PDF Format:

CC02222016.pdfCC02222016.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
February 22, 2016
7:30 P.M.

Michelle Distler - Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember JenkinsDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember KemmlingAssistant City Manager Killen
Councilmember VaughtCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember Meyer Finance Director Rogers
Councilmember SandiferPlanning Director Chaffee
Councilmember Kenig Public Works Director Whitacre
Guest Councilmember UmbergerPolice Chief Moser
Fire Chief Mattox
Councilmembers AbsentManager – Operations and Systems Fulk
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Attorney Dehon
Management Analyst Schmitz
Communications Manager Ferguson
Sr. Project Engineer Moeller-Krass
Sr. Project Engineer Schnettgoecke
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:33 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. We’re going to go ahead and get started while we wait for our other Councilmembers to join us.

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.

Tonight we have a special guest with us. Her name is Jeydan Umberger and she is my daughter. Tonight, she will serve as a guest Councilmember for Ward 4. She has read the packet, and will join in on the discussion and will cast an honorary vote on each item.

I will do a roll call at this time. Councilmember Neighbor is absent. Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Guest Councilmember Umberger.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER UMBERGER: Here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

MAYOR DISTLER: I’ve asked Jeydan to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance and I’ll have the Boy Scouts come up and join us as well. And then following the Pledge of Allegiance we’ll have a moment of silence.

(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Thank you. If you boys would like to introduce yourselves and let us know what troop you’re with.

(Troop 451 introduced themselves)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you so much.

(Applause)

MAYOR DISTLER: 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 and 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 on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address.
I would also like to remind Councilmembers to wait to be recognized before speaking. When you are recognized, be sure to turn on your microphone. Please turn the microphone off when you are done speaking.

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

C. CONSENT AGENDA


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Does the Council have any items they would like to remove? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: 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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 7-0.]
D. MAYOR’S ITEMS

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is D, Mayor’s Items. I do not have anything this evening.

E. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Business from the Floor. Is there anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight's agenda? Okay. Seeing none.

F. PUBLIC ITEMS

1. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN DEED AND RELATED DOCUMENTS CONVEYING
PROPERTY TO CHCT KANSAS, LLC IN CONNECTION WITH FINAL PAYMENT OF REVENUE BONDS RELATED TO THE PRAIRIE STAR II,
LLC PROJECT.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Public Items. Item number 1 is to consider a Resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign deed and related documents conveying property to CHCT Kansas, LLC in connection with final payment of revenue Bonds related to the Prairie Star II, LLC Project.

In 2005, the City issued $4,400,000 of Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of a medical office building located at 6850 Hilltop Road. The Company has notified the City that the bonds will be paid in full on or about February 26, 2016, and requests to exercise its option to purchase the Project as provided in the Lease Agreement.

The recommended action is to consider adopting the Resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Special Warranty Deed and other release documents, subject to the conditions set forth therein and final approval of Bond Counsel and the City Attorney.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’d like to abstain on this one.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Just real quick. Do we have a number on what -- because we always talk about when we do incentives what the long-term is. What is this coming back on the tax rolls for or what’s the additional tax revenue? Do we know? Does anybody? Anybody? I hear crickets.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Not off the top of our head, but that’s a number we can certainly get.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I’d be curious because it is always a discussion. And so when these come off it’s always nice to see. I think when we do this we should put that in there that somehow that’s coming off, this is the financial impact that it has to us.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s a very good idea. Oh, Ms. Rogers may have an answer.

MS. ROGERS: (Speaking off mic). Maureen Rogers, Finance Director. And if I can find the EcoDevo report out online I could get that because that is part of the [inaudible]. I’ll either find it during this meeting or get that to you [inaudible].

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Any further --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Without a further discussion I’d move for approval.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, first I’m going to see if there’s anyone from the audience --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, I’m sorry.

MAYOR DISTLER: -- that wants to speak to this item. Seeing none, okay, Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS JENKINS, KEMMLING, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Abstain.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 6-0-1, with Councilmember Pflumm abstaining)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to adopt the Resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Special Warranty Deed and other release documents, subject to the conditions set forth therein and final approval of Bond Counsel and the City Attorney. The motion passed 6-0-1 with Councilmember Pflumm abstaining. Resolution No 1776 was assigned.]

2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ISSUE FEDERALLY TAXABLE PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BONDS, IN THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $17,500,000 FOR THE FEDERATED RURAL ELECTRIC INSURANCE EXCHANGE PROJECT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 2 is to consider a Resolution of Intent to issue Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds, in the principal amount not to exceed $17,500,000 for the Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange Project.

Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange intends to construct a 36,690 square foot building located in the 7800 block of Renner Road. The Resolution is declaring the intent of the City to issue Private Activity Revenue Bonds not to exceed $17,500,000 to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping the building and to implement an ad valorem tax abatement on real property of 70 percent over a ten-year period.

The recommended action is to consider adopting the Resolution. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to adopt the Resolution declaring the intent to issue Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $17,500,000 for the purpose of financing, acquiring, constructing and equipping of a commercial building for the Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange Project. The motion passed 7-0. Resolution No 1777 was assigned.]

3. CONSIDER A SHAWNEE ENTREPRENEURIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SEED) AGREEMENT WITH FEDERATED RURAL
ELECTRIC INSURANCE EXCHANGE.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 3 is to consider a Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) Agreement with Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange.

Policy Statement PS-65, Economic Development Fund, established the SEED Program. Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, a company providing property, casualty and other insurance coverage for the rural electric cooperatives, has formally requested consideration for the Forgivable Loan Program.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the SEED Agreement in the amount of $45,000. 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 MEYER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, JENKINS, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. And the nay was Councilmember Kemmling. (Motion passes 6-1)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to authorizing the Mayor to sign the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development Agreement with Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange in the amount of $45,000. The motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Kemmling voting nay.]

