Sven for City Commission [archived 2011 site]

March 14, 2011

1. Should the City continue to fund the partnership between the City, County and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce for economic development?

Yes. However, I believe that many of the economic planning activities should be performed by planners working for the City and answering to the City Commission rather than to the Lawrence Chamber. In other words, some of these monies and activities should be reallocated to occur under direct supervision of the Planning Department rather than the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce. I would suggest that a Citizen Review Board study how these monies should be allocated.

2. Do you favor other tax incentives to attract new business/industry, and to retain existing business and industry in Lawrence?

Specifically:

• Industrial Revenue Bonds: YES
• Community Improvement Districts (CID’s) or additional taxing authority: NO
• Property Tax Abatements: YES
• Educational/Training Incentives: NO

The City should prohibit the use of CID revenue for private expenditures and instead should only be approved for the use of special obligation bonds that do not place any risk upon local taxpayers.

Notice of an additional sales tax should be required to be posted at all current TIF [Tax Increment Financing] districts, CID’s or TDD’s [Transportation Development Districts], and these should not be allowed where they would add an additional tax upon groceries.

3. Should the City consider privatization of trash collection services if it is shown to have a cost benefit to citizens and business?

NO. I firmly believe that this service should remain as a municipally owned service. The taxpayers have helped to pay for its organization and infrastructure over the decades that also provides employment managed locally in Lawrence.

4. What incentives would you propose the City consider utilizing to stimulate job creation?

The City and the Chamber could collect data about which local businesses are growing and which ones could receive a Chamber and City New Job Award on an annual basis – the TOP TEN Awards, if you will, in job creation. These firms would then receive a small monetary gift certificate to distribute to all of their NEW employees.

5. Describe the type of jobs Lawrence should be pursuing and how the City should acquire these jobs?

The City of Lawrence as a community needs jobs in all tiers of the economy. From agriculture to service-sector jobs we need not only more employers but new types of businesses as well to stem the flow of monies spent outside of the city and county by local residents.

I have suggested that the proposed Lowe’s store at Bauer Farms, which was denied planning permission, should instead relocate to North Lawrence. Such location may result in bringing people in from Tonganoxie as well as Jefferson, Leavenworth and other counties due to the proximity to I-70, the former location of a lumberyard and the distance to the next Lowe’s store.

6. What would you do to create a more positive image outside of our community in the areas of planning and economic development incentives?

Firstly, I disagree with the rhetoric that the City of Lawrence or its planning staff is unfriendly to business. We have granted many tax abatements recently, for example, to Berry Plastics.

I am opposed to additional sales tax districts of any kind since they could become a disincentive to shopping here. Lawrence is a small-scale community and we should not damage our Downtown Retail with the perception that Lawrence has added sales tax districts everywhere.

A level playing field is the positive image that we must project. Right now, out-of-town investors typically discuss a project, meet with City staff and then find out that local developers are usually given the edge with waivers of private parking and height requirements, unusual setback variations or even the omission of the cell phone tower permitting process from portions of the review process. Requirements must be applied consistently. Both applications and inspections must be supported by fair and consistent processes.

7. What are your top three priorities if you are elected to the Lawrence City Commission?

Firstly, to focus on existing businesses in Lawrence and Douglas County, support their growth and interconnect local companies in order to strengthen our existing assets as a community. I am a strong advocate for Downtown Lawrence. I am opposed to new sales tax districts or TIF districts in Lawrence.

Secondly, I have suggested that an alternate location for a Community Shelter could be near the downtown area but possibly with two building locations: one for homeless children and families and the other for an adult homeless shelter with a training facility. This would reduce the shelters’ impacts upon neighbors.

Thirdly, I support adoption of the Environmental Chapter of the Horizon 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Setting goals in the face of Climate Change is necessary so that we can prepare for the years ahead when we will encounter significant changes in Food, Transportation, and Energy conditions. I oppose privatization of the City’s trash pickup service.

8. Assuming continued cuts in state, federal and local tax resources, rank from 1 to 8 how you would make up the deficit.

