PDF Format:

CC11142016.pdfCC11142016.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
November 14, 2016
7:00 P.M.

Michelle Distler – Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Sunderman
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember VaughtCity Attorney Rainey
Councilmember SandiferFinance Director Rogers
Planning Director Chaffee
Councilmembers AbsentParks and Recreation Director Holman
Councilmember MeyerDevelopment Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Councilmember KenigIT Director Bunting
Fire Chief Mattox
Police Chief Moser
Deputy Police Chief Orbin
Police Major Larson
Police Major Tennis
Police Captain Brunner
Fire Marshal Sands
Human Resources Director Barnard
Human Resources Manager Dawald
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
Sr. Project Engineer Schnettgoecke
Sr. Project Engineer Moeller-Krass
Training and Research Manager Collins
Business Liaison Holtwick
Communications Manager Breithaupt
Visit Shawnee Director Fern
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 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 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.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer is absent. Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig is absent. Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

MAYOR DISTLER: Please stand and join us in the Pledge followed by a moment of silence.

(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. 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.

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.

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 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 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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried 6-0.]

D. MAYOR’S ITEMS

1. VOICE OF DEMOCRACY ESSAY

The next item is Mayor's Items. “The Voice of Democracy” Essay.

It was my pleasure on Friday to participate in the City's Veterans Day celebration. And as part of that program, we heard Maranatha High School junior Debra Zuniga read her winning “Voice of Democracy” Essay. And I was so impressed that I invited her here to tonight to share it with all of you. This year's theme was "My Responsibility to America.”

So, if Debra Zuniga would please come to the podium.

MS. ZUNIGA: “My Responsibility to America.” I am called selfish. I am called lazy. I am called entitled. I am told I take my God-given rights for granted. I am told I disrespect my flag and the people that fought for it. I hear the negative comments about this county, but apparently I do nothing to stop them. They call that the typical American stereotype. But I’m here to tell you that I am more than that. I am the positivity in a pit of doubt. I am a firm believer in American pride. I defend this country’s core values and I believe that this is a nation still under God and nothing can change that. I am a patriot.

A soldier that died in battle leaving his wife and children behind is a patriot. A soldier that was fortunate enough to come home from battle is also a patriot. An old veteran that has to live with the memory and devastation of war is a patriot. A police officer that protects the citizens in his city at all costs is a patriot. A firefighter that stays on call during all hours of the night ready to put his life at risk is a patriot. A man or woman that thanks veterans for their service at any opportunity is a patriot. A person that waves those beautiful stars and stripes in front of his home is a patriot. And a person that speaks up when his freedom is being challenged is a patriot.

My great-grandfather took a chance by coming to America. He lived in a poor village in Mexico and moved to America in hopes of experiencing a new life. He wanted more for his children than what he received growing up. His expectations of America were high and he wasn’t disappointed. His dream was to become an American. He worked long hours in fields, factories and even coal mines to provide for his family. Starting a life in a completely different country with a completely different language was definitely difficult. He started going to church and he eventually gave his life to God. He went through the long process of getting his citizenship and he legally became an American. He showed his patriotism through his hard work and his dedication until the day he died. He was a patriot.

Maybe you’re thinking, sure, all these acts of patriotism are great, but what do they have to do with my responsibility to America. But that’s exactly it. Each American’s responsibility is his act of patriotism. I believe I can be a patriot wherever I am at in life. This country was built on the idea of hard work. Hard work means that no matter what I do or how important my work is, I must do it with my best effort and for the right reasons. John F. Kennedy once said, “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

As of right now my responsibility to America is to show my acts of patriotism by supporting and defending the principles that this country was founded upon. My responsibility is to respect the flag and the brave men and women who fight to keep our freedom. My responsibility is to stand firm on God’s great love and His great plans for this country just like our Founding Fathers. I want my hard work to prove my loyalty and patriotism. I want to make a positive impact on the people around me. But most of all, my responsibility is to prove that I am more than that stereotype of the entitled American. I want to prove that we can all be more than that stereotype. We are all patriots, so let’s start acting like it. Thank you.

(Applause)

MAYOR DISTLER: I want to present to you a Certificate of Appreciation and I want to thank you again for coming to share your essay because we have a room full of public employees here today that have worked so hard. And I was as touched by your words this time as when I heard them Friday. And I hope that you’ve inspired everyone in this room the way that you inspired me. So, thank you so much again for reading that. It’s beautiful.

MS. ZUINGA: Thank you.

2. SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY PROCLAMATION

MAYOR DISTLER: And while I’m down here it’s my pleasure tonight to read a proclamation in honor of the small businesses for Small Business Saturday here in Shawnee. So, I believe we have several small business owners and Chamber of Commerce staff and the Executive Board members that are here. So, if you want to join me up here.

As most of you know, we have a great business community here in Shawnee. In addition to that, we’re unique. We have so many local businesses who are owned by people who live right here in our community. And because of that, it’s important we continue to support them in every way that we can. And one way we can do that is by shopping our local businesses on Small Business Saturday, which is a great event that takes place on the Saturday after Thanksgiving.

So, from the Office of the Mayor, In Recognition of Small Business Saturday

WHEREAS, the City of Shawnee, Kansas, celebrates and supports our local small businesses and the contributions they make to our local economy and community; and

WHEREAS, according to the United States Small Business Administration, there are currently 28 million small businesses in the United States, representing more than 99 percent of American employers, creating more than two-thirds of the net new jobs, and generating 46 percent of private gross domestic product; and

WHEREAS, small businesses employ over half the working population in the United States; and

WHEREAS, 89 percent of consumers in the United States agree that small businesses contribute positively to the local community by supplying jobs and generating tax revenue; and

WHEREAS, 87 percent of consumers in the United States agree that small businesses are critical to the overall economic health of the United States; and

WHEREAS, 93 percent of consumers in the United States agree that it is important for people to support the small businesses in their community; and

WHEREAS, the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce, as well as public and private organizations across the country, have endorsed the Saturday after Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michelle Distler, Mayor of the City of Shawnee, Kansas do hereby proclaim November 26, 2016, as "Small Business Saturday" and urge the residents of our community, and communities across the country, to support small businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year.

(Applause)

3. EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is the presentation of the Employee Service Awards. And so City Manager Gonzales will be doing that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, it’s my favorite meeting of the year again. It rolls around quickly. I have a quick story. Some of you have heard this already, but it’s a really good story. So, for those of you that hadn’t, so, a few weeks ago we were at the Mayor’s Quarterly Q&A out at Sombrero’s, a group of citizens were there. And as the Mayor usually does she asked everybody to go around the room, introduce themselves, how long have they lived in Shawnee and what’s their favorite thing about Shawnee. And it’s always fun to hear about the parks and the trails and the police and the fire and all the things that they appreciate. And it came to one particular gentleman and he said, you know, I’ve had several reasons to call City Hall. I had these guys digging in my yard one day and I had to get a permit. And every single experience I’ve had at City Hall, not only have I gotten my problem fixed, but I could just tell the people cared. The employees really cared about fixing my problem. He said you’ve really created a culture of kindness at the City of Shawnee. And I just thought that was the coolest comments, especially maybe for a government makes it even a cooler compliment. But the reason we have that culture of kindness is because of employees like the ones that you’re going to hear about tonight because they do amazing work. Not only do they have many awards and accomplishments and degrees, but every day they care about what they do.

