[Electronic-lan] Response to your email of 12/05/17 regarding improving transparency and community involvement in decision making

[Michael Almon]

Hi Tom:
The issue about commenting on the City Manager's report, regarding 
bicycles, was mine.  On June 20, you had included this funding analysis 
- City staff recommendations_bike-ped undesignated fund_20June17 
<https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/06-20-17/cm_report_ped_bike_ada_funding.html> 
- in your report.  Brandon, who had authored it, had done some good work 
which I wanted to compliment, and I asked during public comment if I 
could speak to it, or should I wait until you presented the report.  
Your suggestion to the Mayor was that I wait, which I did patiently.  
Then after your report, you reminded the Mayor that I wished to 
comment.  She didn't acknowledge me or the question, and went on to the 
City Commission calendar.

I asked you after the meeting if we could meet about the memo, and you 
suggested I meet with Brandon, which I did for a very productive 
meeting.  I didn't pursue the issue of citizen's ability to make 
comments on the CM report, but it was apparent to me that there was a 
problem, and a solution must be found.

I later did meet with Commissioner Larsen about it, and made the 
suggestions that the CM report be at the beginning of the meeting.  That 
way, citizens could comment on it during public comment, or request an 
item be pulled for Commission discussion during the regular agenda.

I would like to see this protocol incorporated into the City Commission 
meeting.  Commissioner Larsen may have brought this up, but regardless, 
I am asking that the issue be placed on an upcoming agenda.

