commission board meeting - 24 mar 2021
TRANSCRIPT
AGENDA
Douglas County, KS
Commission Board Meeting
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Public comment will be taken for each regular agenda item as each item is discussed. Individuals will be limited to one comment per agenda item. Individuals are asked to come to the microphone, sign in, and state their name. Speakers are asked to sign in so that the spelling of names is correct in the minutes of the meeting. Speakers should address all comments/questions to the Commission.
Page
4:00 p.m. WORK SESSION
1. Administration - Public Defenders Office/Services in Douglas County
Recommended Motion: No action. For information only. Public Defenders Office/Services in Douglas County - Pdf
3 - 7
5:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING
1. CONSENT AGENDA
1.1. Emergency Communications - Radio Replacement for current
end of life radio equipment.
Recommended Motion: Consider approval of Motorola radio replacement project, bypassing current purchasing guidelines to strategically order radio equipment from single source vendor Motorola. total cost of project 897,000.00 plus installation of SAR8 Routers, funds allocated from ECC Radios equipment reserve. Radio Replacement for current end of life radio equipment. - Pdf
8 - 39
1.2. Treasurer - Consider Resolution to Initiate Tax Foreclosure Sale
Recommended Motion: Consider approving resolution to initiate tax foreclosure sale Consider Resolution to Initiate Tax Foreclosure Sale - Pdf
40 - 41
1.3. Administration - Consider a request to waive the firearms sale
ban at the Douglas County Fairgrounds for the Kansas Fur Harvesters Association for June 2022.
Recommended Motion: Approve a waiver of the firearms sale ban at the Douglas County Fairgrounds for the Kansas Fur Harvesters Association for June 2022 with the condition that no ammunition will be stored or sold on site. Firearms Request (002)
42
1.4. Consider approval of Accounts Payable.
2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment will be at the end of each meeting with a limit of one comment per person. The Commission reserves the right to place a time limit of three minutes per speaker, if desired. Individuals may not
Page 1 of 110
give unused time to other speakers. As a general practice, the Commission will not discuss/debate, nor will the Commission make decisions on items presented during this time, rather they will refer the items to staff for follow up, if necessary. All comments should be directed to the County Commission.
3. REGULAR AGENDA
3.1. Administration - Jail Maintenance Project - Professional Design
Services Contract Amendment
Recommended Motion: Consider approval of the professional services design contract amendment with TreanorHL, Inc. for the documentation and observation of the Douglas County Correction Facility Maintenance Project in the amount of $63,500. Jail Maintenance Project - Professional Design Services Contract Amendment - Pdf
43 - 45
3.2. Planning Department - Consider initiating a text amendment to
the Subdivision Regulations or Lawrence and the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County.
Recommended Motion:
Consider initiating a text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations or Lawrence and the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, KS, to revise and develop land division processes and standards that are aligned with, and will effectively implement, the goals and action steps provided in Plan 2040 for growth management of the Lawrence urban growth area. Consider initiating a text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations or Lawrence and the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. - Pdf
46 - 52
3.3. Administration - Results of 2020 Douglas County Employee
Racial Equity Survey
Recommended Motion: For information only. Results of 2020 Douglas County Employee Racial Equity Survey - Pdf
53 - 99
4. APPOINTMENTS
5. COMMISSIONER AND/OR ADMINISTRATOR MISCELLANEOUS
5.1.
weekly manager memo (3.24.2021) 100 - 110
6. ADJOURN
Page 2 of 110
AGENDA ITEM REPORT
Date: March 24, 2021 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Mike Brouwer, Criminal Justice Coordinator Department: Administration Subject: Public Defenders Office/Services in Douglas County BACKGROUND INFORMATION: See attached memo. RECOMMENDATION: No action. For information only.
Page 3 of 110
MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Mike Brouwer, Criminal Justice Coordinator
SUBJECT: March 24 Study Session on Public Defenders Office/Services in Douglas County
DATE: March 19, 2021
On August 11, 2020 the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council received a presentation from the Kansas
Board of Indigents’ Defense Services. The presentation was by Heather Cessna, Executive Director.
Ms. Cessna will provide an update and explanation of the BIDS assessment process.
The August presentation and recording may be found here: Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
(cjcc) Meeting On Tue, August 11, 2020 - 11:00 Am | Douglas County Kansas (douglascountyks.org)
On February 9, 2021 the CJCC received a presentation from Kansas Holistic Defenders, a newly formed
non-profit. The presentation was by Sam Allison-Natale. Mr. Allison-Natale will provide a brief
presentation of proposed services for Douglas County.
The February presentation and recording may be found here: Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
(cjcc) Meeting On Tue, February 9, 2021 - 11:00 Am | Douglas County Kansas (douglascountyks.org)
To provide additional comment and participate in discussion the following will be in attendance:
Honorable James McCabria, Kansas 7th Judicial District,
Linda Koester-Vogelsang, Kansas 7th Judicial District Administrator,
Shay Downing, Douglas County Defense Bar representative, CJCC council member,
Mike Clarke, Douglas County Defense Bar representative
Ms. Cessna and Mr. Allison-Natale may have PowerPoint presentations. The following documents are
attached for your information:
BIDS historical costs and estimate of an office for Douglas County (felonies),
Douglas County budget items for juvenile and misdemeanor defense services,
Dataset of bookings and length of stay in the Douglas County Corrections Facility for District
misdemeanor only charges.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL 1006 New Hampshire
Lawrence, KS 66044
(785) 330-2891
Page 2 of 5
Page 4 of 110
Kansas Board of Indigents’ Defense Services
Costs are estimates
Current Statistics For your reference, here are some of the statistics of the cost of appointed counsel vouchers in Douglas County over the last six fiscal years: Year Number of Cases Total Cost Cost Per Case FY 2020* 659 $778,491.03 $1,181.32 FY 2019 736 $828,762.37 $1,126.04 FY 2018 644 $614,462.21 $954.13 FY 2017 589 $635,838.96 $1,079.52 FY2016 634 $593,528.94 $936.17 FY 2015 542 $438,243.88 $808.57 *The last quarter of FY 2020 saw extended court closures due to COVID-19, resulting in substantially fewer actual cases closed during that timeframe than were originally projected.
Rough Estimates of a New Public Defender Office in Douglas County Category Units Estimated Cost Employee Salaries (Wages & Fringe)
10 employees (6 attorneys/4 support)
$700,000.00
Operating Overhead $30,000.00 Rent 4,000 square feet
At $20/ square foot $80,000
Total Cost Per Year: $810,000.00 Note: This estimate doesn’t include the one-time start-up costs associated with establishing a new office,
including purchasing of new office furniture, computer equipment, additional licenses, etc.
Given these rough estimates, it would appear that the general cost of maintaining a
public defender office in Douglas County would be fairly comparable to the current
cost of the assigned counsel program.
Page 3 of 5
Page 5 of 110
Douglas County Budget Administered by the Kansas 7th Judicial District
Agency Description 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget
7th Judicial District Indigent Adult Misdemeanor $233,508 $194,534 $425,000
7th Judicial District Juvenile Panel Attorneys $299,199 $269,788 $295,000
7th Judicial District Court Trustee Collections
7th Judicial District Care and Treatment Counsel $38,219 $11,834 $45,000
KU Legal Aid Society Juvenile Defense Representation $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Criminal Justice Services Behavioral Health Court, Drug
Court and Enhanced Diversion
Defense Counsel
$9,408 $20,224 $50,000
County Budget for Defense Services
Page 4 of 5
Page 6 of 110
Analysis of District Court Misdemeanors at Booking
Sample
Includes jail bookings with only District Court misdemeanors
All domestic battery offenses are counted as misdemeanors
Failures to appear are not counted as misdemeanors
Includes only custodial bookings; excludes juvenile bookings
Data are from Spillman Jail Management System, 2017-2020 releases
Note: The sample undercounts the number of misdemeanors, primarily
due to FTAs being excluded. The sample consists of known misdemeanors.
Year of Release (Bookings)
Freq. Percent
2017 1,149 32.2
2018 928 26.0
2019 814 22.8
2020 677 19.0
Total 3,568 100.0
Year of Release (Inmates)
Freq. Percent
2017 1,036 31.9
2018 849 26.1
2019 747 23.0
2020 618 19.0
Total 3,250 100.0
County Residence
2017 5.2 Freq. Percent
2018 2.3 Douglas 2,490 69.8
2019 2.5 Not Douglas 1,011 28.3
2020 2.5 Missing 67 1.9
All Years 3.3 Total 3,568 100.0
Length of Stay (2017-2020)
Freq. Percent Total Bed Days
0-3 hours 1,068 29.9 2017* 5,974
3-24 hours 1,485 41.6 2018 2,490
1-3 days 745 20.9 2019 2,062
3-7 days 107 3.0 2020 1,684
7-30 days 96 2.7 All Years 11,815
30+ days 67 1.9 2017 - 5 persons served over one year
Total 3,568 100.0
Average Length of
Stay (Days)
Page 5 of 5
Page 7 of 110
AGENDA ITEM REPORT
Date: March 24, 2021 To: Board of County Commisioners From: Tony Foster, Director Department: Emergency Communications Subject: Radio Replacement for current end of life radio equipment. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The radio infrastructure to receive radio transmissions in the field has come to the end of life. to continue operations with no degradation it is necessary to replace end of life equipment. the first part of this project is to start the replacement of current XTL and XTS radios with the new APX technology, program and auto-tune the replacements. the second part of the project is to replace the current Xtreme switches that connect the MOTOROLA radio system to the state core with new MPLS routers that will fulfill the requirement by AT&T to migrate away from end of life T1 Lines and implement an IP based solution. this project will be conducted in batches to ensure control and logistics of the project. The Project will dedicate radio resources to Douglas County Emergency Communications, Douglas County Sheriffs Department, Douglas County Emergency Management, Douglas County Consolidated Fire District 1, and Douglas County Criminal Justice Services. Funding for XTL and XTS replacement $819000.00. Funding for MPLS Router Project $78000.00 plus installation, both projects funded by ECC Radio Reserve. Enclosed are quotes for the equipment that will be replacing current end of life equipment.. RECOMMENDATION: Consider approval of Motorola radio replacement project, bypassing current purchasing guidelines to strategically order radio equipment from single source vendor Motorola. total cost of project 897,000.00 plus installation of SAR8 Routers, funds allocated from ECC Radios equipment reserve.
Page 8 of 110
Agency Item Qty Cost Total
Emergency Communications
APX‐NXT 2 7978 15956
APX 6000 2 4224 8448
APX 900 9 2433 21897
APX 6500 6 4293 25758
Bank 1 1000 1000
APX 8500 1 5615 5615
Install 1 4881 4881
Sar8 6 12883 77298 Installation TBD
Total
Douglas County Sheriff
APX 6000 53 4224 223872
APX 6500 0 4094 0
Emergency Management
Apx 4000 38 3241 123158
APX 8000 4 6178 24712
Apx 8500 1 5615 5615
APX 6500 4 4293 17172
Total
Consolodated Fire Dist 1
Apx 6000 X 35 4766 166810
Apx 6500 3 4293 12879
Apx 8500 5 5615 28075
Total
Douglas County CJS
Apx 6000 6 4224 25344
Apx 4000 16 3241 51856
Total
Douglas County public Works
Apx 1500 15 2328 34920
Apx 900 9 2433 21897
Total
* Numbers and models of Radio qty subject to change dependent on individual agency needs.
223872
160853
56817
77200
207764
170657
Page 2 of 32
Page 9 of 110
anI
F}
moc
oam
?om
mm
me
9.10
O0P
Cu<
02.w
.U
o:m
_mm 0
952
->
_ux
zxa
w=
__:m>.E
_.m
mm
”0:
06om
aaim
smo?
ooco
gmO
OC
z._.
<m
zmm
inm
xu_E
:o_.
_U?m
uo?m
imo?
34m
3...:
m._
.0.
88O
_.m
m8a
m<
__.
><
<_»
mzO
m_
xmm
moi
._.3
<_u
_m:.
Sm
_q©
=3o
o3_.
_...o
o:._
cmm
aO
:m.o
3mn
_uoc
o_.>
moo
cz?
mzm
min
003.
30.”
:88
-z>
m_u
o
_um
<3m
:»._
.m::
w”m
ozm
._.
:m3
2:35
9.U
mm
nzuz
ozw
m_m
_u1o
mm
i,w
m_m
U28
>33
.zm
xaau
xzm
xqm
_zor
mm
>zo
._¥§
o$u<
<a>
z>
uxzm
xam
_zor
m$2
08
2.88
.88
8.88
.88
8.88
.88
zoom
r 3_u
o3>
mrm
.
._m
ou?o
m>
00“
_sc_
.._._
O>
m._
.<
O._
._zo
A_:
n_:a
mn_
_:c_
:a¢q
.383
mo>
z
3.
:mw
mm
>xx
.‘
>09
mzz
?ro
o?m
+i!
.;,
1
.898
.398
8.m
8.om
‘1
z_>
_u_u
_zo
:»_>
rnx
ozo
iso>
..m.w
.I%
>>
5m
Em
m<
$8o_
s:N
.n
-i-
J
8.8
8.8
8.8
Iii.
_
mo:
>za
mzz
>
J...
o>8o
8>>
in.
>00
”zo
aom
o;_
t.s.,:
.H«_
m.o
o8.
8‘
8.8
zom
amo
m>
o_oo
mz:
»>c,
_m“
m‘_
8oo3
>>
I
>om
Wm
mm
m..m
cmm
mm
u
A1
S.m
§.oo
£.o2
.85
.;8.m
.:.m
m\
1
w1m
88o:
>oo
“>m
:~o
o_m
_§.m
o>_..
\
_.a_
.a&
.388
I
-_.=
.n._
~.m
w_
o_um
m>
.:oz
Fo>
o8S
M_<
_w
oo”<<
__n_o
>n>
w_:
i_
,
E88
_8_.
a8_.
5__a
8x
:_Q
amm
zm
zzn>3
88
oi»
<5
A.3
252.
_.s_
.a8
_8_.
a8
z_c_
.:xm
<
:38
0$m
z_._
_ _u<
w.x
_.._
.383
_:n_
:qm
.__:
o_..a
oam
zox<
3_oz
>20
>o_
u
::8
§>>
09>
_ux
zmxa
cam
A.§
.mm
.888
88.8
mcz
orm
nmoz
o
>3.
wm
_mm.a
=m
mn.
_o=
.o=
o§=
n:o
_o8_
m.m
AC
9»_m
53..
0:ea
m=
Em
n.5:6
555
2aQ
xaao
am2
=5
5:;
E5
mx?
s?<
:=_m
:09
:39
S?.
$=O
:m.b
3mw
m=
a£5
33?
35..c
=%
_._<
=a
>m
Bm
3m=
.JEm
.m
:§o:
~mm
0553
9.5
u=3=
wm
mEsu
ama.
m_x
.§.
mm
.$8m
9.ao
mam
wmaa
suam A
...c.
_wo=
<m
_<...
u:x.
_=n?
J.:
=9
:=..m
__s8
>m
$a=
§=.
mxw
?33
$:12
93.»
ES
0:m
_o.:m
:=
6:
_:2o
8_w
.mm
?am
aA
na.»
2C
u»2.
.._=
o63_
w.m
m?a
ma
#936
2:.
o£a_
.§.w
D.m
ew»
Ea
m._
v1<
m:m
__ @95
3S
mue
8=w
mm2
:5_u
.8_§
m.
Um
nmA
Page 3 of 32
Page 10 of 110
oco4
m,A
.a8m
m_u
o:m
_mm
00:3
2-
>_u
xzx
._.
e.S
Ou.
Ol0
..>m
0~IC
u<O
2.r.u
.
:9:
2:35
?D
mw
nzuz
ozm
am3.
8m
5.m
m_m
3.8
Ar
:8a>
m>
00”
>_u
Xzm
xaA
$8.8
38.8
.888
>nE
._o>
:oz
mcz
o_.m
U_»
O_<
_O
A_
o>8B
m>
>>
UU
_<
5.<
0m
>o_
oA
_=o_
.a&
_:o_
_a¢a
_=%
.§
o_um
w>
:oz
A3
55>
>00
”m
z_>
3Noz
mA
_:o_
:.Am
a_.
a_.a
8_:
o_:a
m.A
o_um
m>
:oz
A:D
Am>
c>
00”
>m
mE
mm
.x_.
Em
m.
A_=
o_.a
&_:
n__.
awm
.395
3om
mmzo
m<
3._o
z>
20>
_u_u
Ao
o>o8
$>x
>00
“m
z:>
zom
o_u
>._
.>A
_8_&
&_.
aa.§
_.a_
&2_
A.
um
MoA
»3w
_.>
00“
Em
czx
r><
mm
mA
‘\\\\
1
_:o_
:%m
art
l_rn
_m..A
x¢Ia
r\.!
F!_
:o%
:am
q|!‘
1:>
C._
.Im
z._.
_o>
._._
Oz
:JA
nwo.
8oA
.o4>
w.
1‘xx
xx
\x>
UU
_\w
\mO
C_»
_._.
<m
czur
mA
‘
$898
$3.8
3&8
.E
i.ir
.A8_
8li
t:
imz:
_xw
cwz_
mm
m_m
rm“
‘I
A_:
a_.a
m.A
_:oE
ama
39.5
8:u
m_.
._.> .3
Am
o>8m
8w>
K
\am
“..a
A\_
> mW
m>
:mz
2
IA,,,,,,
,,ii
:
«::_
x8_=
%._
_.am
_...\
m._
_8_&
8‘
A"
o>8m
8>_u
>09
dmoo
zzm
m>
zoA
8.8
3.8
8.8
A:
ow?o
o>
UU
_3m
88m
>co
A_:
o_:a
mn_
_:n_
:qm
n___
._o_
:a¢a
A.m
czx_
zo
M_.
m<
oA_u
o3E
>>
_ux
zx._
. cam
m_s
>_?
AA
n_<
_Oz.
_.Im
8.8
388.
8_z
w_o
I._.
cm>
om-_
uxo_
<_o
mrm
<oA
_uoA
8m>
>_u
XZ
X._
.ca
mm
_<A
>_»
A.
AA
nzo
zazm
8.8
8.8
8.8
_zw
_oI.
_.m
>1m
m<
._u
_NO
_<_O
A_.
m<
eA_u
oAo8
>>
_ux
ZX
Aoz
wm
_<_>
3A
An
_<A
Oz.
_.Im
8.8
383.
8_z
m_o
:+o_
>m
zmao
-
nxoz
o
mm
m<
oA_u
oA?m
>>
vxzm
xam
_<_>
_»._
.A
A<
m>
m$3
8?m
bo3.
98_.
oo>
am._
u_»o
z_o
m_.
m<
oA_u
o:a>
>_u
xzm
xaca
mA
AN
_<_O
z._.
Iw$3
.3w
A3823
.3>
o<>
zom
o<
< >00
02.0
._u
_»O
_<_O
Vm
m<
oAU
oAm
mm
mm
zz?
_.oo
>A
.mA
A<
m>
_»em
abo
$98
emm
.oo
:>_u
_u_z
o._
.m_>
r
mm
w<
oA_u
o:8m
zux
Zm
X._
. <_D
_._u
_»O
_<_O
AA
<m
>x
?woo
$98
?woo
>3.
mm
_mm 52
5.8
§_o§
_aIo
S3.
m.m
A:o
_mw
58...
2.ea
2.52
.8
:5si
n2:
.8.
a_._
2na.
5...
5.5
Ea
968.
3<
i=m
=83
52$2
.8:
o:w
8..:m
..m=
a:n
.b3_
mE
a..c
.x_2
§..a
>E
$=.§
....
=5.
mcc
xinm
mn?
_e:§
.s_.
_.a.
_m$
3_.§
8=_
2.22
3258
252
.5S
a,§1
...o=
8__.
a_<
I3oa
:n_m
J.=.
5:._
%_§
=m
>nB
n5m
=—9%
;5.
23:
zo.E
o_u
259.
m.o
3a_.
_:5
:
z_o$
3_m
.mm
iam
a3:
22
:3m
a_=
Bo3
.m.m
2333
3:3
2...
oo.a
...§z
2m
an»
ma.
m:v
1<m
:w__
no<
m_.
: Em
E35
32
=5
Eo%
2w
Aum
nmM
Page 4 of 32
Page 11 of 110
9.S
O...
OlO
..>M
OP
CM
SU
ZW
:9:
2552
Um
moa
czoz
Em
._u1
nm
ocoa
m?o
mm
mm
Uoc
@_m
w 095
2.>
_ux
zx._
.
wm
_m3.
8m
t.w
m_¢
_u._
nm
0m
m<
S_u
o:3m
>V
Xzm
xaw
z_>
x+12
00.
