um
where did I see this?
non-residential meet the I wrote this
down. I'm trying to find the right spot.
Non-residentidential
meets the e um economic development
policy.
Um
I think those that was up earlier as one
of the eligibility criteria that the
non-residential
portion of any project meet the economic
development policy. I guess I wanted to
understand a little bit more what that
meant. Would that mean they have to have
meet our policy of certain wages, that
sort of thing, or what do we mean by
that eligibility requirement?
Yeah, just as you stated mayor that um
or any commercial component to the
project um
that that that component would also need
to meet the criteria under economic
development because affordable housing
is not going to be evaluating
um the strengths or um benefit to the
commercial component of any project.
But I guess what I'm
and maybe the work would a work live be
considered. I mean, I think about some
of the projects we've done where we've
had the work live component on the first
floor and I don't think we've put any
requirements on what the work part of
that is meeting our economic development
policy like
um you know base wages or anything like
that, job growth or is that what this
means or would this be like purely
commercial like if we're having a
someone wants to put a coffee shop on
the first Well, I I guess I don't
understand that what we're trying to
accomplish there. Leah, is it more like
so I mean we've had a couple of folks
bring together [clears throat] bring to
us mixeduse developments where to your
point where there is commercial on the
bottom some iteration of commercial on
the bottom housing on top. But the idea
of if from a from a floor from the the
total gross of the the number the the
square footage exceeds.
What this is saying is that if it
exceeds 25% of if the commercial part
exceeds 25% of the total gross floor
number then this is not an affordable
housing project. Therefore, a dollar
should not be there. It should go it
should meet the requirements of the
economic development policies and
procedures.
>> Did I correct? Okay.
» Did I correct? Okay.
>> Okay, that helps me. Thank you. Thank
» Okay, that helps me. Thank you. Thank
you for that.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> That I was mixing it. Yeah.
» That I was mixing it. Yeah.
There it is. Okay, that's the 25%. Okay,
those are at least the start of my
questions. Other questions people have
at the moment?
>> I I do have
» I I do have
I'm I'm trying to do a comment here. So,
in regards to the revolving loan piece
um with [snorts and clears throat] some
of the language, I guess, so I'll get to
that in comments because I I do
appreciate that coming before us. I
guess my question would be Danny for so
with with some of the pol with if any of
the policy changes that we implement
tonight is that going to affect our
current um
CDGB um because we just did a we just
reup the plan so would we need to make
modifications to
to our plan um how we've implement how
we've strategized dollars?
>> Uh good evening. Um it should not affect
» Uh good evening. Um it should not affect
our plan. um
we would have a very robust educational
piece if there's ever any crossing of
the two different funding sources
>> just because the uh anytime you put a
» just because the uh anytime you put a
dollar of federal funds in something it
drastically changes a project. So um in
terms of what we have we would not have
to change anything. It would just be the
educational piece on the other end.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
And then um
because some of the stuff around and I
could be jumping ahead as far as the
kind of the the the layout and the
design of
of a loan program. So let's say we we we
go full charge with this and we start to
expand it and we look at you know are
there CDFIs
of you know in the region that we could
have access to you know or working with
some of our local financial institutions
to to be a part of that CRA aspect of
it. Um,
well,
is is that kind of and I may be putting
words in in folks mouth, but is that
kind of what you were thinking about as
related to the loan program so that we
have additional dollars to leverage
against AHAB dollars in order to if that
was something we chose to do.
>> Um, I think that all options are on the
» Um, I think that all options are on the
table for that. uh we just have our no
interest loans right now that that we
do. So I I think the the point of saying
that we had it with CDBG was just that
we already have kind of our work in
working with finance. So that would be
again we were kind of just trying to
determine the appetite and if that's
something that the commission was
interested in and then we would really
fully dive in and explore that
>> and that's handled internally as far as
» and that's handled internally as far as
the
>> with the dollars of the loans. Okay.
» with the dollars of the loans. Okay.
Yes. Yes.
Okay.
>> The interest adds another element to
» The interest adds another element to
that though that I
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> I don't know about [laughter]
» I don't know about [laughter]
Okay, that's good. That That's what I
have for now.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Other [snorts] questions?
» Other [snorts] questions?
>> Yeah, I have a couple.
» Yeah, I have a couple.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Um, in general, when we talk first, let
» Um, in general, when we talk first, let
me make a quick comment and thank you
for all of your uh diligence getting out
in the community and getting the
feedback. Along those lines, did we
include the school board in any way when
we talk about this policy?
We met with the school district
um [clears throat] as uh as staff um
protocol was that we work with other
district staff. Um not reach out
directly to school board. Um, so we did
meet with district staff, the assistant
superintendent, and did let them know
that we'd be happy to have further
meetings. Um,
um, and Jeff can
>> Yeah. Did you get any in that? [snorts]
» Yeah. Did you get any in that? [snorts]
>> Well, they primarily um were focused on,
» Well, they primarily um were focused on,
I think, tax incentives and wanting to
ensure that that the community sees a
benefit to the district.
um particular on um an incentive like an
NRA where where they're voting to
approve.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Um if I may, I see Shannon Alry, um CEO
of Lawrence Douglas County Housing
Authority. Would you possibly mind
coming in and
uh giving a high level giving some
feedback if you don't mind? uh having
worked with you, I know you you know uh
affordable housing. I'd love to hear
what you have to say.
>> Sure. And is this I think I'm good. Um
» Sure. And is this I think I'm good. Um
so and the other thing that I'll say is
I was one of the original people on the
affordable housing advisory board. So
kind of been involved as this process
has has evolved. Um, and I think the the
thing I like best about this is the
difference between the grant and the
loan because from the housing
authorities perspective, we are in favor
of every single affordable housing unit
we can get on the ground. Um, I voted
for when I was on that board for all the
LITC projects, but the difference that
we constantly found was,
you know, we try to put a matrix
together. Well, a LITC project might be
might bring, you know, 80 units for 30
years, but [clears throat] the those of
us in like nonprofit tenants, US,
Habitat, maybe we were only bringing
four units. Um, but the difference in
those models is that the housing
authority, 70% of everybody we assist is
at or below 30% of AMI. So, I can never
make a proform work, right? Unless I get
a lot of money from you all. I mean,
it's just basic. Um, because when you
can only charge rent based on 30%, you
saw that number, $21,000.
I mean, you cannot rent in this town at
that level unless you're renting from
one of us. So, we've always had that
rub. And so what I like about this
policy is the real difference of how do
we assist
affordable housing at that very low end
without discouraging
LITC because I think we want both. And
and you know I will say like I mean
union at the loop we have a hundred
vouchers. We have a ton of vouchers at
Bethl. We have vouchers in every LITC
project. And so that's the sort of, you
know, unenviable task that the staff had
and that you have is where do you sort
of cut that and and figure out how do
you incentivize both without
making it impossible for those of us on
the nonprofit/government
end of it to to put a deal together um
and not killing LITC. So So those are my
sort of high level. So, can I follow up
and ask why why does the loan help? I
guess when I read this, I thought the
loan would discourage LITC. You seem to
say that helps the balance. How does
that
>> Well, because I mean and and Rebecca
» Well, because I mean and and Rebecca
Buford is is she's the first of us out
there trying to do a LITC deal and
probably can speak better, but I mean
people all over the country do LITC
without any Ahab money without right. I
mean, we're one of the very few uh
cities who has a affordable housing tax.
I mean, people do LITC all over the
country um without that money.
>> But there is that soft money difference
» But there is that soft money difference
that they're trying to figure out a way
to make up. And so if you can if you can
sort of help them out, but then like if
you look at that and somebody's renting
at 80 most of the units are at 80% of
AMI, well that's not very far off
market, right? So how come then they
wouldn't be able to pay back that back
into a fund to do more affordable
housing? That would be my thought on it
is isn't that then a way we're
generating future funds to pay back into
more affordable housing.
>> Appreciate that. Go ahead. You have
» Appreciate that. Go ahead. You have
other questions.
>> No, Shannon, thank you. Um I really do
» No, Shannon, thank you. Um I really do
appreciate your feedback.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> And you still get your three minutes
» And you still get your three minutes
later if you want. [laughter]
>> Um other questions before we open it up
» Um other questions before we open it up
and then
>> Yeah, just a quick question. So Leah, um
» Yeah, just a quick question. So Leah, um
I go back to your elig eligibility
criteria slide on the period of
affordability. I know that for the 99
it's you you can use that combination
under the 50-year
uh there's the idea of the IRBs and the
NRA. Um, is it the would it be your
thought that
you know the IRBs are the abatement
piece and the NRA as it relates to
housing is kind of the rebate aspect of
it and not necessarily using abatement
under the NRA.
[snorts]
>> I'm not sure I understand your question.
» I'm not sure I understand your question.