4. CONSIDER AN EXCISE TAX ABATEMENT AGREEMENT WITH FEDERATED RURAL ELECTRIC INSURANCE EXCHANGE LOCATED
IN THE 7800 BLOCK OF RENNER ROAD.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 4 is to consider an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange located in the 7800 Block of Renner Road.

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, Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, has formally requested to be considered for the conditional abatement of the excise tax for 16.8 acres of unplatted land generally located in the 7800 Block of Renner Road for the purpose of developing a two lot office subdivision.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Excise Tax Abatement Agreement. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange. The motion passed 7-0.]

5. CONSIDER AN EXCISE TAX ABATEMENT AGREEMENT WITH JJM VENTURES, LLC FOR THE MEADOW OF CHAPEL CREEK
SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE 6800 BLOCK OF KENTON.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 5 is to consider an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with JJM Ventures, LLC for the Meadow of Chapel Creek Subdivision located in the 6800 Block of Kenton.

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, JJM Ventures, LLC has formally requested to be considered for the conditional abatement of the excise tax for 3.77 acres of unplatted land generally located in the 6800 Block of Kenton for the purpose of developing a ten lot single family residential subdivision.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the 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 PFLUMM: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with JJM Ventures, LLC. The motion passed 7-0.]

G. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016

1. CONSIDER Z-01-16-02, AN ORDINANCE REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, LOCATED AT
7725 RENNER ROAD.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is G, Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 1, 2016.

Item number 1 is to Consider Z-01-16-02, an Ordinance rezoning from Agricultural to Professional Office, located at 7725 Renner Road. On February 1, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the Governing Body approve Z-01-16-02. An ordinance is required.

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 KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0).

And I believe we have several representatives from Federated here tonight. Phil Irwin CEO and Bill Birkeness, please stand. We want to welcome you and your team and business to Shawnee. Thank you so much.

(Applause)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to pass an Ordinance rezoning from Agricultural to Professional Office Zoning District for a 16.8 acre parcel of land located in the 7800 block of Renner Road subject to the condition listed in the staff report. The motion passed 7-0. Ordinance No. 3150 was assigned.]

H. ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2016 CHAIRED BY COUNCILMEMBER MEYER

1. CONSIDER REVISIONS TO POLICY STATEMENT, PS-65, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND RELATED TO THE EXCISE TAX
ABATEMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The next item is H, Items from the Council Committee Meeting of February 2, 2016, Chaired by Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Two items tonight. The first is to consider revisions to Policy Statement, PS-65, Economic Development Fund related to the Excise Tax Abatement Site Development Program.

MAYOR DISTLER: The Committee recommended 6-1 to forward revisions to Policy Statement, PS-65, Economic Development Fund, to discontinue the Excise Tax Abatement Site Development Program.

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

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve revisions to Policy Statement, PS-65, Economic Development Fund, to remove the Excise Tax Abatement Site Development Program. The motion passed 7-0.]

2. CONSIDER ORDINANCES REGULATING SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES AND SAFETY DEVICES.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The second is to consider Ordinances regulating swimming pool enclosures and safety devices.

The Committee recommended 5-2 to amend the Building Codes to remove the exception alternative for pool covers and change the fence requirement in the Building Code to a 6' height. This change requires two Ordinances.

a) Consider passing an Ordinance amending the existing provision of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International
Residential code to amend the minimum height of a swimming pool barrier to be 72 inches.

MAYOR DISTLER: The first recommended action is to consider passing an Ordinance amending the existing provision of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International Residential code to amend the minimum height of a swimming pool barrier to be 72 inches.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I still don’t agree with the six-foot fence and I’d love to have another conversation about this. I am kind of curious -- I know after the meeting it seemed like everybody wasn’t totally convinced that six foot was the way to go. So, I’d like -- I’d be curious if there’s some [inaudible] with a different opinion that maybe we’d like to revisit this.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would second that. I think the six-foot, as we’ve talked about previously, more obstructive than most of the HOAs, many of the HOAs here in Shawnee. And I think we’ve previously talked about it, and I would be supportive of, is a four-foot or a five or maybe a four-foot if you have a pool cover and then maybe five otherwise or somewhere that’s lower and fits in better with the aesthetics of the homeowner associations and our neighborhoods here in Shawnee.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m kind of in favor of the six-foot fence.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think Stephanie has brought up a good point. Actually the five -- because I think the county, am I not mistaken, isn’t county’s five foot?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mr. Chaffee, can you?

