-
https://history.lplks.org/files/original/d986786d5eaa29fbf8d4ed9a9c2707ec.pdf
2ab675a5515397a2569b0e58cb96f483
PDF Text
Text
BUFORD M WATSON, JR. CITY MANAGER
CITY OFFICES
CITY COMMISSION
BOX 708
6 EAST 61h
66044
913·841-7722
MAYOR
MIKE AMYX
COMMISSIONERS
DENNIS CONSTANCE
SANDRA K PRAEGER
MIKE RUNDLE
August 1, 1987
BOB SCHUMM
Bob Moody
President, NLIA
529 Elm
Lawrence, KS 66044
De a r Mr . Mo o;d y :
This letter is a request for your assistance in the City's endeav
ors to promote fair housing in Lawrence.
As part of its fair housing
outreach and education efforts, the City would like to submit a series
of articles about fair housing laws, tenant rights, etc. for publication .in the NLIA Newsletter.
The City wou.lrt a.lso apprec.iate any time
that could be set aside at one of your regular monthly association
meetings for Arvilla Vickers of the Human Relations/Human Resources Department to speak on fair housing and to answer any questions that
neighborhood res"id(~nts may havr~ ahont fair housing.
If you are interested in assisting us in this matter,
please call
Arvilla Vickers at extension 314 or me at extension 106 to discnss possible publicatlon dates, speaking dates, etc.
We hope to begin the se
ries
in the near fulnre,
so your prompt response will be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
~~~
Kurt A. Schroeder
CDRG Program Analyst
/de
cc:
Arvilla VIckers
�BUFORD M. WATSON. JR.. CITY MANAGER
CITY OFFICES
BOX 708
CITY COMMISSION
6 EAST 61h
66044
MAYOR
MIKE AMYX
August 28, 198 7
COMMISSIONERS
DENNIS CONSTANCE
SANDRA K. PRAEGER
MIKE RUNDLE
BOB SCHUMM
Bob Moody, President
North Lawrence Improvement Assoc.
539 Elm
Lawrence, KS 66044
Dear Bob:
You recently requested a summary of North Lawrence sidewalk expenditures over the past several years and an informational statement on
the CDBG Minor Home Repair and Emergency Loan Programs.
Since 1983, the following new sidewalks have been installed with
CDBG funds:
600 Block of Elm (1983)
700 Block of Elm, 8th Street
between Elm and Walnut, 800
Block of Walnut Street, North
4th from Maple to Trailer Park
near North Street (Fall 1986)
700 Block of Locust (Spring 1987)
Lyon Street, 400 through 700
Blocks (current project)
TOTAL
$4,000.00
$34,162.28
$7,500.00
$15,243.19 (Bid)
$60,905.47
With regard to the Hinor Home Repair and Emergency Loan Program,
•\
the City would appreciate publication of the following information in
your upcoming newsletter:
913-841-7722
�Page Two
August 28, 1987
"A Minor Home Improvement Grant and Emergency Loan and Grant
program is now available to low-income homeowner/occupants in Lawrence.
Grants of up to $500 are available to eligible applicants for minor
home improvements that improve health, safety, energy costs, or conditions that cause blight and deterioration.
A combination grant and loan of up to $2,500.00 (first $500.00 is a
grant) may also by available to eligible applicants for emergency improvements that eliminate IMMEDIATE hazards to health and safety, or conditions
that are likely to cause health and safety hazards in the near future.
The Emergency Loan will be a non-interest bearing, non-installment
loan which will become due and payable only when the recipient ceases to
occupy the assisted property.
To receive additional information and application, please stop by
the Community Development Department in City Hall, or call 841-7722,
Extension 100."
I hope this above information is of assistance to you, and we thank
you for your help.
Sincerely,
~,.---~~A~.' ~~de<
Program Anaylist
KAS:lh
�CIT> ::;ot,H.1:SSION
MAYOR
B:'S SCHUMM
COMMISSIONERS
S>Wi.;: • 1/A.RTIN S 0'Hi
[:4·. !C' PE:.NNY
I~
CITY OFFICES
BUFORD M •'JATSON .• R. CITY MA"'AGER
BOX 708
66044
L Vv"A;_TERS
913-841-7722
June ;_,,
B,:J\:. ~loody
i.al'rence \eighhol'li.)Od
539 Eln; Street
LaKrence, Kansas 660~~
•:E RUNDLE
ROB~ OT
BH~
~lr.
~orth
.-l.~sn.
Dear Mr. Noody:
Enclosed is a data sheet shor.·ing some interl:'sting information co1n::erning
the !\c,r·th lar.-rence Neighborho)d Cleanup conducted in April, 19Ho 1 and again in
April and May, 1989.
It appetrs that in each year you were billed for the
senices of a rear-~oader fo1· 10 hours at the rate of SSO.OO per hour.
Also
for the services of a flat-bvl for 10 hours at the rate of SL5.0li pet· hour-.
Services proYided r.·ere Lonside1·ably in excess of that for Kltich you r.·ere
billed. On April 23 and 30, 198H, 1:~-.o r-ear-loaders and one flat-bed he~·e
pr·oYided for a total of 11 !:,_•JI'S hcJJ·ked.
In addition, rear-loaders "ere pJ·oYided for 6 hours for addi ticnal cl•·anup on h'ednesdays follol--'ing the scheduled
days. The 1989 cleanup bene'.'itecl f1·um thP substitutiolt of a secc•nd rearloader in J ieu c•f the unavai I abJ e f _at-bed.
TLe u~,e of the clilppPr ·!tis ye;.r did enable our trucks to com1;lelt::- the
scheduled cle.<J.nup l'ithout fo1lov.--up the next r.·eek.
This did not result in a
r~duct;on in the sanitation leyartm• nt bill since our costs still far e~ceed
the c-,m,unt billed. !'iute tlw.t OH·rt .me ~-.a-ges alo11c: l"Xceed the amoul!t billed
each :·.-ar.
Tl1is indiccttes tl at ;;e 1111 probably have to iucrease the·
]-,,_,url~
this year.
The overt me salary cost for a typical t·C.'ar·-~uadd·
Cl'E'h' is ])Qh $~~l:l. 00.
Th>:- },(-._ "SS it~- . 0 r•rO\' j de a sur;en· j SO!' on the SC'E'l!t' due tc•
c-oJtsidr:-t·able public contl:lct i<!Jd llOJl··sl::tndatd ~-.·or!-. drivE·s up tlte O';('ral: salary
costs b~' <il most S:Z2. 00 pel hour.
rate
:~L•metime
Fleasp call if I can p1ovicle a•JY furtl-er help.
~1-4
v Ya~
Slankard
Girector of Public
~Assistant
~orks
�. !
-::_" - : ·.• :
-·-----·-
-~=--
--::.,.:. _•:::
---- -·-·.
~
.
- .- ~=~-=
----·--·~=~=~=====-====:=============~~====~~====~=~===~==·
- .. ._
,~
L-.:-~!'.-
~·.:
-- : ·-
-: ...
