PDF Format:

CC09142015.pdfCC09142015.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
September 14, 2015
7:30 P.M.

Michelle Distler - Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Killen
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember Vaught Finance Director Rogers
Councilmember MeyerInformation Technology Director Bunting
Councilmember Sandifer Deputy Fire Chief Scarpa
Councilmember KenigPlanning Director Chaffee
Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Police Chief Moser
Deputy Parks and Recreation Dir. Lecuru
Stormwater Manager Gregory
Public Works Field Ops. Manager Taylor
Transportation Manager Sherfy
Management Analyst Schmitz
Business Liaison Holtwick
Communications Manager Ferguson
(Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening and welcome to tonight’s meeting of the Shawnee City Council. I would ask that you please silence your electronic devices at this time. I am Mayor Michelle Distler and I will be chairing this meeting. I will do a roll call vote at this time. Councilmember Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught will be late. Councilmember Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & MOMENT OF SILENCE MAYOR DISTLER: Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence. (Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Before we begin our agenda, I'd like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Council at any of those times, please come forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record, then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear your comments, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes and no person may speak more than twice to any one agenda item. After you are finished, please sign the form to the right of the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address.

During the meeting, I will call for motions after I ask for public comments on each item. I would also like to remind the Council to please turn on your microphone when you would like to speak, and be sure to speak directly into the microphones, so we can get a clear and accurate record for the minutes.

In addition, while we won’t do a roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers’ names who vote in dissent so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.

C. CONSENT AGENDA
[Clerk Note: Mr. Vaught arrived at 7:35 p.m.]

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is C, Consent Agenda.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: Does the Council have any items they would like to remove? A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0) Mr. Vaught has joined us.

D. MAYOR'S ITEMS

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is D, Mayor’s Items. I want to inform the Council and the public that I have designated Councilmember Sandifer and Assistant City Manager Killen as Voting Delegates for the League of Kansas Municipalities Annual Conference.

E. APPOINTMENTS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is E, Appointment. Item Number 1 is to consider appointment to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Councilmember Kenig is recommending the appointment of Rueshunda Davis as the Ward IV representative to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a term expiring on December 31, 2015. The appointment will fill the remaining unexpired term of Doug Hill who resigned effective September 1, 2015, after being appointed to the Planning Commission. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak on this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Mayor, I move for the appointment of Rueshunda Davis for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, with the term expiring December 31, 2015.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). Ms. Davis, would you like to stand up and be recognized, please?

(Applause)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to consider reappointment to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership. The Shawnee Downtown Partnership is recommending the reappointment of Elaine Copp to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership with a term expiring September 10, 2018. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item?

Public Comments:

MR. MORRIS: My name is David Morris (Address Omitted). We still don’t have a representative from Trail Springs neighborhood, a resident. When the Shawnee Downtown Partnership was originally set up, it was set up to be a partnership between public officials, business owners, and residents of the neighborhoods around here. Trail Springs Neighborhood Association nominated -- its board nominated a person to be on the partnership, to my understanding, I was not at that meeting. Refused to vote on it or did not vote it. I’m not even sure that there was a quorum. And, not only that, Ward II had no representative at that meeting and I’m not – I don’t think the mayor was at the meeting also. So, I think its original intent is not being fulfilled, and I would like to see that changed. I mean the partnership, unless there has been a vote by the partnership to change the original intent of how the partnership was supposed to operate. Is that the case? Has it changed the way it’s supposed to work?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: To my knowledge, maybe made some modifications a number of years ago in the bylaws, but there hasn’t been any changes recently and certainly it is representatives from the businesses, the neighborhoods, the City and just interested citizens are welcome. It’s a very broad definition of who’s welcome to serve.

MR. MORRIS: Currently on the Shawnee Downtown Partnership, how many are on the partnership from the surrounding neighborhoods?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Gosh, David, off the top of my head I couldn’t tell you. I think it’s out on our website all their numbers.

MR. MORRIS: I don’t think there’s any residents from the downtown area that are on that. So it’s not fulfilling its original intent. I think it’s skewed. The way I see it it’s mostly public officials that are on that or chamber or utilities and it doesn’t get an accurate representation of what the original intent of the Shawnee Downtown Partnership was about. And I would like to see that change. Thanks.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: I’m sorry, Mr. Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m curious about that meeting where this recommendation was made. Do we know that there was a quorum at it, or was not?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There would have been a quorum for us to even call the meeting, so. Then the minutes are out on the website too, we could sure check.

MAYOR DISTLER: I’ve got a motion and a second. A motion has been and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

F. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is F, Business from the Floor. Is there anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight’s agenda? Please come forward.

Public Comments:

MR. BARRETT: My name is Gary Barrett, I live at (Address Omitted). And I am in process of the progress of battling with Mike Underwood on things that are on my property that were put there by the City, and things that are on my property that were put there by me. I received a letter stating my building in my back yard is too large. Fourteen years ago I built that building. It did not require a permit. Now, they’re saying I need one. They’re telling me its six inches too close to the property line, but the City of Shawnee poured asphalt on my driveway because they told me I couldn’t have concrete. So, I need to move my building, the City needs to fix my asphalt. They said they weren’t going to do it. So Mike calls me every other day. So, I can move my building six inches with a large crew, but I need my asphalt fixed. They poured it eight feet thick -- eight feet wide. I’m only required two feet. They cut a lot of my concrete out. So, I don’t want to have to move my building if they don’t want to fix my asphalt, but I have no problem doing either one. I just want to know, the City sent somebody out there and he sent me an e-mail stating it doesn’t require to be patched. It had a sink hole in it on the seam in the culvert that they put in. They came out and just patched it. That’s all they did. When the gentleman back here was out there with me. I just want to know what’s going to happen. Do I have to move my building? Do I need a permit for that building? It’s been there for 14 years.

MAYOR DISTLER: I’m not able to answer that right at --

MR. BARRETT: You’re the Mayor. You’re the only one that can answer that.

MAYOR DISTLER: But, well, no, it doesn’t work that way. But without having any of the information in front of me or anything like that, I’m not able to address that at this time. But I got the information, will definitely look into it and I can get back to you, but I don’t have an answer for you right at this time.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Underwood called me last week and told me, what are you going to do? You going to move your building? Are you going got get a permit? You know, I need to know. I said I wanted to come up here tonight and speak with you folks. So for 14 years that I’ve lived there, I’m the one that plows that entire subdivision because the City never shows up because they’re busy. So, you know, I have no problems doing it. I just -- I don’t want to move my building if I don’t have to because I have to pour that slab larger, but I can move it. But I would like my asphalt approach fixed beings how they poured it eight feet wide and I’m only required two feet. So, I would just like to have an answer.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Yeah.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’ll look into it and get back to you.