.__u
_MO
_<_O
._ <m
>m
398
?woo
?mbo
‘.0
mus
:_u
o:8>
>.u
Xzm
xam
_s>
_?A
oozz
moq
. VIO
ZO
._ <m
>x
$98
?m.8
?woo
AA
Z24
228>
__<
__um
mm Mm
co.m.
o>_
A§o
<>
o.._
.<_u
m>
_u_u
CO
.Z
)
?mob
o38
.83
8.8
._M
_uzz
z:8>
>c_
u_o
>oo
mm
mom
<.
Axm
zoam
m_u
m>
xm_»
Z__
OD
OU
IOZ
m_X
<m
mzo
amm
vm>
xm_»
_<__
omo_
u:oz
m
?ww
oo$3
.892
Hum
033
._.o
.nm
_
_u2o
__6 m
:33m
2
?.o$
.§cm
ovW
C28
3.oo
?m.2
:ma<
<m
E_
>oo
mm
mo;
mm ea
_3u_
m3m
:.m.._
o:
Em
E._
_om
c_£.
Ecm
m=
_§%
=o:
mm
m
DE
E.
.ao6
_w
<m
8:_
«.38
zo?m
mu
ov_
.m>
mm
mm>
o<_m
mu“
2.20
3.»
mo_
:..o:
o_n
:.o<
_=cn
oim
am32
.5:8
3a:
<__
.o:3
n=~u
=<
9.3:
25
2.:m
=_:
u_:
<o_
omm
. <0:
:.m<3
om_<
ou:
2:»:
_=<
o_no
:63»
;cu
m32
.2.
_:<
o_om
. %u2
:==
uo:
:5uc
qnam
mo._=
23.2
0:.
=6
_:<
o_ow
=_u
<=
m<
o n:9
225
333.
.w
.._u3
_:_:
nuu
<=
_m3m
.:<
0:=
m<
m m:<
acm
wzo
amon
Soc
...E
3
807
250
552.
».3
5.o_
ao._
.o:_
o_:
<o_
oom
£_=
cmno
__<
m3n
.E
omm
ano:3
2<
2...
9.2.
:ns
nzm
n9.
Eu.
_3a.
$~..§
P
%.a
o.&
$.83
»
3;8.
33.
85»
.n>
...E
=_o
:m_
_:.o
=:m
=o:
Wm §_
:_a.
_B
aoa
mow
308
.536
o::6
25.1
2m
:cam
...
>=
<mam
a _B:m
mn=
o.1o
=a§
:n_s
2oE
_mw
3:05
_wU
mw
mn n:
m=
n_2.
3»:
55m
—m
=:mE
aS
aaao
am35
¢<
m_E
Ea
mxa
ncaa s
==
.m=$5
.39
$23»
:0:
mS
=.m
nm
anE
2035
E5
lC:n
_m:<
_=n
>o8
m:_
m.:J
Em
.N:=
_o:~
mm
o=m
.o=
_2.9
ucqn
rmm
mm
n.._
€_.=
m.=w
aée.
mm
inm
mo.._
Km
:mm
wo_
_a£_
m—
a.3
__$.
..<a_
<13
8.53
....
=:0
:...§
:.5n
>m
8m=
..m:.
mx?
?$3
3..
2533
.»H
an:
m_o
5m:
Sm
:
:o53
_m.m
m?a
ma
49:5
aC
umm
anZ
oSw
0_m
.mm
?aw
a._
.w=
:mE
aO
oaa?
oam
2m
a?E
am
%v_
<E
B:
wo<
m=
.=
6u=
3:w
82.
=5
u:x.
§.m
.
_um
@mw
Page 5 of 32
Page 12 of 110
ocoa
mio
mm
mm
>n°
.—-°
su°F
>m
0PC
.\<O
2®e
Uoc
m?m
00:3
2-
>_u
xzx
._.
_<_o
83_m
.m85
83.
562:
33:
cam
eV_
m 33¢
0:m
an. m:_
2.m
o.83m
$35
eaoo
zaao
zm2
5m<
m_E
mam
mxm
oc?m
aE26
:oo
:=m
o»cm
czm
ms
O:m
.o3m
«m
am_<
_o88
_mar
m..c
_aQ
_<_8
>m
qmm
3m:3
Ew
.m
_._§
o:~m
moc
m83
m1o
233$
mnc
__o3
m:. m
:Eo«
mm
2_om
mo_
.__
om:m
m mon
éma
Aoc
__m
o:<
m_<__
ns%
%__
V.:
:0c.
a_9_
<_8
>c_
.mm
3m_:¢
x_m
.w35
8:_<
_o88
_mm
an. 0:m
83m
nE
m:
Em
3__o
<<
:é_<
_o83
_m_m
m?a
ma
493m
2cu
mm
ag_.
..:8:
mm
m42
3.0.
mag
Oos
aaos
mco
<m
3=
623
3$ow
=5
_u89
._o.
m5:
8:5
8:3
mm
»:39=
§2E
.3o8
8_m
mo_
:=o:
m.n
o3\3
m=
o3.m
=:m
.
._.:m
tmam
m39
¢?m
:.¢1:
8::w
>c8
m=
_w_:
mmo
w :5m
ag?»
Dam
.
_<_o
.o8_
mm
o_:=
o:m
__:o.
O:m
83m
«
m<
_ II9:
zm3m
Hzm
3m”
._.=
_¢H
dzm
Um
rmD
EW
>3
E3
§..$
2_.o
._3=
9<S
cza
os?m
385
wE
ma
2.2.
..m
__s2
.8
:55:
3ea
8_a_
.§_m
2S
m<
255.
952.
2.§=
§.S
aaz
$2.3
:oE
§..m
$.a
2229
.13»
..c=
%3.
_=u
>u$
m=
5:.J
52E
ssn?
o:w
83a.
.E
u:_.
n:m
mm 2:63
2.»2
=o3
m§.
8m2
553
8335
A8_
_$__
<m
_< .._
uae§
m...
.=
.5c=
%._
s..a
>98
3;27
...»
5:8:
.333
;2a
05.3
.2.
52.
:Eo3
_m.m
m.m
=__
ma 33
$2
cmae
a:o
=.3
_m.m
msa
ma$
353.
.0a
:~_=
..a:m
o.m
am»
ma
w=
uu_<
m:w
=€5
3=
5uc
azm
wm
2so
385.
».
_um
@m K
.
Page 6 of 32
Page 13 of 110
e3O
...0h
Or>
moh
cdoz
m.
ocod
wim
gi
8::8
3
ooco
_.>
moo
cz?
mz_
mxm
mzo
<oo
_s_<
_cz_
o>a_
ozm
omna
A:
mI.
_.I
ma
_.>
<<
mm
zom
. xwm
mo?
Dm
m_.
._m
mm
_<_< m
>m
m.
_<_o
83_m
mo_
:=o:
ww
Em
mw
ma
8va
mw
mz.
_uoc
o_.>
mO
Ocz
._.<
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<oo
_s_s
cz_o
>:o
zm_u
m_u
._.
5::
im9.
06.9
n:m
_=< oo
33ca
om=
o:m
mnc
_u3m
:..m
anm
m2_
nmm
.._
.:wam
<m
_ou3
m:.
2.:_
mnc
o?u3
<E
macm
:5ou
uo_.
E:=
<8
m<
m_:
.£m
<9:
8n:_
:w3m
:.mm
amvw
ouom
mm
mo_
:=o:
8ca
m»
E5:
<9:
oo33
::_o
m._
o:m
amm
qw.
._.:_
m _:8
:.:m
._o:
_mu_
.o<
Em
a 8m
mm
w, <0
:.2
<o_
.=m
<m
_:m
=o:
uaoo
mm
m.
OE
.no
w.
_w8
v3<
Emo
oco_
.>m
OO
Cz.
_.<
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<O
O_<
__<
_Cz_
o>._
._O
zmO
m_u
._. 5
::=
6ca
m. u_
.oa:
o$m
amm
mw
som
mm
<m
=m
Em.2
:6co
33::
_om
zo:m
:a&
.2.
_u_m
mm
m$.
59m
:<€3
.33
.0._
.8<
Em
:m
»=
_m_«
®:3
oo33
.oo3
.
<<
¢25
%<
9.8.
.=
5o_
uuo:
::=
< 8u3
<E
¢<
o:<
33u8
3_m
_.ao
3=:._
:_om
._o:
wm
am_o
ox8_
.<<
m_d
8<
9:_.
m<
_o<
< mam
.$%
mnx
Ecm
aiu
5698
8.
m.:o
m$_
<.
.:o<I
m:
anm
m_o
m Em
u.
_<_o
88_m
mo_
::o:
m_s
m:E
moE
_.¢_
..m_»
mu_
.mm
m3m
=<
m
Page 7 of 32
Page 14 of 110
9_‘
°.—
uhvh
u°F
\.—m
0PC
u<O
2M
_w__
_A:n
>.E
qmm
m”
ooco
cym
OO
CZ
._.<
m_<
.mxm
mzo
<
oo_<
__<
_cz_
o>:o
zmU
mU
._.
AA
Am
AA
._._
._ ma
_.>
<<
mm
zom
. .889
:
cm
mzi
uim
>nE
$mm
”
ooco
r>m
OO
cz._
.<
mz_
mm
mm
zo<
oo_<
__sc
z_o>
:ozm
umua
oocm
r>m
OO
CZ
._.<
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<
oo_<
__sc
z_o>
:ozm
0.2»
AA
AmA
A._
.Im
._.
_.>
<<
mm
zom
. Km
got.
cm
ocoa
mi?
mi
0:06
9.98
:A
\mow
A
mxu
.§a=
om.9
oQoo
\~o~
A
0:06
O«m
m.m
n__w
<_
d.o<
Em
:_<
__»m
m_m
w mm
?3m
__.®
:3oo
33.o
o3m
oE_t
.N:m
x.§~
ma
O:m
83m
noo
cmr>
w0O
Cz.
_.<
m_s
m_»
omzo
<
OO
_<=
<_c
z_O
>._
._O
zm_u
m_u
._.
Am
mm
_<_<
m>
mm
Oo:
._.m
onw
as-
._O
IZw
OZ
OO
CZ
._.<
28A
_um
<3m
:A332
8zm
._.
:m3
2:39
:08
2.25
:m
a.m
m_m
Auz
nm
aux;
moo
A:m
»co_
u%ss
>z
>ux
So
$5..
ZIN
_soo
m_.
MA
§.m
8.8
ewm
mm
ow
omm
bono
3>w
_.m
Am
o>E
8m»>
mz_
.__ A
uwmam
czzz
oA
2.93
.81
a?w
ooI
A§m
.oo
Ac
o>8m
$>>
mz:
_>
mmm
amm
<<
Aaw
mw
oo$3
.8ro
meo
mzo
msu
doz
>20
>U
Au
u
Aoxm
mm
mx
>00
“3
mm
mm
z:>
_.A
$98
$98
$98
mm
m<
_om
Au
o>88
o>>
>00
"u_
o:>
_.._
.Ozm
A?m
poo
$98
$98
m_m
z>_.
_zo
Am
o>8m
8>>
>U
U_
mz:
>zo
mo
U>
._.>
>nx
A$8
.8$8
.8$8
.8
m_u
z_nz
?§>
O10
.»U
mm
_A._
.O_u
m_z
o_.m
A?a
bo$5
.8?m
boC
z_._
._z
_nm
mm
.:w
Az>
wzz
azm
Sm
>w
_._A
>co
_o>
oom
wm
om<
.A
$$m
.oo
83.8
SM
N8
mm
zoam
mnm
>xm
mz_
_om
ou:o
zm._
z__u
_»m
mxm
mm
: XA
.o>m
_.m
m_.
>ox
08:5
._.o
$_m
N$m
.m2c
moA
>=
<wm
_mm _.E
:mm
o=u:
.O=
D§:
n:o
_oB
_m.m
955
EU
mw
ma D:
m=
a m:v
—0n
_ .05m
Sia
mE
aoo
aaao
am03
-5<
m=
AEa
mxo
nrzm
n$1
.5:
002.
32V
mgm
m:
0.5.
025:
man
20.0
33ch
m..C
=am
:S:n
>u3
m=
_m=
_.J
Sm
.N
..=.:o
:~3
ocm
?axw
a5
vcaz
mm
mm
n:_v
_.=
m=
nm
ania
mm
..<_n
mm E.
=nm
:Mm3.
233
Aoo
=m
n=<
m_<l.u
—O
._:n
.h...
. =so
c.am
._<
_..u >
u5o~
=m
:.mxw
?$5
8:30
.033
23O
:mE
=.m
:=5:
ZE
EG
AN
Km
_m:u
m_.
A42
:53
Cum
us:z
o.o3
_u.m
w_m
=A
mR
.._
.m:.=
m man
0§x=
:o:m
a.m
m_$
m=
n_w
:Eu.
<min
:no
<m
=.=5
ucan
zuw
ma.
5m13
95?
Aum
ooM
Page 8 of 32
Page 15 of 110
Le
.:O._
.0lO
r>m
orcd
ozm
ocod
m-E
m$3
zo?m
m“ >
=<m
a?a
=m
=m
u2.o
.. 3=
a§:u
z¢.o
..o_m
.w£3
6F
Vm
maa 0
:2.
..m
cioa
.5=
5_m
==
m ma.
oo:a
=_e
=m
0-56
<2.
..E
...m
xhn?
oa.5
25:
8:58
.S
iam
:O
:w.b
..=m
n 25
229.
0.»
A50
..:=
aw=
<_=
n>
n=m
m5m
=.J=5
....
..=_2
.~$
Sus
an.
5—
..E6:
uma
2.__
..=§=
2&2
3&8»
2.5
98S
333
.8._
8.§z
.._ua
e§m
....
=S
c.=
_m._
s._n 53
28:.
wx?
?32
.8..
2:33
.»2.
..0.
5.2.
?52
.:2
oa_m
.mm
?aua
«S3
1:3
E...
zoS
3_m
.mm
§%a
355
2:.
OO
:a_=
c=m
o.m
amas
m=
_.u_
<m
..w__
nam
eso
E§u
S2:
538
:05.
_um
om w
Page 9 of 32
Page 16 of 110
9_=
°.—
u°m
u°F
hm
orcd
ozm
.O
CO
.Zm
K_b
w®
__w
o
8:m
no?
ooco
_.>
mO
OC
Z._
.<m
§m_»
omzo
<oo
§_sc
z_o>
:ozw
_um
3
A.3
m._
\_._
.Im
a_.
><
<m
mzo
m. x
m8?
:
U8.
...
_so8
8_m
mo_
:._o:
m_m
Em
mm
ma
8E
mm
mz.oo
co_.
>m
OO
Cz.
_.<
m_<
_mm
omzo
<oo
_s_<
_cz_
o>.:o
zmom
3<
3»:
3895
88a
n:m
_=< n
o33:
:mom
:o:m
mnc
?am
amag
mm
2_om
w.
.26
mm
<m
_on3
m:»
oq:..
_m9.
58u_
.o<
Em
acm
:8o_
uuo:
::=
<8
m<
m_:
m8
<05
zwnc
wm
amzn
wm
agE
ouom
mm
wo_
::o:
8U
mm
g E<
05oo
3_.::
:_om
:o:m
=$%
.
.2__
m_:
8«3m
2o:
_w9o
<E
mu8
mm
m_m
~<
0:.3
<9.
..m
<m
_:m
._o:
Eoo
mm
m.O
Eno
m__m
8nq
osqm
coco
?/m
OO
CZ
._.<
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<oo
_s_<
_cz_
o>:o
zm_u
m3
2::
:53%
208%
man
mm
2_om
wm
<m
__m
Ea
M::6
oo33
::.o
m=
o:m
._.a
&3>
_u_m
wm
m 989
m3
ncm
mzo
zw8
._.8
<_u
_m=
.8
3m__
.©=
3oo3
3.oo
3.
<<
m25%
<0:
81.6
ouuo
..E:=
<8_u
8<E
m<
82:
:35
3.9.
oo33
c:_o
m=
o:w
mam
8ox
8:58
8<
9...
$<_m
<<
mag
?mm
awm
ox
zwm
mai
m..:_m
ncon
w.
m3n
m6_
<_
?o<
_u_m
_q
2:»
mm
_mm m
ac.
_<_o
88_m
wo_
c=o:
mzm
s?m
?cw
mw
wxm
u_.m
m¢3
m=
<w
Page 10 of 32
Page 17 of 110
e30
._.0
hOr>
mO
PC
u<O
\<W
m._
___:
c>
nE8m
m”
ooco
r>m
oocz
im
_sm
xom
zo<
oO_<
=sc
Z_O
>._
._O
zmom
3
A:
m3.
.....
m._
.
_.>
<<
mm
zom
_ xm8?
:
cm
:9:
2:35
9
w:_
uu_:
m >nE
:mw
m”
uoco
cym
OO
Cz.
_.<
m_<
_mm
omzo
<
oo_<
__<
_cz_
o>:o
zw_u
m_u
._.
UO
CO
r>w
OO
CZ
._.<
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<
OO
_<__
<_C
Z_O
>.:O
Zw
0.2»
3.m
3....
..m
ar>
<<
mm
zom
_xm
8?:
cm Um
mn:
_u._
o:
0.55
Um
wm
uou:2
83
ocoa
miw
i8
mx_
o__.
m=
o:om
auom
:m
so?
0:06
Oqm
mnm
am
?._
.3<
Em
..._<
=»
mm
_mm xw
u.=
_m:©
:3oo
33.o
o3m
oo.._
?-B
.$xa
?m
ma
o:w
.o3m
:oo
co_.
>m
oocz
?m
_sm
mom
zo<
ooz=
<_c
z_o>
:ozm
_um
_u._
.
Oo:
._.m
onw
as. ,
_o:z
moz
oocz
i
=88
_um
<3m
:.33.
28Z
m._
. ma.
mm
aUzn
m
aux.
..G
oom
=:m
=8_
_
.__<
_8c_
»m%
s:w
z>
338
mz:
>zo
mo
S8
488
8°88
.888
.8z_
:N_<
_om
._rm
3o§
>x
mzz
n 8<
m>
mmw
mm
za!_
>r_
:1§3
.mm
88.8
was
mm
m<
o
:.o>
.:m:>
>m
zxu 2
mm
88m
sIn
_88
.888
.8!
8880
I
mzo
m<
3_oz
3og
mm
>09
o>m
:zo
cza
on>
38A
88.8
3.8
8m.8
ao>
o§m
>w
>99
m_s
>3
oz.»
>o>
3mx
.8.
88.
88.
8
3m
:m>
o>
_u_u
_ zo
m_u
m>
xmm
>_u
x_
8.8
8.8
8.8
:o>
a8E
>>
>5
>_u
xon
o:am
mé
A88
.888
.888
.8
8<
<m
8wo
>09
_scZ
_xm
<o_
umx>
:oz
_83
.0.
92m
m8.
mm
2.o>
oa8>
>m
z_._
n 92B
aE
czzz
o_
8.8
988.
5.8
8.5.
8
:33
>:
>5
>_u
x82
30..
:m>
oA
8.8
8.8
8.8
mo_
n2<
>m
m
:.m
>8~
8>>
>5
mum
>z:
mzz
>.
880
898
83.8
;o»
o88>
>>
09m
.m:>
zom
uo>
a>zu
x«
A88
.8Il
umm
ozbo
8ow
8
>=
<mm
_om .B
:mm
n__.
S3=
9_s:
mz_
o.oa
_m.m25
.0_m
Um
mm
a 0:m
znm
:£¢o
_3
5m.m
==
mman
Sau
aaam
033$
<m
_EH
am
x8...
.&(i
sm:
8:55
.U
323:
o=m
.2=
o«w
anE
0333
.35
Ic:a
m:<
_:m
8.33
83=
5.m
.__.
§.~$
o?aa
m.
39.
3.33
mn:
_u3m
=.
2x.§
$.s8
m2
=$=
$8:
33§_
_$.2
m_<
..na8
om...
.__
..5
::%
._<
_=u
>na
m..a
a9&5
8.28
:29
53.»
as02
2:2.
:5:
2293
5.»
mE
a»a
5:5
2.E
nE
aZ
oE3_
m.m
wia
ma
#35
2...
o2a_
_§.m
a.m
um»
Ba
m=
%_<
Q5:
8.5:
.:5
uzaz
ww
a25
»38
:2”.
vmm
mm
Page 11 of 32
Page 18 of 110
.9
30.-
.OlO
r>m
0~lC
.:O2W
oco+
m-:
,;§8
:3.
2:23
?U
mm
oauz
oz_.
_m~ 3.
8m
m_m
mio
mm
z.m
m_m
U28
.2<
<B
m>
>00
“m
._.U
_u>
_._<
_A
3N8
$58
93.8
Som
ovxo
zm>
_uX
2:o_
§>o
>09
>24
mom
ro<
<._
umo_
n_rm
A?w
oo$9
8$8
.8um
v?c
033
._.o
.§_
Zo?
mm
”
m~.