-· .--,:·.
--- ---
~======~==~==========~===========================================
=
.• -:':;:
-:' . ,_,
-- c:
, .:
I •:
7
'7,"1
':·.t.'
--
.... ::-.1::-rr
\
-D
_, ...
i~!:
!.::L'-
',1.:
"'{C•
.;.t,.,., .••.:
FE~~TL!N
........_.
7.67
8. 4t
C.1
C, ""!
m.40
b0
8~5.33
tt
Amou~t
Billing
i3-Av-8t.
~BEL
t;JVLE
bil!erl should have been $75i
de~artmert errGr rerl~:ed a~~unt to $63l
7,&2
1~
1:2
5
75 15
1
~,'Z
5
j
~
48
8.21
E\SNEHL
t..5
138.06
b~
12
• C'Z
I r '-'·-'
7 82
6
iCl
'!.'
19.54
m
B6
12.34
16:23
.1""!;...
if,:..
nr
t:!
12
"'}>=
6~1
12l34
.,,
,i..L,
'" .. "!
•.-..·
,_,._.
~::KBEST
:•EVfR3
J' il
l~.r2
;.~EGGRY
7.B2
~. ·r;G~Ef;
I
Z4-Mcy-8f.
D~
L·.'
f:.,
77
t:.
6
n
47
2
4
c, ·.'L
., . .
c!.).
i.
. B~·
8. .r.1
",.-
- .99
":!?
• ·~ "T
~
".~"·•
2.~r
4, r~
17: .lit;
~<
cL
~.··-···-··-·
114 '72
��North Lawrence Improvement Association
539 Elm
Lawrence, KS 66044
July 13, 1989
Mr. Buford Watson and City Commissioners
6 East 6th Street
Lawrence, KS 66044
Dear Mr. Watson and Commissioners:
All too often, a person is quick to point out deficiencies and
concerns, especially when dealing with a governmental body.
However,
I want to point out positives.
During the past several years, it has
been my privilege to work with a great number of city staff.
I emphasize "with" because my experience has shown that Lawrence is fortunat..e
to have dedicated, qualified and concerned individuals who work with the
public to find solutions to problems.
Mike Wildgen has been extremely responsive to issues and concerns
expressed by the North Lawrence Improvement Association and has worked
toward resolution of those. He is open to discussion and suggestions.
He is top-notch and I appreciate his insight, work and suggestions.
Lynn Goodell and his staff have worked with me on several Community
They have provided
Deve 1opment funding and env i ronmenta 1 concerns.
invaluable assistance in accomplishing our goals.
Fred DeVictor has established a first-class Parks and Recreation
pro-gram in Lawrence. He recently assisted the N.L.I.A. with an innovative cleanup operation for brush by providing a chipper and manpower
to reduce brush to usable wood chips for North Lawrence residents.
George Williams has also been extremely helpful in assuring that
essentials, such as streets, water and sewers, are "up to snuff." His
staff has been extremely cooperative during our semi-annual cleanups.
Terese Gardner has worked to find answers to tough traffic safety
issues. I greatly appreciate her help and patience.
Chiefs Ron Olin and Jim McSwain have been quick to respond to
pub 1 i c safety issues and risked their own safety in addressing our
organization and responding to neighbors' concerns.
Barbara Huppee was extremely cooperative and sensitive to concerns
about the placement of scattered housing sites in North Lawrence.
One always risks omission of important names when citing individuals for their assistance, and I probably have done such.
But the
point is:
I think Lawrence has a great city staff and you, Mr. Watson
and City Commissioners, are to be commended for your insight in hiring
them and giving them proper direction (most of the time). I appreciate
everybody's assistance and commend them. They don't get enough recognition (and salary, probably) but they have my respect. I look forward
to a continued cooperative and rewarding relationship.
Sincerely,
.
...
Bob Moody, President
�MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
CDBG Target Neighborhoods
Margene K. Swarts, CDBG Program Analy.st
September 6, 1989
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
~AVQ
IV'+" .J
In an effort to continue furthering fair housing and equal opportunity in
the block grant program, as well as address a few problems, the Community Development Department wishes to institute a few changes. These changes deal with the
solicitation of participants on the CDBG Advisory Committee and Grant Review
Board, as well as participants in the various programs offered by the Department,
and a reminder of the requirements to be met as set forth in the Citizen Participation Plan.
Effective immediately, we will be requiring documentation of how your neighborhood solicits participation for this program. When openings are available on
the CDBG Advisory Committee or Grant Review Board, we would prefer that notice be
given in the neighborhood newsletter and/or a special mailing to all residents of
the neighborhood. Special emphasis should be given to encourage minority participation. If solicitation for these openings must be made by personal contact,
we will require a list of the names and demographics for all persons so notified.
When the programs we offer are publicized in the newsletter, we ask again that
minority participation be stressed.
Additionally, I wish to remind you that the City Commission has adopted a
Citizen Participation Plan that provides guidelines to be followed by CDBG funded
neighborhood associations. One of the requirements is that the association meet
regularly on at least a quarterly basis. Copies of the minutes of those meetings
are to be forwarded to this office within thirty days after each meeting.
I have been made aware that some of the neighborhood associations are not
meeting on a regular, minimum quarterly basis. Also, we have not been receiving
copies of minutes of the meetings that do transpire. If the association has altered the meeting frequency or made any other changes, the bylaws must be amended
to reflect this. A copy of all amendments shall be submitted to this department
to be kept on file along with the minutes.
I have enclosed a copy of the guidelines for neighborhood associations as
adopted by the City Commission in the Citizen Participation Plan. In addition to
the minutes we would like to receive copies of all newsletters, clean up fliers,
or other special mailings, on a regular basis. If we are not on your mailing
list, please add us to it.
At this time, there is one neighborhood association that has yet to sign
their subgrantee agreement. Please be advised that no funds will be forthcoming
to any association (either by reimbursement or direct payment of bills) unless
the association is in compliance with all requirements.
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at
841-7722, ext. 109.
tl-i
cc:
See Attached Page
�Brook Creek Neighborhood Association
Don Binns, President
East Lawrence Improvement Association
John Swift, President
North Lawrence Improvement Association
Bob Moody, President
Oread Neighborhood Association
Eric Cleveland, President
Jennifer Brown, Coordinator
Pinckney ~eighborhood Association
Suzanne Perry, President
University Place Neighborhood Association
Neva Entrikin, President
�..
III.
2.
The board will perforM its duties· as prescribed in the
Policies for Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loans. as
aMended froM time to time.
3.
Meetings of the board may be called by the Chairperson or
by the COBG program staff. The board may conduct business
only when at least four members are present at a called
meeting.
GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED BY CDBG FUNDED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS
A.
Any neighborhood association receiving support funds through the
CDBG Program. will be required to adhere to the following guidelines:
1.
Each association is required to have. at a minimum. quarterly
meetings. The associations are encouraged to have regularly
scheduled meetings each month.
2.
Business may be conducted only at open meetings of which all
members have been notified a reasonable time in advance.
