PDF Format:

CCM12062016.pdfCCM12062016.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
December 6, 2016
7:00 P.M.

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 MeyerFinance Director Rogers
Councilmember SandiferDevelopment Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Councilmember KenigIT Director Bunting
Public Works Director Whitacre
Fire Chief Mattox
Police Chief Moser
Transportation Manager Manning
Shawnee Chamber of Commerce
Executive Director Leeper
(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Good evening everyone. Welcome to tonight's Council Committee meeting. My name is Stephanie Meyer. I am a Councilmember from Ward III and the chair of this committee. Besides myself, the Committee members here tonight are Jim Neighbor of Ward I; Dan Pflumm, Ward I; Eric Jenkins, Ward II; Mike Kemmling, Ward II; Jeff Vaught, Ward III; Mickey Sandifer, Ward IV; and Brandon Kenig, Ward IV.

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 Committee at any of these times, please go to the podium. I will ask that you state your name and address for the record and then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear you, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes. And when you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address.

B. ITEMS

1. DISCUSS TWO STREETLIGHT PETITIONS

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: There are five items on tonight's agenda. The first item is to Discuss Two Streetlight Petitions. Policy Statement PS-19, Placement, Removal or Relocation of Street Lights, outlines the procedures for adding streetlights. Residents have submitted two petitions for a streetlight, one on Albervan in the Millcreek Subdivision and another petition for two streetlights on 56th Street in the Monticello Meadows Subdivision. Transportation Manager Kevin Manning will provide additional information.

Welcome Kevin.

MR. MANNING: Thank you. I’m Kevin Manning. I’m the Transportation Manager for the city. We have recently received two requests for streetlights. And these streetlights are governed by the City’s Policy Statement 19. And basically once we receive these requests, we go out and make sure that if we add new streetlights that they will be in compliance with the City’s design standards and specifications. Once that occurs, if we determine there are no issues, then we develop a location map and we determine any property owners that were within 300 feet of a proposed streetlight. We develop a petition. Then we send that map and petition out to the original petitioner and they go and collect signatures from residents and then return that to us. And then that’s what I’m doing here tonight is presenting it to the Governing Body for your approval.

As you mentioned, we have two requests. One is on Albervan Street in the Mill Creek subdivision. And there were 16 people that signed the petition out of a total of 17 total. And if this petition is approved, it will result in a yearly cost to the City of $322.30 under the current KCP&L streetlight tariffs. The other petition was for 56th Street in the Monticello Meadows subdivision. And this was for two streetlights. We received 12 signatures on this petition out of a total of 16. And if this petition was approved, it would result in a cost to the City of $380.40. That’s a yearly cost. In addition, there would be a one-time fee of $6,500 for the installation of conduit and cable. And that was not included in your original packet memo, so I apologize for that. I just wanted to make sure that was included.

So, based on the results of those petitions and the costs, staff has two recommendations. They’re basically similar. One that the committee forwarded to the Governing Body, a recommendation to approve the Albervan Street streetlight petition and to authorize staff to coordinate with KCP&L for streetlight installation as necessary. The other recommendation is to forward to the Governing Body a recommendation to approve the 56th Street streetlight petition and to authorize staff to coordinate with Westar for streetlight installation as necessary. And I’d be happy to take any questions at this time.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. I’m taking that off the 56th Street there is no streetlights on that street at all then?

MR. MANNING: That’s correct.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That’s why the conduit?

MR. MANNING: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Mike.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Am I reading this correctly that streetlights through KCP&L are roughly twice as expensive as the Westar ones?

MR. MANNING: Yeah. As I mentioned, there was an additional cost for the Westar streetlight. It’s basically a one-time cost of $6,500 for the installation of that conduit and cable. And basically, I don’t know for sure, but I believe KCP&L probably builds that into their monthly cost. It’s about $140 extra per month for a KCP&L streetlight as opposed to Westar. And so if you take that 6,500 and divided by two that basically gives you about a 20-25 year payback period for that conduit and cable. So, that’s where the cost discrepancy is.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. One question here. Of the streetlights, what, there’s 6,300 or 6,400 streetlights in the city total, how many do we own? How many do these guys own? And are we on the way to getting them all?