MR. CHAFFEE: (Talking of mic). Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. The county which regulates the commercial swimming pools [inaudible] and hotel [inaudible] neighborhood pool in the subdivision, their regulations are [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. And I’m going to go back to what I said when we talked about it. And I experienced this as president of my association. We had someone who put in a pool and we’re requiring them to put in -- or they were required to put in a six-foot fence and they’re putting in a privacy fence and we had neighbors that weren’t real happy about it. They moved into the neighborhood for the visual aesthetics. Live in Crimson Ridge, rolling hills, lots of trees. And much like some of the other neighborhoods, you know, in Dan’s ward and even ones, you know, down 75th Street area, Blackfish, we have a lot of trees and rolling hills. And when we start requiring somebody to put in a six-foot fence because they’re putting in a pool, I mean, we’re kind of taking a shot at their neighbors that have moved there for the aesthetic pleasing neighborhood and we’re putting -- we’re pitting them against their neighbor. If they want to have a pool, we’re telling them they’ve got to have a six-foot. They’ve got to go to their neighbors and get permission or get them on board with putting up this big six-foot privacy fence. You know, the reality is the pool covers, we talked about it. There are cities out there and it’s in the building code. It’s not something that we came up with. The building code says that, the new building code, you don’t need a fence at all with a pool cover. We didn’t agree with that. But to say that even if you have a cover you still need a six-foot fence, I mean, we’re just -- to me, it’s just really extreme and really overreaching government. You know, we all talk about less government, less government intrusion, this appears to be more government intrusion. I think if there’s other cities and the IBC and other areas and, you know, the people that craft the IBC have the comfort level with the cover with no fence, then I would think what Stephanie said is, okay, if you have a cover, then you can do a four-foot fence. That way if you’re building a pool in a neighborhood that has a four-foot fence restriction, you can put in a four-foot fence. You just got to spend the money, the additional money for that cover. And without that, then let’s just do a five-foot fence and be -- not be more restrictive than what the county is. It just seems like good government to me and seems pretty common sense.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig and then Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. First, I had a question. Paul, the commercial regulations you mentioned, so that includes apartment pools as well, is that correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. It does. The regulations that we’re taking a look at making modifications to are for single-family residences.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. Thank you. So, I acknowledge that just from the standpoint of I don’t want to belabor this to death because I think this point has already been made. But I did argue last meeting that I think it’s worthwhile and valid to make an exception for those who have purchased pool covers. And again, not all pool covers are created equal, so we’re talking about those durable pool covers that are upwards of $10,000 and more that -- and utilize those. I think that it makes sense to have -- to be able to allow them to have a four or five-foot fence in combination with that. I think that acknowledges that they’ve already taken additional steps for safety and security precautions. And again, the combination of a pool cover and a four or five-foot fence I would argue is greater security than somebody who just has a six-foot fence alone and nothing else. So, I think that that’s a reasonable accommodation to make.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I still fall back on the safety issue, you know, what’s a life worth. And, you know, this six-foot fence does not have to be a solid wood fence. It could be a wrought iron fence. I mean, it could have -- you could see through it. It could be a -- there’s a number of different fences you could put up. It doesn’t have to be something that’s so intrusive that it blocks everything, you know. You could beat it up. We could keep talking about it and we could approve a four-foot, five-foot fence and a kid dies in a pool next week and then whose fault is it? You know, I’ve seen a lot of drownings in pools and I think it’s a safety issue to me and a six-foot fence is fine.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: (Talking off mic) I would I guess argue if five-foot is the commercial standard and the standard of most of our peer cities. I don’t want to say that our peer cities and commercial properties don’t value life by saying a five-foot fence. And I agree with Jeff that I don’t think that it is very good government for us to be more restrictive than what has been set as a pretty strong and responsible standard for the rest of our community.