8m.m
2cw
E
>3.
mu_
mw=
u:w
un__
o=—
o=o§
=n
z_o.
o6_m
.we§
aE
Em
ma
0:m
anm
cam
n.5
:5$3
6E
a8.
5.35
0.=
5<
m_&
mi
ex9.
.:Sa
‘ism
:00
3.30
»G
myz
ma:
o=w
..2=
9.m
=..
ZeS
..9_m
E5
..:=
am_.
_<_=
n
>m
$m=
§=J
Em
.m
=5o
.._~a
mo¢
m.o
=.m
~5
u:=
..=um
mon
=_E
=m
:_u.
x=n«
mm
zaoa
n9.
=8=
ma
mgi
ma
A8.
_mn.
_<o_
<..v:x
_=n.
.wJ.
=so
c.§=
_<=
_n>
nam
.=a=
.9%
.»55
$:I9
53.»
man
o?_o
:§.
Sm
:
:2o8
_m.m
m.2
.%a
«@_.
_.=
mR
cum E
x.zo
S8.
m.m
mE
a_m
a«m
in2:
...O
o.=
__=
o=w
2$5
mi
9.3.
:35
..co
coaE
av=
3=m
ww0.
=5
v?ac
n?.
Um
omm
Page 12 of 32
Page 19 of 110
9.S
O...
0lO
r>m
OP
Cq<
02W
_D
CO
._.m
-.E
.wm
Xho
S:
983
ooco
r>m
OO
CZ
._.<
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<oo
_<__
<_c
z_o>
:ozm
D_m
_u._
.
‘.3
m‘:
41m
a_.
><
<xm
zom
. xm
8?:
Um
m_..
_<_o
88_m
mo_
:._o:
m.m
Em
mw
wa
8ga
mm
a._uo
cor>
woo
cz?
m_<
_m_»
omzo
<oo
_s_g
cz_o
>:o
zmom
3<
<_=
._ Em
2:06
2:n:
m_:
<ooa
acao
mzo
zmm
n:_u
3¢3
mam
mm
2_nm
m.
._.:m
am<
m_o
u3w
3oq
:._w
856
n8<
_n_m
acm:5
ouuo
_.E
::<
8m
<m
_:m
$
<o:
««m
n_:_
$3m
3mm
agE
ouom
mm
mo_
c._o
: 8cm
w. E5
:<
9:no
a?ca
omzo
smzm
mam
.
4:_w
_3o3
.m:o
:_m
c8<
Em
a8m
mm
w.
<0:
.3<
9:m
<m
_:m
=o:
uwoo
mm
m.
OS
.m
om_ a
8_o
S<
Em
_uoc
o_.>
moo
cz?
m_s
mm
omzo
<oo
_s_<
_cz_
o>:o
zwU
m_u
._. <
23:6
cam
" 20.
5%m
amm
¢2_o
mm
m<
m=
mc_
m .2:5
oo3=
E:_
om=
o:w
_:a:
m3>
_u_m
mm
mE
89m
:<nc
awzo
zm8
._.8
<_n
_m:. m
. =_m
_«©
5:oo
33.n
o3.
<<
m Em
zx<
9:31
.5o_
uvo:
:::<
8_u
8<E
m<
0:2:
:v_
.m3§
oo33
::.o
m:o
:mm
ag_o
oxS
azm
a8
<9:
$<_m
<<
man
.wm
mac
mox
wm
nmai
o.:_wnc
oxw
.
m3o
m_.
m_<
_
._.8
<E
m...
_<=
..~mm
_mw m
m?
_so6
8_m
mof
zosm
z_m
:Em
nE$.
.m.»
mu$
mm
:.m:<
m
Page 13 of 32
Page 20 of 110
e.S
O...
0lO
_.>
moh
cdoz
moc
9.m
-3m
m3o
m__
=:m >n
E3m
m”
mzu
uim
>.E
_.m
mw
uD
conm
oam
owze
mo?
ooco
r>m
oocz
..<oo
cor>
moo
czi
m.e
.a..o
=om
?om
xem
o?m
_<_m
mm
mzo
<m
_<_m
mom
zo<
053
Oam
?am
<n
oo_s
_scz
_o>
4_oz
mom
3oo
z__<
_cz_
o>:o
zm_u
m3
:2m
m:
3.m
:4:
ma
_uoc
o_.>
moo
cz?
am.
mm
_mw m
ac.
:_m
__.©
:3oo
33.n
o3_.
><
<m
mzo
m. .8
8?:
m§m
mom
zo<
mo?
§.B
$3%
cmoo
z__s
cz_o
>:o
zmO
.:»m
aO
:m83
¢:3‘
.m
3.2.
.m
m_.
><
<m
mzo
m. xm
8?:
cm
ooco
r>m
OO
CZ
._.<
m_s
mm
omzo
<
oo_<
__sc
z_o>
:ozw
_um
3
Ooz
zdon
M33
-._
OIZ
mO
ZO
OC
Z._
.<
aw _um
<3m
:.338
zm._
.
:9:
2:33
1o$
9__2
_Sm
m_m
U28
ma.
mm
_mU
28
>32
;88
mm
amm
>_u
x88
‘
A:3
com
%<
§>z
>_u
x38
E8
z_:N
zoom
rA
f.m
8.8
2.3.
82.
3.3
Nuo
xa
S1.
o>S
dm>
mm
zxu 88
ox88
A§.
3o.8
‘
.9.§
.&$5
..E
czzz
ow
>co
m_z
o:m
m<
m4m
z_
3Im
mm
omm
zzu_
<_c
E_x
m<
z
A..
.Im
m.8
.8?m
woo
waw
oo3
o>88
o>>
>oo
_o_
o:>
rS
zm._
28.8
898
$8.8
w_o
z>_.
_zo
3o>
8m8>
>>
09m
z:>
zom
o03
>au
xA
38.8
898
$8.8
388
>:
mz_
._”>
mmm
zox<
3_oz
>20
A€5
8?m
woc
§m.8
>2.
:zm
mm
mx
>09
3m
mw
mzj
z.A
898
$98
$98
mm
mso
m
»E
s_uz
.::>
oxom
omm
xaoum
_zo_
.mA
$3.9
$5.8
E39
Cz_
._.
__<
__u_
»mm
.C92
)
>3
mm
_wm .3=
$n..S
isgé
z2o3
_mw
255
_m58
..8
Ea
m._
£8_
8=
5_m
_.=
.m ea
...b:
n=_.
0=m
2=
5<
m_E
Ea
9.85
33%
..83
:5.
358:
o?sa
éE
a_s
o_o3
_m$5
..c._
%.€
=n
>m
3m3m
.=J=5
.u=
5a:.~
mu n
:m.o
3m2a
3333
3523
:.m
=%
:3a$
m2
=om
:mm
wo=
sma .oo
__$.
.$_<
..13.
..En_
.mJ.
=.6
:._%
_§.a
3.83
2..
mx?
m8.
2%..
zo§o
_uN
_._Q
05.2
.5:
92.
z_o5
3_m
.mm
saaa
3:5
2:3
ma
:...o
8_m
.mm
?am
a#3
52:
.O
o=aE
o=m
D.m
m_P
nea
$63.
3.2.
@95
5:5
ucas
?m2
=5
13n:
n_m
.
_um
cm m
Page 14 of 32
Page 21 of 110
930
...0l
n=.>
moh
cdoz
moc
odw
?mm
?o
:93
2:33
.U
mm
nzuz
osE
m._
u_..o
mw
m_m
_u__
nwm
z.m
m_m
Uzn
m
wzz
azm
3m>
w_.
x>
co_o
>oo
mm
mo_
»<.
._am
uwoo
38.8
«SN
8xm
zoam
mum
>xm
_»
:_ox
o_u_
._oz
m._
_snm
mm
xmm
m: X
Ho>
m_.
mw
r>ox
®_.
m:Q
._.o
$_
zo?m
m” >
3.E
8.B
=w
Nn_
._o:
.o._
o2_.
a:o
_e3_
m.w
scar
.w53
..8
ea2.
28.
5=
55:
3m
a.8.
a=_o
=m
53<
..._:
2...
e§.._
.a5.
2.0o
==
No—
$.23
:o5
_o=
a..
Ex.
z2..3
_mea
ncam
nsau
>e8
am._
...v
52E
535
0:m
_o=
§.6
u._a
._m
$B
csaa
a.2.
2282
.3»
.._._
_$=
$w
oaém
i.8
__8.
_.a_
<..u
§.S
aJ.
= Bc.
...._
2.<
_..u
>m
am=
a._.
mx_
.w.m 8
.28.
.:..
_oe_
...ea
o:m
.o=
.m:
=5:
!Eo3
_m.m
92.3
343
%2
cmm 2
::o
_a3_
m.m
m?a
ma
:58
2...
oo.§
_s_.
ma
mag
25m
=u1
<m
:m__
€53
=5
2.3.
»:2
=5
uaac
nm.
3%,0
.
Page 15 of 32
Page 22 of 110
QUOTE~143469O0 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS
03/11/2021
DOUGLAS COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNlCAT|ONS DEPT
111 E 11TH STLAWRENCE, KS 66044
Dear ,
Motorola Solutions is pleased to present DOUGLASCOUNTYEMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DEPT with this quote
for quality communications equipment and services. The development of this quote provided us the opportunity to evaluate
your requirements and propose a solution to best fulfillyour communications needs.
This information is provided to assist you in your evaluation process. Our goal is to provide DOUGLAS COUNTY
EMERGENCYCOMMUNICATIONSDEPT with the best products and services available in the communications industry.
Please direct any questions to Troy Flair at [email protected].
We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with premier communications and look forward to your review and feedback
regarding this quote.
Sincerely.
Troy Flair
MR Sales Rep.
Motorola Solutions Manufacturer's Representative
Page 16 of 32
Page 23 of 110
@ MoronoLA SOLUTIONS QUOTE-1434590
BillingAddress: Shipping Address: Quote Date:03/11/2021DOUGLASCOUNTY DOUGLAS COUNTY Expiration Date:O6/09/2021EMERGENCY EMERGENCY Quote Created By:
COMMUNICATIONS DEPT COMMUNICATIONSDEPT Troy Flair
111 E 11THST DOUGLAS COUNTY MR.55”“ Rep’[email protected]
LAWRENCE, KS 66044 EMERGENCY 800_447_2348 X_242
us COMMUNICATIONSCTR
111 E “TH ST ‘EE)'<1)dU(é5l:.Si::mC?Cr$UNTY
EMERGENCYLAWRENCE, KS 66044
UsCOMMUNiCAT|ONS DEPT
Contract: 21810 — JOHNSON COUNTY(KS)Payment Terms:30 NET
Line# Item Number Description Qty ListPrice Sale Price Ext. Sale Price
AP><w0000 Series APX6000
’"TT§0U0T=’0?&§rTW 71I=§<0000‘}007000"M66ELEfswwimW”éé0é000W"Efé?aé?T
’
’£».f1.01E.'00"‘
'
PORTABLE
Wif?éééi ’"""”m'Wé’N1WuIi}2EY’T” ’ ’ ’ ‘
"1 ”‘"sTé§é0f00m'””
W11;”'T"<3A0§00rTv?W’W'WW71E0§EEi+XG6NE”W T "’”"'$1s¢.a‘rW W"
WZZW” W
SIGNALING
W12""”E§s'E{2§i§'W"
TWW"W’};0Bf13EE$<E§Gf’"*”_T”"“"$306100‘/m""§Er{00’”W ”0?§<iF‘M
TRUNKING
i:“ga;E“"““"”""""
‘xssismxigzaré**************
T'””7sT,2E0E‘‘‘‘
“$12353"""""""" 3;;a.aa"4
OPERATION
—‘Z\BBE?E"s‘E,"1§1ir7AT’"’ 'W‘TW”‘"31Ef00#’4“71iEr£‘”T?E00"""""
SERVICE
W17 '0E0’éEM””
'
ADD:AsrRZ§0:err7\CEE‘M”1""""
W$51V'5i.&)”””
"
0305700” $300.00‘
OPERATION
1g“
Q629AKWWWW
ENH:AES ENCRYPTiON AND 1W
"$35700 Wi$72E.7&rrrrrr
i@<§>’~mVADP
‘
1h Mr;/x'03399AA» WWW
ADD:ENHANCEDDATAAPX 1 $:1—5vo’o0VVVVVVVVV
W$3ri30”””””
“$07M”“
2 ‘N‘NwT‘Nes00'AWmmi
CHARGER,S|NGLE~UN|T, 1 ME1é2i61)WWWWW§sE3OWWW"?99.00IMPRES 2, 3A, 115VAC,US/NA
Agreement“) lhai aulhorizes Cusiomer IOpurchase equipment andlor services or license so?ware (ccilecliveiy ""Producis“"). Ifno Underiying ImreemeniexisLs between Motorola and Cuslorner, lhen
Any sals iransaclion loilowing Moloroiak quole is based on and subiecxto materms and conditions of the valid and execuled written conlracl between Customer and Molorola (the ""Unden1ying
Motorola's Siandard Terms 01Use and Motorola's Slandard Terms and Condillons oi Saies and Supply shail govam lhe purchase 01the Products.
Page 2Page 17 of 32
Page 24 of 110
@ MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS QU0TE"1434590
Line#1 Item Number Description Qty List Price Sale Price Ext. Sale Price
3 NNTN8575ABLK AUDIO ACCESSORY— 1 $538.00 $322.80 $322.80REMOTE SPEAKERMICROPHONEJMPRESXERSM XT CABLE BLACK
Grand Total $4,224/1_0(USD)
Notes:
Any sales lra?sanuon following Motorola‘: quole ls based on and subjecl ko Ihe Iemus and conditions of H16valid and executed written cunlracl between Customer and Molurola (the ""Under1y6ng
Agreement") lhal authorizes Customer to purchase equipment andlor servica or Hcense software (collectively”"Producls""). If no Undadylng Agreamenl exlsls belween Moxorolaand Cuslomer, (hen
MoloroIa‘s Slandard Terms of Use and MoIaro|a‘s Srandard Terms and Conditions 0183133 and Supply shall govern the purchase of the Producls,
Page 3Page 18 of 32
Page 25 of 110
® MOTOROLA SOLUTIONSQUOTEI143/1741
03/1 1/2021
DOUGLASCOUNTYEMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DEPT
111 E 11TH STLAWRENCE, KS 66044
Dear ,
Motorola Solutions is pleased to present DOUGLAS COUNTYEMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONSDEPT with this quote
for quality communications equipment and services. The development of this quote provided us the opportunity to evaluate
your requirements and propose a solution to best fulfillyour communications needs.
This information is provided to assist you in your evaluation process. Our goal is to provide DOUGLAS COUNTY
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DEPT with the best products and services available in the communications industry.
Please direct any questions to Troy Flair at tf|[email protected].
We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with premier communications and look forward to your review and feedback
regarding this quote.
Sincerely.
Troy Flair
Motorola Solutions Manufacturer's Representative
iI
i3
Page 19 of 32
Page 26 of 110
0 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS
Billing Address: Shipping Address: Quote Date:03/11/2021DOUGLASCOUNTY DOUGLAS COUNTY Expiration Date:O6/09/2021
EMERGENCY EMERGENCY Quote Created By:
COMMUNICATIONSDEPT COMMUNICATIONSDEPT TF0)’FIBIF
111 E 11THST DOUGLAS COUNTY ”'a"@”’“°°”"“'°°'“
LAWRENCE, KS 66044 EMERGENCY End Customer:
US COMMUNICATIONSCTR DOUGLASCOUNTYEMERGENCY
111 E 11TH ST COMMUNICATIONSDEPT
LAWRENCE, KS 66044
US
Contract: 21810 - JOHNSON COUNTY(KS)Payment Terms:3O NET
Line# Item Number Description Qty ListPrice Sale Price Ext. Sale Price
APXW 6000 Series APXSOOO><E
Rm+I§é’I]6E§$§iQésTI'"Z”m7xE>2ébo6§obiéb6ii66éLé.é’""1 ""s§’éfé'2Ef$” Ws§1I,é1é.é<V)NW"7sT,éiEi86’m’PORTABLE
Va I“II23’é_9'i3IIzM77777I777EI\I7I-I:7MUI_?IéIEr\rV777‘M“M"
1” "’7sfSé6foE"m"m$133116”
’s§iéé.6cT’m
Wibw"’§;m1<F; ’/§6I5T?2§3é6E{EaZ\UB’""1*0 I’
I:.T;S00:00W7"?7rVEOSOO:’”$’{éc.ooW‘TRUNKING
”“Tf‘Ql\E2E§2{/Iiiiiiii I’ ’ I’
éiIIi§}{r>%d<E%EEéEsE‘T'7"T’"M” $éod.do’"””’“"$7a)33““*“g;I;¢;aa*I I
RADIO
’"IFEsE“‘““"" ’I’/§t$6§é?eééEi¥{AT”"Z—T §iT5Eo""’ ’""s71}Ef6b"#fa?E.?)o““'SERVICE
”
1}l,’"’"c3Ao§’d6b);}C"WE” ADDTOIGIITAL/TONE,"” I’
I ‘*‘31;a3?‘‘’““‘“;9"¢.aa”’"
W’Q63“”SIGNALING
"_TrT§é"%”""’
’"’X6:3TéIiXE?z?3‘:$é"’“”’”M?"‘M”
:i;1,2d6.6o%“7s§’23.$“"" ”'"’§7Eo’,dc3"’"‘OPERATION
“—1‘g;_mOAE:IE7—AI3Ww“WWm":AE:L/IPACT8EE?:?“‘““"‘7W”‘ ’"7s”2s;fo6"'E”‘—sT1?.6cT“"'i"“E28116HOUSING
”'XbEx§?§E)BT§I?;IE;T“7““"'”'E§iéf<36’EgEc£.oo “W$‘a'6§§6oW"EOPERATION
”1T+cIe2eAI<"“"””’"EIIEJ‘rf ’s;2I%éL56’?”s3K5I;o‘”"E'"7s”£éT"d8ADP
Agreerneul""} that authorizes Customer I0 purchase equipment andlorservices or license software (coileciively "“Producls"”). Ifno Underiying Agreement exisis between Moloroia and Cusiomer. then
QUOTE4434741
Motorola's Slandard Terms of Use and I\IoIoroIa'sSlandard Terms and Condiiions oi Sales and Supply shall govern [he purchase 01013 Producls.
Any sales Iransaclion followingMotorola's quote Is based on and subject In the Ierms and condilions oi Ihe vaiid and execuied wrillen contract between Cuslamer and Motorola (Ihs '“‘UnderIyin9
Page 2
I
Page 20 of 32
Page 27 of 110
Q MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS QUOTE4434741
Line# ltemNumber Description Qty List Price Sale Price Ext. Sale Price
1] QA03399AA ADD: ENHANCED DATAAPX 1 $150.00 $90.00 $9000
W§MmNN7fNsEaé0AM‘e”“’5.‘JA‘R¢;ajsm¢LE:uN.+.E
H'0
" E E
?s1’es.c3'o”’”"'""”"’éééféd $99.00
IMPRES 2, SA, 115VAC,Us/NA
Ewiqlmiécs"E
iésoé%;1éM6%E‘7sE$I<"EzR)1E;”“”"”iE"W"0“”'?&a}Ei&5o0E
0¢:s9.gJ”“*“”";e;s;s.;;5“WITHCHANNEL KNOB, HIGHIMPACT GREEN
Grand Total
Notes:
Any saies transaction followingMotorola's quote Is based on and subjecl I0 (ha lerms and condillons ol the valid and executed wlillen contract between Customer and Ma|oro|a (the ""Under(ylng
Agreement”) that authorizes Cuslomer Io purchase equlpmenl andlor services or license software (cnllec?vely ""Produc|s""). Ifno Unde?ying Agreemenl exists between Momrola and Cuslomer. |hen
Motorola's Standard Terms of Use and Motorola's Standard Terms and Condiuons 0! Sales and Supply shall govem lha purchase of the Products.
Page 3Page 21 of 32
Page 28 of 110
e_S
O._
.0l0
r>m
ohcd
ozm
ocoa
mia
?f
8::8
2
_uoc
or>
wO
OC
Z.w
<m
_sm
mm
mzo
<oo
_<_z
_cz_
o>:o
zmom
3
‘T:
m3.
_.I
M4
_.>
<<
mm
zom
_ .88?
:
Um
mq.
_<_o
83_m
mo_
::o:
w_m
Em
mw
ma
828
%.
_uoc
o_.>
mO
Ocz
._.<
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<O
O_<
__<
_Cz_
O>
._._
OZ
mU
m_u
._. 5
::E
m95
88.
.n_
._m
_=<
no33
::_o
m._
o:w
mn:
_u3m
2w
agm
m_.
<_o
mm
.._
.:mam
<m
_ov3
m2
3E
m9.
08u_
.o<
Em
acm
:6oE
oo_.