MR. MANNING: We have a quite a few streetlights. Probably I’d say about half that are leased through KCP&L. Then about probably four-fifths of the remainder we own. And then the additional fifth is Westar. So, KCP&L has, you know, much more than Westar. We have discussed the possibility of purchasing all these streetlights. That’s something that’s on our radar and something we’re kind of moving forward towards, but we don’t have it immediately planned in place, but is something we’re interested in doing in the future.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Does KCP&L own the rest of the streetlights on Albervan or were those --

MR. MANNING: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I thought that they were -- a lot of the streetlights in the subdivisions were purchased by the developers.

MR. MANNING: That may be the case in some subdivisions. In this subdivision KCP&L does own the streetlights --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.

MR. MANNING: -- because we are tapping onto their existing circuit to add this streetlight.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I didn’t realize it, so on this second one there on west of 7, that’s a ditch section street, right?

MR. MANNING: That’s correct.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, we can -- I guess our streetlights on some of those -- I know when I -- before, what’s the name of the neighborhood there on Woodland? Copenhaven? Yeah. Well, I remember campaigning through there, and I know I brought it up before, but they’ve been asking -- they would love to get streetlights in there. Is that a, I mean, to do a whole neighborhood, how would do that? Petition -- the whole neighborhood could petition or is that we wait until we do streets? Or what do you --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I believe they have some in there, but there are several real dark spots. And I know that they have petitioned for it. And the particular locations where they need to go the property owners where they need to be placed won’t allow it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, there you go.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, it’s been, yeah, I think it’s probably come up twice just since I’ve been here. But they just haven’t been successful getting that done.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. I just remember campaigning in there three or four --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Way to bring that up again, Jeff.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Three or four different people asked me about streetlights. I didn’t know the history on it. So, there you go.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would recommend that [inaudible; talking off mic] to the Council with approval for both of those.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I will hold that for the end of questions and public comments, but I appreciate that. So, if there are no other questions for Kevin. All right. Thank you.

Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, I believe we have a motion for -- we’re taking them in separate. So, I will assume you are referring to Albervan as the first?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would motion that we just do them both and send them to the Council. If there’s opposition, then we can --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Have to do one at a time. For each different petition you have to have a separate motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. I motion for approval --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I promise.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- to send the first one to the City Council.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Which would be Albervan.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And there is a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. The motion passes.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to forward the Albervan streetlight petition to the 12/12/16 City Council meeting for Governing Body approval. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I would motion the 56th Street be sent --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- to the Council for recommended approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to forward the 56th Street streetlight petition to the 12/12/16 City Council meeting for Governing Body approval. The motion carried 8-0.]

2. DISCUSS THE 2017 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The second item is to Discuss the 2017 Street Maintenance Program. Staff has developed a 2017 Street Maintenance Program that fits within the approved funding amount and addresses the highest maintenance priorities of the City's street system. Public Works Director Doug Whitacre will present information on the Program.

Welcome, Doug.

MR. WHITACRE: Thank you. Good evening. Doug Whitacre, Public Works Director.

The purpose of the presentation tonight is to give you an update on the 2016 program that we’re just wrapping up for this year, and to provide our plan for 2017. Also I’ll kind of go over some of the pavement conditions just to give you an update on where the streets’ overall pavement conditions are at this time.
Good Roads Start Here
2017 Street Maintenance Program

[2016 Street Maintenance Program Highlights slide]
When we brought this to you a year ago, and that was just about the time I came in, we had presented -- what we’re showing here is the 2016 plan is what we had projected we would do. And then the completed is obviously what we completed.

By going out early, and that’s why we’re coming to you again even a little bit earlier this year. By going out early, we got very good pricing for asphalt for this year. And so by being able to get -- by getting that better pricing, we were able to complete, as you can see, about 42.6 lane miles versus the 35 that we had projected. And along with that we did a little over 42,000 feet of, or right around 42,000 feet of curb and gutter and about 5,500 feet of sidewalk. And then we still have our CSRs that we completed and we were able to complete another 10.4 lane miles of chip seal that was surfaced with asphalt where we only projected we’d do about 3.5 miles. We accomplished that basically through again the good pricing, which also carried over even into the Development Services, two project there, especially the Johnson Drive, Quivira to Pflumm. We got very good pricing on that job also. And it allowed us to use some of the excess money from there to put into mill and overlay and go out and complete more streets.