1. I would first favor an across-the-board equal percentage budget cut.
2. Following that I would group the cuts in the administrative areas of City Manager, finance, HR, planning and community development.
3. Cuts in Parks and Recreation could be treated somewhat separately with some increases in user fees for large group activities and events.
4. Increases in property taxes should occur before any core services or social service budgets would be cut.
5. Cuts in social services is not desirable at all.
6. Cuts in core services of police, fire and sanitation are not acceptable.

9. Do you feel the City should expend additional resources in the direct reimbursement of retail development for Lawrence?

No. I have proposed in a conversation with Chad Lawhorn of the Lawrence Journal-World that some 10-year tax abatement policies could be used to foster ‘Start-Up Retail’ zones at specific locations. The general idea is that if a property owner has a building that does not fully build out his site on Massachusetts St., my Start-Up Retail proposal would allow the owner to convert up to 50% of the ground floor area for an alley-side tenant with alley access for a reduced rent in comparison to the Massachusetts side of the building. The converted portion of the property would pay no tax as an abatement for up to 10 years in the interest of generating new economic vitality and new spaces, not only in Downtown but elsewhere in Lawrence. This idea is really a retail conversion abatement policy.

10. Do you feel the city should use additional resources for promotion of retail development in Lawrence?

No. I do not feel that this expense is fair to other types of business. Promotion via the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Lawrence or other groups is, of course, encouraged but I would not spend scarce dollars on retail promotional activities.

11. The City and County are now reviewing the Environmental Chapter of the Horizon 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Do you support or oppose the chapter as it is now written? What changes would you propose if elected to the City Commission?

I support adoption of the Environmental Chapter of the Horizon 2020 plan as now written. I do not propose any changes at this time to this planning document.

March 12, 2011

1. Rental registration and inspection can be effective tools to better enforce the provisions of the development and building codes that govern rental housing. Do you favor rental registration and inspection of all rental properties that are more than 20 years old throughout the city?

YES, I am in favor of rental inspection for all rental properties. There are plenty of life-safety concerns that should require inspection for emergency egress as well as other code concerns.

2. Neighborhoods are suffering from the chronic nuisance created by party houses. Do you favor meaningful enforcement of noise, nuisance and occupancy codes including fines against the owners of properties generating chronic problems?

YES, I support enforcement of occupancy codes and nuisance complaints including fines. Boarding houses – or so-called ‘congregate’ housing – must also be responsible neighbors. I believe that some of the congregate housing should actually have to apply for fraternity or sorority house-zoning expansions where a simple majority of the residents are a member of such an organization. These congregate houses are essentially dormitories for these organizations and simply not a standard multi-family residential occupancy.

3. It is commonplace for a neighborhood or LAN to learn of a development proposal only when the proposal has been placed upon the agenda of the Planning Commission. Do you favor effective participation of neighborhoods in the negotiations over development proposals during the review stage rather than relegating neighborhoods to public comment periods at commission sessions?

YES, we should demand that development applications require notices issued to neighboring property owners within a 250 ft. radius so that adjacent property owners are immediately notified of a possible change of use or zoning modification. Many jurisdictions require public notices as part of a development application, often because it may be unknown to the city whether a homeowner’s association and its covenants have expired or not.

4. The Chamber of Commerce, a business advocacy organization, receives over $200,000 of taxpayer money from the city for economic development planning activities. Would the city be better served if these activities were performed by planners working for the City and answering to the City Commission rather than for a business advocacy organization?

YES, these monies should remain with the city and under the obligation of the municipality to first serve the best interests of the citizens as residents and taxpayers; and, therefore, be less subject to special interest or development groups of a particular kind or having a special agenda.

March 10, 2011

1. Candidate profile information

• Graduated from Washington High School, Kansas City, Kansas, 1969
• Attended University of Kansas, June 1970 – August 1975
• University of Kansas, School of Architecture & College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, Bachelor of General Studies 1975
• Kansas Architect since 1982; registration in California, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico and North Carolina
• American Institute of Architects (AIA Kansas) member since 1982
• University of Denver, College of Law 1984 – 1986 (66 of 130 hrs)
• Ecological Architecture founded in 1990 in Aspen/Woody Creek, Colorado
• Relocated to Lawrence in August 2002
• Centennial Neighborhood Association, Lawrence member since 2002
• Lawrence Preservation Alliance Board Member 2003 – 2004
• City of Lawrence Historic Preservation Committee Member 2004 – 2007
• First Presbyterian Church, Lawrence: Trustee 2006 – 2008 and Eco-Team member 2008

2. Why are you running for office? What do you hope to accomplish if elected?

I hope to make a difference in the way we listen to each neighborhood while working toward better employment opportunities and housing, and while controlling the City budget.