E::
<8
m<
mE
m8
<oc
_._.
mnc
__.m
3m2mm
zaE
ouow
om
mo_
E_o
:8
saw
»8
<9:
oo33
::_o
m=
o:w
zmm
am.
._.:_
w _:8
_.3m
=o:
_wu8
<E
ma8
mm
mm
w.
<0:
_:<
o:_,
m<
m_:
m=
o:ua
onm
mm
.05
now
._w
8c_
.o<
Em
coco
:/m
OO
CZ
4<m
_<_m
mom
zo<
ooz_
_scz
_o>
a_oz
mom
na5:
:=
6cm
w. _u
8u:o
.mm
anm
m_.
<_c
mm m<
m__
ws_
¢3
:6oo
33::
_om
.8:m
_:9.
_m=
<.
_u_m
mm
mgam
e.m
:<nc
mw
zozm
8._
.3<
Em
...m
. 3m__
.®:3
oo33
.oo3
.
<<
m Em
zx<
0:81
3mou
uo::
:=<8
U_.
o<am
<0:
5::
U_.
m3_
m«o
o33c
:_om
=o:
wm
an_o
o_1o
2<m
_d8
<9:
3<_m
<<
mag
38.8
%
8mm
_d_:
n.:_
mnc
onm
.
m3o
m$_
<_
._.8
<_u
_m__
.
_§o8
8_m
mo_
E8:
m_<
_m::
8oE
8_._
w_»
mu_
.mm
m:8
._<
m
Page 22 of 32
Page 29 of 110
e.S
O...
0lO
—.>
moh
cdoz
m
w__
=:m >a
%m
mm
“oo
co_.
>m
OO
cz._
.<
mz_
mm
omzo
<
oo_s
z_cz
_o>
:ozm
omua
3.m
3...:
m._
.
_.>
<<
mm
zom
. xm8?
:
cm
w:_
_uu_
:m>.E_d
mm
n
_uoc
or>
mO
Ocz
._.<
m_s
mxo
mzo
<
oo_<
=<
_cz_
o>:o
zmU
m_u
._.
uoco
_.>
mO
OC
Z._
.<
m_<
_mm
omzo
<
oo_<
__<
_cz_
o>:o
zm0.
2»
._.Z
m‘_
._._
.Im
a
ocoa
mim
??
0:08
Um
?uow
::8
3m
xu__
.m=
o:om
?oao
emo?
0.58
0$m
.ma
w<
”._
.3<
Em
...:_
m:@
:3oo
33.o
o3
ma
Ocm
.o3m
nco
co:/
moo
cz?
m_<
_m_~
omzo
<
OO
_<=
scz_
O>
._._
Ozw
Um
_u._
.
_.>
<<
mm
zom
_ xm
88..
cm
Ooz
zwon
was
. ._o
Izm
ozO
OC
2._.
<
?e _um
<3¢
:.._
.m«3
m“w
ozm
._.
_._:
m3.
:9:
2:33
:O
mm
ozuz
ozm
a.m
am_u
1nm
>.u
X=
.. 88
\m
a.m
m._
$m
z:>
zom
o>_u
xmm
8
A_s
mm
cmm
m._
u<§
wz
>38
8m
z:>
zom
oS
ocA
$58.
882
.%m
.8§.
@.~
.8
z_:N
z_om
_rm
3o8
m>
o-.
.24”
mm
zoam
25:2
4o>
mrm
_8.
88.
88.
83
3>
nx
3o>
o88>
>>
UU
_2.
282%
wE
mm
<A
88.8
80.8
898
>z4
mzz
>rz
mw
a
3o>
SS
m>
w>
092;
3oz
_>>
o>3m
mA
8.8
8.8
8.8
28:
5m
zzum
_s>
_?N
ozm
_as
.898
38.8
88.8
onm
mZ
_oz
>38
8
303
0...
>U
O_
mm
zoqm
zocz
qm
m_
$8.8
38.8
23.8
>nx
z_
:98
3m
zxu m
<m
>m
mm
mm
zjz.
.33
.8$3
.823
.8m
<o
8m
an»
>8”
>cx
__._
>x<
mnx
m E.
898
898
838
<<
>._
:_. >
nx
395
>:
>co
_>
mm
mzo
xsuj
oz>
zo_
$3.8
8$8
.00
$8.9
82%
4.23
>:
>00
”>
uxoo
zaxo
r_.
_m>
o.
8.8
8.8
8.8
wom
2<>
xm
>3
mm
_mm
.:.B
»n._
S.o
=o2
_8;c
S3_
m.m
£55
5E
332.
Ea
2.22
.E
:65:
32:
.8.
a_..e
m2
=5
<m
_KE
a9§
.._2.
£:=
m=
8232
3.22
..o=
ma.
_$:5
..za
S3_
mB
a..:
._%
__s.
_o
>u8
o3m
=.J
52m
__=
_o.._
~Ro?
_o=
§s
_...a
_;m
mon:
_v=
_m_.
:2.
2252
3%2
=8.
_$83
3$€o
__$=
<m
_<..v
§=%
J.=
.5:._
%.:.
_8>
b3m
.=m
=_
mxw
?53
$:22
2%aa
o?sa
?52
.
:o.e
3_...
.mw
iam
a3:
52
:mma
szo
S3.
m.m
m.»
=&
a«?
aw3.
.oo
.a_.
§z2
mm
am Ea
m.i1
<m
._...
__85
:.:5
238$
a:5
_.B
..__.
2w
Um
omM
Page 23 of 32
Page 30 of 110
9.S
0...0
ln=
..>m
0PC
?\O
2WO
CO
._._
m-_
_Am
A.\.
m%
_
__m
32:
269
Um
mna
uzoz
ma.
mm
_m_u
1nm
:.o>
88m
>>
>09
mz_
._>
zom
o03
>>
ux38
.889
8$9
8
Ax
mm
omw
rm
z_._
_ >m
:»o
_u_m
_a>
r o>
_on
a?m
bo88
.838
.8>
vx
:o>
S3o
>>
>00
“>
nxm
aooz
amor
mm
uwoo
??bo
??w
mo
:m>
o
3.o>
S8w
>>
>00
_ rmo>
o<:»
czz_
oz$9
83.
838
mow
mé
Z...
3<
<~m
m>
>00
”m
ac_u
>:s
auw
oo$3
.8.
9.5.
8...
...!
_<__
omon
:ozm
2%
8E
maw
mo
>_u
o__<
_c_.
:xm
<on
mx>
:oz
839°
rage
33°
8n.
:§>
_u>
00”
>24
mum
_.o<
<._
uxom
__.m
?woo
Sw
mo
Sum
oV
3.30
3om
mm
..>_.
_.
mz:
_E
mS
czzz
o88
.8fm
obo
$8.8
wo_
u2<
>m
m>
nx
®..m
:n_
._.o
.m_
..
zonm
wn
>._
< mam
m_a
..$2§
._o
=a§
:nzo
_o3_
m.m
3:05
a58
..S
2...
E32
.3
=5
535
....a 8
3:52
:23
<m
_E2.
..96
2.2
3.3:
82;:
33$:
n=m
§._2
mi
2053
.»ca
n..:2E
_<__
a
>n§
=§3
52u.
_=_§
~?05
632
5E
znzm
mm
.x.:_
_.:§
__m
as. 3
2.8“
2__
8..m
a83
56.8
__8.
_§_<
..u§_
.%...
.=
3:..
$._<
_.5
>n8
m3n
:—9%
.»52
$::5
3.»
aa03
.2.5
:52
.
z_o_
o8_m
.mm
§.._
ua:5
.”2
So
2...
zeS
3_m
.mm
sim
a...
m=
=m
23oo
.a._
_.5m
2m
ush
eaw
._%
_<2.
2.$3
5:5
ucso
zmm
m92
.532
_=%
.
3%w
Page 24 of 32
Page 31 of 110
0 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONSQUOTE4 434758
03/11/2021
DOUGLAS COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONSDEPT
111 E 11TH STLAWRENCE, KS 66044
Dear ,
Motorola Solutions is pleased to present DOUGLAS COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONSDEPT with this quote
for quality communications equipment and services. The development of this quote provided us the opportunity to evaluate
your requirements and propose a solution to best fulfillyour communications needs.
This information is provided to assist you in your evaluation process. Our goal is to provide DOUGLASCOUNTY
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONSDEPT with the best products and services available in the communications industry.
Please direct any questions to Troy Flair at [email protected].
We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with premier communications and look fonivardto your review and feedback
regarding this quote.
Sincerely.
Troy Flair
MR Sales Rep.
Motorola Solutions Manufacturer's Representative
Page 25 of 32
Page 32 of 110
@ MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS QU0TE"1434758
Billing Address: Shipping Address: Quote DaIe:03/11/2021DOUGLASCOUNTY DOUGLAS COUNTY Expiration Date:06/O9/2021EMERGENCY EMERGENCY Quote Created By:
COMMUNICATIONSDEPT COMMUNICATIONSDEPT TVOYFIG"
111 E 11THST DOUGLAS COUNTY MR 53'“ Rep‘[email protected]
LAWRENCE, KS 66044 EMERGENCY 800_447__2348 X_242
US COMMUNICATIONSCTR
111 E “TH STEnd Customer:
LAWRENCE’KS 66044DOUGLAS COUNTYEMERGENCY
UsCOMMUNICATIONSDEPT
Contract: 21810 - JOHNSON COUNTY(KS)Payment Terms:30 NET
Line# Item Number Description Qty ListPrice Sale Price Ext. Sale Price
APXW 8000 Series APX8000
IIIITIIIIriIs$tIIrI?e¥It39Ir=IvtIrésI/tI?IIIIIIIIIII
7r?>I?s6r3¢)tIttIIis}tItIrIruIIII II I I
IrII
”$;-;,g;;s.arsII
IIIes]5a§Iét3IIIIIIIIIéé,EsEE{IIIPORTABLE MODEL2.5
II};II I
.;g'¢ggiiII I I
MIt}ItI¥tI<EIvTI II'IIe§é6]Iot5I I
IsiéefdoII
III$I1Ieéf6r3III”I
IIIiIbI
Qé6ééi3II I I I I II
IAJoIr$§I/tIsrIIRcI>otIrI;Ii%I/§LI<I;AItIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIrI;I5IiIsI.IoIriII II
?saI¢e.IIoIrI{II
I§aI6e}6¢IIIII
OPERATION
II‘It2'TI&is7sItEtTIIII II
IrItEt.IItI;;IIrI>I:5IItIaIrsIrImEIAIL}IrI>IIIIITIT’TIsErItEr£“II“I7s?ItIt{a.Ir;BIIII II
$180.O0II
TRUNKING
"Ira ct§zI”TA*TXcT3TIé§IEs”5EIrtIrIrI/ItIL IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIE;tIiéfri{"IITIW?IIT‘*§{{éI66II
SERVICEI I
I;I
IQ)t6eri6rt)t};IIIIIIII I1"II
s§II1IsI<5.Ir:Ir3III
IIt;I§oIIrtIoIIIIIIIII
$9000SIGNALING
IITrITIQé§IaéIII II I
I[tIttrIs§éItiI2{IRrzortE“III
1TI
$T,.I§r36.ooIIIIII"III7sIeétbi5IoIIII
IIIsIéIrtIr3IEaIrItIIOPERATION
IIIIlT7,tZ2§tIrTIIIIPITIITIIII
It?:ItItIttI{IAEs.IétrEr4§r%IéTIXLIBIIITIItII’I#_§EEEt3TTIII”I§EET6<5IIIIIIsI2I5éI.EtrI>IIII
II
ADP
nT“aAom9t7rA‘T‘ A *
"‘ta’sigrtrtx.$;e5Dzrxigrsr‘ J"
$1523.00 $9o.oo"‘"‘"""“‘*$"g’a:$""
ITT7tIrTr‘t]§éEt2t‘““"III
IIII6irI)ItIrI£eErIeI,IétIrtIcI;ILIEIZtirrirfIIIIIIIIITWQKT $9eT6oI*IIIIIIIIIII$e3L6oII
II’
IMPRES 2, SA.I15VAC,USINA
Any sales Iransacliort Ioilotving MoIoroIa's quoia is based on and subjecl Io D15terms and conditlons OIthe valid and execuled wriiien ccnlracl belween Cuslcnter and Molcrola (lite "“UnderIyIng
Agteemenl“) Ihal authorizes customer Io purchase equipment and/or services or license software (coltectively ““ProducIs"").IIno Underlying Agreement exI5Is between Motamta and Customer. menMotorola's Siandard Terms oi Use and MoIoroIa‘sSlandard Terms and Conditions at Saies and suppiy shall guvem Ihe purchase ol the Prmsttcts,
Page 2Page 26 of 32
Page 33 of 110
Q MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS QUOTE4434753
Line# Item Number Descr?ption Qty ListPrice Sale ' ice Ext. Sale Price
3 NNTN8575ABLK AUDIO ACCESSORY~ 1 $538.00 $322.80 $32280REMOTE SPEAKERMICROPHONEJMPRESXERSM XTCABLE BLACK
$6,178.60(USD)Grand Total
Notes:
Any sales uansacuonfollowing MoloroIa‘squote Is based on and subjecl Io meterms and condilions oilhe wandand execuxeawritten contract between Cuslomer and Motorola (me ""UndeI1yIngAgreemen|‘"') Iha| aulhoriza Customer to purchase equipment andlor services or license so?wave (collectively""Produc(s"‘). Ivno Underlying Agreement exlsls between Molorota and Cuslomer, lhenMc|cmla's Slandard Terms 0! useand Motorola's Standard Terms and commonsat sanesand Supply shall govern Ihs pumnaseat meProducts.
Page 3Page 27 of 32
Page 34 of 110
e>
i°.—
..°su
°F>
mor
cdoz
mO
CO
.2m
.._A
wA
mX
o
8::8
3
_uoc
o_.>
wO
OC
Z._
.<m
z_m
xom
zo<
ooz_
_<_c
z_o>
:ozm
Em
ma
43m
KA
Im
a_.
><
<m
mzo
m. xm
8?:
U8.
...
_<_o
8_.o
_mm
o_::
o:w
_mE
mm
mm
a8
Uqm
mm
sn_uo
co_.
>m
OO
CZ
._.<
m_<
_mxm
mzo
<oo
z__<
_cz_
o>:o
zm_u
m_u
._.
2::
SW
nco?
mS
qn:
m_=
<oo33
::_o
m..o
:mm
n:€3
m:.
mam
mm
2_om
m.
._.:m
am<
¢_ou
3m2
2E
mnc
ozw u3
<E
mac
mE
mov
uo::
::<8
m<
m_:
m8
<05
8n::
m3m
:~mm
aE
ocom
mm
mo_
.:_o:
8gm
.8
<9:
oo3_
.:::_
om:c
:mzm
mam
.
.§.w
_:8:
.:m:o
:_m
u3<
Em
a8m
mm
mw
»<o_
._3
<oc
_.m
<m
_:m
:o:
Eon
mm
m.O
E.m
om.
_m8
u8<
Em
_uoc
o_.>
moo
czjx
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<oo
.s_<
_cz_
o>.:o
zmU
m_u
._. 2
::E
mam
m. Eoa
co?
man
.m?so
mm
m<
m__
mE
m3
:5oo
33c:
_om
=o:
w__
a5.2
.
Em
mm
mE39
m:<
ncm
mzo
zw8
._.8
<_u
_m_q m
: §m:@
:3no
33.o
o3.
<<
mEm
s:<
0:*2
Em
oE..o
1E::
<8E
23»
<0:
5::
u«m
3_m
_.oo
33::
_om
=o:
w25
_oox
Ezz
ma
8<
9:8<
_m<
<m
anam
gum
ow
Snm
ésm
Em
n:o.
m.
mS
nm$_
<_
._.w
o<_u_
m__
.
_so8
8_m
mo_
:=o:
w_<
_m::
mm
oE81
.m_»
mu«
mm
m:?
:<m
Page 28 of 32
Page 35 of 110
9>
i°.—
.nU
h°F
>Q
QP
C10
2%
w=
__:n >3
83“
_uoc
m_.
>w
oocz
?
m_<
_m_»
omzo
<
oo_s
_<E
z_o>
.:ozm
_um
_u._
.
3‘.
m3.
2..
m._
.
_.>
<<
mm
zom
. xm8?
:
cm
m:_
uE:c
>aa
_.m
wm
”
ooco
_.>
mO
Ocz
._.<
mz_
mxm
mzo
<
oo_<
__<
_cz_
o>:o
zmom
naoo
co_.
>m
oocz
?m
_<_m
mom
zo<
oo_<
__<
_cz_
o>:o
zm0.
2»
‘.2
m3.
.....
m...
ocoa
m??
ma
0:08
9.58
::8
8m
xgqm
zoz om
?oeo
emo?
Oco
?mO
_.m
m.8
a.3
:.3
3_u
_m:
:_m
=©
5:no
33.o
o3
mi
O:m
83m
n_u
oco_
.>m
OO
CZ
._.<
m_<
_mxo
mzo
<
oo_<
__sc
z_o>
.:ozm
Um
_u._
.
_.>
<<
mm
zom
_ .88?
:
cm
Oo:
:.mo:
M\_
m‘_
o-
._o:
zmoz
0OC
Z._
.<
ea.
_um
<=
._m
:.._
.m::
m&
ozm
._.
:9:
2:33
?U
mm
nzuz
ozm
a.m
m_¢
_u:o
m
>_u
X:.
88
A_s
wim
w%
s:>
z>
_uxm
m8
>_.
rm
>zu
_s_u
A§_
do.o
o%
.m8.
oom
wm
mw
oo§o
w__
.m
._m
o8m
>o
>00
”m
uxm N
m<
<<<
._.m
mm
:A
$8.8
330
350
>nm
x
.=u
a>o8
8>>
>00
“<
<__
n=oz
mm
wém
mk
._2
8.8
$98
$8.8
>z.
_.m
zz>
_._<
_m§o
An
O>
3m8>
m>
00“
>C
.m
>zu
_som
__.m
A83
.9E
EO
93.8
>za
mzz
>Q
\m\<
Ev
3om
mm
z>
OU
_o>
m:
_<_O
cz._
.m
m._
$8.8
398
835
._m
03>
...m
z:_w
:>3N
ozm
A2.
898
$8.8
$8.8
i39
3m
z:_
m<
m>
mm
ww
mz.
_._>
..‘_
9393
28.3
23.3
m<
o
E95
>:
>00
”>
mmm
zom
éujo
z>
20A
e?m
boS
ago
?mw
co>
U_u
3of
t:/I
>00
”>
_ux
0024
20..
_._m
>_u
_8.
88.
88.
8w
o3<
<>
mm
:o>
o88>
>>
00”
mz:
>zo
mo
D>
._.>
>_u
xA
?mob
o$9
889
8
>=
<mew
».-
m=
mm
o..o
:—
0=Q
§=n
ZaS
3_m
.mas
.»W
83..
0:H
am
:v_m
¢n5
50_m
:.:m
Ea
no:n
_Eo=
mom
=5
<m
_Em
a:m
xwn?
ma(
5.50
:3:
59.
vo.s
$=0:
w_b
=5~
mi
E53
35‘:
5..:
=..m
_§=
n
>cB
a3¢=
.J52
mcs
eaum
mo:m5=
_m~
.0uc
asua
mmn=
_v=
_m=
_m
§.=
9..
mm
2.om
won=
om=
mm
333$
?o__
mo=
<m
_<l_
uBA
=n.
mJ. =
.30c=
%._
§u>
uEm
=.2
=mx?
?33
8:39
.20?
m:«
._O
cwcx
smnEa
:
zo.o
3_m
.mm
.m=
%a
4.93
50-
cmmH
aze
SB
.u.m
m?a
ma
._.m
==
m mza
0O_.
§=o:
m0.
M23
Ea
m5i
<m
:m=no
<m
=_5
0«.
=._
=...
:um
a0-
5mv8
...E
2.m
.
3%M
Page 29 of 32
Page 36 of 110
9.S
O...
Ohn
=.>
moh
cdoz
woc
o+m
-A$&
Ao
:m3
2:35
9O
mm
o:E
_o_.
.E
m.A
uznm
mz.
mm
_m3.
8
A_.
o>oa
3>>
cm:
20.5
8>
o>3m
mA
8.8
8.8
«Poo
o>w
rmzm
mum
o
Ax
omom
mr
mzz
u >m
:~o
D_®
_._.
>_.
O>
_on
Aem
aco
$8.8
$8.8
>_u
X
A_
o>oA
3o>
>>
00”
>_u
xm
mooz
amor
Am
?woo
33.8
33.8
Im>
_u
A3
<§m
m.>
>00
”m
._._
u _u>
_._s
A$3
.8$3
.8$8
.8_<
__o_
»on:
ozm
>_u
x
A:
émm
mm
o>
OD
_z_
:5_x
m+o_
umm
>A
._oz
uA
.88
.8I
$8.0
028
.8
Ao
82>
:m
zI_
Em
:»cz
x_z.
mA
I
38.8
I
28.8
$8.8
mo3
<<
>xm
>_u
x
DB
3._
.o.m
_32
m.A o
emov
zo?m
n
>3.
am_¢
m=
m:m
mn.