I apologize. Commissioner just cuz I
know that sometimes when we when we get
some of these projects the idea that we
have the abatement piece and we have the
the rebate piece and I know sometimes
the question comes in when we deal with
the abatement piece that has the impact
of the county and the school board. So,
>> is it the idea that by utilizing a IRB
» is it the idea that by utilizing a IRB
for
50-year affordable housing projects? Is
this maybe to maybe direct it more
towards an IRB? facility abatements on
more of the sales tax of supplies and
not necessarily the abatement of
property tax or what were your I mean
I'm I'm I'm going deeper into this maybe
than
the policy question posed but that's
kind of where my brain is going on this
>> um well like for LITC applications it
» um well like for LITC applications it
explicitly named sales tax exemption so
I would assume that most LITC projects
would favor the IRB but really the
intent is that for significant tax
incentives for a project that we're
receiving a significant community
benefit, which is why there's that
language of, you know, one type of tax
incentive, most likely an IRB um for 50
years or fewer years of affordability
and then any combination of incentives
for the permanent affordable housing
projects,
>> right? So, it's just it's about the
» right? So, it's just it's about the
braiding and blending of the different
opportunities to use these things.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Yes,
» Yes,
>> you got me there.
» you got me there.
>> I did think of one more question and and
» I did think of one more question and and
you raised this and I think maybe you
should talk about more for
consideration. You talk about resolution
7231
and maybe explain that and what the what
you're looking for direction from us on.
Well, I suppose um direction on whether
the commission is interested in
exploring
um that resolution um including
potentially revising it or at least
exploring the implications of revising
it, perhaps having more um analysis
done. Um
>> let's I'm not sure everyone knows what
» let's I'm not sure everyone knows what
7231 is. The new folks
>> I'm googling it now. [laughter]
» I'm googling it now. [laughter]
you might you might give an overview of
what 7231 is and then
>> Yeah. So it um pertains to water and
» Yeah. So it um pertains to water and
sewage revenue bonds um and states that
no services or facilities uh provided by
the system will quote be furnished to
any user without a reasonable charge
being made therefore. So that language
has been interpreted um to preclude any
system development charge fee waivers
which are the largest of fee waivers um
incurred by projects.
>> And [clears throat]
» And [clears throat]
if we if we did even change that
tomorrow um that wouldn't change some of
the bonds we already have in place,
would it? Or could we retroactively
change that?
Well, I think that that's um would need
to be explored more.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Okay. Anyway, that's the issue we talked
» Okay. Anyway, that's the issue we talked
a little bit about the other day about
not being able to just wave the fees and
instead having to award them money to
pay us for the fees because our bond our
resolution and thus our bond documents
say we can't wave fees. And if if we
want to change that
>> and that was under a revenue
» and that was under a revenue
>> or did it matter? Do you remember?
» or did it matter? Do you remember?
>> Yeah. Our revenue bonds is why
» Yeah. Our revenue bonds is why
>> they were only issuing revenue on this.
» they were only issuing revenue on this.
I don't know.
>> I don't know. I don't know bond laws as
» I don't know. I don't know bond laws as
it pertains to this actually. Yeah.
>> Well, it wasn't applicable to it, but it
» Well, it wasn't applicable to it, but it
was used as guidance in order to give us
that direction.
>> Okay. Well, other questions? We'll we'll
» Okay. Well, other questions? We'll we'll
open it up for public comment. Then
we'll bring it back and make comments
and then um again we're going to send
Leah and others back to work on this and
bring back. So we're not voting on this
tonight. Yeah.
>> So we're giving feedback but just want
» So we're giving feedback but just want
to make sure everyone's on the same page
but go ahead vice mayor.
>> Yeah. Uh uh two two two things uh Leah.
» Yeah. Uh uh two two two things uh Leah.
So the first one you mentioned in there
about below interest loans. Could you
explain how that would function to this?
So that so the um proposed affordable
housing trust fund loans for projects
with fewer than 99 years of
affordability
um would qualify for points under the
LITC application as a lowterest loan or
below market interest uh loan which is
why I mentioned that language
specifically
and I think that I believe I'll have to
fact check but I believe that's defined
as 1% or less.
So it would generate a minimal amount of
additional leverage or revenue to uh
continue to support projects for through
the trust fund.
» And then the the other question I have
and
this is this is not a gotcha question. I
I swear I I I am generally curious what
you think about this in in terms of the
presentation you gave. You talked about
SWN56 and 7. And so on the Lawrence
website where it has the KPIs it looks
like seven we are on track with that it
has it was the middle of 2024 we were
able to get uh 20.9 uh affordable
housing units but for 5 6 and 7 we've
basically been off track for over 5
years. And so my my just my question is
how do you see this going forward kind
of rectifying either getting us closer
with percentage of households that are
experiencing housing stress getting us
below what looks like about 17 18% for
the past 5 years into something that is
again below 15 and on track.
Yeah. So how do you see this achieving
those goals?
» Um well in in a few ways. So part of the
intent of targeting particular housing
types is to help us to progress in those
goals. Um Shannon mentioned um
[laughter] you know how um sorry Shannon
mentioned tennis to homeowners was
there. Tennis to homeowners has
primarily developed our affordable
housing um home ownership units.
um that requires deeper subsidy. Um
those you know one to seven unit home
ownership units generally will not
qualify for LITC. Um and um it just it
requires a community commitment to make
that happen. We have not seen
applications for new affordable home
ownership units through the trust funds
in several years. It's just very very
difficult uh to to pencil out right now.
It's nearly impossible. And so part of
this policy is saying, "Hey, our
community wants to make a commitment to
home ownership." Another example is a
commitment to homeowner or to affordable
units for populations at 30% AMI or
below, which feeds into decreasing the
point in time count of homelessness.
um the the projects, you know, serving
40 to 80% AMI are needed and valuable
for our community, but those aren't
generally the housing units that people
are transitioning into out of um
houselessness. We need deeply affordable
units to meet that commitment.
Um
I I also want to say that we although S
SWN7
uh we have been on track for that. Um we
I I hesitate to even say this, we might
need to look at that um indicator
because now the affordable housing sales
tax is also being used to provide
revenue to um emergency homeless
services. And so that leverage is going
to change. Um as as mentioned, deeply
affordable housing, transitional
housing, um supportive housing requires
much deeper subsidy.
I hope I've answered that question.
>> Oh, thank you. I I appreciate that. I
» Oh, thank you. I I appreciate that. I
took some good notes on that. Thank you.
Okay, we might have some more questions
for you, Leah, after public comment, but
we'll open it up to public comment. Um,
anyone like to speak on this item. We
have three minutes.
John M66049,
you may have stolen my thunder, but I am
going [laughter] to plow ahead with what
I've written down with access to safe
and affordable housing and essential
services that help them thrive. Okay,
that's an important metric that should
apply to the whole entire policy,
especially one that's so large,
impactful, and expensive.
As reported by the city, and I'm not
giving my opinion here. I'm reporting
for what the city says. Most progress
indicators are off track of the stated
goals. The goals are defined and
measured. I'm not going to comment on
how they're measured or even if those
are good goals, but they are published
as part of the overall uh policy.
For example, number one, residents who
perceive the city as a good or very good
place to live, it's off track from its
goals. Households, the owners or renters
that are experiencing housing stress,
it's off track from its goals. Count of
people experiencing homelessness. So, we
have a target for reducing that. It's
off track from its goals. City
infrastructure cost per new residential
unit for multifamilies. It's off track
for its goals. City infra infrastructure
cost per new residential unit single
family. It's off track for its goals.
Connectivity of healthy food providers
by transit, bike routes, or sidewalks.
It's off track.
Residential units within a half mile of
city green space not achieved at all.
Residential units within a half mile of
a school or library off track.
This is an interesting interesting one.
Leverage the affordable housing sales
tax dollars to maintain and create more
affordable housing. Well, that's on
track, which means to me we're great at
spending money, great at putting up
units, but whether we're achieving the
goals of why we're bothering to put up
units or to offer units doesn't seem
like we're successful.
So, the in bottom line, affordable
housing incentive policy ought to have
sensible objective outcomes. Maybe these
aren't the right ones. They've been
around for a while, and I'm not sure
they're even updated. However, a serious
review is needed to ensure that
objectives are measurable and tied to
relevant successive successful metrics.
Thank you.
>> Thank you,
» Thank you,
[clears throat]
» Christina McKenna 66046.