MR. BARRETT: I do have a phone number.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes that would be great.

MR. BARRETT: (Phone number omitted). You can call me anytime, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you for –

MR. BARRETT: I just wanted to find out what’s going to happen.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Well thank you for –

MR. BARRETT: He’s going to charge me $500 a day, anything after ten days and it’s been thirty since I got a certified letter.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just have a quick question.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Did one of our ordinances change or was it too close 14 years ago?

MR. BARRETT: Well, no, it was four feet 14 years ago for a 10 by 12 building. 2003, I added on to that building because it wasn’t large enough for what I needed. It did not require a permit because it’s still ten by twelve. I still have an exterior wall inside that building, so I can separate the buildings if I have to. But Barbara, the water, she’s retired now, she was the one that was dealing with all that because I have a huge water problem in my backyard because I live at the bottom of my subdivision. They never did anything about that, so I built the building. It pushes the water the way I want it to. So, if I have to move it, I’ll move it. You know, Mike wants me to get a permit to move it. You know, what the building cost you to build it. It didn’t cost me anything to build it, I’m in the business, you know, materials were free. So, I have no money out of pocket to build that building. So, I just, you know, I can pull it six inches north and six inches west if I have to, but I don’t want to. Because that’s making me pour my slab a little larger.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was just curious as to why –

MR. BARRETT: I know that’s [inaudible], but it’s been there for 14 years and I get a letter on it in 2015.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.

MR. BARRETT: And the other reason the City got notified of it is because I wouldn’t hire my neighbor for a full-time job, so he reported it. So, I just want to know what’s going to happen. I don’t think the City deserves $500 a day for – but, you know, if I have to move it, I’ll move it, but I’d like to have my asphalt approach fixed.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Like I said, unfortunately I can’t answer that tonight.

MR. BARRETT: Yeah. But when can I get an answer, because Mike is going to call me tomorrow.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’ll get with Mr. Underwood tomorrow after -- tomorrow morning and go through the details and we’ll be in touch with you.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Thanks for your time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’d be curious as to a resolution of that also.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Erlichman.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Ray Erlichman, (Address Omitted). I didn’t have any prepared comments, I’m going to try to do this off the top of my head. I’ve attended a lot of these Council meetings over the years. As a matter of fact, as I look back there’s only three people on the Governing Body that have attended more Council meetings than me. That’s Mr. Pflumm, Mayor Distler, and Mr. Sandifer. So, I’ve seen a lot of things over these years.

And the topic I’m going to talk about tonight falls – can fall to one of three categories. Interaction, open and transparent government, you know, that’s about it right there. During the Council meeting when there’s a numbered agenda item that comes up and if an individual from the public address something on it, there can be interaction between that individual and the Council. Exchange of information, which is always very good, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I’m not going to go into detail because I think you all understand what I’m talking about. Then we get to items from the floor. And we just had a great example of it. An individual came up with an item and members of the Governing Body had a few questions, Mr. Pflumm, and there was interaction, open government, transparency, participatory democracy, if you want to call it that, and that’s good. And that’s the way it should be. Now sometimes the Governing Body doesn’t have any questions for a member of the community when they come up here. Okay, so they don’t. But then as we move into the meeting we get into another section of the meeting called Miscellaneous Council Items. And over the years I’ve seen situations where members of the Governing Body have sometimes brought up something that had happened earlier in the evening when they had the opportunity back then to discuss it or interact with the public, but they didn’t. That’s not interaction. Because over the years it’s been such that when a Councilmember brings up something in Miscellaneous Council Items, which is similar to the public coming up with Business from the Floor, they seem to be on a different level and they cannot be interacted with. Am I bringing up something that somebody in the audience wants to say, hey, that’s a great idea, who knows? I think the interaction is very important during that period of the Council meeting. So, what I’m composing tonight is a very, very simple half a paragraph change to Policy Statement 7. It’s not the type of change that’s going to require ten months of research, 50 hours of staff time, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It can all probably be done in about a half an hour. The big question is what paragraph number and where to put it in Policy Statement 7. During that portion of the City Council meeting known as Miscellaneous Council Items, the public may comment on any item that is brought forth by a member of the Governing Body. Very simple. Nothing elaborate. The only thing that it would take for that to move forward in any manner, shape, or form would be for somebody on the Council to ask staff to please see where they could put it in and how it would fit into Policy Statement 7. I do not have that authority or power. That’s up to you folks.

That’s my proposal. That’s what I am suggesting so that we can keep open government and transparency, interactive, participatory democracy.

[Clerk Note: Mr. Erlichman’s proposal is attached.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was just going to state, I’m pretty much open to public comment, you know at any time. So, whatever the Council decides on that, you know, if we’re allowing public comment, then I think that’s a good thing.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d say you could bring it up in a Committee meeting and we can talk about it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’d be good.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Could you put that on the agenda for a Committee meeting?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Carol?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I think as Mr. Erlichman said, it’s a very simple change if that’s the only change we will need to consider at that meeting, then certainly –

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- it won’t take long.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So maybe we could do it in a sort of soon. Very good.

MR ERLICHMAN: Okay. Thank you very much for your time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who has comments from the floor tonight? Okay.

G. PUBLIC ITEMS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is G, Public Items. Item Number 1 is to the consider Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with Joseph E. And Diane E. Zdeb, Greyhawke, Second Plat Subdivision, 12900 Block of 52nd Terrace. For the purpose of stimulating development activity, the Governing Body passed an ordinance creating the option for a property owner to receive a conditional abatement of excise tax. Pursuant to the Policy, the Zdebs -- is that how you say that? Have formally requested –

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Zdeb.