MAYOR DISTLER: I was just wondering since I wasn’t involved in the previous discussions, President Meyer, was there any data provided as far as fence-related drownings, as far as children going over fences to get -- and do we have any of that data?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Ray had it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. So, I would say to that that there was a conversation about whether fences cut down on the number of deaths. I will say there was not a conversation about whether the height of the fence, four, five or six makes any determination.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What wasn’t determined in the study on fenced-in pools is just because there’s a fence and somebody drowns or there’s not a fence and somebody drowns it doesn’t mean that it was a neighbor kid that walked over that pool. It could be the kid that lived in the house and went out the back door and the fence -- it meant nothing whether there was a fence or not.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, that was my question of as far as data of children actually going climbing over four-foot versus five-foot versus six-foot.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: My understanding is it’s extremely minute. The number of deaths, drowning deaths are extremely minute on children that cross a fence, a barrier and get into a pool whether it’s four, five or six-foot. There are plenty of children that drown. And oftentimes, they’re either at a party or residence already inside the fence and invited inside the fence. I just, you know, we try so hard to claim ourselves as, you know, with trees and the city of trees and the aesthetically pleasing city and the rolling hills. And I said I’m going to go back. Yes, Mickey, you could build something other than a wood fence, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to. My neighborhood has no restrictions whether I build a wood fence or wrought iron. So, the reality is unless there is a rule in the association that says you can’t build a wood fence, if they want to save money they’re putting up a wood fence and they’re putting a six-foot wood fence that we know in ten years isn’t going to look very good if they don’t maintain it. Some people do, some people don’t. We’re just -- society right now, everything I’ve seen in society was trying to break down barriers. We’re trying to not close ourselves in because for years we’ve created this kind of closed-in society where we’ve boxed ourselves into our back yard and now all of a sudden we’ve kind of shifted into common green space, openness. Let’s take down the barriers, we’re all in this together. And we’re coming up with something that says, yeah, but if you have a pool, then you’ve really got to bury yourself into a six-foot fence where you can’t see your neighbors, you can’t talk to them. I mean, literally you cannot walk up to a six-foot -- if your neighbor is on the other side of the fence you can’t have a conversation with them. So, if you have a pool, you’ve basically just secluded yourself in your back yard if you’re going to put in a wood fence because we’re saying, yeah, but you’re going to have to put in a fence tall enough that you can’t even see over the top of it. I don’t, you know, there is not too many little toddlers, and those are the ones we’re concerned about that are going to scale a five-foot fence. And there’s not too many that are going to scale a four-foot fence. And, you know, if they do, the very minute possibility that happens, you know, do we punish a whole city if people want to build a pool because there’s that one in a million chance that a two year old is going to scale a four-foot fence in time that nobody is watching him and he’s going to drown. I just don’t see it. It’s an aesthetic thing for me as far as the look of our community. And when we go into these neighbors when we’re going to pit neighbor against neighbor because we’re telling them if you want that fence you’ve got to go talk to your neighbors because you’re going to have to go the association. You’re going to have to get approval for that and you’re going to have to go talk to his neighbors. And if they don’t want it, what happens? Well, I don’t really want that fence. I don’t want to look at a six-foot fence. And now we’ve created a conflict that really doesn’t need to happen because there’s a solution. Put in the cover. Put in a four-foot fence. He doesn’t have to go talk to his neighbors. He fits within the ordinance if we did that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. At those meetings we held there was a lot of discussion actually about the height of the fences and the level of protection that the height of the fence would provide. There were a number of people that came up, including pediatricians and a number of residents. Ray Erlichman came up with some data as well showing how toddlers can negotiate a four-foot fence fairly easily. And we were given numerous examples from residents who have observed their child easily negotiating a four-foot fence. That’s why there is a number of us on the Council here to feel like, wow, you know, that’s a pretty serious thing because a drowned child is a really big deal. And I’d rather err on the side of safety than I would err on the side of helping somebody put in their automated pool cover. Because, frankly, I don’t think they’re putting in their automated pool cover for safety, I think they’re putting it in for their convenience so they don’t have to clean out their pool as frequently and that kind of thing. And now that they’re spending $10,000 on a pool cover they’d like to be exempted from additional cost of having to build a fence as well. And I can understand one feeling that way. I would feel that way, too, except, of course, I’m putting -- I’m building a pool right now and I’m spending $8,000 to put a six-foot fence around mine and I think that’s a very worthwhile expense because I really don’t want to pull some dead kid out of my pool. I really don’t. And so I’d very strongly favor six foot. I realize the argument is on the aesthetics. I understand those arguments and they seem reasonable, but first of all, not everybody has a pool. There aren’t that many of them. I don’t think it’s a huge aesthetic problem for the city and I would really like to require a stronger level. So, I’m with the six-foot.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I would just take some objection. I understand the difference in opinion, but I, you know, we heard a fair amount of testimony as well from people who had spent upwards of nearly $20,000 on a pool cover. I would hardly say that a person who is spending that kind of money on a cover to protect their own children and the children around them as being negligent and looking for, frankly, an easy way out. I think that that’s a false assumption. And I think it would be very responsible and, frankly, I think safer if we’re saying you can have a hard pool cover and a four-foot fence than just a six-foot fence. And I have yet to have anyone explain to me how a six-foot fence with absolutely no pool cover is safer than a hard pool cover that is a turn-key situation and a four-foot fence. That seems to me like a double safety system. It seems to me like a good compromise. And again, seems much safer than the alternative of just a fence which could just as easily be left open.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I’d just remind my fellow Councilmember’s argument isn’t only aesthetic. This entire thing came about because of a conflict between the International Building Code and our own City building code. And so it was something that had not been caught for a long time and then it was caught as residents brought it to the attention of the City. And so from that standpoint I think we should be cognizant of the confusion that it is going to create. It is a pretty drastic change and notwithstanding the differences between the HOA regulations that stand now. And so with that in mind I think that it is going to create a lot of uncertainty for people who are already in the process of purchasing pool covers. And let’s remember, too, for people who are either in the process of building pools or taking steps right now, you know, we’re a few months out from spring. It’s a time when a lot of people are making those decisions right now, making those purchases. And so I think that we should be cognizant of being able to make accommodations that are reasonable in those instances. And, you know, I have many, many nieces and nephews. And I’m cognizant of the drowning issue and the fact that it doesn’t take much at all for a child to drown. In fact, a child can drown in a small kiddie pool. A child can drown in a drainage creek area. There’s plenty of opportunity for that to happen. And I agree we need to take as many steps as possible to reduce that. But I think when you’re talking about a five or six-foot fence it’s a little bit disingenuous to make the argument that, you know, there is going to be, you know, a major chance of a loss of life going from five to six-foot. The idea is being able to look at all of the security methods that are put in place, which a pool cover is one, and look at the combination of those and what that does to reduce the likelihood of a drowning. And in my mind there is no question that that combination of the two does much more than just a singular fence. Because again, there are ways for a child to get past a fence or be in an area, and all it takes is a parent to look away for a second. And yet, you may have that fence. But if you have it unlocked or if you have the gate open and you don’t have a pool cover you still have that drowning scenario that can occur.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, with the fence, regardless of which size, it’s not going to be required to be self-closing and locking?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It would be.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, okay.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: (Talking off mic)

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s required to be when it gets inspected. Now, a year later is the self-closing mechanism still working because we don’t go back and check annually, so.