3.
Associations must elect officers on a yearly basis. in
accordance with written bylaws. These bylaws shall be on
file with the City.
4.
Neighborhood associations must have definite geographical
boundaries. Membership must be open to any person eighteen
years of age or older living or owning property in the
specified area. Each association may allow for nonvoting
members in its bylaws.
5.
Business meetings must be conducted at the regular scheduled
meetings.
6.
Membership dues cannot exceed $1.00 per year for individuals.
7.
Minutes of each meeting are to be forwarded to the CoMMUnity
Development Office within 30 days after each meeting.
8.
An annual accounting of the use of CDBG funds is to be submitted to the Community Development Office.
9.
The associations are encouraged to utilize a portion of the
funds to notify members and the public of the time and place
of each meeting.
-5-
�CITY COMMISSION
MAYOR
BOB SCHUMM
COMMISSIONERS
SHIRLEY MARTIN·SMITH
DAVID PENNY
MIKE RUNDLE
CITY OFFICES
BUFORD M. WATSON. JR.. CITY MANAGER
BOX 708
6 EAST 6111
66044
ROBERT l. WALTERS
913·041·7722
September 19, 1989
Don Shepard
513 Elm
Lawrence, KS
66044
Dear Don:
Your name was given to me as a possible appointee to the CDBG Advisory Committee.
I would like for you to serve on the committee if you are willing to do so.
You would replace Margaret Brun as one of the two North Lawrence representatives
on the 17-person committee. The committee usually meets once a week (probably
Thursday) from 7-10 in the evening at City Hall during the months of January
through April. After that, meetings are rare - maybe two or three times during
the year.
I have enclosed a copy of the Citizen Participation Plan which outlines the
duties and responsibilities of the committee.
If you can and will serve on the committee, please call me before next Tuesday, so I can pass the word to Mayor Schumm. I think you would be a great addiLion.
Sincerely,
Development
tw
�CITY COMMISSION
MAYOR
BOB SCHUMM
COMMISSIONERS
SHIRLEY MARTIN-SMITH
DAVID PENNY
CITY OFFICES
BUFORD M. WATSON, JR., CITY MANAGER
BOX 708
MIKE RUNDLE
6 EAST 61h
66044
ROBERT L. WALTERS
913-841-7722
January 23, 1990
North Lawrence Improvement Association
539 Elm
Lawrence, KS 66044
Dear Mr. \foody:
I asked George Williams, Public Works Director, and Fred De Victor, Parks
and Recreation Director, to comment on CDBG proposals submitted by various
neighborhood associations. I have enclosed a copy of the comments for your
use. If you have further comments or questions regarding the proposals or
staff comments, please contact me at 841-7722, ext. 100.
Thank you for your interest in revitalizing your neighborhood.
Siyrely,
q-u ~L
)/)/
./-/.
~;;~LL.J
b<t ruJ
Lynn A. Goodell
Director of Community Development
tw
Enclosure
�NORTH LAWRENCE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
539 ELM
LAWRENCE, KS 66044
May 1 , 1 991
Mr. Lynn Goodell, Community Development
6 E. 6th
Lawrence, Ks 66044
Dear~-:
The North Lawrence Improvement Association invites you and
your family to our annual Spring Potluck Picnic, Saturday, May 18,
at 6:30 in John Taylor Park, located behind the Ballard Center at
7th and Elm.
This old-fashioned picnic will
offer good food,
good
conversation, and good times. Additionally, playground equipment
for the young in body and heart will be available.
We hope you
will bE~ able to join us.
/lh~ely,.
Bob Moe y,
Pr,~sid
t
�NORTH LAWRENCE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
539 ELM
LAWRENCE, KS 66044
August 19, 1991
Steven Brice Holtzman, Weed Inspector
City of Lawrence
6 East 6th
Lawrence, KS 66044
Dear Mr. Holtzman:
I am sorry you apparently feel offended that I found 1 t
necessary to discuss the Union Pacific right-of-way situation with
Mike Wildgen. After two months, the problem has not been remedied.
There has been some work accomplished, but the area is an embarrassmert to North Lawrence and the entire city.
Yc·u \'li 11 recall I first contacted you about the area approximately June 19 expressing concern there would be a number of
people in the area during the July 4th festivities. I have spoken
with ycu on at least three other separate occasions regarding the
area. On one occasion, you promised work would be completed that
weekend.
It was not. On Wednesday, July 14, I spoke with you in
your office, offering to visit the area with you to show you our
concerrs.
You refused the offer, saying work would be completed
this weekend. It was not.
I understand the limitations you may be facing: however, not
accomplishing compliance with weed ordinance regulations in a two
month span effectively renders the ordinance useless.
Irterestingly, some of the work that has been performed along
the Locust Street side of the right-of-way was done on a volunteer
basis ty North Lawrence residents who are tired of looking at the
mess.
This is not just a concern of myself, but of :1ume1-ous
indivicuals who have voiced their disappointment in the situation.
I spoke with Mike to express my concern that the situation was
not yet resolved.
As you say, Mike can not accomplish this any
faster than you can.
I understand that; but, it was not be~ ng
accomplished.
A&ain, I apologize for any ill feelings you may have for my
go1ng "over your head".
It was not intended to be a persona":
insult. I am sure any future working relations will be cordial and
professional.
SincerE·ly,
<il~
!It~
Bob Mocdy
President
cc:
Lynn Goode 1 1 ---Mike Wildgen
�July 1, 1994
Mayor F. Jolene Andersen
City of Lawrence
P.O. Box 708
Lawrence,KS 66044-0708
Dear Mayor Andersen:
The North Lawrence Improvement Association met on June 27 to discuss the
questions you asked in your June 3 letter. As to zoning, we would like
undeveloped land in North Lawrence to be zoned RSl with a minimum 70-footwide lot size. We feel this is the minimum that will retain the rural character of
the neighborhood.
As to sanitary sewers and drainage in the neighborhood, we concur with George
Williams that the city should 1) formulate a sanitary sewer improvement plan to
solve the existing problems and address future growth, 2) formulate a storm
drainage master plan to address storm water needs assuming the same growth
potential as the sewer plan, 3) integrate the first two points into a capital
improvement plan and projected budget for completion and 4) set a moratorium
on development until the problems are resolved. We are against Williams'
suggestion to adopt a street standard allowing a ditch section and believe that all
developers should bear the cost of developing adequate means for storm drainage.
I have included a copy of the minutes so that you can get a feel for our discussion
on these subjects. I might warn you that we are a "free-wheeling" group and I
may have missed some people's comments or mis-heard others. The minutes
haven't been approved yet, so there may be some changes to them.