MAYOR DISTLER: Zdeb.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Zdeb.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. To be considered for the conditional abatement of the excise tax for a large lot single family residential subdivision with one lot. Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 Is to consider a Cereal Malt Beverage License for El Paisano Productos Mexicanos, LLC, 10912 W. 74th Terrace. El Paisano Productos Mexicanos has submitted an application for the sale of cereal malt beverages in original and unopened containers and not for consumption on the premises at 10912 W. 74th Terrace. The recommended action is to consider approving the license. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to consider a Massage Establishment License for Body Works Massage, 10729 Shawnee Mission Parkway. Kelli Persinger is requesting approval of a Massage Establishment License for Body Works Massage, located at 10729 Shawnee Mission Parkway. The recommended action is to consider approving the license. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to consider a Sub-Recipient Agreement with the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) for the FY 2013-2014 Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program Funds for the CityRide Taxi Program, and approving the CityRide Title VI Plan. The City was recently awarded $24,000 for the CityRide Taxi Program from the KCATA as part of the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Federal Grant Program. A 50% match is required and is funded in the General Fund. A sub-recipient agreement with the KCATA and a Title VI Plan are also required. There are two recommended actions. The first action is to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a Sub-recipient Agreement with the KCATA. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak this item? I will accept a motion on the first action.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to approve the CityRide Title VI Plan. Is there anyone on the Council that would like to discuss this? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion on the second action.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 5 is to consider an agreement with Kansas City Taxi, LLC, dba 10/10 Taxi for the CityRide Taxi Program. Because of the recently awarded $24,000 federal grant, federal procurement guidelines required the City’s transportation services agreement be re-bid. Staff issued a Request for Proposal and received one response from Kansas City Taxi, LLC dba 10/10 Taxi, the City's current provider. Staff is recommending awarding the contract to Kansas City Taxi, LLC. The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. Is there anyone in the audience -- is there any discussion from the City Council? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

H. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 2015 MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is H, Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 2015. Consider an Ordinance approving proposed amendments to the Zoning regulations. At their August 17, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the Governing Body pass an ordinance approving the text amendments to the Zoning Regulations. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

MR. MORRIS: Wait.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, sorry. Please come forward, Mr. Morris.

Public Comments:

MR. MORRIS: I apologize. I didn’t have the agenda in front of me in regards to the cottage house rezoning issue, correct?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh.

MR. MORRIS: Again, my name is David Morris, (Address Omitted). I inherently don’t really have any problems with the rezoning or the overlay, except for we’re reducing the size of the allowable house size that can be built. I have some photos. So, we’re reducing it to 900 square foot that’s allowable. The free market has in the past 20 years did quite a few infills within the area. One there. One here. None of which are 900 square foot. All substantial sizes. And the latest one is this one at 57th and Barton, none of which are 900 square foot. My concern is on that is that we should, as a city, be encouraging better development and especially in the downtown area to where there is more disposable income, so that the small businesses around can survive. Right now on Nieman Road, Johnson Drive we’ve seen probably more empty buildings and plots than we have in a long, long time. You know, so what you’re wanting to build is, you know, places like this that they may they may not be rental properties right now but there is a really, really high chance of them going to rental properties. Here’s a 500 square foot property within Trail Springs neighborhood. Now, my definition of a single family dwelling, this property does not really fit that. There’s usually five, six, seven cars there at all times and not what I would call a standard family unit that lives there. And we’ll have more of that. It’s actually a pretty small number of properties that really could allow for – financially allow for the development of infill properties within, at least within the Trail Springs area, actually within the downtown area there’s very few properties that would really work on from a financial standpoint. You know, sort of a solution that I think may be better is start having codes take care of the existing properties that are there. These are on Johnson Drive, the main thoroughfare. That, you know, that’s probably a 900 square foot house right there. Houses like that within our neighborhood that are not taken care of. You know, maybe if we started enforcing some of the codes within the neighborhoods that the private sector would come in and start developing stuff. But if you have a developer coming around the neighborhoods and seeing stuff like that and doing the numbers on stuff you’ll see that, I mean they won’t come into the neighborhood. I am using my property as an example here. So, I live on over an acre lot. My house is right here. This is my property right here. These are 45-foot lots. I could put 5 lots on there. I’d have to buy a house, tear it down. The linear cost of the infrastructure for that to do this would put these lots, before you put any houses, on them at $100,000. That’s just the lots. You put a cheap $100,000 house on there, so you’re at $200,000. You look at all the houses around here and it will be one of the highest price point houses within it. The selling point for this, about a thousand foot this way, one of the highest crime areas in Shawnee. I mean it doesn’t make financial sense to do this. In the examples that you were given there’s a section of land east of 60th and Ballentine that was showed that they could put the infrastructure in and put a number of houses in that. The fact is that nobody really ever went and looked at that. It’s the drainage basin for that whole area right in there. The cost of doing that, it would just be prohibitive to do it.

You know, the talk is that we get elderly people into these types of homes. Sixty-three percent don’t plan to move. Age in place. Eighty-five percent plan to stay in the current home that they’re in. There’s more in here, I will not go into that. This study is by the Demand Institute, talks about home demands up until last year. Even Habitat for Humanity, they’re 1,000 to 1,100 square foot on their houses for low income houses. A poll study by Professional Design Architectural Magazine talks about what the current baby boomers were looking for in housing and it’s not small housing. It runs right about 1,600 to 1,800 square feet is what they’re looking for, easy maintenance. There’s a study by American Housing and Urban Renewal Institute. It talks about how 95 percent of the properties within an area developers will not touch because it’s too expensive. Its land values, a whole list of things that are a problem for infill housing. Am I against infill housing? Absolutely not. I think the free market should sort of determine what that is. But currently, like in my neighborhood where there are no curb and gutters, the City requires if you’re going to put in a new home, you have to put in curb and regrind half of -- redo half of the road in front of that. That’s cost prohibitive. The cost to put in infrastructure within these older neighborhoods and to tie into non-existing sewer systems and stormwater drain-off is non-existent. It’s a nice idea, but it’s really not going to have a whole lot of, I mean I’d like it to, but from the numbers, it’s just not going to have a whole lot of value to really doing what needs to be done. If the City wants to do things like pay for infrastructure so that a developer can come in and make a profit, restrict some of the needs for individuals to have to put in curbs and gutters in front of a single house, you know, just the cost and redo half of the road, the cost of that is -- it makes the difference between whether they’ll do it or not lots of times. So, my main concern is the smaller house size, I strongly believe that you guys will pass this tonight. I think it’s not a wise thing to do. I think it needs to be looked at a bigger picture. And if you put the numbers together, I didn’t see in any of the reports where anybody has went out and talked to developers to see if any of this will really work. The numbers that I’ve put together per linear square foot of infrastructure just really won’t make it work, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Sandifer, Mr. Pflumm, and then Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. Paul, back when I was, had a little stronger back, I was buying houses up and I was doing some rebuilding and doing some things if you remember. And I came in and sat down and talked to you a few times about checking sizes that could go back in the lots and you explained to me from what I remember and understand was that no matter what the minimum house -- the minimum house size that we had in the zoning, you’re still only allowed certain size houses in certain areas, so they would fit in with the other house, is that correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, approving this doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s going to be 900 square foot houses all over Shawnee.