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

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: This has clearly been a very emotional discussion that we’ve had over the last handful of meetings and it brings up a very visceral reaction because we’re talking about the potential a child dying. And that’s always going to be emotional. So, I truly believe that everyone on this Council, regardless of their beliefs on the height of the fence, wants children to live and not drown in pools. So, I think we all have the same goal, it’s just our difference of opinion on how this regulation should be written. So, I don’t think regardless of where anyone stands we should try to paint them as anti-child. I have five of my own. So, the idea of one drowning is a pretty awful thought. So, just my opinion is not solely based on hating kids or anything else, and I don’t think anyone else up here is. At some point, Mr. Vaught brought up we do have to ask our self what’s the role of the government. Mr. Jenkins here is a perfect example of an individual that said government requires X, but I think it’s more responsible to go above and beyond that. And ultimately I think that’s where I lie is with the trust in the individual to do what they believe is more responsible and not for us to be the nanny state and come out and necessarily tell them what’s the safest. I’ve got to be completely honest. I’m not sure if a six or a four is safer. I know my kids can climb. I think if we say we’re going to six because it’s safer than four, then we could also make the argument to do eight because it’s safer than six because that’s twice as high to climb. And so I don’t know the magic number to make a fence safer and what the diminishing returns are on height. But I feel like at the end of the day I believe in the citizen to make the responsible decision in protecting their pool and protecting their children and the ones around them. And so it’s a little bit different than my opinion has been in the past. Twice I moved this out of committee with -- or voted to move this out of committee with a six-foot fence, and I’ve really gone back and forth on that. But I think at the end of the day, like I said earlier, I believe in the individual’s ability to make a responsible decision with what they think is responsible and it’s not up for us to necessarily tell them what that is.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I appreciate Councilman Kemmling’s comments. I just had one clarification I wanted to put on that. We’re not necessarily protecting the kids of the pool owner here. I think -- I would hope that the pool owner is out there with their kids and keeping an eye on them. I’m thinking about the kid that wanders over from four houses down or from the next block over that’s out doing their thing and wanders by and says, oh, boy, here is a pool, I’m going swimming, and you’ve lost that child. And they can negotiate four feet. I think we really heard multiple testimony that four feet is not a significant barrier to these kids. And everybody is talking about locking gates. Well, what about -- when you step out of the pool and you have an automatic pool cover that pool does not close because it senses that you stepped out of the pool. You have to physically close that pool. You have to run around and push the button and make sure it closes. If you run inside, you’re just going to grab a quick lunch and come back out and sun yourself or whatever, that pool is open and it’s unattended. I mean if you have a severe thunderstorm as we have here, you have ice storms like we have here, we have all these type of events and the pool cannot be closed because the power is not functioning. The mechanics of the pool cover aren’t functioning because it broke. Everybody knows mechanical stuff breaks, so there is no failsafe here. To sit here and act like these pool covers are the panacea for everything, I think they’re great. I’m not knocking them, but I don’t think they provide the level of safety that I think is appropriate. So, therefore, that’s why I’m looking for a six-foot fence. I think there’s some good argument about four-foot fences, five-foot fences and so on. But after hearing what I’ve heard from the people of this community coming up one after the other and testifying, it sure sounded like it wasn’t that hard for these kids to get over those smaller fences. That’s why I’m going to stick with the six foot.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, I’m going to touch on something that Brandon said, Councilman Kenig. You know, we’re talking about children and bodies of water and concern about fencing it in, but you know, there’s really no place that attracts more children than a park. And a lot of our parks have a pond and I don’t see any fence at all around those ponds. So, I do think it’s some point we’re dealing with a certain level of personal responsibility for people to look after their children and make sure that they’re not wandering into danger. I don’t think we can -- there’s not enough government out there to protect everybody from everything. But if we’re going to start putting up, you know, if we’re going to say that, well, we just absolutely need to protect children from drowning, then we need to go build six-foot fences around all our ponds and around Shawnee Mission Lake and wall off all of our creeks and streamways because they’re unattended and a child could easily wander into that, just as easily wander into that as he wanders into a pool. So, why are we putting, you know, why are we doing this and somebody is forcing this in somebody’s backyard? I mean, we have a lot of parks. I mean, let’s look at -- think of a park with a pond and it, out there where the skate park is and, you know, there is a pond in the back of that and I see a lot of housing around there. So, I think anytime a kid could just wander off and drown in that pond. I mean are we bad because we didn’t fence off our pond? You know, we’re not trying to make a failsafe society. The reality is if somebody wants in that pool enough they’re going -- bad enough, they’re going to get into it. But if a toddler is that unattended that he has the time to travel down the street and scale a fence and drown in the pool, then we have some serious lacking personal responsibility of a parent. And, you know, is our government’s job to make sure that everybody is being personally responsible, I don’t know. I’ve got to trust in some people that they can actually take care of their children. The four foot only happens if they have a cover. So the only way that child, if he did scale a fence, would have a problem is if the cover was off the pool which means there’s activity in the backyard and somebody is typically out there. And you know, in eyesight or earshot of that pool, otherwise, they’re going to climb over a four-foot fence and they’re going to be standing on a pool cover using it as a trampoline because are not going to get wet.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. You know, comparing water reservoirs and ponds to a swimming pool is not apples to apples. And, you know, second off, you mentioned it earlier, Mr. Vaught, lack of maintenance on a fence. What about the lack of maintenance on a pool cover? These are mechanical objects. And a motor goes out a year later and nobody wants to spend the two, three, four, $500 it takes to do it. So, now you’ve got an uncovered pool because it’s been inspected up front and everything is fine. You know, and now you’ve got a four -- I have grandchildren that can scale a five or six-foot fence (snapping fingers) that quick, even a six-foot. But a six-foot fence would be better in my regards. You know, but you’ve got to put apples to apples. You know, what is a life worth. You know, all it takes is once. You talking about a two-foot fence. One life is all it takes. That’s all I’ve got.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Michelle.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One comment and follow up to Mr. Vaught’s comments. And that would be you put the four-foot fence around the pool with the cover and that’s going to present a false sense of security to the homeowner and the pool owner. Hey, I’ve got my fence, so, you know, I don’t have to be quite so worried about closing my cover up when I’m not here. I’m going to be in there watching the ball game, but I plan on coming back out to the pool and swimming a little later so I don’t bother covering it because I’ve got a fence. I mean, you know, geez, I’m okay. You could argue these things, we could argue these things all night, all these ins and outs and the intricacies of it all. But I think that’s an important point that if you have a fence around there and it’s four-foot and you think you’re fenced you’re going to have a little bit less awareness and a little bit less care in managing the security of your pool.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. So, I’m going to address Mr. Sandifer. So, well, we do talk about maintenance. So, do we -- when we do an inspection on a pool, do we -- we inspect it, obviously after it’s done we give them their permit and then we go and do a final inspection, correct? Okay. Do we ever inspect again after that? So, the guy could put up a six-foot fence and he could take down that six-foot fence the next day.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But the reality is we could. Or a section of that fence could fall down and it could stay that way for three years. We don’t inspect. We don’t do annual inspections, so the maintenance issue is a nonissue. I would say that if we’re going -- if that’s the basis for our argument, then we need to change our inspection policy that says that we’re going to annually inspect fences and pool covers and everything else to make sure that they’re there and then we’ll just hire someone else to do that because that’s kind of where you’re going with that. I mean, so where do we stop? At what point do we say, well, we’re just going a little bit overboard on this. What if’s, and oh, maybe that could happen and we could -- this could be endless. I just -- the maintenance of the pool cover is no different than the maintenance of a fence that you’re arguing for.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please come forward. If you could state your name and address for the record.