I supported the recent Lawrence Public Library improvements but do not support expansion of the project without voter approval of major changes to the project.

I oppose privatization of our Municipal Trash pickup system and support collective bargaining for all municipal employees.

I oppose further Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts in Lawrence and I am opposed to any further additional sales tax districts.

I would like to have a new Community Shelter that will provide both shelter and training, and perhaps a separate location for parents with homeless children that is disturbingly in great need.

3. What role should the City play in housing Lawrence’s homeless?

The current City Commission recently paid $1.3 Million for 20 private aircraft hangers at the airport, new bus buildings and many street improvement projects. The City of Lawrence should find a way to help build or remodel a structure for a Community Shelter in a cooperative manner with our large number of social service agencies, which could also assist with shelter needs. Currently, homeless children and their parents are an emergency need. We must build a shelter for these families and an adult shelter that provides job training.

4. What actions should the City take to increase employment in Lawrence?

We are in a global marketplace. The current economic climate requires our leaders to urgently understand globalization and the new needs of energy independence and renewable power generation.

We can increase employment by co-operatively working with the national and regional business community to embrace an understanding of the domestic marketplace for northeast Kansas. We need to take better advantage of our location between the state government in Topeka and the metropolitan economy of Kansas City. In light of the national economic situation and budget cuts in Topeka, we must advertise Lawrence’s role as the ‘Oasis of Kansas.’ Education and research are our predominant activities so we should step up and lead the economic recovery in eastern Kansas.

5. Do you believe that our neighborhoods function well? If they could be better planned, what do you recommend?

New neighborhoods in Lawrence may need pocket parks or playgrounds and better ‘connections,’ including bicycle and walking paths to schools or shopping. Older neighborhoods need sidewalk repairs and common street improvements due to age, and sometimes need improvements for better storm water drainage. ‘Walkability’ is a trademark of Lawrence and we should continue to build upon our ‘accessible city’ designation.

Land use and zoning changes that abruptly alter established development patterns are becoming an increasing concern to our community. Ending sprawl and focusing on more centralized development with appropriate infill is necessary as we witness the upward acceleration of food, energy and transportation costs.

6. Do you believe that urban developments should be permitted in flood plains? If so, what type?

A great deal of commercial, warehouse and retail development occurs in flood plains in nearby Kansas City. Building in floodplains should be minimized for many reasons, most importantly the high cost of and high probability of damage from flooding. Pumping costs are expensive and have huge on-going maintenance efforts. Any toxins or stored fuels are a huge hazard in a flood zone.

Due to these concerns I also believe that disruption to the Baker Wetlands should be avoided and that the South Lawrence Trafficway should be built south of the river to avoid long-term maintenance issues, allowing the historic wildlife habitat and wetlands to remain undivided.

7. Should the City provide more sidewalks in neighborhoods that lack them, and undertake more sidewalk repairs?

Sidewalks are a part of our transportation system and a master plan for sidewalk repair and maintenance should be part of our long-term planning and budgeting. We probably need a sidewalk survey to really nail down what needs to be done across Lawrence.

In closing, my best talents are thinking creatively and having a clear vision of long-term goals; and making choices that favor the mutual benefits afforded by business and well-planned economic growth, and that enhance our environment and social services.

March 3, 2011

TRASH SERVICES

Do you support the city studying privatization of the city’s trash system?

NO, I firmly believe that this service should remain a municipally owned service. The taxpayers have helped pay for the organization and infrastructure over the decades that has also provided employment locally in Lawrence.

Would you favor the city creating a city-operated curbside recycling service or do you believe that the system should continue to be privately operated?

With current fluctuations in the market for recycled materials, I believe that curbside recycling should remain a private industry enterprise. No, I do not encourage a city-operated curbside recycling service at this time.