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s one of the several items that I’d like to clarify. The R-1 Overlay, we’re not rezoning anybody’s property. It’s a little different than the Commercial Highway Zoning Districts where we actually rezone properties Commercial Highway Overlay. R-1 Overlay is intended to be a tool that an individual or even perhaps the developer could use to encourage single family residential infill in some of the older portions of the community. Part of the rezoning that would be heard by the Planning Commission and the Governing Body in the R-1 Overlay District we’re actually approving the house also that’s going to be constructed. So when the rezoning is heard the developer, the individual comes in and shows us the elevation of the home that they propose to build. It could be a 1,300 square foot home, it could be a 950 square foot home, and obviously one of the things that we would take a look at is it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the types of homes that we see in that neighborhood. There are some design standards which are a little different then we usually see in traditional subdivisions where front porches are required, the home could be built closer than the normal setback in R-1 if the houses along the street are closer. So, there’s a lot of different opportunities and this is just another tool that’s available. And we may not ever have a developer come in and do a whole subdivision, but what’s more likely to occur is that a resident who owns a larger lot and their house is on one side of the lot, then the other side of the lot may want to split it and have -- look at building a new home next door to them. In the R-1 District, minimum frond yard requirement is 75 feet. So unless you have 150 feet of frontage, right now you’re not able to split the lot and by using the R-1 Overlay District, you may be able to split it perhaps once or twice. And it’s just a means to encourage some infill. Also I believe Development Services staff will let you know if there is a house that’s built on a street that they’re not going to have them go in and do curb and gutter in front of the one house and have nothing on either side. And probably even if it was two homes, they’re not going to require that to be undertaken. So, I wanted to clarify some of those items.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you so much. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I was going to address my questions to you also. I mean I got the impression reading here, and over the last few months, I mean all we’re doing is reducing the minimum requirement to 900 to 1,100. Is that correct? And additional to other things, but that’s --

MR. CHAFFEE: [Inaudible] if someone could make a proposal to build a smaller [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Exactly. So they don’t have to build a 900 foot. I kind of got the impression that you were saying that they had to build one. So, and I think by opening this up to a smaller house doesn’t necessarily mean lower income. It could be, you know, it’s a newer property. People tend to take care of properties that are newer even in older areas. So I think it would be a really good thing and it will let the market determine -- I mean you mentioned free market, Mr. Morris, and I think that by opening this up the free market gets to determine if a developer comes in and splits a couple lots and sells a couple houses, he may do it in a couple other places and increases our value downtown and our number of residents.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, I know one example that one of the gentlemen had given at the neighborhood meeting was that he would look to do something for his mother, so that way he can have her on his property, but they still have their own space. So, you know, that wouldn’t be a rental, that would be aging parents being able to share the same property.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Agreed, and I think it’s a great thing.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I was just going to jump in here a little and just say I appreciate Mr. Morris’ concerns, but I do think quite a bit of thought went into this and I really like the idea of it. And I don’t really think these smaller homes are necessarily targeted towards the older generation. In my mind, and I think the mind of the people who were kind of thinking about this, it’s more younger people. It’s people like my husband and I who don’t have a family who would love to move to a downtown area into a kind of cottage home development. So, I don’t think it’s necessarily low income or elderly, it’s a great way to sort of revitalize downtown which is sort of our goal. And a lot of other communities are doing these adorable fantastic tiny homes and so I think it’s a great way to kind of stay on trend in terms of that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well yeah. On HGTV, a tiny home is every other episode. It’s all about the tiny home, so.

MR. CHAFFEE: And they’re 200 square feet in size.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right. Right. Exactly. Well, I’m looking at a tiny home myself. Is there any other discussion from the Council? Mr. Morris?

MR. MORRIS: So, what’s stopping me from turning those all into rental properties?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Can I answer?

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just have a suggestion, I’d tear your barn down and go right though there and come in the other way, it might save you a lot of money there.

MR. MORRIS: Tear my what?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Your little barn down you got right there on your property.

MR. MORRIS: That’s my garage.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Your garage. Outbuilding, whatever you want to call it.

MR. MORRIS: Still not enough distance between the houses to [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But if you put your street in there and turned it around you could probably get a couple more, you know, a couple more houses in there and --

MR. MORRIS: An example of government trying to tell me what to do.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, no, no. I’m not -- I threw out a suggestion to help you. I didn’t ever tell anybody what to do. And if you want to make those rental properties, there’s no law that says you can’t do that.

MR. MORRIS: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. And all rental properties are not bad. Okay. But we encourage you to sell them, you know. So, I mean, I personally would encourage you to sell them, but I would come in the other direction.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You wouldn’t have to buy that house.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, we do have a huge concern in Shawnee about rentals. So, would it, and I don’t know if it would make a sense or not. I can’t remember if we discussed this. I think we did in the partnership meeting. Because really the intent of this is not for one off a 900 square foot house. The intent is for someone to take a couple acres and do -- and if you Google it, Google cottage home development, you’ll see these placement of six, seven, eight houses, a common area. But can we deed -- would it make sense to deed restrict or maybe in the planning process we discuss that as far as deed restricting against rentals, or do we not even want to, I mean, my concern is somebody that doesn’t want to build but, you know, we don’t want them to -- the idea of becoming a rental doesn’t concern me on the front end because as you said, they’re going to be more expensive than anything else in the neighborhood. So, if it is a rental, it’s going to be a very expensive rental, therefore, you’re going to attract a nicer tenant. Someone who is not going to make a, you know, if they build three or four of them at a cost of 800,000, they’re not going to make an $800,000 investment and run it into the ground. So, you know, I think that problem takes care of itself. I think, and there was an idea that I’ve floated out there in the past. In fact, a resident of Shawnee, who is a commercial realtor has proposed this and an idea for maybe taking some of our rental properties off the market in Shawnee and deed restricting them. I don’t think, I mean, I’m throwing it out there. I just personally don’t think in looking at this you’re going to be able to build one of those and rent it. And if you did, you’re going to have a pretty nice tenant. Because like you’re saying, if it’s a couple hundred thousand, your price and your rental market, your rental price will be way above anything in the neighborhood.

