[0:09] Sir,
[0:12] » you ready? Sharon,
[0:14] >> I am ready. Thank you, ma'am.
[0:17] » I am ready. Thank you, ma'am.
[0:17] >> Next Friday.
[0:18] » Next Friday.
[0:18] >> We are going to call um the meeting the
[0:22] » We are going to call um the meeting the
[0:22] uh January [clears throat] 6th, 2026
[0:24] meeting to order. Um, we have two
[0:26] executive sessions before we start the
[0:28] regular agenda at 5:45.
[0:31] Um, each would be about 15 minutes. Um,
[0:34] and then we'll start the regular agenda
[0:35] at 5:45. So, I'd look for a motion on
[0:39] the first executive session.
[0:41] >> I move that we recess into an executive
[0:43] » I move that we recess into an executive
[0:43] session for approximately 15 minutes to
[0:44] discuss matters related to a security
[0:46] measure at city hall pursuant to KSA
[0:48] 754519
[0:50] subsection B12. The justification is to
[0:53] keep confidential security measures at
[0:55] city hall where the disclosure of such
[0:57] matters would jeopardize those security
[0:58] measures that are in place which are
[1:01] designed to protect persons and public
[1:03] bodies using city hall. The city
[1:05] commission will resume its regular
[1:06] meeting in the city commission room at
[1:08] approximately 5:16 p.m. after the
[1:10] executive session has concluded.
[1:13] >> Second
[1:14] » Second
[1:14] >> motion by commissioner Solos, a second
[1:16] » motion by commissioner Solos, a second
[1:16] by Commissioner Pian. All those in favor
[1:18] say I.
[1:19] >> I. I. Opposed passes five to zero. We
[1:22] » I. I. Opposed passes five to zero. We
[1:22] will be in recess for 15 minutes of
[1:24] executive session.
[15:06] We're coming back from executive session
[15:08] and we have nothing to report and we are
[15:10] now heading into our second executive
[15:11] session. So, I'd look for a motion on
[15:14] that. a motion to recess into executive
[15:16] session for approximately 15 minutes to
[15:18] discuss privilege legal communication
[15:19] from the city's attorney regarding
[15:21] litigation and state and local laws
[15:23] pursuant to KSA754519B2.
[15:26] The justification is to keep attorney
[15:28] client privileged matters confidential
[15:30] at this time. [snorts] The city
[15:31] commission will resume its regular
[15:33] meeting in the city commission room at
[15:36] [snorts]
[15:37] 5 5:31 uh after the executive session is
[15:40] concluded.
[15:41] >> Second.
[15:42] » Second.
[15:42] >> Second. There's a [snorts] motion by
[15:43] » Second. There's a [snorts] motion by
[15:43] Vice um Mayor Courtney, a second by
[15:46] Commissioner Pulling. All those in favor
[15:47] say I.
[15:48] >> I opposed. Passes 5-0. or we return at
[15:51] » I opposed. Passes 5-0. or we return at
[15:51] 5:30.
[32:31] from our second executive session. We
[32:33] have nothing to report and uh we will be
[32:35] in recess till 5:45 and we'll start the
[32:38] regular agenda.
[32:41] >> Thank you.
[44:20] Sher, you ready?
[44:21] >> I'm [snorts] ready.
[44:24] » I'm [snorts] ready.
[44:24] >> We're going to call the meeting back
[44:26] » We're going to call the meeting back
[44:26] into order here at 5:45.
[44:29] Before we begin our agenda, I wanted to
[44:32] acknowledge the events that occurred at
[44:35] city hall yesterday morning. First and
[44:38] foremost, I want to be clear. The safety
[44:40] of our staff comes first. Their safety,
[44:43] well-being, and care matter deeply to
[44:45] this governing body and to me
[44:47] personally.
[44:48] Situations like this are certainly
[44:50] unsettling, and we recognize the
[44:52] emotional weight they can carry on
[44:54] everyone. We are committed to supporting
[44:56] team Lawrence as they take the time they
[44:58] need and his operations return
[45:00] thoughtfully and safely. I also want to
[45:03] reassure the community that city hall is
[45:06] safe and we continue to work closely
[45:08] with our professional staff to ensure
[45:10] our public buildings remain secure and
[45:13] welcoming places. We appreciate the
[45:16] rapid response of our police department
[45:18] and are grateful for the the work of the
[45:20] first responders who supported fellow
[45:23] members of team Lawrence throughout the
[45:24] day.
[45:26] We've been especially heartened by the
[45:28] many residents, neighbors, friends, and
[45:30] loved ones who have reached out to
[45:32] simply check in and offer support to
[45:35] team Lawrence. That kind of care is a
[45:37] powerful reminder of who we are as a
[45:39] community. It reflects Lawrence at its
[45:42] best. We care about each other. Tonight,
[45:45] we move forward with the business of the
[45:47] community. On behalf of the city
[45:49] commission, thank you to our staff for
[45:52] their professionalism and their
[45:53] resilience. And thank you to our
[45:55] community for their trust and care.
[45:57] Thank you.
[46:02] [sighs]
[46:03] We'll now start with the rules of the
[46:05] meeting. Sherry, if you could read
[46:07] those.
[46:07] >> Thank you, Mayor. Good evening,
[46:09] » Thank you, Mayor. Good evening,
[46:10] everyone. And if you would please
[46:11] silence your cell phones. The primary
[46:14] format for accessing the meeting is in
[46:16] person at city hall. Virtual access
[46:19] can't be guaranteed due to potential
[46:21] technology issues. When the mayor calls
[46:24] for public comment, please approach the
[46:26] podium to indicate you wish to speak.
[46:29] Virtual participants should use the
[46:31] raise hand function.
[46:33] [clears throat]
[46:34] When prompted, select join as panelist.
[46:38] There will be a brief delay as your role
[46:40] changes. Once your name is called,
[46:42] please unmute, turn [snorts] on your
[46:44] camera, and state your name and zip code
[46:47] before speaking. All comments will be
[46:49] limited to 3 minutes. The city does
[46:51] reserve the right to turn videos off or
[46:53] mute participants.
[46:56] >> Thank you, Sherry. Next on the agenda is
[46:59] » Thank you, Sherry. Next on the agenda is
[46:59] to approve the agenda. The city
[47:00] commission reserves the right to amend,
[47:02] supplement, or reorder the agenda during
[47:04] the meeting. Do we have a motion on the
[47:06] agenda?
[47:08] I move to approve the agenda as is.
[47:10] >> Second.
[47:11] » Second.
[47:11] >> Moved by Commissioner Devo, seconded by
[47:13] » Moved by Commissioner Devo, seconded by
[47:13] Commissioner Cos to approve the agenda.
[47:15] All those in favor say I.
[47:17] >> I.
[47:17] » I.
[47:18] >> Opposed. Passes five to zero. Next is
[47:21] » Opposed. Passes five to zero. Next is
[47:21] the consent agenda. Items on the consent
[47:23] agenda are considered under one motion
[47:25] and approved by one motion. Members of
[47:27] the governing body may remove items for
[47:29] separate discussion if desired. Members
[47:32] of the public may remove items
[47:33] identified as quasi judicial for
[47:35] separate discussion if desired. Members
[47:37] of the public will be limited to three
[47:39] minutes for comment. To begin, do any
[47:42] commissioners have an item to remove
[47:44] from the consent agenda?
[47:46] >> Go.
[47:46] » Go.
[47:46] >> Mayor, I would like to briefly discuss
[47:50] » Mayor, I would like to briefly discuss
[47:50] items C3A.
[47:54] Uh, I've got two claims questions and
[47:58] C8A
[48:00] on our incentive for our garage doors.
[48:05] >> Sounds good. Any others?
[48:06] » Sounds good. Any others?
[48:06] >> Mayor, I have C6A
[48:09] » Mayor, I have C6A
[48:09] about the purchase of one truck and just
[48:12] a quick question on C8B.
[48:16] >> C8B.
[48:18] » C8B.
[48:18] Okay.
[48:20] [snorts] Um, okay.
[48:23] Any others? Seeing none, is is there a
[48:25] motion with the exception of those four?
[48:28] >> So moved.
[48:30] » So moved.
[48:30] >> Okay, there's a motion to approve the
[48:32] » Okay, there's a motion to approve the
[48:32] consent agenda with the exception of
[48:33] C3A, C6A, 68A, and 68B.
[48:37] >> Second.
[48:38] » Second.
[48:38] >> And there's a second by Commissioner
[48:40] » And there's a second by Commissioner
[48:40] Cos. All those in favor, please say I.
[48:43] >> I.
[48:44] » I.
[48:44] >> Opposed. The consent agenda passes 5 to
[48:47] » Opposed. The consent agenda passes 5 to
[48:47] zero. I probably should have noted there
[48:49] were no quasi judicial items.
[48:50] >> No.
[48:51] » No.
[48:51] >> Um, okay. Okay. So, we'll take those in
[48:53] » Um, okay. Okay. So, we'll take those in
[48:53] order. C uh 3A uh claims.
[48:56] >> Okay. I've got two questions and I
[48:59] » Okay. I've got two questions and I
[48:59] recognize this given the circumstances
[49:01] uh we may not get answers tonight, which
[49:04] is fine. If I get a question on claims
[49:05] from the public, I will typically pull
[49:08] it so we can talk about it in public.
[49:11] The first question I have is in regards
[49:14] to Pride Promotions. It's a minimal
[49:16] expense of a little over $1,800. there
[49:19] was a grant tied to those purchases. I
[49:24] just kind of want to know where that
[49:25] expenditure falls within the grant. And
[49:28] then the second question, we've got um
[49:31] an individual by the name of Vernon. I
[49:35] believe it's pronounced Heiny. H E I N E
[49:39] in alphabetical order order. It is under
[49:42] H.
[49:44] And it is paying for mowing.
[49:47] there is an individual by that name that
[49:50] is deceased. I'd like confirmation that
[49:53] we are not paying a deceased individual.
[49:56] Um the
[49:59] looks like maybe the PO number is 101 or
[50:02] no the GL number is 101.0602-301701.
[50:07] Uh check number 841781
[50:10] maybe. Uh just some identifying moments.
[50:13] Again, I don't see our finance folks
[50:15] here, which is perfectly fine. If I can
[50:17] get an email based on that, that would
[50:18] be great.
[50:18] >> You probably have resources
[50:21] » You probably have resources
[50:21] uh on here. We just This is There's
[50:24] hundreds and hundreds of claims on here.
[50:26] So,
[50:27] >> um this is Do you want to hold this for
[50:29] » um this is Do you want to hold this for
[50:29] approval or
[50:33] >> It is $2,400. You guys have already paid
[50:36] » It is $2,400. You guys have already paid
[50:36] I'm guessing you've already paid these.
[50:38] >> No, this is an authorization to send
[50:40] » No, this is an authorization to send
[50:40] these checks out. That's why we do the
[50:42] claims report each.
[50:44] >> Um, let's then I want to hold those two.
[50:46] » Um, let's then I want to hold those two.
[50:46] Please hold those two and proceed with
[50:48] the rest of the claims. Can you do that?
[50:52] >> Um,
[50:55] I think Michelle is coming on.
[50:59] >> Yes. Uh, these claims have not been
[51:01] » Yes. Uh, these claims have not been
[51:01] remitted out yet and we are happy to
[51:03] hold both of those claims and verify
[51:07] their proceeding. That means you will
[51:09] see them um after communication and
[51:11] verification. They would reappear on
[51:13] next week's claim.
[51:14] >> That's great. Perfect. Thank you so
[51:16] » That's great. Perfect. Thank you so
[51:16] much.
[51:19] >> Okay. Any other questions about the
[51:20] » Okay. Any other questions about the
[51:20] claims?
[51:23] This is a public hearing item now that
[51:25] it's been pulled. Any me member of the
[51:27] public like to speak on the claims?
[51:32] Anyone online like to speak about the
[51:34] claims?
[51:38] Yes, just
[51:40] you do have one.
[51:41] >> Okay,
[51:41] » Okay,
[51:42] >> I'm over now.
[51:50] » Steven Watts.
[51:53] >> Hi,
[51:55] » Hi,
[51:55] happy new year. Woohoo.
[51:59] Hey, since we're in the claims arena,
[52:02] please help me understand why the town
[52:05] has spent $16,000
[52:08] for fiscal year or for 2025
[52:13] and it's continuing into 2026.
[52:17] Coffee
[52:18] for the luxurious administrative set. If
[52:22] we provide coffee for staff, how about
[52:25] providing it to everybody?
[52:29] Please help me understand
[52:32] why [clears throat] do quarter of a
[52:35] million dollar executives
[52:39] need subsidized coffee from the city of
[52:44] Lawrence, which is so broke.
[52:48] broke as a broke dick dog
[52:53] is charging people to enter their parks.
[52:57] It's just a question. Can we get an
[52:59] answer? I've sent several emails about
[53:01] it. No answers. There we go. Thank you.
[53:06] [cough]
[53:08] » Any other comments online?
[53:10] >> No, mayor.
[53:12] » No, mayor.
[53:12] >> Bring it back to the commission for
[53:14] » Bring it back to the commission for
[53:14] comments or motions.
[53:19] Sherry, in the motion, if we're going to
[53:20] pull the claims minus those two, do we
[53:22] need to note that in the motion?
[53:25] >> I think we [clears throat] would defin
[53:27] » I think we [clears throat] would defin
[53:27] we would want to make approve the claims
[53:29] with the exception of those two items.
[53:31] >> So, so Commissioner Poland, do you have
[53:33] » So, so Commissioner Poland, do you have
[53:33] those uh do you have those accounts
[53:36] noted that we're pulling?
[53:37] >> I do.
[53:39] » I do.
[53:39] >> Pride Promotions and Vernon Heiny.
[53:42] » Pride Promotions and Vernon Heiny.
[53:42] >> Would you want to go ahead and make a
[53:43] » Would you want to go ahead and make a
[53:43] motion?
[53:44] >> Yeah.
[53:46] » Yeah.
[53:46] Um, I'd like to vote to approve claims
[53:51] less the pride promotion for $1822
[53:55] $1822.
[53:57] [cough]
[53:58] [clears throat] And Vernon Heiney,
[54:00] Vernon C. Heiny. Um,
[54:04] and forgive me, let me pull that back up
[54:07] again. And it's an approximate amount of
[54:10] $600. Do we need to be more specific?
[54:12] >> 661.
[54:13] » 661.
[54:13] >> 661. Okay. Is there a second?
[54:16] » 661. Okay. Is there a second?
[54:16] >> I second that.
[54:17] » I second that.
[54:17] >> Motion by Commissioner Pulian, a second
[54:19] » Motion by Commissioner Pulian, a second
[54:19] by Commissioner De. All those in favor
[54:20] say I. I.
[54:22] >> Opposed. Nay.
[54:23] » Opposed. Nay.
[54:24] >> Nay. Passes 4 to1.
[54:27] » Nay. Passes 4 to1.
[54:27] That brings us to C 6A um which records
[54:33] the armor equipment utili utilizing
[54:35] source the royal rolloff container. Vice
[54:37] Mayor Courtney.
[54:41] So, this this purchase right here is it
[54:43] says it's for 245,000. I looked up a
[54:46] photo online of what it looks like. It
[54:47] it's looks like a tow truck for heavy
[54:50] vehicles. Is that a fair assessment?
[54:52] [clears throat and cough] I guess this
[54:53] might be an MSO question. I don't know
[54:54] if anybody's available.
[54:56] >> Just they are just
[54:59] » Just they are just
[54:59] to move them to panelists.
[55:03] [clears throat]
[55:10] » [clears throat]
[55:19] » you [clears throat] you might want to
[55:20] ask her question again. Vice Mayor Mike
[55:22] Lawless is now on.
[55:24] >> Okay, gotcha. So, looking at C6A for the
[55:27] » Okay, gotcha. So, looking at C6A for the
[55:27] bid for that rolloff container truck, is
[55:31] it is it fair to say that's a tow truck
[55:32] for heavy vehicles?
[55:35] Well, uh, so Mike Lawless, uh, deputy
[55:38] director for [clears throat] MSO.
[55:39] [snorts]
[55:40] The rolloff truck is for the, uh, it's
[55:43] for solid waste, and it's for the big
[55:45] rolloff tanks that we pull, um, that
[55:48] contractors use to fill with trash from
[55:51] construction or whatever they're doing,
[55:53] and then we take that to the landfill.
[55:55] So, that's the truck that we use to pull
[55:58] those containers onto and deliver to the
[56:01] landfill to empty.
[56:03] >> Gotcha. And how often are we using
[56:04] » Gotcha. And how often are we using
[56:04] trucks like that?
[56:06] >> Every [clears throat] day.
[56:07] » Every [clears throat] day.
[56:07] >> Every day.
[56:08] » Every day.
[56:08] >> We have I believe we have nine of those.
[56:10] » We have I believe we have nine of those.
[56:10] And typically we're using um five at a
[56:14] time. Five every day. And then sometimes
[56:18] um um we actually use more than that.
[56:23] >> Okay. No, gotcha. I was just I was
[56:25] » Okay. No, gotcha. I was just I was
[56:25] curious if it was just a tow truck for
[56:26] heavy trucks if like how often we were
[56:28] actually towing our own machines. But if
[56:31] we're using it, if we're using nine a
[56:33] day, that makes sense.
[56:34] >> Yeah. It's it's not a it's not a tow
[56:36] » Yeah. It's it's not a it's not a tow
[56:36] truck. It's actually to to move those uh
[56:39] rolloff containers and um we pull about
[56:43] 35 of those every day. So we use in the
[56:46] neighborhood of five trucks a day um to
[56:48] handle that workload.
[56:50] >> Gotcha. Okay. Uh and then kind of
[56:53] » Gotcha. Okay. Uh and then kind of
[56:53] probably uh Mr. Owens, one one more for
[56:55] you. So when we make a large purchase
[56:56] like these, are these amvertised over
[56:59] the lifespan of the vehicles? So are
[57:01] these like we spended like4 million from
[57:03] this type of truck? Are we, you know,
[57:06] deprecating that 20 30% like each year
[57:10] as it goes through its life cycle?
[57:11] >> You mean a depreciation?
[57:13] » You mean a depreciation?
[57:13] >> Yeah.
[57:13] » Yeah.
[57:13] >> Well, we don't pay taxes, so it doesn't
[57:15] » Well, we don't pay taxes, so it doesn't
[57:15] that doesn't have a bearing. But yeah,
[57:17] we do we we do and I think this this
[57:19] question came up with another fleet,
[57:21] Adam. It's the same thing. We try and
[57:22] manage that fleet not just by using
[57:24] mileage but really assessing the
[57:26] mechanical condition that our mechanics
[57:28] assess it on and then what a secondary
[57:30] market value might be. So it's always
[57:32] trying to hit the sweet spot in that as
[57:34] things change. Uh Robert Aaron is the
[57:37] one that answered the question before
[57:38] and so I I've learned from him and that
[57:40] that is the right answer.
[57:41] >> And when we have older trucks like this,
[57:43] » And when we have older trucks like this,
[57:43] do we get some do we sell this to other
[57:45] municipalities get like some value back
[57:48] from that?
[57:49] >> Yes, there's a variety of ways. There
[57:50] » Yes, there's a variety of ways. There
[57:50] are actually municipal um auction sites
[57:53] that kind of help us do that um more
[57:57] conveniently. Sometimes we trade them
[57:59] in. Um there's a variety of ways that we
[58:02] might do that. Okay.
[58:03] >> Are these falling under an enterprise
[58:05] » Are these falling under an enterprise
[58:05] fund like um it's under solid waste
[58:10] >> in this case? Yes.
[58:11] » in this case? Yes.
[58:11] >> And solid waste is an enterprise fund.
[58:14] » And solid waste is an enterprise fund.
[58:14] >> Yeah.
[58:14] » Yeah.
[58:14] >> Yes.
[58:15] » Yes.
[58:15] >> I would imagine. Okay. So there is a
[58:16] » I would imagine. Okay. So there is a
[58:16] depreciation tied to it but it has no
[58:18] monetary value. Gotcha. Okay.
[58:20] >> Okay.
[58:21] » Okay.
[58:21] >> Okay. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate
[58:23] » Okay. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate
[58:23] Mr. Lawless. Appreciate the the answer
[58:24] to that question.
[58:25] >> Okay. Um any other questions?
[58:29] » Okay. Um any other questions?
[58:29] >> No.
[58:30] » No.
[58:30] >> No.
[58:31] » No.
[58:31] >> This is a public hearing item. Anyone
[58:32] » This is a public hearing item. Anyone
[58:32] have a question about um item C6A?
[58:39] How about anyone online?
[58:41] >> No, mayor.
[58:42] » No, mayor.
[58:42] >> Okay. I'll bring it back to the
[58:44] » Okay. I'll bring it back to the
[58:44] commission for either discussion or a
[58:46] motion. Uh motion to approve the
[58:47] purchase of one roll-off container truck
[58:49] from Armor Equipment utilizing the
[58:51] Sourcewell cooperative contract.
[58:54] >> So second
[58:55] » So second
[58:55] >> second
[58:56] » second
[58:56] >> motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded
[58:58] » motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded
[58:58] by Commissioner De. All those in favor,
[59:00] please say I.
[59:01] >> I.
[59:01] » I.
[59:01] >> I.
[59:02] » I.
[59:02] >> Opposed. Passes 5 to zero. That brings
[59:05] » Opposed. Passes 5 to zero. That brings
[59:05] us to C8A which relates to the Amar
[59:08] Company's development incentive. And I
[59:11] believe Commissioner Polium pulled that.
[59:13] Briefly, Brandon, would you mind just
[59:16] kind of walking us through where we are
[59:18] just for public's purpose? I don't need
[59:21] much.
[59:22] >> Yep. Um, the city has an economic
[59:24] » Yep. Um, the city has an economic
[59:24] development incentive policy that guides
[59:26] this process. Um, the first step I
[59:30] usually first step is the consultation
[59:32] between staff and an a potential
[59:33] applicant. Um and then uh the first step
[59:37] for the commission is is this action
[59:40] item on the agenda tonight which is um
[59:43] accepting the the application. Um some
[59:46] communities don't have that step. It's
[59:48] kind of I think it's somewhat unique to
[59:50] us but um that has been our first step.
[59:52] City commission accepts the application
[59:54] and then we will work then staff will
[59:57] work with our consultants um our
[59:58] financial adviser, bond counsel um and
[1:00:01] any other consultants we need to. uh
[1:00:03] those costs are funded by the applicant
[1:00:06] through the funding agreement which is
[1:00:08] also attached to the agenda.
[1:00:10] >> So we will see this item again.
[1:00:11] » So we will see this item again.
[1:00:11] >> Yes.
[1:00:12] » Yes.
[1:00:12] >> Great. Thank you very much.
[1:00:13] » Great. Thank you very much.
[1:00:13] >> Yes,
[1:00:14] » Yes,
[1:00:14] >> that's all I had.
[1:00:15] » that's all I had.
[1:00:15] >> And question inside the application it
[1:00:17] » And question inside the application it
[1:00:17] says you know Amar currently leases the
[1:00:19] building and per company policy cannot
[1:00:20] pursue expansion of a leased building.
[1:00:22] Therefore Amar is seeking an option to
[1:00:24] purchase the current site which then
[1:00:26] opens the potential for expansion
[1:00:28] investment. So just kind of if they
[1:00:31] didn't purchase the entire entire site,
[1:00:33] this IRB wouldn't happen. It's it's
[1:00:35] dependent on them making that purchase.
[1:00:38] >> Well, um that's that's a little cart
[1:00:40] » Well, um that's that's a little cart
[1:00:40] before the horse um because we we are
[1:00:43] just receiving the application. So we
[1:00:44] haven't started negotiating a
[1:00:45] development agreement or um the terms of
[1:00:48] the of a potential pilot payment in lie
[1:00:50] of taxes through the IRB. Um so those
[1:00:52] would be conversations that we'd have in
[1:00:54] the future.
[1:00:55] I think it's important to note that we
[1:00:58] do not make it incredibly easy for
[1:01:02] businesses to get these incentives. I
[1:01:05] think there might be a little bit of our
[1:01:08] community that um think maybe that we
[1:01:10] just hand them out very generously
[1:01:13] without any type of process. So, this is
[1:01:15] really one of the reasons, right,
[1:01:17] >> I I I brought this to the attention.
[1:01:19] » I I I brought this to the attention.
[1:01:19] Thank you again.
[1:01:19] >> Appreciate that. And I I will take the
[1:01:22] » Appreciate that. And I I will take the
[1:01:22] opportunity just to acknowledge um
[1:01:24] members of Amar's team are with us. Mike
[1:01:26] Burnholds, the general manager of the lo
[1:01:28] of the plant here. Um and then we do
[1:01:31] have a couple joining us online. Uh Rob
[1:01:33] Cheser
[1:01:34] >> [clears throat and snorts]
[1:01:35] » [clears throat and snorts]
[1:01:35] >> um and Sean Mason from Amar.
[1:01:37] » um and Sean Mason from Amar.
[1:01:37] >> Thank you.
[1:01:39] » Thank you.
[1:01:39] >> Thank you all for being here and and
[1:01:41] » Thank you all for being here and and
[1:01:41] look forward to seeing how the
[1:01:43] application goes. Any [clears throat]
[1:01:45] other questions?
[1:01:46] >> Not sir.
[1:01:47] » Not sir.
[1:01:48] >> Okay. This is a public hearing item. Any
[1:01:49] » Okay. This is a public hearing item. Any
[1:01:49] members of the public like to say
[1:01:51] anything on this item?
[1:01:54] Oh, Steve is going to say something.
[1:02:04] Mayor, members of the commission, I I
[1:02:06] don't want to take too much of your
[1:02:07] time. I know you've got a busy schedule,
[1:02:09] but I did want to say just a few words
[1:02:11] on behalf of this application. Uh Amar
[1:02:14] is one of the larger employers, not only
[1:02:16] of the city of Lawrence, but in the
[1:02:17] county. uh has been here for a number of
[1:02:20] years and in the last particularly in
[1:02:21] the last five years has done an
[1:02:22] outstanding job of reworking their
[1:02:25] business uh in in in a lot of ways it's
[1:02:28] become much more productive much more
[1:02:30] efficient and they've also instituted a
[1:02:32] number of of policies within the company
[1:02:35] that really have improved the the the
[1:02:38] work environment uh the family
[1:02:40] environment of the workplace uh and have
[1:02:42] been very successful in that. In fact,
[1:02:44] they're kind of a model within their
[1:02:46] overall company. Uh so they've done a
[1:02:48] great job uh and I think as has been
[1:02:52] disclosed you know they're in a
[1:02:54] situation where they have opportunities
[1:02:55] for growth and there opportunities for
[1:02:57] expansion but it's not you know not a
[1:03:01] viable situation for them to be putting
[1:03:03] investment into a building they don't
[1:03:04] own. Uh so this is a critical step for
[1:03:07] them not only to uh retain but also to
[1:03:11] put them in a position to continue to
[1:03:12] grow which they have intentions to do.
[1:03:15] So I would, you know, humbly ask that
[1:03:17] you give this strong consideration not
[1:03:19] only this evening but throughout the
[1:03:20] process.
[1:03:22] >> Thank you.
[1:03:26] » Any other any comments online?
[1:03:29] >> No, mayor.
[1:03:30] » No, mayor.
[1:03:30] >> Okay, bring it back to the commission
[1:03:32] » Okay, bring it back to the commission
[1:03:32] for comments or a motion.
[1:03:34] >> Um, I just want it to be known that um
[1:03:39] » Um, I just want it to be known that um
[1:03:39] I do support incentives for our
[1:03:42] businesses. I am very grateful for Amar
[1:03:44] and your presence in the community. Um I
[1:03:46] know several people that work at the
[1:03:48] organization. Um things that I will be
[1:03:52] looking for in the future are jobs. So
[1:03:54] when we look at incentives in general,
[1:03:56] that is one of the things that I will
[1:03:59] definitely give great consideration for
[1:04:02] increase in jobs. So thank you.
[1:04:04] >> Okay. Is any other comments or motions?
[1:04:08] » Okay. Is any other comments or motions?
[1:04:08] >> Yeah. Second that as well. A lot of kids
[1:04:10] » Yeah. Second that as well. A lot of kids
[1:04:10] on my a lot of [clears throat] parents
[1:04:11] on my kids uh cub scouts are working at
[1:04:13] work at AMR too. And so and to go along
[1:04:16] with Commissioner Polling was saying uh
[1:04:17] there'll be a question for me about are
[1:04:19] those jobs in Lawrence or in Douglas
[1:04:21] County and what that looks like. Just so
[1:04:22] you know.
[1:04:26] » Okay. When do we accept the economic
[1:04:28] development incentive application from
[1:04:30] Amar Company and we refer this to staff
[1:04:34] for analysis and follow-up
[1:04:36] recommendation?
[1:04:37] Second
[1:04:39] >> motion um by Commissioner Cos and second
[1:04:41] » motion um by Commissioner Cos and second
[1:04:41] by Commissioner Devo. All those in
[1:04:43] favor, please say I. I.
[1:04:45] >> Opposed? Passes 5 to zero. Last item
[1:04:49] » Opposed? Passes 5 to zero. Last item
[1:04:49] from the consent agenda is
[1:04:50] >> There was also a motion um which is fine
[1:04:53] » There was also a motion um which is fine
[1:04:53] to do it separate. We'll need another
[1:04:54] motion motion to authorize.
[1:04:57] Oh, thank you, Sher. I also move that we
[1:04:59] authorize the city manager execute a
[1:05:01] funding agreement in in substantiality
[1:05:04] the same as form as attached with the
[1:05:07] applicant.
[1:05:08] >> So second
[1:05:09] » So second
[1:05:09] >> I'll second that
[1:05:10] » I'll second that
[1:05:10] >> motion by commissioner sellers a second
[1:05:12] » motion by commissioner sellers a second
[1:05:12] by commissioner devil. All those in
[1:05:14] favor please say I
[1:05:16] >> I
[1:05:17] » I
[1:05:17] >> opposed. Now that passes five to zero.
[1:05:19] » opposed. Now that passes five to zero.
[1:05:19] Thank you Sher for catching that.
[1:05:21] >> My apologies. um C8B um related um to
[1:05:26] » My apologies. um C8B um related um to
[1:05:26] the estates of Malama I think is how
[1:05:29] they pronounce that and I think uh Vice
[1:05:30] Mayor um Courtney pulled this.
[1:05:32] >> Yeah. And so just a a question for MSO
[1:05:35] » Yeah. And so just a a question for MSO
[1:05:35] about this Okonnell [snorts] 25th.
[1:05:37] There's a lot of growth that's been
[1:05:39] happening uh to the east of OK and
[1:05:41] happening uh to the east of Okonnell.
[1:05:43] There's obviously at the north part of
[1:05:44] Okonnell is the MSO plant and stuff like
[1:05:46] that. I'm I I just sort of have like a
[1:05:49] just kind of like a high level question.
[1:05:51] When we have so much growth in an area
[1:05:53] like that, how are we thinking about
[1:05:56] sewer pump stations, what that can be
[1:05:59] supported in the future when we accept
[1:06:04] uh applications such as this?
[1:06:11] » Don't know if
[1:06:12] >> I'm looking to see who's on. I'm sorry.
[1:06:14] » I'm looking to see who's on. I'm sorry.
[1:06:14] >> No problem.
[1:06:15] » No problem.
[1:06:15] is not great.
[1:06:19] >> You said high level. I can do a high
[1:06:21] » You said high level. I can do a high
[1:06:21] level city manager version of it.
[1:06:23] [laughter] Um in [clears throat] they
[1:06:26] can fill in the blanks. Um so anytime
[1:06:28] we're looking at MSO looks at the
[1:06:30] applications for these, they look at the
[1:06:32] load that it will put on all of our
[1:06:34] infrastructure. So those are
[1:06:36] calculations that are done against our
[1:06:37] storm water u or all of our master plans
[1:06:41] for those utilities. Um, so we want to
[1:06:44] make sure that we've put in the right
[1:06:45] adequate uh capacity to take that
[1:06:48] downstream. Um, and so that those are
[1:06:50] the reviews that are done every time we
[1:06:52] would see that plat. And that's for load
[1:06:55] on our city streets uh turning radius,
[1:06:58] any of the street uh load. That's for
[1:07:01] our storm water system, the drainage
[1:07:04] that takes that the capacity. That's for
[1:07:06] our water system. Make sure that we have
[1:07:08] adequate pressures that are built into
[1:07:10] there. And that's also for our uh
[1:07:13] wastewater capacity and making sure that
[1:07:15] we're prepared all the way down the
[1:07:17] system for that load. And most of those
[1:07:19] are part of very large master plans that
[1:07:22] are contemplating development years and
[1:07:24] years ahead.
[1:07:26] >> So Melissa's now in and so is Katherine.
[1:07:28] » So Melissa's now in and so is Katherine.
[1:07:28] This is her Katherine's item.
[1:07:36] » Katherine. Melissa, anything to add?
[1:07:39] [clears throat]
[1:07:40] >> Mayor, I don't have anything to add
[1:07:41] » Mayor, I don't have anything to add
[1:07:41] unless Katherine does, but Craig's um
[1:07:43] spot on and is high level.
[1:07:47] >> Yeah, I don't have anything to add
[1:07:49] » Yeah, I don't have anything to add
[1:07:49] either. Commissioners,
[1:07:51] >> does that answer you?
[1:07:52] » does that answer you?