_o: ..o
=9z
_:n
2033
3.»
5.58
_mS
wag
0:m
inE
gon.
3:6
53%
man
oo:a
=._
o=m
52.5
<m
_KE
am
xwoz
?a§=
.m=
..b:=
nn.
3.28
..oc
wsa
mam
aaZ03
3535
..C:a
m:<
_:m
>m
Em
32=
JSm
.m
.=_s
_¢m
mn=
m.b
.sm
_..0
ucax
mm
m$:
Au=
_m=
_N35
2.m
agnu
mE
.__
om=
mn woa
?nnm
Aoo
=m
o._<
m_<
:u:x
_:n.
mJ.
=:0
cim
asan
>bn
mm
3m:~ox
??33
$:19
.035
m=
n 0:30
:69
Em
:
§a_o
..o_w
.mm
iam
a._
.m=
=m 1
cwo E
a:o
.o3.
w.m
msi
ma
40:-
Em
an0o
.a_=
e=m
Rm
u_m
m mi..
.m:~
._n_
<m
..m__ @
055
Em
_x=
.o:u
wmomS
m1R
xEo.
m.
Aum
omw
Page 30 of 32
Page 37 of 110
@ MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS
Proposal
Date 3/15/2021 1301 Algonquin RoadValid Until 4/14/2021 Schaumburg, IL 60196
Sales Aaron CorcoranEngineer — Contract: 28440
QUOTE: 1603
K Douglas County Emergency CommunicationsJeremy Rabb 785-865-3442111 E. 11th St Suite 200 [email protected]
Lawrence, KS 66044\
Qty Model Description Unit Price TOTAL1 DSMW3HE06791AA SAR-8 SHELF v2 $756.00 $ 756.00
2 DSMW3HE02774AB CONTROL SWITCH MODULEV2 (CSMV2) 48V $2,205.00 83 4,410.00
1 DSMW3HE02784MA SAR RELEASE 9.0 BASIC os LICENSE $535.50 $ 535.50
1 DSMW3HE06792EA FAN MODULE (SAR»8 SHELF V2) EXTTEMP —48VDC $378.00 $ 378.00
2 DSMW3HE11473AK PMC CARD w/ 4 GlG»E SFP BUNDLE(1) 3HE02782AA PMC $3,402.00 $ 6,804.00$ _
$ .$ .$ .$ ..
Thank you for your consideration of Motorola products.
Page 1
Page 31 of 32
Page 38 of 110
@ MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS
Qty Model Description 1 Unit Price TOTAL
Page 2
Page 32 of 32
Page 39 of 110
AGENDA ITEM REPORT
Date: March 24, 2021 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Adam Rains, Treasurer Department: Treasurer Subject: Consider Resolution to Initiate Tax Foreclosure Sale BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Consider a County Resolution directing the County Counselor to institute judicial tax foreclosure action in the District Court of Douglas County on real estate delinquencies more than three years past due, as per K.S.A 79-2801. Actions to include securing the County’s interest by filing a lien on each property; researching ownership and real estate title; locating and notifying all persons with legal interest in each property of the impending sale and requirements for redemption; preparing guidelines and requirements for the sale; conducting the sale and verifying proceeds and disbursement. RECOMMENDATION: Consider approving resolution to initiate tax foreclosure sale
Page 40 of 110
RESOLUTION NO. 21 - ____
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY COUNSELOR TO INSTITUTE A JUDICIAL TAX FORECLOSURE ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS
WHEREAS, K.S.A. 79-2801, and amendments thereto, provides for real estate tax foreclosure actions in the District Court in the name of The Board of County Commissioners, to judicially foreclose on the County’s real estate tax liens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS: Section 1. Action to be Instituted. The County Counselor of Douglas County, Kansas, in the name of the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas, is directed to institute a judicial tax foreclosure action pursuant to K.S.A. 79-2801, et seq., against the owners or supposed owners of such real estate and all persons having or claiming to have any interest therein or thereto, to enforce the lien of Douglas County, Kansas and its taxing authorities, for taxes, charges, assessments, interest, and penalties on unredeemed real estate bid in by Douglas County for real estate having unpaid real estate taxes and assessments for 2016 and prior years.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force from and after its adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. ADOPTED __________________, 2021. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS Attest: _______________________________________
Shannon Portillo, Chair _____________________________ _______________________________________ Jameson D. Shew, County Clerk Shannon Reid, Vice Chair _______________________________________ Patrick Kelly, Member
Page 2 of 2
Page 41 of 110
Douglas County Commissioners
Dear Commissioners:I represent the Kansas Fur Harvesters Association. In July of 2016 we hosted the National Fur
Takers of America’s Convention at the Douglas County Fairgrounds. We brought around 3500 people from all over the United States to Lawrence for this event. These people stayed in local motels, camped at local campgrounds, bought fuel at local convenience stores, ate at local restaurants, bought groceries at local stores, visited local tourist attractions, and spent money in numerous other places. Ours is a family oriented group, many of the FTA members use this convention as a destination vacation and spend extra time at the convention area. With the attractions in this part of the state, several families made the convention in 2016 as there summer vacation. Our primary mission is about education we stress a family atmosphere.
In June of 2022 we will once again be hosting this same event at the Fair Grounds. This letter is a request for a waiver of your policy on Firearms. We are not anything like a “Gun Show”. The Fur Takers of America and many of the state organizations use firearms as fundraisers to bring in revenue for their respective organizations. Most of these firearms would be “Display Only”. The only firearms that are sold are a few at the FTA Fundraiser Auction, which follow strict FFL regulations, and a few sold by individual vendors. All firearms on the premises would be secured with safety devices.
There has been a change of Policy from the FTA, as to where no site will be allowed to host a National Event unless Firearms are permitted. The 2022 Convention is grandfathered in and will be held in Lawrence with or without this waiver. Although, with this waiver on firearms there is a very good possibility of bringing 3000 to 5000 or more people to Douglas County every 4 to 5 years.
You have one of the nicest Facilities in the country for our Convention and we would like to continue to have it available for our Convention rotation. Your “Explore Lawrence” has been very helpful in the planning of our event and we look forward to working with them in the future.
The FTA membership is primarily made up of people who are directly engaged in wildlife management for the benefit of wildlife, and the reduction in human/wildlife conflicts. Firearms are another tool in our “tool box”, to help us accomplish this.
I hope the economic impact on your community from our Conventions will have a large bearing on your decision on this matter. Please contact me with any questions you might have and I will be happy to meet with anyone at any time on this matter.
Sincerely,
John BorrorVice President Convention CoordinatorKansas Fur Harvesters Association, Inc.9519 Marion Rd.Fredonia, Ks. [email protected]
Page 42 of 110
AGENDA ITEM REPORT
Date: March 24, 2021 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Jay Zimmerschied, Director of Capital Projects Department: Administration Subject: Jail Maintenance Project - Professional Design Services Contract Amendment BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This design services contract amendment is proposed to separately support and document maintenance work items at the existing Douglas County Correction Facility. These components were originally planned as part of the jail expansion project which has been put on hold. These professional design services will be required in order to provide the City of Lawrence (Authority Having Jurisdiction) with the necessary design documents for review and issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDATION: Consider approval of the professional services design contract amendment with TreanorHL, Inc. for the documentation and observation of the Douglas County Correction Facility Maintenance Project in the amount of $63,500.
Page 43 of 110
DOUGLAS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
1100 Massachusetts Street
Lawrence, KS 66044-3064
(785) 832-5328 Fax (785) 832-5148
Amendment to Professional Services Contract AIA Document B101, as amended
Project: Douglas County Correctional Facility Expansion, Revised
Owner: Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County Kansas
Architect: TreanorHL, Inc., f/k/a Treanor Architects P.A.
Agreement: Approved October 22, 2014, as originally amended and on or about July 11, 2016
As a result of the Owner’s decision not to pursue the full scope of the original Project, only a portion of the
original design will be implemented, namely central plant and miscellaneous repairs at the county jail. The
design work for this revised scope is largely completed but requires modifications to the construction
documents due to the change in scope, and will require new bidding and construction administration
services, among others. The Owner has determined it is in the best interests of the taxpayer to amend the
professional services agreement in order to allow for the use of the existing designs and Architect’s
specialized knowledge and experience (on this Project and others). Accordingly, the Owner and Architect
hereby agree and amend the Agreement as follows:
Scope. The Agreement scope is hereby reduced to the central plant, asphalt and concrete, sliding detention,
elevators, exterior joint resealing, sanitary plumbing on the first floor, and miscellaneous repairs, as
generally identified in the 1/25/21 Douglas County Jail Schedule Deferred Maintenance document. The
ownership, use and control of the Project’s Instruments of Service remain the same as they existed before
this Amendment.
Compensation. The parties acknowledge that all compensation that was paid prior to the date of this
Amendment was earned by Architect and properly paid by Owner. Architect’s (and its consultants')
compensation for all remaining services under the Agreement (as amended by this document) shall be
$63,500 regardless of the Costs of Construction, and Owner shall unencumber the funds previously
encumbered for the Architect's contract in excess of that amount.
Schedule. The construction drawings and specifications for bidding and permitting shall be delivered to
Owner within thirty (30) days of the written notice to proceed, if such notice is timely given.
The Agreement and its amendments are incorporated herein, except as altered by the terms of this
Amendment.
Dated: March 17, 2021.
______________________________________ ____________________________________
OWNER (Signature) ARCHITECT (Signature)
Shannon Portillo, Chair, Board of County Jeffrey T. Lane, AIA, Principal
Commissioners of Douglas County Kansas TreanorHL, INC.
Page 2 of 3
Page 44 of 110
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Douglas County Jail Project 257 days Wed 2/3/21 Thu 1/27/22
2 Pre Construction 43 days Wed 2/3/21 Fri 4/2/21
3 Commissioner Work Session Approval Meeting 0 days Wed 2/3/21 Wed 2/3/21
4 Treanor Permit Drawings 20 days Wed 2/3/21 Tue 3/2/21
5 Turner GMP/Sub Contract review 40 days Wed 2/3/21 Tue 3/30/21
6 Commissioner Signing GMP Meeting 0 days Tue 3/2/21 Tue 3/2/21
7 Treanor to Submit Docs to City for Review 3 days Wed 3/3/21 Fri 3/5/21
8 Permitting 20 days Mon 3/8/21 Fri 4/2/21
9 Construction 237 days Wed 3/3/21 Thu 1/27/22
10 Exterior Site Improvements 27 days Mon 4/5/21 Tue 5/11/21
15 Exterior Wall 30 days Mon 4/5/21 Fri 5/14/21
17 Max. Housing Sanitary Upgrade 30 days Mon 4/26/21 Fri 6/4/21
21 Sliding Detention Replacement 85 days Wed 3/3/21 Tue 6/29/21
24 Elevator Upgrades 105 days Wed 3/3/21 Tue 7/27/21
27 Central Plant Upgrades 220 days Wed 3/17/21 Tue 1/18/22
47 Closeout 12 days Tue 1/11/22 Thu 1/27/22
52 Project Complete 0 days Thu 1/27/22 Thu 1/27/22
2/3
Treanor Permit Drawings
Turner GMP/Sub Contract review
3/2
Treanor to Submit Docs to City for Review
Permitting
1/27
M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F
Feb 7, '21 Apr 4, '21 May 30, '21 Jul 25, '21 Sep 19, '21 Nov 14, '21 Jan 9, '22
Douglas County Jail Schedule Deferred Maintenance
Mon 1/25/21
Page 1
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 3
Page 45 of 110
AGENDA ITEM REPORT
Date: March 24, 2021 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Denny Ewert, Department: Planning Department Subject: Consider initiating a text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations or Lawrence
and the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Please see attached staff memo. Mary Miller is the Planner. RECOMMENDATION: Consider initiating a text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations or Lawrence and theUnincorporated Areas of Douglas County, KS, to revise and develop land division processes and standards that are aligned with, and will effectively implement, the goals and action steps provided in Plan 2040 for growth management of the Lawrence urban growth area.
Page 46 of 110
MemorandumCity of Lawrence/Douglas County Planning & Development Services
TO: Douglas County Board of County CommissionersFROM: Mary Miller, Planning Staff
Tonya Voigt, Zoning DirectorDate: March 24, 2021RE: Text Amendments proposed to the Subdivision Regulations or Lawrence
and the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, KSBACKGROUNDGrowth management goals and strategies for the unincorporated area of Douglas County were revised with the recent update to the comprehensive plan, Plan 2040 A Comprehensive Plan for Unincorporated Douglas County & the City of Lawrence. The Subdivision Regulations are intended to implement the recommendations in the comprehensive plan. As the growth management vision and goals in the comprehensive plan have been revised, it is necessary to revise and update the Subdivision Regulations so they can effectively implement the vision and goals of Plan 2040.
HORIZON 2020:The following information and statements from the previous comprehensive plan, Horizon 2020, illustrate the growth management philosophy and goals for land within the urban growth area that the current Subdivision Regulations were developed to implement:
HORIZON 2020 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONSHorizon 2020 established Service Areas within the urban growth area. Service Area 1 was identified as the area most readily served by community services and facilities and the plan noted that: “Development within Service Area shall be preceded by annexation and will be subject to the recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Plan.” (Page 4-2)
The Subdivision Regulations prohibit land division in Service Area 1 prior to annexation. Section 11-103(a) [20-803(a), City Code]
Rural residential development was encouraged to locate within the urban growth area. (Policy 2.2, page 4.9)
The Subdivision Regulations provide for more dense residential development within the urban growth area, through the cluster development certificate of survey process. Article 11-104 [20-804, City Code]
Page 2 of 7
Page 47 of 110
Residential subdivisions in unincorporated Douglas County are discouraged in the Rural Area. (outside the UGA)
“Agricultural uses should continue to be the predominant land use within the areas of the county beyond the designated urban growth/service areas (rural area).”
(Residential, Page 5-6, Horizon 2020)
The Subdivision Regulations prohibit residential subdivisions in the unincorporated area of the county, except on land that had previously been zoned A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential). (This was revised in 2020 with the revised Zoning Regulations to include land that is zoned CP (Cluster Preservation).
The Subdivision Regulations permit rural land division through two types of certificates of surveys: Cluster Developments, in the urban growth area, and Rural Certificates of Survey, beyond the UGA. Denser development was possible in the Cluster Developments but the Subdivision Regulations did not include any measures for limiting residential development, beyond meeting the area and frontage requirements.
The plan noted the criteria that needed to be met for rural residential development to occur within the remainder of the urban growth area. (Pages 4-3 and 4-4)
These criteria were incorporated into the cluster development certificate of survey standards in the Subdivision Regulations.
PLAN 2040The updated comprehensive plan, Plan 2040, adopted in November of 2019, provides a shift in the goals/growth management principles for the urban growth area:
“Our vision is to manage growth within rural Douglas County by encouraging agricultural uses and accommodating the demand for other compatible uses while protecting environmental resources.” (Page 20, Plan 2040)
Steps which are recommended to retain the rural character include:
Ch.3A.1.4 “Minimize agricultural land conversion to other non-agricultural uses.”
Ch.3A.1.5 “Cluster residential developments to preserve agricultural lands within urban growth areas.”
Ch.3A.1.6 “Maintain working lands and high-quality agricultural soils for future generations.”
(Page 20, Plan 2040)
Page 3 of 7
Page 48 of 110
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONCERNS-STUDY SESSION Concerns noted at the February 10, 2021 Board of County Commissioners work session include:
The amount and rate of agricultural land being converted to residential development.
The impact additional development may have on maintenance of county and township roads.
The pressure on current infrastructure and costs associated with supporting additional housing.
The need for land in the urban growth area to be able to divide and develop to urban densities following annexation.
Developing a system as a tool for evaluating the quality of agricultural lands and maintaining an adequate inventory of working agricultural lands and high-quality agricultural soils.
This amendment would propose changes to the Subdivision Regulations to align the land division processes in the urban growth area with the goals of Plan 2040 and to address the concerns noted at the study session.
Amendment process:a. Initiation: A text amendment can be initiated by the Board
of County Commissioners or the Planning Commission. Staff provides a motion for the Board of County Commissioners to initiate this text amendment at the end of this memo.
b. Public Notification: The public will be notified of the Planning Commission public hearing via legal notice in the newspaper and the Planning Commission online agenda posting.
As these are substantial changes to the Subdivision Regulations, staff will conduct public outreach to inform the public and obtain their input.
c. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and review the text amendment, after which the body will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and the City Commission. (Both governing bodies must approve the amendment as these are joint regulations for the City of Lawrence and unincorporated Douglas County and the proposed revisions affect land that is within the unincorporated portion of Douglas County and within the Lawrence urban growth area.)
The Planning Commission may return the text amendment to staff with direction for changes or request for additional
Page 4 of 7
Page 49 of 110
information before forwarding the amendment to the Board of County Commissioners and the City Commission.
d. Governing Bodies:i. Board of County Commissioners: the Board of County
Commissioners will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation and consider the amendment.
ii. City Commission: The City Commission will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation and consider the amendment.
Either body may return the text amendment to the Planning Commission for further consideration, with a written explanation of the reasons for the Commission’s failure to approve or disapprove.
When both the City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners have approved the amendment, it will be in effect following the publication of the joint ordinance/resolution in the official county newspaper.
Action Requested:Initiate a text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations or Lawrence and the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, KS, to revise and develop land division processes and standards that are aligned with, and will effectively implement, the goals and action steps provided in Plan 2040 for growth management of the Lawrence urban growth area.
Page 5 of 7
Page 50 of 110
Memo to: Douglas County Board of County Commissioners Sarah Plinsky, County Administrator From: Douglas County Food Policy Council Subject: Memo in support of Zoning and Codes proposal to update the
Subdivision Regulations in regard to rural development; further recommend establishing funds to preserve sensitive lands, specifically prime farmland.
Date: March 24, 2021 The Douglas County Food Policy Council stands in full support of the Department of Zoning and Codes recommendations to revise development guidelines in the Subdivision Regulations and in Plan 2040, if necessary. This includes proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations to align the land division processes in the urban growth area with the goals of Plan 2040 and to address the concerns noted at the Feb 17, 2021 study session.
These specific technical recommendations – and the broader issues of protecting the agricultural potential of high quality lands – align with several strategies outlined in Goal 2, Objective 1 of the Douglas County Food System Plan: “Protect High Quality Agricultural Lands.” These include:
Policy 2.1.1: “Utilize the protection of High Quality Agricultural Land as a key assumption in the sector planning process.” The text amendments suggested here aim to build this consideration into the short term, whereas embedding this assumption into the sector plans will take a longer-range view and process. We urge you to take the interim action now to secure protective measures on these valuable land assets.
Other efforts by Zoning and Codes, such as applying a Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) tool when considering whether to rezone lands from agricultural use, already speaks to Food System Plan strategies within this Objective, for example: Policy 2.1.2: “Develop a method to monitor High Quality Agricultural Land protection efforts.”
The DCFPC recommends that these alignments and evolving planning discussions – along with other emerging plans and priorities in our community such as Climate Adaptation and Open Space – create timely opportunity to make progress on still another policy within this Objective of the Food System Plan, Policy 2.1.3: Establish tools to protect High Quality Agricultural Land for farming that are economically feasible for the land owner, and more specifically Policy 2.1.3.a: Create a dedicated fund for conservation easements. Moreover, the DCFPC recognizes that in addition to easements, this strategy could also make room for additional publically-owned lands, which in turn could be assets to Open Space plans.
Page 6 of 7
Page 51 of 110
The DCFPC invites the opportunity to take direction from the Commission to further explore potential ways forward on these policies, which would in turn further expand upon the resources lending to the zoning and planning discussions at hand.
Direct questions to DCFPC Chair, Tyler Lindquist: [email protected].
Page 7 of 7
Page 52 of 110
AGENDA ITEM REPORT
Date: March 24, 2021 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Jill deVries Jolicoeur, Assistant County Administrator Department: Administration Subject: Results of 2020 Douglas County Employee Racial Equity Survey BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In February of 2020, Douglas County became a member of the Government Alliance for Race and Equity (GARE), a "national network of government working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all." A GARE membership includes the ability for GARE to perform a bi-annual Employee Racial Equity Survey to gain a baseline understanding of organizational development needs and monitor performance in the future. The results of Douglas County's first Employee Racial Equity Survey and the supporting data tables are attached for your review and discussion. County Administration and members of our Equity Team will be available to answer questions, share next steps currently under consideration to respond to survey results, and discuss additional ideas or considerations with the County Commission. RECOMMENDATION: For information only.