MR. MORRIS: Well, two things on that. If I’m developing, I’ll be suing the City if they put a deed restriction on it telling me how I can -- whether I can rent it or not. Second of all, this wouldn’t happen because there’s not a bank around that would lend you the money to do this project. It’s just not profitable. At the 200,000 area, you still haven’t made any money. There still isn’t any profit on that. So, my point is I’m not against the plan. I just think it’s going to set us up. There’s a huge amount of rental within the Trail Springs and I would say in the downtown area. You get to a certain point in a neighborhood where, and the Star did a huge two-page, unbelievably, two-page article, I think it was in the 90s, on neighborhoods that have more than 20 percent rental and they just inherently go downhill. You just don’t have the investment, the buy-in into the neighborhood or the community in that. We’ve got about that right now in the Trail Springs area. You know, I just think it might not happen right now. But down the road I think it will happen and I have concerns about that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Along that same line, Mr. Vaught, is the area of experts, so you would know more than me. But I believe though that I’ve read before the opposite can happen as well. So, right now you’ve got older neighborhoods, older homes and all of these rentals. You start bringing in and building new and these -- the tiny home trend like Ms. Meyer was talking about and everything, well, then the rental homes they turn into homeowners because -- so, is that correct? Because I thought I had read that before that --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It is. And I’m not a residential expert, but I’ve read that myself. I mean, what’s the saying, rising tide --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Lifts.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- raises ships or whatever it is.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. So, it could have quite the opposite effect versus becoming a larger rental area, it could become that it then switches.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Many landlords are opportunists.

MR. MORRIS: I --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You rent -- hold on, David. Many landlords, you’ve got to understand when they come in an area, they’re an opportunist. And you’re going to rent until the opportunity presents itself to get a return on that investment of more than what you’re renting it for. So, obviously if there’s big investments made in an area and the area improves, that’s when renters, and especially if you’ve imposed at that point typically codes enforcement increases. You have newer, you get more complaints. People making an investment complain more than somebody down the street that has a rental. So, little by little that forces -- it’s kind of what this is. Whether it’s a 900 square foot house, that’s how I look at it. Whether it’s a 900 square foot house, or -- if someone brand new comes in and spends $200,000 on their house and they have a renter three blocks down, chances are they’re going to complain on that person more than maybe everybody else has been complaining. And so it starts to increase some codes enforcement, some awareness, and little by little -- it’s new investment. It’s new money. It’s new perspective. We’ve got to start somewhere. I mean, that’s what I would say. And I think we all agree up here. We’ve got a lot of challenges. You know, it’s -- where do we start?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think Councilperson Meyer had the best thing is, I mean, there’s younger couples that want a new house. It doesn’t have to be big. They want a new house, but they want it in some downtown area. And so I --

MAYOR DISTLER: And they’ve got busy kayaking lifestyles, so they don’t want something that’s like huge.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Room for my Prius and my kayaks.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: They need to be closer.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Go to the Royals games and all that. They’re on the move.

MAYOR DISTLER: But to the point. The young active couple doesn’t want a big home to maintain. They don’t have the time for it. So, Mr. Kenig?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I was just going to add to Councilmember Meyer said. Many of those couples, I would say it’s couples and young families, tend to have higher disposable income as well, but they want a starter home and they’re looking for something small that requires little maintenance. And so I think that’s where if you have new development, it’s going to be higher quality. There’s going to be less in terms of maintenance than you would have with a 30 to 40-year-old home, or one of the early tract homes. So, it’s going to track with the type of resident as well that has higher income. So, I think in terms of disposable income there’s not a correlation there when you have newer housing as well. I just know from personal experience I have plenty of friends and co-workers who are looking for, you know, that smaller home and trying to find that. And it’s not readily available, at least in Johnson County, as it is in Westport and Waldo and Brookside where you have that type of property, so.

MR. MORRIS: And I would agree. In order for downtown to succeed you’ve got to get people with disposable income in all around downtown. And I’m just sharing my concern.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

MR. MORRIS: I know that you guys will like it and will vote for it. I just think it needs some tweaking.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. I believe we had a motion and second, don’t we?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: No?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I made a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

[Clerk Note: Having passed, Ordinance No. 3131 was assigned.]

I. STAFF ITEMS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is I, Staff Items. Item Number 1 to consider approving the bid and awarding the contract for the 2015 Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, Project Number 3409. Sealed bids were received on September 3, 2015, from five contractors. Staff has recommended awarding the bid to Amino Brothers, Inc. of Kansas City, Kansas, in the amount of $571,568.85. The recommended action is to consider approving the agreement. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to consider revisions to Policy Statement PS-8, Stormwater Management Program. Public Works Department staff has prepared clarifications and updates to Policy Statement PS-8 concerning stormwater management issues. The recommended action is to approve the revisions to PS-8. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to consider approving the purchase of one replacement street sweeper. The 2015 Budget included the replacement of one street sweeper. As part of the 2015R/2016 Budget discussions, the Governing Body asked staff to obtain bids on the City's street sweeping program. In August, staff issued a Notice to Bid for the program and received no bids. Staff is recommending purchasing a new sweeper from Johnson North America through a government procurement service in the amount of $246,350. Funds are budgeted in the Equipment Reserve Fund and the existing sweeper is expected to sell for $6,500 at auction. The recommended action is to consider approving the purchase of one replacement street sweeper. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just, you know, I don’t know what the process is, but I think I had mentioned I’ll help you go out and find some people to go -- to get bids from. So, I don’t know. I just -- and we’re really not going out for bids on our street sweeper in itself. I mean, we’re getting it basically on a government contract, right?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes, that’s correct.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: State bid.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The procurement conglomerate does their own bids, so it saves our staff time preparing specific specifications and we can use their bid results. Our purchasing manual allows for that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I understand it does and I think we’ve mentioned that in the past, at least I have. I don’t think you get to the most economical price, you know, just using a state, you know, guaranteed contract price. So, I would be in favor of looking harder for, you know, outside contractors to do street sweeping.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll make a motion to approve this.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I didn’t think discussion was done yet, was it? I wanted --

MAYOR DISTLER: Do you have something you want to add, or –

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: She asked for a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Who asked for a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: She did.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: She did? I didn’t hear it.