I might add that although not many people attended this meeting, North Lawrence
residents constantly comment to me on the changes occurring in our
neighborhood. No one likes the in-filling into garden spots. Many people have
the feeling that the city has ignored necessary infrastructure repairs or upgrading
in the neighborhood. And residents really decry the deterioration of the rental
homes in the neighborhood. We would like to see all laws regarding housing and
zoning enforced in this neighborhood, have streets, the sewer system and storm
drainage systems upgraded, yet retain the open, low-density character of this
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Marilyn K. Rogers
NLIA Secretary
�07/19/94
'&913 38.3 1998
09:45
[4] 002/009
tTNICOM TRADE USA
NQRTR LAWRENCE COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
Please
~heck
the appropriate lines or specify an answer when asked.
GENERAL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What is .vour age? -~
What is your sex'! _
What is your marital status? _
(married or sinfd~)
If you are single. are you the head of a household? __
What are your ethnic origins?
(please specify)
What is your annual household income?
$14.999 or less
$35!000 - $44~999
$15,000 - $24,999
$45,000 ... $54,999
$25,000 - $34t999
~ $55,000 - or ntore
7. What is your level of education?
(specify)
8. How many people r-eside in your household? _
9. How long have you lived in North Law renee'?
flow long in
Lawrence? _ _
10. How much longer do you t:>lan to live in North Lawrence?
___ Less than one year
1 to 5 years ___ More than 5 years
11.
Which
__
__
__
___
_
best describes your residence?
Mobile home, trailer, or manufactured housing
One family house detached from any other house
One family house attached to one or more houses
Building with three or fewer apartments
Ruilding- with four or more apartments
12.
Do you own or rent your residence?
_
own
rent
If you own, what is your monthly mortgage payment? _ _
If you rent, what is your rent including all utilities except phone?
13. Does your household own an automobile?~Yes __Nv
many? _ _
14. Does your household own a bicycle'!
~Yes __No
If yes, how
15. Please mark the things you like ~-Q~t about living- in the North Lawrence
Neighbor hood.
(as many as applicable)
__ River
~ Grocery store
_
Parks
~ Privacy
Good soil
~ Low crime
__ Quietness
~People; neighbors
_Open space
_
Rural character
__ Gar<lensp flowers, trees
.--..;. Uncongested
Minimal traffic
_
Low taxes
_Good school
_
Other: (list) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~---16. Please mark the things you like
Neighborhood.
(as many as applicable)
~ No public transportation
l~a~j,
about the North l..awl'ence
Few sidewalks
�07119/94
09:4li
@ oo~_.(Q_o9
UNICOM TRADE USA
'0'913 383 1998
__
__
__
__
__
__
Neglect by city
_Woodlawn Elementary
Grain elevators
__ Unkempt/Untidy vacant lots
No shopping facilities
_
Sloppy yards
Lack of landscaping
_Loose dogs
Bad streets
__ Trains; tracks
__. Speeding autos
Poor snow removal
_
Crossing the bridge
Taverns
__ Smell of river
_
Poor drainage
__ Few stop signs
_
Dilapidated homes
_
No fire station
- · Industrial expansion
North 2nd Street corridor visual impact
_Nothing
_
Other (list) - - - - - - -
EMPLOYMENT
1. Please indicate the number of persons in your household employed in the
following
occupations:
_Sales
_Clerical
_
Retired
__ Unemployed
__ Craftsman or foreman
__ Industry or manufacturing
_
Transportation
_Laborer (except farm)
__ Professional or technical
__ Manager or administrator
_
F'armer or farm manager
_
Service worker
Private household
__ College student
_Other (please specify)~---2. How many people in your household are employed in North Lawrence'? _
3. Are there members of your household currently unemployed but seeking a
job?
___Yes
___No
4. Do you feel more should be done to attract jobs in North Lawrence?
___Yes
___No
5. Do you feel more should be done to diversify local employment opportunities
_No
in North Lawrence?
_Yes
SERVICES
Please rate North Lawrence in terms of the following areas/provision of
services:
Needs
Excellent
Adequate
Improvement
No
Opinion
1. Sidewalks
2. Streets
1
1
2
2
3. Street lighting
1
1
2
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Storm drainage
Traffic control
Trash pick-up
Fire protection
Elementary school
Police protection
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
�07/19/94
09:46
~913
llNICOM TRADE USA
383 1998
10. Parks and recreation
1
2
11. Water pressure
12. Snow removal
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
13. Anima1 control
14. Litter control
15. Affordable housing
16. Air quality
17. Noise levels
141004/009
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
The availability of:
18. Employment
opportunities
19. Social and
cultural activities
20. Neighborhood shops
21. Convenient grocery
stores
22. Adequate parking
23. Public transportation
4
�07/19/94
09:46
e913 383 1998
UNICOM TRADE USA
f4l 005/009. __ _
If you marked any of the above questions (14-36) "NEEDS IMPROVEMENT"
please explain why using the specific problems below
1. Sidewalks
__ Inadequate supply
__ Missing in places
__ Need repair
2. Streets
__ Need repair
Too narrow
3. Street lighting
_
Inadequate supply
Often not working
Too dim
4. Storm drainage
_
Generally poor; standing water
__ Ditches inadequate
__ Inadequate stormwater sewers
5. Traffic control
6. Trash pick-up
_
Trash spilled
_Irregular pick-up
___ Cans damaged
__ Speeding
~ Lack of stop signs/lights
7. Fire protection
8. Elementary school
_
Increased service needed
_
Low quality education
__ Bridges could be blocked
__ Physical improvement needed
9. Police protection
___ Need increased patrolling
Slow response time
10. Parks and recreation
Need better facilities/equipment
__ Need more parks
_
Need more organized activities
in No1·th Lawrence
11. Water pressure
_
Low pressure
_Rusty water
12. Snow removal
_
Lack of prompt service
__ Driveways blocked
__ Some streets not cleared
13. Animal control
__ Dogs run loose
___ Dogs in trash
___ No enforcement
14. Litter control
__ Junk in yards
__ Litter in streets
__ Dogs in trash
15. Affordable
Not
__ Not
.Not
housing
enough inexpensive
enough for elderly
enough good quality
17. Noise levels
llailroad
___ Bar or tavern
Traffic
16. Air quality
__ Unpleasant odors
~- General haze
_Other
18. Availability of e111ployment
Please specify:-------~-
19. Availability of social and
shopping
cultural activities
Please specify: _ _ _ __
20. Availability of neighborhood
21. Availability of convenient
22. Availability of adequate parking
Please specify: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
�07119/94
09:47
'8'913 383 1998
UNJCOM TRADE USA
grocery stores
Please specify:. _ _ _ __
23. Availability of public transportation
Please specify:. _ _ _ __
Please specify:. _ _ _ _ _ _ __
@ 006/009__
�07/19/94
09: ·17
'B913 383 1998
.@ ()_QZl~ 9.9, _ _
UNICOM TRADE USA
24. Please indicate which of these facilities you think should be developed or
expanded in North Lawrence.