DOWNTOWN

Did you support the $18 million bond issue to expand, renovate and add parking to the Lawrence Public Library?

YES, I supported the Library bond issue.

Are you interested in receiving proposals to redevelop city-owned parking lots in Downtown Lawrence?

Available parking is a key ingredient of a successful downtown retail area. Redevelopment that provides all of the required parking in addition to the existing parking at each site should be considered. I would not encourage proposals that provide only the existing parking total for these lots. New buildings and dwelling units will need additional parking. which should be provided by the applicant. However, ground-level parking along Vermont and New Hampshire is much more attractive than parking garages.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Do you support the city’s decision to take over ownership of the former Farmland Industries fertilizer plant and its plans to convert the area into an industrial/business park?

The Farmland site along the K-10 corridor has needed redevelopment for a long time. While I am very pleased that efforts are being made to redevelop the property, I would have preferred that the City not be the main owner. In terms of economic opportunity we should have already seen some results here so my question is, when are we going to see new sitework and buildings appear and at what stage is the current masterplan for this redevelopment? Tax abatements would be considered for new investment here but my own policy is to discourage TIF [Tax Increment Financing] or other additional sales tax districts.

What’s your position on the use of tax abatements to attract new economic development projects for the city?

I support the use of tax abatements when needed to help sponsor new employment opportunities in Lawrence. Tax abatement requirements may also include important things like a minimum number of new jobs – 30 – which also must meet a living-wage threshold. There are also cost-benefit models for evaluation of whether a tax abatement should be granted. These policies should be reviewed periodically and could include requirements for helping to provide affordable housing in the community.

Recent Smart Growth studies, however, provide evidence that other factors in the community may attract new employment more than tax abatements. Focusing only on tax abatements or financial incentive policies is not the exclusive strategy to attract new businesses to Lawrence.

INFRASTRUCTURE

How would you rate the overall condition of city streets on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent?

I would rate our city streets a ‘6’ on a numerical scale. Well-maintained streets will help to increase the appeal of Lawrence to visitors. Truck traffic, drainage and our subsoils are all part of the problem in maintaining our streets.

RECREATION

Do you believe the city needs a new recreation center to serve the western portion of the city and would you work to move that project forward during your term?

Yes, I strongly support a new recreation center for the western portion of Lawrence. I would additionally support a branch library in the future in West Lawrence. If we can find a way through grants and budgeting to develop a new recreation center for West Lawrence, that would be a great accomplishment of the next City Commission.

RETAIL

Would you have supported a proposal to allow a Lowe’s to build a store near Sixth Street and Folks Road?

No, the most recent proposal is to replace currently approved residences with a big-box retail store. Bauer Farms started out with a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape of commercial buildings within walking distance of a residential neighborhood and a mix of housing types. This earlier proposal was modified to add more retail space and was at that point above the amount recommended by the Horizon 2020 plan. This degree of change begins to throw into question the work done by the School District in its original site selection for Free State High School in a residential area.

Do you support the use of incentives such as Community Improvement Districts [CID’s] and Transportation Development Districts [TDD’s] that allow businesses to charge an additional sales tax to help pay for improvements at their properties?

I support these type of incentives but only for exceptional projects, and with some additional caveats. I do not support the use of these incentives for the Hobby Lobby area improvements. If the CID tax is not limited to 1% it is possible that we could have some sales tax rates exceeding 10% at some locations in Lawrence.

The City should prohibit the use of CID revenue for private expenditures and should only be allowed by way of the use of special obligation bonds that do not place any risk upon local taxpayers. Overland Park has made additional restrictions upon CID usage.

Notice of any additional sales tax should be required to be posted at all current TIF, CID or TDD districts. CID’s, TDD’s or TIF’s should not be allowed where they would place an additional tax upon groceries. The City policy on the use of CID’s should be more restrictive than the range of options offered by state law; in other words, we should tailor the use of these for the benefit of Lawrence, not simply out of expediency for one project.

TRANSIT SYSTEM

How would you rate the quality and effectiveness of the city’s public transit system on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent?

I would rate our current system only a ‘4,’ mostly due to both the limited number of routes and the limited frequency on those routes. I fully support the merger of the City of Lawrence and KU bus systems.