Public Comment:

MR. WHITE: Good evening. My name is Jason White. I live at (Address Omitted) in Shawnee. Appreciate the passion of the Council for the concern and the safety of our citizens and our children. What I would say as a citizen of the city, you can’t keep us safe. I don’t think it’s possible for you to keep us absolutely safe. I don’t know when it came about, 30 years ago a four-foot fence was adequate for safety, and maybe now a six foot fence will be adequate. And when one of those grandchildren scales the six-foot fence, then it will be eight and eventually it will be a roof over the pool. We can’t stop it. I live along the Mill Creek Trail. Just a few feet off of my backyard there is probably a 15-20 foot drop into water. There is children up and down the trail. There are bridges. It’s a beautiful place. I would never ask you to fence it. I know nobody was really suggesting that. But I don’t think you can keep us safe and I think you need to reconsider having additional expense and additional unsightliness to the City and I would ask you not to do it. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Ms. Mayor.

MAYOR DISTLER: And could you sign the -- thank you. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just thought I’d bring one thing up. The rule has been the six-foot fence for probably since I was born. I don’t remember what the date was, but we’re not reducing, or we’re not increasing the limit. So, this got brought up with other people changing their regulations. The City of Shawnee has been six-foot for a long time, just so you know because you kind of thought we were increasing it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Anyone else from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d move that we look at the action listed as (a) to pass an ordinance amending the existing provisions of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International Residential Code to amend the minimum height of a swimming pool barrier to be 72 inches.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. A motion has been and seconded.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Could we get a roll call vote?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: 3-4, so motion fails. (Motion fails 3-4, with Councilmembers Kemmling, Vaught, Meyer and Kenig voting nay).

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to pass an Ordinance amending the existing provision of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International Residential code to amend the minimum height of a swimming pool barrier to be 72 inches. The motion failed 3-4 with Councilmembers Kemmling, Vaught, Meyer and Kenig voting nay.]

a) Consider passing an Ordinance to require a 4’ fence with a safety pool cover otherwise a 5’ fence would be required.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do we have another motion?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Would we make a motion because we’re talking about an ordinance here? So, would we make a motion with some of these changes or do we just say let’s --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If you want to make a motion, it can be incorporated into an ordinance. That’s no problem.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would make the motion that we adopt an ordinance that would allow a four-foot fence with the safety pool cover, otherwise a five-foot fence.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: And motion has been made and seconded. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Roll call vote?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: She didn’t vote.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Umberger.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER UMBERGER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. And those voting against is Mr. Pflumm, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Sandifer. (Motion passes 4-3 with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Sandifer voting nay.)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass an Ordinance amending the existing provision of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International Residential code to amend the minimum height of a swimming pool barrier to be 4 feet fence with a safety pool cover, otherwise a 5 foot fence would be required. The motion passed 4-3 with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Sandifer voting nay. Ordinance No. 3151 was assigned.]

b) Consider passing an Ordinance amending the existing provision of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International
Building Code to delete an exemption recognizing swimming pool power safety covers in lieu of swimming pool barriers.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider passing an Ordinance amending the existing provision of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International Building Code to delete an exemption recognizing swimming pool power safety covers in lieu of swimming pool barriers.

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

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, this motion would -- we’re just changing (reading to self).

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: This motion would change the building codes so that the codes administrator could no longer offer the pool covers in lieu of fences.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: In lieu of. So, they could have the cover based on the last vote. We would have the cover with a four-foot barrier.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: With the four-foot.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. I probably should do a roll call again. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Umberger.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER UMBERGER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0).

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to pass an Ordinance amending the existing provision of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the 2012 International Building Code to delete an exemption recognizing swimming pool power safety covers in lieu of swimming pool barriers. The motion passed 7-0. Ordinance No. 3152 was assigned.]

I. STAFF ITEMS

1. CONSIDER BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE 2016 MILL & OVERLAY PROGRAM.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Staff Items. Item number 1 is to consider bids and award contract for the 2016 Mill & Overlay Program. Bids were received from seven contractors on February 12, 2016. Staff recommends awarding the bid to Superior Bowen, Kansas City, Missouri, in the amount of $4,879,466.
The recommended action is to consider awarding the bid and approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Oh, Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was going to make a motion.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Motion to approve, and I just wanted to make one comment. Very tight bids, so very competitive.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to award the bid and approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for the 2016 Mill and Overlay Program with Superior Bowen, Kansas City, Missouri, in the amount of $4,879,466. The motion passed 7-0.]

2. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LENEXA AND JOHNSON COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER FOR A MENTAL HEALTH CO-RESPONDER PROGRAM.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 2 is to consider an agreement with the City of Lenexa and Johnson County Mental Health Center for a Mental Health Co-Responder Program.