[1:07:52] >> Yeah. No, I think that answers the
[1:07:54] » Yeah. No, I think that answers the
[1:07:54] question. And so, as we start getting
[1:07:56] I'm just thinking like, hey, we're going
[1:07:57] to start, you know, expanding in
[1:07:58] different directions around town. And so
[1:08:00] like if we do a couple plats here and
[1:08:02] there, like
[1:08:04] that pressure that we're putting on
[1:08:06] roads, storm water, sewer, stuff like
[1:08:09] that,
[1:08:11] uh how do we know we're getting close to
[1:08:13] the limit of what that can support? Is
[1:08:16] that something that's like on the GIS
[1:08:18] like the ArcGIS type thing or just kind
[1:08:20] of curious about that? That's all those
[1:08:22] those large system plans those are made
[1:08:24] to contemplating uh a comprehensive plan
[1:08:28] uh lays that out and integrates that. So
[1:08:30] we're not only projecting we're
[1:08:32] projecting many many many factors some
[1:08:34] of them are the utility impacted factors
[1:08:37] others are zoning financial there's the
[1:08:41] comprehensive plan really does
[1:08:42] contemplate all of those things and ties
[1:08:43] all those pieces together but also then
[1:08:46] each of those master plans that are
[1:08:48] developed that that feed into that those
[1:08:51] are um usually consultant studies that
[1:08:54] talk about entire watersheds or entire
[1:08:57] areas of pressure zones um and We are we
[1:09:00] are hopefully decades ahead of the need
[1:09:04] and a lot of our c comprehensive or um
[1:09:07] capital improvement planning work is
[1:09:09] loading those projects in in a timely
[1:09:12] way so those improvements happen in time
[1:09:14] to support whatever development needs
[1:09:16] are planned and the the planning process
[1:09:19] too is uh lays out the land use plan so
[1:09:22] that we are we're saying this is how
[1:09:24] much load we're wanting to have happen.
[1:09:27] So, one affects the other and the other
[1:09:30] uh maybe drives the first. So,
[1:09:34] >> I appreci I appreciate you taking the
[1:09:35] » I appreci I appreciate you taking the
[1:09:36] time to explain that. Thanks.
[1:09:37] >> That's all that's all I have for that.
[1:09:39] » That's all that's all I have for that.
[1:09:39] >> Okay. Uh any other questions about C8B
[1:09:43] » Okay. Uh any other questions about C8B
[1:09:43] from the commission? If not, it's a
[1:09:46] public hearing item. Anyone like to
[1:09:48] speak on C8B and the audience?
[1:09:52] Seeing none, how about online?
[1:09:54] >> No, ma'am.
[1:09:56] » No, ma'am.
[1:09:56] bring C8B back for comments or motions.
[1:10:01] >> Um motion to accept the dedications of
[1:10:03] » Um motion to accept the dedications of
[1:10:03] utility easements and right ofway
[1:10:05] associated with the final plat plat 2520
[1:10:08] for estates of Malama in the city of
[1:10:10] Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas located
[1:10:12] at 2500 Okonnell Drive.
[1:10:15] >> Second
[1:10:16] » Second
[1:10:16] >> motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded
[1:10:18] » motion by Vice Mayor Courtney, seconded
[1:10:18] by um Commissioner Devo. All those in
[1:10:21] favor, please say I.
[1:10:23] >> I.
[1:10:23] » I.
[1:10:23] >> Opposed? passes 520 to zero. That brings
[1:10:28] » Opposed? passes 520 to zero. That brings
[1:10:28] us to section E, which is the regular
[1:10:29] agenda items. And regular agenda item
[1:10:32] one and two, I assume we're going to do
[1:10:34] together um related to um the uh well,
[1:10:41] let's say the FIFA World Cup, but we'll
[1:10:43] let Jeff talk us through that.
[1:10:47] [clears throat]
[1:10:48] Excuse me.
[1:10:57] Sorry for the delay on that,
[1:10:58] commissioners. Good evening. Jeff Drake
[1:11:00] with planning development services. The
[1:11:02] two amendments are really a tandem pair
[1:11:04] for this item there. And what it is is
[1:11:06] one item will amend the short-term
[1:11:08] rental licensing code. The other amends
[1:11:10] the land development code sections
[1:11:11] related to short-term rentals. So, kind
[1:11:14] of walk through in general what the the
[1:11:16] purpose of this is. You had seen the
[1:11:18] initiation a few months back, but just
[1:11:20] as a reminder with the World Cup coming
[1:11:22] up, we wanted to propose a change to the
[1:11:23] amendments so that there was more
[1:11:24] flexibility in related to those codes.
[1:11:27] And what we're proposing is an
[1:11:29] alteration to the amendments that would
[1:11:30] run in the end of May through basically
[1:11:33] the end of July that would remove a
[1:11:35] couple of sections for we see in the
[1:11:36] code for the land development code. It
[1:11:38] would change the owner occupied and
[1:11:40] non-owner occupied permissions and allow
[1:11:42] a wider variety of uses. So, owner
[1:11:44] occupied and non-owner occupied
[1:11:46] short-term rentals could expand as part
[1:11:47] of that process. As part of the rental
[1:11:50] licensing code, we would remove a couple
[1:11:52] things and then include what's called an
[1:11:53] inspection reciprocity. And I'll start
[1:11:55] with that one first. So, if a property
[1:11:57] is licensed in the long-term rental
[1:11:58] program and has been inspected and gone
[1:12:01] through the process is that we would
[1:12:02] roll that inspection over to the
[1:12:03] short-term rental process because it
[1:12:05] would have cleared those marks, would
[1:12:06] have been found to be insufficient on
[1:12:08] that and just roll that over as part of
[1:12:10] that under the current short-term rental
[1:12:12] licensing code. An entity can't have
[1:12:14] more than three short-term rentals in
[1:12:16] the city of Lawrence. We would
[1:12:17] temporarily remove that cap. So, if an
[1:12:18] apartment complex had 20, 25, 30 units
[1:12:22] and would like to use all 30 of those
[1:12:24] units for short-term rentals, a
[1:12:25] possibility for the duration of the
[1:12:27] World Cup allowance, that would be a
[1:12:28] possibility that would be available for
[1:12:30] that time span. And we'd also include
[1:12:33] some language in there to make sure that
[1:12:34] when somebody is applying that they do
[1:12:36] they're aware that it is a short, no pun
[1:12:39] intended here, a short short-term
[1:12:40] rental. uh it's only for the duration of
[1:12:42] that World Cup between the May 25th
[1:12:45] through July 31st or whatever day the
[1:12:47] commission finds fit to end the process
[1:12:49] on that one and that if they would at
[1:12:52] the conclusion of that then the
[1:12:53] short-term rental code would go back in
[1:12:55] place and those previous restrictions
[1:12:56] that we currently have would come back
[1:12:58] on the books. So, just as a as a quick
[1:13:00] recap, it is it really amending two
[1:13:02] different chapters, but really it's the
[1:13:04] same process or excuse me, the same
[1:13:06] project in just two different portions
[1:13:07] of the city code. And with that, I'd be
[1:13:09] happy to stand for any questions related
[1:13:11] to those.
[1:13:12] >> I have a couple questions, Jeff, which I
[1:13:14] » I have a couple questions, Jeff, which I
[1:13:14] think I know the answer to, but there
[1:13:16] have been questions I've been getting.
[1:13:17] So, okay, let's say I want to rent my
[1:13:20] house out during the World Cup. Um, I
[1:13:22] have to apply for a short-term rental
[1:13:24] license,
[1:13:25] >> correct? would be apply for a short-term
[1:13:26] » correct? would be apply for a short-term
[1:13:26] rental license and we would inspect the
[1:13:28] unit to ensure it meets the property
[1:13:29] maintenance code specifications.
[1:13:31] >> But if I have a long-term rental that I
[1:13:33] » But if I have a long-term rental that I
[1:13:34] already rent out and it's already
[1:13:35] licensed, I wouldn't have to get us
[1:13:37] apply for the short-term rental.
[1:13:39] >> Would have to get a short-term rental
[1:13:40] » Would have to get a short-term rental
[1:13:40] license if you were going to include it
[1:13:41] and in that process. But if you were
[1:13:43] inspected recently, then we would roll
[1:13:45] that inspection over as a reciprocity.
[1:13:46] So you wouldn't have to have a second
[1:13:48] inspection that we've already seen the
[1:13:49] unit on.
[1:13:50] >> Okay. So you would have to apply. You
[1:13:52] » Okay. So you would have to apply. You
[1:13:52] just would need an inspection
[1:13:54] >> potentially. Correct. But again, if I
[1:13:55] » potentially. Correct. But again, if I
[1:13:56] wanted to do my house and I don't have a
[1:13:58] license, I would have to have an
[1:14:00] inspection, apply and have an inspection
[1:14:02] done.
[1:14:03] >> That's correct.
[1:14:03] » That's correct.
[1:14:03] >> Correct. Um, and then I know there's a
[1:14:06] » Correct. Um, and then I know there's a
[1:14:06] lot of questions about the two things
[1:14:08] we're passing tonight don't do not
[1:14:10] contain an end date on them.
[1:14:12] >> That's correct.
[1:14:13] » That's correct.
[1:14:13] >> And um, tell us what we should do if we
[1:14:16] » And um, tell us what we should do if we
[1:14:16] want an end date on these.
[1:14:17] >> We would recommend an end date on those.
[1:14:19] » We would recommend an end date on those.
[1:14:19] And what we have prepared was the second
[1:14:21] stage of this as we noted in the first
[1:14:22] one is the initiation of a text
[1:14:24] amendment to put the code back as it was
[1:14:26] with an effective date on July 31st to
[1:14:29] kind of rewind it to what it is tonight
[1:14:32] effectively. Um so that we were going to
[1:14:34] recommend that we're going to bring an
[1:14:35] initiation forward on that one. However,
[1:14:37] you can also recommend or excuse me, you
[1:14:39] can also initiate that text amendment
[1:14:40] tonight if you would like to just to
[1:14:42] kind of close that loop and get that
[1:14:43] process rolling on that. Um, we were
[1:14:45] anticipating July 31 only because it was
[1:14:48] the end of a calendar month and it was
[1:14:50] also at past the conclusion of all the
[1:14:51] World Cup events. So, if somebody wanted
[1:14:53] to stay in town after the events
[1:14:55] [clears throat] in Kansas City were
[1:14:57] concluded, that gave them some time and
[1:14:58] space for people to en enjoy the area
[1:15:00] and see some different sites, but there
[1:15:02] is no real particular ending date that
[1:15:04] you could choose from any number of
[1:15:06] dates on that.
[1:15:07] >> But we could go ahead tonight and make
[1:15:09] » But we could go ahead tonight and make
[1:15:09] that motion to initiate to to have an
[1:15:11] end date.
[1:15:11] >> Absolutely.
[1:15:12] » Absolutely.
[1:15:12] >> Okay. And uh Okay. Well, those are just
[1:15:16] » Okay. And uh Okay. Well, those are just
[1:15:16] some of the clarifications. I know
[1:15:17] people are asking other questions for
[1:15:18] Jeff at this time.
[1:15:20] >> I I do um
[1:15:23] » I I do um
[1:15:24] explain some differences to me on owner
[1:15:28] occupied versus nonowner occupied, the
[1:15:32] intent behind
[1:15:34] uh the difference in fee costs, etc. The
[1:15:38] spirit of it. Can you kind of walk
[1:15:39] through that a little bit?
[1:15:41] I think I I think I can try. There is no
[1:15:43] difference in fees between an owner
[1:15:45] occupied and a non-owner occupied
[1:15:46] short-term rental.
[1:15:47] >> Okay.
[1:15:47] » Okay.
[1:15:48] >> So, it's just if you're applying for a
[1:15:49] » So, it's just if you're applying for a
[1:15:50] short-term rental, you're usually
[1:15:51] applying for the application, the
[1:15:52] inspection fee, and those are the the
[1:15:54] same regardless of of owner occupancy or
[1:15:57] not in that process.
[1:15:57] >> Okay. Thank you for that.
[1:15:58] » Okay. Thank you for that.
[1:15:58] >> So, owner occupancy is depends upon um
[1:16:02] » So, owner occupancy is depends upon um
[1:16:02] is it your primary residence?
[1:16:03] effectively for a short version of a of
[1:16:05] a long definition. It's effectively if
[1:16:07] you're spending the majority of your
[1:16:08] time in the residence and it's your your
[1:16:09] place of residence and you're renting it
[1:16:11] out as a short-term rental. And so, um,
[1:16:14] a great example would be, and we've seen
[1:16:15] this happen where a professor gets a,
[1:16:18] uh, sbatical or tenorship at another
[1:16:20] university and they rent the house for
[1:16:22] three months because they're here to
[1:16:24] either participate in function or
[1:16:26] something like that. They're not
[1:16:28] necessarily vacating the residence, but
[1:16:30] they're also not going to be there. So
[1:16:31] they can elect to do that process. Um so
[1:16:34] really if the property is non-owner
[1:16:36] occupied as a function of the land
[1:16:38] development code on where it is
[1:16:39] permissible to do a non-owner occupied
[1:16:41] short-term rental where it just depends
[1:16:43] in certain districts you can do an owner
[1:16:45] occupied and others you can't just do
[1:16:47] those. So it's really the change in the
[1:16:48] occupancy for land use purposes.
[1:16:51] >> Okay. And then um last I think last
[1:16:54] » Okay. And then um last I think last
[1:16:54] question
[1:16:56] two parts. How are we doing on PE
[1:16:58] keeping up on inspections
[1:17:01] in terms of these short-term rentals
[1:17:03] now? And how are are we setting
[1:17:06] ourselves up for failure if we're having
[1:17:08] a tough time today? Um, which I have
[1:17:11] heard. I haven't gotten any confirmation
[1:17:13] from staff one way or the other, but uh
[1:17:16] we stand to have a lot of shortterm
[1:17:19] rentals come up. How are we going to
[1:17:21] handle that uh that burden that
[1:17:24] additional burden of inspection?
[1:17:26] >> Sure. And if I understand your question,
[1:17:28] » Sure. And if I understand your question,
[1:17:28] are are we caught up on inspections
[1:17:29] currently? For sure.
[1:17:30] >> Yes. Are we managing the inspections
[1:17:32] » Yes. Are we managing the inspections
[1:17:32] today in a timely manner?
[1:17:34] >> We are. Yes.
[1:17:35] » We are. Yes.
[1:17:35] >> Okay.
[1:17:35] » Okay.
[1:17:35] >> It's not the it's not the same as the
[1:17:37] » It's not the it's not the same as the
[1:17:37] long-term rental program which has the
[1:17:38] three or the six year depending upon the
[1:17:40] number of violations. To be in the
[1:17:42] short-term rental program, you have to
[1:17:43] be inspected and we do that on the in
[1:17:45] the interval of every couple years which
[1:17:46] is in the ordinance. So if you have
[1:17:48] that, we are meeting that mark on that.
[1:17:50] >> Uh the reason we have the amendment
[1:17:52] » Uh the reason we have the amendment
[1:17:52] before you now in January instead of
[1:17:54] later on is because that gives us some
[1:17:55] time and runway for people to start
[1:17:57] applying for the program, be ready to go
[1:17:59] through those inspections. So when the
[1:18:01] ordinance becomes effective, they could
[1:18:02] already be well in place to take
[1:18:04] advantage of that process. That also
[1:18:06] gives our staff time to start inspecting
[1:18:08] those units in advance of that to help
[1:18:09] make sure that we're not holding anybody
[1:18:11] back on that. And we do have a great
[1:18:13] team that does go out and do those
[1:18:14] inspections. And so they are up to speed
[1:18:16] and up to date on those items currently.
[1:18:18] We just wanted to give them some runway
[1:18:19] and give applicants time to understand
[1:18:22] what's the expectation the code's going
[1:18:23] to be and then what are those minimum
[1:18:25] life safety standards that we would be
[1:18:26] looking for in a property.
[1:18:28] >> Okay. And I love that you guys are
[1:18:30] » Okay. And I love that you guys are
[1:18:30] getting ahead of it. That is excellent.
[1:18:33] Are we uh do we have a plan in place on
[1:18:36] notifying folks? Right. Because we give
[1:18:39] them the opportunity. It doesn't mean
[1:18:40] that they necessarily take it to get
[1:18:43] their application in early. Last thing I
[1:18:45] want is for us to have an overload and
[1:18:49] and you guys are kind of caught off
[1:18:51] guard. Do we have anything that we can
[1:18:53] do to let people know, hey yo yo, get
[1:18:56] your stuff going now?
[1:18:57] >> Absolutely. We've been working with
[1:18:58] » Absolutely. We've been working with
[1:18:58] communications to get some frequently
[1:19:00] asked questions together. Some of the
[1:19:02] things we normally get is just part of
[1:19:03] the process, but then also kind of a
[1:19:04] campaign to kind of help. Here's what's
[1:19:06] happening. Here's what you can do.
[1:19:07] Here's who to reach out to. Okay. We're
[1:19:09] on the same same wavelength on that
[1:19:11] part.
[1:19:11] >> Okay, great. Thank you.
[1:19:13] » Okay, great. Thank you.
[1:19:13] >> And I think as a followup to that
[1:19:15] » And I think as a followup to that
[1:19:15] question, at least my understanding
[1:19:17] there might be some discussion among
[1:19:19] unified command on the housing division
[1:19:22] with explore Lawrence and you and all
[1:19:25] that to do some public education on on
[1:19:28] what it means to be an Airbnb holder and
[1:19:31] things, not just regulations, but how
[1:19:34] you do it, how do you be successful at
[1:19:36] it, that sort of thing. that is. Yeah,
[1:19:37] that's exactly some of the stuff that
[1:19:38] we're working on. And I will be the
[1:19:40] first to admit I'm probably not the most
[1:19:41] knowledgeable on how to be successful at
[1:19:43] a short-term rental. Um, but we
[1:19:45] definitely want to help get people
[1:19:46] connected to those that are and and make
[1:19:48] that available. And that is part of the
[1:19:49] process that we're working on.
[1:19:51] >> Yeah.
[1:19:52] » Yeah.
[1:19:52] >> Um, just as to help communications out,
[1:19:55] » Um, just as to help communications out,
[1:19:55] if if I wanted a short-term rental,
[1:19:58] where would I find that? Could I go to
[1:19:59] the website? How would I do that?
[1:20:01] >> You could definitely go to the website.
[1:20:02] » You could definitely go to the website.
[1:20:02] Uh you could also go to EPL portal and
[1:20:05] apply for a license on that one and you
[1:20:07] could also give us a phone call at
[1:20:09] 8327700
[1:20:11] and we'll be able to help out with get
[1:20:12] that process started too. So we always
[1:20:14] make sure that we have staff available
[1:20:15] that can answer those calls and help
[1:20:16] out.
[1:20:17] >> Thank you. Other questions at the moment
[1:20:21] » Thank you. Other questions at the moment
[1:20:21] >> and so if an individual person wanted to
[1:20:23] » and so if an individual person wanted to
[1:20:23] and apologies for not looking this up
[1:20:25] ahead of time if they wanted to apply
[1:20:26] for a short short-term rental how much
[1:20:28] does that cost?
[1:20:31] might have the numbers a little bit off
[1:20:32] here, but usually the application fee is
[1:20:34] around $17 and the inspection fee is
[1:20:36] about 50. So, you end up being about $67
[1:20:38] in total an application.
[1:20:40] >> Gotcha. And how many how much how many
[1:20:42] » Gotcha. And how many how much how many
[1:20:42] people are on staff doing inspections?
[1:20:45] >> We have a team of four in code
[1:20:46] » We have a team of four in code
[1:20:46] compliance. We have two specifically
[1:20:48] dedicated to both long-term and
[1:20:49] short-term rental inspections. And they
[1:20:51] go through quite a number of properties
[1:20:53] and they've seen a number over the
[1:20:54] years.
[1:20:55] >> Gotcha. And I I did look beforehand. So,
[1:20:57] » Gotcha. And I I did look beforehand. So,
[1:20:58] we have 140 homes on Verbbo. We got 168
[1:21:00] on Airbnb and so that team is doing
[1:21:03] those inspections on a regular basis
[1:21:05] >> as they're licensed and required to.
[1:21:07] » as they're licensed and required to.
[1:21:07] Yes.
[1:21:10] » I'll just note that I am in favor adding
[1:21:12] the end date tonight getting it closing
[1:21:15] that loop as you called it.
[1:21:17] >> Yeah, same.
[1:21:19] » Yeah, same.
[1:21:19] >> Yes.
[1:21:20] » Yes.
[1:21:20] But other questions at this point? And
[1:21:23] then the status of the the short-term
[1:21:25] rentals, if we put an end date on it,
[1:21:26] they're no longer short-term rentals
[1:21:28] after that fact. It would be what they
[1:21:31] are right now. They if they wanted to,
[1:21:32] they could go through the process again
[1:21:34] like they could right now, but they
[1:21:36] wouldn't like carry over after going
[1:21:37] through this,
[1:21:38] >> right? Yeah. We would have that you'd be
[1:21:40] » right? Yeah. We would have that you'd be
[1:21:40] licensed for the duration of those 60
[1:21:44] odd days, give or take a few in there.
[1:21:46] And then if you wanted to come back and
[1:21:47] do it as a more uh permanent or a more
[1:21:51] uh constant item there, you could go
[1:21:53] through the normal process which has
[1:21:54] about a 2-year expiration if I remember
[1:21:56] correctly. Is there any concern,
[1:21:58] especially on the apartment side of
[1:21:59] things, that
[1:22:03] people may be blocked from getting
[1:22:05] rentals in this period because there'd
[1:22:07] be such a lucrative opportunity with
[1:22:10] this with the World Cup. It's something
[1:22:12] we've been watching for a good number of
[1:22:14] months right now to understand what that
[1:22:16] dynamic is. And it's kind of hard to pin
[1:22:18] down since it's usually a contractual
[1:22:19] arrangement between two private parties,
[1:22:21] but we've not seen a lot of people
[1:22:23] shifting their kind of their dates
[1:22:26] around. So, we're seeing very similar
[1:22:27] lease terms that we would normally see
[1:22:29] in non-World Cup years particularly.
[1:22:31] Again, that might be a possibility or
[1:22:33] some renters may have an interest in
[1:22:35] doing that because they don't want to
[1:22:36] have to deal with a sublet or pay for
[1:22:38] rent in a property they're not going to
[1:22:40] be in for the duration. And so there
[1:22:41] might be some of that, but we're not
[1:22:42] seeing a lot of changes in that leasing
[1:22:45] at this point in time. And usually those
[1:22:47] leases do run from year to year. So we
[1:22:49] would have expected to have seen that,
[1:22:51] you know, kind of in the fall leading up
[1:22:53] to this.
[1:22:56] >> And do you guys code enforcement when
[1:22:58] » And do you guys code enforcement when
[1:22:58] we're talking enforcement, are you
[1:23:00] cross-checking Airbnb with VBO?
[1:23:02] >> Yes, we do look at that. We also look at
[1:23:04] » Yes, we do look at that. We also look at
[1:23:04] a couple of other platforms that we see
[1:23:06] pretty active in the community, too.
[1:23:07] >> Okay, great.
[1:23:10] » Okay, great.
[1:23:10] Okay, if there's no other questions,
[1:23:12] thank you, Jeff. We'll open this up to
[1:23:14] um public and you have three minutes.
[1:23:18] >> Uh my name is Aaron Nice 66049. Um I am
[1:23:21] » Uh my name is Aaron Nice 66049. Um I am
[1:23:21] here today as a resident, landlord, and
[1:23:23] an Airbnb operator. Um I don't believe
[1:23:26] that the city should relax uh
[1:23:28] requirements or ordinances for the World
[1:23:30] Cup. We do have insufficient transient
[1:23:33] housing for large KU games, all the
[1:23:35] other sports events that are housed
[1:23:36] here. To me, this really feels like it's
[1:23:39] going to be a cash grab for the
[1:23:40] corporate owner corporate owned
[1:23:42] apartment complexes, especially places
[1:23:44] like the Lynx who they can just stop.
[1:23:46] They can start denying new leases during
[1:23:48] till now until the World Cup just so
[1:23:51] that they're close. Everyone's going to
[1:23:52] want to stay towards Rockchock Park,
[1:23:54] close to I7, everything. I think it's
[1:23:57] just going to be a handout to
[1:23:58] corporations and not people that
[1:23:59] actually live in the city. Um, I also
[1:24:02] worry about enforcement once the period
[1:24:04] is ended. Who's going to go? Like, if
[1:24:06] these people just leave it open, what's
[1:24:09] going to stop them from just keeping
[1:24:10] their Airbnb going? It's going to take
[1:24:12] forever. If there's a flood of new
[1:24:14] short-term rentals, it's going to take
[1:24:16] forever for the city to get around and
[1:24:17] check everybody, actually enforce the
[1:24:20] ordinances. Um, so I just don't think
[1:24:23] that also I think that it's going to
[1:24:25] limit housing for people who live here.
[1:24:27] Also, it's going to take anybody whose
[1:24:29] lease is about due. Landlords aren't
[1:24:31] going to be renting to them. like if
[1:24:33] there your lease is up the next month,
[1:24:34] landlord is just going to hold that
[1:24:36] empty until the World Cup comes hoping
[1:24:39] that they'll get a windfall of money
[1:24:40] from that and these people that are
[1:24:43] moving or even if their lease is ending
[1:24:45] and the landlord just decides to not
[1:24:46] renew, they're not going to be able to
[1:24:48] find housing in town. So, I think it's a
[1:24:51] bad decision to lack the ordinances for
[1:24:54] that short period. we have the
[1:24:56] infrastructure here already and I just
[1:24:59] and I don't see any planning on how to
[1:25:00] actually enforce shutting these new
[1:25:02] short-term short-term rentals down. So I
[1:25:06] I would hope the city would not go
[1:25:07] through with this and at least think
[1:25:10] about the ramifications to the actual
[1:25:11] citizens before they follow through
[1:25:13] rather than this imaginary windfall
[1:25:15] that's not guaranteed to come.
[1:25:18] >> Thank you.
[1:25:19] » Thank you.
[1:25:19] >> Thank you.
[1:25:29] Hi, my name is Sheri Ellen Becker. I
[1:25:31] live on Holiday Drive 66049.
[1:25:35] And um thank you for the opportunity.
[1:25:37] You know, people really care about this
[1:25:39] issue because it's their homes and their
[1:25:43] neighborhoods that you're talking about.
[1:25:46] I think you guys hear, you know,
[1:25:47] short-term rental, you know, adding
[1:25:50] extra hotel space, and we hear
[1:25:53] neighborhood invasion, and there's a
[1:25:56] real dichotomy of how people the the
[1:26:00] basic way that they approach this
[1:26:02] situation. And where we are right now is
[1:26:06] the result of a lot of hard work on the
[1:26:08] part of the staff and the city
[1:26:10] commission to get to the rules that we
[1:26:12] have now. Right now we have some modicum
[1:26:16] of enforcement in that the application
[1:26:20] says do you apply for non non-owner
[1:26:25] occupied or owner occupied but that's up
[1:26:27] to you to say what you want and there's
[1:26:30] no real teeth in that application. And I
[1:26:32] can show you applications from half a
[1:26:35] dozen other cities where you've got to
[1:26:36] show voter registration or um insurance
[1:26:42] vehicle, you know, insurance vehicles
[1:26:44] and other things that prove that you
[1:26:46] really live there because I know there's
[1:26:48] one in my neighborhood and I've gone
[1:26:49] there with my missing cat flyers looking
[1:26:52] for Charlie and they say, "This is an
[1:26:54] Airbnb lady. Nobody lives here." And but
[1:26:58] that's that's not what we're here to
[1:27:00] talk about tonight. We're talking about
[1:27:02] this temporary need during when we are
[1:27:05] going to see increased visitors during
[1:27:07] the World Cup time. And I think even if
[1:27:10] you're in the neighborhood invasion
[1:27:12] camp, you still understand that need.
[1:27:16] But we we don't understand why there's
[1:27:19] no sunset on it, why that can't be in
[1:27:22] the ordinance. I mean, it seems to me
[1:27:26] that if you really were going to sunset
[1:27:28] it, you could figure out a way to put it
[1:27:30] in there. And and it comes down,
[1:27:33] unfortunately, to trust.
[1:27:36] You know, sometimes the commission says
[1:27:38] things and then years later or sometime
[1:27:41] later they'll say, "Well, we said it,
[1:27:43] but it's not codified,
[1:27:45] so it doesn't really mean anything."
[1:27:48] Those were words and these are actions.
[1:27:50] So, I'm asking you to put it into action
[1:27:53] and put the sunset clause into this so
[1:27:56] we can rest easy. And thank you.
[1:27:59] >> Thank you.
[1:28:10] » Christina McKenna 66046
[1:28:13] um for the Coalition for Collaborative
[1:28:14] Governments. Uh we we're submitting
[1:28:16] feedback based on information we've
[1:28:18] gathered from several neighborhood
[1:28:19] advocates who have been involved in the
[1:28:21] city's short-term rental policy
[1:28:22] development and enforcement. The two
[1:28:25] amendments before you tonight include
[1:28:26] temporary provisions. Only one of two
[1:28:28] agenda items reports states the dates as
[1:28:31] Mayor Finkel mentioned and Mr. Crook
[1:28:33] verified. So we're just suggesting that
[1:28:35] um a nice deadline is actually in put in
[1:28:38] place as well. We're agreeing with that.
[1:28:40] Um, the second half of one of these
[1:28:41] amendments applies to 11 zoning
[1:28:43] districts and the planning commission
[1:28:44] report states it'll be a permanent
[1:28:46] amendment. The agenda item report
[1:28:48] includes no information about the
[1:28:50] reasoning and impact of that portion of
[1:28:51] it. So, we request that you discuss any
[1:28:53] implications of the permanent change
[1:28:55] before passing that ordinance. Um, also
[1:28:58] as a historical context, two ordinances
[1:29:01] were passed in October of 2020 to
[1:29:03] prohibit non-owner occupied short-term
[1:29:05] rentals and single dwelling residential
[1:29:07] zones to protect neighborhoods. It
[1:29:09] allowed non-owner occupied ones in other
[1:29:11] zoning districts with licensing. It also
[1:29:13] established a general cap of three units
[1:29:15] per owner. And the Lawrence Association
[1:29:17] of Neighborhoods has spent years
[1:29:18] advocating for robust short-term rental
[1:29:20] licensing and inspection program. During
[1:29:23] these conversations, the city
[1:29:24] acknowledged they didn't have the
[1:29:25] adequate staff, which I know was
[1:29:27] commented on tonight, um to monitor the
[1:29:29] complaints or enforce regulations or
[1:29:31] violations of the rental regulations.
[1:29:33] So, the city approved the better
[1:29:35] sheeting for one and a half additional
[1:29:36] staff positions, but they weren't
[1:29:38] filled. So, it's nice to hear that
[1:29:40] they're ahead on these inspections. Um,
[1:29:44] we did have a coalition member with an
[1:29:45] owner occupied short-term rental report
[1:29:47] that her owner occupied rentals
[1:29:49] inspected every two years, but she and
[1:29:51] others report the city was unable to
[1:29:52] maintain inspections for apartments,
[1:29:54] which are likely non-owner occupied
[1:29:56] units. So, again, that was good to hear
[1:29:57] that those are ahead. actually.
[1:30:00] Um, and a logistical question related to
[1:30:02] the city's inspection requirements, like
[1:30:04] my friend Aaron had mentioned, is how
[1:30:06] would they resend the resin the licenses
[1:30:08] afterward as well as just continuing to
[1:30:10] keep up with the extra inspections that
[1:30:12] will be required. Thank you.
[1:30:14] >> Thank you. [clears throat]
[1:30:19] » Other comments in the room?
[1:30:22] >> If not, oh,
[1:30:25] » If not, oh,
[1:30:25] >> sorry, Mayor. Thank you. Yes,
[1:30:27] » sorry, Mayor. Thank you. Yes,
[1:30:27] >> I didn't hear all of that,
[1:30:29] » I didn't hear all of that,
[1:30:29] unfortunately.
[1:30:30] [clears throat] Um, so I I I
[1:30:35] do want to say that um it's interesting
[1:30:38] that we might consider um
[1:30:42] uh a rep reprieve for regular
[1:30:45] homeowners. Um,
[1:30:48] as much as I appreciate staff's
[1:30:50] comments, neighborhoods know that there
[1:30:54] are already short-term rentals that are
[1:30:57] um, illegal, quote unquote, or not
[1:31:00] lawful outside of policy. Um, I
[1:31:04] appreciate what Commissioner Courtney
[1:31:06] asked, which is about Verbbo. If I
[1:31:08] understand Verbbo, Verbbo is
[1:31:10] specifically non-owner occupied. So, um,
[1:31:14] if you're seeing non-owner occupied on
[1:31:16] Verbbo, then you have to look at each
[1:31:19] individual one and find out what their,
[1:31:21] um, zoning is, and I appreciate what
[1:31:24] staff has said, but again, they only
[1:31:26] have four people in code enforcement,
[1:31:28] and and it is unclear to neighborhoods,
[1:31:31] um, that that is being enforced at this
[1:31:33] time. Um, I think it's great for
[1:31:37] homeowners to have a one-time windfall
[1:31:39] um for this option when it comes around,
[1:31:44] but again, as some others have said, we
[1:31:46] don't have a guarantee of a sunset.
[1:31:48] Could this be uh a backdoor into uh
[1:31:53] creating an opportunity for these to
[1:31:56] basically remove affordable housing and
[1:31:58] accessible housing um people in big
[1:32:02] cities or cities with um uh a large
[1:32:07] amount of transient guest tax to pull
[1:32:10] actual housing offline. So I hope you
[1:32:13] guys will think about that. I would also
[1:32:16] remind everyone that [snorts] if you
[1:32:18] stay in housing more than 30 days, you
[1:32:22] don't actually get the uh transient gas
[1:32:24] tax. So, um while it's nice that we're
[1:32:28] having all these nice visitors after 30
[1:32:30] days, we're not getting transient gas
[1:32:32] tax. Uh the people who have those units,
[1:32:36] they'll get money. That's fine. They'll
[1:32:38] pay their taxes, but we're not getting
[1:32:40] transient gas tax out of it. Thank you.
[1:32:42] Thank you. Other
[1:32:47] comments in the room? If not, how about
[1:32:50] online?
[1:32:50] >> We do have a few
[1:32:53] » We do have a few
[1:32:53] [clears throat]
[1:33:05] » Julie Jones.
[1:33:10] » Julie, we can't hear you.
[1:33:24] » [snorts]
[1:33:27] » I still can't hear you.
[1:33:30] [laughter]
[1:33:34] » Brian Enez, why don't you say something
[1:33:36] just to make sure we can hear hear
[1:33:38] somebody?
[1:33:41] Can you hear me?
[1:33:42] >> Okay, we can hear you.
[1:33:44] » Okay, we can hear you.
[1:33:44] >> Okay,
[1:33:45] » Okay,
[1:33:45] >> thank you. Just checking.
[1:33:46] » thank you. Just checking.