[2016 Street Maintenance Program Highlights slide 2]
In addition, we did about 9.6 lane miles of chip seal. We did about 32 lane miles of crack seal this year. We did all of that in-house. We show the bridge repairs that we completed. And then we did some other miscellaneous pavement repairs to the tune of about $7.8 million that we spent on road surfacing and street infrastructure upgrades.

[2016 End of Year Pavement Condition slide]
This next slide gives you the pavement condition as of the end of the year. We provide this each year. It kind of gives you a breakdown of where we’re at. Obviously 1 are streets that have totally failed and those just have to be rebuilt. Fortunately we only have about 3.67 lane miles of that. And then you see the ratings as we go on up through in each of the categories.

[Existing Pavement Service Levels]
Our Existing Pavement Level ratings, the condition rating is at 5.41 out of 10. And as you can see when we came in last year we were at 5.0. So, we have bettered that rate there. And then also the percentage of streets that are rated 1 to 3 are at 15.33. And when we started the year we were at 23.10. Just as kind of a review, 2012 to 2016 on the Pavement Condition Rating we were at 5.9. We dropped all the way to 5.0 in ‘16, you know, the end of, well actually, yeah, the end of ‘15. And as you can see so we are on the upward trend again on the curve. So, the sales tax has helped greatly to get us back on the right direction. The other is we were at -- in 2012, we were at 7.6 percent on the percentages of 1 to 3 streets. And as you know we got all the way up to 23.10 at end of last year. And obviously again we’re bringing that percentage down. So again, I just wanted to, you know, point out that sales tax has helped in getting us back on the right track for repairing and upgrading the streets.

[2017 Street Maintenance Program Funding slide]
As we look at the 2017 program, these are the funding sources and these are the typical funding sources for each year. The only thing missing on this one is there you’ll see there are no CARS funding this year. The one project that we had, which was Johnson Drive, Martindale to I-435, did not get approved for CARS funding in ‘17. However, we feel it will be approved in 2018. And so with that, that was about -- there was a million dollars of what would be City-matching funds that would come out of the Pavement Service Fund. And rather than just let that money sit there we’re going to put it in with -- hopefully we’re going to get real good pricing again on asphalt. And so we’re going to use that million to do more mill and overlay streets this year. And then turn around next year and we probably won’t mill and overlay as much, but, you know, we’ll have to put the funds back for the Johnson Drive project provided we get the CARS funding. But this way we feel if we’re getting that good pricing on asphalt, let’s get the work done now and not just wait and, you know, follow the program through from the standpoint of holding funds for a project another year.

[2017 Street Maintenance Program slide]
So, what we have laid out for the 2017 program is there are about $6 million in mill and overlay. And then you see the curb repairs and through the CSR program and the sidewalk repairs. This includes everything through 11/14 as far as CSRs go. And so we’re trying to catch everything that, you know, had come in over the last year.

Again, we’d put full depth repairs. And we are splitting full depth this year. Normally we put about 200,000 aside for full depth. We’re leaving 150 in the contract amount and then 50 for in-house, which would be for materials because we obviously already have the crews and the labor in the regular budget. And they are going to go out and try to hit some more of those full depth repairs to make sure we get those under control. Then we’ve got bridge repairs and crack seal.

The one thing that is missing in 2017 is chip seal, which probably everybody will be glad. Right now our chip seal streets are in very good condition. We didn’t see, well, why would we go out and put more money into chip seal when actually we’re trying to cover them with asphalt as part of this program. So, rather than, like I said, put money back into chip seal, we’re going to hold off for a year and utilize those funds again to do more asphalt.