Um, the collaboration for collaborative
governance thanks the city of Lawrence
for proposing the affordable housing
initiatives policy. We appreciate its
wide variety of incentive options, clear
application and accountability
processes, and very long-term
affordability. This proposal reflects
our community's compassionate commitment
to increasing sustainable, transparent,
and consistently affordable housing
opportunities for its residents. We also
appreciated the city's community
engagement about this policy that Leo
Rosland facilitated and in which our
coalition participated. We hope the co
the commission will support this policy
and its continued development. And we
believe it can be a great model for what
can be achieved when the city of
Lawrence, the many devoted affordable
housing advocates and community
organizations and engaged residents
collaborate towards a shared goal. We
have several suggestions and questions
about this policy we hope you'll
consider, including figuring out ways
for it to support affordable home
ownership options as well as affordable
rental options even for those in the
middle class. The proposed policy
currently requires the development of
multiple units to be eligible for these
incentives incentives and developments
that have received them are generally
multi-unit apartment complexes that
residents rent. Our coalition suggests
this policy increases options for
applying these incentives to more home
ownership options. It could include
expanding the eligibility requirements
to apply to smaller scale developments,
including single properties for homes
individuals can buy, own, and build
equity themselves. It could increase
affordable home ownership in Lawrence
and could also support the
rehabilitation and adapted use of
existing structures. Additionally, in
the past, affordable housing has
primarily been provided by existing
housing stock rather than new
construction. We believe it might be
valable valuable for the city to discuss
options that could support creating more
affordability for existing individual
housing units. This could increase the
affordable housing supply faster than
building new units can do. We're
grateful the city staff has already
started to integrate community feedback
into this proposal and hope to continue
the city will continue to do so. And
it's not just affordable housing, but
also the sustainable housing. So
sometimes maybe more accurately called
attainable housing for everyone. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
» Hello Melinda Ball 046. I'm presenting
some additional suggestions and
questions from the Coalition for
Collaborative Governance. The proposed
policy includes language that
prioritizes the preservation,
rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of
existing buildings, which our coalition
appreciates. Our neighborhood advocates
also request that the policy eliminate
incentives for demolitions of existing
buildings by disallowing incentives for
lots that are vacant because of demos.
We request that the pol policy
strengthen its flood plane and wetland
protections by requiring sites be
ineligible if it if it is within a
federally designated flood plane and by
adhering to the broader definition of
wetland prior to the recent sacket va
ruling. We like the commission to
consider whether this policy would could
incentivize the use of local businesses
including contractors, lumber shops,
landscapers, window suppliers, and other
building trades. We also like to request
that the city gather and integrate
feedback from the Lawrence School Board
about this proposed policy as they also
need to approve some of the proposed
incentives. This topic was addressed at
the candidate forum [snorts] our
coalition hosted in October and school
board members expressed a desire to be
involved in this type of policy
development. We also have a few
financial questions about this policy.
Has the city studied the fiscal impact
of the property tax rebates and sales
tax exemptions on the city's budget and
on the city's ability to provide city
services for the additional housing
generated by this policy? that is what
are the costs of services for these
developments and how does that compare
to the tax revenue the city will not be
receiving. Miss Rosland told us that
this will be studied in on a case-byase
basis. Due this due to the scale of this
new policy, we suggest that the city
consider a more comprehensive assessment
of the financial effects of this policy.
Relatedly, we are curious if the city
compared their financial situation to
communities they modeled their policy
proposed on to ensure that these
incentives align with our community's
specific financial needs. Finally, we'd
like to suggest some additional benefits
that could be added to the policy at no
cost to the city. These include density
bonuses that allow denser development
than the current zoning allows,
expedited permitting, and land use
concessions where when appropriate for
the neighborhood. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» I have the comments in the room.
Christina,
» good evening commission. um and 66049
Christina Gentry. Um pe speaking as a
resident and a public servant. Um I urge
um that the Lawrence City Commission and
community to support an affordable
housing incentive policy that ensures
housing in perpetuity.
Um this is not merely an abstract
policy. It is a vital investment in our
community's core stability and future.
By keeping homes permanently affordable,
we prevent the displacement of our
neighbors and pro and provide families,
particularly vulnerable populations like
the many single family women head of
household in our county, in our city,
the stable foundation that they need to
survive and to thrive. In Lawrence,
female households with no spouse or
partner present make up 8.7% of all
households, with 5.8% having their own
children under the age of 18.
This represents a significant portion of
the population that could benefit from
housing stability measures. A
preliminary report on unhoused people in
Douglas County indicated that nearly 51%
of those experiencing homelessness
identified as female, a higher rate than
national or state trends. This disparity
underscores the particular
vulnerabilities faced by women in
securing and maintaining stable housing.
Speaking to cost burden and income, many
households in the Kansas City region,
including Lawrence, experience
significant housing cost burdens with
the greatest shortage for residents at
the 30 and 50% median income levels. We
spoke on that today. Um, but research
consistently shows that housing
stability leads to better health
outcomes, improved educational
achievements for children, and a more
robust local economy. For individuals
who are currently costbururdened,
perpetual affordability frees up
resources for essentials like health
care and education. The data which shows
a disproport disproportionate number of
women experiencing homelessness in our
county makes it clear that targeted
support is necessary. Incentivizing
community needs through perpetual
affordability will help us build a more
resilient, equitable, and connected Lord
for generations to come. Thank you.
» See no other comments in the room. Um,
how about online? Oh, David, will you
speak on this one?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
» Yeah, go ahead.
>> Hi, David Baston. Uh, tonight's agenda
» Hi, David Baston. Uh, tonight's agenda
item is the affordable housing incentive
policy. a big step to add more
affordable units through tax breaks,
grants, loans, land donations, and and
fee waiverss. The goal is to increase
supply for low to moderate income
residents, reducing housing stress and
make Lawrence more affordable. But but
we already have a policy that does the
exact opposite of that. Ordinance number
10121
passed in April of 25
caps most homes at four adults, four to
five adults per per house. This rule was
passed to please a few complainers about
residents, not based on facts, but
public health or public health concerns.
A commissioner told me it's meant to
stop students from overcrowding homes.
There's no proof that it fixes anything.
Another [clears throat] called it a
terrible one-sizefits-all policy that
drives up rent and hits renters the
hardest. Described
as just a compromise to pacify
complainers driven by politics, not
evidence. Sounds pretty ridiculous when
you hear it out loud, doesn't it? Uh
we're telling grown adults how many
people can live together. Uh and this uh
you might want to look at this when you
uh look at the World Cup too because
only four adults can live or can be in
any one house. So that's something you
can look at there. Also uh it shrinks
our housing stock. A five bedroomedroom
house that could easily uh
support 7 to eight people. Now legally
sits half empty. that forces more people
to comple compete uh with fewer homes
driving rent costs up. Uh 2025 Lawrence
rents has jumped 7% on average. Uh and
that's higher than the national trend. U
these caps make it worse by blocking
shared living in our tight market. Um
let's see. If we're serious about
affordable housing incentive policy
tonight, we can keep a rule that uh
actively reduces the housing we already
have. Repeal this ordinance. Uh stop
bias rulings rules and complaints and
start basing them on facts. Thank you.
» Seeing none in the room, how about
online? We do have a few.
» Daniel Brown.
» Oh,
>> go ahead.
» go ahead.
>> Hello.
» Hello.
>> Hi. Uh, Daniel Brown, 66044.
» Hi. Uh, Daniel Brown, 66044.
Um, I work at Independence Incorporated.
Uh we are a resource center for folks
with disabilities here in Lawrence. Um
I'm also the program manager of our
accessible housing program. Uh which is
a program that helps [snorts] folks with
disabilities here in Lawrence get
accessibility modifications for their
homes like wheelchair ramps, accessible
showers, grab bars, things like that. Um
through my work over the years, I've
seen firsthand um the struggles that
folks with disabilities have um here in
Lawrence and finding affordable housing
that's accessible to them. Um and
there's many reasons for this. Um, one
of them is just the the housing stock
here in Lawrence. Some of it is is older
and it was built prior to federal um
accessibility requirements being
implemented. Um, also there's some
housing that's exempt from those um
accessibility requirements like single
family homes, duplexes, triplexes, uh,
multi-story town homes. Um there's also
um many units in larger housing
complexes, even newer complexes that
don't have elevators. Um where it's just
those grand floor units that are
required to meet those minimum
accessibility requirements. Um also many
larger complexes don't have or have few
if any um fully accessible units. So
what this means for folks with
disabilities, particularly physical
disabilities, folks who are seniors,
folks wanting to age in place, it's just
that there's significantly fewer options
for them um regarding housing,
particularly finding and maintaining um
accessible housing that's affordable to
them. So feel like this proposed housing
incentive policy helps to address some
of that by expanding accessibility
requirements. Um it also extends the
period of affordability um to ensure
affordable and accessible housing um is
available to current residents um and
also to future generations. So I would
urge the commission um to maintain these
proposed requirements in any housing
incentive policy that's ultimately um
approved by the commission. Um thank you
very much.
>> Thank you.
Marielle Ferrero.