thanks for your consideration,
Michael Almon

On 12/12/2017 09:56 AM, Tom Markus via Electronic-lan wrote:
>
> Eric, thank you for your note last week.  Transparency is important to 
> the City of Lawrence and important to me.  I have taken the approach 
> of reporting on issues as they are known to us.  We welcome questions 
> from the public.  I want to be responsive to your comments and 
> questions.  In order to do so, I need some additional information from 
> you and I would like to share some additional background with you.  We 
> do try and utilize the City Manager’s report to report on a variety of 
> subjects- some routine and some quite timely with last minute 
> information.  The City of Lawrence has utilized this approach instead 
> of a compiled Monthly Report that some communities have.  However, I 
> want to point out that with two meetings and two reports per month, 
> our reports are quite comprehensive.  In many cases, we provide a 
> brief verbal report but attach extensive memos or background 
> information about the item for the City Commission and the public.  I 
> also want to point out that all of this information is included in the 
> agenda packet and is viewable online.
>
>  1. Regarding your bicycle priorities item, can you provide me with
>     some additional background on this?  I am not recalling the
>     circumstances that you are noting, but some more information may
>     help me so that I can look into it further.
>
>  2. Regarding the Farmland issue, I first reported on this during the
>     City Manager’s Report section of the meeting back in August 2017. 
>     There were subsequent reports made in the same manner in
>     September, October and in November.  I reported on KDHE’s
>     recommendation and authorization to discharge remediation water
>     from the Farmland site (in addition to the daily occurring
>     discharge) on November 7^th . KDHE’s decision was made after the
>     City submitted a plan to haul millions of gallons of the
>     nitrogenated water by semi-truck in order to expand its land
>     application operation and free up sufficient storage capacity at
>     the site to accommodate the next years’ collection of
>     groundwater.  You are correct in noting that there was not
>     anything attached on the November 7^th Manager’s Report, but the
>     verbal report was thorough and provided in the public meeting
>     setting.  This was certainly not an attempt to be opaque, quite
>     the opposite.  Information on the matter was quickly developing,
>     which was the reason for the verbal report.   The verbal report
>     was provided at the meeting, was televised and formally
>     incorporated into the City’s minutes for the meeting.  The direct
>     link to this item is here: https://youtu.be/hVjVxJhPrcU?t=1941.  I
>     would also like to point out that newspaper article that you
>     referenced was a result of this very City Manager’s report item
>     and the report made at the meeting.  Below is a full listing of
>     reports made by staff on this issue since August.
>
> 08/15/17 – CM Report
>
>   * Former Farmland Site Update
>
> https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/08-15-17/cmreport.html
>
> Video Link: https://youtu.be/_zniM8UTSbI?t=17935
>
> *_Former Farmland Site Update_*
>
> The City acquired the former Farmland property in 2010 to remediate 
> existing environmental contamination and transform the property into a 
> viable industrial park and a welcoming ‘gateway’ to the community. As 
> part of the City’s acquisition, the Kansas Department of Health and 
> Environment (KDHE) issued a Consent Order which establishes the 
> remediation plan for nitrogen-contaminated groundwater at the 
> property. At the time of acquisition, the City received trust funds to 
> fund the remediation program. The groundwater remediation program 
> involves collection and retention of nitrogen-contaminated groundwater 
> on-site and application of the water on privately owned farm land.
>
> Several recent events have spurred City staff to review the status of 
> the remediation program. Crop conversions at participating farms has 
> led to lower demand for nitrogen with a corresponding reduction in the 
> volume of water applied to these farms. At the same time, the on-site 
> groundwater management system is collecting more nitrogen-contaminated 
> water due to improvements that were completed pursuant to the 
> remediation plan established by the Consent Order. Examination of the 
> program’s financial status has revealed that the remediation trust 
> funds are generating less revenue from interest than was projected in 
> 2010. Interest on the trust funds is a key revenue source for the 
> remediation program.
>
> City staff is closely monitoring the situation to ensure regulatory 
> compliance. Additionally, staff believes it would be prudent to engage 
> an environmental consultant to revisit the remediation program to 
> determine the most fiscally sustainable approach based on current 
> conditions. Staff is preparing a scope of work for a consultant-led 
> assessment of the site. The City has also proactively engaged the 
> Kansas Department of Health & Environment in assisting with the 
> matter. Additional updates will be provided in the future.
>
> 09/05/17 CC Agenda – CM Report
>
>   * Attached is an update on the former Farmland Industries Nitrogen
>     Plant site.
>
> https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/09-05-17/cm_report_farmland_update_08-31-2017.html(memo)
>
> Video Link: https://youtu.be/g5fNBm-0Qa4?t=7106
>
> 10/03/17 CC Agenda – CM Report
>
>   * The attached memo provides an update on Farmland investments.
>
> https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/10-03-17/cmreport_farmlandinvestment_memo.html(memo)
>
>   * Update on the Environmental Remediation Efforts at the Former
>     Farmland Nitrogen Plant Property:
>
> https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/10-03-17/cmreport.html
>
> *_Update on the Environmental Remediation Efforts at the Former 
> Farmland Nitrogen Plant Property._*
>
> The City Commission was last updated on September 5, 2017 about the 
> ongoing effort to address challenges with the environmental 
> remediation program at the former Farmland Nitrogen Plant property. 
> Since that time, the staff has continued working on alternative 
> strategies to address the operational challenges. As has been 
> previously shared, the groundwater collection system at the site has 
> reached its storage capacity. More water is being collected than can 
> be stored and land-applied through existing distribution and 
> irrigation infrastructure. Drawing down the water in storage to 
> adequate levels will require land application on additional farms that 
> are not served by the distribution system. The water would need to be 
> transported by truck to these additional farms.
>
> Bids were received earlier this month for truck hauling services and 
> the staff has developed a contingency plan to haul and apply millions 
> of gallons of water to additional farms if necessary. In conversations 