[2017 Mill and Overlay Map slide]
This is the map that we’ve prepared. As you can there is the top there layer, the green I believe it is. I’m having a hard time seeing it. It is the mill and overlay resurfacing locations. Those will be our primary locations that we’ll put out for bid. And then the surface upgrade is the changing from -- is overlaying a chip seal road. And that would be 59th Street, I think it is. Yes. From Renner to Maurer would be that. The rest, again, we’re basing the chip seal streets that we need to overlay based on the priority rating also. And the chip seal roads are actually in pretty condition, so we feel like we should put more money into where we need to do the mill and overlays to attack those 2 and 3-rated street.

And then the gold or yellowish color is we just identify additional streets. That’s what we did this year, based on our priority schedule that if we again get good pricing and can do more lane than we anticipated, those would be the streets that we would -- would be next on our list to go out and complete.

[2017 Street Maintenance Program Plan slide]
And again, we’re looking at about 54 lane miles of mill and overlay for this next year and about 45 lane miles of crack seal and then the 7,500 feet of curb and gutter based on the CSR reports and 3,000 feet on the sidewalk repairs. And again, that’s catching everything up through the 14th of November.

[Discussion slide]
And so basically what our -- I’ll take some questions in a minute. Basically the goal right now is if you send this forward we would do it on the -- we would come in for our final plans to go out to bid at the January 9th Council meeting, which would allow us to bid it in January and then come back to you for a contract approval on February 13th. And again, by getting it out there this will be even a little bit earlier than we went out this year. We’re hoping again that we’ll get, you know, we have several bids and very good pricing. And, therefore, we get in on the front end and the contractors are a little more hungry and we can get that work and get there and complete more. And so with that, that gives you an update and I’ll take any questions.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Great. All right. Thank you, Doug. That’s great information. Good news. Any discussion? Brandon.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. Thank you, Doug. This is really helpful. Can you remind me how often the streets are rated? So, the rating system that we utilize how, I guess, you know, per street on average how often do we go back and revisit?

MR. WHITACRE: Okay. Yes. Basically we try to do a third of the city every year. This year, and basically it’s -- I think the areas are if you stay east of 435, it’s south of Shawnee Mission is one area and north of Shawnee Mission is one area and then west of 435 is the third area. We have some as I came in new, Kevin came in new. We brought Kenny back. As we were trying to gather everything we actually did two-thirds of the city this year to go out and reevaluate and make sure our ratings and everybody were on board with where we’re at. But going forward we would do it every three, you know, a third of the city every year.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Other questions? All right. Thank you, Doug. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Okay.

Seeing none, staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the January 9, 2017 City Council meeting for consideration by the Governing Body. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’ll make that motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Do I have a second?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have lots of motions and lots of seconds. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to forward the 2017 Street Maintenance Program to the 1/9/17 City Council meeting for Governing Body consideration. The motion carried 8-0.]

3. DISCUSS THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. The third item is to Discuss the Traffic Improvement Plan. In the 2015 Shawnee Citizen Survey, "Flow of traffic and congestion management" was the second highest priority for investment based upon the survey results. The Public Works Department has developed a Traffic Improvement Plan to address this citizen concern. And Transportation Manager Kevin Manning will present the plan.

Welcome back up, Kevin.
City of Shawnee
Traffic Improvement Plan

MR. MANNING: Thank you. Kevin Manning, Transportation Manager. So, I’m here tonight to talk about our Traffic Improvement Plan. And really this plan kind of came to the forefront and there was a need that was evidence based on the results of the 2015 City of Shawnee Citizen Satisfaction Survey.

[Top City Priorities slide]
The first City priority on that survey was the maintenance of city streets. And we have a three-eighth cent sales tax now and Doug has presented on our program this year, so we feel like we’re making progress on that item.

We wanted to come up with a plan to address this second item, which was traffic flow and managing congestion throughout the city. So, that’s really kind of what started the process for developing this plan. I’m going to be talking about kind of what we’ve come up with tonight.

[Traffic Improvement Plan slide]
So, our plan kind of has four components. I’m going to go through each one. First, there’s traffic operations, safety analysis, a traffic component to our ADA transition plan, and public involvement.