» Good evening, commissioners. Um, this is
Maria Pereo. Um, Lawrence resident and
uh, honored to be a member of the
affordable housing advisory board and
the accessibility and affordable housing
work group that is a part of the place
for everyone plan. um here to just add
my voice of support to the affordable
housing incentive policy and to the
opportunity to continue um developing
this policy. Um, as you all have
learned, there are a lot of uh changes
but good components to this and um,
incredibly underlined. So, I'll only
underscore what um, the the CEO of uh,
Lawrence Douglas County Housing
Authority, Shannon Ory, stated is that
this is an opportunity to utilize our
housing trust funds and have an
opportunity to continue to reinforce
that we do want LITC projects in this
community. As you know, our affordable
housing trust fund is not big and we
struggle every year to be able to decide
how those funds are um awarded. And
almost every year it is um way less than
what we receive in applications. This
gives us an opportunity to expand our
incentives and to focus that trust fund
or how it's named in this presentation
as a grant to the projects that may not
qualify for LITC or projects that could
be not only deeply affordable which is
below that 30 at or below that 30% AMI
but would be affordable in perpetuity or
have that 99-year requirement. uh we
have opportunity to put um projects that
are a path to home ownership which was
echoed um in a previous commenters that
maybe we're not focusing on that. I
stated during our application process
this year that we did not have any home
ownership projects. This is an
opportunity to start moving in that
direction. The things that we uh need to
maintain in this policy moving forward
is that affordability requirement. To
expand on that and to utilize our funds,
taxpayer dollars to make sure that our
housing is affordable in perpetuity is
incredibly important and something we
need to underscore. Knowing that LITC
projects will still be awarded, knowing
that LITC projects are still a
cornerstone of affordable housing, this
is the opportunity to do more. And this
is the opportunity to provide housing
that makes sense for our community. As a
charge for AHAB, we are looking at our
goals for the next several years and
[snorts] this is in alignment with the
projects and goals we want to see and we
will be revising that after we get the
affordable housing study. Um, so I'm
incredibly excited to see this. I hope
you all champion and encourage a
continued exploration on these
incentives and I hope that we can have
affordable, sustainable housing in
perpetuity in our community. Thank you.
There you go. [snorts]
» I'm sorry if I just moved you in. You
could go ahead and speak. I'm not sure.
>> Okay. Can you hear me?
» Okay. Can you hear me?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Yes. Bob, go ahead.
» Yes. Bob, go ahead.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Your name? Uh Bob McKesc 66046.
» Your name? Uh Bob McKesc 66046.
Um I'm commenting from my experience as
a wheelchair user since 1968 as a result
of a car accident and current
information and referral specialist job
at Independence Inc. where I respond to
among other things many requests for
information and assistance finding
affordable and accessible housing in
Lawrence.
I strongly support the city of Lawrence,
Kansas adopting the affordable housing
incentive policy and encourage you to
approve the policy, extend the period of
afford affordability in perpetuity
keeping the all the universal design
requirements in place that apply to city
supported affordable housing
developments. Uh accessible design is
rooted in the principle that everyone
should have equal access and usability
of the built environment. Universal
design creates spaces, livable spaces
that are inclusive, accommodating, and
can be used by people of all ages and
levels of ability. Accessibility is not
a special need. It's universal. Uh
nationally, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, one in
four adults lives with a disability and
nearly 40% of all adults over 65 have
mobility limitations.
Yet less than 6% of homes are accessible
to people with even moderate physical
impairments. And that that is consistent
with our experience here in in working
with people that are looking for
accessible affordable housing. Um
[clears throat and cough]
clearly most homes, apartments, and
houses don't include basic accessibility
features. They're not their traditional
standard. Uh so and they are needed by
people as they age, experience a change
in health, adapt to or recover from
injuries or care for loved ones. So most
of us or our family members will need
accessible housing at some point in our
lives. The the vast majority of older
adults want to stay in their homes and
age in place.
So including universal design
accessibility from the start is smarter,
more inclusive, and far more
cost-effective than retrofitting later.
So, I respectfully ask you to approve
when the time is right or when you when
you're deciding that to uh approve the
affordable housing incentive policy to
enable more affordable universally
designed accessible housing to be
available to the many Lawrence residents
who need it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Jeffrey Hepler.
» Hey y'all. Jeffrey Hler 66044. Uh thank
you mayor, vice mayor, commissioners.
Um, I just wanted to speak to this as uh
a person who
rents from tenants to homeowners and
feels very blessed to be able to do so
because if I'm being truthful, I don't
know that I could live here if I didn't
have subsidized rent from them. and
I don't know if I'd be able to do my job
here
serving serving children.
>> Um
» Um
I guess I want to share my share my
vision. Here's what I'm here's what I'm
thinking because I do want to be a
homeowner here. I I I used to be a
homeowner. I had 10 acres up by Perry
Lake and um you know it kind of kills me
to be a tenant now and not be able to
take care of this place like I would
like to.
But my vision is, you know, having a
tiny house here in Lawrence in a tiny
neighborhood with um communal gardens
and fruit trees and um you know,
universal design.
» Yeah, I guess that's all I have to share
on that. I do hope that we support
affordable housing, very affordable
housing in the future because yeah, most
people are paying 50% plus on their
their incomes on on housing. That's just
the reality we live in and it's driving
people away and
>> they can't escape it.
» they can't escape it.
>> Thank you all for listening. Um I
» Thank you all for listening. Um I
appreciate your service. Yeah. Thank you
all for your com the comments from the
public. That's very eloquent.
[clears throat]
>> Thank you,
» Rhysa Williams.
>> Hi there. I kind of want to just share a
» Hi there. I kind of want to just share a
little bit of my insight. I appreciate
all the effort that's being put into
this. Um, [clears throat] I kind of want
to echo what Jeffree said.
Um, my personal experience being that
I'm a single mother of three boys, um, I
have a voucher. I would still be in my
400 I'm sorry, 600 square foot
tiny duplex with four kids um, had I not
gotten a house a housing voucher. Um, so
I understand like things are definitely
hard. Um,
and I appreciate that Christina shared
those um,
statistics regarding the percentages of
women with children in the community
that really do need that affordable
housing. Um, I also was previously a
housing case manager for Lawrence
Community Shelter. So, I see that aspect
of this. We have multiple individuals
who want to be housed.
They're working hard. They're trying,
but they they they can't they can't find
anywhere to rent. Nobody will rent to
them. We break down barriers and they
just continue to have more barriers. So,
um
yeah, the other part of that is I have a
aging disabled mother. Um I'd like to
see some
smaller units like everyone said with
ADA accessibility. Um, so I really
really appreciate everything that's gone
into everything everyone's saying
tonight. Just from the bottom of my
heart, I appreciate it. Thank you,
» Mo Horowitz.
[clears throat]
>> Hi. Um, thank you so much for
» Hi. Um, thank you so much for
considering the proposed steps to create
more affordable, accessible housing. I
can't stress strongly enough the
difference this would make in people's
lives and I really appreciate everything
in Leah's presentation. I believe that
to s sustainably meet the needs of our
community, the housing trust fund should
require a 99-year affordability period
for all new development in order to
decrease displacement and increase
stability. But I just want to talk a
little bit more about the reasons to
improve app improve the incentive
policies, [snorts] universal design
requirements, and increase accessibility
since as a disabled person with a
disabled spouse, that's what I know
best. Our shortage of accessible housing
puts disabled Lancians at higher risk of
household accidents, abuse, joblessness,
homelessness, and and social isolation.
Systemic abbleism keeps disabled people
poor. The Department of Labor estimates
disabled canons earn 68 cents on the
dollar. A 2025 academic study of more
than,00 disabled adults found on average
we spend 20% of that lower household
income on disability related goods and
expenses.
Um, our city's latest housing market
analysis found one in four disabled
community members live in housing that
does not meet our access needs and
disabled [clears throat] renters usually
go without the accessibility
modifications they need. Incorporating
universal design features into
affordable housing goes a long way to
meeting those needs and freeing up
disabled people to focus on other parts
of our lives, including the parts that
lift people out of poverty. Um, not only
is that better for disabled people, it
also helps create more spending power in
Lawrence. And the last thing I want to
add is increasing accessible affordable
housing stock can literally save
people's lives in ways that may not be
obvious right away. Um the most
comprehensive meta study to date
estimates that nationally disabled
people are one and a half times more
likely to be abused than non-disabled
people. People are just more likely to
leave their abusers when they can find
housing that is safe, healthy, and
accessible. Thank you very much.
Barry, you're on mute. I can't hear you.
» Okay, sorry about that.
>> No problem.
» No problem.
>> Thanks for everyone. Um I agree with a
» Thanks for everyone. Um I agree with a
lot of the comments that people have
made about um [clears throat]
universal design
uh and the importance of that
uh long-term availability of these
units. I'm just going to point out that
um
up until now a lot of our uh
incentives have incentivized
studios and onebedrooms.
Um
certainly there is a need and a market
for that, but I think there is
definitely a need for what I'm going to
call familyfriendly housing.