So, we’re going to start with the newbies, the ten-year awards. So, as I read about you, you have to come forward and you have to stand here and be embarrassed a little bit while I finish up with the Mayor. And I’m going to present you with a certificate and sunflower seeds because everyone is going to get a chance to -- Kansas is a better and brighter place because of your service. So, the Mayor will give you those. And we’ll want to get a picture of each of you all with the Mayor.
Ten Year Service Awards
Brian Andrews - Public Works
Jason Brunner - Police
Jim Courtney - CityRide Task Force
Kim Dawald - Administration
Jack Dillon - Fire Louisburg, KS
Michelle Distler - City Council
Shirley Douglas - CityRide Task Force
Jeremy Gerdes - Public Works
Travis Hubbel - Fire
Michael Lewis-Jones - Police
Mark Linn - Fire
Cynthia Moeller-Krass - Development Services
Cheryl Muller - Information Technology
Ryan Skinner - Police
Brianna Stanley - Police
Chuck Walston - Public Works
Harry Ward - Public Works
Jonathan Wiles - Public Works
Fifteen Year Service Awards
Dusty Alcantara - Police
Scott Gillum - Police
Gregg Jackson - Public Works
Duane Little - Public Works
Kevin Messick - Planning
Paula Morgan - Municipal Court
Nicole Morse - Fire
Rusty Morton - Police
Spencer Rogers - Fire Leavenworth, KS
Mickey Sandifer - City Council
Mike Underwood - Planning

Twenty Year Service Awards
Doug Allmon - Planning Leawood, KS
Jim Baker - Police Roeland Park, KS
Liz Barnard - Administration
Brian Bond - Public Works
Lori Coleman - Police
Gary Dettmer - Bicycle Advisory
Gary Gray - Public Works
Kandie Manchion - Development Services
Robert Prosser - Board of Zoning Appeals
Jose Sandoval - Parks and Recreation
Curt Searcy - Fire
Corey Wilburn – Police

Thirty Year Service Awards
Ellis Rainey - City Attorney
Pam Walker - Information Technology
Doug Wesselschmidt - Development Services

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If everyone who received an award, we’re going to do one big group picture. And then Kim will give you instructions from there. And I neglected when I first started to welcome all the family and friends who are here tonight with our employees. We appreciate all you do to support them and appreciate very much you all being here tonight. It’s wonderful to have you here. So, gather in the lobby and you’ll get your instructions from there. Thank you everyone for being here.
(Off Record Talking)

E. APPOINTMENTS

1. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE SHAWNEE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The next item on the agenda is Appointments. Item No. 1 is to consider the Appointment to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership. The Shawnee Downtown Partnership is recommending the appointment of Mike VanLandingham with a term expiring on November 14, 2019.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: 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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to approve the appointment of Mike VanLandingham to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership with a term expiring on November 14, 2019. The motion carried 6-0.]

F. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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? Please come forward. State your name and address for the microphone.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Ray Erlichman, (Address Omitted). If we remember a couple of months back when we were talking about the B&B Theaters and, you know, how we were going to use Economic Development funds and I came up here and made a few positive comments about that. A couple weeks later I got a phone call from somebody who was also in attendance at that meeting and he asked me a question. And I said [inaudible]. And they knew that there was a policy statement regarding Economic Development funds, but they were curious what policy statement or ordinance was the written directive for how the Deffenbaugh impact fee was split up.

Well, as normal I did a lot of research online and I couldn’t find it. So, I went to step two which was a KORA request to the City. And it turns out that there is no ordinance or policy statement directing the matter in which those funds are split. That according to the information I received from the City in response to my KORA request, it was -- the distribution was based on, some people call it the will of the Council, the direction of the Council, the sense of the Council, a couple years ago when the funds became available during the course of a discussion on a budget hearing. So, there’s nothing in writing that says this has to be this way. Accordingly, it would not be a long drawn out process should the Council ever decide that they want to make changes in the manner of distribution because there is no fancy legal wording that would be required for a policy statement change, nor an ordinance change or anything like that. All it would require would actually be a very simple vote of the Council.

So, keeping that in mind and being aware of some things that have transpired recently such as the mill levy increases, the sales tax that was voted on last year for additional funds for streets, the mill levy for Station 74, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, I’ve come up with a suggestion on how to redistribute those funds. Now, I realize even though it takes a simple vote of the Council, it cannot be voted on tonight because things that are not on the agenda are not voted on. And rather than take up an excessive amount of time explaining why I’ve come up with this particular formula for the redistribution because there are other things that are more important tonight, I just want to throw it on the overhead and would ask that if a member of the Council, any member of the Council thinks it’s worthy of a further discussion that it be brought forth at a Council Committee hearing so that other people or the members of the Council can voice their comments one way or the other.

This would be the suggested redistribution. Keeping a million five, and this is based on an approximate $3 million figure, so I just rounded it off. Keeping the million five, 50 percent of it for the streets, keeping one million in Eco-Development, and then 500,000 going forward for public safety. As I said, I’m not going to go into a lot of details to why, but there are a lot of things in that third category going forward that I think are going to need to be addressed down the road. It’s just my opinion. So as such, again, like I said, I’m not going to go into a long drawn out dissertation here this evening. There’s too many other things that have to be brought forth before the Council tonight. But I would ask that somebody on the Council, anybody who might agree with me ask that this be brought up at a committee hearing for discussion. And I’m finished.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I feel like we’ve had the discussion at multiple -- during multiple budget sessions about the impact fee and how it can and cannot be distributed. So, I would definitely be in favor of having at least some sort of discussion on the impact fee and the distribution during a committee meeting so that we could talk it out and maybe do it before the budget process starts. So, I don’t know if that needs to be a motion or if you just –
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would agree.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I would too.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Ask Stephanie [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else who has comments on an issue not on tonight’s agenda? Seeing none, the next item on the agenda is Public Items.

G. PUBLIC ITEMS

1. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER VACATING THE PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 47th STREET BETWEEN CLARE ROAD AND FRISBIE ROAD (SAV-16-001).

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No 1 is to conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Vacating the Public Street Right-of-Way for 47th Street between Clare Road and Frisbie Road (SAV-16-001).

Holliday Sand & Gravel has submitted a petition requesting the vacation of a segment of the public street right-of-way for 47th Street, between Clare Road and Frisbie Road. A public hearing and passage of an Ordinance is required.

There are three actions required for this item. The first is conduct a public hearing. And so I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: 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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to conduct the public hearing. The motion carried 6-0.]

(a) Conduct a public hearing.

MAYOR DISTLER: We are now in a public hearing. This is a formal public hearing required by law. This public hearing will begin with a presentation by Doug Wesselschmidt, Development Services Director. After Mr. Wesselschmidt’s presentation, I will ask Councilmembers if they have any questions specifically related to the presentation. I will then ask if there are any comments from the public.

In addition, Mike O'Dell from Holliday Sand & Gravel is in the audience if the Council has any questions from him.

If anyone from the audience would like to speak during the public hearing, please raise your hand and I will recognize you to come forward. Following public comments, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Once the public hearing is closed, we will have Council discussion, followed by a motion.

Mr. Wesselschmidt, please go ahead.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Thank you, Mayor. In 2007, Holliday Sand & Gravel received a site plan approval and special use permit for the mining and excavation of sand in an area between Frisbie Road and Clare Road, generally south of 43rd Street. And that plan indicated that as that mining operation would expand south across 47th Street, 47th Street would need to be vacated. We have received a petition from Mike O’Dell, Vice President with Holliday Sand & Gravel, and he has presented a petition, along with the adjoining property owner Lindsey Living Trust, to the Governing Body for the vacation of 47th Street between Frisbie Road and Clare Road.

Staff has scheduled a public hearing for the petition before the Governing Body at their meeting tonight, November 14, 2016. Accordingly, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the City’s official newspaper on Wednesday, October 19, 2016, in compliance with Kansas State Statutes. As of this date, staff has not received any inquiries or written objections. On October 14, 2016, the City sent notice to eight utility companies that serve this area, indicating that we’ve received a request for vacation of 47th Street. There are only two utilities that had facilities in that area, that’s AT&T and Westar. And those facilities are currently being removed from the right-of-way.