__ Community meeting room __ Commercial strip center
_
Fire station
__ Day care
__ Senior citizens center
_Recreational facilities (please specify)
___ Other: ______~------------~----------------------------PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
Please rate North Law renee Neighborhood in terms of the following physical
appeat•ance criteria:
Average
Good
Below
No
Average
Opinion
1. Scenic views
2. Installation of landscaping
along major roads
3. Design of commercial and
industrial buildings
4. Design of public buildings
and other public areas
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5. Design of strip commercial
areas
6. Preservation of historic
buildings and areas
7. Preservation of distinct
character of communities
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
8. North Lawrence is presently a neighborhood with large lots, many open
spaces, small gardens, and a minimum number of street and sidewalk
improvements. Which of these expresses your opinion:
__ I like the character of the neighborhood with a minimum number of
improvements.
I would like the streets and sidewalks to meet the standards of the rest
of Lawrence,
while maintaining the character of North Lawrence.
__ I would like to see North Lawrence develop into an average density single
family
neighborhood with complete street and sidewalk
i.mprovements,
__ None of the above. Please
explain: _____________________________________
9. Do you believe that preserving older homes in North Lawrence is important?
_Yes
_No
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�07/19/94
09:47
'0"913 383 1998
UNICOM TRADE USA
141008/009
1. Are you satisfied with the manner in which the city has allocated community
development funding in the recent past?
_Yes
__No
_Don't
know
2. Please indicate how you feel community development funding should be
allocated by rank ordering the following (1 being the MOST important, and 10
being the LEAST important)
__ Housing rehabilitation
_Park equipment
__ Community center
__ Sidewalk improvement
__ Sewer improvement
_Bike paths
__ Street improvement
__ Stormwater control
__ Shopping center
__ Community redevelopment
3. What is your opinion about industrial development in North Lawrence? (Mark
as many as apply)
_
Only light industrial should be allowed
__ No additional industry should be allowed
__ Only warehousing should be allowed
__ Industrial development will increase traffic
_Acceptable if carefully planned
__ Industrial development should provide additional employment for
North
Lawrence residents
__ Industrial development should not harm residential areas
__ No residential or farm property should be converted to industrial
uses
__ Industrial development should be kept away from residential areas.
4. What type of facilities would you like to see developed along Second Street?
(Mark all that apply)
__ Specialty shops
__ Service station
Theater
_Bank
__ Drug store
_
Shopping center
__ Supermarket
_
Restaurant
__ Hardware store
Discount store
___ Upgrade present facilities
__ Medical facilities
_
Clothing store
Fast food
_
Laundromat
__ Variety store
_Park
5. Would you like to have neighborhood convenience shopping (groceries, drul?;
stores, restaurants) within:
_
_
one to one-half mile
1-4 blocks
5-10 blocks
do not want convenience shopping
6. New commercial buildings should be located:
_Throughout the neighborhood
__ Only in existing commercial centers
�07/19/94
'a913 383 1998
141 009/0_()1 ____.
l!NICOM TRADE USA
__ Only on Second Street
No new commercial buildings wanted
NORTH LAWRENCE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (N.L.I.A.)
1. Which of the following North Lawrence Improvement Association activities do
you participate in? (Mark all that apply)
_
Spring cleanup
_
Public forums
__ Meetings
Potluck meals
Fall cleanup
2. Which other community service activities should the N.L.I.A. offer?
specify.
Please
63. How well do you agree with the efforts and goals of the N.L.I.A., such as
the North 2nd Street revitalization, installation of a N. 2nd and Lyon stoplight,
etc.?
__ Agree completely
_
Completely disagree
__Mostly agree
__Don't know
_Neutral
64-. How well has the N.L.I.A. represented your concerns and interests before
the City Commission and its staff?
_Excellent
_Good
__Below average __Poorly
__Average
__Don't know
65. Do you have any other general comments regarding the North Lawrence
Neighborhood's resources, public services, quality of life, or future growth?
�Oi:19/94
15:55
'5'913 3
1998
UNICOM TRADE USA
~ 001/006
RESULTS
As stated before the one of the goals of this survey is to compared the
results of this survey to the results of the survey taken in North Lawrence in
1978. This appr-oach will make it possible to determine what issues have shown
improvement and what problems still are facing the neighborhood.
These result will also be helpful in determining the characteristics that are
most important to North Lawrence residents. Any neighborhood comprehensive
plan should pay close attention to these factors as it outlines goals, objectives
and policies, It is important to identify those factor that are most dear to the
t·esidents and to set policies that protect these characteristics.
DEMOGRAPHICS
The following data illustrates some of the most important bits
of
demograpbic information extracted from the North Lawrence Neighborhood. Th.i.s
data will be of paramount importance when and if, North Lawrence makes
requests fot community block grant funds and other forms of federal assistance .
.AVERAGE AGE ****************************** 46.1%
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ************** $15,000-$24,999
AVERAGE NUMBER PER HOUSEHOLD********** 2.24
AVERAGE YE.l1RS L1VED IN NORTH LAWRENCE * 18.5
AVERAGE YEARS LIVED IN LAWRENCE ******** 28.9
PERCENTAGE OF HOME OWNERS ************* 71%
PERCENTAGE OF RENTERS ******************* 29%
These demographic numbers illustrate the fact that North Lawrence is a
very unique neighborhood. The average age of the survey respondent :is
relatively high. This o£ course is due to the high concentr-ation of elderly people
in No~--th Lawrence. This fact greatly influences the average range of household
income as well. The majority of elderly respondents stated these :income "Was
under $14,999 since they are living ·on social security.
Perhaps the most intere:sting figures are the length of residency in the
city of Lawrence and more im}?Ol:tantly in the North Lawrence Neighborhood.
Eighteen years :is a significant average length of residency, This figure is
important because it shows that the people in this neighborhood are not
transients but rather, committed residents. Furthermore, the commitment of the
residents is further augmented by the high percentage of home owners (71%) as
compared to the }?ercentage of r-enters (29%). These people have displayed a
commitment to the community and will directly benefit and appreciate any
impl.·ovements rnade to the neighborhood. Many additional comments were noted on
the survey by parents voicing their concern for improving the neighborhood for
the sake of their school aged children.
8
�07l19l94
15:55
'5'913 3
1998
UNICOM TRADE USA
141002/006
Unfortunately there is no demographic data from 1978 to compare with the
result of this survey. Demographic data will henceforth be maintained by the
North La~o1rence Jmprovement Association for future reference and to measure
changes in the area as time progresses.
SELECT QUESTIONS
Considering the volume of surveys returned and time constraints facing the
North Lawrence Task Force, only a few select questions were chosen for analysis.
These questions ~ere selected on the basis of the meeting at least on.e of the
following cdteria:
l) How will the question assist in the process of writing a comprehensive
neighborhood plan for North Lawrence?
2) Do the questions provide a rational and significant comparison to the
1978 North Lawrence Community SuJ:vey?
3) Are the questions asked and expressed in a format the lends itself to
the coding, analysis, and data entry process?
4) Will the question provide practical, helpful, and meaningful information?
The first question selected question that meet the proceeding criteria is
question #15 which asks:
QUESTION #15 Please mark the things you like most about Ji.vinrJ in North
Lawrence Nei.ghbol:'hood.