[1:33:46] >> Just just FYI while you got me real
[1:33:48] » Just just FYI while you got me real
[1:33:48] quick, mayor. I'm just online to answer
[1:33:51] any questions that um may be deferred to
[1:33:53] me that Jeff may not have the answer to.
[1:33:56] >> Yep. We'll we'll get to you back in a
[1:33:57] » Yep. We'll we'll get to you back in a
[1:33:57] second. Julie, one more try there. If
[1:34:00] not, we might go to someone else and
[1:34:01] then come back to you and give you
[1:34:02] another chance. Okay, let's go to the
[1:34:06] others and then we'll come back to
[1:34:07] Julie. Okay.
[1:34:18] Chris Flowers.
[1:34:26] » Hi. Uh, this is Chris Flowers. Um,
[1:34:30] I just want to start with how will this
[1:34:32] affect long-term rentals? Has staff
[1:34:35] studied that? Um, cuz I'm going to ask
[1:34:38] you this. Will the need for long-term
[1:34:40] rentals decrease at all? Cuz I'm going
[1:34:43] to say no. The the need for long-term
[1:34:46] renters is going to be the same. And
[1:34:48] what's what's the purpose of having caps
[1:34:52] on how many uh short-term rentals a land
[1:34:56] loaner land owner can own? I thought the
[1:34:59] purpose of that was to protect the
[1:35:01] long-term rental market. So now the
[1:35:05] demand, we're saying, well, the demand
[1:35:07] for short-term rentals is going to
[1:35:09] increase, but the demand for long-term
[1:35:12] rentals isn't going to decrease at all.
[1:35:15] And how is it I I I just I don't
[1:35:19] understand. Like the need for short-term
[1:35:22] rentals is going to be at an all-time
[1:35:24] high. So doesn't that mean the need for
[1:35:28] protection for long-term rentals is
[1:35:30] going to be at its highest? Like why are
[1:35:32] you doing away with the protection just
[1:35:36] when the the pe the long-term renters
[1:35:39] are going to need the protection the
[1:35:40] most? I looked it up and it's saying
[1:35:43] some of the like some of these
[1:35:45] short-term rentals are going to go for
[1:35:47] 300% more than they would normal during
[1:35:50] the World Cup. And the short-term
[1:35:52] rentals are already much more than
[1:35:55] long-term rentals are. So you're going
[1:35:57] to have situations where it's going to
[1:35:59] be more
[1:36:01] landlords could possibly make more money
[1:36:04] just renting out a a unit for a month
[1:36:08] during World Cup than they would uh
[1:36:10] doing it as a long-term rental for the
[1:36:12] summer. And my first place I rented at
[1:36:14] was Metobrook. And it was when I was
[1:36:16] coming out of the dorm housing and I
[1:36:20] signed up for a summer rental for and it
[1:36:22] was until August. It was like end of May
[1:36:25] till like June and July. like could
[1:36:29] Meadow Brook start like their the units
[1:36:31] they rent for the summer, could they
[1:36:33] just not rent it out to Lawrence
[1:36:34] residents and instead give it to uh the
[1:36:38] visitors? Cuz if that's going to happen,
[1:36:41] it's going to definitely increase the
[1:36:43] rents. And so my main question is, has
[1:36:48] staff looked at what the the what's
[1:36:51] going to happen to the long-term rental
[1:36:53] market? Because if not, how are you
[1:36:55] going to go through with this when the
[1:36:57] whole purpose of these like the the caps
[1:37:01] on the short-term rental units is to
[1:37:04] protect the long-term rental market? And
[1:37:06] I don't know, it's just it's kind of
[1:37:09] it's kind of shady to me to be honest
[1:37:11] that you're not going to have any kind
[1:37:13] of info on what we potentially think's
[1:37:17] going to happen to the long-term rental
[1:37:19] market when you're doing away with a
[1:37:21] protection to that market. And also, I
[1:37:25] would just like to point out, I don't
[1:37:26] think this was a city commission thing
[1:37:29] brought like
[1:37:31] originally directive. I think this is
[1:37:33] something city staff came up with their
[1:37:35] own with on their own and what they're
[1:37:37] doing is doing away with those
[1:37:40] protections that a former city
[1:37:42] commission did put in place. So, I'm
[1:37:45] throwing that out there. Um,
[1:37:47] >> thank you, Chris.
[1:37:48] » thank you, Chris.
[1:37:48] >> Thank you.
[1:37:54] » Let's see. Julie can see if we can hear
[1:37:56] Julie real quick.
[1:37:57] >> Yeah, she's still in. Well, she does.
[1:38:03] Okay.
[1:38:05] >> Why' you bring Mr. Watts over?
[1:38:06] » Why' you bring Mr. Watts over?
[1:38:06] >> Yep.
[1:38:23] Thank you. It's also impressive to know,
[1:38:27] Brad, that you can actually see people's
[1:38:29] hands raised. So, in the future, I'm
[1:38:31] going to know when I'm being wholly
[1:38:33] ignored.
[1:38:36] [gasps]
[1:38:36] Here we go. Now, I want to let Mr. Crick
[1:38:40] know that his operation is topnotch. I
[1:38:43] mean, they do the best they can with
[1:38:45] what they have in an extremely
[1:38:49] poperri of programs and there's really
[1:38:53] nothing to argue about in there. And the
[1:38:55] same can be said for Mr. Gimenez's
[1:38:57] operation which I have found to be
[1:39:00] extremely responsive once you get to
[1:39:03] somebody that you you know it takes a
[1:39:06] little while but irrespective they're
[1:39:08] doing the best they can with what they
[1:39:10] have and I have no reason to assume that
[1:39:13] it's going to be any different when this
[1:39:16] uh uh windfall [clears throat] of the
[1:39:19] World Cup comes to Lawrence. What are
[1:39:21] you guys going to do when it doesn't
[1:39:23] turn out exactly as you want? I don't
[1:39:26] know. Let's hope that it does. But my
[1:39:28] main comment was on it centers around
[1:39:33] the the commenter there in your office
[1:39:37] or there in the whatever you call it
[1:39:41] room talking about stuff. Um there's a
[1:39:45] leash ordinance about cats. Why is your
[1:39:48] cat running around outside
[1:39:51] unprotected?
[1:39:53] Please put your cat on a leash. Thank
[1:39:55] you.
[1:40:00] » Okay, Julie, we'll give you one more
[1:40:02] chance here. See if we can hear you.
[1:40:11] » Here. I'm going to try moving her back
[1:40:14] and then back in if that helps. It
[1:40:16] should just take a less than a minute.
[1:40:19] >> Okay, let's [snorts] give that a try.
[1:40:20] » Okay, let's [snorts] give that a try.
[1:40:20] >> That will help if anything.
[1:40:24] » That will help if anything.
[1:40:24] >> [clears throat]
[1:40:44] [snorts]
[1:41:10] » Unfortunately, we cannot hear you,
[1:41:12] Julie. Sorry about that.
[1:41:16] Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, bring it back
[1:41:19] to the commission for for questions or
[1:41:22] comments. And Jeff or Brian, I both
[1:41:25] here. I have a couple questions for you.
[1:41:27] Um Jeff probably for you first which is
[1:41:31] um
[1:41:33] there's a reference to part of the
[1:41:34] amendment being permanent as opposed to
[1:41:36] temporary. Um can you speak to that?
[1:41:39] >> So one of the things we've excuse me one
[1:41:41] » So one of the things we've excuse me one
[1:41:41] of the things we identified during the
[1:41:42] land development code cleanup is the
[1:41:44] table that is currently in the land
[1:41:45] development code is incorrect. And so
[1:41:47] what we were proposing to do was to
[1:41:49] change for the World Cup here and then
[1:41:51] bring back the amendment to correct that
[1:41:53] table as part of the cleanup amendment.
[1:41:54] However, the timing of that really puts
[1:41:56] a wrench in in a couple of things
[1:41:58] because we would do the cleanup
[1:41:59] amendment, then have an amendment that
[1:42:00] would undo it, and then potentially have
[1:42:02] another amendment that would have to
[1:42:03] come back and get that all replaced. So,
[1:42:05] instead of doing that as part of the
[1:42:06] cleanup amendment, we're going to do
[1:42:08] that as the follow-up as part of that
[1:42:09] initiated amendment to put everything
[1:42:11] back, but then put it back in the way
[1:42:13] that it should be in the code, not in
[1:42:14] the error that we've identified. So,
[1:42:16] [laughter]
[1:42:17] >> it's a little complex. I
[1:42:18] » it's a little complex. I
[1:42:18] >> think we followed that. It's yeah, a
[1:42:19] » think we followed that. It's yeah, a
[1:42:19] little complex on the timing, but we
[1:42:20] wanted to make it as easy to follow as
[1:42:22] possible and also ensure that we didn't
[1:42:23] inadvertently put the mistake back into
[1:42:25] the code when we were trying to put the
[1:42:26] code back to its right spot. So, we did
[1:42:29] identify an error in there. We would
[1:42:31] like to clean it up after we get the
[1:42:32] World Cup amendment through the process.
[1:42:34] So, the amendment we bring back would be
[1:42:36] the version for the cleanup of the land
[1:42:38] development code to get that corrected
[1:42:39] for you.
[1:42:40] >> Okay. So would you suggest we assuming
[1:42:44] » Okay. So would you suggest we assuming
[1:42:44] and I think I hear that at least three
[1:42:46] of us want to make a motion tonight to
[1:42:49] initiate a text amendment on a given
[1:42:51] date. Would we initiate the check text
[1:42:54] amendment to return it um at the same
[1:42:57] time initiate text amendment for the
[1:42:59] cleanup? I would recommend initiating an
[1:43:02] amendment to
[1:43:04] restore the code with the with cleaned
[1:43:06] up text. And that'll give us enough
[1:43:07] direction to put the chapter 5 text back
[1:43:10] as it currently is, but allows us the
[1:43:12] opportunity to put the chapter 20 text
[1:43:14] back as it should have been that we've
[1:43:16] identified as as needing cleaned up.
[1:43:18] >> So, restore the code with the cleanup
[1:43:21] » So, restore the code with the cleanup
[1:43:21] text
[1:43:21] >> if if that would be the commission's
[1:43:23] » if if that would be the commission's
[1:43:23] prerogative. Yes. Mhm.
[1:43:24] >> And then we can decide what the date is
[1:43:27] » And then we can decide what the date is
[1:43:27] if it's if we agree on July 31st or some
[1:43:30] other date.
[1:43:31] >> Absolutely. Yes.
[1:43:31] » Absolutely. Yes.
[1:43:31] >> Okay. So, we'll include a date in that
[1:43:34] » Okay. So, we'll include a date in that
[1:43:34] in that motion. Um
[1:43:37] obviously a concern about um was raised
[1:43:39] from some of the speakers about after
[1:43:42] this is over and the law changes um how
[1:43:45] do we go about revoking these licenses
[1:43:48] or checking to see if they're still
[1:43:50] going? How would we do that? the
[1:43:51] licenses [clears throat] are that kind
[1:43:53] of the short short-term rental license
[1:43:54] again for the lack of a better
[1:43:55] description. They expire on the ending
[1:43:57] date. And so at that point, they don't
[1:43:59] have a short-term rental license when it
[1:44:01] goes to expiration. They could apply for
[1:44:03] a new short-term rental license. And if
[1:44:05] they don't go for that, then we would go
[1:44:06] through the notice and order procedures
[1:44:08] in the code to have that affixed in the
[1:44:10] code. Should be go to courts if
[1:44:12] necessary and those kind of things. But
[1:44:14] when they're licensed and we know that,
[1:44:16] we can also then follow up a little
[1:44:17] easier as part of that process to know
[1:44:19] who is a part of that short-term
[1:44:20] process. So, my apologies. My part of
[1:44:23] the shortterm rental license process. I
[1:44:26] got to find a much better way of
[1:44:27] phrasing that. I apologize.
[1:44:28] >> STR STR,
[1:44:30] » STR STR,
[1:44:30] >> but it goes through that kind of a
[1:44:32] » but it goes through that kind of a
[1:44:32] limited process. There we go. Um, then
[1:44:34] if they're in the part of the the
[1:44:35] short-term rental process, it is the the
[1:44:36] two-year standard process. That gives us
[1:44:38] an opportunity on that. And Brian and
[1:44:40] the team have also been looking at ways
[1:44:42] of how to do that process as the
[1:44:44] closeout procedure. And so we do have a
[1:44:46] good working knowledge of what that
[1:44:47] would look like from a staff perspective
[1:44:48] and also what we would expect
[1:44:50] potentially for going through that
[1:44:52] process if somebody is non-compliant at
[1:44:54] the end of the process.
[1:44:56] >> And maybe this is for you or for Brian.
[1:44:58] » And maybe this is for you or for Brian.
[1:44:58] Um some questions about maybe some
[1:45:02] unlicensed short-term windows in town.
[1:45:04] what what's the process we go through to
[1:45:06] try to catch those to to get bring
[1:45:08] people into compliance?
[1:45:09] >> So, we always try to go through the
[1:45:11] » So, we always try to go through the
[1:45:11] various platforms to see if we can
[1:45:13] identify those. We also have people that
[1:45:15] will submit to us through um online
[1:45:19] forms, let us know that my neighbor's
[1:45:21] got a short-term rental or that. And so,
[1:45:23] as you all know, code compliance works
[1:45:24] on a on a kind of reaction basis on that
[1:45:26] one. We respond to those kind of
[1:45:28] concerns when they come up. And we have
[1:45:30] a lot of people that do let us know
[1:45:31] about those. So if somebody does have
[1:45:33] one of those, they could file it with us
[1:45:34] and then we could be able to follow up
[1:45:35] and check on that.
[1:45:37] >> Okay,
[1:45:39] » Okay,
[1:45:39] those are my questions. Other questions
[1:45:41] for Jeff or
[1:45:43] >> So if if I may, mayor, I'd like to just
[1:45:46] » So if if I may, mayor, I'd like to just
[1:45:46] add one a couple comments that Jeff
[1:45:48] didn't hit on specifically. We are going
[1:45:51] to create a specific case type for these
[1:45:54] Red Bull units during this World Cup
[1:45:56] period of time.
[1:45:59] Um so when that date sunsets we will
[1:46:02] have a list of just these licenses that
[1:46:04] were issued for World Cup that we can
[1:46:06] follow up on.
[1:46:09] >> So Brian with sorry go ahead. So Brian,
[1:46:12] » So Brian with sorry go ahead. So Brian,
[1:46:12] just to follow up on that, if we were,
[1:46:15] which I I would like to for the c the
[1:46:17] commission to discuss this with that
[1:46:19] sunset, if we were wanting to have
[1:46:22] different enforcement fines and
[1:46:24] penalties for that,
[1:46:26] um cuz currently the fine or penalty is
[1:46:30] what up to 2500.
[1:46:33] >> Uh don't have the code in front of me. I
[1:46:35] » Uh don't have the code in front of me. I
[1:46:35] know that was what the longterm is. I
[1:46:36] think the short-term STR followed the
[1:46:39] same LTR ordinance. I think that is
[1:46:40] correct. Okay.
[1:46:42] Okay. Thank you.
[1:46:45] >> And Randy turned his camera on, so I
[1:46:47] » And Randy turned his camera on, so I
[1:46:47] don't know if he had a comment on that.
[1:46:50] >> Now, this is Randy Lin, deputy city
[1:46:52] » Now, this is Randy Lin, deputy city
[1:46:52] attorney. I just wanted to make sure and
[1:46:55] clarify that, you know, we can't sunset
[1:46:58] and repeal without having the ordinances
[1:47:00] already in place because once it's
[1:47:02] repealed, then there won't be anything.
[1:47:05] So, we'll have to bring back new
[1:47:06] ordinances to uh fix those. We can do
[1:47:09] that at any time and make those new
[1:47:11] ordinances effective at the termination
[1:47:14] date of this program.
[1:47:18] » So,
[1:47:20] um, if I hear what you're saying, if we
[1:47:22] did want to change something on the
[1:47:24] restored code, we could say bring back a
[1:47:27] text amendment that changes the
[1:47:29] penalties
[1:47:30] after July 31st. Well, that you know, we
[1:47:34] we could there's certain limitations
[1:47:36] regarding the amounts that we can charge
[1:47:38] to municipal court. That might be the
[1:47:39] maximum already, but we would look into
[1:47:41] that and if we could bring in more, we
[1:47:43] we'll we'll bring that to your
[1:47:44] attention.
[1:47:45] >> Okay. Well, if it's not necessarily
[1:47:47] » Okay. Well, if it's not necessarily
[1:47:47] more, if it was wanting us to if we know
[1:47:48] that the max is 25, if we just wanted we
[1:47:51] wanted to also include language that
[1:47:54] would revoke any license or sus suspend
[1:47:56] their ability to
[1:47:59] apply for a short-term rental license
[1:48:01] for, let's say, up to a year.
[1:48:04] >> That would not go through the criminal
[1:48:06] » That would not go through the criminal
[1:48:06] or municipal court. But yes, we could
[1:48:08] include language that if they are in
[1:48:11] violation and are found guilty of a
[1:48:13] violation that they would not be able to
[1:48:15] obtain a license for a period of time.
[1:48:17] Yes, we could we can put a suspension
[1:48:18] period in that. I believe that may exist
[1:48:21] already.
[1:48:21] >> Yeah.
[1:48:23] » Yeah.
[1:48:24] >> Okay.
[1:48:26] » Okay.
[1:48:26] >> Other questions, comments?
[1:48:27] » Other questions, comments?
[1:48:27] >> Um I mean the answer is pretty obvious,
[1:48:30] » Um I mean the answer is pretty obvious,
[1:48:30] but I kind of want to dig into it a
[1:48:32] little bit. What is driving this? Right.
[1:48:34] So we obviously are expecting the World
[1:48:36] Cup. We're hearing, you know, um, hotels
[1:48:40] are booking up in Manhattan already. Um,
[1:48:43] whether whether that's true or not, I've
[1:48:45] certainly not confirmed it. But
[1:48:48] overarching, we want to react to what
[1:48:50] could be a really great um economic
[1:48:54] endeavor, economic development endeavor,
[1:48:56] albeit temporary. Do we have any data
[1:49:00] that backs
[1:49:03] what to expect as far as people coming
[1:49:07] in? Um
[1:49:13] what effects have h what what effects
[1:49:15] have the the World Cup specifically or
[1:49:18] maybe even a Super Bowl uh that other
[1:49:20] cities have had or are we just saying we
[1:49:23] need more short-term rentals? because I
[1:49:26] will tell you my concern
[1:49:28] um is alienating existing
[1:49:32] uh residents for this if we don't know
[1:49:35] for sure what what the benefit will be.
[1:49:38] Um
[1:49:40] are there a lot of people asking to turn
[1:49:42] their homes into short-term rentals?
[1:49:43] That's another question I have. So, let
[1:49:45] me stop there. See if you have anything
[1:49:47] to respond with. I just threw a lot at
[1:49:50] you.
[1:49:50] >> It's okay. I hope I get them I get them
[1:49:52] » It's okay. I hope I get them I get them
[1:49:52] back in the right order. I I promise
[1:49:54] I'll probably already forgot. [snorts]
[1:49:56] >> So, best the best statistic I've heard
[1:49:59] » So, best the best statistic I've heard
[1:49:59] for this, it's the World Cup is
[1:50:01] effectively like holding the Super Bowl
[1:50:02] seven times consecutively and it's kind
[1:50:05] of it's in Kansas City and we're in that
[1:50:07] radius where people are looking at it.
[1:50:09] We'd anticipate there probably going to
[1:50:10] be, you know, since we're very close in
[1:50:13] to a lot of area, there's going to be
[1:50:14] people of interest that will be, you
[1:50:15] know, going to Kansas City for those
[1:50:17] games and have that interest. And as you
[1:50:19] know, Lawrence is also potentially in
[1:50:20] the running for base camp and that would
[1:50:22] be a long-term duration event and people
[1:50:24] tend to want to be around those teams
[1:50:26] when they they have their sites. And so
[1:50:29] that is [clears throat] another, you
[1:50:30] know, potential interest that we have in
[1:50:31] there. And just knowing the amount of
[1:50:33] people coming,
[1:50:34] >> you know, we just know we don't have
[1:50:35] » you know, we just know we don't have
[1:50:35] enough hospitality rooms that are
[1:50:37] potentially there. And so we were
[1:50:38] putting this forward as an option for
[1:50:40] consideration just as to help
[1:50:42] accommodate some of those different
[1:50:43] changes that we might be seeing in the
[1:50:44] market. And there's no real good way to
[1:50:47] say that it's going to be this much at
[1:50:50] this kind of an interval. But what we've
[1:50:51] seen in previous examples and the
[1:50:53] conversations that you've had is we
[1:50:55] would expect that to be a large [snorts]
[1:50:57] amount of people coming to the area for
[1:50:58] a duration.
[1:50:59] >> They might be here for a week or two or
[1:51:01] » They might be here for a week or two or
[1:51:01] if their team does really well, they
[1:51:02] might be here for three or four
[1:51:04] depending upon how it goes. Um so it's
[1:51:06] kind of hard to pin down since there's a
[1:51:08] lot of unknown variables. We don't know
[1:51:09] are we a base camp or who that would be.
[1:51:12] But we do know is there's going to be
[1:51:13] the games in Kansas City and there's
[1:51:14] going to be a lot of people trying to
[1:51:15] find accommodation and we're within a
[1:51:17] pretty good driving distance and with
[1:51:19] the transportation links that we have to
[1:51:20] Kansas City, it does make us a very
[1:51:22] attractive option for a lot of people.
[1:51:24] [snorts]
[1:51:25] Um I think your third question was about
[1:51:27] the alienation of
[1:51:28] >> Well, I I that was kind of a general
[1:51:30] » Well, I I that was kind of a general
[1:51:30] comment, right? We have a lot of folks
[1:51:32] that are concerned about these
[1:51:35] short-term rentals and I certainly
[1:51:37] appreciate that for sure. Um, which is
[1:51:40] why I would be interested if there are
[1:51:42] any penalties that they're actually
[1:51:43] higher than what they would normally be.
[1:51:45] Right? If we're going to allow people to
[1:51:47] come in and uh disrupt a neighborhood um
[1:51:51] very quickly, very temporarily, I want
[1:51:53] to make sure that it the juice is worth
[1:51:56] the squeeze, so to speak, for the city.
[1:51:58] Um, have we reached out and I've
[1:52:00] personally been to two Super Bowls, so I
[1:52:02] certainly appreciate what one Super Bowl
[1:52:04] does to a community. Have we had
[1:52:06] conversations with any communities
[1:52:10] uh that have had major events come in?
[1:52:14] May not have to be the World Cup, but
[1:52:15] we've certainly got parallels to some
[1:52:18] extent specific to short-term rentals
[1:52:21] and how they've responded to it
[1:52:24] because I would like to see that. We've
[1:52:27] talked to a lot of communities about
[1:52:28] different programs they run and where
[1:52:29] I've worked at previously had some
[1:52:31] events that were long duration events
[1:52:33] that were not maybe Super Bowl
[1:52:34] equivalent, [snorts] but they were
[1:52:36] longer running. And I've had
[1:52:37] conversations with my counterparts
[1:52:38] there. And they've noted it's very
[1:52:40] similar to what you see during skiing
[1:52:42] season in the mountains or if you have a
[1:52:44] beach town, you see kind of a spike
[1:52:46] going into the summer months between
[1:52:47] Memorial Day and Labor Day and those
[1:52:49] kind of things. But they also said it's
[1:52:51] it's wildly unpredictable in the
[1:52:53] conversation. So it can just depend on
[1:52:54] who, when, where, why, and what the
[1:52:57] market prices are at, if people are even
[1:52:58] interested. So there's not a a good, you
[1:53:01] know, thumb, you can't really get your
[1:53:03] thumb on it necessarily all the time.
[1:53:05] But they did say is, you know, the
[1:53:06] conversations has been that you're going
[1:53:08] to see probably increases in people and,
[1:53:11] you know, you will see people that will
[1:53:13] put things out there that are probably
[1:53:14] not safe for habitation. And so if you
[1:53:16] can get ahead of those and have those
[1:53:18] inspections and ensure some of that,
[1:53:19] that goes a long way to making sure that
[1:53:21] the community is safe overall, too.
[1:53:24] >> And I would jump in and say I've been to
[1:53:27] » And I would jump in and say I've been to
[1:53:27] involved in quite a few of of the
[1:53:29] meetings related to the World Cup, and
[1:53:32] you know, this is certainly something
[1:53:33] I've been asking about for a while now.
[1:53:35] You know, they that the the World Cup um
[1:53:38] group out of um um Kansas City that's
[1:53:42] leading this effort, and of course, we
[1:53:43] have Unified Command working on this.
[1:53:45] They say if we're a base camp, we should
[1:53:47] expect 15,000 people to be here. 15,000
[1:53:51] is the number we should count on. If
[1:53:52] we're not a base camp, it'd be, you
[1:53:54] know, maybe 8 to 10,000.
[1:53:56] And, you know, clearly they think we'll
[1:53:58] be a base camp. We don't know that for
[1:54:00] sure. Um, obviously we've been included
[1:54:02] in the bus route, you know, to have
[1:54:04] buses every day. Um, and so, um, you
[1:54:08] know, certainly, you know, the demand is
[1:54:10] out there. I would then add that I know
[1:54:13] Kansas City, Missouri, Lanexa, Shaune,
[1:54:15] they've all passed similar ordinances to
[1:54:17] this. Um, we're actually in a a more
[1:54:20] unique situation than some of those
[1:54:22] places because we have talking to some
[1:54:25] of the cohorts and and commissioners in
[1:54:27] other places, you know, we have a pretty
[1:54:29] strong um July 31st turnover date, which
[1:54:34] is different than Lanexo Shaunie or
[1:54:36] whatever that some of these concerns
[1:54:38] like that Chris brought up about if
[1:54:41] someone has a a long-term unit in Shaune
[1:54:46] coming open in May, do they hold it
[1:54:48] waiting for June and July and then rent
[1:54:50] it out to long-term folks. Whereas in
[1:54:53] Lawrence, we have a much stronger
[1:54:54] turnover date on July, you know, July
[1:54:56] 31st. We don't have a lot that come open
[1:54:58] in May anyway.
[1:55:00] >> Um I will know I've talked to quite a
[1:55:02] » Um I will know I've talked to quite a
[1:55:02] few land I mean some landlords. There
[1:55:04] are a few landlords who did do 10-month
[1:55:06] leases with their um you know leading
[1:55:10] into this year thinking about this in
[1:55:11] ahead. And um I do know other landlords
[1:55:15] who are offering students
[1:55:18] out of the summer. We'll let you lease
[1:55:20] out on May 31st, short-term rental it,
[1:55:23] and then bring it back on August 1st as
[1:55:25] a long-term rental with students again.
[1:55:27] So, I've talked to um you know,
[1:55:29] landlords who um are definitely talking
[1:55:32] to their tenants about are you going to
[1:55:33] be here this summer? Do you want to be
[1:55:35] here this summer? If you don't want to
[1:55:36] be here this summer, you know, this
[1:55:38] could be an opportunity if this passes.
[1:55:40] Um,
[1:55:41] >> and I and that I will say I've had other
[1:55:43] » and I and that I will say I've had other
[1:55:43] conversations and my thought is we do
[1:55:46] empty to some extent over the summer. Do
[1:55:49] we happen to have numbers by chance?
[1:55:52] Could we get with KU and find out how
[1:55:54] many? We may not have those numbers. I
[1:55:56] think it pretty pretty good to have how
[1:55:58] many students leave in the summer. You
[1:56:00] know what I mean?
[1:56:01] >> We know from [snorts] the Census Bureau
[1:56:02] » We know from [snorts] the Census Bureau
[1:56:02] and the data that we have and because
[1:56:04] the effects of both Haskell and Baker on
[1:56:06] town about 15,500 students will leave
[1:56:08] between May and come back in August.
[1:56:09] Okay.
[1:56:10] >> Okay.
[1:56:11] » Okay.
[1:56:12] >> Um, so, uh, one
[1:56:14] » Um, so, uh, one
[1:56:14] >> Yeah. Yeah. No,
[1:56:15] » Yeah. Yeah. No,
[1:56:15] >> one thing. Would it be possible to take
[1:56:16] » one thing. Would it be possible to take
[1:56:16] a three-minut break uh before we go?
[1:56:19] >> You want to take a break?
[1:56:20] » You want to take a break?
[1:56:20] >> Yeah. Just a quick Let's take a break.
[1:56:21] » Yeah. Just a quick Let's take a break.
[1:56:21] >> Yeah, we'll take a fiveminut break and
[1:56:23] » Yeah, we'll take a fiveminut break and
[1:56:23] we'll be back.
[1:56:24] >> Thanks.
[1:56:24] » Thanks.
[1:56:24] >> Thank you.
[1:56:25] » Thank you.
[1:56:25] >> Yeah.
[1:56:28] » Yeah.
[1:56:28] [laughter]
[2:01:24] Okay, we will bring the meeting back
[2:01:27] after short recess and we're on the
[2:01:29] discussion of regular items um one and
[2:01:32] two or or in the question stage. Um I
[2:01:36] guess I'll just go ahead and kind of
[2:01:37] continue you know my thoughts. I I am in
[2:01:40] in support of these two
[2:01:42] um changes with [cough] the additional
[2:01:46] um amendment to um you know initiate the
[2:01:50] check text amendment to return it to at
[2:01:53] least the July 31st although you know I
[2:01:56] might do something slightly earlier July
[2:01:58] 29th or you know something just because
[2:02:00] we know the turnover date is going to be
[2:02:02] on August 1st. Um, and I support that.
[2:02:07] Um, because I do think, um, you know,
[2:02:10] again, we could be wrong. We could not
[2:02:12] be a we we cannot be a team. We cannot
[2:02:15] be a host city and we also could be a
[2:02:17] host city and no one comes. [laughter]
[2:02:20] But, um, I think the, um, I think the
[2:02:24] the safer bet is to know that, um, we
[2:02:28] need this additional housing to have the
[2:02:31] people in our community get the full
[2:02:32] benefit of it. Certainly cities in
[2:02:34] Kansas City are doing it. Even I've I've
[2:02:37] I've talked to um folks in other
[2:02:39] surrounding cities farther away than us
[2:02:41] who are also considering this. Um and
[2:02:46] and um again I've talked to quite a few
[2:02:49] landlords um who do think um this will
[2:02:53] be a pos you know certainly could be a
[2:02:54] possibility and um talking with Explore
[2:02:57] Lawrence and some of the folks on the on
[2:02:59] the team. Um you know I think this is
[2:03:02] something that will be useful to the
[2:03:05] city as long as it's shortterm and um so
[2:03:09] anyway that's why I stand on it.
[2:03:12] Jeff, have we had any communications
[2:03:14] with the university as to what they hope
[2:03:17] to
[2:03:19] what they're pl not hope to what they're
[2:03:21] planning to do? We have. Yes. They're
[2:03:23] part of the team that I I get to work
[2:03:25] with as part of the housing prompt for
[2:03:26] the unified command and and KU housing
[2:03:29] is a member of that and they've, you
[2:03:30] know, let us know is that they're going
[2:03:32] to have a lot of their normal operations
[2:03:34] that they're going to still be running
[2:03:35] the summer camps and the different
[2:03:37] events and so they're not going to have
[2:03:38] a large amount of capacity in there. And
[2:03:41] part of what we're also having
[2:03:42] conversations with them is about is um a
[2:03:45] little bit of continuity of operations
[2:03:47] for them. If people are trying to go
[2:03:48] through new story, new new student
[2:03:49] orientation, where are they going to
[2:03:51] stay during the World Cup? Or if there
[2:03:53] somebody's coming for any of those
[2:03:55] transfer days or special events that
[2:03:57] they do,
[2:03:57] >> they need to make sure they've got space
[2:03:59] » they need to make sure they've got space
[2:03:59] for people that might not be able to
[2:04:00] find a hotel or short-term rental in
[2:04:02] Lawrence. They might be staying in a
[2:04:04] residence hall for that period. So,
[2:04:06] there's a little bit of that that we're
[2:04:07] looking for. We're also keeping an eye
[2:04:09] and having the conversations for first
[2:04:11] responders and emergency workers that
[2:04:13] might be coming into the community as
[2:04:15] part of this that you know that might be
[2:04:16] coming from uh western Kansas and coming
[2:04:18] in to be here for a few days to
[2:04:21] alleviate different supports and so
[2:04:23] making sure that they've also got
[2:04:24] housing space too. So there's not a a
[2:04:26] lot of depth in university housing as
[2:04:28] you might think when you start kind of
[2:04:29] adding up all those different factors.
[2:04:32] >> Good to know. sense.
[2:04:36] » Couple couple questions for me.
[2:04:43] » The former mayor Shipley brought up the
[2:04:45] question about the transient guest tax
[2:04:46] if it goes over 30 days. The So, if
[2:04:49] you're a normal person and you do this
[2:04:51] and you say, "Hey, you're going to rent
[2:04:52] out your place for 31 days, something
[2:04:54] like that." Is the transient tax does
[2:04:56] that affect you for 30 days and then one
[2:04:58] day after that you lose access to that?
[2:05:01] Would you be able to explain? explain
[2:05:03] that. That'd be a little bit beyond my
[2:05:05] ability. Unfortunately, I tend to deal
[2:05:06] more in land use, not in finance and
[2:05:08] taxation. I I will part that I do know
[2:05:10] is that once you overstay a certain
[2:05:12] period, you actually have long-term
[2:05:14] rental rights to properties. And so,
[2:05:16] instead of going through what we do in a
[2:05:17] short-term rental, you go through the
[2:05:18] eviction process of a long-term rental
[2:05:20] process. And so, that's the part I do
[2:05:23] know. I don't have to know much about
[2:05:24] how the transient guest tax is applied
[2:05:26] and how that process works with the
[2:05:27] state.
[2:05:28] >> I do apologize.
[2:05:29] » I do apologize.
