Archive for Friday, May 18, 2012

Town Talk: UPDATE: Orient restaurant not moving after all; homeless shelter funding request in question; city puts future of two old houses in limbo

May 18, 2012, 10:08 a.m. Updated May 18, 2012, 2:47 p.m.


Subscribe to the Town Talk email edition

Subscribe to the email edition of Town Talk and we'll deliver you the latest city news and notes every weekday at noon.

News and notes from around town:

UPDATE: Well, there has been a screw-up. Everything you read here earlier about the Orient/Oh Boy Chicken, you should disregard. As I mentioned, I based my reporting off of an application made for a city drinking establishment license, and come to find out the address published by the city for that license was incorrect. The city's Website listed the location of the business as moving to 2112 W 25th Street, but that was incorrect.

Instead the license for The Orient/Oh Boy Chicken is for 1006 Mass. in the space formerly known as Southern Cuisine. We're not sure how the address ended up wrong on the city Web site that I accessed, but I take full responsibility for steering you in the wrong direction. I feel bad about it and apologize to all involved, especially the business. Town Talk tries to walk a line of being quick and accurate, and I ended up on the wrong side of that line today.

• As far as I know, it is not Oh Boy Chicken time at Lawrence City Hall, but it is Oh Boy Budget time. One of the annual budget chores is deciding how much city funding to award to various social service organizations in town.

There are always more requests than dollars, but this year that’s particularly the case. The Lawrence Community Shelter — the city’s lone homeless shelter — has asked for a significant increase in budgeted funds for 2013 as it moves into its new facility in southeastern Lawrence.

During the 2012 budget process, the shelter received $85,000 in operational funding from the city’s general fund and the special fund that houses liquor tax revenues. (It is called the Special Alcohol Fund, which once led me to bring a brandy snifter to City Hall. I was disappointed.)

For the 2013 budget, the shelter is seeking $149,000 in operational funds, or an increase of about 75 percent. Whether the shelter gets such an increase, though, seems very much in doubt. The city’s Social Service Funding Advisory Board met recently and is recommending the shelter receive $91,000 in operational funding from the general fund and special alcohol fund. That’s an increase of $6,000 instead of the $64,000 the shelter was seeking.

That recommendation will be delivered to city commissioners in early June. Commissioners will have the final say in how much money to include in the 2013 budget.

The request for an increase in shelter funding did not come as a surprise. If you remember, city commissioners in March approved a special $100,000 funding request for the shelter. Leaders of the shelter, at the time, painted a pretty serious picture about the shelter’s financial situation, with one even calling it a crisis.

Shelter board members reported if the shelter didn’t receive the special funding allocation, it would be cash broke for a period of time in 2012 while it was waiting for some other grant checks to arrive in the mail. At that time, shelter leaders alerted city commissioners that they would ask for a significantly larger amount of city funding in 2013 and beyond.

Commissioners approved the special $100,000 request, but didn’t commit to funding the future requests. It will be interesting to see what commissioners do on this one. It could certainly have implications on other social service agencies in town.

City staff members are operating under the assumption the city does not want to increase the total amount of money in the city budget dedicated to social service agencies. The city’s 2012 budget included about $860,000 in funding for social service agencies, and staff members are assuming that will be about the total amount dedicated to those agencies in 2013. That certainly has been the trend for the last several years. The shelter, however, has some strong supporters on the commission, so perhaps this is the year commissioners allow the social service funding pot to grow a bit.

If commissioners don’t grow the funding pot and decide to fund the shelter’s full request anyway, then other social service agencies will see their totals decline. It will be worth watching.

I think some social service agencies ought to prepare for a decline in city funding regardless. City staff members were still preparing the funding recommendation memo, so I haven’t seen the recommended funding totals for each agency yet. But staff members told me funding from the special alcohol fund was particularly tight this year. That likely will mean that agencies that don’t have a direct tie-in to alcohol abuse treatment will see a reduction in funding for 2012. We should find out more about those recommended funding levels in the next few days.