Below is the list of the items the respondents had to choose from, followed
by the percentage of responses that characteristic received. The respondents
were allo~ed to select more than one characteristic.
'·
5l.4
GROCERY STORE
37.5
57.9
PARKS
31.6
QUIETNESS
63.2
RURAL CHARACTER
MINIMAL TRAFFIC
OPEN SPACE
ONCONTESTED
52.8
GOOD SOIL
LOW CRJNE
NEIGHBORS
34.6
RWER
PRWACY
GOOD SCHOOL
43.1
52.1
(;ARDENS
61.1
35.4
LOIV TAXES
OTHER
66.7
55.6
72.2
28.5
16.7
It is interesting to note that the characteristics that received the highest
percentage (50% or better) are all factors that contribute to the unique rul:"al
character found in the Nol:'th Lawrence Neighborhood. The only possible ey:ception
to this obsetvation is the neighbors (55%) factor. The other factors, rive!:',
privacy, quiet.nes$, rural character, open space, uncongested, good soil, and
gardens .. are arguably all factors that add to the perceived rural flavor of North
Lawrence.
Obviously form these results one can conclude that it will be of paramount
impot"tance to preserve these characteristic in the future. Therefore plans to
increase densities in the neighborhood should be avoided and ~~ell as other plans
that would significantly change the character for the area.
9
�07119!94
15:56
'B'913 3 <•. 1998
UNICOM TRADE USA
®003;006
The second question selected was question 16 which asks:
QUESTION #16 Please mark the things you like least about the
North Lawrence Neighborhood.
living in the
Question 16 -was selected to proved and augment the information garnered
from question 15. Once again the figures that follow the disliked characteristics
illustrated the percentage of respondent$ who selected that characteristic. The
respondents were allowed to select more that one characteristic.
NO PUBLIC TRANS
NEGLECT BY CITY
GRAIN ELEVATORS
NO SHOPPING FAClLITIES
LACK OF LANOSCAPitiG
BAll STREETS
POOR SNOW ROOVAL
TAVERNS
POOR DRAINAGE
DILAPIDATEO HOKES
INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
OOTIUNG
42.4%
53.3t
22.~
43.8%
20.1%
38.2%
2:2.9%
30.6%
39.6%
38.8%
FEll SIDEWALKS
WOOOOI.AIIN SCHOOL
l.MTIDY LAWNS
SLOPPY YAROS
LOOSE DO()S
TRAINS i TRACKS
SPE.Etl ING AUTOS
29.2%
S.Ot
39.6~
41.7%
30.8\
27.2t
42.~
CROSSING 1HE BRIDGE 11.9t
SMELL OF THE RIVER 14 .~
FBI STOP SIGNS
00 FIRE STATION
12.&t
16.0t
1.~
OTHER
2U~
46.5%
The two characteristics recavmg the highest percentages a.re highly
related. They are neglsct by th~ city (53.3%) and no fire station (46.5%). These
:high percentages are significant because they reflect poorly on the City of
Lawrence and its i!tbility to provide the necessary public services to the people
of North Lawrence. It is interesting to note that almost 50% of all respondents
perceived a lack of fue protection in the area. This response should alert the
City that perhaps this matters needs further analysis.
J.
The other high percentage characteristic are highly related to the physicaL
appearance of the area.
This suggest that the finding of a land use and
aesthetic impact survey, conducted jointly by the Environmental Task Force and
the North Lawrence Task Force in early November 1992, are valid and shal.:'E!d by
many of the North Lawrence residents. This survey and the land use and
aesthetic impact survey both seem to suggest that the physical appearance of the
at·ea is a pt"imary liability to the neighborhood.
SERVICES
The following questions l:'egarding services were selected for their ability
to be compared with the result of the 1978 survey. However, some additional
questions were added and thus will not display results for 1978. It must be not$d
howeve~-, that the 1978 survey only had approximately 120 respondents and the
1992 survey had over 320 respondents. This suggests that the samples from the
two years are not compatible.
Below is a table illustrating the percentage of respondents who rated each
servics area in terms of its performance. The survey allowed for one response
10
�07tl9/94
15:57
'fi'913 3i
~
UNICOM TRADE USA
.998
004/0013
for each rating of EXCELLENT, ADEQUATE, NEEDS IMPROVEMENT, NO OPINION. Ths
first figure for each rating is the percentage from 1978 and the sscond is for
1992.
SERV:tCES
RESPONDING 1978
EXCaLENT
PERCENTAGE
RATING
VS .. l 9 9 2
flDEOUAIE
NO OPINION
NEEDS
IHPROVEl'Eil
1. SlDEWALKS
2. srrms
3. STREET LlGlillNG
4. STORK DRAIMAGE
5, TRAFFIC CONTROL
6. TRASH PICK-U?
7. FIRE PROTECTION
a.
E1H'If:NT ARY SCHOOL
9• POLICE PROTECTION
10 • PARKS/RECREATION
11. WATER PRESSURE
12. SN()IJ ROOVAL
13, ANIMAL CONTROL
14. LITTER
~mOL
15. AFFORDAFiE ~SING
16. AIR QUALID
17 , NOISE LEVELS
~
- 4%
2% - 2%
4% - 2%
1% - n
23% - 31t
3n- :m
68t - 4'"
30\-22\
2t - ~
12\ - 25%
~-m
6%
44%-JSt
m~
3%-
1~
7% -
~
M%- 50t
53~
-
s~-
38~
m
~-50%
1t - bt
1~ - 5~
1% - 1%
~- 4~
55% -
36% - 40\
40% - 33%
4S.lt
60t - 42~
54~ - 51%
13.9~
9~
- 8:%
30~ - 12t
6% ·1M
2t ~
Mt~~
m
at - m
~
u-
27~
4'"- 3~
m -13%
2~- 40\
18\ - 18~
24% - 36~
m- t'A
22% - 19%
1~-
66%-
at - 11t
&~- ~
60t • 53'
26% - 46t
m
1~-m
26% • 3G%
14% ~-
21~
14%
4t - 8:%
31~
~-
23%
3% - 13t
5t - 15t
22.9t
18.1%
9.n
45.~
27.9%
16.7%
9.7~
43.1%
34.7%
12.5~
The availability of:
18. EI!PLHT OPPORTOOlY
l9. SOCIPJ, ACIIVITIES
2.8%
19.4t
48.6%
29.~
2.1%
29.~
40.~
20. NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPS
21. GROCERY STORES
2.1~
20.1%
61.8t
28.5t
16.0%
11.~
39.~
40.3%
B.Jt
22. ADEQUATE PARKING
6.~
56.9%
22.9%
13.2t
23. PUBliC TRANS.
1.4%
5.6t
67 .4t
25.7t
This table did yield some encouraging data. Note that thsre is a significant
decrease in the number of respondents who sta.ts that the sidewalks need
improvement from 1978 to 1992. As a result of pressure from the North Lawrence
Improvement Association, many sidewalks were added and improved after the 1978
survey. Apparently the residents have taken notice and have responded
accordingly. This trend also holds true for the street condition, drainage, snow
removal, animal control, and trash pickup factors. In spite of these improvements
many of these issues still received the highest percentage of "NEEDS
IMPROVEMENT" ratings. Thus the are stili problems facing the neighborhood.