[2:05:29] >> And I can answer it, you know, again
[2:05:31] » And I can answer it, you know, again
[2:05:31] slightly. This the state law obviously
[2:05:34] has a has a transit guest tax and it
[2:05:37] applies obviously to transients. So
[2:05:39] that's the 30 days. So obviously if you
[2:05:42] rent your if if you have a long-term
[2:05:43] lease, a three-month lease or a one-year
[2:05:45] lease, you don't pay a transit guest
[2:05:46] tax, right? So it's only for that. So
[2:05:49] the question is the term of the lease
[2:05:51] and then whether or not you're paying
[2:05:53] the appropriate tax on the term of the
[2:05:54] lease. So, I mean, I I think um um Miss
[2:06:00] Shipley's point is if in some ways if
[2:06:04] you if you lease your house out to
[2:06:05] somebody for 32 days, um you wouldn't
[2:06:08] have to pay the transient guest tax to
[2:06:10] the state. Um, [clears throat] and you
[2:06:13] know, now how Airbnb does that, how VBRO
[2:06:16] does that, if you do, uh, you know, a
[2:06:20] two week and a two week, but two week
[2:06:23] and a 3 week, well, then yes, you owe
[2:06:25] transit guest tax on on both of those.
[2:06:28] But those are all state laws, so there's
[2:06:29] nothing we can do to change that one way
[2:06:31] or the other. Um, and a lot of that will
[2:06:35] have to will depend on how,
[2:06:38] you know, the if you're using a service
[2:06:40] to monitor that, they that's their
[2:06:44] responsibility, you know, the VBRO
[2:06:46] versus, you know, an Airbnb and and and
[2:06:48] their duty to collect that tax and remit
[2:06:51] it.
[2:06:53] I guess my my second question is so
[2:06:56] we're we're relaxing this for places
[2:06:59] that have or organizations that have
[2:07:01] more than three rooms. That's that or
[2:07:03] three houses or three places for people
[2:07:05] to stay, right? That's one of one one of
[2:07:07] the things
[2:07:07] >> one of the things [snorts] and
[2:07:12] what's the way to ask this question? So,
[2:07:14] you know, in a lot of ways that would
[2:07:15] be, you know, larger apartment
[2:07:16] complexes, stuff like that, places in
[2:07:18] town that have a lot of space. It could
[2:07:20] be, you know, a landlord who has, you
[2:07:22] know, four home, stuff like that. On the
[2:07:26] if there is if they're going to be in
[2:07:30] these long-term spaces for these
[2:07:31] short-term rentals, is there any thought
[2:07:33] of killing two birds with one stone by
[2:07:34] being like, hey, we're going to going to
[2:07:36] actually as part of this do the
[2:07:38] long-term evaluation for some of these
[2:07:40] that will turn into long-term so that
[2:07:43] rather than just do a short-term
[2:07:44] evaluation of what that looks like.
[2:07:45] Well, I guess one question would be, is
[2:07:46] the evaluation for a short-term
[2:07:48] inspection different than the long-term
[2:07:50] inspection?
[2:07:51] >> It is not.
[2:07:52] » It is not.
[2:07:52] >> Is not. Okay. So, in in a way, if this
[2:07:56] » Is not. Okay. So, in in a way, if this
[2:07:56] is opened up and we allow more spaces to
[2:07:59] be filled in town, doing these
[2:08:01] inspections will actually give us better
[2:08:03] visibility of what the status is of a
[2:08:05] lot of longerterm rentals
[2:08:07] >> potentially. Yes.
[2:08:12] » Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think the two I
[2:08:15] mean obviously I think there's three
[2:08:16] categories. You know the the one
[2:08:18] category mentioned by one our first
[2:08:20] speaker is you know places like the
[2:08:22] links who have 30 open rooms um renting
[2:08:26] those out you know for you know June and
[2:08:29] July. Um and I think the second is you
[2:08:33] know the people who um you know and and
[2:08:36] we know this from you know folks in you
[2:08:39] know um at a National League of Cities
[2:08:41] conference they did these presentations
[2:08:43] from um both Omaha with the College
[2:08:46] World Series and Augusta with um the
[2:08:49] >> Masters. Yeah,
[2:08:50] » Masters. Yeah,
[2:08:50] >> the masters that, you know, they have
[2:08:52] » the masters that, you know, they have
[2:08:52] these rules and and you know, people
[2:08:54] leave for a month, go on vacation, rent
[2:08:56] their house out for $10,000 and go on
[2:09:01] vacation, come back a month later and
[2:09:03] and and do that. And you know, both
[2:09:05] Omaha and um [clears throat] Augusta
[2:09:07] have um you know, kind of uh um been
[2:09:11] doing this for years. And so that's kind
[2:09:13] of the model at the National League of
[2:09:14] Cities that many of these cities across
[2:09:16] the country who are host cities are
[2:09:18] looking at. Um and so you know certainly
[2:09:21] some people now how many people want to
[2:09:23] leave their house and give it up for a
[2:09:26] month or 3 weeks? I don't know how many
[2:09:28] people that will be but I think that's
[2:09:29] the second category. And then the third
[2:09:31] category like I said would be the you
[2:09:33] know the the the long-term rental houses
[2:09:36] not the apartment complexes where um you
[2:09:39] know people h are renting to students.
[2:09:41] The students are gone and then they're
[2:09:43] renting them out you know for a period
[2:09:45] of time.
[2:09:48] This would allow all of those which
[2:09:49] aren't allowed. Now,
[2:09:52] >> um I I'll I'll make the statement in
[2:09:55] » um I I'll I'll make the statement in
[2:09:55] general that
[2:09:59] I really want Lawrence to be prepared
[2:10:02] for this impressive event. Whether it
[2:10:05] will come to fruition or not, I really
[2:10:10] I prefer being prepared a lot more than
[2:10:13] not being prepared. I'll say that. Now,
[2:10:17] what I would like to see though is I
[2:10:20] want to know how the entirety of this
[2:10:22] community will be benefiting from having
[2:10:26] an additional 15,000 people. So,
[2:10:30] obviously sales tax will be coming in.
[2:10:32] Hopefully, the gu the hotel guest tax
[2:10:35] will come. I would like to see if we can
[2:10:37] ensure that we're able to capitalize.
[2:10:42] You know, we are within the 30 days. I
[2:10:44] would like to protect those folks um
[2:10:49] that short-term rentals are on their uh
[2:10:52] block and I want I would love to see
[2:10:55] this is all in a hypothetical world up
[2:10:58] for discussion. I'd like to see heavier
[2:11:00] penalties. If you're going to if it's
[2:11:02] going to be a windfall then the
[2:11:04] community should be benefiting as well.
[2:11:07] And I certainly love the idea of people
[2:11:10] being able to capitalize on some empty
[2:11:13] space. Uh I'm not overly concerned about
[2:11:18] us um jeopardizing long-term rentals
[2:11:22] simply based on the fact that we have a
[2:11:26] decent size amount of the population
[2:11:28] leave every summer. If I think uh if
[2:11:31] that were not the case that would um I
[2:11:34] would probably feel differently.
[2:11:36] Um, so let's have that discussion as far
[2:11:41] as, okay, we're going to see an
[2:11:43] additional sales tax. Um, we're
[2:11:46] overarching. Maybe we can mitigate some
[2:11:49] property tax with that. Maybe we can
[2:11:51] make improvements. Let's make it very
[2:11:53] known what this will do for the
[2:11:56] community. and let's make darn sure that
[2:11:59] people are not going to come in and
[2:12:02] jeopardize
[2:12:04] uh safety or disrupt people's lives as
[2:12:08] it pertains to their neighborhood. So,
[2:12:10] how do we do that? Those are some for me
[2:12:13] personally, those are some conversations
[2:12:16] I would love to have. I am in favor of
[2:12:20] this as long as we're controlling it and
[2:12:23] and it's a benefit to the community.
[2:12:25] That's that's my approach.
[2:12:27] I don't know. I think part of the answer
[2:12:29] to that is if someone could talk about
[2:12:30] unified command and how we have these
[2:12:33] different groups, housing being one of
[2:12:35] them, but we're trying to look at some
[2:12:37] of those and you know, as well as the,
[2:12:39] you know, we obviously increase the
[2:12:40] transit guest tax
[2:12:42] >> um for the purpose like many communities
[2:12:45] » um for the purpose like many communities
[2:12:45] around us to help capitalize on that and
[2:12:47] we cover some of the costs we know of
[2:12:49] police and fire and so forth. But I know
[2:12:51] Brandon, I don't know if you're on
[2:12:52] unified command. I think
[2:12:53] >> I can jump in here a little bit. Um and
[2:12:55] » I can jump in here a little bit. Um and
[2:12:55] we are planning a more comprehensive
[2:12:57] update. Uh the the commission requested
[2:13:00] it before the end of last year. Um so
[2:13:02] we'll have members of the invite command
[2:13:04] here. We're uh planning on January 20th.
[2:13:07] Um so we'll be able to give you an idea
[2:13:09] of the different branches um and the
[2:13:11] work that they're doing and the
[2:13:12] preparations um to date. Um and that'll
[2:13:15] be actually around the time that we
[2:13:17] might start finding out about um hosting
[2:13:20] a team here as well. Um I do just want
[2:13:23] to kind of caution um everyone listening
[2:13:26] and and the commissioners, we are not
[2:13:29] expecting um in terms of of government
[2:13:32] revenues, tax revenues necessarily a
[2:13:34] windfall. These types of events um are
[2:13:37] major consumers of public services. Um
[2:13:40] and so uh we are starting first um with
[2:13:43] more of a continuity of operations
[2:13:45] [laughter] approach and how do we
[2:13:47] [snorts] make sure um that businesses
[2:13:49] can continue functioning and people in
[2:13:51] our comm our community members can
[2:13:52] continue going about their daily lives.
[2:13:54] We'll get into more of that when we do
[2:13:56] our comprehensive presentation. But I do
[2:13:58] kind of want to temper um community
[2:14:00] expectations that this might um uh be a
[2:14:03] windfall uh to the city government or
[2:14:05] some of our other local governments
[2:14:06] here. We do hope and we are trying to
[2:14:08] set it up so that our businesses can
[2:14:10] benefit greatly from this and we've had
[2:14:12] good participation from this so far.
[2:14:19] » Just a couple of quick thoughts. um what
[2:14:23] I the idea that this is pretty much
[2:14:25] inevitable and so I do appreciate
[2:14:28] um because there's several of us who
[2:14:29] brought this up um including myself to
[2:14:32] for us to get a jump start on this so
[2:14:34] that we know what we knew what the data
[2:14:37] was telling us about what we could
[2:14:39] possibly expect as far as numbers of
[2:14:42] just people wanting to attend and be in
[2:14:44] the area. that doesn't necessarily
[2:14:46] include those um individuals that might
[2:14:49] be traveling um to be close to their
[2:14:52] teams uh in proximity. So there's a lot
[2:14:54] of different variables at that are at
[2:14:56] play at this. And so the idea is that we
[2:14:59] needed to put something in place to
[2:15:02] attempt to mitigate as much as possible
[2:15:04] because this is going to be organized
[2:15:06] chaos. [laughter]
[2:15:08] We're it is what it is. And I think that
[2:15:10] has been that is that has been a tone
[2:15:13] and a sentiment that has been stated and
[2:15:15] shared across the board even with the
[2:15:17] Kansas City uh 2026 group. So there's
[2:15:21] going to be organized chaos. What I app
[2:15:23] there are aspects of the um major event
[2:15:27] ordinance that was put into place in
[2:15:29] Missouri that I appreciate in parts not
[2:15:31] so much. um you know they have some
[2:15:34] specific language around
[2:15:37] um owner occupied as it relates to
[2:15:39] density. I think that is something to be
[2:15:41] said for a community like that here. Not
[2:15:44] so much. Um and that's getting a little
[2:15:46] too deep in the weeds that I just don't
[2:15:48] think that we
[2:15:51] that we're not going to have that big of
[2:15:53] a lift as a Kansas City would or even a
[2:15:56] Johnson County would. Um will this
[2:15:59] impact long-term rentals? Yes, it will.
[2:16:02] Um the risk may not be as horrible, but
[2:16:05] the idea is that just because the World
[2:16:06] Cup is coming doesn't mean that people
[2:16:08] aren't won't relocate here for jobs, you
[2:16:11] know, move here, move out, life still
[2:16:13] goes on for the less 600,000 people who
[2:16:16] will be participating in World Cup. So
[2:16:19] yes, if we do, you know, this is going
[2:16:22] to have an impact. um where we have to
[2:16:26] balance that and where I've been trying
[2:16:28] to balance that in my mind is that is
[2:16:30] the idea of those short-term
[2:16:34] units, short-term rental units that are
[2:16:37] currently operating without being
[2:16:38] licensed, whether we call those illegal,
[2:16:40] whatever. I mean, in in the world of
[2:16:42] childcare licensing, you you call those,
[2:16:44] you know, unlicensed facilities. So, are
[2:16:47] do we will we have some unlicensed units
[2:16:49] here? We do. We know we have some now.
[2:16:52] Um, so what can we put in place to give
[2:16:55] it teeth to say if you are doing this
[2:16:59] and we find out that you are doing this,
[2:17:02] not only will you lose your ability to
[2:17:04] license and if you are a current
[2:17:06] short-term rental license or you have a
[2:17:09] license with us, you will lose that for
[2:17:11] a certain period of time and you will
[2:17:13] have to charge and we'll have you'll
[2:17:15] have to be assessed you will be assessed
[2:17:17] a penalty or a fine for that. Those are
[2:17:20] some of the things I think that we can
[2:17:22] put into place. Um, oh yeah, no one
[2:17:25] really wants to see me. Um, those are
[2:17:28] some things that I do believe we can put
[2:17:30] into place that can help balance some of
[2:17:33] this
[2:17:35] organized chaos that's going to happen.
[2:17:36] That also gives us a little bit of it's
[2:17:39] not that windfall, but is there's
[2:17:41] additional money that could be in place
[2:17:42] to, you know, for the point of with
[2:17:45] public, you know, public safety and
[2:17:46] things that are going to um put a little
[2:17:50] pressure on our our coffers because of
[2:17:54] this event that's happening 45 minutes
[2:17:56] away from us. So, you know, doing this
[2:18:01] mitigates to a certain point or at least
[2:18:03] puts the community to say, "Hey, some of
[2:18:06] y'all want to do this. We know you want
[2:18:08] to. Some of you have already been
[2:18:10] testing the waters and doing it
[2:18:12] illegally. So, do what's right. Do
[2:18:15] what's best. Register. Do it for this
[2:18:19] this time period. And if we find out
[2:18:21] that you're still doing it illegally or
[2:18:23] we find out that you're doing it
[2:18:24] afterwards, we're going to take that
[2:18:26] ability for you to do it away for a
[2:18:28] certain period of time and we're going
[2:18:29] to take some money away from you. So, I
[2:18:32] think, you know, we're not going to
[2:18:33] solve all the problems with this, but we
[2:18:35] have to look at this as a
[2:18:40] a a
[2:18:42] strategy solution that is going to at
[2:18:44] least create accountability
[2:18:46] and that aligns with the current system
[2:18:48] that we have. so that we can be able to
[2:18:51] offset any type of cost incurrence as
[2:18:54] well as additional stressors that we're
[2:18:57] going that we are going to see. We are
[2:18:59] going to see it. 600,000 people are not
[2:19:02] going to find a place to stay in Kansas
[2:19:04] City and they may not find it in Johnson
[2:19:07] County and hell they may not even want
[2:19:08] to be in KCK. They probably want to come
[2:19:11] here because there's something about
[2:19:12] here.
[2:19:13] >> So, we need to prepare ourselves for
[2:19:15] » So, we need to prepare ourselves for
[2:19:15] that. This is not the best. This is not
[2:19:18] tier one. This isn't a diamond, but it's
[2:19:21] going to give us something that we need
[2:19:23] to do to better prepare ourselves.
[2:19:26] >> Yeah, I agree. I think it's also kind of
[2:19:30] » Yeah, I agree. I think it's also kind of
[2:19:30] underscores
[2:19:31] our desire to not have a black market
[2:19:34] during this period of time where we have
[2:19:35] everybody available out in the open
[2:19:37] doing the right thing and in a safe way,
[2:19:39] too. So people aren't doing it to try to
[2:19:42] get away with it, but they're actually
[2:19:44] trying to comply with the rules and the
[2:19:46] and the requirements. So I I'd have to
[2:19:48] say that um I'm in favor of this. I
[2:19:50] think we need to have a sunset date and
[2:19:52] it needs to make sense, but I don't
[2:19:54] think we need to be an expert in what
[2:19:56] that day is. Whether it's July 29th or
[2:19:59] July 31st, I don't think it really
[2:20:00] matters too much except we just need to
[2:20:02] have a defined date so that we don't
[2:20:05] leave this open so that other areas of
[2:20:07] town are are un unexpectedly impacted,
[2:20:10] you know, long term by this.
[2:20:14] And
[2:20:14] >> as you guys jump in, I'd just say, you
[2:20:16] » as you guys jump in, I'd just say, you
[2:20:16] know, I do think um I lean towards the
[2:20:18] July 29th date only be for two reasons.
[2:20:21] One, it gives us a little time before
[2:20:23] that turnover date. And two, it gives us
[2:20:26] a chance not to have 60 days. You know,
[2:20:29] it it could it could increase the chance
[2:20:32] you could have a a transit guest tax
[2:20:35] >> um possibility without having a full 60
[2:20:37] » um possibility without having a full 60
[2:20:37] or 61 days, right? Um
[2:20:40] >> you could end up having a a short-term
[2:20:42] » you could end up having a a short-term
[2:20:42] rental situation.
[2:20:43] >> That was kind of what I was hoping we
[2:20:45] » That was kind of what I was hoping we
[2:20:45] could Yeah. do. So I think if we do like
[2:20:47] July 29th that also give us you know
[2:20:50] again people are thinking then about you
[2:20:53] know turning that over and getting
[2:20:54] someone in on on you know August
[2:20:56] [clears throat] 1st.
[2:20:57] >> The last game is the 11th in Kansas
[2:21:01] » The last game is the 11th in Kansas
[2:21:01] City. Sorry
[2:21:02] >> 11th or the 15th maybe.
[2:21:05] » 11th or the 15th maybe.
[2:21:05] >> Yes. The the quarterfinal game in Kansas
[2:21:07] » Yes. The the quarterfinal game in Kansas
[2:21:07] City is July 11th.
[2:21:10] >> Yeah. [clears throat]
[2:21:12] » Yeah. [clears throat]
[2:21:12] And you know the if we're a host city
[2:21:15] for a team that is
[2:21:18] eliminated and they go home before July
[2:21:20] 11th, you know the team coming, you
[2:21:22] know, I think they said that if the
[2:21:25] seeds hold, it could be Portugal versus
[2:21:27] Argentina.
[2:21:29] >> You know, you could have a whole new
[2:21:30] » You know, you could have a whole new
[2:21:30] slew of people coming in just for that
[2:21:32] July 11th game.
[2:21:33] >> They'll know that they're coming a week
[2:21:36] » They'll know that they're coming a week
[2:21:36] or so before that. They come in and rent
[2:21:38] for, you know, eight days or something.
[2:21:41] um if our team is still playing then of
[2:21:44] course we still could have a lot of
[2:21:46] those filled. Um so a couple
[2:21:48] possibilities there. So there could
[2:21:50] certainly be a date between you know
[2:21:52] shortly after July 11th and you know the
[2:21:55] July 29th. But and then I do think we
[2:21:57] can include in there when they bring us
[2:21:59] back that initiate text amendment. we
[2:22:02] could have Randy and Jeff look at
[2:22:04] penalties and and you know bring that
[2:22:07] back to us and consider that
[2:22:10] >> as part of that motion to bring that
[2:22:11] » as part of that motion to bring that
[2:22:11] back in in the text amendment process.
[2:22:15] >> Yeah, I think that's good.
[2:22:17] » Yeah, I think that's good.
[2:22:17] >> I'm kind I'm concerned that the 29th is
[2:22:19] » I'm kind I'm concerned that the 29th is
[2:22:19] not enough turnover time. Again, if the
[2:22:22] last match is the 11th, if we say two
[2:22:25] weeks, if people want to lolly gag
[2:22:28] around two weeks after that, that puts
[2:22:29] us around the 25th, 26,
[2:22:33] then that gives any of these
[2:22:37] non-owner occupied folks, i.e. apartment
[2:22:40] complexes, that gives them at least a
[2:22:42] week
[2:22:43] >> Yeah.
[2:22:43] » Yeah.
[2:22:43] >> before their
[2:22:46] » before their
[2:22:46] looks like Sundays, July 26th.
[2:22:48] >> Sunday's the 26th. So yeah, that I mean
[2:22:50] » Sunday's the 26th. So yeah, that I mean
[2:22:50] I could support that.
[2:22:51] >> Okay,
[2:22:54] » Okay,
[2:22:54] >> comments on this end.
[2:22:57] » I I was really just swayed by
[2:23:00] Commissioner C's argument because I I
[2:23:02] think there's something we can do here
[2:23:03] that will again clear something else up,
[2:23:07] which is, [snorts] you know, there's a
[2:23:09] concern that we have illegal or
[2:23:12] non-sanctioned um Airbnbs or verbos and
[2:23:15] stuff like that. And I I think if we put
[2:23:17] the penalties in place for this
[2:23:19] afterwards and then do
[2:23:22] um you know do those evaluations, be
[2:23:25] able to work with uh Jeff's team to be
[2:23:27] able to figure out like are people
[2:23:28] abusing this that we can know going
[2:23:31] forward what those penalties will be and
[2:23:33] I think a lot of existing
[2:23:36] uh neighborhoods and people would
[2:23:37] benefit from having the teeth of that as
[2:23:41] part of this. I I also think just
[2:23:43] thinking about being able to to uh
[2:23:46] evaluate more rentals around town as
[2:23:49] part of this whole process, too, to make
[2:23:51] sure that they're up to speed as part of
[2:23:52] the uh inspection process. That can be a
[2:23:55] benefit to this whole thing whole thing
[2:23:58] as well. So, I was kind of on the
[2:23:59] [clears throat] fence about it, but I am
[2:24:01] going to vote yes for this based on
[2:24:03] based on that. I don't see Brian, but
[2:24:06] just to re uh just to remind me and
[2:24:08] Jeff, you you could as well
[2:24:11] for folks who are wanting to report.
[2:24:14] So, if someone was wanting to report a,
[2:24:17] you know, a an Airbnb, a short-term
[2:24:20] rental [snorts] unit in their comm in
[2:24:22] their neighborhood that they know is not
[2:24:25] or they suspect that it is not licensed.
[2:24:29] What is that? Is there a dedicated line
[2:24:32] or link or what is the process pathway
[2:24:35] to someone wanting to report that?
[2:24:36] [snorts]
[2:24:37] >> Quite a number of ways. Um you could
[2:24:38] » Quite a number of ways. Um you could
[2:24:38] send an email to us. You could give us a
[2:24:40] phone call. We have online through
[2:24:42] cclickfix. You can report those uh
[2:24:44] through uh that app and also that
[2:24:47] website. Um we have people that uh will
[2:24:50] mail us letters. Uh so any number of
[2:24:51] ways that we do it. We work on that like
[2:24:53] I mentioned complaint based process. So
[2:24:55] any any way that somebody can get us
[2:24:57] information we will definitely be acting
[2:24:58] on that.
[2:24:59] >> Okay.
[2:25:04] Randy, you turned your camera on. I
[2:25:05] don't know if you had something you
[2:25:06] wanted to say before we make a Okay,
[2:25:08] just checking. [clears throat] Just
[2:25:10] checking. Well, um, certainly if there's
[2:25:13] more comments, we could do that. I think
[2:25:15] what I'm thinking listening to the
[2:25:18] conversation is we might have three
[2:25:20] motions. motion on agenda item one, a
[2:25:23] motion on agenda item two, and then a
[2:25:25] third motion that we initiate a text
[2:25:29] amendment to restore the code with the
[2:25:30] cleanup text with an end date of July
[2:25:33] 26th and bring back um additional
[2:25:38] penalties um
[2:25:41] as part of that. And I think our
[2:25:42] discussion is about maybe going to the
[2:25:45] 2500 and suspending licenses. But we'll
[2:25:47] let the let that initiation and then
[2:25:50] bring that back to us and we can go
[2:25:52] through that.
[2:25:54] >> So that's why I'm thinking three motions
[2:25:55] » So that's why I'm thinking three motions
[2:25:56] is
[2:25:57] >> yes.
[2:25:58] » yes.
[2:25:58] >> That's the case. Would anyone like to
[2:25:59] » That's the case. Would anyone like to
[2:25:59] try those motions?
[2:26:02] Motion to approve a temporary text
[2:26:04] amendment to chapter 6, article 13,
[2:26:06] division 2, short-term residential
[2:26:07] rental property code to allow greater
[2:26:09] flexibility for short shortterm rentals
[2:26:12] during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Adopt on
[2:26:15] first reading ordinance number 10153.
[2:26:19] >> Second.
[2:26:19] » Second.
[2:26:19] >> Second. A motion by Vice Mayor Courtney,
[2:26:22] » Second. A motion by Vice Mayor Courtney,
[2:26:22] a second by Commissioner Cos as it
[2:26:25] relates to regular agenda item one. All
[2:26:26] those in favor, please say I. I.
[2:26:28] >> I.
[2:26:29] » I.
[2:26:29] >> Opposed? Passes 5. Is there a second
[2:26:33] » Opposed? Passes 5. Is there a second
[2:26:34] motion on regular agenda item number
[2:26:36] two?
[2:26:38] >> Before the motion, I just wanted just
[2:26:40] » Before the motion, I just wanted just
[2:26:40] one clarification point. So, this is
[2:26:42] just cleaning up something that you guys
[2:26:44] found in the text
[2:26:46] >> of the of the of the LDC.
[2:26:49] » of the of the of the LDC.
[2:26:49] >> This would make the change for the World
[2:26:52] » This would make the change for the World
[2:26:52] Cup. The amendment we'd be be bringing
[2:26:54] back to
[2:26:56] reset would be the cleanup one. So, it
[2:26:59] would correct the error we've identified
[2:27:00] in the code. Okay.
[2:27:01] >> We wouldn't be bringing back the exact
[2:27:03] » We wouldn't be bringing back the exact
[2:27:03] same text that's in there today. We'd be
[2:27:04] bringing back the cleanup version if you
[2:27:06] initiate the amendment to put it revert
[2:27:08] back.
[2:27:08] >> Okay. Just wanted to double check that.
[2:27:10] » Okay. Just wanted to double check that.
[2:27:10] Okay. Thank you.
[2:27:13] >> So, there's a motion on regular agenda
[2:27:14] » So, there's a motion on regular agenda
[2:27:14] item number two.
[2:27:19] Motion to approve text amendment at
[2:27:20] AMDT25
[2:27:22] uh 007 to chapter 20, the land
[2:27:24] development code of the city of
[2:27:25] Lawrence, Kansas to update the accessory
[2:27:28] use table to allow nonowner occupied
[2:27:30] short-term rental uses to be permitted
[2:27:32] accessory uses in the R1 residential low
[2:27:35] density and R2 residential low density
[2:27:38] to districts. Also update the accessory
[2:27:40] use table to allow owner occupied
[2:27:41] short-term rental uses to be permitted.
[2:27:44] accessory uses in the R3, R4, R5, M1,
[2:27:47] M2, M3, CCD, ILG, and P1 districts.
[2:27:52] Based on the findings present in the
[2:27:53] staff report, adopt on first reading
[2:27:55] ordinance number 10176.
[2:27:58] >> Seconded.
[2:27:59] » Seconded.
[2:27:59] >> So motion by Vice Mayor Kney, a second
[2:28:03] » So motion by Vice Mayor Kney, a second
[2:28:03] by um Commissioner Devo. All those in
[2:28:06] favor, please say I.
[2:28:07] >> I. I.
[2:28:08] » I. I.
[2:28:08] >> I.
[2:28:09] » I.
[2:28:09] >> The opposed. Passes five to zero. And
[2:28:12] » The opposed. Passes five to zero. And
[2:28:12] then I'm looking for a third.
[2:28:14] >> So on the third one, do I need to
[2:28:15] » So on the third one, do I need to
[2:28:15] specify the language as far as fines and
[2:28:18] penalties or can
[2:28:18] >> No, I think just initiate they bring
[2:28:20] » No, I think just initiate they bring
[2:28:20] back penalty
[2:28:21] >> related to short-term rentals. Okay. So
[2:28:23] » related to short-term rentals. Okay. So
[2:28:23] I move that we initiate a text amendment
[2:28:25] uh with clean up that Wait, hold on.
[2:28:28] Yeah. So, I move that we initiate a text
[2:28:30] amendment with cleanup l with cleanup
[2:28:33] text to sunset
[2:28:36] to July 26, 2026 and to have staff bring
[2:28:41] back language related to fines and
[2:28:44] penalties
[2:28:46] as it relates to short-term rentals.
[2:28:49] >> I second that.
[2:28:50] » I second that.
[2:28:50] >> Okay. Sherry and Jeff and Craig,
[2:28:53] » Okay. Sherry and Jeff and Craig,
[2:28:53] everyone
[2:28:55] >> understand the motion?
[2:28:57] » understand the motion?
[2:28:57] >> Okay.
[2:28:58] » Okay.
[2:28:58] Um and so motion by Commissioner Cos, a
[2:29:01] second by um Commissioner Dever. All
[2:29:04] those in favor, please say I.
[2:29:05] >> I.
[2:29:06] » I.
[2:29:06] >> I.
[2:29:07] » I.
[2:29:07] >> Opposed. That passes 5 to zero.
[2:29:10] » Opposed. That passes 5 to zero.
[2:29:10] >> Thank you very much, Jeff and others.
[2:29:13] » Thank you very much, Jeff and others.
[2:29:13] Thank you. Um that ends our regular
[2:29:16] agenda, but brings us to the work
[2:29:17] session items. A work session provides
[2:29:19] an opportunity for the city commission
[2:29:21] to discuss items in greater detail. The
[2:29:23] commission will take no binding action
[2:29:24] on the items presented during this time.
[2:29:27] Woke session topics are eligible for
[2:29:28] public comment. Members of the public
[2:29:30] will be limited to three minutes for
[2:29:32] comments. And this work session is to
[2:29:34] receive a presentation on the proposed
[2:29:36] affordable housing incentive policy. And
[2:29:39] I believe Leah is online to present
[2:29:42] this.
[2:30:00] Hi, good evening, mayor and
[2:30:01] commissioners. I'm Leah Rosland,
[2:30:03] affordable housing administrator uh for
[2:30:05] the city of Lawrence. Uh please give me
[2:30:07] just a moment while I share my screen.
[2:30:19] [clears throat]
[2:30:23] Okay. Um, good evening again. Thank you
[2:30:26] for the opportunity to present the
[2:30:28] proposed affordable housing incentive
[2:30:30] policy.
[2:30:33] The goal of this work session is to
[2:30:35] provide a clear overview of the policy.
[2:30:38] I'll share the purpose, how it connects
[2:30:39] to our adopted housing goals, the types
[2:30:42] of h incentives proposed, and incentive
[2:30:44] requirements. We are eager to hear your
[2:30:46] feedback tonight.
[2:30:50] This policy builds on prior commission
[2:30:52] direction, community engagement, and our
[2:30:54] shared vision of a Lawrence where
[2:30:57] housing is affordable, accessible, and
[2:30:59] dignified for everyone.
[2:31:01] This policy advances the city's
[2:31:03] strategic plan, strong, welcoming
[2:31:05] neighborhood KPIs 5, six, and seven.
[2:31:09] This policy additionally meets the
[2:31:10] city's commitments to effective and
[2:31:13] efficient processes, steward, sound
[2:31:15] fiscal stewardship, and equity and
[2:31:17] inclusion.
[2:31:18] I'm sorry. Give me just some sec.
[2:31:21] [clears throat]
[2:31:26] This [clears throat] policy advances our
[2:31:28] strategic goals by focusing incentives
[2:31:30] on the types of housing least available
[2:31:32] and most needed in our community to
[2:31:34] decrease housing stress, especially for
[2:31:37] very low and low-income households, our
[2:31:39] local workforce, families with children,
[2:31:41] people with disabilities, and seniors.
[2:31:44] The policy is designed with the
[2:31:45] overarching goal of ensuring that our
[2:31:47] public investments have the greatest
[2:31:49] possible impact for the community and
[2:31:51] serve the highest public good.
[2:31:53] Additional goals are to provide
[2:31:54] transparency, clarity, and fairness for
[2:31:56] applicants in the community.
[2:32:00] We [clears throat] leverage a toolkit of
[2:32:01] incentives to bridge financial gaps and
[2:32:03] encourage development that meets
[2:32:05] affordability goals. I will provide an
[2:32:07] overview of each incentive type in the
[2:32:10] next few slides.
[2:32:13] So, first tax incentives. This policy
[2:32:16] recommends tax incentives including
[2:32:18] reinvestment housing incentive districts
[2:32:21] or RIDs, industrial revenue bonds, IRBs,
[2:32:24] and neighborhood revitalization areas,
[2:32:26] NRAs. IRBs and NRAs have already been
[2:32:29] provided for affordable housing under
[2:32:32] their current economic development
[2:32:34] policy.
[2:32:35] If approved, moving forward, affordable
[2:32:37] housing projects would need to meet the
[2:32:39] criteria outlined and apply under this
[2:32:41] policy. Reinvestment housing districts
[2:32:44] would be a new tool for Lawrence, but is
[2:32:46] a statewide incentive already offered
[2:32:48] throughout many Kansas community.
[2:32:52] [clears throat]
[2:32:56] Currently, [gasps]
[2:32:57] uh I'm sorry, uh moving on to affordable
[2:33:00] housing trust funds. Currently, the
[2:33:01] affordable housing trust fund is
[2:33:03] provided only as a grant. Under the
[2:33:06] proposed policy, projects with the
[2:33:07] guaranteed period of affordability of 99
[2:33:10] years would be eligible for grants.
[2:33:12] Projects with lower periods of
[2:33:14] affordability would be eligible for
[2:33:16] lowterest loans, which is a standard
[2:33:19] practice among many communities with
[2:33:20] local trust funds for projects uh with
[2:33:23] more limited periods of affordability.
[2:33:28] » [clears throat]
[2:33:28] >> Additional proposed and city city
[2:33:31] » Additional proposed and city city
[2:33:31] incentives include public land donations
[2:33:34] and fee waivers. Through this policy, a
[2:33:37] process for requesting municipal land
[2:33:38] donations and fee waivers would be
[2:33:40] formalized and streamlined. Fee waivers
[2:33:43] are one of the most frequently utilized
[2:33:45] mechanisms municipalities across the
[2:33:47] country and the state employed to
[2:33:49] generate affordable housing development.