>> [snorts]
» [snorts]
>> Um, our school district despite the fact
» Um, our school district despite the fact
that the city is growing
uh is losing students and I think part
of that is because there is a lack of
affordable housing for uh school age
children in our town. And so I think
this is a very important need that needs
to be prioritized.
Uh the other thing I think is important
is that we need to uh create a better
path for homeownership for people. Um
not everyone wants to be a homeowner,
but a lot of people do and can't and it
should be affordable and it should be a
part of our affordable housing strategy.
This is how people
um build uh generational wealth. Uh have
something of value to pass on to their
children and give them a leg up in life
so that uh you know they have that
opportunity. Uh we we're losing a lot of
that with our um high taxes. That's
another issue. But um I think when we're
looking at affordability, making sure
that we don't price people out of their
homes that they currently own is another
piece that this policy maybe can't
address, but something that I think
needs to be part of the conversation.
Thank you so much for um all of
everyone's work on this and for the
community prioritizing it.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> That's all the comments, Mayor.
» That's all the comments, Mayor.
>> Thank you, Sherry. Okay, bring it back
» Thank you, Sherry. Okay, bring it back
to the commission for comments. Once
again, we're giving direction um to Leah
and staff to continue to work on this
and uh so we have to make final votes
here, but uh certainly give direction
and I think as we do that um you know I
think to a certain extent Leah is
looking for three of us to if if we give
some something specific do three of us
support that or you know at least
something so they don't bring us back
something that you know we we vote but
again some of This discussion is
probably going to be broader based. We
don't have to you know get to three on
everything but um so anyone who wants to
start make some comments.
>> Um yeah I'll go ahead and start.
» Um yeah I'll go ahead and start.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Uh just going through the policy
» Uh just going through the policy
guidance slide. So as far as broader
focus um
you know I think for I think that it
should be it should be broad. So, um, as
far as the AMIs, we should be looking at
anywhere from 30 to 120. I think the the
matter of it's not necessarily the
eligibility piece. It's more that I want
to see us focus on that missing middle
type of housing, which we do not have
here. That speaks to a lot of what
several folks have talked about tonight.
Um because just housing policies in this
country have always been about single
family, detached or multif family
because which is apartments which is the
only thing that
it's a long story but any short but any
I think the broad focus should be across
all across all of the AMIs but more
specifically to strategies of building
that missing middle type of housing. So
those triplexes, duplexes, town houses,
walkups, condos, because when you do
that, you hit the broader spectrum of
individuals of that need family housing.
Um that can be rentals as well as a
pathway to home ownership. Not home
ownership should not be relegated to a
single family detach. Home ownership
could be a condo, it could be a duplex,
it could be a townhouse. And these are
things that we don't have a lot of in
our community that developers are not
building, which private developers are
not going to do it. We're going to have
to we need to have these types of
incentives in order to get whether it's
local developers or even some of those
outside developers that are in other
regions that do this work and do it
great who would love to do this work
here with several of our partners. So
that's for part one.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Um, as far as the period of
affordability,
um, you know, I think we should be
aggressive and say we want permittive,
we want affordability for perpetuity.
Um, I think that should be the priority.
That doesn't mean we can't prioritize
other pieces, but that should be the
main priority, especially if we're going
to talk about other policy strategies,
incentive strategies when we start
looking at which is whether it's a RHID,
it's IRBs, you know, compounded with
some low interest loan, revolving loan,
whatever, whatnot. Um because that is
that is the tool that we can use because
state statute limits us um in other
aspects. So, while we can't mandate,
this is telling developers that if you
want to do this work and you're really
intentional about doing this work and
helping us meet our strategic plan
metrics, whether they stay or we reeval,
we readress those since it's time for us
to do that. Um, that we will then have a
cadre of incentive packages that we can
offer them for being a good partner for
us in that. So, definitely should
prioritize
um perpetuity. Um, but it doesn't mean
we can't look at other aspects. I think
what I what I was able to research, you
know, everyone always talks about 20 to
30 years is the sweet spot. That's just
best practice. That's the bare minimum.
That's scraping the floor where you
really start to get into
municipalities that offer those robust
loans and incentives is when you're
looking at 40 to 50 year. And then
anything o over 50 years is where you're
getting into those deep subsidies and
that's where you're starting to make
that's where you start to make headway.
So, if we want to really continue to
chip away at this in a way that is very
intentional and that we're going to
drive affordability and drive ownership,
then we need to start looking at
perpetuity.
Okay. So, um low interest loans,
as soon as I, you know, Leah talked
about this, go with it. Um I shared with
her and I do have a couple of resources
of spending some time in Salt Lake City
and what they've been able to do with
their with their revolving loan um
program to the point that Miss Alry
started stated about when you have that
loan piece then you start to reinvest
money and then you can start to gain
interest which means you're f you're
you're adding and you're acrewing more
money that could be utilized. So um
these are tools we haven't used. I don't
know if it's timidity or just not having
the drive or the willingness to do it.
Um, but there are CDFIS, you know,
there's not many I don't think we have
any now in the state of Kansas, but it
doesn't mean there's not opportunities
for us. CRA, we need to be very
innovative in in how we can start to
look at our financial institutions in
our community and say if you really
believe in this community and you
believe in what our strategic plan is
about and what we're trying to do for a
place for everyone, then we need you to
get on board and start uh being good
partners in this and that means being a
CRA uh institution and provide and being
a resource for us in this in this piece.
So, I definitely would like to see us uh
have staff bring something back to us
what that look like because it's a
proven uh it's a proven uh solution that
works and it has worked in several um
commun communities and municipalities
across the country. So, we have that um
fee waivers and land donations. I think
that speaks to 7231. So, I think the
broader piece of this is that if we need
staff to to bring that back or res, you
know, that we take a look at that, I
think we should just leave it under that
and not necessarily get into the minutia
of that piece. And as far as
consideration of of additional
incentives, um I know some of the things
out of the little book and as well as
some things that that came to my mind, I
know the city of Dallas has done some
things around targeted zones, whether
it's infill zone incentives or overlays
where, you know, we've we've had some
very interesting infield projects come
before us and we've we've done a lot of
arguing around it, but maybe we can get
ahead of this if we identify areas um
within our community that would be that
would be great opportunities for infield
development and create incentive
packages around that. That's something
for us to continue uh to look into. Um
we have one potential census track that
could be a great opportunity for us as
far as opportunity zone. Um the governor
gets to pick 58 out of 212 in the state.
It would be great if we could make one
of those um 58
>> the one that I think that'd be quite
» the one that I think that'd be quite
marketable for us in that. And the other
one is um that I know we kind of talked
about it in design standards, but I know
I think there was city of Overland Park
passed their pre-approved design so that
they have a certain design housing
designs that are pre-approved by um by
planning that can go through and so that
kind of speeds up that permitting and
and and design process. So, just a
couple of things there with that.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Yeah, I think I'm just going to since
» Yeah, I think I'm just going to since
she touched on a lot of those items, I
just wanted to reinforce um the the
concept of perpetuity is great in on
paper. I think a lot of these projects
are designed and built to maybe last 50
years. I think HUD might have
restrictions on how long they'll place a
loan on a property like this, but let's
just say 50 years is a reasonable period
of time to get out of a an apartment
complex or even a single family home
without a lot of reinvestment or or um
improvements. Um those structures are
not going to probably be around for 100
years. So we're we're in the question I
have is if we do have a rule or some
requirement of perpetuity, what happens
if these units age out and they're no
longer suitable for habitation and does
that person now responsible for
resupplying the market with those units
again in the future or are they off the
hook? You know, because those because
you know, real estate andor buildings
have an expected useful life and and
whether we want them to last 100 years
or not, frankly, they're just probably
won't. And so we need to be realistic
about that, too. So I'm I'm in favor of
of setting um high goals for those um
properties. Um but I also want to make
sure we don't overshoot our expectations
on how long these buildings will
actually last and and be useful. And um
also I'm I think um I'm also with
Commissioner Sers. I think if we can
incentivize or create an opportunity
zone or have an area that we've already
targeted for certain incentives that
might draw outside developers to our
community who aren't familiar with
Lawrence and who may be shy um may be a
good opportunity for them to come in and
and see what it's like to build in our
community. And then um the 7231 um
requirements relative to um funds and
fee wavers relative to those um revenue
funds. I think I'd like to make sure we
have as many tools as possible. So, if
we can touch on that, I would be also in
favor of that. So, that would be at
least two people would be interested in
in seeing that move forward. And um and
I think that's pretty much it as far as
um not touched on already.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Comments on this end?
» It's so much
» uh I'm just going to make some comments.
I really do appreciate everything that
you guys have said. More importantly,
I'm very grateful for the public's
um comments.
I'm appreciative uh KPIs. I would a lot
of what I'm thinking about is more
operational which would come after
implementation.