On the other hand there are several issues in 'Which the neighborhood has
made no p1·ogress or actually regressed. The most significant service displaying
this trend is that of tire pt'otection and polic:e protection. This is to be expected
�07/19/94
15:57
'5'913 3
1998
UNICOM TRADE USA
~ 0051006
considering the results from q1,1estion ltl5. FUl:thermore, the fig1.1res also illustrate
a dissatisfaction with the public transportation (67%) system/ or the lack thereof,
and the need for convenient grocery stores (61·%).
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
The physical appearance questions were selected to assist in validating the
findings of the land use and aesthetic impact survey conducted on North Second
Street in November of 1992. It was hoped that this survey would prove that
physical appearance i.s a contributing factor to the image of North Lawrence.
Below is a table delineating the percentage of respondents who rank the
following question regarding physical appearance.
PHYSICAL
APPEARANCE:
PERCENTAGE
RESPONDING
EXCElLENT
1. SCENIC VJEI/5
2• ROADI.(4Y I.IWDSCAPII«i
3. ~SIGH OF COHXCRCIAL
BUJLDIH$5
4. DESI&/ OF PUSLIC
BUILDJliGS
5. DESIGN STRIP C0!9f£f<CIAL
AREAS
6. ffiESCRVATICMI OF HISTORIC
I.
BUILDINGS
7. PRESfRVATION OF DISTINCT
CHARACTERISTICS
ADEQUATE
liDS lHPROVEHENT NO OPINION
29.2t
6.9%
31.3t
25.7;
13.n
24.~
52.8%
16.ot
6.9%
30.~
43.n
19.4~
10.4%
41.n
29.9t
1s.n
3.~
21.a
41.7%
27 .s.a
11.8t
31.3t
37.~
19.~
10.~
26.4-t
38.2~
25.~
ll
As expected the neighborhood received high markg for scenic value. This
is probably is due to th~ fact that most respondents were only considering the
view of the river and the bridge. On the other hand, the landscaping of the area
and commercial design received very low maJ:"ks. This was to be expected consider
the findings or the aesthetic survey conducted in early November. This is
cliscout"ag.ing considet"ing the formidable amount of money spent by the City to
landscape North Second Street.
The scores fo~ J?Ublic building desiqn are not very informative. This is due
to the fact that there is essentially one or two public buildings in the area.
Woodlawn School and the Santa Fe Depot are the only recognizable public
buildings other than the churches scattered throughput the neighborhood.
He wever. it is hiqhly unlikely that the respondents considered churches as public
buildings. and few may have considered the depot a public building. Thus these
score should be considered erroneous.
12
�Oi.-19:94
15:58
'5'913 ;
1998
UNICOM TRADE USA
141006/006
CONCLUSIONS
Obviously any su-rvey contains a certain degree of bias. The survey was
heavily biased by the N<:n:th Lawrence Task Force and the by the influences of
Mr. Moody. And one could argue that the people who are likely to return a
sur-vey are a biased sample of people. Undoubtedly these biases are present in
the 1992 North Lawt"ence community Interest Survey. However, this type of a
survey is perhaps the most practical and informative way to gather input from
the residents. Public meetings are useful as well, but often they are counter
productive and do not allow for the process of efficient data collection,
It is hoped that in the future the other data compiled from the survey can
be coded and analyzed. Specific questions regarding the performance of the
North Lawrence Improvement Association, the location of the juvenile detention
center, and the type of industrial development acceptable in North Lawrence, will
be informative and helpful topic to further analy2:e. Perhaps these questions can
be addressed before a formal presentation is made to the North Lawrence
residents in January.
I.
13
�MEMORANDUM
TO:
Lynn Goodell, Director- Housing and Neighborhood Development Dept.
FROM:
Jay Leipzig, Housing Coordinator
DATE:
August 11, 1994
RE:
North Lawrence Community Opinion Survey
I have calculated the responses to question Number 8 of the North Lawrence
Community Opinion Survey. The results were calculated with a total of 296 verified
responses. The percentages do not total 100% due to some overlapping of the categories
and the phrasing of the question.
8. North Lawrence is presently a neighborhood with large lots, many open spaces, small
gardens, and a minimum number of street and sidewalk improvements. Which of these
expresses your opm10n.
24.3% I like the character of the neighborhood with a minimum number of
improvements. ( 72 responses I 296 total)
61.5% I would like the streets and sidewalks to meet the standards of the rest of Lawrence,
while maintaining the character of North Lawrence. ( 182 responses I 296 total)
25.7% I would like to see North Lawrence develop into an average density single family
neighborhood with complete street and sidewalk improvements.
(76 responses I 296 total)
10.5% None of the above. Please explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
(31 responses I 296 total)
Note: There were few additional responses under the Please explain section. The
comments received were in support of North Lawrence maintaining its rural, quiet
environment.
�(
\lcw--h
\,.
~
-
-
A
...................
~
<S._ ..... v~
Pt-1\&e..L'
'
sj
i)
.,... L-
X
j.
t
"I
~
)t
~
,.
~
jl
.,..
,.
'I
~
'f.
,.
~
1.
y
~
~
)(
'I
~
)(
)I
1
)
,.,.
X
)(
)C
X
~).
X
.,.~
"
~
.,.
J(
1t.
.:. ~
•
�_e_
B
IC
X
--,
-
(
)C
'
)(
'J
1
~
l£
If
l(
X
)(
~
,..
.,.
)\
y
'J
"
)l
)
.,.
~
D
)
I(
.,.
Jl
.,.
.,.
t:!!>
"
...,
)\
1\
)..
'l
,JC.
)C
0
..,.
~
"'
..,.
~
)(
~
JC
)
1o
)I
�·~
r
�0
~
.,.
~
..,_
J
)t
~
..,.
1.
"
..,.
l(
""~
)i
~
~
'"
It
t.
~
t
~
",.
,..I."
.,.
)(
.,..
"
~
)
}.
~
"
~
�h..
)l
"y
)(
y.
"
l(
'f.
~
X
l
,..
\
'J
'I
'I
'
1-
~
'I
'(
"
X
'
~
'1
~
y.
~~
"
~
"'
~
'
�-
-
~
X
X
~
I
1(
}.
~
•
)(
~
X
1
)(
1
,
X
i
I(
J(
1l
~
~
X
f(
)
l
"
-
�-
a
~
-,- .... .....
~
.p
~
'
'
�~~.
~~~~
~~~~~
~t ~~~-(!}LJ ~~
b1L. ~~~
~~~~)
,a_ J-~~.
G:J{ Y"Y\~~ 'i---'
'-f'Y\~ Gt- ~
--t_k ~
~~~))~~)
·~~~J~
r
.~~
~
~ ~'
(._(.,
~~~
-th,z;t'zr'<') ,\-.,
'"'
~l
~u~~~~
~ ~ hJ-r J ~·beet
~~~~~~~ct~
\J
.