I’m not sure why that Special Alcohol Fund is under such strain. I believe liquor tax revenues have been fairly strong. If anything, the fund should receive an unbudgeted boost in 2012 related to the liquor sales that occurred during the Final Four celebration.

But the city only plans to provide $315,161 in funding to social service agencies from that fund. I did a little checking, and that is actually less than what the city spent from that fund in 2008, when it provided about $400,000 in funding to social service agencies.

The big difference with the fund these days is that the city takes about $250,000 off the top to fund the police department’s school resource officer program, which city officials contend helps prevent alcohol abuse by students.

If you are curious about what social service organizations do seek city funding, here’s a look at their 2013 requests. This first batch are general fund requests, which are funded through property and sales taxes:

— Ballard Community Center: $10,000

— Boys & Girls Club of Lawrence: $148,722

— Douglas County CASA: $25,000

— Health Care Access Pharmacy Program: $33,800

— Bert Nash Homeless Outreach Team: $172,326

— Lawrence Community Shelter Bus Pass Fund: $8,000

— Lawrence Community Shelter Operating Fund: $99,000

— The Salvation Army: $15,000

— Housing & Credit Counseling: $17,100

— Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging: $7,400

— Lawrence Children’s Choir: $14,000

— The Shelter Inc.: $32,000

— Van Go Mobile Arts: $35,000

— Warm Hearts: $6,000

This second batch is funded through the liquor tax revenues the city receives from the state:

— Big Brothers/Big Sisters: $29,500

— Boys & Girls Club of Lawrence: $106,278

— DCCCA: $41,004

— DCCCA First Step House: $27,660

— Four Winds Native Center: $38,500

— GaDugi Safe Center: $4,000

— Headquarters Inc.: $22,500

— Heartland Community Health Center: $58,000

— Lawrence Community Shelter: $50,000

— Van Go Mobile Arts: $44,000

— Willow Domestic Violence Center: $17,000.

• Sometimes the City Commission isn’t asked to grant money, but rather time. That has been the case lately when it comes to old houses that are falling into disrepair.

Last week the City Commission was asked to grant some time to two properties that are under consideration for city demolition. Commissioners ended up granting extra time for both of them, but it appears some commissioners are starting to lose patience.

The first property was 1106 R.I., which has been in the news for it old cache of Packard cars in the yard. Commissioners agreed to allow the property owners to have until mid-July to continue cleaning on the property and to conduct two auctions that are planned.

But the meeting also revealed that the Lawrence Preservation Alliance has made an offer to purchase the property. Details of the offer weren’t revealed, but LPA President Dennis Brown said the intention is to restore the house and the old barn and to use the property for a single-family use, rather than an apartment development. Brown also made it clear that his organization will “vigorously oppose” any plan that calls for the house or the barn to be demolished.

A representative of the Barland family — which owns the property — was at the meeting and said the family was considering offers on the property but had not ruled out keeping the house, which has been vacant since the 1980s.

But Commissioner Aron Cromwell took the somewhat unusual step of announcing that he thinks the property definitely ought to be sold to another party. He expressed frustration at how little had been done to maintain the old home and structures.

“I have no confidence in the ability of this property owner to rehabilitate the property,” Cromwell said during the meeting.

The second property is an early 1900s home at 1313 Haskell. Commissioners also gave 90 days to the owners to show significant progress on rehabilitating the property.

If you remember, the house previously was at the corner of 15th and Haskell and faced demolition in 2005 when a new housing development was planned for the intersection. But the house was spared after a plan was put together to move it down the street. The plan included a rehabilitation of the home, but the owner never pulled that off. Instead, it became a repository for a lot of junk.

In 2010, it looked like the house was destined to be demolished again, but a partnership that included longtime Brook Creek neighborhood advocates James Grauerholz and Michael Almon was formed to rehabilitate the house.

On Tuesday, however, commissioners were told that in the last two years the group has completed only about three of the 15 critical repairs that the city said would show a good faith effort that a rehabilitation of the property was going to occur.