Um we haven't talked about I'm in case
it's not obvious, I'm I'm not a fan of
building in the flood plane. So, if
there's anything involved in that
regard, if we can avoid that, that'd be
great. But, um,
by and large, let me just say thank you
to the community. Thank you very much to
the staff and and the commission that
has been working on this previous to me
getting here. Uh, and I would be in
favor of pretty much everything that you
guys have talked about thus far,
Commissioner Sers, uh, Commissioner
Deber,
because we will have an opportunity to
come back to this.
>> Oh, yeah.
» Oh, yeah.
>> And the only other point I want to make
» And the only other point I want to make
is I really [clears throat] am
interested involving the school board if
there's any way we can
in general meet with them. I once a
quarter sounds easy, but it tends to be
arduous with schedules, etc. is if we
could maybe approach meeting them and
maybe this could be one of the topics
they would certainly be affected by it.
Um if it's nothing more than a work
session that would be great. Um,
» are you just so Commissioner Pain, are
you thinking like as far as just a
better
cuz I think only certain aspects I mean
I guess when you say speak more to the
school board on this, is there something
specific to that? Because I know not all
pieces of this is it more of like
strategies around types of housing. Are
you thinking about it as it relates to
potential IRBs and RAS which do impact
the school board because of that vote
because not everything that could be
that could potentially be done would
necessarily need to involve the school
board. So I guess I want to be able to
understand because I don't want us to
have a meeting to have a meeting but
what in specific if there's anything
specific or at least guidelines
framework outline of what what that
meeting would look like. I would like to
hear what their um perspective is on
housing as it affects their families and
the children coming into the school. I
think that would be some valuable
information and you're absolutely right.
Um there is a lot that does not pertain
to them or would affect them. I would
really like their just their feedback on
the plan that we have that would affect
them. So
[snorts]
>> an overarching discussion on it really
» an overarching discussion on it really
kind of more to involve them in in the
process. I've heard from many board
members uh in the past 6 to 8 months
that they not many a few let me say that
that they would really value kind of
being involved more uh just not for any
other reason than communication
and [clears throat] understanding in
general not just with this but with city
affairs anything that might affect them
any kind of tax incentives etc. So maybe
just an opportunity to hear what they
have to say. [snorts]
>> Um and it doesn't have to be today
» Um and it doesn't have to be today
obviously that we start orchestrating
this but
um I would like to see something and
they may not even be interested and if
that's the case that makes it easy.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Um
that's I I feel like that's we've we've
bitten off a little bit. I think we've
got given a lot for staff to think about
thus far. I'm good. [snorts]
>> I mean, you know, to add to a couple
» I mean, you know, to add to a couple
things that were say said, the idea of
the zone in the overlay district to get
developers interested, I'm definitely
interested in hearing more about that.
But also around homes that are below AMI
30%. Um,
you know, when you talk about
affordability,
you know, 60% of people can't afford a
medical emergency, 40% don't have $500
in the name, and 20% don't have enough
food. So when we talk about the budget
going forward and we talk about this, if
we're going to make a dent in
homelessness, if we're [snorts] going to
make a dent with transitional housing to
pick people up off their feet, I think
we need to focus on the AMI30, what that
looks like, and what we can do to move
the needle so that the KPIs that we have
show that people are less stressed about
owning homes, about renting, and that
the line for people experiencing
homelessness continues to go down and so
I know this is a active thing that we'll
be working on over time but those are my
initial thoughts at this moment.
>> Um great I'll make a few comments but
» Um great I'll make a few comments but
Shannon I might ask you a question. Can
you tell me what the waiting list now is
for vouchers?
I mean
>> and uh the housing authority we have a
» and uh the housing authority we have a
combined waiting list. So all public
housing units and vouchers are on it,
but the voucher list is about 460 people
and and I will say that as I said 70% of
our people are at or below 30% of AMI. A
third of everybody we serve um is are
disabled and uh we have about 70% of our
families are headed by single female
head of household. So, um, we really are
serving the the that end of the spectrum
and and to and you know, historically we
have our public housing because HUD gave
us the money to do it. That program
doesn't exist anymore. So, all of those
units are are 60 years old and we've
kept them right wellmaintained.
um because quite frankly we have to and
so every additional unit we bring on we
bring on in perpetuity
and pe nobody pays more than 30% of
their income to to live with us. So, so
that was my point earlier is is whatever
this plan does and I and I hope we do as
much in the full spectrum just keep an
eye to this bottom part because the
performers don't work. We can't do it
with rent. We have to do it with
you know government funding.
>> Yeah. And I think Thank you, Shannon. Um
» Yeah. And I think Thank you, Shannon. Um
and you know I I agree basically with
that. I mean I think this policy as as
has as has been mentioned we need um to
be able to um I I focus on poopurityity
and focus on um you know 30% of AMI but
we also need to be ready to um you know
be able to have large number of units
come online that we can keep our voucher
list from becoming too long and using
those vouchers. You know, I think you
know, we got this affordable housing tax
at the right time that and we focused
and were able to get a large number of
LITC projects in this community by
having this at the right time, getting
two or three a year um for several years
that other communities couldn't compete
with. And and I think that, you know, I
I feel good about that approach. I do
think going forward we know that the
LITC projects will not be as readily
available and in in that scenario I
think it makes me think of two things.
One, it makes me think we need to focus
on, you know, some of the things as this
policy really highlights areas we've not
made as big a dent in. Home ownership,
30% AMI, perpetuity. I think that's a
good thing to focus on, but [snorts] I
want this I guess I want to be sure the
policy puts us in a place where we can
if there's only going to be two LITC
projects in the state, you know, do we
have a shot at one of those? So, we're
probably not going to get one every
year, maybe not every other year, but um
having a policy that lets us um you
know, do a tenure homeowners project
that's lit based, you know, combined and
and and have that advantage. And so, I
[snorts] do um like that kind of dual
approach. I do think we need to look at
the process and the idea of just having
one allocation
once a year with certain deadlines. I do
not think puts us in the best position
to um jump on those opportunities. And I
think that's true not only of LITC type
projects, but I think it's true of
tenure homeless projects or housing
authority. Someone says, "Hey, I have a
duplex. I want to, you know, sell to the
housing authority or, you know, work
with tent homeowners and sell it to them
for something cheap." And they're
looking around going, "Well, we don't
have any money for that." And we can
apply, you know, seven months from now
and then get money the year later. I
mean, I think we need to have some
flexibility in the [snorts] process so
that we can take advantage of the
opportunities that will not that that
that that present themselves. And so I
think I I do want to look at that
process and and maybe this policy should
not be that that um section 8 about the
pol the procedure. I don't think this
policy should be so prescriptive on what
our procedure is. And I think we need to
um as a policy think about how we can be
readily available on jumping on the
right opportunities and having some
flexibility there. Um so I'd like to see
that. I'd like to see um you know
looking at 7231 and looking at fee
waiverss. I think that is a possibility
to expand um what we can do um and you
know with the limited dollars we have
and and give us some possibilities on
LITC but also on on you know other type
projects. So I think we want to look at
that.
Um
I I I do agree wholeheartedly with
Commissioner Cos on that home we need
home ownership projects that aren't just
single family detached and that this
policy should maybe even make that
explicit that you know um you know again
condos
>> diversity
» diversity
>> you know duplexes forlexes that that all
» you know duplexes forlexes that that all
um encouraging home ownership projects
that aren't just one or the
Um, not to say we can't have single
family, you know, projects. Um, but I I
I think we need to to talk about that
more generally. Um, I would say
I I I like the, you know, I understand
the 50 versus the 99 years. I think we
need some flexibility there.
>> [snorts]
» [snorts]
>> And I guess that would lead me to, you
» And I guess that would lead me to, you
know, the one language that threw me off
is this part two eligibility that um it
starts by saying no application
requested for affordable housing shall
be considered or approved unless it
meets these eligibility requirements.
And then we have like, you know, three
pages of eligibility requirements, but
not [clears throat] every project
applies to each of those. It's it's it
and then some of those aren't even
requirements. They're things like we
would prefer that. And so I think that
language needs to be modified um to say
these are the things we're looking at.
But I don't I don't like that language
that says it will not be considered or
approved
and and maybe there are 10 things or
five things that we want in that sort of
category, but the rest I think there's a
mismatch here that we need to change
that language a little bit and have that
flexibility um to to consider a good
project because again, you know, one
thing, you know, um you know, again, I
can make up all sorts of things.
scenarios in which and and one of the
questions was about the flood plane, but
let's say there's a house in the Balkan
neighborhood that backs up,
you know, to
>> to
» to
>> the to Brook Creek. Does that mean if
» the to Brook Creek. Does that mean if
that person wants to give the house to
tenants to homeowners, but it has a
flood plane in its backyard, we can't
support that project because its
backyard backs up to Brook Creek? I mean
it seems to me that that is too
stringent to say no project that you
know um has you know again it's backyard
has a you know has some flood plane in
it that we can't do that. So I mean I
understand the point of you know trying
to protect the flood plane but we have a
lot of um you know properties that have
a small portion of their backyard in the
flood plane and I I think some of those
are ones we might want to consider. Um
so again I think a little flexibility I
in how that we apply that um is the
other thing I would say. Um and finally
I would say I mean I I do think we want
to encourage you know three bedrooms. I
think if you if you know and when I talk
to schoolboard members of course they're
most interested in you know units that
bring kids. So they're they're
interested in you know um three-bedroom
units. they're interested in um you know
home ownership a and of course um
workforce housing. I mean again nothing
against the school board. Many of them
aren't as focused on where do college
students live or where seniors live.