.
.
�NORTH LAWRENCE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
LAWRENCE, KANSAS
Margene Swarts
CDBG Program Analyst
City of Lawrence
6 East 6th
Lawrence, KS 66044
July 28,1994
Dear Margene,
The North Lawrence Improvement Association is requesting to
use funds from the 1993-1994 allocation of office supplies to
purchase a word processor. We have fulfilled our requests and
still have money available. Due to the transfer of our secretary
and newsletter editor, Marilyn Rogers, we no longer have access
to a computer for our correspondence and newsletter. Our
association does not have a typewriter and relied on Marilyn
for our printing. Our requests for the 1994-1995 year included
a typewriter, and we would like to put that money toward a
printer, which ultimately would help on copying costs, as Marilyn
also had access to a copy machine.
I apologize for the lateness of our requests, but all of our
changes have been a last-minute happening.
Respectfully,
~~d_L_
Delores Todd
President NLIA
�MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Delores Todd, President, NLIA
Margene K. Swarts, CDBG Program Manager
Operating Funds Request
August 3, 1994
~A
1 ,0
/V~~
I have reviewed your request dated July 28, 1994, regarding use of NLIA Operating funds.
Since you have completed the newsletters and business as the
neighborhood originally requested for the 1993 year, it is approved for you to
purchase a word processor with the balance of operating funds.
As we discussed,
you will need to follow the City's purchasing procedures, with regard to obtaining quotes, etc. Additionally, substitution of a printer for the typewriter for
the 1994 year, is also approved.
Please notify the department of the location of the equipment after it is
purchased.
It will be the neighborhood's responsibility to keep track of the
equipment and ensure it is used for CDBG eligible activities. The neighborhood
should be made aware of the purchase also.
Please call me at 832-3117 if you have any questions.
�MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Brook Creek, East Lawrence, North Lawrence, Oread, and Pinckney
Neighborhood Associations
'\.... vSl
Margene K. Swarts, Community Development Manager /Y'+' I
CDBG Program Accomplishments and Future Needs and Goals Document
March 17, 1999
At long last, a draft of the most recent CDBG Accomplishments and Future Needs and
Goals Document is completed. As you remember, Tametra Nunn, HAND Intern, met with the
target neighborhood associations last year to obtain information to update the needs and goals for
this document for the various neighborhoods. Meanwhile, staff has worked with various
departments in the City and added the accomplishments completed since the original document
was published.
I have sent five preliminary copies to each neighborhood association President for
review. Please feel free to make more copies if you would like, or copy only that portion that is
relevant to your particular neighborhood. After the document has been reviewed and shared with
the neighborhood, I would like an opportunity to attend a neighborhood association meeting with
each neighborhood and discuss any additions to the document the neighborhood would like to
see.
The long range plan for HAND is to work with each neighborhood to develop a 5 - 10
year implementation plan based on the needs and goals noted in the document. In meeting the
goals, all funding sources, including CDBG and HOME, as well as the City's Capital
Improvements funds, and other City resources would be considered in determining how to
proceed.
I look forward to meeting with you in the near future. If you have further questions,
please call me at 832-3117.
�MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Brook Creek, East Lawrence, North Lawrence, Oread, and Pinckney
Neighborhood Associations
Margene K. Swarts, Community Development Manager
CDBG Program Accomplishments and Future Needs and Goals Document
July 2, 1999
l}t0
In March, I sent five copies of the draft of the CDBG Accomplishments and Future Needs
and Goals Document to each neighborhood association President. At that time, I asked each
neighborhood to review the document for additions or corrections, and contact me so I could
meet with each neighborhood to discuss any changes to the document the neighborhood wished
to see.
To date, I have heard from none of the associations. I would like to meet with each
association so the update of the document can be completed. I am requesting that you put this
item on the next neighborhood association meeting agenda and notify me of the meeting date,
time, and location. For your convenience, I have enclosed five additional copies of the
document.
As I noted previously, the long range plan for HAND is to work with each neighborhood
to develop a 5 - 10 year implementation plan based on the needs and goals noted in the
document. In meeting the goals, all funding sources, including CDBG and HOME, as well as the
City's Capital Improvements funds, and other City resources would be considered in determining
how to proceed.
I look forward to attending your next meeting. If you have further questions, please call
me at 832-3117.
Enclosures
�CITY COMMISSION
MAYOR
ERVIN E. HODGES
COMMISSIONERS
JAMES R. HENRY
MARTIN A. KENNEDY
CllY OFFICES
MIKE WILDGEN, CllY MANAGER
BOX 708
6 EAST 6th
66044-0708
MIKE RUNDLE
DAVID M. DUNFIELD
785-832-3000
TDD 785-832-3205
FAX 785-832-3405
July 15, 1999
Ted Boyle, President
310 Elm Street
Lawrence, KS 66044
Dear Ted:
I am writing for Lynn Goodell regarding the Neighborhood Reinvestment Training
Institute in New Orleans August 30 to September 3, 1999. Lynn has already forwarded
information to you about this conference. The City will be able to sponsor the
attendance of up to five neighborhood representatives. Please let Lynn know whether
you or a representative of your neighborhood will be attending by Friday, July 23. His
number is 832-3122, and his e-mail address is lgoodell@ci.lawrence.ks.us.
#~rh
Lou Ann Lee
Housing Programs Specialist
C:\H,/;\ND A<tllifliWJRo\:11o8d
vve·are·
e
I
Prezdetter.doc
. servJces
. that enhance
I
.
provJ
mg excellent c1ty
the quahty
of life for the Lawrence community
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
North Lawrence Improvement Association
Subject
The topic of the resource
North Lawrence Improvement Association (Lawrence, Kan.)
Woodlawn Elementary School (Lawrence, Kan.)
Description
An account of the resource
Bylaws, correspondence, minutes, and newsletters from the North Lawrence Improvement Association.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
North Lawrence Improvement Association (Lawrence, Kan.)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sandrat Publications (Lawrence, Kan.)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-2019
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Boyle, Ted
Hoch, Tony
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
North Lawrence Improvement Association
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
PDF
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Lawrence (Kan.)
Delaware Tribe of Indians
1987-2019
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
North Lawrence Improvement Association Correspondence, August 1987-July 1999
Subject
The topic of the resource
North Lawrence Improvement Association (Lawrence, Kan.)
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence between North Lawrence Improvement Association president and Development and Planning office in Lawrence, Kansas.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
North Lawrence Improvement Association (Lawrence, Kan.)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
North Lawrence Improvement Association (Lawrence, Kan.)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-1999
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Hoch, Tony
Boyle, Ted
Community Development Division, City of Lawrence (Kan.)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Copyright North Lawrence Improvement Association. Please contact the copyright holder for permission to use this item. The item may also be subject to rights of privacy, rights of publicity and other restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
PDF
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Lawrence (Kan.)
1987-1999
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
NLIA_Correspondence_Aug1987-July1999_Final.pdf