Page 53 of 110
Douglas County Racial Equity Employee Survey Summary of Findings
Background In late 2020, Douglas County collaborated with the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) to survey 512 employees. The purpose of the survey was to assess racial equity knowledge, skills, and experiences among employees to inform future action steps toward advancing racial equity within Douglas County. An online questionnaire, consisting of 55 items, was administered. An electronic invitation to participate in the survey, as well as several follow-up reminders, was sent to all 512 employees. Across the nation, and across a wide array of indicators, racial inequities are deep and pervasive. GARE places racial equity front and center in their work. While staff are often familiar with other entry points for addressing equity, such as diversity and inclusion, the term racial equity takes a more holistic approach to improve outcomes for all groups, using an institutional and structural approach. The survey provided the following description to respondents: “Racial equity focuses on eliminating disproportionalities based on race and lifting up outcomes for all groups.” The survey data collected from 316 employees were cleaned, checked and analyzed by GARE staff. Descriptive statistics were run on all survey items. Additionally, exploratory analysis was performed to identify where differences existed across various subgroups of interest. Specifically, chi-square tests were performed to explore differences by race and ethnicity and supervisory status. Summary tables of for each finding discussed below has been provided in separate, accompanying documents.
Survey Results: Respondents A total of 316 employees participated in the racial equity employee survey, accounting for a 61.7% response rate. A total of 280 questionnaires met the completion threshold, were valid and useable, resulting in a 54.7% effective response rate. Of the respondents who specified their gender, over half identified as female (56.3%). About eight in ten employees specified their race and ethnicity (82.1%). Of those who did so, about three quarters of them identified as White, non-LatinX (77.0%). The other racial and ethnic groups were smaller in size, with Hispanic/Latina/Latino/LatinX representing 8.7%, Black or African American at 5.2%, Multiracial at 4.3%, American Indian or Alaskan Native at 3.9%, and Asian or Asian American at 0.9%. A small percentage of employees (7.2%) indicated that they have a disability. Respondents represented sixteen out of seventeen departments in Douglas County (all but the County Commission). Of those who indicated their department, about a quarter were employed in at the Sheriff’s Office (24.4%), with slightly smaller shares at the District Court (13.8%) and Public Works (9.7%). Remaining respondents indicated other departments. In terms of work location, over half of respondents indicated that they work in an office environment in a downtown or central location (55.2%), with about a quarter indicating that they worked in office environments outside of the downtown area (25.5%). About two in ten of respondents indicated that they did not work in an office environment (19.2%). The majority of respondents were full-time employees (91.4%). Survey respondents exhibited variation in organizational tenure. Most frequently, respondents indicated they had worked between 1-5 years at
Page 2 of 47
Page 54 of 110
2
Douglas County (31.3%), followed by 11-20 years (24.6%) and 21 or more years (17.5%). Close to four in ten (38.7%) respondents indicated that they managed or supervised people. Data disaggregation by race and ethnicity is core to GARE’s racial equity framework. Unfortunately, due to low sample sizes across a wide range of racial and ethnic groups, subsequent analysis exploring statistically significant findings across employee subgroups groups together respondents of color and compares the group to White, non-Latinx respondents. Another meaningful area of exploration was supervisory status, comparing results between non-supervisors (n=146) and supervisors (n=92). Where appropriate, findings of significant difference between these distinct employee subgroups are denoted below. Results: Individual-level Insights Survey respondents reported a range of knowledge, skills, and experiences with race and racial equity. There was widespread agreement among respondents on feeling competent in their interactions with people of other races (99.3%; Figure 1). A majority of respondents similarly indicated that examining and discussing the impacts of race is valuable (92.9%), as well as agreement on having a basic understanding of concepts related to racial equity (97.5%). White, non-LatinX respondents were more likely to agree that it is valuable to discuss the impacts of race compared to respondents of color. However, respondents of color were more likely to indicate strong agreement with having a basic understanding of concepts related to racial equity. A majority of all respondents agreed that they felt comfortable talking about race (85.7%), yet a smaller, but still sizable majority agreed that they could identify examples of institutional racism (75.0%). Respondents of color indicated stronger agreement when asked if they could identify such examples in comparison to white, non-LatinX respondents. Among all the employees who indicated they could identify examples of institutionalized racism, about two thirds (66.7%) agreed they had the tools to address institutional racism in the workplace. There was stronger agreement in this belief among White, non-LatinX respondents than among respondents of color. Supervisors were also significantly more likely to agree they had the tools to address institutional racism compared to non-supervisors.
Figure 1. Individual-level perspectives among Douglas County employee survey respondents.
Page 3 of 47
Page 55 of 110
3
About three in ten (29.4%) respondents indicated that they had attended three or more racial equity workshops, with another similarly large share (34.4%) indicating that they had attended one or two racial equity trainings or workshops. Supervisors were more likely to indicate that they had attended more trainings than non-supervisors. Among all respondents who attended trainings, over eight out of ten agreed the trainings were useful (86.6%). In terms of involvement with racial equity in the workplace, six in ten respondents agreed they were actively involved (60.6%). Supervisors were significantly more inclined to agree with this statement compared to non-supervisors. With regard to enhancing involvement, the two most frequently noted needs among all respondents were more information, so employees knew what to do (48.8%) and training (41.1%). Close to three in ten (28.6%) respondents indicated they were happy with their current level of involvement. In terms of specific tools, less than one in ten (8.7%) respondents indicated they have used a racial equity tool on policy, program, or budget decisions. Results: Department-Level Insights Survey respondents were also asked to characterize and assess their department. About eight in ten (82.9%) respondents agreed their department was committed to racial equity (Figure 2). White, non-LatinX respondents were significantly more likely to express stronger agreement with this statement than respondents of color. Supervisors were also more likely to express strong agreement with this statement compared to non-supervisors. About half (51.8%) of all respondents agreed their department had taken steps to reduce racial inequities. Overall, survey respondents indicated varying responses toward their department’s progress toward racial equity. Close to six in ten (57.8%) respondents agreed their department, on the whole, was making progress toward achieving racial equity. White, non-LatinX respondents were more likely to agree that their department was making progress relative to respondents of color. In terms of resources, close to half (48.0%) of all respondents agreed their department provided resources necessary for addressing racial disparities and achieving racial equity. While close to half (52.1%) of respondents agreed that employees are encouraged to participate in racial equity trainings, workshops, or events, a slightly smaller share of respondents agreed their department provided racial equity training (41.1%). White, non-LatinX respondents were significantly more likely to agree that their department provides racial equity training than respondents of color, who were more likely to strongly disagree. Supervisors were significantly more likely to agree with this statement compared to non-supervisors, and non-supervisors were also more likely to indicate that they did not know if their department provided racial equity training. Across all respondents, a small percentage indicated their department had a racial equity work group (6.8%), a racial equity action plan (4.7%), or consistently used a racial equity tool (5.8%). Supervisors were significantly more likely to disagree that their department has a racial equity action plan or work group, while non-supervisors were more likely to indicate that they did not know on both statements. Similarly, supervisors were more likely to indicate that their department had never used a racial equity tool in decision-making, with non-supervisors more likely to indicate that they did not know. With respect to leadership in their department, about seven in ten survey respondents agreed their leadership participates in and supports discussions about racial equity (71.1%). Supervisors were significantly more likely to agree with this statement compared to non-supervisors. Across all respondents, a slightly smaller share indicated that leadership communicates the importance of addressing racial inequities and achieving racial equity (65.7%).
Page 4 of 47
Page 56 of 110
4
Figure 2. Department-level perspectives among Douglas County employee survey respondents. With regard to departmental workforce, about half (54.9%) of all respondents agreed their department reflected the diversity of the community. Fewer (44.3%) agreed their department was taking concrete actions to improve workforce equity. With regard to contracting and procurement practices, about two in ten (20.8%) respondents indicated their department is taking concrete actions to increase equity, but the majority of respondents indicated that they did not know (66.8%). Respondents of color were more likely to agree that their department was taking such actions compared to White, non-LatinX respondents. Across all respondents, a quarter (25.9%) agreed the results of their department’s contracting and procurement equitably benefit the racial diversity of the community, yet about six in ten of respondents indicated that they did not know (62.8%). White, non-LatinX respondents were significantly more likely to indicate that they did not know if their department’s contracting and procurement practices equitably benefited the racial diversity of their community. Employees were also asked to provide their perspectives on their department’s external facing efforts. About four in ten (43.0%) agreed their department was taking concrete actions to increase racial equity for their communities. Three in ten (32.6%) of all respondents agreed their department sought input and assistance on decision-making from communities of color. A similar share (30.7%) of all respondents agreed their department partners with other organizations to advance racial equity. Four in ten (41.0%) respondents agreed their department was making progress on improving access to services for people of color. While supervisors were more likely to agree that their department was making such progress, non-supervisors were more likely to indicate that they did not know. Among all respondents, about a quarter (23.1%) agreed their department was making progress on improving access to services for refugees and immigrants. Supervisors were more likely to agree that their department was making progress, while non-supervisors were more likely to indicate that they did not know. Close to half (46.1%) of respondents agreed their department provided interpretation and translation services for people with limited English. Douglas County-Wide Insights Employees were also asked to weigh in on their government as a whole. Over six in ten (64.5%) agreed
Page 5 of 47
Page 57 of 110
5
the county government, as a whole, has made an explicit commitment to advancing racial equity. Supervisors are more likely to agree with this statement, while non-supervisors are more likely to indicate that they did not know if their government had made an explicit commitment. Across all respondents, about half (52.6%) could identify one or more concrete actions the county government had taken to address racial inequities in the community. Supervisors were more likely to agree with this compared to non-supervisors. When looking at all respondents, the most frequently identified strategies among those provided were: 1) participation in the GARE network (35.0%), 2) increasing workforce diversity (25.4%), 3) engaging community to inform decision-making (25.0%), and 4) providing staff training on racial equity (23.2%). Overall, about six in ten (66.8%) of all respondents agreed that the government, on the whole, is making progress in advancing racial equity in the community. White, non-LatinX respondents were significantly more likely to agree with this statement compared to respondents of color. Supervisors were also more likely to agree with the government’s progress as a whole, while non-supervisors were more likely to indicate that they did not know. Nearly three quarters (72.9%) of all respondents agreed the community, as a whole, is making progress advancing racial equity. Summary and Recommendations Results from the employee survey help to assess the progress of efforts to both build a shared understanding of racial equity and implement racial equity strategies. Overall, respondents indicated a high degree of willingness and capacity to engage in racial equity work. A majority of respondents agreed they thought it was valuable to examine and discuss the impacts of race and felt comfortable talking about race. A majority also agreed they had a basic understanding of concepts related to racial equity. Taken together, these results are excellent indicators of the potential for meaningful future engagement and action across Douglas County.
Results revealed general agreement on departmental and county-wide actions to demonstrate greater institutional commitment to racial equity and support employee engagement in racial equity efforts. Moving forward, an emphasis on building internal infrastructure to guide racial equity efforts will be advantageous to both operationalize and organize efforts across the county. Specifically, increasing cross-collaborative coordination and implementing widespread deployment of readily available tools and approaches will be advantageous. Further, the involvement of a broad cross section of employees is also called for, to increase internal awareness of activities being undertaken and embed the work more thoroughly.
Results also revealed consistent differences across race and ethnicity. These differences will be important to take into consideration as Douglas County engages employees in efforts to normalize, operationalize, and organize racial equity efforts. Differences also manifested between supervisors and non-supervisors. Pronounced differences among the subgroups explored call for further attention.
Finally, the results suggest that active leadership and more robust communication across all levels will facilitate stronger partnerships, staff engagement, and improved outcomes for all. The data yielded from this survey are useful for shaping the Douglas County’s long-term organizational racial equity strategy. It is recommended the employee survey be repeated in two years’ time, in 2022, to evaluate Douglas County’s continued progress toward advancing racial equity.
Page 6 of 47
Page 58 of 110
1
Douglas County Racial Equity Employee Survey
Overall Survey Results
(Note: Overall results presented in the same order as the Summary of Findings document. Findings of statistical significance are found after overall results are presented, beginning on page 20.)
What is your gender?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Female 135 56.3 56.3
Male 87 36.3 92.5
Non-binary/Third gender 1 .4 92.9
Prefer not to say 17 7.1 100.0
Total 240 100.0
Missing 40
Total 280
Race and Ethnicity
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
American Indian or Alaskan Native 9 3.9 3.9
Asian or Asian American 2 .9 4.8
Black or African American 12 5.2 10.0
White, non-LatinX 177 77.0 87.0
LatinX 20 8.7 95.7
Multiracial 10 4.3 100.0
Total 230 100.0
Missing 50
Total 280
Page 7 of 47
Page 59 of 110
2
Transgender is an umbrella term that refers to people whose gender identity, expression or behavior is different from those typically associated with their assigned sex at birth. Are you Transgender?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 1 .4 .4
No 229 95.4 95.8
Prefer not to say 10 4.2 100.0
Total 240 100.0
Missing 40
Total 280
What is your sexual orientation?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Prefer to self-describe 6 2.5 2.5
Straight/Heterosexual 187 77.9 80.4
Gay or Lesbian 9 3.8 84.2
Bisexual 9 3.8 87.9
Prefer not to say 29 12.1 100.0
Total 240 100.0
Missing 40
Total 280
Do you have a disability?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 17 7.2 7.2
No 219 92.8 100.0
Total 236 100.0
Missing 44
Total 280
Page 8 of 47
Page 60 of 110
3
What department do you work for? Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Administration 17 7.8 7.8
Appraiser 9 4.1 12.0
County Clerk 3 1.4 13.4
District Attorney 11 5.1 18.4
District Court 30 13.8 32.3
Emergency Communications 9 4.1 36.4
Emergency Management 3 1.4 37.8
Information Technology 6 2.8 40.6
Maintenance 6 2.8 43.3
Public Works 21 9.7 53.0
Register of Deeds 4 1.8 54.8
Sheriff 53 24.4 79.3
Treasurer 10 4.6 83.9
Youth Services 19 8.8 92.6
Zoning 5 2.3 94.9
Criminal Justice Services 11 5.1 100.0
Total 217 100.0
Missing 63
Total 280
Do you work primarily:
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
In a downtown (or central location)
office environment
132 55.2 55.2
In an office environment, outside of
downtown (or central location)
61 25.5 80.8
Not in an office environment 46 19.2 100.0
Total 239 100.0
Missing 41
Total 280
Page 9 of 47
Page 61 of 110
4
Are you? Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Full-time 224 91.4 91.4
Part-time 21 8.6 100.0
Total 245 100.0
Missing 25
Total 280
How long have you worked for your jurisdiction?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Less than 1 year 25 10.4 10.4
1-5 years 75 31.3 41.7
6-10 years 39 16.3 57.9
11-20 years 59 24.6 82.5
21 or more years 42 17.5 100.0
Total 240 100.0
Missing 40
Total 280
Do you manage or supervise people?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 92 38.7 38.7
No 146 61.3 100.0
Total 238 100.0
Missing 42
Total 280
I feel competent in my interactions with people of other races.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 114 40.9 40.9
Agree 125 44.8 85.7
Somewhat agree 38 13.6 99.3
Somewhat disagree 1 .4 99.6
Disagree 1 .4 100.0
Total 279 100.0
Missing 1
Total 280
Page 10 of 47
Page 62 of 110
5
I think it is valuable to examine and discuss the impacts of race. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 149 53.2 53.2
Agree 90 32.1 85.4
Somewhat agree 21 7.5 92.9
Somewhat disagree 5 1.8 94.6
Disagree 5 1.8 96.4
Strongly disagree 7 2.5 98.9
Don't know 3 1.1 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
I have a basic understanding of concepts related to racial equity.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 95 34.1 34.1
Agree 146 52.3 86.4
Somewhat agree 31 11.1 97.5
Somewhat disagree 2 .7 98.2
Don't know 5 1.8 100.0
Total 279 100.0
Missing 1
Total 280
I feel comfortable talking about race.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 62 22.1 22.1
Agree 121 43.2 65.4
Somewhat agree 57 20.4 85.7
Somewhat disagree 21 7.5 93.2
Disagree 14 5.0 98.2
Strongly disagree 4 1.4 99.6
Don't know 1 .4 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
Page 11 of 47
Page 63 of 110
6
I can identify examples of institutional racism (i.e., when organizational programs or policies work better for white people than for people of color, regardless of intention). Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 61 21.8 21.8
Agree 74 26.4 48.2
Somewhat agree 75 26.8 75.0
Somewhat disagree 13 4.6 79.6
Disagree 21 7.5 87.1
Strongly disagree 16 5.7 92.9
Don't know 20 7.1 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
[If I know how to identify institutionalized racism] I have the tools to address institutional racism in my workplace. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 14 6.7 6.7
Agree 55 26.2 32.9
Somewhat agree 71 33.8 66.7
Somewhat disagree 26 12.4 79.0
Disagree 17 8.1 87.1
Strongly disagree 11 5.2 92.4
Don't know 16 7.6 100.0
Total 210 100.0
Missing 70
Total 280
How many trainings / workshops about racial equity have you attended? Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
None 101 36.2 36.2
One or two 96 34.4 70.6
Three or more 82 29.4 100.0
Total 279 100.0
Missing 1
Total 280
Page 12 of 47
Page 64 of 110
7
[If you attended a training] In general, I have found trainings / workshops about racial equity to be useful.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 39 21.8 21.8
Agree 69 38.5 60.3
Somewhat agree 47 26.3 86.6
Somewhat disagree 5 2.8 89.4
Disagree 9 5.0 94.4
Strongly disagree 6 3.4 97.8
Don't know 4 2.2 100.0
Total 179 100.0
Missing 101
Total 280
I would become more active in advancing racial equity if… (check all that apply)
Frequency Cumulative Percent
I had more information, so I knew what to do 135 48.2
I received training 115 41.1
Racial equity strategies received more funding 59 21.1
I had the support of my supervisor or manager 57 20.4
I had more time 46 16.4
I believed there are serious issues related to race 46 16.4
I am happy with my current level of engagement 80 28.6 I have used a racial equity tool on policy, program, or budget decisions.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 24 8.7 8.7
No 178 64.5 73.2
Don't know 74 26.8 100.0
Total 276 100.0
Missing 4
Total 280
Page 13 of 47
Page 65 of 110
8
My department is committed to racial equity. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 83 29.6 29.6
Agree 101 36.1 65.7
Somewhat agree 48 17.1 82.9
Somewhat disagree 7 2.5 85.4
Disagree 12 4.3 89.6
Strongly disagree 7 2.5 92.1
Don't know 22 7.9 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
My department has taken steps to reduce racial inequities, including but not limited to workforce issues.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 26 9.3 9.3
Agree 73 26.1 35.4
Somewhat agree 46 16.4 51.8
Somewhat disagree 18 6.4 58.2
Disagree 29 10.4 68.6
Strongly disagree 16 5.7 74.3
Don't know 72 25.7 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
Page 14 of 47
Page 66 of 110
9
As a whole, my department is making progress towards achieving racial equity. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 27 9.8 9.8
Agree 70 25.5 35.3
Somewhat agree 62 22.5 57.8
Somewhat disagree 16 5.8 63.6
Disagree 21 7.6 71.3
Strongly disagree 10 3.6 74.9
Don't know 69 25.1 100.0
Total 275 100.0
Missing 5
Total 280 My department provides resources for addressing racial inequities and achieving racial equity.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 17 6.1 6.1
Agree 60 21.7 27.8
Somewhat agree 56 20.2 48.0
Somewhat disagree 29 10.5 58.5
Disagree 42 15.2 73.6
Strongly disagree 24 8.7 82.3
Don't know 49 17.7 100.0
Total 277 100.0
Missing 3
Total 280
Page 15 of 47
Page 67 of 110
10
Employees are encouraged to participate in trainings, workshops, or events about racial equity. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 42 15.0 15.0
Agree 74 26.4 41.4
Somewhat agree 30 10.7 52.1
Somewhat disagree 16 5.7 57.9
Disagree 36 12.9 70.7
Strongly disagree 28 10.0 80.7
Don't know 54 19.3 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
My department provides racial equity training for all staff, including leadership.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 24 8.6 8.6
Agree 56 20.0 28.6
Somewhat agree 35 12.5 41.1
Somewhat disagree 13 4.6 45.7
Disagree 57 20.4 66.1
Strongly disagree 31 11.1 77.1
Don't know 64 22.9 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
Does your department have a racial equity work group? Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 19 6.8 6.8
No 144 51.6 58.4
Don't know 116 41.6 100.0
Total 279 100.0
Missing 1
Total 280
Page 16 of 47
Page 68 of 110
11
Does your department have a racial equity action plan? Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 13 4.7 4.7
No 80 28.9 33.6
Don't know 184 66.4 100.0
Total 277 100.0
Missing 3
Total 280
Does your department use a racial equity tool in making decisions about policies, initiatives, programs or budget decisions?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Consistently 16 5.8 5.8
Occasionally 6 2.2 8.0
Rarely 7 2.5 10.5
Never 31 11.2 21.7
Don’t know 216 78.3 100.0
Total 276 100.0
Missing 4
Total 280
Leadership in my department participates in and supports conversations about racial equity.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 51 18.2 18.2
Agree 98 35.0 53.2
Somewhat agree 50 17.9 71.1
Somewhat disagree 13 4.6 75.7
Disagree 18 6.4 82.1
Strongly disagree 18 6.4 88.6
Don't know 32 11.4 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
Page 17 of 47
Page 69 of 110
12
Leadership in my department communicates the importance of addressing racial inequities and achieving racial equity.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 48 17.1 17.1
Agree 81 28.9 46.1
Somewhat agree 55 19.6 65.7
Somewhat disagree 25 8.9 74.6
Disagree 22 7.9 82.5
Strongly disagree 18 6.4 88.9
Don't know 31 11.1 100.0
Total 280 100.0
Missing 0
Total 280
The racial demographics of employees within my department reflect the diversity of our community.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 16 5.9 5.9
Agree 50 18.3 24.2
Somewhat agree 84 30.8 54.9
Somewhat disagree 26 9.5 64.5
Disagree 47 17.2 81.7
Strongly disagree 24 8.8 90.5
Don't know 26 9.5 100.0
Total 273 100.0
Missing 7
Total 280
Page 18 of 47
Page 70 of 110
13
My department is taking concrete actions to improve workforce equity. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 13 4.8 4.8
Agree 51 18.8 23.6
Somewhat agree 56 20.7 44.3
Somewhat disagree 14 5.2 49.4
Disagree 18 6.6 56.1
Strongly disagree 10 3.7 59.8
Don't know 109 40.2 100.0
Total 271 100.0
Missing 9
Total 280
The results of my department’s contracting and procurement equitably benefit the racial diversity of our community.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 11 4.1 4.1
Agree 46 17.3 21.4
Somewhat agree 12 4.5 25.9
Somewhat disagree 7 2.6 28.6
Disagree 15 5.6 34.2
Strongly disagree 8 3.0 37.2
Don't know 167 62.8 100.0
Total 266 100.0
Missing 14
Total 280
Page 19 of 47
Page 71 of 110
14
My department is taking concrete actions to increase equity in its contracting and procurement practices.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 8 3.0 3.0
Agree 32 12.1 15.1
Somewhat agree 15 5.7 20.8
Somewhat disagree 10 3.8 24.5
Disagree 14 5.3 29.8
Strongly disagree 9 3.4 33.2
Don't know 177 66.8 100.0
Total 265 100.0
Missing 15
Total 280
My department is taking concrete actions to increase racial equity for our communities.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 16 6.2 6.2
Agree 50 19.4 25.6
Somewhat agree 45 17.4 43.0
Somewhat disagree 12 4.7 47.7
Disagree 25 9.7 57.4
Strongly disagree 9 3.5 60.9
Don't know 101 39.1 100.0
Total 258 100.0
Missing 22
Total 280
Page 20 of 47
Page 72 of 110
15
My department seeks input and assistance on decision-making from communities of color. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 14 5.4 5.4
Agree 35 13.6 19.0
Somewhat agree 35 13.6 32.6
Somewhat disagree 8 3.1 35.7
Disagree 30 11.6 47.3
Strongly disagree 18 7.0 54.3
Don't know 118 45.7 100.0
Total 258 100.0
Missing 22
Total 280
My department partners with other institutions and organizations to advance racial equity.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 17 6.6 6.6
Agree 32 12.5 19.1
Somewhat agree 30 11.7 30.7
Somewhat disagree 5 1.9 32.7
Disagree 24 9.3 42.0
Strongly disagree 13 5.1 47.1
Don't know 136 52.9 100.0
Total 257 100.0
Missing 23
Total 280
Page 21 of 47
Page 73 of 110
16
My department is making progress on improving access to services for people of color. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 19 7.4 7.4
Agree 46 18.0 25.4
Somewhat agree 40 15.6 41.0
Somewhat disagree 12 4.7 45.7
Disagree 20 7.8 53.5
Strongly disagree 11 4.3 57.8
Don't know 108 42.2 100.0
Total 256 100.0
Missing 24
Total 280
My department is making progress on improving access to services for refugees and immigrants.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 11 4.3 4.3
Agree 28 11.0 15.3
Somewhat agree 20 7.8 23.1
Somewhat disagree 10 3.9 27.1
Disagree 26 10.2 37.3
Strongly disagree 18 7.1 44.3
Don't know 142 55.7 100.0
Total 255 100.0
Missing 25
Total 280
Page 22 of 47
Page 74 of 110
17
My department is making progress at providing interpretation and translation services for people with limited English.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 38 14.7 14.7
Agree 50 19.4 34.1
Somewhat agree 31 12.0 46.1
Somewhat disagree 13 5.0 51.2
Disagree 34 13.2 64.3
Strongly disagree 19 7.4 71.7
Don't know 73 28.3 100.0
Total 258 100.0
Missing 22
Total 280
Our government, overall, has made an explicit commitment to advancing racial equity.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 35 13.9 13.9
Agree 67 26.7 40.6
Somewhat agree 60 23.9 64.5
Somewhat disagree 15 6.0 70.5
Disagree 12 4.8 75.3
Strongly disagree 15 6.0 81.3
Don't know 47 18.7 100.0
Total 251 100.0
Missing 29
Total 280
Page 23 of 47
Page 75 of 110
18
I can identify one or more concrete actions that our government has taken to address racial inequities in our community.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 18 7.2 7.2
Agree 69 27.5 34.7
Somewhat agree 45 17.9 52.6
Somewhat disagree 21 8.4 61.0
Disagree 21 8.4 69.3
Strongly disagree 14 5.6 74.9
Don't know 63 25.1 100.0
Total 251 100.0
Missing 29
Total 280
To my knowledge, our overall organizational strategy to advance racial equity has so far included… (check all that apply.)