[2:33:52] However, unfortunately, as we've
[2:33:54] discussed, our own internal policies
[2:33:56] create barriers in maximizing the
[2:33:58] leverage of this incentive. While we can
[2:34:01] provide some fee wavers through PDS,
[2:34:04] system development charges cannot be
[2:34:06] waved per resolution 7231,
[2:34:09] I would suggest that this is one of the
[2:34:11] more vital policy considerations for the
[2:34:13] commission to consider.
[2:34:17] Now that I've reviewed incentives, I'll
[2:34:19] cover eligibility
[2:34:21] in the proposed policy. Requirements for
[2:34:24] minimum years of affordability ensure
[2:34:26] long-term community benefit and protect
[2:34:28] public investment in incentivizing
[2:34:30] extended affordability periods. This
[2:34:33] requirement is a critical policy uh
[2:34:35] decision for the commission to consider.
[2:34:37] And so I'm going to provide just a very
[2:34:39] brief primer on this item.
[2:34:46] » [clears throat]
[2:34:46] >> In order to receive public subsidy for
[2:34:48] » In order to receive public subsidy for
[2:34:48] building affordable housing, developers
[2:34:50] agree to making the units affordable for
[2:34:53] low and moderate income households,
[2:34:55] meaning that rents are restricted so
[2:34:57] that they are generally not higher than
[2:34:59] 30% of the household income. And they
[2:35:02] agree to do this for a designated period
[2:35:04] of time. At the end of the mandated
[2:35:07] period of affordability, the housing may
[2:35:09] then be converted to market rate
[2:35:10] housing, meaning that the owner may
[2:35:12] charge the highest possible rent. within
[2:35:16] local market conditions. That also means
[2:35:18] that when affordability ends, the public
[2:35:20] investment no longer serves as a benefit
[2:35:23] to the public and vulnerable households
[2:35:25] are put at risk for displacement and
[2:35:27] homelessness when rents increase to more
[2:35:29] than what they can afford. Kansas and
[2:35:32] federal low-income housing tax credits
[2:35:34] require a 30-year affordability period.
[2:35:37] Some states have longer.
[2:35:40] Many municipalities have local
[2:35:42] municipalities have longer. Uh the city
[2:35:45] has aligned with the state litec 30-year
[2:35:47] requirement. Although the AHOB attempts
[2:35:50] to prioritize projects with 99 or more
[2:35:53] years of affordability or we often refer
[2:35:55] to as affordability in perpetuity or
[2:35:58] permanent affordability.
[2:36:00] This policy further operationalizes that
[2:36:03] priority and proposes that to receive
[2:36:05] significant incentives, a 99-year
[2:36:07] affordability period would be required.
[2:36:10] The policy also proposes that a 50-year
[2:36:13] minimum period of affordability to
[2:36:15] receive lowinterest loans and any one uh
[2:36:18] types of tax incentive [laughter]
[2:36:25] proposes that projects must meet minimum
[2:36:27] affordability percentages ensuring
[2:36:29] deeper affordability for those most in
[2:36:31] need with a focus on family and
[2:36:33] accessible units. based on initial
[2:36:36] developer feedback and to be more in
[2:36:38] alignment with state litec. The draft
[2:36:41] policy was already updated and greatly
[2:36:43] reduced the requirements for targeted
[2:36:45] housing types. In the revised draft um
[2:36:49] as you can see um in yellow up to 20% of
[2:36:52] units may be income targeted for
[2:36:54] households up to 120% AMI. I want to
[2:36:58] note that this would also be a
[2:36:59] significant policy change for Lawrence
[2:37:01] as currently projects must serve
[2:37:03] households at or under 80% AMI to
[2:37:06] receive subsidy the same as LITC and um
[2:37:10] HUD. Enabling some units to serve
[2:37:12] moderate and middle inome households
[2:37:14] helps us to build more of the missing
[2:37:16] middle housing stock in addition to
[2:37:18] helping to uh increase project
[2:37:20] feasibility.
[2:37:25] to provide an example of what them this
[2:37:27] might look like. Say a project will be
[2:37:30] building 10 new affordable homes in this
[2:37:33] policy. Out of those 10, two of them may
[2:37:36] be income targeted to households up to
[2:37:38] 120 uh% AMI. Four of them would be
[2:37:42] income targeted to households uh between
[2:37:44] 60 and 80, 8% AMI, and four would be
[2:37:47] income targeted to households at or
[2:37:49] under 60% AMI. In addition, the project
[2:37:52] must include at least two units that are
[2:37:55] three or more bedrooms fully accessible
[2:37:57] or income targeted for 30% or below AMI.
[2:38:01] In this scenario, the developer elects
[2:38:03] to build one family housing unit for
[2:38:05] households at up to 80% AMI and one
[2:38:08] additional fully accessible unit for
[2:38:10] households up to 60% AMI. This ensures
[2:38:13] that with every develop fin development
[2:38:15] finance with public subsidy, the
[2:38:18] community is gaining a minimal amount of
[2:38:19] the units that advance the city's
[2:38:21] targeted housing goal.
[2:38:28] To get a [clears throat] better
[2:38:29] understanding of how AMI translates into
[2:38:31] actual household income, I've included
[2:38:33] this chart. AMI is based on family size,
[2:38:36] so it makes it a little complicated to
[2:38:37] give one number. So, I've included AMI
[2:38:40] levels for one, two, and four person
[2:38:42] households. Just as an example, the AMI
[2:38:45] percentage in bold represents households
[2:38:47] traditionally eligible for affordable
[2:38:49] housing. I've also included a chart with
[2:38:51] typical wages in Lawrence to give you an
[2:38:53] idea of the workforce this housing
[2:38:55] supports. This data is from the Bureau
[2:38:57] of Labor Statistics and represents the
[2:38:59] mean annual wage in Lawrence for some
[2:39:01] common jobs that are essential to our
[2:39:03] community.
[2:39:05] Moving on, the policy also includes
[2:39:08] accessibil uh accessibility standards
[2:39:10] that ensure that publicly subsidized
[2:39:12] housing is usable and welcoming to all
[2:39:14] so that homes may be used by a wide
[2:39:16] range of occupants including all ages
[2:39:19] and abilities.
[2:39:21] In the interest of time, I'm just going
[2:39:23] to note that the policy also includes
[2:39:25] requirements pertaining to the criteria
[2:39:27] shown here, all of which are fairly
[2:39:29] standard and covered in the policy
[2:39:30] itself. I'm happy to provide any
[2:39:32] additional detail upon request.
[2:39:36] The agenda item packet includes the
[2:39:38] policy original draft used for community
[2:39:41] engagement and an updated redline draft
[2:39:43] reflecting changes made based on
[2:39:45] community feedback. The redline version
[2:39:48] provides additional clarity and language
[2:39:50] and explicitly broadens eligibility
[2:39:52] criteria um to make clear that the
[2:39:55] intent is not just new development but
[2:39:57] also rehabs, conversion um from market
[2:40:00] rate to affordable etc. The final policy
[2:40:03] will additionally be streamlined by
[2:40:05] removing administrative processes and
[2:40:07] design standards into separate
[2:40:08] accompanying documents.
[2:40:11] [clears throat]
[2:40:13] We aim for timely implementation with
[2:40:15] your feedback shaping the final policy
[2:40:17] which we anticipate bringing for
[2:40:19] approval by the end of this quarter. One
[2:40:22] important note on implementation, some
[2:40:24] components of the policy will need to be
[2:40:26] phased in based on funding availability.
[2:40:28] For example, we don't have any
[2:40:30] additional resources allocated in 2026
[2:40:33] to cover fee waiverss. As we have
[2:40:36] discussed recently, all 2026 affordable
[2:40:39] housing trust funds have been fully
[2:40:40] allocated. Due to these and other budget
[2:40:43] constraints, full implementation of all
[2:40:45] elements of the policy will not be
[2:40:47] possible until 2027.
[2:40:51] staff would value the following uh
[2:40:53] specific guidance from the governing
[2:40:55] body in addition to um to any any
[2:40:59] discussion you may have. But I want to
[2:41:01] provide um additional clarity on what
[2:41:03] we're asking for in a couple of these
[2:41:05] items because I don't think my slide is
[2:41:07] very clear. So for the first item
[2:41:09] regarding broader focused goals, the
[2:41:11] question really is, is the commission's
[2:41:14] priority to broadly and primarily
[2:41:16] support larger multifamily rental
[2:41:18] projects or be more targeted to drive
[2:41:21] development of the housing types that
[2:41:23] are most needed in advancing goals such
[2:41:25] as affordable home ownership,
[2:41:27] family-sized, accessible, and deeply
[2:41:29] affordable units that don't normally
[2:41:31] come with those larger multifamily,
[2:41:34] typically LITC projects.
[2:41:37] Regarding the last um item uh regarding
[2:41:40] additional incentives, the question is
[2:41:42] is the commission is interested in
[2:41:44] exploring additional land use incentives
[2:41:46] and expediated review processes. I'm
[2:41:49] happy to provide further explanation for
[2:41:52] any of these items at your request. Um
[2:41:54] this concludes the presentation but I'm
[2:41:56] happy to leave this slide up as it may
[2:41:58] help to guide uh your discussion and
[2:42:00] we'll stand for any questions. Thank you
[2:42:02] so much.
[2:42:04] >> Thank you Leah. questions for Leah.
[2:42:09] » Thank you Leah. questions for Leah.
[2:42:09] Who would like to start?
[2:42:13] I guess I can start. Well, people
[2:42:16] and I will say I um sadly started with
[2:42:20] the the first version before I realized
[2:42:22] there was a second redline version. I
[2:42:24] started writing down questions and then
[2:42:25] I realized, hey, they answered some of
[2:42:27] these. Um, so, um, my notes are a
[2:42:31] little, uh, confused, but I do have a, I
[2:42:33] mean, a couple couple questions and
[2:42:36] trying to think through how these would
[2:42:37] work. Um,
[2:42:41] you know, thinking about and I'll jump
[2:42:44] around a little bit. I mean, I I
[2:42:45] certainly understand the idea of
[2:42:48] trying to get more three-bedroom units
[2:42:51] because that's a, you know, low-inccome
[2:42:52] three-bedroom units is a is a priority.
[2:42:55] I know. But how would that would would h
[2:42:59] putting that requirement in would that
[2:43:02] keep us from doing like senior housing
[2:43:04] projects that they probably don't need
[2:43:07] three bedrooms in senior housing
[2:43:08] projects and and how would we work that
[2:43:11] policy
[2:43:13] in and try to balance those two?
[2:43:17] Um in that requirement um the 20% of
[2:43:21] more targeted units, it's like a menu of
[2:43:24] options that the developer can choose.
[2:43:26] So it's either three or more bedrooms
[2:43:28] for families or fully accessible units
[2:43:31] that would be great for seniors to age
[2:43:33] in place or um units that are income
[2:43:37] targeted for AMIs uh at 30% or below.
[2:43:41] >> Okay, so that's a an option, not a
[2:43:44] » Okay, so that's a an option, not a
[2:43:44] single requirement. Okay, thank you. I
[2:43:45] missed that. I missed that. Um,
[2:43:50] so you know, of course, we've done quite
[2:43:52] a few LITC projects that have less than
[2:43:55] 50 years.
[2:43:57] Um, and
[2:44:00] [snorts]
[2:44:01] looking across the state and and you
[2:44:03] know, I know you mentioned some
[2:44:04] communities have longer periods. I mean,
[2:44:07] do we expect if we adopted this that
[2:44:09] we'd never have a LITC project again in
[2:44:12] the city, or would we expect LITC
[2:44:14] projects to come and be okay with the
[2:44:17] the 50-year loan, or or how do you see
[2:44:20] that playing out in practice?
[2:44:24] Based on um the data from other
[2:44:27] communities that have
[2:44:30] many periods of affordability,
[2:44:32] [clears throat]
[2:44:33] we would not see any reduction in LITC
[2:44:36] projects to be anticipated. Um Vermont,
[2:44:40] the whole state requires permanent
[2:44:42] affordability and they have continued to
[2:44:46] have a wait list. Um LITC projects still
[2:44:49] are very competitive.
[2:44:52] Um, and a lot of the local
[2:44:54] municipalities that we often look at to
[2:44:57] compare Lawrence to, many of those local
[2:45:00] municipalities have uh required longer
[2:45:03] periods of affordability. Uh, many
[2:45:06] require permanent or permanent 99 years
[2:45:09] of affordability. And again, they have
[2:45:11] not seen any reduction that um continues
[2:45:14] to be a very competitive program. And
[2:45:17] what has shown to reduce litech projects
[2:45:20] is the amount of credits available
[2:45:22] through through the program itself.
[2:45:25] >> Yeah,
[2:45:25] » Yeah,
[2:45:26] >> we know that's a problem. [snorts] Um
[2:45:28] » we know that's a problem. [snorts] Um
[2:45:28] >> so then tell me h [laughter] how would
[2:45:30] » so then tell me h [laughter] how would
[2:45:30] the loan repayment work? Um is that a
[2:45:34] loan that they're making payments on for
[2:45:35] the 50 years? Is a is a loan repayment
[2:45:37] due at the end of the 50 years? H how
[2:45:39] does that practically work?
[2:45:43] That's something that staff would need
[2:45:45] to um develop policies and procedures
[2:45:49] for. First, we wanted to get
[2:45:50] commission's um interest in exploring
[2:45:54] that um as an option and if the
[2:45:57] commission is interested, then we'll
[2:45:58] move into what those administrative
[2:46:01] details uh would be. I do want to note
[2:46:03] and Danny might be able to speak more to
[2:46:05] this, but our uh division currently
[2:46:08] operates loans through the CDBG program.
[2:46:11] So we do have some idea and a mechanism
[2:46:13] for operating loans.
[2:46:15] >> Yeah. I just didn't know like with a
[2:46:18] » Yeah. I just didn't know like with a
[2:46:18] LITC project or whatever there's a
[2:46:20] 50-year for example instead of 999 and
[2:46:23] just just trying to understand how that
[2:46:24] payment payment back would work. Um
[2:46:30] there in section
[2:46:36] uh section I think 28 there's some
[2:46:38] language in there about um sites being
[2:46:41] ineligible or may be eligible or
[2:46:44] whatever in when wetlands
[2:46:48] um I I think the original version said
[2:46:52] if it had a significant impact on
[2:46:54] wetlands I think the the the secondary
[2:46:57] version said they'd just be ineligible
[2:47:00] if there was any wetlands involved. Um,
[2:47:04] and I guess if we went with the first
[2:47:06] version of impact on wetlands, who would
[2:47:11] make that decision
[2:47:14] um the impact versus
[2:47:18] um I mean I think the second way would
[2:47:20] be cleaner but also more limiting. So I
[2:47:22] just wondered the thought process on
[2:47:24] those two options.
[2:47:27] Um, that's a really good question,
[2:47:29] Mayor. And, um, I'm wondering if Jeff
[2:47:32] might have some ideas. That's not
[2:47:33] something that we've um, discussed. That
[2:47:36] language was uh, copied, borrowed from,
[2:47:40] uh, Kansas Litec policies.
[2:47:43] Um, and we have not discussed internally
[2:47:46] how that would be implemented or
[2:47:47] enforced.
[2:47:48] >> And just so I'm clear, which is was the
[2:47:51] » And just so I'm clear, which is was the
[2:47:51] first language,
[2:47:52] >> correct? the second language the
[2:47:54] » correct? the second language the
[2:47:54] application is ineligible or is it the
[2:47:57] first language about the impact that's
[2:47:59] in the lit language
[2:48:01] >> the the original draft language was from
[2:48:03] » the the original draft language was from
[2:48:03] litec
[2:48:04] >> okay typically wetlands get delineated
[2:48:07] » okay typically wetlands get delineated
[2:48:07] by a federal agencies effectively it's
[2:48:10] not something that the city typically
[2:48:11] lays out or works with so if it gets
[2:48:13] delineated as part of that process with
[2:48:15] one of the federal agencies it usually
[2:48:17] shows up on the maps and we usually
[2:48:18] follow that process because it's pretty
[2:48:20] extensive to be displayed on that and
[2:48:22] there's also So, a lot of changes
[2:48:24] that'll occur from time to time on that
[2:48:25] is what constitutes a wetlands or how
[2:48:28] wetlands are governed under federal
[2:48:29] laws. And so, it's kind of hard to
[2:48:31] sometimes keep up with all the different
[2:48:32] changes, but we usually just rely on
[2:48:34] that as part of our standard process.
[2:48:36] >> Okay. And I guess that relates um and
[2:48:40] » Okay. And I guess that relates um and
[2:48:40] not not for you, Jeff, I don't think. Um
[2:48:43] but uh you know I know there's knowing
[2:48:46] that there's a limited number of LITC
[2:48:50] um projects going to be available in the
[2:48:52] state of Kansas. Um
[2:48:58] you know I wondered about something in
[2:49:00] the policy
[2:49:01] that um
[2:49:06] you know helped us you know be in line
[2:49:09] for LITC projects. I mean this this this
[2:49:12] would be an example for example this
[2:49:14] example of wetlands. I mean if if the
[2:49:17] state determines it does not have an
[2:49:19] impact on wetlands if we use that
[2:49:22] language could we just accept that and
[2:49:24] not have to do our own evaluation.
[2:49:27] Um you know I of course this came up a
[2:49:30] couple weeks ago. Another thought was,
[2:49:33] you know, the the points related to fee
[2:49:35] waiverss. And I know we can't do fee
[2:49:36] waiverss per se, but you know, allowing
[2:49:39] people to be if they get LITC approval,
[2:49:41] they'll automatically
[2:49:44] receive a fee waiver so that the points
[2:49:48] can be maximized and therefore they have
[2:49:50] a better chance of ultimately receiving
[2:49:52] it. I guess I'm just trying to think out
[2:49:54] loud is have you seen any policies that
[2:49:58] somehow um
[2:50:01] you know
[2:50:03] help LITC people you know our community
[2:50:06] get awarded some of the limited LITC.
[2:50:09] Does that make sense?
[2:50:11] >> Yeah. There are um several
[2:50:15] » Yeah. There are um several
[2:50:15] um categories for which projects receive
[2:50:18] points based on local support. as we've
[2:50:21] discussed fee waiverss, um below
[2:50:24] interest loans is another one, municipal
[2:50:27] land donations is another one and then
[2:50:30] other types of local uh grants like uh
[2:50:33] CDBG for example or home could could be
[2:50:36] considered in that. Um so those are
[2:50:41] those are the ways that the applications
[2:50:43] would score higher. I think your
[2:50:45] question about, you know, automatically
[2:50:49] providing fee waiverss or other types of
[2:50:51] incentives for LITC projects, I guess
[2:50:54] that's really, you know, that's a policy
[2:50:57] question for the commission to consider
[2:50:59] is the intent um as I understand it and
[2:51:02] as I've discussed with KHRC, the intent
[2:51:05] is to gauge the local community's
[2:51:08] support of a particular project. How
[2:51:11] much is your local community behind it?
[2:51:13] How much does this project reflect the
[2:51:15] needs of your local community? And
[2:51:17] that's indicated through things like fee
[2:51:19] wavers and loans or grants, etc.
[2:51:22] Um, so does our community, you know, do
[2:51:25] we want to,
[2:51:28] um, I guess use incentives as a way of
[2:51:30] prioritizing certain projects or do we
[2:51:32] want to take what Kansas
[2:51:35] um, you know, the state um,
[2:51:39] believes to be the most vital or, you
[2:51:42] know, the best project for our
[2:51:44] community. I think really that's the
[2:51:46] question.
[2:51:47] >> I see.
[2:51:49] » I see.
[2:51:49] Um,
[2:51:53] [snorts]
[2:51:54] okay. I was checking here. We did change
[2:51:57] the caps from the first version to the
[2:51:59] second. Okay, that's good. I'm looking
[2:52:01] at the affordable housing part.
[2:52:03] >> Um,
[2:52:07] my question in this is I'm in in uh part
[2:52:10] eight, which is the affordable housing
[2:52:12] trust fund
[2:52:14] process.
[2:52:15] Um [cough] section five is the
[2:52:18] affordable housing trust fund procedure
[2:52:21] of part 8.
[2:52:23] >> What page?
[2:52:25] » What page?
[2:52:25] >> Um it is page 90 of 158.
[2:52:29] » Um it is page 90 of 158.
[2:52:29] >> Okay.
[2:52:31] » Okay.
[2:52:31] [snorts] Um,
[2:52:36] I guess my
[2:52:44] I see how I would ask this question.
[2:52:46] Well, first of all, is is the procedure
[2:52:48] set out in in section five here on page
[2:52:51] 8990? Is that what we do now or is there
[2:52:53] a suggestion in changing
[2:52:56] um the procedure? I I think it's similar
[2:52:59] to what we do now, but I I guess I was
[2:53:01] Let me ask it that way first.
[2:53:06] » Currently, the the policy outlines a
[2:53:09] procedure um from the affordable housing
[2:53:13] uh trust fund no notice of funding
[2:53:15] opportunity and is similar to how we run
[2:53:18] the process. Now, I think a ch um a
[2:53:21] change would be to consider if we want
[2:53:25] to continue if we do adopt this policy,
[2:53:27] does it make sense to continue to only
[2:53:29] have an annual application cycle? Um my
[2:53:33] uh my recommendation is that that does
[2:53:36] not work for development projects. um
[2:53:40] that it perhaps would make more sense
[2:53:42] for a developer to submit one incentive
[2:53:45] application which can be analyzed,
[2:53:47] reviewed, and considered for approval um
[2:53:52] with all the incentives requested at one
[2:53:54] time including trust funds. That would
[2:53:56] mean a change in how we run the trust
[2:53:58] fund process.
[2:54:01] >> And does that is what proposed in here
[2:54:03] » And does that is what proposed in here
[2:54:03] does that make that change or is that
[2:54:05] something because I tend to agree with
[2:54:07] you. I I mean I read this and I thought
[2:54:11] to myself that's pretty limiting. I mean
[2:54:13] we talk about having one meeting and
[2:54:15] then a second meeting by video and this
[2:54:17] and that and that seemed pretty detailed
[2:54:20] for policy. Um and I mean and then I did
[2:54:25] write down this idea of only doing it
[2:54:27] once a year. Um so the way it's written
[2:54:30] now is it does it have that flexibility
[2:54:33] or is that something we could look at?
[2:54:36] I would suggest that we revise it. And I
[2:54:39] don't know if Jeff or Danny want to
[2:54:40] speak more to this, but
[2:54:43] um we we um went back and forth on, you
[2:54:48] know, do we do we present um the
[2:54:51] affordable housing trust fund as it's
[2:54:53] currently conducted? Or do we also
[2:54:56] recommend simultaneously that perhaps
[2:54:58] the affordable housing advisory board
[2:55:01] has a portion of the trust funds that's
[2:55:03] within their purview to allocate or
[2:55:06] recommend awards for and that perhaps
[2:55:09] another pot of funds would be available
[2:55:11] for incentives that would come with
[2:55:13] staff recommendation. But since
[2:55:15] currently all of the affordable housing
[2:55:17] trust funds are um per ordinance
[2:55:20] connected to the affordable housing
[2:55:23] advisory board,
[2:55:25] um I was hesitant to put a policy
[2:55:27] recommendation that would be contrary to
[2:55:31] another [snorts] current policy similar
[2:55:33] to fee waiverss if that makes I hope I'm
[2:55:36] making sense.
[2:55:37] >> I think I think you make sense and I do
[2:55:40] » I think I think you make sense and I do
[2:55:40] think that's something I'm I'm
[2:55:41] interested in. Um,
[2:55:45] and obviously we can talk about that,
[2:55:47] but I do think having more flexibility
[2:55:50] to I mean we've we've had some
[2:55:53] disjointed projects come through where
[2:55:54] we're doing OI projects and then later
[2:55:58] we have Ahab, we have to wait on Ahab
[2:56:00] and we're not considering them all at
[2:56:02] the same time, all the incentives
[2:56:04] together and then we have to wait to see
[2:56:06] if Ahab's going to approve it and all
[2:56:08] that. I mean, it it does seem to make
[2:56:10] sense to me to have a a way to run a a
[2:56:13] whole procedure together and not
[2:56:18] do that. So, that is something I'm
[2:56:19] interested in. Okay, I have
[2:56:22] um
[2:56:25] one more question, then I'll let other
[2:56:26] people ask questions. Um
[2:56:30] this is 14B.
[2:56:32] What was Let's see. Um
[2:56:36] where did I see this?
[2:56:40] non-residential meet the I wrote this
[2:56:42] down. I'm trying to find the right spot.
[2:56:44] Non-residentidential
[2:56:46] meets the e um economic development
[2:56:48] policy.
[2:56:50] Um
[2:56:52] I think those that was up earlier as one
[2:56:54] of the eligibility criteria that the
[2:56:56] non-residential
[2:56:58] portion of any project meet the economic
[2:57:01] development policy. I guess I wanted to
[2:57:03] understand a little bit more what that
[2:57:05] meant. Would that mean they have to have
[2:57:06] meet our policy of certain wages, that
[2:57:10] sort of thing, or what do we mean by
[2:57:12] that eligibility requirement?
[2:57:18] Yeah, just as you stated mayor that um
[2:57:21] or any commercial component to the
[2:57:23] project um
[2:57:26] that that that component would also need
[2:57:28] to meet the criteria under economic
[2:57:29] development because affordable housing
[2:57:31] is not going to be evaluating
[2:57:34] um the strengths or um benefit to the
[2:57:38] commercial component of any project.
[2:57:41] But I guess what I'm
[2:57:44] and maybe the work would a work live be
[2:57:48] considered. I mean, I think about some
[2:57:49] of the projects we've done where we've
[2:57:50] had the work live component on the first
[2:57:52] floor and I don't think we've put any
[2:57:55] requirements on what the work part of
[2:57:58] that is meeting our economic development
[2:58:01] policy like
[2:58:03] um you know base wages or anything like
[2:58:08] that, job growth or is that what this
[2:58:10] means or would this be like purely
[2:58:12] commercial like if we're having a
[2:58:15] someone wants to put a coffee shop on
[2:58:17] the first Well, I I guess I don't
[2:58:19] understand that what we're trying to
[2:58:20] accomplish there. Leah, is it more like
[2:58:23] so I mean we've had a couple of folks
[2:58:25] bring together [clears throat] bring to
[2:58:27] us mixeduse developments where to your
[2:58:30] point where there is commercial on the
[2:58:31] bottom some iteration of commercial on
[2:58:33] the bottom housing on top. But the idea
[2:58:35] of if from a from a floor from the the
[2:58:41] total gross of the the number the the
[2:58:46] square footage exceeds.
[2:58:49] What this is saying is that if it
[2:58:50] exceeds 25% of if the commercial part
[2:58:54] exceeds 25% of the total gross floor
[2:58:59] number then this is not an affordable
[2:59:02] housing project. Therefore, a dollar
[2:59:05] should not be there. It should go it
[2:59:07] should meet the requirements of the
[2:59:08] economic development policies and
[2:59:10] procedures.
[2:59:11] >> Did I correct? Okay.
[2:59:12] » Did I correct? Okay.
[2:59:12] >> Okay, that helps me. Thank you. Thank
[2:59:14] » Okay, that helps me. Thank you. Thank
[2:59:14] you for that.
[2:59:15] >> Thank you.
[2:59:16] » Thank you.
[2:59:16] >> That I was mixing it. Yeah.
[2:59:19] » That I was mixing it. Yeah.
[2:59:19] There it is. Okay, that's the 25%. Okay,
[2:59:22] those are at least the start of my
[2:59:23] questions. Other questions people have
[2:59:26] at the moment?
[2:59:28] >> I I do have
[2:59:31] » I I do have
[2:59:31] I'm I'm trying to do a comment here. So,
[2:59:33] in regards to the revolving loan piece
[2:59:36] um with [snorts and clears throat] some
[2:59:37] of the language, I guess, so I'll get to
[2:59:39] that in comments because I I do
[2:59:41] appreciate that coming before us. I
[2:59:44] guess my question would be Danny for so
[2:59:47] with with some of the pol with if any of
[2:59:49] the policy changes that we implement
[2:59:51] tonight is that going to affect our
[2:59:52] current um
[2:59:55] CDGB um because we just did a we just
[2:59:59] reup the plan so would we need to make
[3:00:02] modifications to
[3:00:05] to our plan um how we've implement how
[3:00:07] we've strategized dollars?
[3:00:09] >> Uh good evening. Um it should not affect
[3:00:11] » Uh good evening. Um it should not affect
[3:00:12] our plan. um
[3:00:14] we would have a very robust educational
[3:00:17] piece if there's ever any crossing of
[3:00:20] the two different funding sources
[3:00:22] >> just because the uh anytime you put a
[3:00:25] » just because the uh anytime you put a
[3:00:25] dollar of federal funds in something it
[3:00:27] drastically changes a project. So um in
[3:00:31] terms of what we have we would not have
[3:00:33] to change anything. It would just be the
[3:00:35] educational piece on the other end.
[3:00:36] >> Okay.
[3:00:39] » Okay.
[3:00:39] And then um
[3:00:42] because some of the stuff around and I
[3:00:45] could be jumping ahead as far as the
[3:00:47] kind of the the the layout and the
[3:00:49] design of
[3:00:52] of a loan program. So let's say we we we
[3:00:55] go full charge with this and we start to
[3:00:57] expand it and we look at you know are
[3:01:00] there CDFIs
[3:01:03] of you know in the region that we could
[3:01:05] have access to you know or working with
[3:01:07] some of our local financial institutions
[3:01:09] to to be a part of that CRA aspect of
[3:01:14] it. Um,
[3:01:17] well,
[3:01:20] is is that kind of and I may be putting
[3:01:22] words in in folks mouth, but is that
[3:01:24] kind of what you were thinking about as
[3:01:26] related to the loan program so that we
[3:01:28] have additional dollars to leverage
[3:01:32] against AHAB dollars in order to if that
[3:01:36] was something we chose to do.
[3:01:37] >> Um, I think that all options are on the
[3:01:39] » Um, I think that all options are on the
[3:01:39] table for that. uh we just have our no
[3:01:42] interest loans right now that that we
[3:01:44] do. So I I think the the point of saying
[3:01:48] that we had it with CDBG was just that
[3:01:49] we already have kind of our work in
[3:01:51] working with finance. So that would be
[3:01:53] again we were kind of just trying to
[3:01:55] determine the appetite and if that's
[3:01:56] something that the commission was
[3:01:58] interested in and then we would really
[3:02:00] fully dive in and explore that
[3:02:02] >> and that's handled internally as far as
[3:02:04] » and that's handled internally as far as
[3:02:04] the
[3:02:06] >> with the dollars of the loans. Okay.
[3:02:08] » with the dollars of the loans. Okay.
[3:02:08] Yes. Yes.
[3:02:10] Okay.
[3:02:10] >> The interest adds another element to
[3:02:12] » The interest adds another element to
[3:02:12] that though that I
[3:02:14] >> Yeah.
[3:02:14] » Yeah.
[3:02:14] >> I don't know about [laughter]
[3:02:16] » I don't know about [laughter]
[3:02:16] Okay, that's good. That That's what I
[3:02:18] have for now.
[3:02:19] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:02:21] » Okay. Thank you.
[3:02:21] >> Other [snorts] questions?
[3:02:22] » Other [snorts] questions?
[3:02:22] >> Yeah, I have a couple.
[3:02:23] » Yeah, I have a couple.
[3:02:23] >> Okay.
[3:02:24] » Okay.
[3:02:24] >> Um, in general, when we talk first, let
[3:02:27] » Um, in general, when we talk first, let
[3:02:27] me make a quick comment and thank you
[3:02:29] for all of your uh diligence getting out
[3:02:32] in the community and getting the
[3:02:34] feedback. Along those lines, did we
[3:02:36] include the school board in any way when
[3:02:39] we talk about this policy?
[3:02:44] We met with the school district
[3:02:47] um [clears throat] as uh as staff um
[3:02:52] protocol was that we work with other
[3:02:54] district staff. Um not reach out
[3:02:57] directly to school board. Um, so we did
[3:03:00] meet with district staff, the assistant
[3:03:02] superintendent, and did let them know
[3:03:05] that we'd be happy to have further
[3:03:06] meetings. Um,
[3:03:09] um, and Jeff can
[3:03:11] >> Yeah. Did you get any in that? [snorts]
[3:03:14] » Yeah. Did you get any in that? [snorts]
[3:03:14] >> Well, they primarily um were focused on,
[3:03:19] » Well, they primarily um were focused on,
[3:03:19] I think, tax incentives and wanting to
[3:03:22] ensure that that the community sees a
[3:03:25] benefit to the district.
[3:03:27] um particular on um an incentive like an
[3:03:31] NRA where where they're voting to
[3:03:33] approve.
[3:03:35] >> Okay.
[3:03:37] » Okay.
[3:03:37] Um if I may, I see Shannon Alry, um CEO
[3:03:43] of Lawrence Douglas County Housing
[3:03:44] Authority. Would you possibly mind
[3:03:46] coming in and
[3:03:49] uh giving a high level giving some
[3:03:52] feedback if you don't mind? uh having
[3:03:55] worked with you, I know you you know uh
[3:03:57] affordable housing. I'd love to hear
[3:03:59] what you have to say.
[3:04:00] >> Sure. And is this I think I'm good. Um
[3:04:04] » Sure. And is this I think I'm good. Um
[3:04:04] so and the other thing that I'll say is
[3:04:06] I was one of the original people on the
[3:04:09] affordable housing advisory board. So
[3:04:12] kind of been involved as this process
[3:04:14] has has evolved. Um, and I think the the
[3:04:19] thing I like best about this is the
[3:04:22] difference between the grant and the
[3:04:24] loan because from the housing
[3:04:26] authorities perspective, we are in favor
[3:04:29] of every single affordable housing unit
[3:04:32] we can get on the ground. Um, I voted
[3:04:35] for when I was on that board for all the
[3:04:38] LITC projects, but the difference that
[3:04:41] we constantly found was,
[3:04:44] you know, we try to put a matrix
[3:04:46] together. Well, a LITC project might be
[3:04:48] might bring, you know, 80 units for 30
[3:04:53] years, but [clears throat] the those of
[3:04:56] us in like nonprofit tenants, US,
[3:05:00] Habitat, maybe we were only bringing
[3:05:02] four units. Um, but the difference in
[3:05:06] those models is that the housing
[3:05:08] authority, 70% of everybody we assist is
[3:05:11] at or below 30% of AMI. So, I can never
[3:05:16] make a proform work, right? Unless I get
[3:05:20] a lot of money from you all. I mean,
[3:05:22] it's just basic. Um, because when you
[3:05:26] can only charge rent based on 30%, you
[3:05:28] saw that number, $21,000.