Without any objections from the public or any utilities, staff recommends that we have the public hearing, we conclude the public, and at the conclusion of that staff would recommend passing an ordinance ordering the requested vacation upon finding that no private property rights will be injured or endangered by granting this vacation, that the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience by vacation and that justice to the petitioners the vacation should be granted.

MAYOR DISTLER: Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: And again --

MAYOR DISTLER: Second action --

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: I’m sorry. And again, as you mentioned, Mike O’Dell with Holliday Sand & Gravel is here tonight.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any questions? Okay.

(b) Conclude the public hearing.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to close the public hearing, so I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move to conclude the public hearing.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. The public hearing is now closed.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to close the public hearing. The motion carried 6-0.]

(c) Pass an Ordinance ordering the requested vacation.

MAYOR DISTLER: The third action is to consider passing an Ordinance ordering the requested vacation. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the -- oh, okay. I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to vacate --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Move to accept the ordinance as written.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: -- as written.

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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to pass an Ordinance of the requested vacation of right-of-way for 47th Street between Clare Road and Frisbie Road. (SAV-16-001). The motion passed 6-0.]
(Having passed, Ordinance No. 3172 was assigned)

2. CONSIDER A FRANCHISE ORDINANCE WITH KANSAS GAS SERVICE CORPORATION.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 2 is to consider a Franchise Ordinance with Kansas Gas Service Corporation.

Ordinance No. 2947, passed in 1996, granted a franchise to Western Resources, now Kansas Gas Service. Kansas law requires that the franchise may not exceed 20 years. A new Franchise Ordinance is required and provides an initial 10-year term with two successive 5-year terms and the continuation of the current franchise fee of 5% of gross receipts.

The recommended action is to consider passing new Franchise Ordinance with Kansas Gas Service Corporation.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Mr. Pflumm and then Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I was just wondering why we’re breaking it up into 10-5-5 instead of just the 20 year?

MR. RAINEY: That was something we had started doing recently because we were having different issues that came up on these franchise agreements during the term of the franchise, and then we were unable to go back and change them because they had 20-year terms. Specifically, some people on the Council I believe also made comments over time that the technology changed tremendously in these different fields over a period of 20 years, and therefore, we should have the opportunity to go back on a more frequent basis to adjust terms to adapt to changes in the technology or environment or right-of-way management or similar.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I actually had that same question, so thanks for answering. I was kind of curious that this didn’t go through a committee meeting first because that was one of the questions I wanted to discuss. The other was the City’s franchise fee that’s part of this renewal. I guess my question is if renewing this, if the City ever in a hypothetical situation got rid of the franchise fee, how would it affect this agreement that’s already in place?

MR. RAINEY: We would just go back and change that portion of the contract. All of our franchise fees are set. I don’t remember the exact history. There was a period of time when we phased in these franchise fees and they may have had different rates at different times. But at some point when we switched over to the franchise fee on residential, we then imposed a uniform fee of five percent. And five percent is what we charge all the utilities. It’s a same rate because we have to be competitively neutral to all of the different franchisees I guess is what you call them. So, everyone is charged the same rate. The other cities have varying rates or franchise percentages, but I believe most of them are at five percent. And any one of them that charges a franchise fee charges the same franchise fee to all of the franchisees in that municipality.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. So, I guess I think you answered it, but I just want to double-check. So, if the City should change its rate and do it within the first ten years of this, it can go back and change this contract?

MR. RAINEY: Yes. And in this particular -- this is the new franchise template that we put in place. And it does have a provision in there that allows the Governing Body to go back on a more frequent basis to change the term of the, I’m sorry, the percentage of the franchise fee. Now, I’ve got to find out which -- it’s in the definition of the fee that is to be applied. And I thought I gave the City the option to go back and change that at any time upon notice. Here it is. “The percentage of Revenues charged and collected from the sale and distribution of natural gas hereunder shall be subject to revision at the option of the City at no less than two (2) year intervals during the term hereof. The City shall notify the Company in writing not later than sixty (60) days prior to the effective date of any such revision.” So, that was one of the things we’ve added over -- I guess I hate to call it a learn-as-you-go process, but we do learn different things as we go through these each year. And so this template is something that we routinely have used for quite a period of time, excepting for the fact that we added some right-of-way enhanced enforcement provisions in order to address problems we were having with subcontractors and contractors hitting other utilities.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. Thank you.

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

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: 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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to pass a Franchise Ordinance with Kansas Gas Service. The motion carried 6-0.]
(Having passed, Ordinance No. 3173 was assigned.)

H. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2016

1. CONSIDER Z-04-16-10, AN ORDINANCE REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE 22700-22800 BLOCKS OF W 71st STREET.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is H, Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 17, 2016. Item No. 1 is to Consider Z-04-16-10, an Ordinance Rezoning from Agricultural to Commercial Highway Property Located in the 22700-22800 Blocks of W 71st Street. The Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body approve Z-04-16-10. An Ordinance is required. The recommended action is to consider passing the Ordinance.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, 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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to pass an Ordinance rezoning from Agricultural to Commercial Highway property located in the 22700-22800 Blocks of W 71st Street subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion carried 6-0.]

(Having passed, Ordinance No. 3174 was assigned)

2. CONSIDER APPROVING PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING SENIOR LIVING.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 2 is to Consider Approving Proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Regarding Senior Living. The Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body pass two Ordinances making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan related to senior living facilities. The proposed changes would reduce the lot area requirement from 2,800 to 2,000 square feet and density requirements for senior living facilities. Two Ordinances are required.

The first recommended action is to consider passing an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I had a question on it. I don’t really like it very much. I think it is something we should have talked about in a Council Committee meeting because it’s fairly extensive in what we’re doing. And in light of the issues that we’re dealing with on the Vantage Apartments lawsuit and so on it does make me a little more sensitive to the issues of how we’re looking at density and so on. And while I’m not just flat out opposed to it, I am a little bit, I am somewhat flat out opposed to the idea of just having a blanket authorization to go with these kinds of densities. I would like something more -- I would more favor something where we did an analysis of our city looking at those areas where maybe this might be an appropriate type of density for that specific area because of the lay of the land, the adjacent properties and those kinds of things, take that into consideration. I think, you know, this might be a really ideal spot to put something like that. But to just say it’s an open season on these kind of densities if you go out and identify a property where you want to go out and do that, I’m not sure that’s a great idea.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm and then Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Kind of along the lines with Councilmember Jenkins is I was just wondering why -- I know it went to the Planning Commission, but how come this type of deal didn’t go to a committee meeting? You know, especially when --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It really is the role of the Planning Commission to direct and recommend those things directly to the Council. Mr. Chaffee might speak to that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: On zoning ordinances or --

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. The Planning Commission is the one that introduces text amendments to the zoning regulations and to the Comprehensive Plan. They’re sort of the ones who initiate it since there are property owners related to it. I would like to make note that the proposed text amendments to both the zoning regulations and the Comprehensive Plan are dealing with senior living facilities and not traditional multi-family developments that we may see. I think what we find, and the Planning Commission in their discussions, was that with the current regulations and the way that senior living facilities are often constructed today, there is not the need for as many square feet of ground. The parking is reduced. A lot of amenities that used to be outside like swimming pools or parking are now indoors. And with the current regulations requiring a larger footprint there is just a lot of space that may not necessarily need to be used for a senior living facility. And we do see when we sit down with folks with senior living to have more units per acre, more or less to make it pay out. Also just because the zoning regulations state this, a development doesn’t necessarily get to do the 2,000 square feet. It may be bigger and so they are looked upon on a case by case basis for their location, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling and then Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I have some, I don’t know, questions or some objections with this as well because we’ve sat here and in the past we defined low density as less than five mediums, five to ten and high is ten or over. And now what we’ve done is we’re proposing to make this special exception where low is higher than high used to be, almost 30 percent higher. And so we had quite the discussion, and we’re still having it, over this Vantage project where there was a discussion whether a five -- a ten point something could be put in medium. Well, this one is saying 12.7 could go in a low without even needing to be rezoned. So, I don’t know. I have an issue with that. To say you could go in a low density residential where you might have three, and without even having to change the zoning you could put close to 13 next to it, unless I’m wrong.