That's not their two constituencies. But
we I think have to look at all those. We
have to look at where the seniors live.
We have to look at where college
students live in this town. And so I
certainly want to work with the school
board. Um but I do think we have to
balance those a little bit. Um but
generally I mean I think this is in the
right direction. I very much appreciate
the work on this. Like I said I started
looking at the one that hadn't been
changed [laughter] and then when I
looked at the one that did change once I
figured out that there was a second
redline version I was very happy to see
the work the clear work that's gone into
this to make it better and to consider
those balancing of of those areas. So, I
I I mean, I know a lot of work has been
in this, you know, I think we have some
work to go, but I think we're heading in
the right direction and um and I look
forward to seeing a few more revisions,
seeing this work through a little bit
and and bringing back some of those
other items.
Mayor, I may add that maybe for that
eligibility section that perhaps maybe
because we're dealing with different
things where there's RHID, IRB, NRA that
maybe that gets that we create maybe
like a matrix so that we can
>> see where there's maybe potential
» see where there's maybe potential
eligibility [clears throat]
overlays.
Um sound because I know there were some
things as far as you know the
accessibility piece the threebedroom
that those should be non-negotiables but
maybe for the additional aspects of that
section maybe a matrix to kind of lay
those out if it's by if we're thinking
about that's for all
all projects or if it's specific to
different types of projects whether it's
IRB or so on and so forth. Yep.
>> Yes. I thought
» other comments, Leah, any
We threw a lot at you. Um,
>> anything you need more specific on at
» anything you need more specific on at
this point? I know there'll be a lot
more work being done, more public
comment and so forth, but
>> um yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, would you
» um yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, would you
mind if I just clarified um what I heard
the commission speak to this evening?
Um, okay. So, I hear that the commission
is generally interested in also having
the policy incentivize smaller scale and
homeownership opportunities in addition
to the larger multif family
developments. That's correct.
[clears throat] Um, does the commission
think the policy strikes a good balance
currently but uh with requiring the most
needed units? So when we talk about that
30% over low AMI accessible in family
units um does 20% uh seem like a good
balance
to move forward with? [clears throat]
>> Yeah, I think the the the way you
» Yeah, I think the the the way you
amended that in the second goround I
think that strikes the balance.
>> Okay. Um I may need additional clarity
» Okay. Um I may need additional clarity
on the uh period of affordability for uh
the second draft that we bring back. Um,
I've heard different commissioners um
say generally supportive of
affordability in perpetuity and some
hesitation. Um, I'm wondering if I could
perhaps get some additional clarity or
guidance on that so we can bring a draft
back that um is closer to what the
commission is interested in policy-wise.
>> Yeah. So my my only point I think was I
» Yeah. So my my only point I think was I
don't want to focus on the length or
term of something being 100 years when
the asset itself will be unlikely to
sustain that period of time. So for us
to get caught up in length of a term
that will not be attainable for me seems
um unreasonable thing to focus on. I'd
rather focus on things that we know will
occur 50 years more than likely. And you
know, if that's going to be something
that'll stop a project from happening,
um, I doubt because most developers
won't probably imagine the asset will
last 100 years to begin with, but and
they'll probably come anyway. But I just
want to make sure we aren't putting up a
roadblock, potential roadblock on a
length of time that's not even possible.
And so I just leave it at that.
>> Is that be So could it be more of
» Is that be So could it be more of
because the perpetuity comes in the the
land, not necessarily the asset. Mhm.
>> So it' be so to prioritize the 99% is
» So it' be so to prioritize the 99% is
not to prioritize the actual unit. It's
prioritizing that the land. That's
right. Okay.
>> And that's what I want. And then the
» And that's what I want. And then the
land could get rebuilt like just if you
tear down the old one and build new
affordable. That's what I would rather
have than
>> focus on the asset itself being
» focus on the asset itself being
maintained for 100 years versus
>> let's let's get 50 years out of it, redo
» let's let's get 50 years out of it, redo
it or you know re-rebuild with a new
version of what
>> okay
» okay
>> normal. Um,
» normal. Um,
>> okay. This time Randy turned his camera
» okay. This time Randy turned his camera
on, so he might have something to say.
>> Yeah. Uh, this is Randy Liy, deputy city
» Yeah. Uh, this is Randy Liy, deputy city
attorney. We have to be a little careful
regarding tying up land in perpetuity.
So, that's why we have typically set
them up at 99 years. We don't want to
keep something or tie it up. We might
run into problems regarding the legality
of such a thing. So, that's why we've
set things at 99 years, but it could be
something less than that. We don't like
to go beyond 99 years. Randy, can you
explain the rule against
[laughter] that? That I can't.
>> Just kidding. Just kidding. I have to go
» Just kidding. Just kidding. I have to go
back a long way back to law school, but
that's actually that's has to do with
wills and [laughter]
trusts and so it's a little bit
different, but at the same time, we
can't really tie up land for
>> gotcha.
» gotcha.
>> You know, a covenant or something like
» You know, a covenant or something like
that in perpetuity. We have to set some
type of limitation on it.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> So, we have done 99 years as no one will
» So, we have done 99 years as no one will
hear. will be alive in 99 years, but we
could make it 50 years. We could make it
whatever the commission says. We just
can't make it in perpetuity. It just has
to be some period of time. So it's not
tied up indefinitely.
>> Yeah. So like land donations could be
» Yeah. So like land donations could be
perpetuity, you know, whatever or 99
years. But I just mean I'd like to have
flexibility in how we apply those terms
if possible in a matrix even depending
on the
>> thing. I think Lee, I think we I mean I
» thing. I think Lee, I think we I mean I
think I think you're heading in the
right direction. Maybe just a little
more flexibility I think on the units,
you know, versus the land and maybe um
some of the, you know, land donations
for sure, you know, 99 years, but maybe
some flexibility on the on the low end
there. Um I I think is what we're kind
of looking for. I don't know. or just
the ability to have that option to wave
it from 99 to 50 or whatever we want to
do
>> if that's possible.
» if that's possible.
>> Yeah. And again, yeah, I guess that's
» Yeah. And again, yeah, I guess that's
what I maybe that's another way to put
it.
I I think the policy
I think we support the policy of 99 type
years, but we don't want to be so tied
in that we miss out on a great project
that we all think is a great project
because it's 50 years, you know. Um and
and so giving us a little bit of
flexibility there.
>> Exactly.
» Exactly.
>> That's helpful. Thank you. Um and if I
» That's helpful. Thank you. Um and if I
could just ask one additional clarifying
question. I did not hear discussion on
um commission's interest in exploring
additional land use or expediated review
processes.
» Well, I um we didn't talk I mean a few
people mentioned that. I would say I
think under the new development code
we've we've put a lot of things into
place that um as far as density and
density bonuses and allowed a lot more
density. [clears throat] Um I am and
some of those were not yet even seen
getting used yet. So I'm not sure
personally I want to dive into changing
some of the the code and you know the
development density side of the code
until we see how some of it works.
However, the permitting side and the and
the procedure side I I mean I might be
open to and Commissioner Cos mentioned
the the pre-esigned pre-approved design
you know that Oland Park has done and
you know I could you know see where that
could be a benefit with you know
especially like the housing authority
intends for homeowners you know coming
up with a design they you know agree on
and you know we're going to build this
one we're going to build it [snorts] you
or those, you know, four designs and and
and these, you know, get pre-approved. I
like that idea. So, that kind of process
certainly I'm supportive of.
And again, I'm I'm not opposed to a
density bonus or whatever, but I don't
think that's where we need to spend our
time at this stage because we have a
code that we're still working through.
I mean, Leah, for what it's worth, I
didn't bring it up tonight, and I mean,
we can talk about it more with as we
navigate more with the land development
code. I mean, I am interested in us
exploring how to expand those, you know,
expand or lean into byite approvals. Um,
but I I don't want to shock the system
right now, but [laughter]
perhaps [snorts] we can ease into that
once we get another iteration of this.
>> [snorts]
» [snorts]
>> and I've softened some people up.
» and I've softened some people up.
>> That's where I'm at, too.
» That's where I'm at, too.
>> Okay. Any other questions, Leo? Any
» Okay. Any other questions, Leo? Any
other comments people want to make here
before we close this? And look forward
to the continued work.