Almon disputed that assessment, but a couple of city commissioners — Cromwell and Hugh Carter, in particular — were not pleased. Both commissioners said they were upset much work on the project had stopped while the group negotiated with a potential buyer. Commissioners said that showed a lack of understanding about how important it was for the property to be repaired as quickly as possible.

“Basically, I feel like the effort has not been made whatsoever to complete these tasks,” Cromwell said. “My confidence on the future of this project is low.”

Commissioners will consider in mid-July whether to order the demolition of the property. If it comes to that, it will be the end of a notable home in Lawrence. The multistory home was built in 1900 by Oliver Hanscom on ground that he homesteaded in 1854 as part of the second group of settlers to arrive in Lawrence.


irvan moore 6 years ago

cromwell has no confidence in the ability of the property owner? what a pretentious statement from someone who was elected to represent all the citizens of this community. how about a decrease in funding for the homeless shelter? they keep wanting more and more when they should be trying to work within a budget like the taxpayers do

deec 6 years ago

so if quick repairs to dilapidated buildings are so critical, why is the Masonic hall just sitting there/

deec 6 years ago

And the temple has sat there for what, 10 tears, with no repairs or maintenance? Or does Dougie change out the plywood every few years?

Acey 6 years ago

That one-time Masonic "temple" has been sitting there, unused, for many years. You, KRichards, expect us to believe that it has not been repaired and put into use because it doesn't have a sprinkler system? And, look at what Tellers did to make that restaurant handicapped-accessible!

I am sure that Dougie can get busy and fix the former "temple". Money can't be the problem; maybe there are just too many irons in his fire.

JackMcKee 6 years ago

so what's going in at the old Oh Boy! Orient Anglers spot? Don't say Shots! they are in the older Orient spot. Orient moved next door with Anglers. I've heard rumors about the space. What about you, Chad?

jhawkinsf 6 years ago

Nothing wrong with passing on rumors as long as you preface your remarks as such. What have you heard?

MarcoPogo 6 years ago

Isn't it still just Angler's? Unless Nancy is closing up shop to focus on the new location.

JackMcKee 6 years ago

I think Anglers has essentially been a dead concept for about 6 months.

Richard Heckler 6 years ago

Yes what about the masonic lodge? Can we say preferential treatment? Not only that these guys will not do anything unless local politicians hand over a bunch of tax dollars .... can we say tax dollar moochers?

Why isn't the city offering the folks below some tax dollars for fixing up the historical landmarks? What's up with that?

Chad left out an important note about the Haskell house situation. Michael Almon revealed that the group had been keeping city hall informed as to the progress. And about prospective buyers that were in the mix. Apparently city hall has been aware of the situation and was granting "approval" each step of the way( this is what I surmised after the Almon statement).

As for the Rhode Island home it has been that way for such a long time. Suddenly it comes up for demolition in a rather big hurry....why? Let the owners take whatever time is necessary to put together a package that meets their needs. What's the rush after 20 years of ignoring the house?

Richard Andrade 6 years ago

My eyeballs hurt from rolling so much every time I walk past Shots. Unfortunately, there are never any customers there to witness it.

Leslie Swearingen 6 years ago

They are just old houses. It seems to me that if people were focused they would have been torn down and new homes built. One possibility would be to clear the lot and put in a small community park. I am wondering if any of the homeless take advantage of the abandoned houses to camp there?
There was all that hullabaloo about a car being a foot out on the sidewalk and yet no one seems to care about having trashy, falling down, houses on their block?

pace 6 years ago

I would prefer the houses be rehabilitated, used and taxed as homes rather than turned into a park. If they want to spend money on a park, enlarge and improve the park at 11th. and Deleware.

50YearResident 6 years ago

The homeless shelter is going to bleed this city dry of funds. The more you give, the more they want. It's a cancer, and will eventually kill all other charity funding. Give to the bums instead of the truly needy.

LadyJ 6 years ago

Didn't realize the Boys and Girls Club received so much funding from the city. Do they have any other revenue?

Sunny Parker 6 years ago

The 'city' needs to mind it's own business and stop telling home owners what to do with their property!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.