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s incorrect.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: What we talk about with low density, medium density and high density with the Land Use Guide, if a project comes in for senior living or any multi-family there is a rezoning --

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- that has to be held and the public hearing held and then the recommendation that comes to --

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- comes to the Planning Commission. So, just because it says low density may be 12.7, number one, it may not fit. And number two, it has to go through the whole public hearing process anyway. So, that’s sort of the difference between the zoning map and the Land Use Guide.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that clarification. To me it still seems like it’s going to be something incredibly dense. Like I said, the Vantage Apartments, we were talking about being somewhere between 10 and 11 originally. So, this is saying 12. So, that’s got to be a decent sized structure. And so is that something that you possibly want to put in an area that’s zoned for low density? I don’t know. I’m not really in favor of making these changes. Making this special exception for one type of development, I’m just not in favor of it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m of the opposite opinion. In fact, I would ask that the Planning Commission not only do I support this, but we go back and look at our ordinances for multi-family in general. And Mr. Chaffee might be able to answer this for me. What is our maximum? So, let’s take, and I know this is getting off subject a little bit, but what is our maximum density right now for multi-family as per code? Outside of Townsquare or the one mile perimeter around Townsquare, what’s the maximum?

MR. CHAFFEE: Right. About 15.5 dwelling units per acre.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And within is what?

MR. CHAFFEE: Within you’re about 18 or 19.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: And those are for structures that are three stories or less. Once you get into the high-rise structures, four and above, the density requirement actually is around 45, 46 units per acre.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: Similar to what you see over there at Bluejacket where you’re on a small piece of ground, but you have 56-57 units.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And for high rise the only place that would be allowed is like a four story would be allowed in just -- in what zoning?

MR. CHAFFEE: High density, PMR, RHR.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: Residential high rise.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, here is where I’m going with it. We’re talking about high density and [inaudible]. So, if we look at our neighbors, we look at Lenexa, we look at Olathe, and we look at Overland Park, we look at the massive development they have going on compared to us, which it takes a lot of people to make that happen. I believe this is Overland Park. Their minimum -- because what’s our acreage? Our minimum acreage is -- units per acre is 2,000?

MR. CHAFFEE: 2,000.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. So, I think Overland Park was a minimum site area development is, let’s see, 36, well, 36 dwellings per unit I think. And Overland Park on their maximum you’ve got one here that gets up to 29. And I believe it’s Lenexa you get into -- that might be Lenexa. Maybe that’s Olathe’s. Up to 45 units. Because that’s what’s happening around the market. You’ve got stuff going up in Overland Park that’s 40-45 units on an acre. And not high rise like what we see here, but true apartments. I mean, density is what’s working now. And when we look at what happened on Pflumm, so, you know, a lot of people not to get off on talking about this subject much. But one of the issues was we want a nicer product. Well, to get a nicer product you need more units because more units builds a nicer product. So, we can sit here and say that, well, we want to do this, we want to do this, well, then we’re never going to build anything multi-family. Because if you can only do 15 units here, but you can go to the next city and do 25 or 30 units in the same similar setting and the same type of piece of land, why would you build here? You can’t do it. And you’re not going to get near the return you will on other cities. So, as long as we’re going to work on this, not only do I support this, I would ask Planning to kind of look back and let’s start looking at the densities of our other cities and we need to look at why aren’t we competing and why aren’t these projects coming our way. And it’s because of density. It’s because you can build in other cities in Johnson County and get a much higher return than what you can build here because their density requirements are so much less.

(a) Pass an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What are we motioning, to approve this? On A?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to consider passing an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a second? Okay. Motion dies. Is there another one?
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught to pass an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report. The motion failed for lack of a second.]

(b) Pass an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there another one?

MR. RAINEY: We’ve been here before. And I just want to make sure we’re still clear. The statute only allows the Governing Body to approve to remand with a simple majority of those present and voting or to override. And to override takes a vote of two-thirds of the Governing Body, which is six. The Mayor may, but is not obligated, and it’s not mandatory that the Mayor cast a vote. So, it sounds to me like you’re -- if the motion is not to approve the statute, it only provides two other alternatives to a text amendment. Is that correct, Paul? So, to save some kind of time, those are the only two authorized motions by statute.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I don’t know that I agree a hundred percent on the procedures.

MR. RAINEY: Well, I know that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, if we vote on something, and you don’t have enough votes to pass and you can’t say you’ve got to vote again until you pass it.

MR. RAINEY: I know. And the reason is because of the context that this comes up in a specific zoning statute. And the theory behind the statute I believe was to prevent the Governing Body from not taking any action at all on a zoning application and then application just sits without no action upon it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: This isn’t a zoning application though, Ellis.

MR. RAINEY: I know. Each zoning application you take up is an amendment. It’s an ordinance amendment to the zoning subdivision regulations.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There’s no pending application.

MR. RAINEY: But this is a text amendment to the zoning ordinance and it falls under the same statutory mechanism. It’s the exact same process unfortunately.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

MR. RAINEY: Did you bring a copy of the statute, Paul? I may have it, but I --

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I was just going to ask, Ellis, so if I’m understanding you correctly, we can pass it, but we can’t -- we, as a Council, cannot take it to a Committee meeting to discuss it as a Council. We have to submit back --

MR. RAINEY: By statute, these come up as recommendations from the Planning Commission to the Governing Body. And then the statute gives you very specific -- you may approve the recommendation.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Uh-huh.

MR. RAINEY: You may override the recommendation or you may remand to the Planning Commission with the specific factors that you want them to have reconsidered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission holds the public hearing, not the Governing Body.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. And so for the sake -- for tonight two-thirds is four of the six.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: A simple majority to send it back.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Or a simple to send it back.

MR. RAINEY: And to be clear, the statute provides that it’s two-thirds of the Governing Body. The Governing Body in that statute is defined to be the Council and the Mayor. So, it requires six votes to override.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: If everyone is here or regardless.

MR. RAINEY: Regardless.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: It doesn’t matter if everyone is here. Okay.

MR. RAINEY: I didn’t write the statute, but that’s the way it’s written. So, five votes would be required to approve it because it’s an ordinance amendment or you can remand it with a majority vote to those present and voting. The statute just didn’t give you a fourth option.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And we remand it we have to have a directive to go with that?

MR. RAINEY: To identify to the Planning Commission the factors you want them to reconsider.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I don’t know that that’s a hundred percent correct. I think we can send it back to them and say that we don’t like it.

MR. RAINEY: That would -- yes. That’s exactly --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We don’t have to tell them you’ve got to make it green or blue.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But there has to be a specific reason.

MR. RAINEY: You just tell -- you’re telling them why.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: You have to ask them to -- yeah.

MR. RAINEY: Yeah.