Results of a 2009 study confirmed that Johnson County is experiencing large numbers of mentally ill people entering the County's criminal justice system. Other cities in Johnson County have implemented co-responder programs where a Qualified Mental Health Professional responds with officers on calls involving persons experiencing a mental health crisis and have had good results. The proposed agreement with the City of Lenexa and Johnson County Mental Health involves sharing resources and expenses to fund a shared co-responder position dedicated to both cities. The City of Lenexa approved the agreement on February 16, 2016.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I just wanted to comment. I’ve very pleased to see this program. I think it’s a very worthwhile program. I think we all know that in our society people with mental health issues often don’t get the resources they need before it’s too late. And I think this really helps our officers be able to address those issues, identify those who are suffering from those and better be able to respond to calls in that manner. And I know that from just what I’ve read other communities that have implemented these types of programs have seen a lot of success, so I’m glad to see us go down this route.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just kind of echoing those comments to a certain extent, but I think it’s kind of a national issue the lack of mental health care that’s going on and the fact that it’s -- I think when I got a presentation from Sheriff Denning one time when he said he’s the largest mental health facility in the state of Kansas, I thought that was pretty telling remarks. That isn’t where these folks belong. They don’t belong in the jail. They don’t belong in our criminal justice system. We need that system to do its function and not take care of a bunch of people that really require specialized care. So, I would certainly support this.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m going to take an opportunity to make a political statement here because this something that everybody needs to think about. The state has pushed much mental health care onto local government, cities and counties. And this kind of plays into the whole idea of a tax lid. I mean, if they’re going to push these services onto us and we’re going to have to spend the money to fulfill these services and increase the services we provide, but then they cap us on the revenue that we can generate, somewhere along the line there’s going to be a train wreck. So, this should heighten some awareness of why the tax lid is a bad deal.

MAYOR DISTLER: Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with the City of Lenexa and Johnson County Mental Health Center for a Mental Health Co-Responder Program. The motion passed 7-0.]

3. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 2016 POLICE AMMUNITION.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 3 is to consider authorizing the purchase of 2016 Police Ammunition.

The Police Department routinely purchases ammunition through a variety of methods. Quotes are received from qualified vendors and compared to the State of Kansas contract. Staff is recommending Simmons Gun Specialties in the amount of $54,336 based on quotes from the vendor.

The recommended action is to consider authorizing the purchase. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I had just one comment. I was really pleased to see how we bid this out because it seemed like commonly we tend to go along with the state bid because that’s supposedly going to be the best deal going with the larger purchase under a state bid process. But I think we found out here that it does behoove us to bid it out like this. We got a better rate and I’m proud of us for doing that. Good job, guys.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: 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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to authorize the purchase of 2016 Police Ammunition from Simmons Gun Specialties in the amount of $54,336. The motion passed 7-0.]

4. CONSIDER APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANS AND AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE QUIVIRA ROAD
PROJECT, 47TH STREET TO 62ND PLACE, P.N. 3410.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 4 is to consider approving preliminary plans and authorizing acquisition of easements for the Quivira Road Project, 47th Street to 62nd Place, P.N. 3410.

This project is on the City's Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2016. On September 14, 2015, the Governing Body awarded a contract to BHC Rhodes to complete the design and construction services. It now requires preliminary plan approval, authorization to proceed with final plans, and approval to acquire easements. The total project cost is budgeted at $2,000,000 and funded through the CARS program and the City's Special Highway Fund.

a) Consider approving the preliminary plans and authorizing BHC Rhodes to continue with design of final plans.

MAYOR DISTLER: There are three recommended actions. The first is to consider approving the preliminary plans and authorizing BHC Rhodes to continue with design of final plans. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to authorize the preliminary plans and authorizing BHC Rhodes to continue with design of final plan. The motion passed 7-0.]

b) Consider authorizing staff to acquire easements on the Quivira Road Project by initially offering tiered flat fees in the amounts of $400 for small TCEs, $800 for medium TCEs, $1500 for large TCEs, $2500 for TCEs over 5000 SF, $800 for small PDEs, $2000 for
large PDEs.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider authorizing staff to acquire easements on the Quivira Road Project by initially offering tiered flat fees in the amounts of $400 for small TCEs, $800 for medium TCEs, $1,500 for large TCEs, $2500 for TCEs over 5000 SF, $800 for small PDEs, and $2,000 for large PDEs.

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

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: 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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to authorize staff to acquire easements on the Quivira Road Project by initially offering tiered flat fees in the amounts of $400 for small TCEs, $800 for medium TCEs, $1500 for large TCEs, $2500 for TCE’s over 5000 SF, $800 for small PDEs, $2000 for large PDE’s. The motion passed 7-0.]

c) Consider authorizing staff to acquire easements still outstanding as of April 6, 2016 by condemnation. This will require additional Governing Body action on April 11, 2016 to adopt the Resolution and Ordinance to appropriate private property for the purpose
of constructing City street and storm drainage improvements.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final recommended action is to consider authorizing staff to acquire easements still outstanding as of April 6, 2016, by condemnation. This will require additional Governing Body action on April 11, 2016, to adopt the Resolution and Ordinance to appropriate private property for the purpose of constructing City street and storm drainage improvements.

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

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to authorize staff to acquire easements still outstanding as of April 6, 2016 by condemnation. This will require additional Governing Body action on April 11, 2016 to adopt the Resolution and Ordinance to appropriate private property for the purpose of constructing City street and storm drainage improvements. The motion passed 7-0.]

5. CONSIDER APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANS AND AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE CONNECT SHAWNEE PROJECT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 5 is to consider approving preliminary plans and authorizing acquisition of easements for the Connect Shawnee Project.

On November 9, 2015, the Governing Body approved an agreement with TranSystems for this project. It now requires preliminary plan approval, authorization to proceed with final plans, and approval to acquire easements. The total project cost is budgeted at $658,500 and funded through Parks and Pipes and Kansas Transportation Alternatives funds.

a) Consider approving the preliminary plans and authorizing TranSystems to complete final plans. The motion carried 7-0.

There are three recommended actions. The first is to consider approving the preliminary plans and authorizing TranSystems to complete final plans.

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

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.

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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to approve the preliminary plans and authorize TranSystems to complete final plans. The motion passed 7-0.]

b) Consider authorizing staff to make offers for permanent and temporary easements.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider authorizing staff to make offers for permanent and temporary easements.

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

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Move to authorize.