MAYOR DISTLER: No, not yet I hadn’t.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I thought she did.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes, I do have a comment. I think it’s a pretty big expense right now. We’ve got a lot on our plate at the moment. We’re looking at the economy bouncing back. Hopefully it is. Hopefully it’s going to continue in that direction. I don’t think this is something that is a pressing need for this year. And to fork out $246,000 at a time when money is a little tight, I just don’t see the big critical need for this right this moment. I was looking at this. This is costing us $3,900 a year to keep it repaired. Well, for $246,000 you could $3,913 a year for 82 years and keep it in good shape. So, I mean, that’s not a very -- that’s not a real good cost factor to throw in there I didn’t think necessarily. They’re all going to cost money to keep them repaired. Even the newer one I’m sure is costing us something for repairs. I’d like to just see this thing postponed for a while. I’d like to maybe take another look at it next year and say, hey, if our budget is looking a little better and things are going more splendidly for us financially, then we can talk about doing a one-shot purchase like this.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Hasn’t this item already been budgeted?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, we already have the money in the budget?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, I think this goes back to what kind of city do we want to be. I think the residents of Shawnee have an expectation that we maintain the City and maintain it at a certain level. And, you know, when the engine goes out of that thing or something major happens and it sits sidelined for two months waiting on parts or waiting to fix it, then we’re not maintaining the level of service that our residents have an expectation of. Nobody bid on it. I mean, if staff wants to give us a quick rundown of the process, I think we know it. We put it out there. You know, we have a process for bidding that everybody else follows and we have notifications and you go through, you know, what needs to be done. If someone is not paying attention that’s -- unfortunately we can’t make it a point to call everybody individually. As far as a state bid goes, in a former life I sold, you know, the family business was used police cars, one of the largest in the nation and reselling used police cars. And I will say that most of the police cars that were purchased, what I just saw around Kansas and a lot of other states was on a state bid. And typically the state bid was a far better price than any police department would get if they want to individually bid that and it saved a massive amount of staff time from having to go through and detail everything out and it prevented a lot of mistakes from happening because not everybody can be aware of every little nuance and what they’re bidding. So, I’m in support of the state bid process. The reason for it, it saves time. I think you get a very similar bid. And, you know, obviously if it was somebody got it dramatically cheaper you would have heard about it. And people who are saying don’t use a state bid because we saved 50 grand doing it this way, street sweepers are expensive, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there any further discussion from the Council?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just have one comment here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I know that when we -- this was brought up under the budget, we went from a ten-year turnaround to a five year and that was one of the big items for --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s still, and Mr. Taylor could probably speak to this better than me. We have two sweepers so they rotate. So, this is replacing the oldest sweeper. And then the older sweeper will move into the back. So, is it a ten-year, five-five, Kevin, now?

PUBLIC WORKS FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER. TAYLOR: Yeah. You’ve explained it right. We do have a front-line sweeper that sweeps at least 40 hours a week, and then a backup sweeper. We do have -- a lot of the times that front-line sweeper does break down and so we have a backup sweeper that averages 15 to 20 hours a week of sweeping. We’re not able to keep up the schedule that we have without being able to have that backup sweeper there. So, in this case we’re talking about a 2002 sweeper to be replaced while keeping a 2009 sweeper to be the backup to the new sweeper.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: While you’re up there, Kevin, I’d like you to address my question. Why do we need it right now? Sorry. Don’t have my mic on. Why do we need it right now? What’s the big rush that we have to have it this year?

MR. TAYLOR: Basically a matter of equipment that’s reliable. We have a lot of issues. Sweepers are a piece of equipment that breaks down a lot in the first place. There’s a lot of working parts on there. And as they are older now, we’re experiencing more and more down town from breaking down and that does really impact our ability to --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m sure it does. And you said that even the newer one breaks down all the time, that’s why you have to have the backup. So, neither one of them are really reliable is what you’re telling me. So, do we need five of these? Or what do we need to do to meet the requirements?

MR. TAYLOR: No. Having two of them that are pretty reliable has given us good service and good expectation in the past. And that’s basically what we’re asking for.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: You said the 2009 one does about 40 hours a week?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Are they both -- are the 2009 and the 2002 ever out at the same time?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Although not every day by any means. To get all the sweeping done that we need to basically is about a one and a quarter man job if you will. We’re not able to do it all with one employee. A second employee is used one to two days a week. And so at those times they are both out on the road at the same time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I thought the primary street sweeper worked four days a week and then on the off day, I thought he worked four ten-hour days and then the second individual picked up some time on the other work day.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. And this past season we haven’t been able to do that because of some health issues of our primary sweeper driver. So, currently we have been doing four eights. I’m sorry five eight-hour shifts. But in the past we have done four tens and that has helped out in the efficiency. A lot of what happens with sweeping is you’ve got a lot of cleaning up at the end of the day and everything. So, having that be four ten-hour shifts instead of five eights, you’re spending a couple hours less each week on cleaning the sweeper up at the end of the day and doing that daily maintenance and stuff. So, we do prefer to do that. Here recently we haven’t been so, I was kind of speaking as to how things have been going this week. But even then there definitely still is some overlap on a weekly basis of almost every week of both sweepers running at the same time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know, I’m glad you’re here so you can answer some of these concerns. The other one I had was how much are we spending on maintenance, average maintenance on the 2009 sweeper?

MR. TAYLOR: I apologize. I do not have the exact number. And I don’t even want to guess because I don’t know. It would be just a guess because I haven’t run any numbers on that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You said it’s frequently down and that’s why we need the backup on it. You did make that statement, is that correct?

MR. TAYLOR: It’s common for all sweepers to have ongoing maintenance issues.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s not where I’m coming from. I mean, we buy the new one and, you know, we’re going to be repairing them and they’re going to have down time on just about any setup we’ve got. Maybe not so much if it’s brand new. That brand new one is probably going to be pretty good for at least a couple years before it starts running into issues. But my point being, that’s part of my point, is that, you know, this isn’t going to solve all the problems. You know, we’re still going to have down street sweepers.

MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. I understand what you’re saying. And one of the thing that does happen over time is you start to have more and more major where we’ve really got to replace an entire hopper because the whole thing is rusted out, and the chutes that have the material go through them, then you’re really having to do major stuff.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That makes sense.

MR. TAYLOR: As well as other things that are involved there. But anyway, that’s -- there are two sides to the coin.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Another question. I mean, this might be a question for Maureen. You know, as far as the, I think it’s 246,350. Is that coming out of reserves for 2015, or is that excess dollars that we, not budgeted, but excess revenue that we have just extra?