[3:05:31] I mean, you cannot rent in this town at
[3:05:34] that level unless you're renting from
[3:05:36] one of us. So, we've always had that
[3:05:39] rub. And so what I like about this
[3:05:42] policy is the real difference of how do
[3:05:44] we assist
[3:05:47] affordable housing at that very low end
[3:05:50] without discouraging
[3:05:53] LITC because I think we want both. And
[3:05:56] and you know I will say like I mean
[3:06:00] union at the loop we have a hundred
[3:06:01] vouchers. We have a ton of vouchers at
[3:06:04] Bethl. We have vouchers in every LITC
[3:06:08] project. And so that's the sort of, you
[3:06:11] know, unenviable task that the staff had
[3:06:14] and that you have is where do you sort
[3:06:17] of cut that and and figure out how do
[3:06:20] you incentivize both without
[3:06:24] making it impossible for those of us on
[3:06:27] the nonprofit/government
[3:06:29] end of it to to put a deal together um
[3:06:33] and not killing LITC. So So those are my
[3:06:36] sort of high level. So, can I follow up
[3:06:38] and ask why why does the loan help? I
[3:06:42] guess when I read this, I thought the
[3:06:44] loan would discourage LITC. You seem to
[3:06:46] say that helps the balance. How does
[3:06:48] that
[3:06:48] >> Well, because I mean and and Rebecca
[3:06:52] » Well, because I mean and and Rebecca
[3:06:52] Buford is is she's the first of us out
[3:06:54] there trying to do a LITC deal and
[3:06:56] probably can speak better, but I mean
[3:06:59] people all over the country do LITC
[3:07:01] without any Ahab money without right. I
[3:07:05] mean, we're one of the very few uh
[3:07:08] cities who has a affordable housing tax.
[3:07:12] I mean, people do LITC all over the
[3:07:14] country um without that money.
[3:07:19] >> But there is that soft money difference
[3:07:23] » But there is that soft money difference
[3:07:23] that they're trying to figure out a way
[3:07:25] to make up. And so if you can if you can
[3:07:28] sort of help them out, but then like if
[3:07:32] you look at that and somebody's renting
[3:07:34] at 80 most of the units are at 80% of
[3:07:38] AMI, well that's not very far off
[3:07:41] market, right? So how come then they
[3:07:45] wouldn't be able to pay back that back
[3:07:47] into a fund to do more affordable
[3:07:50] housing? That would be my thought on it
[3:07:52] is isn't that then a way we're
[3:07:54] generating future funds to pay back into
[3:07:58] more affordable housing.
[3:07:59] >> Appreciate that. Go ahead. You have
[3:08:01] » Appreciate that. Go ahead. You have
[3:08:01] other questions.
[3:08:03] >> No, Shannon, thank you. Um I really do
[3:08:06] » No, Shannon, thank you. Um I really do
[3:08:06] appreciate your feedback.
[3:08:08] >> Thank you.
[3:08:10] » Thank you.
[3:08:10] >> And you still get your three minutes
[3:08:11] » And you still get your three minutes
[3:08:11] later if you want. [laughter]
[3:08:14] >> Um other questions before we open it up
[3:08:17] » Um other questions before we open it up
[3:08:17] and then
[3:08:18] >> Yeah, just a quick question. So Leah, um
[3:08:19] » Yeah, just a quick question. So Leah, um
[3:08:19] I go back to your elig eligibility
[3:08:22] criteria slide on the period of
[3:08:24] affordability. I know that for the 99
[3:08:26] it's you you can use that combination
[3:08:30] under the 50-year
[3:08:32] uh there's the idea of the IRBs and the
[3:08:35] NRA. Um, is it the would it be your
[3:08:39] thought that
[3:08:43] you know the IRBs are the abatement
[3:08:44] piece and the NRA as it relates to
[3:08:46] housing is kind of the rebate aspect of
[3:08:48] it and not necessarily using abatement
[3:08:50] under the NRA.
[3:08:54] [snorts]
[3:08:55] >> I'm not sure I understand your question.
[3:08:57] » I'm not sure I understand your question.
[3:08:57] I apologize. Commissioner just cuz I
[3:08:59] know that sometimes when we when we get
[3:09:01] some of these projects the idea that we
[3:09:04] have the abatement piece and we have the
[3:09:06] the rebate piece and I know sometimes
[3:09:07] the question comes in when we deal with
[3:09:09] the abatement piece that has the impact
[3:09:11] of the county and the school board. So,
[3:09:16] >> is it the idea that by utilizing a IRB
[3:09:19] » is it the idea that by utilizing a IRB
[3:09:19] for
[3:09:21] 50-year affordable housing projects? Is
[3:09:23] this maybe to maybe direct it more
[3:09:26] towards an IRB? facility abatements on
[3:09:28] more of the sales tax of supplies and
[3:09:30] not necessarily the abatement of
[3:09:32] property tax or what were your I mean
[3:09:35] I'm I'm I'm going deeper into this maybe
[3:09:37] than
[3:09:39] the policy question posed but that's
[3:09:41] kind of where my brain is going on this
[3:09:44] >> um well like for LITC applications it
[3:09:48] » um well like for LITC applications it
[3:09:48] explicitly named sales tax exemption so
[3:09:51] I would assume that most LITC projects
[3:09:54] would favor the IRB but really the
[3:09:56] intent is that for significant tax
[3:10:00] incentives for a project that we're
[3:10:02] receiving a significant community
[3:10:04] benefit, which is why there's that
[3:10:06] language of, you know, one type of tax
[3:10:09] incentive, most likely an IRB um for 50
[3:10:12] years or fewer years of affordability
[3:10:16] and then any combination of incentives
[3:10:18] for the permanent affordable housing
[3:10:21] projects,
[3:10:22] >> right? So, it's just it's about the
[3:10:23] » right? So, it's just it's about the
[3:10:23] braiding and blending of the different
[3:10:25] opportunities to use these things.
[3:10:27] >> Correct.
[3:10:27] » Correct.
[3:10:27] >> Okay.
[3:10:27] » Okay.
[3:10:28] >> Yes,
[3:10:28] » Yes,
[3:10:28] >> you got me there.
[3:10:30] » you got me there.
[3:10:30] >> I did think of one more question and and
[3:10:32] » I did think of one more question and and
[3:10:32] you raised this and I think maybe you
[3:10:34] should talk about more for
[3:10:36] consideration. You talk about resolution
[3:10:37] 7231
[3:10:39] and maybe explain that and what the what
[3:10:43] you're looking for direction from us on.
[3:10:48] Well, I suppose um direction on whether
[3:10:51] the commission is interested in
[3:10:53] exploring
[3:10:55] um that resolution um including
[3:10:59] potentially revising it or at least
[3:11:01] exploring the implications of revising
[3:11:03] it, perhaps having more um analysis
[3:11:06] done. Um
[3:11:07] >> let's I'm not sure everyone knows what
[3:11:10] » let's I'm not sure everyone knows what
[3:11:10] 7231 is. The new folks
[3:11:12] >> I'm googling it now. [laughter]
[3:11:15] » I'm googling it now. [laughter]
[3:11:15] you might you might give an overview of
[3:11:17] what 7231 is and then
[3:11:19] >> Yeah. So it um pertains to water and
[3:11:22] » Yeah. So it um pertains to water and
[3:11:22] sewage revenue bonds um and states that
[3:11:26] no services or facilities uh provided by
[3:11:29] the system will quote be furnished to
[3:11:32] any user without a reasonable charge
[3:11:34] being made therefore. So that language
[3:11:37] has been interpreted um to preclude any
[3:11:40] system development charge fee waivers
[3:11:42] which are the largest of fee waivers um
[3:11:45] incurred by projects.
[3:11:49] >> And [clears throat]
[3:11:50] » And [clears throat]
[3:11:50] if we if we did even change that
[3:11:53] tomorrow um that wouldn't change some of
[3:11:56] the bonds we already have in place,
[3:11:58] would it? Or could we retroactively
[3:12:00] change that?
[3:12:02] Well, I think that that's um would need
[3:12:06] to be explored more.
[3:12:08] >> Yeah.
[3:12:10] » Yeah.
[3:12:10] >> Okay. Anyway, that's the issue we talked
[3:12:12] » Okay. Anyway, that's the issue we talked
[3:12:12] a little bit about the other day about
[3:12:13] not being able to just wave the fees and
[3:12:16] instead having to award them money to
[3:12:18] pay us for the fees because our bond our
[3:12:21] resolution and thus our bond documents
[3:12:23] say we can't wave fees. And if if we
[3:12:27] want to change that
[3:12:28] >> and that was under a revenue
[3:12:30] » and that was under a revenue
[3:12:30] >> or did it matter? Do you remember?
[3:12:32] » or did it matter? Do you remember?
[3:12:32] >> Yeah. Our revenue bonds is why
[3:12:34] » Yeah. Our revenue bonds is why
[3:12:34] >> they were only issuing revenue on this.
[3:12:36] » they were only issuing revenue on this.
[3:12:36] I don't know.
[3:12:37] >> I don't know. I don't know bond laws as
[3:12:39] » I don't know. I don't know bond laws as
[3:12:39] it pertains to this actually. Yeah.
[3:12:41] >> Well, it wasn't applicable to it, but it
[3:12:42] » Well, it wasn't applicable to it, but it
[3:12:42] was used as guidance in order to give us
[3:12:44] that direction.
[3:12:45] >> Okay. Well, other questions? We'll we'll
[3:12:47] » Okay. Well, other questions? We'll we'll
[3:12:48] open it up for public comment. Then
[3:12:49] we'll bring it back and make comments
[3:12:51] and then um again we're going to send
[3:12:55] Leah and others back to work on this and
[3:12:56] bring back. So we're not voting on this
[3:12:58] tonight. Yeah.
[3:12:59] >> So we're giving feedback but just want
[3:13:01] » So we're giving feedback but just want
[3:13:01] to make sure everyone's on the same page
[3:13:02] but go ahead vice mayor.
[3:13:03] >> Yeah. Uh uh two two two things uh Leah.
[3:13:06] » Yeah. Uh uh two two two things uh Leah.
[3:13:06] So the first one you mentioned in there
[3:13:08] about below interest loans. Could you
[3:13:10] explain how that would function to this?
[3:13:15] So that so the um proposed affordable
[3:13:18] housing trust fund loans for projects
[3:13:21] with fewer than 99 years of
[3:13:24] affordability
[3:13:26] um would qualify for points under the
[3:13:29] LITC application as a lowterest loan or
[3:13:32] below market interest uh loan which is
[3:13:35] why I mentioned that language
[3:13:36] specifically
[3:13:38] and I think that I believe I'll have to
[3:13:40] fact check but I believe that's defined
[3:13:42] as 1% or less.
[3:13:45] So it would generate a minimal amount of
[3:13:48] additional leverage or revenue to uh
[3:13:51] continue to support projects for through
[3:13:53] the trust fund.
[3:13:57] » And then the the other question I have
[3:13:58] and
[3:14:00] this is this is not a gotcha question. I
[3:14:02] I swear I I I am generally curious what
[3:14:04] you think about this in in terms of the
[3:14:06] presentation you gave. You talked about
[3:14:08] SWN56 and 7. And so on the Lawrence
[3:14:12] website where it has the KPIs it looks
[3:14:14] like seven we are on track with that it
[3:14:17] has it was the middle of 2024 we were
[3:14:20] able to get uh 20.9 uh affordable
[3:14:22] housing units but for 5 6 and 7 we've
[3:14:26] basically been off track for over 5
[3:14:28] years. And so my my just my question is
[3:14:32] how do you see this going forward kind
[3:14:34] of rectifying either getting us closer
[3:14:37] with percentage of households that are
[3:14:38] experiencing housing stress getting us
[3:14:40] below what looks like about 17 18% for
[3:14:43] the past 5 years into something that is
[3:14:46] again below 15 and on track.
[3:14:49] Yeah. So how do you see this achieving
[3:14:51] those goals?
[3:14:54] » Um well in in a few ways. So part of the
[3:14:58] intent of targeting particular housing
[3:15:02] types is to help us to progress in those
[3:15:05] goals. Um Shannon mentioned um
[3:15:10] [laughter] you know how um sorry Shannon
[3:15:13] mentioned tennis to homeowners was
[3:15:14] there. Tennis to homeowners has
[3:15:16] primarily developed our affordable
[3:15:18] housing um home ownership units.
[3:15:23] um that requires deeper subsidy. Um
[3:15:27] those you know one to seven unit home
[3:15:31] ownership units generally will not
[3:15:34] qualify for LITC. Um and um it just it
[3:15:40] requires a community commitment to make
[3:15:42] that happen. We have not seen
[3:15:44] applications for new affordable home
[3:15:47] ownership units through the trust funds
[3:15:50] in several years. It's just very very
[3:15:53] difficult uh to to pencil out right now.
[3:15:56] It's nearly impossible. And so part of
[3:15:58] this policy is saying, "Hey, our
[3:16:00] community wants to make a commitment to
[3:16:02] home ownership." Another example is a
[3:16:05] commitment to homeowner or to affordable
[3:16:08] units for populations at 30% AMI or
[3:16:11] below, which feeds into decreasing the
[3:16:14] point in time count of homelessness.
[3:16:17] um the the projects, you know, serving
[3:16:19] 40 to 80% AMI are needed and valuable
[3:16:23] for our community, but those aren't
[3:16:25] generally the housing units that people
[3:16:28] are transitioning into out of um
[3:16:30] houselessness. We need deeply affordable
[3:16:33] units to meet that commitment.
[3:16:37] Um
[3:16:39] I I also want to say that we although S
[3:16:43] SWN7
[3:16:44] uh we have been on track for that. Um we
[3:16:50] I I hesitate to even say this, we might
[3:16:52] need to look at that um indicator
[3:16:55] because now the affordable housing sales
[3:16:57] tax is also being used to provide
[3:17:00] revenue to um emergency homeless
[3:17:03] services. And so that leverage is going
[3:17:06] to change. Um as as mentioned, deeply
[3:17:11] affordable housing, transitional
[3:17:14] housing, um supportive housing requires
[3:17:17] much deeper subsidy.
[3:17:20] I hope I've answered that question.
[3:17:22] >> Oh, thank you. I I appreciate that. I
[3:17:23] » Oh, thank you. I I appreciate that. I
[3:17:23] took some good notes on that. Thank you.
[3:17:29] Okay, we might have some more questions
[3:17:31] for you, Leah, after public comment, but
[3:17:32] we'll open it up to public comment. Um,
[3:17:35] anyone like to speak on this item. We
[3:17:37] have three minutes.
[3:17:43] John M66049,
[3:17:45] you may have stolen my thunder, but I am
[3:17:48] going [laughter] to plow ahead with what
[3:17:49] I've written down with access to safe
[3:17:51] and affordable housing and essential
[3:17:54] services that help them thrive. Okay,
[3:17:56] that's an important metric that should
[3:17:59] apply to the whole entire policy,
[3:18:02] especially one that's so large,
[3:18:03] impactful, and expensive.
[3:18:06] As reported by the city, and I'm not
[3:18:08] giving my opinion here. I'm reporting
[3:18:10] for what the city says. Most progress
[3:18:12] indicators are off track of the stated
[3:18:15] goals. The goals are defined and
[3:18:19] measured. I'm not going to comment on
[3:18:21] how they're measured or even if those
[3:18:22] are good goals, but they are published
[3:18:24] as part of the overall uh policy.
[3:18:27] For example, number one, residents who
[3:18:30] perceive the city as a good or very good
[3:18:32] place to live, it's off track from its
[3:18:35] goals. Households, the owners or renters
[3:18:38] that are experiencing housing stress,
[3:18:40] it's off track from its goals. Count of
[3:18:43] people experiencing homelessness. So, we
[3:18:46] have a target for reducing that. It's
[3:18:48] off track from its goals. City
[3:18:51] infrastructure cost per new residential
[3:18:53] unit for multifamilies. It's off track
[3:18:56] for its goals. City infra infrastructure
[3:18:59] cost per new residential unit single
[3:19:02] family. It's off track for its goals.
[3:19:06] Connectivity of healthy food providers
[3:19:08] by transit, bike routes, or sidewalks.
[3:19:10] It's off track.
[3:19:12] Residential units within a half mile of
[3:19:14] city green space not achieved at all.
[3:19:18] Residential units within a half mile of
[3:19:20] a school or library off track.
[3:19:23] This is an interesting interesting one.
[3:19:25] Leverage the affordable housing sales
[3:19:28] tax dollars to maintain and create more
[3:19:30] affordable housing. Well, that's on
[3:19:32] track, which means to me we're great at
[3:19:34] spending money, great at putting up
[3:19:36] units, but whether we're achieving the
[3:19:38] goals of why we're bothering to put up
[3:19:40] units or to offer units doesn't seem
[3:19:43] like we're successful.
[3:19:45] So, the in bottom line, affordable
[3:19:47] housing incentive policy ought to have
[3:19:49] sensible objective outcomes. Maybe these
[3:19:52] aren't the right ones. They've been
[3:19:53] around for a while, and I'm not sure
[3:19:55] they're even updated. However, a serious
[3:19:58] review is needed to ensure that
[3:19:59] objectives are measurable and tied to
[3:20:02] relevant successive successful metrics.
[3:20:06] Thank you.
[3:20:07] >> Thank you,
[3:20:09] » Thank you,
[3:20:09] [clears throat]
[3:20:13] » Christina McKenna 66046.
[3:20:16] Um, the collaboration for collaborative
[3:20:18] governance thanks the city of Lawrence
[3:20:19] for proposing the affordable housing
[3:20:21] initiatives policy. We appreciate its
[3:20:24] wide variety of incentive options, clear
[3:20:26] application and accountability
[3:20:28] processes, and very long-term
[3:20:30] affordability. This proposal reflects
[3:20:32] our community's compassionate commitment
[3:20:34] to increasing sustainable, transparent,
[3:20:36] and consistently affordable housing
[3:20:37] opportunities for its residents. We also
[3:20:40] appreciated the city's community
[3:20:41] engagement about this policy that Leo
[3:20:43] Rosland facilitated and in which our
[3:20:44] coalition participated. We hope the co
[3:20:47] the commission will support this policy
[3:20:49] and its continued development. And we
[3:20:51] believe it can be a great model for what
[3:20:53] can be achieved when the city of
[3:20:54] Lawrence, the many devoted affordable
[3:20:56] housing advocates and community
[3:20:58] organizations and engaged residents
[3:21:00] collaborate towards a shared goal. We
[3:21:02] have several suggestions and questions
[3:21:03] about this policy we hope you'll
[3:21:05] consider, including figuring out ways
[3:21:06] for it to support affordable home
[3:21:08] ownership options as well as affordable
[3:21:10] rental options even for those in the
[3:21:12] middle class. The proposed policy
[3:21:15] currently requires the development of
[3:21:16] multiple units to be eligible for these
[3:21:18] incentives incentives and developments
[3:21:20] that have received them are generally
[3:21:22] multi-unit apartment complexes that
[3:21:24] residents rent. Our coalition suggests
[3:21:26] this policy increases options for
[3:21:28] applying these incentives to more home
[3:21:30] ownership options. It could include
[3:21:32] expanding the eligibility requirements
[3:21:34] to apply to smaller scale developments,
[3:21:36] including single properties for homes
[3:21:38] individuals can buy, own, and build
[3:21:39] equity themselves. It could increase
[3:21:42] affordable home ownership in Lawrence
[3:21:43] and could also support the
[3:21:44] rehabilitation and adapted use of
[3:21:46] existing structures. Additionally, in
[3:21:49] the past, affordable housing has
[3:21:50] primarily been provided by existing
[3:21:52] housing stock rather than new
[3:21:53] construction. We believe it might be
[3:21:55] valable valuable for the city to discuss
[3:21:57] options that could support creating more
[3:21:59] affordability for existing individual
[3:22:01] housing units. This could increase the
[3:22:03] affordable housing supply faster than
[3:22:05] building new units can do. We're
[3:22:07] grateful the city staff has already
[3:22:08] started to integrate community feedback
[3:22:10] into this proposal and hope to continue
[3:22:12] the city will continue to do so. And
[3:22:14] it's not just affordable housing, but
[3:22:16] also the sustainable housing. So
[3:22:17] sometimes maybe more accurately called
[3:22:20] attainable housing for everyone. Thank
[3:22:23] you.
[3:22:23] >> Thank you.
[3:22:29] » Hello Melinda Ball 046. I'm presenting
[3:22:33] some additional suggestions and
[3:22:35] questions from the Coalition for
[3:22:37] Collaborative Governance. The proposed
[3:22:39] policy includes language that
[3:22:41] prioritizes the preservation,
[3:22:43] rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of
[3:22:45] existing buildings, which our coalition
[3:22:47] appreciates. Our neighborhood advocates
[3:22:50] also request that the policy eliminate
[3:22:52] incentives for demolitions of existing
[3:22:54] buildings by disallowing incentives for
[3:22:57] lots that are vacant because of demos.
[3:23:00] We request that the pol policy
[3:23:02] strengthen its flood plane and wetland
[3:23:04] protections by requiring sites be
[3:23:07] ineligible if it if it is within a
[3:23:10] federally designated flood plane and by
[3:23:13] adhering to the broader definition of
[3:23:15] wetland prior to the recent sacket va
[3:23:18] ruling. We like the commission to
[3:23:21] consider whether this policy would could
[3:23:24] incentivize the use of local businesses
[3:23:26] including contractors, lumber shops,
[3:23:29] landscapers, window suppliers, and other
[3:23:31] building trades. We also like to request
[3:23:34] that the city gather and integrate
[3:23:36] feedback from the Lawrence School Board
[3:23:38] about this proposed policy as they also
[3:23:42] need to approve some of the proposed
[3:23:44] incentives. This topic was addressed at
[3:23:46] the candidate forum [snorts] our
[3:23:48] coalition hosted in October and school
[3:23:50] board members expressed a desire to be
[3:23:52] involved in this type of policy
[3:23:54] development. We also have a few
[3:23:56] financial questions about this policy.
[3:23:58] Has the city studied the fiscal impact
[3:24:00] of the property tax rebates and sales
[3:24:02] tax exemptions on the city's budget and
[3:24:05] on the city's ability to provide city
[3:24:07] services for the additional housing
[3:24:09] generated by this policy? that is what
[3:24:11] are the costs of services for these
[3:24:14] developments and how does that compare
[3:24:15] to the tax revenue the city will not be
[3:24:18] receiving. Miss Rosland told us that
[3:24:21] this will be studied in on a case-byase
[3:24:24] basis. Due this due to the scale of this
[3:24:26] new policy, we suggest that the city
[3:24:28] consider a more comprehensive assessment
[3:24:31] of the financial effects of this policy.
[3:24:34] Relatedly, we are curious if the city
[3:24:36] compared their financial situation to
[3:24:38] communities they modeled their policy
[3:24:40] proposed on to ensure that these
[3:24:43] incentives align with our community's
[3:24:46] specific financial needs. Finally, we'd
[3:24:49] like to suggest some additional benefits
[3:24:50] that could be added to the policy at no
[3:24:52] cost to the city. These include density
[3:24:55] bonuses that allow denser development
[3:24:57] than the current zoning allows,
[3:24:59] expedited permitting, and land use
[3:25:01] concessions where when appropriate for
[3:25:04] the neighborhood. Thank you.
[3:25:06] >> Thank you.
[3:25:11] » I have the comments in the room.
[3:25:13] Christina,
[3:25:21] » good evening commission. um and 66049
[3:25:24] Christina Gentry. Um pe speaking as a
[3:25:28] resident and a public servant. Um I urge
[3:25:32] um that the Lawrence City Commission and
[3:25:34] community to support an affordable
[3:25:36] housing incentive policy that ensures
[3:25:39] housing in perpetuity.
[3:25:42] Um this is not merely an abstract
[3:25:44] policy. It is a vital investment in our
[3:25:46] community's core stability and future.
[3:25:48] By keeping homes permanently affordable,
[3:25:51] we prevent the displacement of our
[3:25:52] neighbors and pro and provide families,
[3:25:55] particularly vulnerable populations like
[3:25:58] the many single family women head of
[3:25:59] household in our county, in our city,
[3:26:03] the stable foundation that they need to
[3:26:05] survive and to thrive. In Lawrence,
[3:26:07] female households with no spouse or
[3:26:10] partner present make up 8.7% of all
[3:26:13] households, with 5.8% having their own
[3:26:16] children under the age of 18.
[3:26:18] This represents a significant portion of
[3:26:20] the population that could benefit from
[3:26:22] housing stability measures. A
[3:26:24] preliminary report on unhoused people in
[3:26:27] Douglas County indicated that nearly 51%
[3:26:30] of those experiencing homelessness
[3:26:32] identified as female, a higher rate than
[3:26:35] national or state trends. This disparity
[3:26:38] underscores the particular
[3:26:39] vulnerabilities faced by women in
[3:26:41] securing and maintaining stable housing.
[3:26:44] Speaking to cost burden and income, many
[3:26:47] households in the Kansas City region,
[3:26:49] including Lawrence, experience
[3:26:50] significant housing cost burdens with
[3:26:53] the greatest shortage for residents at
[3:26:55] the 30 and 50% median income levels. We
[3:26:58] spoke on that today. Um, but research
[3:27:01] consistently shows that housing
[3:27:03] stability leads to better health
[3:27:05] outcomes, improved educational
[3:27:07] achievements for children, and a more
[3:27:09] robust local economy. For individuals
[3:27:12] who are currently costbururdened,
[3:27:14] perpetual affordability frees up
[3:27:17] resources for essentials like health
[3:27:19] care and education. The data which shows
[3:27:22] a disproport disproportionate number of
[3:27:25] women experiencing homelessness in our
[3:27:27] county makes it clear that targeted
[3:27:29] support is necessary. Incentivizing
[3:27:32] community needs through perpetual
[3:27:34] affordability will help us build a more
[3:27:36] resilient, equitable, and connected Lord
[3:27:39] for generations to come. Thank you.
[3:27:49] » See no other comments in the room. Um,
[3:27:51] how about online? Oh, David, will you
[3:27:54] speak on this one?
[3:27:55] >> Yeah, go ahead.
[3:27:58] » Yeah, go ahead.
[3:27:58] >> Hi, David Baston. Uh, tonight's agenda
[3:28:01] » Hi, David Baston. Uh, tonight's agenda
[3:28:01] item is the affordable housing incentive
[3:28:04] policy. a big step to add more
[3:28:07] affordable units through tax breaks,
[3:28:09] grants, loans, land donations, and and
[3:28:12] fee waiverss. The goal is to increase
[3:28:15] supply for low to moderate income
[3:28:17] residents, reducing housing stress and
[3:28:22] make Lawrence more affordable. But but
[3:28:24] we already have a policy that does the
[3:28:26] exact opposite of that. Ordinance number
[3:28:29] 10121
[3:28:31] passed in April of 25
[3:28:34] caps most homes at four adults, four to
[3:28:38] five adults per per house. This rule was
[3:28:42] passed to please a few complainers about
[3:28:44] residents, not based on facts, but
[3:28:47] public health or public health concerns.
[3:28:50] A commissioner told me it's meant to
[3:28:52] stop students from overcrowding homes.
[3:28:54] There's no proof that it fixes anything.
[3:28:56] Another [clears throat] called it a
[3:28:58] terrible one-sizefits-all policy that
[3:29:00] drives up rent and hits renters the
[3:29:03] hardest. Described
[3:29:06] as just a compromise to pacify
[3:29:08] complainers driven by politics, not
[3:29:12] evidence. Sounds pretty ridiculous when
[3:29:14] you hear it out loud, doesn't it? Uh
[3:29:17] we're telling grown adults how many
[3:29:19] people can live together. Uh and this uh
[3:29:22] you might want to look at this when you
[3:29:24] uh look at the World Cup too because
[3:29:26] only four adults can live or can be in
[3:29:28] any one house. So that's something you
[3:29:30] can look at there. Also uh it shrinks
[3:29:33] our housing stock. A five bedroomedroom
[3:29:35] house that could easily uh
[3:29:39] support 7 to eight people. Now legally
[3:29:42] sits half empty. that forces more people
[3:29:45] to comple compete uh with fewer homes
[3:29:48] driving rent costs up. Uh 2025 Lawrence
[3:29:53] rents has jumped 7% on average. Uh and
[3:29:58] that's higher than the national trend. U
[3:30:02] these caps make it worse by blocking
[3:30:04] shared living in our tight market. Um
[3:30:10] let's see. If we're serious about
[3:30:12] affordable housing incentive policy
[3:30:14] tonight, we can keep a rule that uh
[3:30:19] actively reduces the housing we already
[3:30:23] have. Repeal this ordinance. Uh stop
[3:30:26] bias rulings rules and complaints and
[3:30:30] start basing them on facts. Thank you.
[3:30:38] » Seeing none in the room, how about
[3:30:39] online? We do have a few.
[3:30:49] » Daniel Brown.
[3:30:57] » Oh,
[3:30:58] >> go ahead.
[3:30:58] » go ahead.
[3:30:58] >> Hello.
[3:31:00] » Hello.
[3:31:00] >> Hi. Uh, Daniel Brown, 66044.
[3:31:04] » Hi. Uh, Daniel Brown, 66044.
[3:31:04] Um, I work at Independence Incorporated.
[3:31:06] Uh we are a resource center for folks
[3:31:08] with disabilities here in Lawrence. Um
[3:31:10] I'm also the program manager of our
[3:31:12] accessible housing program. Uh which is
[3:31:14] a program that helps [snorts] folks with
[3:31:16] disabilities here in Lawrence get
[3:31:17] accessibility modifications for their
[3:31:19] homes like wheelchair ramps, accessible
[3:31:21] showers, grab bars, things like that. Um
[3:31:23] through my work over the years, I've
[3:31:25] seen firsthand um the struggles that
[3:31:27] folks with disabilities have um here in
[3:31:30] Lawrence and finding affordable housing
[3:31:31] that's accessible to them. Um and
[3:31:34] there's many reasons for this. Um, one
[3:31:36] of them is just the the housing stock
[3:31:38] here in Lawrence. Some of it is is older
[3:31:40] and it was built prior to federal um
[3:31:43] accessibility requirements being
[3:31:45] implemented. Um, also there's some
[3:31:48] housing that's exempt from those um
[3:31:50] accessibility requirements like single
[3:31:51] family homes, duplexes, triplexes, uh,
[3:31:54] multi-story town homes. Um there's also
[3:31:57] um many units in larger housing
[3:32:00] complexes, even newer complexes that
[3:32:02] don't have elevators. Um where it's just
[3:32:04] those grand floor units that are
[3:32:06] required to meet those minimum
[3:32:07] accessibility requirements. Um also many
[3:32:10] larger complexes don't have or have few
[3:32:13] if any um fully accessible units. So
[3:32:16] what this means for folks with
[3:32:17] disabilities, particularly physical
[3:32:19] disabilities, folks who are seniors,
[3:32:21] folks wanting to age in place, it's just
[3:32:23] that there's significantly fewer options
[3:32:25] for them um regarding housing,
[3:32:28] particularly finding and maintaining um
[3:32:31] accessible housing that's affordable to
[3:32:33] them. So feel like this proposed housing
[3:32:36] incentive policy helps to address some
[3:32:38] of that by expanding accessibility
[3:32:41] requirements. Um it also extends the
[3:32:44] period of affordability um to ensure
[3:32:46] affordable and accessible housing um is
[3:32:49] available to current residents um and
[3:32:51] also to future generations. So I would
[3:32:54] urge the commission um to maintain these
[3:32:57] proposed requirements in any housing
[3:32:59] incentive policy that's ultimately um
[3:33:01] approved by the commission. Um thank you
[3:33:03] very much.
[3:33:05] >> Thank you.
[3:33:13] Marielle Ferrero.
[3:33:18] » Good evening, commissioners. Um, this is
[3:33:21] Maria Pereo. Um, Lawrence resident and
[3:33:24] uh, honored to be a member of the
[3:33:26] affordable housing advisory board and
[3:33:28] the accessibility and affordable housing
[3:33:30] work group that is a part of the place
[3:33:32] for everyone plan. um here to just add
[3:33:34] my voice of support to the affordable
[3:33:37] housing incentive policy and to the
[3:33:41] opportunity to continue um developing
[3:33:44] this policy. Um, as you all have
[3:33:46] learned, there are a lot of uh changes
[3:33:49] but good components to this and um,
[3:33:52] incredibly underlined. So, I'll only
[3:33:53] underscore what um, the the CEO of uh,
[3:33:56] Lawrence Douglas County Housing
[3:33:58] Authority, Shannon Ory, stated is that
[3:34:00] this is an opportunity to utilize our
[3:34:03] housing trust funds and have an
[3:34:05] opportunity to continue to reinforce
[3:34:08] that we do want LITC projects in this
[3:34:11] community. As you know, our affordable
[3:34:13] housing trust fund is not big and we
[3:34:16] struggle every year to be able to decide
[3:34:20] how those funds are um awarded. And
[3:34:24] almost every year it is um way less than
[3:34:27] what we receive in applications. This
[3:34:29] gives us an opportunity to expand our
[3:34:31] incentives and to focus that trust fund
[3:34:33] or how it's named in this presentation
[3:34:36] as a grant to the projects that may not
[3:34:39] qualify for LITC or projects that could
[3:34:42] be not only deeply affordable which is
[3:34:44] below that 30 at or below that 30% AMI
[3:34:48] but would be affordable in perpetuity or
[3:34:51] have that 99-year requirement. uh we
[3:34:54] have opportunity to put um projects that
[3:34:58] are a path to home ownership which was
[3:35:00] echoed um in a previous commenters that
[3:35:02] maybe we're not focusing on that. I
[3:35:04] stated during our application process
[3:35:07] this year that we did not have any home
[3:35:09] ownership projects. This is an
[3:35:11] opportunity to start moving in that
[3:35:12] direction. The things that we uh need to
[3:35:15] maintain in this policy moving forward
[3:35:18] is that affordability requirement. To
[3:35:21] expand on that and to utilize our funds,
[3:35:24] taxpayer dollars to make sure that our
[3:35:27] housing is affordable in perpetuity is
[3:35:30] incredibly important and something we
[3:35:32] need to underscore. Knowing that LITC
[3:35:34] projects will still be awarded, knowing
[3:35:36] that LITC projects are still a
[3:35:38] cornerstone of affordable housing, this
[3:35:40] is the opportunity to do more. And this
[3:35:43] is the opportunity to provide housing
[3:35:45] that makes sense for our community. As a
[3:35:48] charge for AHAB, we are looking at our
[3:35:51] goals for the next several years and
[3:35:54] [snorts] this is in alignment with the
[3:35:55] projects and goals we want to see and we
[3:35:58] will be revising that after we get the
[3:36:00] affordable housing study. Um, so I'm
[3:36:02] incredibly excited to see this. I hope
[3:36:04] you all champion and encourage a
[3:36:06] continued exploration on these
[3:36:08] incentives and I hope that we can have
[3:36:11] affordable, sustainable housing in
[3:36:13] perpetuity in our community. Thank you.