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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to authorize staff to make offers for permanent and temporary easements. The motion passed 7-0.]

c) Consider authorizing staff to acquire permanent and temporary easements by condemnation which cannot be obtained by donation,
or if a property owner does not accept City’s offer. Condemnation will require additional Governing Body action to adopt the Resolution and Ordinance to acquire private property for the use of the City for the purposes of constructing and maintaining public improvements.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final recommended action is to consider authorizing staff to acquire permanent and temporary easements by condemnation which cannot be obtained by donation, or if a property owner does not accept City's offer. Condemnation will require additional Governing Body action to adopt the Resolution and Ordinance to acquire private property for the use of the City for the purposes of constructing and maintaining public improvements.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to authorize staff to acquire permanent and temporary easements by condemnation which cannot be obtained by donation, or if a property owner does not accept City’s offer. Condemnation will require additional Governing Body action to adopt the Resolution and Ordinance to acquire private property for the use of the City for the purposes of constructing and maintaining public improvements. The motion passed 7-0.]

6. CONSIDER THE 2016 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item number 6 is to consider the 2016 Federal Legislative Program.

A draft of the 2016 Federal Legislative Program was included in the packet. Assistant City Manager Killen is available for questions.

The recommended action is to consider approving the 2016 Federal Legislative Program with any recommended changes. 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 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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve the 2016 Federal Legislative Program. The motion passed 7-0.]

J. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2016 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,682,616.66.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is J. Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to Ratify Semi-Monthly Claim for February 22, 2016, in the Amount of $2,682,616.66.

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

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.

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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to ratify the semi-monthly claim for February 22, 2016, in the Amount of $2,682,616.66. The motion passed 7-0.]

2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS

MAYOR DISTLER: Does anyone on the Council have any item they would like to discuss? Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yes. I want to thank our police chief for having his guys give us an e-mail. I got a call within five minutes of receiving your e-mail. And while I had them on the phone I pulled up my e-mail and read it to them and then I sent them -- actually I got a couple calls. But the first one was within five minutes of receiving that e-mail, so thank you very much. And it’s probably not a big deal. I know when I brought it up years ago everybody thought it was, you know, out of the ordinary, but it means a lot to those people because they live right down the street and it was two houses away from them. So, they want to know what’s going on, so I really appreciate it. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: And I would agree with that statement. Even sitting here tonight during the meeting I have received a couple of texts from people in the neighborhood wanting to know if I had any update on any information since what’s been released. So, I echo your comments. Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I’ll just jump in on that and echo that as well. That is my actual neighborhood. So, my next-door neighbor who runs a daycare was panicked, so it was nice to be able to respond to them and keep everyone in the neighborhood informed. So, thank you for your work.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, could I just add one thing? I mean, eventually I’d like to get us to a text because that’s super-quick.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Never good enough.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Group text.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Talk to the school district.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, no, no. It’s good.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Talk to --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s good, but --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Talk to DeSoto School District, I’ve got about 70 of them.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- a text is immediate. An e-mail is not immediate.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s true.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would like to congratulate also the Police Department. I’m sure we all got one, the letter from the judge, and I don’t know the gentleman’s that was --

MAYOR DISTLER: Shaun Arnold.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I knew you’d know.

MAYOR DISTLER: K-9 officer.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But anyway, that was really cool. I mean, that this judge actually took the time and wrote that and just couldn’t say enough good things about the presentation and professionalism. So, job well done there.

POLICE CHIEF MOSER: They have invited him back in the fall to do it again.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Fantastic.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Awesome.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s good stuff to see.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Are there any other items that the Council would like to discuss? Okay.

3. CONDUCT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING LAND ACQUISITION.

a) Recess to Executive Session for a specified period of time for the purpose of discussing land acquisition.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, Item Number 3 is to conduct -- oh, wait. Sorry. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to any of the items the Council brought up? Seeing none, Item Number 3 is to conduct an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition.

I will accept a motion to recess into Executive Session for 20 minutes for preliminary discussion relating to the acquisition of real property for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of those acquisition discussions.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Don’t we actually have to read out that motion when we do executive sessions or not?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Pardon me?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Ellis always said that we have to kind of read out those motions –

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: For 20 minute to discuss the acquisition of real property.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible] good detail from what we were going to do.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. That’s fine.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oppose nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to recess to Executive Session for 20 minutes for preliminary discussion relating to the acquisition of real property for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of those acquisition discussions. The motion passed 7-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Recessed to Executive Session from 8:29 p.m. to 8:39 p.m.)

b) Conclude Executive Session.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to conclude Executive Session.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to conclude the Executive Session. The motion passed 7-0.]

c) Reconvene Meeting. The motion carried 7-0.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to reconvene meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: 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 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to reconvene the meeting. The motion passed 7-0.]

d) Moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for the acquisition of property commonly known as 6150 Roger Road and further
authorizing the Mayor to sign an escrow agreement providing for the additional payment of relocation and moving expenses at the
date of possession.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Do you want me to make the motion?

MAYOR DISTLER: I was just going to say do I have a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Mayor.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes, Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for the acquisition of property commonly known as 6150 Roger Road and further authorizing the Mayor to sign an escrow agreement providing for the additional payment of relocation and moving expenses at the date of possession.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, KEMMLING, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. (Motion passes 6-1)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for the acquisition of property commonly known as 6150 Roger Road and further authorizing the Mayor to sign an escrow agreement providing for the additional payment of relocation and moving expenses at the date of possession. The motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Jenkins voting nay.]

K. ADJOURNMENT

MAYOR DISTLER: If there are no other items I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Motion to adjourn.

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 7-0). We are adjourned. Thank you.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to adjourn. The motion passed 7-0.]

(Shawnee City Council Adjourned at 8:41 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 February 5, 2016

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk











File Attachment Icon
CC02222016.docx