> with city staff and Kansas Department of Health and Environment 
> officials, the potential for a hauling operation has been the cause of 
> much concern. Hauling the water would create a significant financial 
> burden on the Farmland Trust Fund in addition to creating a 
> significant operational and environmental impact. Potentially, 
> millions of gallons of water may need to be hauled. Approximately 148 
> truckloads would be required to haul 1 million gallons. The 
> contractual cost would be approximately $40,000 for every 1 million 
> gallons hauled. Administering the hauling operation and ensuring 
> regulatory compliance would require significant staff resources. 
> Naturally, a hauling operation should be, and is the last resort. 
> Staff will continue working to land apply the water to as many farms 
> served by the distribution system as possible. The city has also 
> requested additional guidance from KDHE as alternative options for the 
> short-term management of the nitrogenated water are considered.
>
> Video Link: https://youtu.be/Q2t1YYZK2F4?t=11285
>
> 11/07/17 CC Agenda – CM Report
>
>   * Item was “Staff will provide an update on the Farmland Remediation
>     Program”.
>
> https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/11-07-17/cmreport.html
>
> Video Link: https://youtu.be/hVjVxJhPrcU?t=1941
>
> 11/21/17 CC Agenda – Regular Agenda Item No. 6
>
>   * Receive update on environmental remediation project on former
>     Farmland property
>
> https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/11-21-17/11-21-17_cc_agenda.html
>
>            Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOSlN13uVuc
>
>  3. Regarding the utility drop box item, I think that there has been
>     quite a bit of unfortunate confusion about this.  Our staff was
>     reporting on our intention to act on a matter that doesn’t
>     typically require City Commission approval. The reason why we
>     reported on it was because we wanted to be transparent with our
>     intentions and by reporting it, see if there was public concern. 
>     I think that some of the confusion has come from the attachment
>     with the item, which was an internal staff memo from a staff
>     member to me, wherein they are making the recommendation to me
>     about discontinuing the utility drop boxes in other locations.
>     This was not meant as a City Commission action item.  If it was,
>     staff would have placed it on the regular or consent agenda.  That
>     being said, the City Commission did direct staff to place the item
>     on a regular meeting agenda in the near future, which will be done
>     so that there can be additional discussion on it.  I certainly did
>     not believe that staff just taking action on it and closing the
>     remote drop boxes would have been appropriate with no public notice.
>
> I would also like to address your recommended actions.
>
>  1. You recommend moving the City Manager’s report to the beginning of
>     the agenda.  I would note that the reason the report is near the
>     end of the agenda is that most times citizens appear at these
>     meetings in order to make general comment or to provide comments
>     or listen to a specific item.   Sometimes we hear real complaints
>     about the length of meetings and how long citizens have to wait in
>     order to be heard on a particular agenda item.  General public
>     comment used to be at the end of the agenda a few years ago, but
>     was moved toward the front to help enable people to make general
>     comments if they do not wish to hear the other agenda items.  That
>     way, they do not have to sit through the entire meeting to be able
>     to make a general comment.  However, this does add to the time
>     that other citizens may have to sit to await a specific item.  We
>     have tried to balance this the best that we can.  I would have a
>     concern with moving the City Manger’s report to the front of the
>     meeting as it relates to those citizens who already have to sit
>     through general public comments and other agenda items before
>     being able to participate in their item of interest.  Moving the
>     report would require them to wait longer.  Part of the balance of
>     this issue has been what we are now doing with the minutes and
>     linking each section directly to the video portion of the agenda. 
>     This makes it very easy for a citizen who may want to hear the
>     City Manager’s report to go directly to that item on the agenda. 
>     Here is a link to the minutes for the November 7, 2017 meeting
>     that I cited earlier as an example.  You can see that each action
>     area of the agenda has the link to the exact spot on the video
>     where the item was discussed.
>     https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/11-07-17/11-07-17_cc_agenda.html
>
>  2. You recommend that citizens should serve on a task force to find a
>     long-term option for disposal of remediation water collected as
>     part of the Farmland environmental remediation program.  The city
>     is soliciting the services of an expert consultant team to analyze
>     the remediation program and review the vast and technical data
>     associated with the site. Subject matter experts at KU are
>     assisting city staff in the consultant selection process and the
>     consultant’s ensuing work. Recommended changes to the remediation
>     plan developed as a result of the consultant team’s work will be
>     presented to city commissioners for their consideration in a
>     regular Commission meeting. Residents and anyone else interested
>     in the project will have the opportunity to provide input about
>     the results of the study to the Commission so it can consider that
>     feedback when it deliberates the consultant’s recommendations.
>     Changes to the remediation plan will require reviews and approvals
>     from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
>     Recommendations that would require changes to the consent order,
>     remedial action plan or NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
>     Elimination System) permit would be subject to additional public
>     processes administered by KDHE. In other words, the City does not
>     have the authority to make changes to the remediation plan without
>     KDHE authorization.
>
> Residents and interested stakeholders are welcome to contact city 
> staff at any time to discuss questions as the consultant team conducts 
> its work.
>
>  3. I agree with your desire for transparency and citizen
>     interaction.  Our staff is available to discuss concerns with
>     residents and discuss issues in public meetings. Ultimately our
>     City Commission makes decisions about policy matters in our
>     representative democracy.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Electronic-lan mailing list
> Electronic-lan at lists.ku.edu
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/electronic-lan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/electronic-lan/attachments/20171212/dea6e780/attachment-0001.html>