Frequency Percent
Participation in the GARE network 98 35.0
Increasing workforce diversity 71 25.4
Engaging community to inform decision-making 70 25.0
Providing staff training on racial equity 65 23.2
Creation of racial equity teams 47 16.8
Making changes to policies, practices and/or
procedures
44 15.7
Development of a racial equity vision or mission
statement
41 14.6
Partnerships with other organizations to drive
equitable outcomes
41 14.6
Disaggregated data by race to inform decision-making 30 10.7
Allocation of budgetary resources for racial equity
efforts
38 13.6
Development of a racial equity plan 23 8.2
Passage of racial equity policies, resolutions or
legislation
23 8.2
Using a racial equity tool to inform decision-making 20 7.1
None of the above 36 12.9
Other 13 4.6
Page 24 of 47
Page 76 of 110
19
As a whole, our government is making progress advancing racial equity in the community. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 18 7.2 7.2
Agree 55 22.0 29.2
Somewhat agree 80 32.0 61.2
Somewhat disagree 14 5.6 66.8
Disagree 13 5.2 72.0
Strongly disagree 15 6.0 78.0
Don't know 55 22.0 100.0
Total 250 100.0
Missing 30
Total 280
As a whole, our community is making progress advancing racial equity. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 19 7.6 7.6
Agree 71 28.3 35.9
Somewhat agree 93 37.1 72.9
Somewhat disagree 13 5.2 78.1
Disagree 16 6.4 84.5
Strongly disagree 9 3.6 88.0
Don't know 30 12.0 100.0
Total 251 100.0
Missing 29
Total 280
Page 25 of 47
Page 77 of 110
20
Appendix C Disaggregated Results by Race and Ethnicity: Statistically Significant Items
I think it is valuable to discuss the impacts of race.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 98 31 129
Percent 55.4% 57.4% 55.8%
Agree Count 61 12 73
Percent 34.5% 22.2% 31.6%
Somewhat agree Count 9 7 16
Percent 5.1% 13.0% 6.9%
Somewhat disagree Count 2 0 2
Percent 1.1% 0.0% 0.9%
Disagree Count 4 0 4
Percent 2.3% 0.0% 1.7%
Strongly disagree Count 2 4 6
Percent 1.1% 7.4% 2.6%
Don't know Count 1 0 1
Percent 0.6% 0.0% 0.4%
Total Count 177 54 231
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 26 of 47
Page 78 of 110
21
I have a basic understanding of concepts related to racial equity.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent Respondent of Color
Strongly agree Count 48 26 74
Percent 27.3% 48.1% 32.2%
Agree Count 98 23 121
Percent 55.7% 42.6% 52.6%
Somewhat agree Count 26 3 29
Percent 14.8% 5.6% 12.6%
Somewhat disagree Count 2 0 2
Percent 1.1% 0.0% 0.9%
Don't know Count 2 2 4
Percent 1.1% 3.7% 1.7%
Total Count 176 54 230
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 27 of 47
Page 79 of 110
22
I can identify examples of institutional racism.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 25 25 50
Percent 14.1% 46.3% 21.6%
Agree Count 55 9 64
Percent 31.1% 16.7% 27.7%
Somewhat agree Count 56 10 66
Percent 31.6% 18.5% 28.6%
Somewhat
disagree
Count 8 2 10
Percent 4.5% 3.7% 4.3%
Disagree Count 13 3 16
Percent 7.3% 5.6% 6.9%
Strongly disagree Count 8 4 12
Percent 4.5% 7.4% 5.2%
Don't know Count 12 1 13
Percent 6.8% 1.9% 5.6%
Total Count 177 54 231
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .001 level.
Page 28 of 47
Page 80 of 110
23
I have the tools to address institutional racism in my workplace.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 7 2 9
Percent 5.1% 4.5% 5.0%
Agree Count 42 5 47
Percent 30.9% 11.4% 26.1%
Somewhat agree Count 44 18 62
Percent 32.4% 40.9% 34.4%
Somewhat disagree Count 13 11 24
Percent 9.6% 25.0% 13.3%
Disagree Count 14 2 16
Percent 10.3% 4.5% 8.9%
Strongly disagree Count 5 6 11
Percent 3.7% 13.6% 6.1%
Don't know Count 11 0 11
Percent 8.1% 0.0% 6.1%
Total Count 136 44 180
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .01 level.
Page 29 of 47
Page 81 of 110
24
My department is committed to racial equity.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 50 12 62
Percent 28.2% 22.2% 26.8%
Agree Count 68 15 83
Percent 38.4% 27.8% 35.9%
Somewhat agree Count 29 13 42
Percent 16.4% 24.1% 18.2%
Somewhat disagree Count 4 2 6
Percent 2.3% 3.7% 2.6%
Disagree Count 7 4 11
Percent 4.0% 7.4% 4.8%
Strongly disagree Count 1 5 6
Percent 0.6% 9.3% 2.6%
Don't know Count 18 3 21
Percent 10.2% 5.6% 9.1%
Total Count 177 54 231
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .01 level.
Page 30 of 47
Page 82 of 110
25
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .01 level.
As a whole, my department is making progress towards achieving racial equity.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 12 7 19
Percent 6.8% 13.0% 8.2%
Agree Count 49 9 58
Percent 27.7% 16.7% 25.1%
Somewhat agree Count 42 14 56
Percent 23.7% 25.9% 24.2%
Somewhat disagree Count 15 1 16
Percent 8.5% 1.9% 6.9%
Disagree Count 12 9 21
Percent 6.8% 16.7% 9.1%
Strongly disagree Count 3 5 8
Percent 1.7% 9.3% 3.5%
Don't know Count 44 9 53
Percent 24.9% 16.7% 22.9%
Total Count 177 54 231
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 31 of 47
Page 83 of 110
26
My department provides racial equity training for all staff, including leadership.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 12 7 19
Percent 6.8% 13.0% 8.2%
Agree Count 38 8 46
Percent 21.5% 14.8% 19.9%
Somewhat agree Count 24 7 31
Percent 13.6% 13.0% 13.4%
Somewhat disagree Count 10 3 13
Percent 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%
Disagree Count 41 7 48
Percent 23.2% 13.0% 20.8%
Strongly disagree Count 14 14 28
Percent 7.9% 25.9% 12.1%
Don't know Count 38 8 46
Percent 21.5% 14.8% 19.9%
Total Count 177 54 231
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 32 of 47
Page 84 of 110
27
My department is taking concrete actions to improve workforce equity.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 8 4 12
Percent 4.5% 7.5% 5.2%
Agree Count 35 9 44
Percent 19.8% 17.0% 19.1%
Somewhat agree Count 45 5 50
Percent 25.4% 9.4% 21.7%
Somewhat disagree Count 9 3 12
Percent 5.1% 5.7% 5.2%
Disagree Count 12 5 17
Percent 6.8% 9.4% 7.4%
Strongly disagree Count 3 6 9
Percent 1.7% 11.3% 3.9%
Don't know Count 65 21 86
Percent 36.7% 39.6% 37.4%
Total Count 177 53 230
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 33 of 47
Page 85 of 110
28
The results of my department’s contracting and procurement equitably benefit the racial diversity of our community.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 4 7 11
Percent 2.3% 13.0% 4.8%
Agree Count 35 6 41
Percent 19.8% 11.1% 17.7%
Somewhat agree Count 7 3 10
Percent 4.0% 5.6% 4.3%
Somewhat disagree Count 6 1 7
Percent 3.4% 1.9% 3.0%
Disagree Count 9 4 13
Percent 5.1% 7.4% 5.6%
Strongly disagree Count 4 2 6
Percent 2.3% 3.7% 2.6%
Don't know Count 112 31 143
Percent 63.3% 57.4% 61.9%
Total Count 177 54 231
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 34 of 47
Page 86 of 110
29
My department is taking concrete actions to increase equity in its contracting and procurement practices.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 3 5 8
Percent 1.7% 9.3% 3.5%
Agree Count 22 5 27
Percent 12.4% 9.3% 11.7%
Somewhat agree Count 9 5 14
Percent 5.1% 9.3% 6.1%
Somewhat disagree Count 7 0 7
Percent 4.0% 0.0% 3.0%
Disagree Count 12 2 14
Percent 6.8% 3.7% 6.1%
Strongly disagree Count 3 4 7
Percent 1.7% 7.4% 3.0%
Don't know Count 121 33 154
Percent 68.4% 61.1% 66.7%
Total Count 177 54 231
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 35 of 47
Page 87 of 110
30
As a whole, our government is making progress advancing racial equity in the community.
Race/Ethnicity
Total
White, non-LatinX
Respondent
Respondent of
Color
Strongly agree Count 8 7 15
Percent 4.5% 13.0% 6.5%
Agree Count 48 4 52
Percent 27.1% 7.4% 22.5%
Somewhat agree Count 64 10 74
Percent 36.2% 18.5% 32.0%
Somewhat disagree Count 6 7 13
Percent 3.4% 13.0% 5.6%
Disagree Count 8 4 12
Percent 4.5% 7.4% 5.2%
Strongly disagree Count 7 7 14
Percent 4.0% 13.0% 6.1%
Don't know Count 36 15 51
Percent 20.3% 27.8% 22.1%
Total Count 177 54 231
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .001 level.
Page 36 of 47
Page 88 of 110
31
Disaggregated Results by Supervisory Status: Statistically Significant Items
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
I have the tools to address institutional racism in my workplace.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 2 7 9
Percent 2.8% 6.4% 4.9%
Agree Count 26 21 47
Percent 36.1% 19.1% 25.8%
Somewhat agree Count 28 36 64
Percent 38.9% 32.7% 35.2%
Somewhat disagree Count 7 16 23
Percent 9.7% 14.5% 12.6%
Disagree Count 2 14 16
Percent 2.8% 12.7% 8.8%
Strongly disagree Count 4 7 11
Percent 5.6% 6.4% 6.0%
Don't know Count 3 9 12
Percent 4.2% 8.2% 6.6%
Total Count 72 110 182
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 37 of 47
Page 89 of 110
32
How many trainings / workshops about racial equity have you attended?
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
None Count 23 59 82
Percent 25.0% 40.7% 34.6%
One or two Count 36 52 88
Percent 39.1% 35.9% 37.1%
Three or more Count 33 34 67
Percent 35.9% 23.4% 28.3%
Total Count 92 145 237
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level. I am actively involved in advancing racial equity in my work.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 18 11 29
Percent 19.6% 7.5% 12.2%
Agree Count 31 29 60
Percent 33.7% 19.9% 25.2%
Somewhat agree Count 18 38 56
Percent 19.6% 26.0% 23.5%
Somewhat disagree Count 4 17 21
Percent 4.3% 11.6% 8.8%
Disagree Count 5 18 23
Percent 5.4% 12.3% 9.7%
Strongly disagree Count 3 8 11
Percent 3.3% 5.5% 4.6%
Don't know Count 13 25 38
Percent 14.1% 17.1% 16.0%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .01 level.
Page 38 of 47
Page 90 of 110
33
My department is committed to racial equity.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 26 40 66
Percent 28.3% 27.4% 27.7%
Agree Count 44 42 86
Percent 47.8% 28.8% 36.1%
Somewhat agree Count 15 29 44
Percent 16.3% 19.9% 18.5%
Somewhat disagree Count 0 4 4
Percent 0.0% 2.7% 1.7%
Disagree Count 2 9 11
Percent 2.2% 6.2% 4.6%
Strongly disagree Count 1 5 6
Percent 1.1% 3.4% 2.5%
Don't know Count 4 17 21
Percent 4.3% 11.6% 8.8%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 39 of 47
Page 91 of 110
34
My department provides racial equity training for all staff, including leadership.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 9 11 20
Percent 9.8% 7.5% 8.4%
Agree Count 21 27 48
Percent 22.8% 18.5% 20.2%
Somewhat agree Count 17 14 31
Percent 18.5% 9.6% 13.0%
Somewhat disagree Count 6 7 13
Percent 6.5% 4.8% 5.5%
Disagree Count 20 29 49
Percent 21.7% 19.9% 20.6%
Strongly disagree Count 10 17 27
Percent 10.9% 11.6% 11.3%
Don't know Count 9 41 50
Percent 9.8% 28.1% 21.0%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Does your department have a racial equity action plan?
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Yes Count 3 6 9
Percent 3.3% 4.1% 3.8%
No Count 43 28 71
Percent 46.7% 19.2% 29.8%
Don't know Count 46 112 158
Percent 50.0% 76.7% 66.4%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .001 level.
Page 40 of 47
Page 92 of 110
35
Does your department have a racial equity work group?
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Yes Count 6 9 15
Percent 6.5% 6.2% 6.3%
No Count 59 66 125
Percent 64.1% 45.2% 52.5%
Don't know Count 27 71 98
Percent 29.3% 48.6% 41.2%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Does your department use a racial equity tool in making decisions about policies, initiatives, programs or budget decisions?
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Consistently Count 4 8 12
Percent 4.3% 5.5% 5.0%
Occasionally Count 4 1 5
Percent 4.3% 0.7% 2.1%
Rarely Count 7 0 7
Percent 7.6% 0.0% 2.9%
Never Count 17 10 27
Percent 18.5% 6.8% 11.3%
Don’t know Count 60 127 187
Percent 65.2% 87.0% 78.6%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .001 level.
Page 41 of 47
Page 93 of 110
36
Leadership in my department participates in and supports conversations about racial equity.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 16 25 41
Percent 17.4% 17.1% 17.2%
Agree Count 43 45 88
Percent 46.7% 30.8% 37.0%
Somewhat agree Count 23 20 43
Percent 25.0% 13.7% 18.1%
Somewhat disagree Count 0 11 11
Percent 0.0% 7.5% 4.6%
Disagree Count 2 13 15
Percent 2.2% 8.9% 6.3%
Strongly disagree Count 3 13 16
Percent 3.3% 8.9% 6.7%
Don't know Count 5 19 24
Percent 5.4% 13.0% 10.1%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .001 level.
Page 42 of 47
Page 94 of 110
37
My department is making progress on improving access to services for people of color.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 5 9 14
Percent 5.5% 6.2% 5.9%
Agree Count 27 15 42
Percent 29.7% 10.3% 17.8%
Somewhat agree Count 19 21 40
Percent 20.9% 14.5% 16.9%
Somewhat disagree Count 5 7 12
Percent 5.5% 4.8% 5.1%
Disagree Count 6 12 18
Percent 6.6% 8.3% 7.6%
Strongly disagree Count 3 8 11
Percent 3.3% 5.5% 4.7%
Don't know Count 26 73 99
Percent 28.6% 50.3% 41.9%
Total Count 91 145 236
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .01 level.