Thank you. And I know the whole Ahab
committee has been working hard on this
and then you know the folks who have
been been weighing in. Appreciate that.
So, okay. Thank you.
Okay. Let's jump here towards the end of
the agenda here. That brings us to
commission items um and reviewing the
future agenda. Um I do have a commission
item I want to talk a little bit about
um which is the city manager search um
and I have talked to SG
um and and moving ahead. Our consultant
is going to be um his name is Doug
Thomas. Um Clay who is here um um on
behalf of SGR is is not going to delete
it. It's going to be Doug Thomas. Doug
is um a 35 year um city manager in
Maryland, Michigan, and Florida. Worked
[snorts] mostly in university
communities. He's going to send me his
resume and I'll send it out to all of
you um so you don't have to remember all
this. But his last location was
Lakeland, Florida, a town of about
125,000.
He has been leading, he's been at SGL
for 10 years doing recruitment, priority
based budgeting, best management
practices, as well as um you know,
working with communities. He is
currently leading the city of Waco's um
search. He's there right now down to
their four finalists in Waco. He's done
a lot of work in Leach um and a lot of
other university towns. he's often
assigned to university towns given his
background. Um so um the next steps and
what what we need to start thinking
about is you know the next step as we've
talked about will be kind of the
position profile process and Doug will
come here for you know probably three
days. He'll meet with all of us
individually. He'll meet with senior
staff and department heads. Um do a 360.
Um and then he's going to meet with
basically whoever we tell him to meet
with or ask him to meet with. And so we
all need to be thinking about who we
want him to meet with. Um you know, be
it you know, whoever um members of the
community, county, school board,
chamber, KU, land, whoever that is. Um,
I'm going to be asking each of you to
give me three or four people we think
you should meet with. So, be thinking
about that. Um, and then we need to be
thinking about as what do we want, you
know, this is up to us, what we want the
process to be. You know, he said in some
towns he hosts a town hall meeting.
Well, he stands up and lets the town
come in. Um, obviously they can do a
survey for us where we we pay them extra
to do a survey, but he said, you know,
towns like ours, we have a survey
process. So, he could also, for
basically no extra charge, work with us
to come up with questions and we issue
the survey and get the information back.
Um, and anything else someone thinks he
should do to create that position
profile and process. Um and you know
that would then you know help him come
up with a position description, a
brochure, candidate attributes, ideal
candidate, that sort of thing. And then
we move on and you know talk about ads
and ad placements, launch the job search
and you know we can talk about the later
process. Um, so, um, I guess what I want
you guys to start thinking about, um,
I'll send send an email out to you with
his information and, um, then you'll
each be able to talk to him if you have
something to say like, I think you
should do this. This is the information
I want to be part of this process and
we'll get going. Um, you know, as he
said to me, he's our consultant. um you
know and he's working for the five of us
and and you know some of that might be
in a big meeting but some of that will
just be one-on-one and he'll work to to
try to get the information you need to
make your best decision. Um but the one
thing I I will be asking for in the next
week or two will be who do you think he
should meet with while he's here so we
can get those scheduled while he's here
um and then find times for him to meet
with each of us. Obviously, if those
three days don't work, he can do Zoom
meetings. He can, you know, whatever if
they don't line up with everything. But
anyway, that's the process. We're going
to um um again get some more
information. We'll email that out about
what you guys start thinking about that
so we can get the get the project
running.
>> As in a town as unopinionated as ours,
» As in a town as unopinionated as ours,
is he going to be bored? [laughter]
>> He said he's worked in a few university
» He said he's worked in a few university
towns and so he's he's he's he's ready
for the for the conversation. Um and so
and so that's kind of the next steps
there and so look for that and hopefully
you know in the next few weeks we'll be
scheduling those dates to to get the the
process going.
Okay, other commission items.
» Um I I'm going to come in. I'm just I'm
this is the third meeting where I've
been like I really have things to say
but it's late and after yesterday I
don't want to drag our staff any longer.
But I do want staff to know that um I
will advocate for any support that you
guys need in regards to yesterday.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
Um, I'm going to make it real real quick
about anything that we bring forward the
especially the affordable housing um
incentive plan.
I'm a numbers person. So, just an FYI, I
like modeling. I know I like knowing
what the effect of the community or of
our of our budget, etc. debt load. Um,
so any policy moving forward right now,
obviously, we're real high level. Um,
but with the affordable housing, I'm
really interested in seeing some
modeling on how these incentives are
going to work. Um,
and then I think actually for staff, I
had requested an update on
uh we're doing a project on 27th over by
Mallisters
and we had that road opened up less than
a year ago. So, I was just hoping I
could get some updates. I've had a few
calls from that. Other than that, thank
you guys um for [clears throat]
everything that you do staff-wise and uh
that's it.
>> Excellent. Yeah.
» Excellent. Yeah.
>> I mean, yeah, if we're going down the
» I mean, yeah, if we're going down the
line, yeah, I mean, I would echo that
for staff that, you know,
uh, me mental health is health and if
people have experienced trauma, it's
very important to use the EAP here to be
able to find people who can help with
that. And it may not be something that
pops up right away, but if that is
something that comes up over time or if
you're having anxiety or panic attacks,
you know, please use the resources that
we have to talk about that your mental
health is as important as your physical
health. So, I would just want to add
that. The [snorts] only other thing here
for the future stuff would be I would
like to know each month at the end of
the month what the the memberships look
like at the rec centers, what that looks
like, what the uptake is. Um, that's
something we do via via email. It's
something we could talk about here, but
I would just would like to know those
numbers going forward.
>> Absolutely agree with that.
» Absolutely agree with that.
Commission of future.
>> Just to add on to that, I had somebody
» Just to add on to that, I had somebody
telling me that they were concerned
about how hard it was to use our website
to apply for the permit. Just say it
took them 20 or 30 minutes. So, if we
could streamline that process to collect
the fees, I don't know if that's true or
not, but that's something I was told. It
took a little longer paid to
>> just to buy one
» just to buy one
>> to to buy a pass. Yeah. I mean, just
» to to buy a pass. Yeah. I mean, just
leave it that. Yeah.
>> Is it going through track? Is it
» Is it going through track? Is it
>> I don't know. They're using it. It's
» I don't know. They're using it. It's
through our regular parks and recck
service.
>> Yeah. So, it's Rec Track. Yes. It isn't
» Yeah. So, it's Rec Track. Yes. It isn't
the most userfriendly.
>> I don't know if that's a one-off or user
» I don't know if that's a one-off or user
error. I'm just pointing out that maybe
it is not set up for multiple high
volume transactions and perhaps um that
might be the problem. But just wanted to
bring that up. That's something somebody
brought up. So,
>> okay.
» okay.
Okay. If nothing else, uh we have one
item on the city manager's report.
>> Yeah. The only item is we uh rarely but
» Yeah. The only item is we uh rarely but
occasionally have emergency repair. This
was the case uh we had um a major um
break in pump station. Had to uh fix it
immediately. Um so we by policy make
sure to report that publicly and make
sure that you're aware of it. And that's
what we did here.
Yeah. So, just follow up on that. Since
that was in my neighborhood, there were
a lot of people who communicated with me
to say
we could do better with communication of
what that looked like. People, you know,
all of a sudden there was a, you know,
break in the road, there was a pipe over
it, there was egress issues coming out
of it, and
I don't know exactly how we communicated
to people, but there was definitely an
understanding that this was broken. They
didn't have an idea when the ETA was,
what this would look like. Just passing
that along going forward.
[snorts]
>> Okay. Um, see manager report is a public
» Okay. Um, see manager report is a public
hearing item. Any member of the public
like to make a comment on the city
manager's report
online?
>> No, mayor.
» No, mayor.
>> Uh, calendar items.
» Uh, calendar items.
Um, any comments on the on the calendar?
There is the legislative breakfast on
Friday um for the chamber and then end
of the [laughter]
end of the month is the chamber annual
meeting.
Um
any other
Craig, we have the hold on the city
commission retreat on the 5th and 6th.
We have an update on the Should we keep
holding those dates or do we should?
>> Yes, that's what we have scheduled.
» Yes, that's what we have scheduled.
Okay. I'll update the invites.
>> Yeah. So, it's more than a hold at this
» Yeah. So, it's more than a hold at this
point. It's a
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Well, I just heard from Nancy today just
» Well, I just heard from Nancy today just
confirming she wanted to make sure we
had the location at BTBC as well. So,
we're just trying to coordinate
locations. Yeah. We'll get it updated.
>> Yeah. And if if it I mean, I don't know
» Yeah. And if if it I mean, I don't know
if it's both the full days or if it's
half one half day, full day, whatever.
Just Yeah. Update that and get that out
and we get that on our calendar.
>> Yes. By the end of the week, I'll have
» Yes. By the end of the week, I'll have
that updated. Is that good?
>> Oh, [clears throat] that's fine.
» Oh, [clears throat] that's fine.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.