MS. ROGERS: It’s budgeted in the equipment reserve and facility reserve for $250,000.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I guess that’s my question. I guess my question is, you know, are we spending $250,000 that are going to come out of reserves for 2015?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Probably not.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Probably so. I mean --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Do we have excess revenue? We have $250,000 worth of excess revenue overall in the whole budget, pot of gold. Either we spend exactly what we made, or we have an extra 250,000 that we’re going to spend on this 246,350 on this street sweeper?

MS. ROGERS: It’s included in the budget. So, however it was that the budget was approved, this is not an additional expenditure, it’s already included in the budget.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I understand that 100 percent. Did the budget dip into any reserves?

MS. ROGERS: We chose, or the Governing Body chose to pass a budget intentionally that would dip into reserves because reserves were at a larger level, and the desire of the majority to bring them down a little bit and spend --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Thank you very much. So, we are dipping into --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That reserve is going to that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Reserves are reserves. So, we have reserve dollars that are citizens’ dollars. We are going to take money out of there in excess of revenue for 2015 to buy a street sweeper.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s true.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer and then Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, sure, I’ll jump in. I disagree with that a little bit. The money, as I understand it, is coming from the Equipment Reserve Fund, which is not from the General Reserve Fund. It is no different than me setting up a savings account to buy a new car in the event that my car is ten years old and we need a new one. It is money that has been budgeted for in a separate account. If we don’t spend it, it doesn’t have an impact on our General Reserve Fund. It means we have 250,000 that we had planned to spend still in the Equipment Reserve Fund. It’s a completely different pot of money.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Dan, I know you’re trying to make an issue of spending reserves, but what’s our reserves funds at? Prior to the budget, what was our reserve fund percentage?

MS. ROGERS: We ended 2014 with 51 percent.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Fifty-one percent reserve fund. Okay. And Moody’s says, what did we say, 30-35 is what we kind of -- what they throw at us?

MS. ROGERS: The target is generally 30 percent. That’s our policy target.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And that’s policy is 30. So, that 21 percent equals -- what’s a dollar amount to that 21 percent?

MS. ROGERS: Let’s see.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Close, not exact. Carol, do you know it off-hand.

MS. ROGERS: Let me think about that a minute. I’ll look that up in a minute.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, what was the total reserve fund? At 51 percent the reserve fund was?

MS. ROGERS: Dollars it was around 19 million as I recall.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. So, 21 percent is 4 million. So, about 4 million give or take. So, we’re talking about $250,000. We’re not talking about 4 million because, I mean, we have in excess of 4 million in reserves than what we need for -- to keep Moody’s happy at Aa1. I just sat through a presentation by Chairman Eilert of the Johnson County Commission. They’re a Aaa rating, the best you can get, and they’re at 20 percent reserves. Ten percent less than our policy. They’re at a 20 percent reserve fund. So, you know, I know where you’re going, Dan. But we’ve paid down -- the reserve was not for this issue. The reserve was whether we want to borrow money to buy a fire truck or pay cash with it because we have a massive excess of reserves, far more than our policy states. So, instead of paying interest on a million dollars, subtract -- is that what -- instead of paying interest on a million dollar purchase, we’re just paying cash for it and spending down our reserves. I don’t understand the correlation.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would just echo what Mr. Vaught said as well regarding the overall reserve fund. I know we had this conversation. And in my mind a 51 percent reserve fund is irresponsible on our part. And if we’re just hoarding away citizens’ money, we should be returning citizens’ money. And I think this is a more responsible and effective way of doing that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, as far as the reserves go, we are taking money out of reserves to buy a fire truck. Or excuse me, to buy a -- it is in an Equipment Reserve Fund. It’s all reserves, it’s just not the General Fund Reserve account.

MS. ROGERS: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But that could be used -- I’m just saying that there’s a lot of things out there that we haven’t spent money on. There’s not a lot of return on investment that you get from a street sweeper. So, that’s what I’m saying. We’re spending reserve money to buy a street sweeper.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, JENKINS, KEMMLING: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: And that is Mr. Pflumm, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Kemmling. Motion passes. (Motion passes 5-3)

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to consider approving the purchase of two Storage Area Network Units. In July of 2015, staff issued a request for proposal for the replacement and maintenance of two Storage Area Network (SAN) units. Alexander Open Systems submitted the only bid, which includes the replacement of two existing SANs and maintenance and support for five years. The total cost is $287,351.06 and will be split over two years. The recommended action is to consider approving the purchase of two SANs from Alexander Open Systems in the amount of $287,351.06, with the first SAN to be purchased in 2015 in the amount not to exceed $116,509.57, and the second SAN to be purchased in 2016 in the amount not to exceed $182,496.49.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Jenkins and then Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I have a question for Mel. Just a point of clarification, Mel. In here we’re going to authorize expenditures of $116,509.57 in 2015. And then in 2016, an amount of 182,496. Why is it so much more expensive in 2016? Is that a bigger piece of equipment or what’s the big differential all about?

MR. BUNTING: Sure. Mel Bunting, IT Director. Basically there’s two types of configurations within the SAN, which basically is capacity in a nutshell. The first SAN that we’re acquiring, which would be for City Hall is roughly about 45 terabytes. The SAN we’re acquiring for the Justice Center will be closer to 140 terabytes. So, it’s way more capacity for storage.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Considerably more storage. Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. You answered my questions before the meeting and thanks. But in general, I don’t know what -- what can we do to get more than one bid? I mean, tell me how many items we got on tonight’s thing where we got one bid. All of them. Excuse me, maybe not all of them.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I believe this is the only one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The last two.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, the street sweeper we didn’t receive any.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We didn’t ask for them then.

MAYOR DISTLER: No, we did.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No, we didn’t go out for a street sweeper, we went out and bid for a contract to do street sweeping.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, we didn’t bid out a street sweeper at 249,000, or whatever that number was. We didn’t bid a street sweeper?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It had already been bid through the state.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Whatever.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Well, I guess it wasn’t then. That’s just smoke and mirrors.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion. Oh, I’m sorry.