[3:36:42] There you go. [snorts]
[3:36:48] » I'm sorry if I just moved you in. You
[3:36:50] could go ahead and speak. I'm not sure.
[3:36:54] >> Okay. Can you hear me?
[3:36:55] » Okay. Can you hear me?
[3:36:55] >> Yes.
[3:36:55] » Yes.
[3:36:55] >> Yes. Bob, go ahead.
[3:36:56] » Yes. Bob, go ahead.
[3:36:56] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:36:57] » Okay. Thank you.
[3:36:57] >> Your name? Uh Bob McKesc 66046.
[3:37:02] » Your name? Uh Bob McKesc 66046.
[3:37:02] Um I'm commenting from my experience as
[3:37:05] a wheelchair user since 1968 as a result
[3:37:09] of a car accident and current
[3:37:11] information and referral specialist job
[3:37:14] at Independence Inc. where I respond to
[3:37:17] among other things many requests for
[3:37:19] information and assistance finding
[3:37:22] affordable and accessible housing in
[3:37:24] Lawrence.
[3:37:26] I strongly support the city of Lawrence,
[3:37:29] Kansas adopting the affordable housing
[3:37:31] incentive policy and encourage you to
[3:37:35] approve the policy, extend the period of
[3:37:38] afford affordability in perpetuity
[3:37:42] keeping the all the universal design
[3:37:44] requirements in place that apply to city
[3:37:48] supported affordable housing
[3:37:50] developments. Uh accessible design is
[3:37:54] rooted in the principle that everyone
[3:37:56] should have equal access and usability
[3:37:59] of the built environment. Universal
[3:38:01] design creates spaces, livable spaces
[3:38:04] that are inclusive, accommodating, and
[3:38:07] can be used by people of all ages and
[3:38:10] levels of ability. Accessibility is not
[3:38:13] a special need. It's universal. Uh
[3:38:16] nationally, according to the Centers for
[3:38:18] Disease Control and Prevention, one in
[3:38:20] four adults lives with a disability and
[3:38:24] nearly 40% of all adults over 65 have
[3:38:27] mobility limitations.
[3:38:30] Yet less than 6% of homes are accessible
[3:38:34] to people with even moderate physical
[3:38:36] impairments. And that that is consistent
[3:38:40] with our experience here in in working
[3:38:43] with people that are looking for
[3:38:45] accessible affordable housing. Um
[3:38:50] [clears throat and cough]
[3:38:51] clearly most homes, apartments, and
[3:38:52] houses don't include basic accessibility
[3:38:55] features. They're not their traditional
[3:38:58] standard. Uh so and they are needed by
[3:39:01] people as they age, experience a change
[3:39:03] in health, adapt to or recover from
[3:39:06] injuries or care for loved ones. So most
[3:39:09] of us or our family members will need
[3:39:12] accessible housing at some point in our
[3:39:14] lives. The the vast majority of older
[3:39:17] adults want to stay in their homes and
[3:39:19] age in place.
[3:39:21] So including universal design
[3:39:23] accessibility from the start is smarter,
[3:39:27] more inclusive, and far more
[3:39:28] cost-effective than retrofitting later.
[3:39:32] So, I respectfully ask you to approve
[3:39:35] when the time is right or when you when
[3:39:37] you're deciding that to uh approve the
[3:39:40] affordable housing incentive policy to
[3:39:43] enable more affordable universally
[3:39:46] designed accessible housing to be
[3:39:48] available to the many Lawrence residents
[3:39:51] who need it.
[3:39:53] Thank you.
[3:39:54] >> Thank you.
[3:40:03] Jeffrey Hepler.
[3:40:07] » Hey y'all. Jeffrey Hler 66044. Uh thank
[3:40:11] you mayor, vice mayor, commissioners.
[3:40:14] Um, I just wanted to speak to this as uh
[3:40:18] a person who
[3:40:21] rents from tenants to homeowners and
[3:40:24] feels very blessed to be able to do so
[3:40:27] because if I'm being truthful, I don't
[3:40:30] know that I could live here if I didn't
[3:40:33] have subsidized rent from them. and
[3:40:40] I don't know if I'd be able to do my job
[3:40:44] here
[3:40:45] serving serving children.
[3:40:50] >> Um
[3:40:52] » Um
[3:40:52] I guess I want to share my share my
[3:40:54] vision. Here's what I'm here's what I'm
[3:40:55] thinking because I do want to be a
[3:40:57] homeowner here. I I I used to be a
[3:41:00] homeowner. I had 10 acres up by Perry
[3:41:02] Lake and um you know it kind of kills me
[3:41:06] to be a tenant now and not be able to
[3:41:07] take care of this place like I would
[3:41:08] like to.
[3:41:12] But my vision is, you know, having a
[3:41:15] tiny house here in Lawrence in a tiny
[3:41:17] neighborhood with um communal gardens
[3:41:22] and fruit trees and um you know,
[3:41:26] universal design.
[3:41:32] » Yeah, I guess that's all I have to share
[3:41:33] on that. I do hope that we support
[3:41:36] affordable housing, very affordable
[3:41:39] housing in the future because yeah, most
[3:41:42] people are paying 50% plus on their
[3:41:44] their incomes on on housing. That's just
[3:41:47] the reality we live in and it's driving
[3:41:50] people away and
[3:41:53] >> they can't escape it.
[3:41:56] » they can't escape it.
[3:41:56] >> Thank you all for listening. Um I
[3:41:58] » Thank you all for listening. Um I
[3:41:58] appreciate your service. Yeah. Thank you
[3:42:00] all for your com the comments from the
[3:42:02] public. That's very eloquent.
[3:42:04] [clears throat]
[3:42:05] >> Thank you,
[3:42:11] » Rhysa Williams.
[3:42:15] >> Hi there. I kind of want to just share a
[3:42:17] » Hi there. I kind of want to just share a
[3:42:17] little bit of my insight. I appreciate
[3:42:20] all the effort that's being put into
[3:42:22] this. Um, [clears throat] I kind of want
[3:42:23] to echo what Jeffree said.
[3:42:26] Um, my personal experience being that
[3:42:29] I'm a single mother of three boys, um, I
[3:42:32] have a voucher. I would still be in my
[3:42:35] 400 I'm sorry, 600 square foot
[3:42:40] tiny duplex with four kids um, had I not
[3:42:43] gotten a house a housing voucher. Um, so
[3:42:47] I understand like things are definitely
[3:42:50] hard. Um,
[3:42:52] and I appreciate that Christina shared
[3:42:54] those um,
[3:42:56] statistics regarding the percentages of
[3:42:58] women with children in the community
[3:43:00] that really do need that affordable
[3:43:02] housing. Um, I also was previously a
[3:43:06] housing case manager for Lawrence
[3:43:07] Community Shelter. So, I see that aspect
[3:43:10] of this. We have multiple individuals
[3:43:14] who want to be housed.
[3:43:16] They're working hard. They're trying,
[3:43:20] but they they they can't they can't find
[3:43:22] anywhere to rent. Nobody will rent to
[3:43:24] them. We break down barriers and they
[3:43:27] just continue to have more barriers. So,
[3:43:30] um
[3:43:33] yeah, the other part of that is I have a
[3:43:36] aging disabled mother. Um I'd like to
[3:43:40] see some
[3:43:42] smaller units like everyone said with
[3:43:46] ADA accessibility. Um, so I really
[3:43:49] really appreciate everything that's gone
[3:43:51] into everything everyone's saying
[3:43:53] tonight. Just from the bottom of my
[3:43:55] heart, I appreciate it. Thank you,
[3:44:04] » Mo Horowitz.
[3:44:06] [clears throat]
[3:44:08] >> Hi. Um, thank you so much for
[3:44:10] » Hi. Um, thank you so much for
[3:44:10] considering the proposed steps to create
[3:44:13] more affordable, accessible housing. I
[3:44:17] can't stress strongly enough the
[3:44:19] difference this would make in people's
[3:44:20] lives and I really appreciate everything
[3:44:24] in Leah's presentation. I believe that
[3:44:27] to s sustainably meet the needs of our
[3:44:30] community, the housing trust fund should
[3:44:33] require a 99-year affordability period
[3:44:36] for all new development in order to
[3:44:38] decrease displacement and increase
[3:44:40] stability. But I just want to talk a
[3:44:42] little bit more about the reasons to
[3:44:44] improve app improve the incentive
[3:44:46] policies, [snorts] universal design
[3:44:48] requirements, and increase accessibility
[3:44:50] since as a disabled person with a
[3:44:53] disabled spouse, that's what I know
[3:44:54] best. Our shortage of accessible housing
[3:44:57] puts disabled Lancians at higher risk of
[3:45:01] household accidents, abuse, joblessness,
[3:45:03] homelessness, and and social isolation.
[3:45:06] Systemic abbleism keeps disabled people
[3:45:09] poor. The Department of Labor estimates
[3:45:12] disabled canons earn 68 cents on the
[3:45:15] dollar. A 2025 academic study of more
[3:45:18] than,00 disabled adults found on average
[3:45:22] we spend 20% of that lower household
[3:45:24] income on disability related goods and
[3:45:27] expenses.
[3:45:28] Um, our city's latest housing market
[3:45:31] analysis found one in four disabled
[3:45:34] community members live in housing that
[3:45:36] does not meet our access needs and
[3:45:38] disabled [clears throat] renters usually
[3:45:40] go without the accessibility
[3:45:41] modifications they need. Incorporating
[3:45:44] universal design features into
[3:45:47] affordable housing goes a long way to
[3:45:48] meeting those needs and freeing up
[3:45:51] disabled people to focus on other parts
[3:45:53] of our lives, including the parts that
[3:45:55] lift people out of poverty. Um, not only
[3:45:58] is that better for disabled people, it
[3:46:01] also helps create more spending power in
[3:46:04] Lawrence. And the last thing I want to
[3:46:06] add is increasing accessible affordable
[3:46:09] housing stock can literally save
[3:46:11] people's lives in ways that may not be
[3:46:13] obvious right away. Um the most
[3:46:17] comprehensive meta study to date
[3:46:19] estimates that nationally disabled
[3:46:21] people are one and a half times more
[3:46:23] likely to be abused than non-disabled
[3:46:26] people. People are just more likely to
[3:46:28] leave their abusers when they can find
[3:46:30] housing that is safe, healthy, and
[3:46:32] accessible. Thank you very much.
[3:46:47] Barry, you're on mute. I can't hear you.
[3:47:06] » Okay, sorry about that.
[3:47:08] >> No problem.
[3:47:09] » No problem.
[3:47:09] >> Thanks for everyone. Um I agree with a
[3:47:12] » Thanks for everyone. Um I agree with a
[3:47:12] lot of the comments that people have
[3:47:14] made about um [clears throat]
[3:47:17] universal design
[3:47:20] uh and the importance of that
[3:47:22] uh long-term availability of these
[3:47:26] units. I'm just going to point out that
[3:47:30] um
[3:47:32] up until now a lot of our uh
[3:47:37] incentives have incentivized
[3:47:41] studios and onebedrooms.
[3:47:44] Um
[3:47:46] certainly there is a need and a market
[3:47:48] for that, but I think there is
[3:47:51] definitely a need for what I'm going to
[3:47:54] call familyfriendly housing.
[3:47:57] >> [snorts]
[3:47:57] » [snorts]
[3:47:57] >> Um, our school district despite the fact
[3:48:01] » Um, our school district despite the fact
[3:48:01] that the city is growing
[3:48:05] uh is losing students and I think part
[3:48:09] of that is because there is a lack of
[3:48:12] affordable housing for uh school age
[3:48:16] children in our town. And so I think
[3:48:19] this is a very important need that needs
[3:48:22] to be prioritized.
[3:48:25] Uh the other thing I think is important
[3:48:29] is that we need to uh create a better
[3:48:33] path for homeownership for people. Um
[3:48:38] not everyone wants to be a homeowner,
[3:48:40] but a lot of people do and can't and it
[3:48:45] should be affordable and it should be a
[3:48:49] part of our affordable housing strategy.
[3:48:52] This is how people
[3:48:54] um build uh generational wealth. Uh have
[3:48:59] something of value to pass on to their
[3:49:02] children and give them a leg up in life
[3:49:06] so that uh you know they have that
[3:49:10] opportunity. Uh we we're losing a lot of
[3:49:14] that with our um high taxes. That's
[3:49:18] another issue. But um I think when we're
[3:49:22] looking at affordability, making sure
[3:49:25] that we don't price people out of their
[3:49:28] homes that they currently own is another
[3:49:32] piece that this policy maybe can't
[3:49:35] address, but something that I think
[3:49:38] needs to be part of the conversation.
[3:49:41] Thank you so much for um all of
[3:49:44] everyone's work on this and for the
[3:49:47] community prioritizing it.
[3:49:51] >> Thank you.
[3:49:53] » Thank you.
[3:49:53] >> That's all the comments, Mayor.
[3:49:55] » That's all the comments, Mayor.
[3:49:55] >> Thank you, Sherry. Okay, bring it back
[3:49:57] » Thank you, Sherry. Okay, bring it back
[3:49:57] to the commission for comments. Once
[3:50:00] again, we're giving direction um to Leah
[3:50:03] and staff to continue to work on this
[3:50:06] and uh so we have to make final votes
[3:50:08] here, but uh certainly give direction
[3:50:10] and I think as we do that um you know I
[3:50:15] think to a certain extent Leah is
[3:50:17] looking for three of us to if if we give
[3:50:20] some something specific do three of us
[3:50:23] support that or you know at least
[3:50:25] something so they don't bring us back
[3:50:26] something that you know we we vote but
[3:50:29] again some of This discussion is
[3:50:30] probably going to be broader based. We
[3:50:31] don't have to you know get to three on
[3:50:33] everything but um so anyone who wants to
[3:50:37] start make some comments.
[3:50:39] >> Um yeah I'll go ahead and start.
[3:50:41] » Um yeah I'll go ahead and start.
[3:50:41] >> Okay.
[3:50:42] » Okay.
[3:50:42] >> Uh just going through the policy
[3:50:43] » Uh just going through the policy
[3:50:43] guidance slide. So as far as broader
[3:50:45] focus um
[3:50:49] you know I think for I think that it
[3:50:52] should be it should be broad. So, um, as
[3:50:54] far as the AMIs, we should be looking at
[3:50:56] anywhere from 30 to 120. I think the the
[3:51:00] matter of it's not necessarily the
[3:51:01] eligibility piece. It's more that I want
[3:51:03] to see us focus on that missing middle
[3:51:05] type of housing, which we do not have
[3:51:08] here. That speaks to a lot of what
[3:51:10] several folks have talked about tonight.
[3:51:12] Um because just housing policies in this
[3:51:15] country have always been about single
[3:51:17] family, detached or multif family
[3:51:19] because which is apartments which is the
[3:51:22] only thing that
[3:51:24] it's a long story but any short but any
[3:51:26] I think the broad focus should be across
[3:51:28] all across all of the AMIs but more
[3:51:30] specifically to strategies of building
[3:51:34] that missing middle type of housing. So
[3:51:36] those triplexes, duplexes, town houses,
[3:51:37] walkups, condos, because when you do
[3:51:40] that, you hit the broader spectrum of
[3:51:42] individuals of that need family housing.
[3:51:45] Um that can be rentals as well as a
[3:51:49] pathway to home ownership. Not home
[3:51:51] ownership should not be relegated to a
[3:51:53] single family detach. Home ownership
[3:51:55] could be a condo, it could be a duplex,
[3:51:56] it could be a townhouse. And these are
[3:51:58] things that we don't have a lot of in
[3:51:59] our community that developers are not
[3:52:01] building, which private developers are
[3:52:03] not going to do it. We're going to have
[3:52:04] to we need to have these types of
[3:52:06] incentives in order to get whether it's
[3:52:08] local developers or even some of those
[3:52:10] outside developers that are in other
[3:52:13] regions that do this work and do it
[3:52:15] great who would love to do this work
[3:52:17] here with several of our partners. So
[3:52:20] that's for part one.
[3:52:21] >> Yeah.
[3:52:22] » Yeah.
[3:52:22] >> Okay.
[3:52:23] » Okay.
[3:52:23] Um, as far as the period of
[3:52:25] affordability,
[3:52:27] um, you know, I think we should be
[3:52:30] aggressive and say we want permittive,
[3:52:33] we want affordability for perpetuity.
[3:52:35] Um, I think that should be the priority.
[3:52:37] That doesn't mean we can't prioritize
[3:52:39] other pieces, but that should be the
[3:52:41] main priority, especially if we're going
[3:52:43] to talk about other policy strategies,
[3:52:47] incentive strategies when we start
[3:52:50] looking at which is whether it's a RHID,
[3:52:52] it's IRBs, you know, compounded with
[3:52:55] some low interest loan, revolving loan,
[3:52:57] whatever, whatnot. Um because that is
[3:53:00] that is the tool that we can use because
[3:53:02] state statute limits us um in other
[3:53:05] aspects. So, while we can't mandate,
[3:53:08] this is telling developers that if you
[3:53:10] want to do this work and you're really
[3:53:12] intentional about doing this work and
[3:53:13] helping us meet our strategic plan
[3:53:16] metrics, whether they stay or we reeval,
[3:53:19] we readress those since it's time for us
[3:53:22] to do that. Um, that we will then have a
[3:53:26] cadre of incentive packages that we can
[3:53:28] offer them for being a good partner for
[3:53:30] us in that. So, definitely should
[3:53:32] prioritize
[3:53:34] um perpetuity. Um, but it doesn't mean
[3:53:36] we can't look at other aspects. I think
[3:53:38] what I what I was able to research, you
[3:53:40] know, everyone always talks about 20 to
[3:53:42] 30 years is the sweet spot. That's just
[3:53:45] best practice. That's the bare minimum.
[3:53:46] That's scraping the floor where you
[3:53:48] really start to get into
[3:53:51] municipalities that offer those robust
[3:53:53] loans and incentives is when you're
[3:53:55] looking at 40 to 50 year. And then
[3:53:57] anything o over 50 years is where you're
[3:53:59] getting into those deep subsidies and
[3:54:01] that's where you're starting to make
[3:54:02] that's where you start to make headway.
[3:54:04] So, if we want to really continue to
[3:54:05] chip away at this in a way that is very
[3:54:07] intentional and that we're going to
[3:54:09] drive affordability and drive ownership,
[3:54:12] then we need to start looking at
[3:54:14] perpetuity.
[3:54:15] Okay. So, um low interest loans,
[3:54:20] as soon as I, you know, Leah talked
[3:54:22] about this, go with it. Um I shared with
[3:54:25] her and I do have a couple of resources
[3:54:28] of spending some time in Salt Lake City
[3:54:30] and what they've been able to do with
[3:54:31] their with their revolving loan um
[3:54:34] program to the point that Miss Alry
[3:54:36] started stated about when you have that
[3:54:38] loan piece then you start to reinvest
[3:54:40] money and then you can start to gain
[3:54:41] interest which means you're f you're
[3:54:44] you're adding and you're acrewing more
[3:54:46] money that could be utilized. So um
[3:54:49] these are tools we haven't used. I don't
[3:54:51] know if it's timidity or just not having
[3:54:54] the drive or the willingness to do it.
[3:54:56] Um, but there are CDFIS, you know,
[3:55:00] there's not many I don't think we have
[3:55:01] any now in the state of Kansas, but it
[3:55:03] doesn't mean there's not opportunities
[3:55:04] for us. CRA, we need to be very
[3:55:07] innovative in in how we can start to
[3:55:10] look at our financial institutions in
[3:55:12] our community and say if you really
[3:55:14] believe in this community and you
[3:55:16] believe in what our strategic plan is
[3:55:19] about and what we're trying to do for a
[3:55:20] place for everyone, then we need you to
[3:55:22] get on board and start uh being good
[3:55:24] partners in this and that means being a
[3:55:25] CRA uh institution and provide and being
[3:55:28] a resource for us in this in this piece.
[3:55:31] So, I definitely would like to see us uh
[3:55:34] have staff bring something back to us
[3:55:35] what that look like because it's a
[3:55:36] proven uh it's a proven uh solution that
[3:55:40] works and it has worked in several um
[3:55:42] commun communities and municipalities
[3:55:44] across the country. So, we have that um
[3:55:46] fee waivers and land donations. I think
[3:55:48] that speaks to 7231. So, I think the
[3:55:51] broader piece of this is that if we need
[3:55:52] staff to to bring that back or res, you
[3:55:54] know, that we take a look at that, I
[3:55:56] think we should just leave it under that
[3:55:57] and not necessarily get into the minutia
[3:55:59] of that piece. And as far as
[3:56:01] consideration of of additional
[3:56:03] incentives, um I know some of the things
[3:56:06] out of the little book and as well as
[3:56:08] some things that that came to my mind, I
[3:56:10] know the city of Dallas has done some
[3:56:12] things around targeted zones, whether
[3:56:14] it's infill zone incentives or overlays
[3:56:17] where, you know, we've we've had some
[3:56:19] very interesting infield projects come
[3:56:22] before us and we've we've done a lot of
[3:56:24] arguing around it, but maybe we can get
[3:56:26] ahead of this if we identify areas um
[3:56:29] within our community that would be that
[3:56:32] would be great opportunities for infield
[3:56:34] development and create incentive
[3:56:36] packages around that. That's something
[3:56:38] for us to continue uh to look into. Um
[3:56:41] we have one potential census track that
[3:56:43] could be a great opportunity for us as
[3:56:46] far as opportunity zone. Um the governor
[3:56:48] gets to pick 58 out of 212 in the state.
[3:56:51] It would be great if we could make one
[3:56:53] of those um 58
[3:56:56] >> the one that I think that'd be quite
[3:56:58] » the one that I think that'd be quite
[3:56:58] marketable for us in that. And the other
[3:57:00] one is um that I know we kind of talked
[3:57:02] about it in design standards, but I know
[3:57:04] I think there was city of Overland Park
[3:57:06] passed their pre-approved design so that
[3:57:08] they have a certain design housing
[3:57:10] designs that are pre-approved by um by
[3:57:14] planning that can go through and so that
[3:57:15] kind of speeds up that permitting and
[3:57:17] and and design process. So, just a
[3:57:20] couple of things there with that.
[3:57:23] >> Thank you.
[3:57:24] » Thank you.
[3:57:24] >> Yeah, I think I'm just going to since
[3:57:25] » Yeah, I think I'm just going to since
[3:57:25] she touched on a lot of those items, I
[3:57:27] just wanted to reinforce um the the
[3:57:29] concept of perpetuity is great in on
[3:57:33] paper. I think a lot of these projects
[3:57:35] are designed and built to maybe last 50
[3:57:37] years. I think HUD might have
[3:57:38] restrictions on how long they'll place a
[3:57:40] loan on a property like this, but let's
[3:57:42] just say 50 years is a reasonable period
[3:57:44] of time to get out of a an apartment
[3:57:47] complex or even a single family home
[3:57:49] without a lot of reinvestment or or um
[3:57:52] improvements. Um those structures are
[3:57:54] not going to probably be around for 100
[3:57:55] years. So we're we're in the question I
[3:57:57] have is if we do have a rule or some
[3:57:59] requirement of perpetuity, what happens
[3:58:02] if these units age out and they're no
[3:58:05] longer suitable for habitation and does
[3:58:07] that person now responsible for
[3:58:09] resupplying the market with those units
[3:58:11] again in the future or are they off the
[3:58:13] hook? You know, because those because
[3:58:15] you know, real estate andor buildings
[3:58:17] have an expected useful life and and
[3:58:19] whether we want them to last 100 years
[3:58:21] or not, frankly, they're just probably
[3:58:23] won't. And so we need to be realistic
[3:58:25] about that, too. So I'm I'm in favor of
[3:58:27] of setting um high goals for those um
[3:58:30] properties. Um but I also want to make
[3:58:32] sure we don't overshoot our expectations
[3:58:35] on how long these buildings will
[3:58:36] actually last and and be useful. And um
[3:58:39] also I'm I think um I'm also with
[3:58:42] Commissioner Sers. I think if we can
[3:58:43] incentivize or create an opportunity
[3:58:46] zone or have an area that we've already
[3:58:48] targeted for certain incentives that
[3:58:50] might draw outside developers to our
[3:58:51] community who aren't familiar with
[3:58:53] Lawrence and who may be shy um may be a
[3:58:56] good opportunity for them to come in and
[3:58:58] and see what it's like to build in our
[3:59:00] community. And then um the 7231 um
[3:59:03] requirements relative to um funds and
[3:59:07] fee wavers relative to those um revenue
[3:59:10] funds. I think I'd like to make sure we
[3:59:12] have as many tools as possible. So, if
[3:59:14] we can touch on that, I would be also in
[3:59:16] favor of that. So, that would be at
[3:59:17] least two people would be interested in
[3:59:19] in seeing that move forward. And um and
[3:59:23] I think that's pretty much it as far as
[3:59:25] um not touched on already.
[3:59:28] >> Okay.
[3:59:30] » Okay.
[3:59:30] >> Comments on this end?
[3:59:34] » It's so much
[3:59:38] » uh I'm just going to make some comments.
[3:59:39] I really do appreciate everything that
[3:59:41] you guys have said. More importantly,
[3:59:43] I'm very grateful for the public's
[3:59:46] um comments.
[3:59:48] I'm appreciative uh KPIs. I would a lot
[3:59:53] of what I'm thinking about is more
[3:59:54] operational which would come after
[3:59:57] implementation.
[3:59:58] Um we haven't talked about I'm in case
[4:00:02] it's not obvious, I'm I'm not a fan of
[4:00:04] building in the flood plane. So, if
[4:00:07] there's anything involved in that
[4:00:09] regard, if we can avoid that, that'd be
[4:00:11] great. But, um,
[4:00:15] by and large, let me just say thank you
[4:00:16] to the community. Thank you very much to
[4:00:19] the staff and and the commission that
[4:00:21] has been working on this previous to me
[4:00:23] getting here. Uh, and I would be in
[4:00:26] favor of pretty much everything that you
[4:00:28] guys have talked about thus far,
[4:00:29] Commissioner Sers, uh, Commissioner
[4:00:31] Deber,
[4:00:33] because we will have an opportunity to
[4:00:35] come back to this.
[4:00:36] >> Oh, yeah.
[4:00:37] » Oh, yeah.
[4:00:37] >> And the only other point I want to make
[4:00:39] » And the only other point I want to make
[4:00:39] is I really [clears throat] am
[4:00:40] interested involving the school board if
[4:00:42] there's any way we can
[4:00:44] in general meet with them. I once a
[4:00:48] quarter sounds easy, but it tends to be
[4:00:51] arduous with schedules, etc. is if we
[4:00:54] could maybe approach meeting them and
[4:00:56] maybe this could be one of the topics
[4:00:58] they would certainly be affected by it.
[4:01:00] Um if it's nothing more than a work
[4:01:02] session that would be great. Um,
[4:01:08] » are you just so Commissioner Pain, are
[4:01:10] you thinking like as far as just a
[4:01:12] better
[4:01:16] cuz I think only certain aspects I mean
[4:01:19] I guess when you say speak more to the
[4:01:22] school board on this, is there something
[4:01:25] specific to that? Because I know not all
[4:01:28] pieces of this is it more of like
[4:01:30] strategies around types of housing. Are
[4:01:33] you thinking about it as it relates to
[4:01:37] potential IRBs and RAS which do impact
[4:01:40] the school board because of that vote
[4:01:41] because not everything that could be
[4:01:43] that could potentially be done would
[4:01:45] necessarily need to involve the school
[4:01:47] board. So I guess I want to be able to
[4:01:50] understand because I don't want us to
[4:01:51] have a meeting to have a meeting but
[4:01:53] what in specific if there's anything
[4:01:55] specific or at least guidelines
[4:01:58] framework outline of what what that
[4:02:00] meeting would look like. I would like to
[4:02:02] hear what their um perspective is on
[4:02:08] housing as it affects their families and
[4:02:11] the children coming into the school. I
[4:02:13] think that would be some valuable
[4:02:14] information and you're absolutely right.
[4:02:16] Um there is a lot that does not pertain
[4:02:20] to them or would affect them. I would
[4:02:23] really like their just their feedback on
[4:02:26] the plan that we have that would affect
[4:02:29] them. So
[4:02:31] [snorts]
[4:02:32] >> an overarching discussion on it really
[4:02:35] » an overarching discussion on it really
[4:02:35] kind of more to involve them in in the
[4:02:38] process. I've heard from many board
[4:02:40] members uh in the past 6 to 8 months
[4:02:43] that they not many a few let me say that
[4:02:46] that they would really value kind of
[4:02:48] being involved more uh just not for any
[4:02:52] other reason than communication
[4:02:54] and [clears throat] understanding in
[4:02:55] general not just with this but with city
[4:02:59] affairs anything that might affect them
[4:03:02] any kind of tax incentives etc. So maybe
[4:03:05] just an opportunity to hear what they
[4:03:08] have to say. [snorts]
[4:03:10] >> Um and it doesn't have to be today
[4:03:13] » Um and it doesn't have to be today
[4:03:13] obviously that we start orchestrating
[4:03:15] this but
[4:03:18] um I would like to see something and
[4:03:21] they may not even be interested and if
[4:03:22] that's the case that makes it easy.
[4:03:24] >> Yeah.
[4:03:25] » Yeah.
[4:03:25] >> Um
[4:03:29] that's I I feel like that's we've we've
[4:03:31] bitten off a little bit. I think we've
[4:03:33] got given a lot for staff to think about
[4:03:35] thus far. I'm good. [snorts]
[4:03:39] >> I mean, you know, to add to a couple
[4:03:42] » I mean, you know, to add to a couple
[4:03:42] things that were say said, the idea of
[4:03:44] the zone in the overlay district to get
[4:03:46] developers interested, I'm definitely
[4:03:48] interested in hearing more about that.
[4:03:49] But also around homes that are below AMI
[4:03:52] 30%. Um,
[4:03:55] you know, when you talk about
[4:03:57] affordability,
[4:03:59] you know, 60% of people can't afford a
[4:04:01] medical emergency, 40% don't have $500
[4:04:04] in the name, and 20% don't have enough
[4:04:05] food. So when we talk about the budget
[4:04:09] going forward and we talk about this, if
[4:04:12] we're going to make a dent in
[4:04:14] homelessness, if we're [snorts] going to
[4:04:16] make a dent with transitional housing to
[4:04:17] pick people up off their feet, I think
[4:04:20] we need to focus on the AMI30, what that
[4:04:22] looks like, and what we can do to move
[4:04:26] the needle so that the KPIs that we have
[4:04:28] show that people are less stressed about
[4:04:31] owning homes, about renting, and that
[4:04:34] the line for people experiencing
[4:04:36] homelessness continues to go down and so
[4:04:38] I know this is a active thing that we'll
[4:04:40] be working on over time but those are my
[4:04:43] initial thoughts at this moment.
[4:04:47] >> Um great I'll make a few comments but
[4:04:50] » Um great I'll make a few comments but
[4:04:50] Shannon I might ask you a question. Can
[4:04:53] you tell me what the waiting list now is
[4:04:54] for vouchers?
[4:04:56] I mean
[4:04:57] >> and uh the housing authority we have a
[4:04:59] » and uh the housing authority we have a
[4:05:00] combined waiting list. So all public
[4:05:02] housing units and vouchers are on it,
[4:05:05] but the voucher list is about 460 people
[4:05:09] and and I will say that as I said 70% of
[4:05:12] our people are at or below 30% of AMI. A
[4:05:16] third of everybody we serve um is are
[4:05:19] disabled and uh we have about 70% of our
[4:05:24] families are headed by single female
[4:05:26] head of household. So, um, we really are
[4:05:31] serving the the that end of the spectrum
[4:05:36] and and to and you know, historically we
[4:05:40] have our public housing because HUD gave
[4:05:42] us the money to do it. That program
[4:05:45] doesn't exist anymore. So, all of those
[4:05:48] units are are 60 years old and we've
[4:05:53] kept them right wellmaintained.
[4:05:57] um because quite frankly we have to and
[4:06:01] so every additional unit we bring on we
[4:06:05] bring on in perpetuity
[4:06:07] and pe nobody pays more than 30% of
[4:06:10] their income to to live with us. So, so
[4:06:13] that was my point earlier is is whatever
[4:06:16] this plan does and I and I hope we do as
[4:06:20] much in the full spectrum just keep an
[4:06:23] eye to this bottom part because the
[4:06:26] performers don't work. We can't do it
[4:06:28] with rent. We have to do it with
[4:06:32] you know government funding.