Page 43 of 47
Page 95 of 110
38
My department is making progress on improving access to services for refugees and immigrants.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 2 6 8
Percent 2.2% 4.1% 3.4%
Agree Count 18 7 25
Percent 19.8% 4.8% 10.6%
Somewhat agree Count 9 10 19
Percent 9.9% 6.9% 8.1%
Somewhat disagree Count 4 6 10
Percent 4.4% 4.1% 4.2%
Disagree Count 9 16 25
Percent 9.9% 11.0% 10.6%
Strongly disagree Count 5 13 18
Percent 5.5% 9.0% 7.6%
Don't know Count 44 87 131
Percent 48.4% 60.0% 55.5%
Total Count 91 145 236
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 44 of 47
Page 96 of 110
39
Our government, overall, has made an explicit commitment to advancing racial equity.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 19 12 31
Percent 20.7% 8.2% 13.0%
Agree Count 28 35 63
Percent 30.4% 24.0% 26.5%
Somewhat agree Count 25 34 59
Percent 27.2% 23.3% 24.8%
Somewhat disagree Count 4 10 14
Percent 4.3% 6.8% 5.9%
Disagree Count 2 9 11
Percent 2.2% 6.2% 4.6%
Strongly disagree Count 3 12 15
Percent 3.3% 8.2% 6.3%
Don't know Count 11 34 45
Percent 12.0% 23.3% 18.9%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 45 of 47
Page 97 of 110
40
I can identify one or more concrete actions that our government has taken to address racial inequities in our community.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 10 6 16
Percent 10.9% 4.1% 6.7%
Agree Count 35 30 65
Percent 38.0% 20.5% 27.3%
Somewhat agree Count 15 28 43
Percent 16.3% 19.2% 18.1%
Somewhat disagree Count 5 15 20
Percent 5.4% 10.3% 8.4%
Disagree Count 5 15 20
Percent 5.4% 10.3% 8.4%
Strongly disagree Count 5 9 14
Percent 5.4% 6.2% 5.9%
Don't know Count 17 43 60
Percent 18.5% 29.5% 25.2%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 46 of 47
Page 98 of 110
41
As a whole, our government is making progress advancing racial equity in the community.
Do you manage or supervise people?
Total Yes No
Strongly agree Count 9 6 15
Percent 9.8% 4.1% 6.3%
Agree Count 27 25 52
Percent 29.3% 17.1% 21.8%
Somewhat agree Count 32 46 78
Percent 34.8% 31.5% 32.8%
Somewhat disagree Count 5 9 14
Percent 5.4% 6.2% 5.9%
Disagree Count 2 10 12
Percent 2.2% 6.8% 5.0%
Strongly disagree Count 4 10 14
Percent 4.3% 6.8% 5.9%
Don't know Count 13 40 53
Percent 14.1% 27.4% 22.3%
Total Count 92 146 238
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Statistically significant differences emerged between the two groups at the p < .05 level.
Page 47 of 47
Page 99 of 110
1 of 2
Memorandum Date: March 24, 2021 To: Douglas County Board of County Commissioners From: Sarah Plinsky, County Administrator Subject: County Administrator’s Weekly Report Schedule Items
• Joint City County meeting – Monday, March 29, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. • Ivan Boyd Prairie Trail Dedication – June 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
Information Items
• Legislative Update. Little Government Relations had shared the most recent legislative update.
• On March 31st, staff will add a discussion of the impacts of SB 13 to the Agenda.
• Upcoming Work Sessions
3/31/2021 4:00 Work Session: Sustainability and HCC Overviews 3/31/2021 5:30 Business Session: Changing the size of the County Commission
presentation 4/7/2021 Work Session: Emergency Communications Center and Emergency
Management Overviews 4/14/2021 Work Session: Capital Improvement Plan Overview
Open Appointments
• Lawrence Douglas County Health Board – (1) County appointment – Michael Williams eligible for reappointment – March 2021
• Lawrence Douglas County Planning Commission – (1) County Appointment – May 2021 • Douglas County Food Policy Council – (1) County Appointment - Unexpired term
ending December 2021 • Lawrence-Douglas County Advocacy Council on Aging - (10) positions open – Please
see attached correspondence
DOUGLAS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1100 Massachusetts Street Lawrence, KS 66044-3064
(785) 832-5328 Fax (785) 832-5148 [email protected]
Sarah Plinsky County Administrator
Page 100 of 110
2 of 2
*In an effort to be more sustainable, attachments are available on the Douglas County website or upon request in the County Administrator’s office.
Page 101 of 110
Memorandum To: Sarah Plinsky, County Administrator, Douglas County From: Stuart J. Little, Ph.D., Little Government Relations Date: March 19, 2021 Re: Week 10 Legislative and Policy Update Overview
This has been, without a doubt, the most eventful week of Session thus far. From the Senate Majority Leader’s arrest to a surprising defeat of a controversial education bill, to a lengthy debate on transgender sports, divisiveness is running high in the Statehouse. For more information on a couple of the big topics of the week here are some links:
• https://kansasreflector.com/2021/03/17/kansas-senate-majority-leader-hands-off-duties-a-day-after-drunk-driving-arrest/
• https://kansasreflector.com/2021/03/18/kansas-senate-passes-transgender-sports-ban-after-incredibly-insulting-debate/
At this point, the abortion constitutional amendment, the repeal of the tax lid on local governments, and the new Kansas Emergency Management Act have passed. The income tax bill is advancing and the push for non-public schools may have diminished a bit. We’ll cover the big picture and then emphasize the specific highlights we have been tracking through the Session. We have only days for committee work left and a great deal will happen in the next couple weeks.
Big Picture Issues
State Budget: The Legislature continues to make progress on the state’s budget, though the process this year will be unique and somewhat more complicated as roughly $1.8 billion in federal relief funds begin to flow into the state as part of the American Rescue Plan. Differing opinions as to what the funds can be used for, particularly when it comes to K-12 funding, will likely complicate conversations during conference committee, which will likely begin next week. The Senate passed its version of the budget 24-13 on March 17th. The House Appropriations Committee approved its budget Thursday evening after much debate over higher education and K-12 education funding, among other topics. The federal guidance on the ARP plan is not complete and may not be finalized until the April interim break. This development and the potential impact on some budget spending recommendations could be significant when they return in May.
• More on the Senate debate, and their decision to use federal COVID relief funds instead of state dollars to fund K-12 education here: https://kansasreflector.com/2021/03/18/gov-kelly-denounces-kansas-senates-budget-plan-as-sabotage-of-k-12-education-system/
KEMA: The Judiciary Conference Committee came to an agreement Monday morning after several days of debating changes to the state’s emergency management act going forward. A couple of highlights of the agreement:
Page 102 of 110
2
• The current disaster declaration is extended to May 28th, but all current executive orders (EOs) expire March 31st. If the Governor issues any EOs after March 31st, they must be approved, or revoked, by the Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC), which is made up of legislative leadership.
• A governor cannot issue an EO that burdens the movement of people, curtails business, restricts religious gatherings, or restricts the sale of guns/ammunition.
• Gives people aggrieved by an EO the ability to challenge it in court. • Local health officer orders related to face masks, business closures, gathering size, or
controlling the movement of people must be approved by a county commission. • Establishes a Class A non-person misdemeanor for violation of an EO that mandates a
curfew or prohibits entry into a specific area impacted by a disaster. • A summary of the conference committee report that provides highlights of the bill can be
found here: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/documents/ccrb_sb40_01_0000.pdf
Taxes: Little news this week on the major income tax cut bills. House Taxation held hearings on both the House and Senate versions, HB 2421 and SB 22. The bills, for the most part, are similar, excepting the changes the Senate made that resulted in a nearly $1 billion fiscal note over the next three years. The House version, as is, is estimated to cost a minimum of $118 million in fiscal year 2022; $125.6 million in fiscal year 2023; and $130.5 million in fiscal year 2024. We are still waiting for the Governor’s action on Senate Bill 13 that changes local government property tax law, but it developed a wrinkle when local schools were added.
Looking Ahead: Next week is, for the most part, the last week for regular committee hearings before conference committees begin to meet the following week and negotiate differences between the House and Senate positions on bills. We expect committees to wrap up debate next week on medical marijuana and various tax issues which will then be sent to the full chambers for debate. There will likely also be significant House floor debate on the budget and the beginning of the budget conference committee.
Local Government Issues
Because KEMA and the property tax lid repeal are both on their way to the Governor, most of the action in the last couple of weeks will likely focus on related issues such as the negotiations for the legislation that has the potential to remediate loses due to natural disasters or COVID. It’s looking more likely that the budget process and the growing issues related to how federal relief funds may be used could provide a significant barrier to wrapping up the session. In the absence of clear federal guidance thus far, federal relief funds could drag out some issues until the wrap-up session that begins in May.
There are several outstanding budget and policy issues we are following, including funding for the Douglas County Crisis Center, 988 National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, increased funding for local health departments, and implementation of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) model. All the issues are continuing to advance through the process in the final weeks.
Bills that have been published and the bill history can be found on the Legislature’s official website: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/bills/
Page 103 of 110
3
Tax Issues
• SB 13 Property Tax Transparency. o This issue has largely been resolved, having passed both the House and Senate. It
awaits the Governor’s signature. School districts have some concerns about the timelines in this bill and potential conflict with the school district budgeting timeline. There may be some follow-up fixes to better align with USDs’ budgeting process.
• HB 2142/SB 149 Property Tax Refund Related to COVID. o Would give businesses that have been shut down or limited on capacity the
opportunity to get some of their property taxes relief. It would be pro-rated for as long as the business was closed.
o Bill does not specify the closure has to be COVID-related. It is also unclear if this involves just county taxes, or other entities.
o Exempt bill. • SB 286 (Also related to both HB 2142 and SB 149). Creates the COVID-19
governmental use claims fund to provide funds for impacted businesses, providing for income tax credits and reimbursement to certain property owners of property taxes resulting from forced shutdown.
o Hearing Friday, 3/19. o Poses some similar problems as HB 2142/SB 149. In addition to the bill granting
broad discretion to the AG to make the reimbursement determination, KAC notes a particular issue with Section 7 and language directing counties to reimburse property taxes from the county general fund.
• SB 23: Property Tax Abatement due to Natural Disasters: o Passed the Senate 38-1. In House Tax.
• SB 87: Discontinuing apportionment of countywide retailers’ sales tax imposed for general purposes between the county and cities located therein.
o Likely action in Senate Tax early next week. • HB 2272: Delaying distribution of certain property taxes paid under protest and requiring
certain information on protested or exempt property taxes to be provided to local taxing jurisdictions.
o Hearing in House Tax Tuesday, 2/23. o The Kansas Chamber and Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association testified in
support. o KAC testified in opposition. LKM provided neutral testimony.
• HB 2175 Creating the Dwayne Peaslee technical training center district. o Received enthusiastically by both House and Senate Local Government
Committees. o Passed the House 122-2 on 2/25.
Marketplace Facilitators
• SB 50
Page 104 of 110
4
o Requiring marketplace facilitators to collect and remit sales, use and transient guest taxes and 911 fees from sales made through their platforms and removing click-through nexus provisions.
o Amended in Senate Committee to move the required date for prepaid wireless 911 fee collection from January 2022 to April 1, 2022.
o Passed the Senate 35-3. • HB 2173
o Nearly identical to SB 50. There is one difference when it comes to the effective date for the 911 fees. SB 50 includes an effective date of January 1, 2022 for remitting pre-paid 911 fees. HB 2173 includes a July 1, 2022, effective date for collecting and remitting those fees.
o Includes de minimis threshold of $100,000 in sales. o In House Tax.
• HB 2395 o Requiring marketplace facilitators to collect and remit sales and compensating use
taxes, transient guest taxes, and prepaid wireless 911 fees and providing nexus for certain retailers that make sales in Kansas.
o This is the version offered by the Governor’s Council on Tax Reform. o Does not include a de minimis threshold. o Estimated to increase state revenues by $51.5 million in fiscal year 2022; $59
million in FY 2023, and $62 million in FY 24. o In House Tax.
Local Authority
• SB 24: Prohibiting municipalities from imposing restrictions on customer's use of energy based upon source of energy.
o Committee passed the bill, as amended, on Tuesday. o The amendment does a few things:
Replaces the definition of public utility with “utility service,” which means “the retail provision of natural gas.”
It also clarifies that the bill does not prevent cities from limiting the use of natural gas in their own buildings.
o The Senate passed the bill 27-10. o House Energy amended the bill to include propane in addition to natural gas.
• SB 161: Amazon personal package delivery devices; limiting additional municipal regulation.
o Amazon and FedEx testified in support. UPS testified in opposition. o LKM provided neutral testimony. o Committee amended the bill to raise Amazon’s minimum required liability
insurance from $100,000 to $1 million for any accidents caused by the devices. • SB 213: Prohibiting an employer from taking any adverse employment against an
employee because of the employee's vaccination status. o Senate Commerce hearing 2/25. o Bill was blessed and is alive for remainder of Session.
Page 105 of 110
5
• SB 295: Authorizes counties to adopt prioritized vaccination plans; prohibits the state from reducing vaccination allotments based on adherence to state guidelines.
o Committee passed the bill on 3/18. • HB 2025: Protecting private property from unauthorized access by certain government
officials and unauthorized surveillance. o Committee worked the bill 2/26 and made two amendments:
Exempted county weed supervisors from the bill. Clarified the following exceptions to the warrant requirement: exigent
circumstances, consent searches, and the Plain View Doctrine.
• SB 264 and HB 2412: Enacting the Kansas Fights Addiction Act to establish a grant program for the purpose of preventing, reducing, treating and mitigating the effects of SUD and addiction.
o Precludes any local government opioid litigation after 1/1/21.
Special District Consolidation
• SB 118: Providing for the dissolution of special districts and the assumption of responsibilities by a city or county.
o Passed the Senate 38-1 Wednesday, 2/17. o House Local Government passed the bill out of committee 3/17.
Criminal Justice-Related Issues • HB 2078: Same as SB 57.
o Amended in committee to remove the provision that would make the speedy trial provisions inapplicable to cases filed on or after the effective date. The amendment also specifies guidelines for prioritizing trials.
o Passed the House 107-17 on 2/25. o Senate Judiciary amended the bill to change the ending date for the suspension of
speedy trial rights to May 1, 2023. (House version suspends them until May 1, 2024).
o Passed the Senate as amended 32-7. o The House now has the opportunity to concur with the Senate change.
• HB 2109: Increasing the county population threshold for a county to be required to have a lawyer representative, increasing the number of lawyer members and decreasing the number of non-lawyer members on BIDS.
o Passed the House 87-36. o Hearing in Senate Judiciary Monday, 3/22. o Related issue: The House budget includes a proviso that raises the cap for
appointed counsel rates for BIDS to $100. • HB 2030: Extending terminal medical release to inmates in KDOC with a condition
likely to cause death within 120 days. (Extending this from 30 days). o Passed the House 96-29.
Drivers’ License Fines & Fees
Page 106 of 110
6
• SB 100: Excluding the additional 90-day wait period and providing for the elimination and delay of payment for certain fees for restricted driving privileges.
o Amended in Senate Transportation to change when fines have to be paid and allow for individuals to enter a plea prior to the court date.
o Passed out of committee as amended on 2/25. o In Fed & State Affairs.
• HB 2192: Authorizing court services and community corrections to provide a certification of identification to offenders for use to obtain a new driver’s license.
o Hearing in Corrections & Juvenile Justice 2/8. o Proponents included the ACLU, Douglas County Sheriff, and Bert Nash. o Passed the House 124-0 on 2/25. o In Senate Judiciary.
Voting Issues
• HB 2183: Prohibits the Governor, executive branch, and judicial branch from altering election laws or procedures and limits the authority of the Secretary of State to enter into consent decrees with any court absent the approval of the Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC).
o Passed the House 84-39. o Hearing in Senate Fed & State 3/24.
• HB 2332: Requiring ID of the sender on third party solicitations to registered voters to file an application for an advance voting ballot.
o Passed the House 86-38. o Hearing in Senate Fed & State 3/17. o Secretary of State’s office is neutral on the bill, citing 3rd party forms often cause
voter confusion and a dramatic workload increase for local election offices who have to process duplicate forms.
• SB 165: Removing the requirement of residency for election commissioners. o No hearing scheduled.
• SB 166: Authorizing county election officers to transmit advance voting ballots up to 40 days prior to the election.
o No hearing scheduled. Transportation & Economic Development
• SB 116: Decreasing the Eisenhower Legacy Transportation Program alternate delivery project threshold, authorizing usage of federal stimulus funds and KDOT bonding authority.
o Passed the Senate 39-0. • HB 2201: Same as SB 116.
o Passed the House 118-6. o Hearing Tuesday, 3/23.
• SB 124: Amending STAR bonds by adding rural development projects and major business facilities, changing certain project financing, investment, and sales provisions, adding a visitor tracking plan requirement and additional feasibility study requirements with oversight by the secretary; requiring approval by the secretary for real estate transfers, requiring district contiguity, and enacting the sunset date.
Page 107 of 110
7
o Bill was amended to stipulate that no state or local government official shall benefit financially, either directly or indirectly, from any STAR bond project. There is some ambiguity as to what “indirectly” means in this instance.
o Passed as amended 24-11. o Hearing in House Commerce 3/16.
Other Issues • HB 2184: Creating the Kansas medical marijuana regulation act.
o Hearing in House Fed & State Affairs, Wednesday & Thursday, 2/24-2/25. o Committee plans to work the bill next week, Tuesday & Wednesday.
• HB 2281: Establishing and implementing 988 National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in Kansas.
o House Health made the following amendments to the bill: Clarifying language to reinforce the monies in the 988 fund is to be used
solely for the purposes outlined in the bill. Imposes a prepaid wireless 988 fee of .50 per retail transaction for prepaid
wireless service. Including mobile crisis response services for IDD and mobile crisis
response services for Behavioral Health in the services that can be paid for from the 988 fund.
o Bill was blessed and alive for remainder of Session. o The Senate budget bill includes $3 million for operational costs to implement the
hotline. • HB 2248: Increasing state financial assistance to local health departments under specified
circumstances. o Passed the House 111-12 on 3/17. o On a similar note, the Senate budget bill includes $1.5 million to increase funds
available to local health departments using the statutory formula distribution, as well as language to raise the minimum provided to each of the 100 local health departments under the formula distribution, from $7,000 to $12,000.
• Higher Education Funding: The Senate budget includes restoration of 3% of the Governor’s 10% cut to higher education, to be reviewed at Omnibus. The House Appropriations committee did rescind a previous amendment that would have required colleges and universities to refund tuition for every day of class that was either cancelled or remote.
• HB 2435: 911 as First Responders Act. The KEMA agreement incorporates language that includes 911 call center public safety telecommunicators in the definition of emergency responder.
• Douglas County crisis center funding is in the Governor’s budget and in both the House and Senate budget bills, although the House would like to fund the center with State General Fund.
Upcoming Activities The legislative schedule of hearings is updated regularly throughout the week can be found in the House and Senate calendars on the Legislature website at: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/chamber/calendars/
Page 108 of 110
8
Additionally, all hearings are now available on-line live and archived by the end of each day. You can find those hearings on YouTube at Kansas Legislature and audio only on the Legislature website at: http://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00287/Harmony/en/View/Calendar/ Monday, March 22nd. House Judiciary. 3:30 PM.
o Hearing on HB 2412: Enacting the Kansas Fights Addiction Act to establish a grant program for the purpose of preventing, reducing, treating and mitigating the effects of SUD and addiction.
House Tax. 3:30 PM. o Hearing on several appraisal-related bills, incl. SB 72, SB 98, and SB 119. o SB 72: Related to requiring certain appraisal courses for county appraisers. o SB 98: Placing burden of proof on county appraiser in certain valuation and classification
appeal hearings before the district court. o SB 119: Prohibits valuation increases of certain property in appeals; providing for notice
and opportunity to be heard prior to removal from county appraiser eligibility list.
Tuesday, March 23rd. Senate Transportation. 8:30 AM.
o Hearing on HB 2201: Decreasing alternate delivery project threshold; KDOT bonding authority.
House Fed & State. 9:00 AM. o Discussion & Action on HB 2184 Medical Marijuana.
House Energy. 9:00 AM. o Informational hearing on Power Purchase Agreement with Renewable Energy Suppliers. o Kansas Renewable Energy Update.
House Corrections & Juvenile Justice. 1:30 PM. o Informational hearing on CPOST and KLETC.
House Health. 1:30 PM. o KDHE Presentation on Phase III & IV Vaccinations.
House Transportation. 1:30 PM. o Hearing on SB 116: Decreasing alternate delivery project threshold; KDOT bonding
authority. o Hearing on SB 167: Classifying certain public utility motor vehicles as authorized
emergency vehicles without a designation by county commissioners. Thursday, March 24th. House Fed & State. 9:00 AM.
o Discussion & Action on HB 2184 Medical Marijuana. House Tax. 3:30 PM.
o Authorizing continuation of 20 mill statewide property tax levy for schools. Wrap Up Let us know if you have any questions.
Page 109 of 110
9
Stuart J. Little, Ph.D. Little Government Relations LLC 800 SW Jackson, Ste. 1100 Topeka, Kansas 66612 785-235-8187 Office 785-845-7265 Mobile https://lgrkansas.com
Page 110 of 110