Public Comment:

MR. HOUCK: Rod Houck, (Address Omitted). I’m concerned about what I’m hearing that we’re going out for bids and we’re not getting people bidding or we’re getting one bid. That concerns me. Mrs. Gonzales, I would suggest that you go to the young lady that coordinates our volunteer program and have her put out some requirements, see if we can find somebody that’s got some purchasing background that maybe can do some research on some of these items. I’ve heard a street sweeper should be fairly easy to draw a box around what it is, what the specifications are, and have a volunteer get on the phone to make some calls to people that sell those kinds of things to get some realistic numbers rather than just going with a government bid – buying off a government contract. The same applies to storage units. I think the same thing should be done. So, I would suggest we look to see if we can’t find some resources and let some volunteers do some of that work. That’s my point.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Thank you for your comment.

MAYOR DISTLER: I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ll move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ll second that.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 5 is to consider approving the bid and Awarding the contract for the K-7 Corridor Improvement Projects at 75th and 43rd Streets, P.N. 3369.
Sealed bids were received on September 3, 2015, from four contractors. Staff has recommended awarding the bid to Gunter Construction, Kansas City, Kansas, in the amount of $370,290. The project is fully funded by KDOT. The recommended action is to consider approving the contract.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 6 is to consider an Engineering Services Agreement for the Quivira Road Rehabilitation Project, 47th Street to 62nd Place, P.N. 3410. The Quivira Road Rehabilitation Project is included on the City's Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2016. Staff requested proposals for engineering services from four firms and is recommending BHC Rhodes, Overland Park, Kansas for an amount not to exceed $138,522. The recommended action is to consider approving the agreement. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

J. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is J, Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to ratify the semi-monthly claim for September 14, 2015, in the Amount of $3,015,795.02. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have an item they would like to discuss?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Mr. Neighbor.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes. I would just like to -- I thought yesterday was a -- whoever ordered the weather for the car show did an excellent job. It was very well attended. I think there were 300 and --

MAYOR DISTLER: Fifty-seven.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Fifty-seven. Okay. Three hundred fifty-seven cars. Some very interesting ones. Unfortunately I remember riding in most of the old ones when I was a teenager.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: When they were brand new.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: When they were brand new. Yeah. Thank you, Jeff. But the point I would like to make about this. I happened to drive down Johnson Drive last night about 6:45, and everything was taken down. You never would have known there were 357 cars and 3,000 or 4,000 people milling around in there having a good time all afternoon. Kudos to the people that put it on and kudos to all staff that participated in taking everything down and cleaning it up so well. That’s a job well done.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was just wanting to thank all the staff members and basically all the citizens, everybody that was involved. That was a great event yesterday. We had a lot of people into downtown. It was a good event. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Same thing. I was down there and it was a good show. On another note, and I don’t know if it’s something we want to do. We’ve had this argument about state bids in the past. Would it make sense someday on a Committee meeting is to do a presentation on how the state bid works and some price comparisons and municipalities that use it? And so it just seems like everybody wants to beat up on it all the time. And, you know, if it’s dramatically higher, then we’ll stop using it. But I don’t want to make that call until I actually see a presentation on it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. Councilmember Vaught actually stole my thought. But just to piggy-back on that, I think it would be helpful for me, too, as a new Councilmember just to know what the process is for different projects and for equipment what that looks like when we use the government contractor versus not, and obviously differences with like the design-build process versus independently billing out and when and where we would use those different tactics. So, just kind of a broad kind of overview would be helpful. And then obviously we can look down the line at changing if necessary, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, and I would probably add to that, too, why we can’t use volunteers to call up on all the things because a lot of these are sealed bids. So, we just put out what it is we’re looking for and they come in and that’s how, you know, they’re supposed to bid us their lowest price versus if -- so, I know some of these items we can’t have a volunteer calling around.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible] soliciting.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right. Because then that’s tainting the process and that’s not fair. So, I would like to see that as part of it, too, which types of items we could use a volunteer for and what type of stuff has to be sealed. Are there any other items? Mr. Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You’re saying it’s tainted if we ask companies to bid?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: If you solicit on a sealed bid.

MAYOR DISTLER: No. If you’re competing --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [inaudible] situation.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right. So, if you call X Company and say, hey, Y Company said they’ll give it to us for $13 and X Company says, okay, well, I’ll do it for 12, you can’t do that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, what I’m talking about, at least in some of the discussion that went on tonight, is I don’t know what we’re doing. And I think we just put a bid process out there. And if there’s five companies over here that see it and maybe they bid on it or they don’t, but there might be ten companies over here.

MAYOR DISTLER: No. I wasn’t referring to that, I was referring --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All I’m saying is like Mr. Houck, it would be good to have a volunteer call up, we have a bid out, would you please go look at the specification --

MAYOR DISTLER: That’s fine. Right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- and place a bid if you’d like.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right. But a volunteer can’t call up and ask, okay, this is the street sweeper we want, how much are you going to sell it to us for is what I was trying to clarify.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. Okay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. I was just trying to clarify.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. No problem.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I would like to clarify. We absolutely do that. We reach proactively out and certainly the street sweeping vendor would know exactly what companies do that work. We contacted all of them, made sure they had seen the notice and made sure that they knew the specifications were available. Depending on the type of project we very actively reach out to companies before --

MAYOR DISTLER: Right.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- to make sure that they do see it. It’s published on several different websites that are central notices for bids. The people that do that kind of work know where those are and they go to them and look at them, so we are very diligent in looking for people to bid.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But we did specify something that was out of the ordinary because a $250,000 item, I mean, I think a lot of people want to bid on things that are $250,000.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And a lot of people did bid on it and the area purchasing conglomerate that we used then selected the low bid. And as Mr. Vaught said are experienced, and we can certainly do some research to affirm that or not. But our experience has been that those group bids are better prices than we can get ourselves as a small one city trying to buy one street sweeper. That when they submit bids for -- and they may well get 30 street sweepers out of it, they’re going to give a much better price. And that’s been our experience on all those group contracts.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. If there are no other –

Public Comment:

MR. HOUCK: May I address a comment that I heard? My intent was not to have volunteers involved while the bidding process was going on, but to have volunteers independently call about an item to see what people are selling it for. So, when you get the bids you know whether the bid is realistic or not. That was my point. My own personal experience in selling to state government. I was selling a specific item to a state agency that had a computer network. I won that bid, but the purchasing department wanted to get rid of an existing, incumbent data communications vendor. They asked me to add all the rest of my equipment to the state bid. All the rest of my equipment went on the state bid at full price. So, when you’re buying against a government contract, you know, in that example, it causes me concern.

K. ADJOURNMENT MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. If there are no other items, I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). We are adjourned. Thank you.
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 8:51 p.m.)


CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/das September 23, 2015

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk







File Attachment Icon
CC09142015.docx