[4:06:33] >> Yeah. And I think Thank you, Shannon. Um
[4:06:37] » Yeah. And I think Thank you, Shannon. Um
[4:06:37] and you know I I agree basically with
[4:06:42] that. I mean I think this policy as as
[4:06:45] has as has been mentioned we need um to
[4:06:48] be able to um I I focus on poopurityity
[4:06:52] and focus on um you know 30% of AMI but
[4:06:56] we also need to be ready to um you know
[4:07:00] be able to have large number of units
[4:07:02] come online that we can keep our voucher
[4:07:05] list from becoming too long and using
[4:07:07] those vouchers. You know, I think you
[4:07:10] know, we got this affordable housing tax
[4:07:12] at the right time that and we focused
[4:07:15] and were able to get a large number of
[4:07:18] LITC projects in this community by
[4:07:21] having this at the right time, getting
[4:07:23] two or three a year um for several years
[4:07:26] that other communities couldn't compete
[4:07:28] with. And and I think that, you know, I
[4:07:31] I feel good about that approach. I do
[4:07:34] think going forward we know that the
[4:07:36] LITC projects will not be as readily
[4:07:39] available and in in that scenario I
[4:07:43] think it makes me think of two things.
[4:07:45] One, it makes me think we need to focus
[4:07:48] on, you know, some of the things as this
[4:07:51] policy really highlights areas we've not
[4:07:54] made as big a dent in. Home ownership,
[4:07:56] 30% AMI, perpetuity. I think that's a
[4:07:59] good thing to focus on, but [snorts] I
[4:08:01] want this I guess I want to be sure the
[4:08:04] policy puts us in a place where we can
[4:08:08] if there's only going to be two LITC
[4:08:10] projects in the state, you know, do we
[4:08:13] have a shot at one of those? So, we're
[4:08:15] probably not going to get one every
[4:08:16] year, maybe not every other year, but um
[4:08:19] having a policy that lets us um you
[4:08:22] know, do a tenure homeowners project
[4:08:24] that's lit based, you know, combined and
[4:08:27] and and have that advantage. And so, I
[4:08:29] [snorts] do um like that kind of dual
[4:08:32] approach. I do think we need to look at
[4:08:35] the process and the idea of just having
[4:08:38] one allocation
[4:08:40] once a year with certain deadlines. I do
[4:08:43] not think puts us in the best position
[4:08:46] to um jump on those opportunities. And I
[4:08:50] think that's true not only of LITC type
[4:08:52] projects, but I think it's true of
[4:08:54] tenure homeless projects or housing
[4:08:56] authority. Someone says, "Hey, I have a
[4:08:58] duplex. I want to, you know, sell to the
[4:09:00] housing authority or, you know, work
[4:09:03] with tent homeowners and sell it to them
[4:09:05] for something cheap." And they're
[4:09:06] looking around going, "Well, we don't
[4:09:08] have any money for that." And we can
[4:09:09] apply, you know, seven months from now
[4:09:11] and then get money the year later. I
[4:09:13] mean, I think we need to have some
[4:09:14] flexibility in the [snorts] process so
[4:09:17] that we can take advantage of the
[4:09:20] opportunities that will not that that
[4:09:22] that that present themselves. And so I
[4:09:24] think I I do want to look at that
[4:09:26] process and and maybe this policy should
[4:09:29] not be that that um section 8 about the
[4:09:32] pol the procedure. I don't think this
[4:09:34] policy should be so prescriptive on what
[4:09:37] our procedure is. And I think we need to
[4:09:40] um as a policy think about how we can be
[4:09:43] readily available on jumping on the
[4:09:46] right opportunities and having some
[4:09:47] flexibility there. Um so I'd like to see
[4:09:51] that. I'd like to see um you know
[4:09:54] looking at 7231 and looking at fee
[4:09:57] waiverss. I think that is a possibility
[4:09:59] to expand um what we can do um and you
[4:10:05] know with the limited dollars we have
[4:10:07] and and give us some possibilities on
[4:10:09] LITC but also on on you know other type
[4:10:13] projects. So I think we want to look at
[4:10:14] that.
[4:10:16] Um
[4:10:18] I I I do agree wholeheartedly with
[4:10:21] Commissioner Cos on that home we need
[4:10:24] home ownership projects that aren't just
[4:10:27] single family detached and that this
[4:10:30] policy should maybe even make that
[4:10:33] explicit that you know um you know again
[4:10:36] condos
[4:10:37] >> diversity
[4:10:38] » diversity
[4:10:38] >> you know duplexes forlexes that that all
[4:10:42] » you know duplexes forlexes that that all
[4:10:42] um encouraging home ownership projects
[4:10:44] that aren't just one or the
[4:10:46] Um, not to say we can't have single
[4:10:48] family, you know, projects. Um, but I I
[4:10:51] I think we need to to talk about that
[4:10:55] more generally. Um, I would say
[4:11:00] I I I like the, you know, I understand
[4:11:02] the 50 versus the 99 years. I think we
[4:11:04] need some flexibility there.
[4:11:07] >> [snorts]
[4:11:07] » [snorts]
[4:11:07] >> And I guess that would lead me to, you
[4:11:09] » And I guess that would lead me to, you
[4:11:09] know, the one language that threw me off
[4:11:12] is this part two eligibility that um it
[4:11:16] starts by saying no application
[4:11:18] requested for affordable housing shall
[4:11:20] be considered or approved unless it
[4:11:24] meets these eligibility requirements.
[4:11:26] And then we have like, you know, three
[4:11:29] pages of eligibility requirements, but
[4:11:31] not [clears throat] every project
[4:11:33] applies to each of those. It's it's it
[4:11:35] and then some of those aren't even
[4:11:38] requirements. They're things like we
[4:11:40] would prefer that. And so I think that
[4:11:43] language needs to be modified um to say
[4:11:46] these are the things we're looking at.
[4:11:47] But I don't I don't like that language
[4:11:49] that says it will not be considered or
[4:11:51] approved
[4:11:53] and and maybe there are 10 things or
[4:11:56] five things that we want in that sort of
[4:11:58] category, but the rest I think there's a
[4:12:00] mismatch here that we need to change
[4:12:03] that language a little bit and have that
[4:12:05] flexibility um to to consider a good
[4:12:09] project because again, you know, one
[4:12:12] thing, you know, um you know, again, I
[4:12:15] can make up all sorts of things.
[4:12:17] scenarios in which and and one of the
[4:12:19] questions was about the flood plane, but
[4:12:21] let's say there's a house in the Balkan
[4:12:23] neighborhood that backs up,
[4:12:25] you know, to
[4:12:26] >> to
[4:12:27] » to
[4:12:27] >> the to Brook Creek. Does that mean if
[4:12:29] » the to Brook Creek. Does that mean if
[4:12:30] that person wants to give the house to
[4:12:31] tenants to homeowners, but it has a
[4:12:33] flood plane in its backyard, we can't
[4:12:36] support that project because its
[4:12:39] backyard backs up to Brook Creek? I mean
[4:12:42] it seems to me that that is too
[4:12:44] stringent to say no project that you
[4:12:47] know um has you know again it's backyard
[4:12:52] has a you know has some flood plane in
[4:12:54] it that we can't do that. So I mean I
[4:12:57] understand the point of you know trying
[4:12:59] to protect the flood plane but we have a
[4:13:01] lot of um you know properties that have
[4:13:03] a small portion of their backyard in the
[4:13:06] flood plane and I I think some of those
[4:13:08] are ones we might want to consider. Um
[4:13:11] so again I think a little flexibility I
[4:13:14] in how that we apply that um is the
[4:13:18] other thing I would say. Um and finally
[4:13:21] I would say I mean I I do think we want
[4:13:23] to encourage you know three bedrooms. I
[4:13:25] think if you if you know and when I talk
[4:13:27] to schoolboard members of course they're
[4:13:29] most interested in you know units that
[4:13:32] bring kids. So they're they're
[4:13:34] interested in you know um three-bedroom
[4:13:37] units. they're interested in um you know
[4:13:41] home ownership a and of course um
[4:13:44] workforce housing. I mean again nothing
[4:13:47] against the school board. Many of them
[4:13:48] aren't as focused on where do college
[4:13:50] students live or where seniors live.
[4:13:53] That's not their two constituencies. But
[4:13:56] we I think have to look at all those. We
[4:13:58] have to look at where the seniors live.
[4:13:59] We have to look at where college
[4:14:00] students live in this town. And so I
[4:14:03] certainly want to work with the school
[4:14:05] board. Um but I do think we have to
[4:14:07] balance those a little bit. Um but
[4:14:10] generally I mean I think this is in the
[4:14:12] right direction. I very much appreciate
[4:14:13] the work on this. Like I said I started
[4:14:16] looking at the one that hadn't been
[4:14:17] changed [laughter] and then when I
[4:14:20] looked at the one that did change once I
[4:14:22] figured out that there was a second
[4:14:23] redline version I was very happy to see
[4:14:26] the work the clear work that's gone into
[4:14:28] this to make it better and to consider
[4:14:30] those balancing of of those areas. So, I
[4:14:34] I I mean, I know a lot of work has been
[4:14:35] in this, you know, I think we have some
[4:14:37] work to go, but I think we're heading in
[4:14:39] the right direction and um and I look
[4:14:41] forward to seeing a few more revisions,
[4:14:43] seeing this work through a little bit
[4:14:45] and and bringing back some of those
[4:14:46] other items.
[4:14:48] Mayor, I may add that maybe for that
[4:14:49] eligibility section that perhaps maybe
[4:14:52] because we're dealing with different
[4:14:54] things where there's RHID, IRB, NRA that
[4:14:58] maybe that gets that we create maybe
[4:15:00] like a matrix so that we can
[4:15:02] >> see where there's maybe potential
[4:15:04] » see where there's maybe potential
[4:15:04] eligibility [clears throat]
[4:15:04] overlays.
[4:15:06] Um sound because I know there were some
[4:15:08] things as far as you know the
[4:15:10] accessibility piece the threebedroom
[4:15:12] that those should be non-negotiables but
[4:15:13] maybe for the additional aspects of that
[4:15:16] section maybe a matrix to kind of lay
[4:15:18] those out if it's by if we're thinking
[4:15:20] about that's for all
[4:15:23] all projects or if it's specific to
[4:15:26] different types of projects whether it's
[4:15:27] IRB or so on and so forth. Yep.
[4:15:30] >> Yes. I thought
[4:15:33] » other comments, Leah, any
[4:15:37] We threw a lot at you. Um,
[4:15:40] >> anything you need more specific on at
[4:15:42] » anything you need more specific on at
[4:15:42] this point? I know there'll be a lot
[4:15:44] more work being done, more public
[4:15:46] comment and so forth, but
[4:15:50] >> um yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, would you
[4:15:53] » um yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, would you
[4:15:53] mind if I just clarified um what I heard
[4:15:56] the commission speak to this evening?
[4:15:59] Um, okay. So, I hear that the commission
[4:16:01] is generally interested in also having
[4:16:03] the policy incentivize smaller scale and
[4:16:06] homeownership opportunities in addition
[4:16:09] to the larger multif family
[4:16:10] developments. That's correct.
[4:16:13] [clears throat] Um, does the commission
[4:16:14] think the policy strikes a good balance
[4:16:16] currently but uh with requiring the most
[4:16:19] needed units? So when we talk about that
[4:16:21] 30% over low AMI accessible in family
[4:16:24] units um does 20% uh seem like a good
[4:16:29] balance
[4:16:31] to move forward with? [clears throat]
[4:16:33] >> Yeah, I think the the the way you
[4:16:34] » Yeah, I think the the the way you
[4:16:34] amended that in the second goround I
[4:16:36] think that strikes the balance.
[4:16:38] >> Okay. Um I may need additional clarity
[4:16:42] » Okay. Um I may need additional clarity
[4:16:42] on the uh period of affordability for uh
[4:16:46] the second draft that we bring back. Um,
[4:16:48] I've heard different commissioners um
[4:16:51] say generally supportive of
[4:16:53] affordability in perpetuity and some
[4:16:55] hesitation. Um, I'm wondering if I could
[4:16:58] perhaps get some additional clarity or
[4:17:00] guidance on that so we can bring a draft
[4:17:02] back that um is closer to what the
[4:17:04] commission is interested in policy-wise.
[4:17:07] >> Yeah. So my my only point I think was I
[4:17:09] » Yeah. So my my only point I think was I
[4:17:10] don't want to focus on the length or
[4:17:12] term of something being 100 years when
[4:17:14] the asset itself will be unlikely to
[4:17:17] sustain that period of time. So for us
[4:17:19] to get caught up in length of a term
[4:17:22] that will not be attainable for me seems
[4:17:25] um unreasonable thing to focus on. I'd
[4:17:27] rather focus on things that we know will
[4:17:29] occur 50 years more than likely. And you
[4:17:33] know, if that's going to be something
[4:17:35] that'll stop a project from happening,
[4:17:37] um, I doubt because most developers
[4:17:39] won't probably imagine the asset will
[4:17:41] last 100 years to begin with, but and
[4:17:43] they'll probably come anyway. But I just
[4:17:45] want to make sure we aren't putting up a
[4:17:46] roadblock, potential roadblock on a
[4:17:48] length of time that's not even possible.
[4:17:50] And so I just leave it at that.
[4:17:52] >> Is that be So could it be more of
[4:17:54] » Is that be So could it be more of
[4:17:54] because the perpetuity comes in the the
[4:17:57] land, not necessarily the asset. Mhm.
[4:18:00] >> So it' be so to prioritize the 99% is
[4:18:03] » So it' be so to prioritize the 99% is
[4:18:04] not to prioritize the actual unit. It's
[4:18:06] prioritizing that the land. That's
[4:18:08] right. Okay.
[4:18:09] >> And that's what I want. And then the
[4:18:10] » And that's what I want. And then the
[4:18:10] land could get rebuilt like just if you
[4:18:12] tear down the old one and build new
[4:18:14] affordable. That's what I would rather
[4:18:15] have than
[4:18:16] >> focus on the asset itself being
[4:18:17] » focus on the asset itself being
[4:18:18] maintained for 100 years versus
[4:18:21] >> let's let's get 50 years out of it, redo
[4:18:23] » let's let's get 50 years out of it, redo
[4:18:23] it or you know re-rebuild with a new
[4:18:25] version of what
[4:18:27] >> okay
[4:18:28] » okay
[4:18:28] >> normal. Um,
[4:18:29] » normal. Um,
[4:18:29] >> okay. This time Randy turned his camera
[4:18:31] » okay. This time Randy turned his camera
[4:18:31] on, so he might have something to say.
[4:18:33] >> Yeah. Uh, this is Randy Liy, deputy city
[4:18:35] » Yeah. Uh, this is Randy Liy, deputy city
[4:18:35] attorney. We have to be a little careful
[4:18:37] regarding tying up land in perpetuity.
[4:18:39] So, that's why we have typically set
[4:18:40] them up at 99 years. We don't want to
[4:18:43] keep something or tie it up. We might
[4:18:46] run into problems regarding the legality
[4:18:48] of such a thing. So, that's why we've
[4:18:50] set things at 99 years, but it could be
[4:18:52] something less than that. We don't like
[4:18:53] to go beyond 99 years. Randy, can you
[4:18:55] explain the rule against
[4:18:58] [laughter] that? That I can't.
[4:19:00] >> Just kidding. Just kidding. I have to go
[4:19:01] » Just kidding. Just kidding. I have to go
[4:19:01] back a long way back to law school, but
[4:19:03] that's actually that's has to do with
[4:19:04] wills and [laughter]
[4:19:06] trusts and so it's a little bit
[4:19:08] different, but at the same time, we
[4:19:10] can't really tie up land for
[4:19:12] >> gotcha.
[4:19:12] » gotcha.
[4:19:12] >> You know, a covenant or something like
[4:19:14] » You know, a covenant or something like
[4:19:14] that in perpetuity. We have to set some
[4:19:16] type of limitation on it.
[4:19:17] >> Yeah.
[4:19:18] » Yeah.
[4:19:18] >> So, we have done 99 years as no one will
[4:19:21] » So, we have done 99 years as no one will
[4:19:21] hear. will be alive in 99 years, but we
[4:19:23] could make it 50 years. We could make it
[4:19:26] whatever the commission says. We just
[4:19:27] can't make it in perpetuity. It just has
[4:19:30] to be some period of time. So it's not
[4:19:33] tied up indefinitely.
[4:19:35] >> Yeah. So like land donations could be
[4:19:37] » Yeah. So like land donations could be
[4:19:37] perpetuity, you know, whatever or 99
[4:19:39] years. But I just mean I'd like to have
[4:19:41] flexibility in how we apply those terms
[4:19:43] if possible in a matrix even depending
[4:19:45] on the
[4:19:46] >> thing. I think Lee, I think we I mean I
[4:19:49] » thing. I think Lee, I think we I mean I
[4:19:49] think I think you're heading in the
[4:19:51] right direction. Maybe just a little
[4:19:52] more flexibility I think on the units,
[4:19:56] you know, versus the land and maybe um
[4:20:01] some of the, you know, land donations
[4:20:03] for sure, you know, 99 years, but maybe
[4:20:06] some flexibility on the on the low end
[4:20:08] there. Um I I think is what we're kind
[4:20:11] of looking for. I don't know. or just
[4:20:13] the ability to have that option to wave
[4:20:15] it from 99 to 50 or whatever we want to
[4:20:18] do
[4:20:19] >> if that's possible.
[4:20:20] » if that's possible.
[4:20:20] >> Yeah. And again, yeah, I guess that's
[4:20:22] » Yeah. And again, yeah, I guess that's
[4:20:22] what I maybe that's another way to put
[4:20:25] it.
[4:20:26] I I think the policy
[4:20:29] I think we support the policy of 99 type
[4:20:31] years, but we don't want to be so tied
[4:20:35] in that we miss out on a great project
[4:20:37] that we all think is a great project
[4:20:38] because it's 50 years, you know. Um and
[4:20:43] and so giving us a little bit of
[4:20:45] flexibility there.
[4:20:47] >> Exactly.
[4:20:48] » Exactly.
[4:20:48] >> That's helpful. Thank you. Um and if I
[4:20:51] » That's helpful. Thank you. Um and if I
[4:20:51] could just ask one additional clarifying
[4:20:53] question. I did not hear discussion on
[4:20:56] um commission's interest in exploring
[4:20:57] additional land use or expediated review
[4:21:00] processes.
[4:21:03] » Well, I um we didn't talk I mean a few
[4:21:06] people mentioned that. I would say I
[4:21:07] think under the new development code
[4:21:09] we've we've put a lot of things into
[4:21:11] place that um as far as density and
[4:21:15] density bonuses and allowed a lot more
[4:21:17] density. [clears throat] Um I am and
[4:21:20] some of those were not yet even seen
[4:21:23] getting used yet. So I'm not sure
[4:21:25] personally I want to dive into changing
[4:21:27] some of the the code and you know the
[4:21:30] development density side of the code
[4:21:31] until we see how some of it works.
[4:21:34] However, the permitting side and the and
[4:21:38] the procedure side I I mean I might be
[4:21:40] open to and Commissioner Cos mentioned
[4:21:43] the the pre-esigned pre-approved design
[4:21:46] you know that Oland Park has done and
[4:21:49] you know I could you know see where that
[4:21:52] could be a benefit with you know
[4:21:54] especially like the housing authority
[4:21:55] intends for homeowners you know coming
[4:21:57] up with a design they you know agree on
[4:21:59] and you know we're going to build this
[4:22:02] one we're going to build it [snorts] you
[4:22:04] or those, you know, four designs and and
[4:22:05] and these, you know, get pre-approved. I
[4:22:08] like that idea. So, that kind of process
[4:22:10] certainly I'm supportive of.
[4:22:13] And again, I'm I'm not opposed to a
[4:22:15] density bonus or whatever, but I don't
[4:22:18] think that's where we need to spend our
[4:22:19] time at this stage because we have a
[4:22:22] code that we're still working through.
[4:22:26] I mean, Leah, for what it's worth, I
[4:22:28] didn't bring it up tonight, and I mean,
[4:22:30] we can talk about it more with as we
[4:22:33] navigate more with the land development
[4:22:34] code. I mean, I am interested in us
[4:22:37] exploring how to expand those, you know,
[4:22:39] expand or lean into byite approvals. Um,
[4:22:44] but I I don't want to shock the system
[4:22:47] right now, but [laughter]
[4:22:49] perhaps [snorts] we can ease into that
[4:22:51] once we get another iteration of this.
[4:22:54] >> [snorts]
[4:22:54] » [snorts]
[4:22:54] >> and I've softened some people up.
[4:22:56] » and I've softened some people up.
[4:22:56] >> That's where I'm at, too.
[4:22:58] » That's where I'm at, too.
[4:22:58] >> Okay. Any other questions, Leo? Any
[4:23:01] » Okay. Any other questions, Leo? Any
[4:23:01] other comments people want to make here
[4:23:03] before we close this? And look forward
[4:23:05] to the continued work.
[4:23:07] Thank you. And I know the whole Ahab
[4:23:09] committee has been working hard on this
[4:23:11] and then you know the folks who have
[4:23:12] been been weighing in. Appreciate that.
[4:23:14] So, okay. Thank you.
[4:23:18] Okay. Let's jump here towards the end of
[4:23:21] the agenda here. That brings us to
[4:23:23] commission items um and reviewing the
[4:23:26] future agenda. Um I do have a commission
[4:23:30] item I want to talk a little bit about
[4:23:33] um which is the city manager search um
[4:23:37] and I have talked to SG
[4:23:41] um and and moving ahead. Our consultant
[4:23:44] is going to be um his name is Doug
[4:23:48] Thomas. Um Clay who is here um um on
[4:23:52] behalf of SGR is is not going to delete
[4:23:54] it. It's going to be Doug Thomas. Doug
[4:23:56] is um a 35 year um city manager in
[4:24:01] Maryland, Michigan, and Florida. Worked
[4:24:03] [snorts] mostly in university
[4:24:05] communities. He's going to send me his
[4:24:07] resume and I'll send it out to all of
[4:24:08] you um so you don't have to remember all
[4:24:11] this. But his last location was
[4:24:12] Lakeland, Florida, a town of about
[4:24:15] 125,000.
[4:24:16] He has been leading, he's been at SGL
[4:24:19] for 10 years doing recruitment, priority
[4:24:21] based budgeting, best management
[4:24:24] practices, as well as um you know,
[4:24:26] working with communities. He is
[4:24:28] currently leading the city of Waco's um
[4:24:31] search. He's there right now down to
[4:24:34] their four finalists in Waco. He's done
[4:24:36] a lot of work in Leach um and a lot of
[4:24:39] other university towns. he's often
[4:24:40] assigned to university towns given his
[4:24:42] background. Um so um the next steps and
[4:24:47] what what we need to start thinking
[4:24:49] about is you know the next step as we've
[4:24:52] talked about will be kind of the
[4:24:54] position profile process and Doug will
[4:24:58] come here for you know probably three
[4:25:00] days. He'll meet with all of us
[4:25:02] individually. He'll meet with senior
[4:25:04] staff and department heads. Um do a 360.
[4:25:08] Um and then he's going to meet with
[4:25:11] basically whoever we tell him to meet
[4:25:13] with or ask him to meet with. And so we
[4:25:16] all need to be thinking about who we
[4:25:18] want him to meet with. Um you know, be
[4:25:20] it you know, whoever um members of the
[4:25:24] community, county, school board,
[4:25:27] chamber, KU, land, whoever that is. Um,
[4:25:31] I'm going to be asking each of you to
[4:25:33] give me three or four people we think
[4:25:35] you should meet with. So, be thinking
[4:25:37] about that. Um, and then we need to be
[4:25:40] thinking about as what do we want, you
[4:25:44] know, this is up to us, what we want the
[4:25:46] process to be. You know, he said in some
[4:25:48] towns he hosts a town hall meeting.
[4:25:51] Well, he stands up and lets the town
[4:25:54] come in. Um, obviously they can do a
[4:25:57] survey for us where we we pay them extra
[4:26:00] to do a survey, but he said, you know,
[4:26:03] towns like ours, we have a survey
[4:26:05] process. So, he could also, for
[4:26:07] basically no extra charge, work with us
[4:26:10] to come up with questions and we issue
[4:26:11] the survey and get the information back.
[4:26:14] Um, and anything else someone thinks he
[4:26:18] should do to create that position
[4:26:20] profile and process. Um and you know
[4:26:23] that would then you know help him come
[4:26:26] up with a position description, a
[4:26:28] brochure, candidate attributes, ideal
[4:26:31] candidate, that sort of thing. And then
[4:26:33] we move on and you know talk about ads
[4:26:36] and ad placements, launch the job search
[4:26:38] and you know we can talk about the later
[4:26:40] process. Um, so, um, I guess what I want
[4:26:46] you guys to start thinking about, um,
[4:26:49] I'll send send an email out to you with
[4:26:51] his information and, um, then you'll
[4:26:54] each be able to talk to him if you have
[4:26:56] something to say like, I think you
[4:26:57] should do this. This is the information
[4:26:59] I want to be part of this process and
[4:27:03] we'll get going. Um, you know, as he
[4:27:05] said to me, he's our consultant. um you
[4:27:07] know and he's working for the five of us
[4:27:10] and and you know some of that might be
[4:27:12] in a big meeting but some of that will
[4:27:14] just be one-on-one and he'll work to to
[4:27:16] try to get the information you need to
[4:27:18] make your best decision. Um but the one
[4:27:20] thing I I will be asking for in the next
[4:27:23] week or two will be who do you think he
[4:27:25] should meet with while he's here so we
[4:27:27] can get those scheduled while he's here
[4:27:30] um and then find times for him to meet
[4:27:32] with each of us. Obviously, if those
[4:27:35] three days don't work, he can do Zoom
[4:27:36] meetings. He can, you know, whatever if
[4:27:38] they don't line up with everything. But
[4:27:41] anyway, that's the process. We're going
[4:27:43] to um um again get some more
[4:27:46] information. We'll email that out about
[4:27:48] what you guys start thinking about that
[4:27:49] so we can get the get the project
[4:27:51] running.
[4:27:51] >> As in a town as unopinionated as ours,
[4:27:53] » As in a town as unopinionated as ours,
[4:27:53] is he going to be bored? [laughter]
[4:27:56] >> He said he's worked in a few university
[4:27:57] » He said he's worked in a few university
[4:27:57] towns and so he's he's he's he's ready
[4:28:00] for the for the conversation. Um and so
[4:28:04] and so that's kind of the next steps
[4:28:07] there and so look for that and hopefully
[4:28:10] you know in the next few weeks we'll be
[4:28:11] scheduling those dates to to get the the
[4:28:14] process going.
[4:28:16] Okay, other commission items.
[4:28:21] » Um I I'm going to come in. I'm just I'm
[4:28:26] this is the third meeting where I've
[4:28:27] been like I really have things to say
[4:28:30] but it's late and after yesterday I
[4:28:32] don't want to drag our staff any longer.
[4:28:35] But I do want staff to know that um I
[4:28:38] will advocate for any support that you
[4:28:40] guys need in regards to yesterday.
[4:28:43] >> Yes.
[4:28:44] » Yes.
[4:28:44] Um, I'm going to make it real real quick
[4:28:46] about anything that we bring forward the
[4:28:49] especially the affordable housing um
[4:28:52] incentive plan.
[4:28:55] I'm a numbers person. So, just an FYI, I
[4:29:00] like modeling. I know I like knowing
[4:29:01] what the effect of the community or of
[4:29:03] our of our budget, etc. debt load. Um,
[4:29:07] so any policy moving forward right now,
[4:29:10] obviously, we're real high level. Um,
[4:29:12] but with the affordable housing, I'm
[4:29:14] really interested in seeing some
[4:29:15] modeling on how these incentives are
[4:29:17] going to work. Um,
[4:29:20] and then I think actually for staff, I
[4:29:24] had requested an update on
[4:29:28] uh we're doing a project on 27th over by
[4:29:31] Mallisters
[4:29:33] and we had that road opened up less than
[4:29:35] a year ago. So, I was just hoping I
[4:29:37] could get some updates. I've had a few
[4:29:39] calls from that. Other than that, thank
[4:29:41] you guys um for [clears throat]
[4:29:44] everything that you do staff-wise and uh
[4:29:48] that's it.
[4:29:49] >> Excellent. Yeah.
[4:29:51] » Excellent. Yeah.
[4:29:51] >> I mean, yeah, if we're going down the
[4:29:52] » I mean, yeah, if we're going down the
[4:29:52] line, yeah, I mean, I would echo that
[4:29:54] for staff that, you know,
[4:29:58] uh, me mental health is health and if
[4:30:01] people have experienced trauma, it's
[4:30:04] very important to use the EAP here to be
[4:30:08] able to find people who can help with
[4:30:09] that. And it may not be something that
[4:30:11] pops up right away, but if that is
[4:30:13] something that comes up over time or if
[4:30:15] you're having anxiety or panic attacks,
[4:30:17] you know, please use the resources that
[4:30:19] we have to talk about that your mental
[4:30:20] health is as important as your physical
[4:30:22] health. So, I would just want to add
[4:30:24] that. The [snorts] only other thing here
[4:30:26] for the future stuff would be I would
[4:30:28] like to know each month at the end of
[4:30:30] the month what the the memberships look
[4:30:33] like at the rec centers, what that looks
[4:30:35] like, what the uptake is. Um, that's
[4:30:38] something we do via via email. It's
[4:30:39] something we could talk about here, but
[4:30:40] I would just would like to know those
[4:30:42] numbers going forward.
[4:30:44] >> Absolutely agree with that.
[4:30:47] » Absolutely agree with that.
[4:30:47] Commission of future.
[4:30:49] >> Just to add on to that, I had somebody
[4:30:50] » Just to add on to that, I had somebody
[4:30:50] telling me that they were concerned
[4:30:52] about how hard it was to use our website
[4:30:55] to apply for the permit. Just say it
[4:31:00] took them 20 or 30 minutes. So, if we
[4:31:02] could streamline that process to collect
[4:31:03] the fees, I don't know if that's true or
[4:31:05] not, but that's something I was told. It
[4:31:06] took a little longer paid to
[4:31:10] >> just to buy one
[4:31:11] » just to buy one
[4:31:11] >> to to buy a pass. Yeah. I mean, just
[4:31:13] » to to buy a pass. Yeah. I mean, just
[4:31:13] leave it that. Yeah.
[4:31:13] >> Is it going through track? Is it
[4:31:15] » Is it going through track? Is it
[4:31:15] >> I don't know. They're using it. It's
[4:31:17] » I don't know. They're using it. It's
[4:31:17] through our regular parks and recck
[4:31:19] service.
[4:31:19] >> Yeah. So, it's Rec Track. Yes. It isn't
[4:31:21] » Yeah. So, it's Rec Track. Yes. It isn't
[4:31:21] the most userfriendly.
[4:31:22] >> I don't know if that's a one-off or user
[4:31:25] » I don't know if that's a one-off or user
[4:31:25] error. I'm just pointing out that maybe
[4:31:26] it is not set up for multiple high
[4:31:29] volume transactions and perhaps um that
[4:31:32] might be the problem. But just wanted to
[4:31:34] bring that up. That's something somebody
[4:31:35] brought up. So,
[4:31:37] >> okay.
[4:31:39] » okay.
[4:31:39] Okay. If nothing else, uh we have one
[4:31:42] item on the city manager's report.
[4:31:43] >> Yeah. The only item is we uh rarely but
[4:31:46] » Yeah. The only item is we uh rarely but
[4:31:46] occasionally have emergency repair. This
[4:31:48] was the case uh we had um a major um
[4:31:52] break in pump station. Had to uh fix it
[4:31:54] immediately. Um so we by policy make
[4:31:58] sure to report that publicly and make
[4:32:01] sure that you're aware of it. And that's
[4:32:03] what we did here.
[4:32:05] Yeah. So, just follow up on that. Since
[4:32:06] that was in my neighborhood, there were
[4:32:08] a lot of people who communicated with me
[4:32:09] to say
[4:32:11] we could do better with communication of
[4:32:12] what that looked like. People, you know,
[4:32:14] all of a sudden there was a, you know,
[4:32:16] break in the road, there was a pipe over
[4:32:17] it, there was egress issues coming out
[4:32:19] of it, and
[4:32:22] I don't know exactly how we communicated
[4:32:24] to people, but there was definitely an
[4:32:25] understanding that this was broken. They
[4:32:28] didn't have an idea when the ETA was,
[4:32:30] what this would look like. Just passing
[4:32:32] that along going forward.
[4:32:36] [snorts]
[4:32:38] >> Okay. Um, see manager report is a public
[4:32:40] » Okay. Um, see manager report is a public
[4:32:40] hearing item. Any member of the public
[4:32:42] like to make a comment on the city
[4:32:45] manager's report
[4:32:47] online?
[4:32:48] >> No, mayor.
[4:32:50] » No, mayor.
[4:32:50] >> Uh, calendar items.
[4:32:53] » Uh, calendar items.
[4:32:53] Um, any comments on the on the calendar?
[4:32:57] There is the legislative breakfast on
[4:32:59] Friday um for the chamber and then end
[4:33:02] of the [laughter]
[4:33:04] end of the month is the chamber annual
[4:33:05] meeting.
[4:33:08] Um
[4:33:11] any other
[4:33:14] Craig, we have the hold on the city
[4:33:16] commission retreat on the 5th and 6th.
[4:33:19] We have an update on the Should we keep
[4:33:21] holding those dates or do we should?
[4:33:23] >> Yes, that's what we have scheduled.
[4:33:25] » Yes, that's what we have scheduled.
[4:33:25] Okay. I'll update the invites.
[4:33:27] >> Yeah. So, it's more than a hold at this
[4:33:29] » Yeah. So, it's more than a hold at this
[4:33:29] point. It's a
[4:33:30] >> Okay.
[4:33:30] » Okay.
[4:33:30] >> Well, I just heard from Nancy today just
[4:33:32] » Well, I just heard from Nancy today just
[4:33:32] confirming she wanted to make sure we
[4:33:34] had the location at BTBC as well. So,
[4:33:36] we're just trying to coordinate
[4:33:37] locations. Yeah. We'll get it updated.
[4:33:39] >> Yeah. And if if it I mean, I don't know
[4:33:41] » Yeah. And if if it I mean, I don't know
[4:33:41] if it's both the full days or if it's
[4:33:43] half one half day, full day, whatever.
[4:33:45] Just Yeah. Update that and get that out
[4:33:46] and we get that on our calendar.
[4:33:48] >> Yes. By the end of the week, I'll have
[4:33:50] » Yes. By the end of the week, I'll have
[4:33:50] that updated. Is that good?
[4:33:52] >> Oh, [clears throat] that's fine.
[4:33:52] » Oh, [clears throat] that's fine.
[4:33:52] >> Yes.
[4:33:53] » Yes.
[4:33:53] >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.