MAYOR DISTLER: What you don’t like about it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Right. Because they are going to need that for the public hearing [inaudible; talking off mic]. So, it has to be a specific issue that you all want them to consider further.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We might be here for a while.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, I mean this reminded me we’re talking about senior living. And then unless everybody has been living under a rock, one of the hottest development trends we’re going to see in the next 10-15 years is senior living. We have baby boomers retiring. And for the last ten years it’s been hot and it’s going to continue to be -- continue to be extremely hot. So, there again, if we want to have these developments happen in Shawnee, then we need to be competitive. And our density laws do not allow us to be competitive. It’s the matter of making a project work or not. So, when you can get an extra few units, whatever the units it is, additional units in another city on a similar priced piece of ground, your return is higher, so therefore, you’re going to go somewhere else. So, are we saying that we don’t want retirement communities in Shawnee? Are we saying that we want to be more expensive than everybody else, and therefore, less affordable than retirees? Are we saying we don’t want retirees in Shawnee? I don’t understand, I mean, we’re not talking about what I was just talking about looking at the rest of them. We’re just talking about senior living. So, are we saying that I’m okay if I have X-amount of seniors living next to me per acre, but I don’t want three more than that? Because, well, they could start a riot and something bad could happen. I’m totally lost on why nobody wants to support increased density for senior living. That kind of baffles me. And, Mr. Vaught -- then Mr. Kemmling, then Mr. Jenkins. But, Mr. Vaught, to your point, I have received a lot of feedback from seniors over the years wanting more senior living because they get to the point where they’re not able to take care of their homes and their yards and they want those recreational activities. They want to live in a community with other seniors that have the same type of interests and things to do. And not -- some of them have even said they don’t want to live by the noisy kids, you know, type situation. But to your point I have received a lot of feedback from seniors who don’t feel we have adequate in Shawnee --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I have as well, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling, then Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m not really sure how we’re getting on the topic of do we want retirement homes or not or senior living facilities or not because that’s really not what the discussion is about. The discussion is do we want to change the density of zoning to allow something as high as almost 13 units per acre in something that’s considered low and might have five units per acre around it. That’s really the question. I don’t see how we’re getting lost in this we don’t want retirement villages. No, we don’t have anything against them, just let’s make sure they’re put in an area for which they are properly zoned. And that’s where my objection was earlier. A 13 unit per acre senior living facility next to the low density of less than five, I don’t see that matching. Now, if we want to change that density to -- if we want to put them in a medium or high density where maybe they match better I’m okay with that. But it’s not some kind of anti-senior living facility movement. I’m not sure where that’s coming from. So, I want to also specify to make sure I’m understanding the -- understanding this correctly, the two motions. The first motion, if I’m not mistaken, or the first item is basically to give a definition for what a senior living development is, is that correct? It basically says age restricted to 55 and then it goes over parking spaces. That’s the first.

MR. CHAFFEE: The amendment to the zoning regulations give some definition to what senior living is and also establishes the 2,000 square foot as the minimum lot size, or the minimum square footage required per senior dwelling unit.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s all at Number 1.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And then Number 2 is the one that talks about the definition of medium level.

MR. CHAFFEE: And then Number 1 gets into the definition of where do you drop in senior living as compared to making modifications to high density, medium density, low density.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: And then there’s some other verbiage that just takes care of sort of cleaning up talking about congregate care and senior living facilities to provide a little more definition there also.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. So, my issue is more with the second item more so than the first.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, like Councilman Kemmling, my concern is not with whether or not we have structures in this community since that would be good for retirement living. I’m all for having retirement living facilities. My concern is protecting the people that live in this community now that have already invested in this community and making sure that we protect them in a way that these types of facilities when they placed somewhere in our city, are placed in an appropriate place and one that will not be detrimental to them and their property values and their quality of life. So, that’s where I’m coming from. I don’t -- I’m not really concerned about having some new regulations. But I’d like it to be maybe more focused and more defined than this is going to be. Because this really to me, it kind of opens it wide up. And basically if we say this is good, then we can just pretty much do this anywhere we want. And they can stick one right next to my house. We could have a high rise right there if they can buy the lot out next to me. And that kind of concerns me a little bit. It concerns me a lot actually. It doesn’t concern me a little bit. And I think that’s why I’d like to have these regulations looked at more carefully and see if we can ratchet them down a little bit to where it becomes very specific and we know what types of uses, or what types of land uses this would seem appropriate in, what types of locations it might be appropriate in, and that there are adequate safeguards for the property owners that are already out there.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: And then on this first on here, the residential district shall be four acres. Is that the minimum?

MR. CHAFFEE: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: Well, and it can be reduced when you’re closer to the downtown area.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. Okay. With that in mind, I don’t know if you can, but I would second Mr. Vaught’s motion on this.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do we need to remake that motion. Okay. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, the motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, VAUGHT, SANDIFER: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, KEMMLING, JENKINS: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, nay was Councilmember Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling. The ayes were Neighbor, Vaught and Sandifer. And that’s not enough, right?

MR. RAINEY: That’s correct. It takes five votes to pass a text amendment ordinance.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right.

MR. RAINEY: And I just looked at the statute here to look at the exact text language that the statute requires you to use in order to remand to the Planning Commission. It says number one is approve. Number two is override. Then number three is, “May return the same to the Planning Commission for further consideration, together with a statement specifying the basis for the Governing Body’s failure to approve or disapprove.”

MAYOR DISTLER: So, the motion fails.
[Therefore Councilmember Vaught moved and Councilmember Neighbor seconded to pass an Ordinance making text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as identified in the staff report. The motion fails 3-3; with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling voting no.]

(c) Table both items to the November 28, 2016 City Council meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Can I ask another question?

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Mr. Chaffee, so, Planning Commission reviewed this. What was the -- was it a unanimous vote to move this forward?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It says it was.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yep.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes, it was.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: And Planning Commission discussed it over a period of four meetings.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Four meetings. Public input?

MR. CHAFFEE: Public input.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: Took a look at the regulations that other cities have compared to what Shawnee has.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And that was my next --

MR. CHAFFEE: Parking requirements.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, that was my next question. So, does this -- are we equally -- does this put us equally restrictive? I don’t want to say restrictive, or however you want -- the word you want to use. But does it put us equal with other cities? Lenexa, are they more liberal in their policy?

MR. CHAFFEE: We are in the ballpark. Let me put it that way. With the modifications we’re in the ballpark. Without the modifications for senior living we’re --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Not even close.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- on the low side.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, in other words you’re not going to have anybody breaking down our door to build senior housing?

MR. CHAFFEE: Well, we’ve had some, you know, folks come in, but we certainly have seen -- we’ve seen some interest. And then we go through the regulations. That’s one of the reasons the staff and Planning Commission wanted to talk about making some text amendments, amendments to the zoning regulation to encourage those who do make inquiry to really get serious and proceed on a project.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And the one I’m concerned about most is Lenexa. How do we compare to Lenexa? How does this compare to Lenexa? Do they still allow more density? Will they allow more density in Lenexa than what we’re proposing or will that be --

MR. CHAFFEE: Senior living we’re going to be close.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Senior living.

MR. CHAFFEE: Other multi-family at the 15.5, we’re definitely on the low side.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, and that’s really who we’re competing with on this western corridor. And they’re allowing, you know, this puts us close. Right now we’re not. So, I guess what we could do is just sit there and watch all the senior living to go Lenexa and we can just sit here and watch these green fields grow gas and nothing happen to them and not collect any property taxes off of them and tell seniors we don’t them here. So, I guess we can just keep voting on this. You guys can keep voting now and do this forever.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I really object to this statement that we’re telling seniors we don’t want them here. I think it’s a distortion and I don’t think it’s accurate to the discussion being had here, so I really object to that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Rainey.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You can table it.

MR. RAINEY: Yeah. We could have a motion to table it if --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, so I thought in my comments I did give some ideas there that I would like to see this thing reworked so that it has some specific focus and even look through the community and find certain areas that may be appropriate for such a type of development. Perhaps have that in our master plan, Comprehensive Plan as well. Because anybody coming into this community look with the thought of building some senior living facilities would be able to quickly assess the locations that seem appropriate for that in our community and that we are comfortable with and so you don’t get developments right next to, say residential, low density residential where it’s going to be objectionable to the residents that live there. And I think we can work this thing and make it happen. But I just look -- I think we need to get some more definitive descriptions of what we’re going to do in the zoning amendments.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Michelle.

MAYOR DISTLER: Just a second, Mr. Sandifer. Mr. Chaffee, I wasn’t on the Planning Commission, but doesn’t our Comprehensive Plan and stuff kind of already tell us these things as far as density --

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: -- and what can go where?

MR. CHAFFEE: Our Comprehensive Plan does show that. What these proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, it makes changes to density levels regarding senior living facilities --

MAYOR DISTLER: Right.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- that are general multi-family developments as opposed to multi-family developments that are not designed for seniors. So, what it would do would be it would basically raise density allowances in certain areas that we show on the Land Use Guide. And then as previously --

MAYOR DISTLER: But it’s not changing the Land Use Guide as far as --

MR. CHAFFEE: The Land Use Guide itself does not. It’s just a text amendment.

MAYOR DISTLER: It’s not going to change the location of where these are allowed now?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. It’s not a -- the Land Use Guide map change, it’s a text change.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right.

MR. CHAFFEE: Just a definition.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, locations aren’t the issue.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

MAYOR DISTLER: It’s the density within the location that it’s already allowed.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. Am I able to make a motion to table this until we’ve had a different Council meeting where we would have a full Council?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You’re making that motion?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m making a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I thought you asked if you could. I’ll second that.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded to table.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Real quick. Real quick, Mrs. Mayor.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Was your motion to table both items or a single item?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Both items.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Mr. Chaffee, [inaudible; talking off mic]

MR. CHAFFEE: The density on the Village Co-Op is 14.3 dwelling units per acre.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

MR. CHAFFEE: They are right at the top of the density requirement at the time that were approved.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right. So, they went through the process [inaudible; talking off mic]

MR. CHAFFEE: Village Co-op was approved, yes.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Why did we change our [inaudible; talking off mic]

MR. CHAFFEE: I think the reason that we’re looking at the changes, we’ve had discussions with proposed developers for senior family facilities. And we’ve taken a look at when we visit with them if they’ve built something in Olathe or Overland Park and we can pull it up and take a look at the size of the lot that they have, how their building is developed. A lot of them have more indoor features than are required. The number of parking stalls is less. In a lot of the newer facilities there is indoor parking facilities. So, theoretically as opposed to a traditional multi-family that may have, you know, a cabana and an outdoor pool and outdoor walking paths and some of those other items, we know the units that they’re getting and we say, well, if you come to Shawnee this is what -- instead of getting your 22 or 23 or 21 units an acre, you’re going to get 15.5, and that’s the decision that they’re going to need to make whether or not they’re going to proceed with their development in Shawnee. Village Co-Op hit right at the number at the time. We have some other ones -- once you get into nursing facilities they’re a whole different -- a whole different ball game than the senior living.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Could we throw the Land Use Guide up so we can see where, you know, where we’re talking about? We could pull it up online.

MAYOR DISTLER: I’ll just to say Mr. Pflumm’s point, too, I think they were pretty much sold out before they even broke ground for the most part. And I remember for those of us at the ribbon cutting some of the people saying that they were so glad when they heard they were coming because they feared that they were going to have to leave -- they were ready to sell their home and they thought they were going to have to leave Shawnee, the seniors that had got up to speak. And so they were very happy even though they had to wait a couple years for it to get done that the -- it was built and they were able to stay in Shawnee because they didn’t want to leave the community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But there was some comments after we built it and opened it about, you know, it’s adjacent to R-1 residential.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible; talking off mic].

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I live there.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: If you come from the west side, I mean, it’s a structure, you know. So, from the east side, you know, it really --

MR. CHAFFEE: And I will say the Village Co-Op folks did a good job engaging the neighborhood --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh, yeah.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- and when they came through with their zoning application and we had the public hearing there was no opposition. They had worked well with the neighbors to --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Right.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- do some things. So, basically on the Land Use Guide, the areas that are in yellow are zoned for low density residential. But areas in the orange are medium density residential and the areas in the brown are a high density residential.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But you’re going to be able to put a, you know what I’m mean, a lot more dense product into a residential area if we allow it?

MR. CHAFFEE: After an application is made and a hearing before the Planning Commission, it may or may not be approved at a given location for a senior living facility, not a regular or traditional, whatever you want to call the other multi-family type developments.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, Paul, I also look at Item 4 here, it says height density.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And it says 10.01 or more units. So, that’s not even capped. It just -- I guess the sky is the limit on that one.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. Well, the sky is the limit up to the point that the zoning regulations allow currently a maximum density. An apartment complex, a traditional apartment complex requires 2,800 square feet per unit. So, that comes to about 15.5 for a traditional one. And what the Planning Commission has suggested is that senior living not be required to have as much land area per dwelling unit as a traditional apartment development.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. We gathered that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Paul, one of the areas that we had a developer in to look at was the area just south of Park Lanes, is that correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And is it a four-acre tract?

MR. CHAFFEE: A little over four acres of ground.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: They wanted to do a senior living facility there.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Our density -- with our density they could not build it to -- in a way that matched their proforma.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, they didn’t buy the property. So, that is an area that --

MR. CHAFFEE: And we’ve had discussions --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s one of the things that really caused us to look at this.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But we could -- they could go through the --

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sorry. We could go through the process and get that approved. You know what I mean if we --

MR. CHAFFEE: No.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If the direction from the ordinance is density, I mean that’s what staff is going to base it on. And that’s the guidance that you all give and the Planning Commission gives staff so they -- that’s what we told this developer is that this is the density our city requires and so that doesn’t work on this site. So, that again, what prompted this discussion with the Planning Commission and the research --

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- and along with a few others.

MR. CHAFFEE: They weren’t the only ones that we’ve had discussions with. There have been others, you know, in and out over time just asking the general type of question on what we allow. So, the way the zoning ordinance reads is you can have up to a certain number and that’s where we’re at. And so what we’re trying to do is increase that density for multi-family senior living opportunities.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, I’m sorry. I’m still just a little bit confused. If you’d help clarify.

MR. CHAFFEE: Okay. Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: That Village Co-Op, that area was originally slated as what kind of density?

MR. CHAFFEE: I believe it was high density residential.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. So, it was ten-plus, but you said it hit the cap of 14.5?

MR. CHAFFEE: Right. Because at the time that they came in we had made a modification about a year and a half ago to increase the density from multi-family.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Uh-huh.

MR. CHAFFEE: It used to be 14.42, now it’s 15.5 for a traditional multi-family.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: That’s the proposal.

MR. CHAFFEE: The new proposal is for senior living only.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Uh-huh.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- to get it, and l can’t remember exactly what it comes out to, 21 maybe.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: For medium density, correct? Is that what you’re saying?

MR. CHAFFEE: Well, no. In the zoning regulations --

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Uh-huh.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- I’m going to try and split the two.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: The zoning regulations would require that a senior living facility have at least 2,000 square feet of land area per unit. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan say if you’re -- for multi-family, or let’s say medium density, 5.0 or 5.1 units per acre to 10 units per acre, and then however, if you were looking at doing a senior living facility --

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Uh-huh.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- that end density could be a little higher.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Could be different.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, but it appears as a proposed change in her to go from 14.5 to 15.55, is that for the Planned Mixed Residential?

MR. CHAFFEE: Actually that was a change that -- we went back through the zoning regs and found that when we bumped into zoning regulations we didn’t go back -- didn’t catch it in the comp plan, so we’re just catching up to that on that part.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. On that, okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes. Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, if we’re going to be doing things like this, then we need to have adequate safeguards for the public. And one of those adequate safeguards that I had proposed to the City and I had pushed forward and I had spent some time to our City Clerk and the City Clerk took my comments and my notes to the City Manager, and it was to address the idea that if you are residences, in residences near one of these types of developments and you have -- you take umbrage to it, you have problems with it, that there would be a process which you could try to qualify as a recognized group in order to take your complaints and concerns to the City Council meeting and present them in full-fledged comments. Present your whole concept, not five minutes or ceding your five minutes and getting an extra five minutes and this kind of thing where’s there a fragmented kind of discussion that takes place when we have residents that are pretty upset about some of the projects that get proposed for their neighborhoods. And I still haven’t seen anything back on that. It’s been over six months ago. And I’m getting kind of concerned because I really feel as though I’m an advocate for the citizens of this community. And if they’ve got an issue with something that the City is doing, then they need to have adequate voice. They need to be able to say what they need to say and they need to be able to present it in a comprehensive manner not in some piecemeal couple of minutes at a time screwed up little mess like we had to deal with with Vantage apartments. I think they can hire themselves a consultant. They can do whatever they want to do. And I gave some guidelines for what that group ought to look like that needs to be --

MAYOR DISTLER: We can discuss that during Council Items, but that’s not really the item that is -- we’re discussing.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, we’ve been discussing all kinds of things that aren’t the item at hand, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, no.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, I push back against that.

MAYOR DISTLER: We’re sticking on the density and the zoning and that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Okay. Whatever, Michelle.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, we can come back to that during Council meetings -- Council Items. Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay. Do we have any type of -- oh, we have the motion and second to table to it.

So, the motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, JENKINS, KEMMLING, VAUGHT, SANDIFER: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. Councilmember Pflumm voting in dissent. And that was for both items, right? Okay.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to table both items to the November 28, 2016 City Council meeting. The motion carried 5-1; with Councilmember Pflumm voting no.]

I. STAFF ITEMS

1. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1751 RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BONDS (IRB) FOR THE FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES HOTEL AND COMFORT INN & SUITES HOTEL.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Staff Items. Item No. 1 is to Consider a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1751 Relating to the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds (IRB) for the Fairfield Inn & Suites Hotel and Comfort Inn & Suites Hotel.

On January 26, 2015, the Governing Body adopted Resolution No. 1751 declaring the City's intent to issue $12 million in IRBs for two new hotels at 16500 Midland Drive. The Resolution requires the company to issue the first series of bonds before December 31, 2016, and the remaining bonds by December 31, 2017. Although significant progress has been made, the first phase of the project has not yet been completed and the Company has requested an extension. A Resolution is required.

The recommended action is to consider adopting a Resolution extending the termination date of Resolution No. 1751 for the first phase to December 31, 2017, and extends the termination date for the Master Project to December 31, 2018.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I have a question for the developer. I was just kind of wondering what’s, you know, how come we’re having a delay and -- first of all, I want to thank you for bringing your projects to the City of Shawnee. I’m just kind of wondering. I’ve had a lot of people ask me, hey, what’s going on down there. It kind of stagnated of a while.

MR. PATEL: Number one, when originally I came to Council, it took a lot longer in getting the department to go through the approval process, number one. That’s like almost six to seven months by changing different [inaudible] and then going to find [inaudible]. That’s number one. Number two, after that we fighting with that rock and the retaining wall. That’s terrible retaining wall, but everyone, truly what we’re doing right now is getting to the point of looking fabulous. So, progress is there, but we asking until December 17, but 99 percent, the Comfort Inn should be open sometime in May. And Fairfield should be open -- our target we open next year, but we just putting in an extension just for sake so in case some other comes in because a lot of things can be hidden. And we also working [inaudible]. The dirt we hauled off from there, lots of dirt, and the rock, we came across a lot. And we also trying to meet all the City requirement of the Engineering department and the [inaudible] everything. But we are progressing as we speaking quite a bit. And as I said we should be done one phase targeted sometime in May. And second phase should be sometime in December, but we just asking for longer extension just for in case delays comes up.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I don’t have a problem with extending it. I just curious so what, you know, what the issues were and stuff like that. So again, thanks for bringing your project.

MR. PATEL: Yes, sir.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And good luck getting it the rest of the way done.

MR. PATEL: The product going to be fabulous. As I said before, the product it is getting there and everything is going great, so.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right. Thank you.

MR. PATEL: Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Anyone else from the Council have any questions or comments? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to adopt a Resolution extending the termination date of Resolution No. 1751 for the first phase to December 31, 2017, and extend the termination date for the Master Project to December 31, 2018. The motion carried 6-0.]
(Having passed, Resolution 1790 was assigned.)

2. CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF 2016 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNITY ORIENTING POLICING SERVICES GRANT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 2 is to Consider Acceptance of 2016 Department of Justice Community Orienting Policing Services Grant.

The Police Department applied for a Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services Grant to help fund additional Police Officers. The application has been approved for five officers for a maximum of $125,000 per officer over a three-year period. To move forward, the City must formally accept the grant and commit to funding the Police Officers for a minimum of 12 months after the grant ends.

Staff has recommended a method of restoring reserves to the original budgeted amount with the revenue from the County sales tax approved last Tuesday night in order to fund the City's share.
The recommended action is to consider accepting the Department of Justice COPS Hiring Program for funding for five additional police officers.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to accept the Department of Justice COPS Hiring Program for funding for five additional police officers. The motion carried 6-0.]

3. CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2016 BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR BODY-WORN CAMERAS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 3 is to Consider Acceptance of the 2016 Bureau of Justice Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant for Body-Worn Cameras for the Police Department.

The Shawnee Police Department is one of two agencies in the state to receive grant funds for body-worn cameras. The total amount of the grant, $44,003, is 50% of the total cost of the cameras. Additional costs for media storage are estimated at $100,000, bringing the total expected City costs for the project to $144,003. Due to another grant received by the Fire Department, funds are available in the Public Safety Equipment Fund.

The recommended action is to consider accepting the 2016 Bureau of Justice Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to accept the 2016 Bureau of Justice Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. The motion carried 6-0.]

4. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH HAYS COMPANIES FOR BENEFIT SERVICES.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 4 is to consider an Agreement with Hays Companies for Benefit Services.

The Hays Group, Inc. has been the City's incumbent broker of record since 2011, providing consultation and advice on all components of employee benefits. The current contract has expired and staff is proposing to renew it for four additional years at a cost of $40,000 per year.
The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with Hays Companies for Benefit Services.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I’m kind of curious when this came up for renewal, did we get proposals from other companies or bid it out?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We did previously, but not this time.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Not at this time. We’re recommending continuing with Hays.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: How many City employees do we currently have?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Ms. Crawford.

MS. CRAWFORD: Two seventy-two.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Two seventy-two.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Two seventy-two. So, that’s about -- that’s $147 per individual for the City. I don’t know if that’s a good deal or not. We don’t have any comparisons in here, but I don’t know. I would have liked to have maybe seen a comparison or two or maybe another proposal from another company, so we just had something to compare this to, to see if this was still a good deal for us or not.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I’d echo those sentiments because we really don’t know. And it’s kind of hard to even make a decision on this thing without any kind of information on that. So, it’s a problem. And also you’re looking at a 14 percent increase in costs on this contract in one year. That’s a significant jump. I know we’re not talking millions of dollars here, but percentage wise that’s a pretty significant jump on our cost in a single year. I think a lot of people would like to get a 14 percent raise in one year.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Ms. Crawford, maybe you should --

MS. CRAWFORD: When we went with an RFP in 2011,that was the last time that we bid those services. I can tell you that the folks that did submit proposals all had a commission built into their proposals that they had at the time. The Hays Company was the only one that agreed to -- or submitted a proposal that didn’t include commission based on the services that they provide and commissions from the insurance carriers that they work with.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And just another comment, too. I was approached by some constituents on this subject, not this specific subject, but the basic subject of healthcare insurance for our employees. And they were talking in terms of the systems that are being used, for example, in Olathe and Lenexa. We always hear about Olathe and Lenexa in here. They’re using a system where they actually had the people go to a clinic and they’re actually going to build their own clinic even. Olathe is. And the proposal I was presented with was one where you would go to a clinic, in fact, he was out on 103rd and Metcalf or something like, 110th and Metcalf, a clinic, and that would take care of a lot of those, you know, those basic needs for just normal health things, I don’t feel good, I want to go to a doc and that kind of thing. And they even had the ability to dispense prescriptions and all that kind of stuff. And I wish I had more information. I would like for these people come in and talk to us because they’re talking about in terms that they’re saving millions of dollars for the communities that they’re providing this service to. And, you know, that’s getting to be quite a cost. It’s a significant overhead for our community. If there is a way we can cut those costs without cutting value and service, I think we ought to be looking at some of those things. So, I really want to submit that and have some looks taken at that kind of thing.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I would just say we have attended many session, Liz and Kim especially, on that option. Both Olathe and Overland Park obviously have quite a few more employees than we do. And there’s kind of a breakpoint of when that’s cost effective. And I don’t know if you all had time to review the stewardship information that Hays put together. It’s a phenomenal package. The relationship of working with them and getting someone to know our account is really, really important. And the time it would take our limited HR staff to prepare a request for proposals and develop a new relationship and get someone familiar with our product at this point because we’ve been so fortunate and have so much respect for the work Hays has done and the stewardship that they have helped us achieve through that program. And I believe each year Reggie has brought forward the HSA. We’ve looked at that over the past three years. Implemented that last year. So, every year we do try to look at as many cost savings mechanisms as we can. But that’s the reason at this point that we didn’t -- don’t recommend doing an RFP. Just the time that it would take staff to prepare that and the time to accommodate to a new provider we believe wouldn’t be the best use of our time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Not speaking to the RFP, but to that other concept I brought up. Obviously we’re not in the same position as Overland Park or Olathe as far as the number of employees. We would want to maybe build our own facility. That’s why I did bring up the point that there’s facilities already available that can be accessed and so on, so we wouldn’t necessarily have to build our own. So, I didn’t want to just be dismissive of that idea on that premise because that isn’t the premise we were coming from. There are facilities already out there that we can satellite on.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I like the idea of having a fixed cost because it does make budgeting a little better. But just out of curiosity when there was commission, do we have any kind of projections where those commissions would be or what the overall cost to the City would be?

MS. CRAWFORD: From my recollection when we did the RFP back in 2011, the Hays Company was one of the lower organizations that bid our business. And it was challenging to determine what the actual commission would be because it’s based on things like the organization, the broker organization placing business with another insurance carrier and such. And it can range anywhere from I believe 5 to 15 percent, even possibly more if they had hidden commissions that were in there. And one thing that was very important to us when we were doing -- going through the bids is complete transparency. And that’s something that has been, you know, so wonderful with the Hays Company. The other thing that I would also like to point out is during the time that we’ve been with the Hays Company they haven’t had any turnover in the staff and the folks that we have been working with with their organization. They’ve just been top notch and I, you know, really believe that our relationship with them has -- as strong as it has been has lended to helping us save money on the benefits. And as Carol Gonzales alluded to, our stewardship report that we had requested from the Hays Company was well above what we had -- what I had requested and almost makes you want to see a lot of the hidden things that they do for us including the legal assistance that they can give us. There is just a number of resources that they can tap into due to them being a national company and keeping us a head of the game with any type of employment law that is coming down the pike. And who knows what will happen with just the recent election and what not, so.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. So, you’re saying there is more than just the insurance coverage itself?

MS. CRAWFORD: Absolutely. Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: That there’s this additional there to. Okay. Yeah. And also it says here in the agreement that our commitment we can terminate the commitment with 90 days written notice anyway. So, if we do have a discussion and we decide we like something else I guess we have that as an out. So, thank you.

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

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Hays Companies for Benefit Services. The motion carried 6-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 5 is to Consider Bids and Award Contract for the 2016/2017 Stormwater Pipe Repair Project.

CITY CLERK POWELL: Mayor, sorry. Could you ask for the vote one more time? I think I heard someone vote no, but I wanted to make sure --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No, I vote aye, but it was a little delayed --

CITY CLERK POWELL: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- because I was trying to get my microphone on.

CITY CLERK POWELL: Okay. Thanks.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, okay. Sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I thought he was a no vote, too.

5. CONSIDER BIDS AND AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE 2016/2017 STORMWATER PIPE REPAIR PROJECT, P.N. 3423.

MAYOR DISTLER: Advertise the project for the bids on October 10, 2016. Eight bids were received and staff recommends awarding the bid to Amino Brothers, Inc. of Kansas City, Kansas, in the amount of $1,204,072.45. The bid includes the base bid and 12 alternate bid locations.
The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with Amino Brothers, Inc.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience want to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Amino Brothers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,204,072.45 to include the Base Bid and all Alternate Bid locations for the 2016/2017 Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, P.N. 3423. The motion carried 6-0.]

6. CONSIDER AN ENGINEERING INSPECTION AGREEMENT WITH TRANSYSTEMS FOR THE CONNECT SHAWNEE PROJECT, P.N. 3412.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 6 is to consider an Engineering Inspection Agreement with TranSystems for the Connect Shawnee Project, P.N. 3412. The Governing Body awarded the construction contract to Pyramid Contractors, Inc. on October 24, 2016. Staff is recommending contracting engineering and inspection services to TranSystems in an amount not to exceed $79,721.17.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement with TranSystems.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience want to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with TranSystems in an amount not to exceed $79,721.17 for engineering inspection services for the Connect Shawnee Project, P.N. 3412. The motion carried 6-0.]

7. CONSIDER AN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BHC FOR THE NIEMAN ROAD, 55TH STREET TO SHAWNEE MISSION PARKWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, P.N. 3427.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item 7 is to consider an Engineering Services Agreement with BHC for the Nieman Road, 55th Street to Shawnee Mission Parkway Street Improvement Project, P.N. 3427. This project is on the City's Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2018 and the Right-of-Way Reallocation Report was approved by the Governing Body on September 12, 2016. BHC successfully completed the study and report for the project and staff is recommending awarding the contract for engineering services for a not to exceed amount of $510,120.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract with BHC.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Not that it affects this, I was just curious and I had a question about it though. Not to exceed 510,000. That implies that it could come in less than that? I mean, do they -- they voucher again invoice against that amount or, I mean, how is that -- why is it not to -- just curious about that. Just kind worrying kind of struck me on that.

MR. LINDSTROM: Paul Lindstrom, Development Services. Yes. That’s a typical contract language so that if there is some minor scope changes within the project they will do that with the not to exceed fee. At the same time if there is some changes that take away from the scope they cannot bill up to that amount.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. That’s what I figured.

MR. LINDSTROM: It goes both ways.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just figured I’d ask. Thank you.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with BHC in an amount not to exceed $510,120 for engineering services related to the Nieman Road, 55th Street to Shawnee Mission Parkway Street Improvement Project, P.N. 3427. The motion carried 6-0.]

J. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,252,864.19.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Miscellaneous Items. Item No. 1 is to Ratify the Semi-Monthly Claim for November 14, 2016, in the Amount of $2,252,864.19.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to ratify the semi-monthly claim. The motion carried 6-0.]

2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have any items they would like to discuss? Okay.

3. CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THOSE ACQUISITION DISCUSSION.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 3, Conduct Executive Session for the Purpose of Discussing the Acquisition of Property for the Purpose of Protecting the Confidentiality of Those Acquisition Discussions.

(a) Recess to Executive Session 30 minutes for preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of those acquisition discussions.

MAYOR DISTLER: I will accept a motion to Recess to Executive Session for 30 minutes for preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting will resume in the City Council Chambers.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to recess to Executive Session for 30 minutes.

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.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to recess into Executive Session. The motion carried 6-0.]
(Shawnee City Council in Executive Session from 9:10 p.m. to 9:44 p.m.)

(b) Conclude Executive Session.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to conclude the Executive Session. The motion carried 6-0.]

(c) Reconvene meeting.

MAYOR DISTLER: -- this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to reconvene the Council meeting. The motion carried 6-0.]

K. ADJOURNMENT

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

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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. We are adjourned. Thank you.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to adjourn. The motion carried 6-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 9:44 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 November 22, 2016

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk











File Attachment Icon
CC11142016.docx