[14/61 slide]
So, starting off with Traffic Operations. Really what I’m going to be focusing on this section is talking about coordinating signals and interconnect throughout the city. This is a map of all our signalized locations. The red locations indicate intersections where we currently have interconnect and we also basically coordinate those signals along those corridors. The remainder of those locations we currently have no connectivity to and we don’t have coordination timing plans in place. And really coordination and interconnect are so important for traffic flow because that’s what allows you, if you have several signals on a corridor, to basically progress traffic from location to location. So, we’ve got about 14 locations right now where we have that. And those locations are actually part of the Operation Green Light network. And that’s basically a regional signal coordination partnership to help coordinate arterials that run through different municipalities. So, if you’re driving down Quivira the general public doesn’t -- they’re not concerned when they cross from Shawnee over to Lenexa. They want good signal timing across the entire corridor. So, that’s really the purpose for that program. So, we have interconnect at those locations right now, but we’re looking to expand that network.

[Why is interconnect so important? slide]
Some of the reasons behind that are in order to really put in more signal coordination plans we need to have that interconnect because that interconnect allows us to synchronize our time clocks. At all of our signalized locations right now they all have a controller. And that controller essentially acts as the brain of the signalized location. So, it tells the signal what to do at six o’clock in the morning on a Friday or two o’clock in the morning on a Saturday. So, ideally that controller can provide different timing plans based on different traffic flows throughout the day. And that controller has an internal time clock. But what happens is, is over time that time clock tends to float based on power fluctuations. That’s pretty typical for any clock that’s plugged in. But generally it’s not a big deal if you have a clock that says 7:01 instead of 7:00. But if you’ve got a lot of signals that are running coordination plans, it’s very important that those time clocks be absolutely synchronized. Because if you start getting a float of more than about five seconds that can have a severe negative impact on the effectiveness of your coordination plan. So, just as an example. If you’re driving west on Shawnee Mission Parkway and you get to Goddard Street, you’re going west. You hit a green at Goddard. You want the signal at Nieman to turn green about ten seconds later and then at Flint ten seconds after that and Quivira ten seconds after that and so on. If you’ve got 10 or 15 seconds to float or if you get to a minute of float, that essentially ruins your coordination timing plan. And so in order to implement those on a lot of our arterials throughout the City, we need to really look at expanding our network and making sure we have interconnect to a lot of our signalized locations.

In addition to that, having this interconnect also gives us the ability to do a lot more proactive maintenance. For instance right now over this last weekend at Renner and Midland we had a signal go on flash. And when that happens we’re kind of dependent on a City employee or a member of the public to call us. And then we have someone on call that will go out and take care of the issue. Sometimes that’s not -- there’s not a big lag in timing there. But if we had the signal go on flash or if there’s an ice storm and the signal loses power in the middle of the night, sometimes it can be several hours before we get a notification that something need to be done out there. Well, if we have signal interconnect to that -- those individual locations, we can actually monitor the signal status. And if something happens, if the signal goes on flash or if we lose power, an automated alert can be sent to the right party. They can go out and address that tissue immediately as opposed to, you know, waiting to hear from someone else. On the same -- in the same vein, if we have a detector malfunctioning, sometimes those can be a little hit and miss and tough to diagnose unless you’re really out an intersection for a long period of time watching traffic. But if we have this interconnect we can monitor all of our detectors at our signalized locations and say, well, at this location they had a detector that was on from two a.m. from five a.m. We know that there’s no traffic out there, so we must have an issue. So, having interconnect gives us the ability to, whether it be signal status or monitoring detectors, it gives us the ability to really take a more proactive approach in what we’re doing in terms of maintenance.

And the final item I wanted to discuss was just harvesting data from those signalized intersections. The locations that we currently have interconnect to, and I’ll use Shawnee Mission Parkway and Quivira as an example. We actually have the ability using a split logger tool to go in and see how much green time a certain movement used for every cycle at any point during the day. So, if I wanted to go back at Shawnee Mission Parkway and Quivira and see how much green time the eastbound left turn needed yesterday from five to six p.m., I can go back and see exactly how much time it used every cycle. So, that gives us a lot of power in how we fine-tune our signal timing. Let’s say we have 20 seconds for that eastbound left turn and we see on average we’re only using 15 seconds every cycle, we can probably take that five extra seconds and give it to another movement that may need it. Conversely, if we have that same 20 seconds and we see that traffic is maxing that out every single cycle, we know that, hey, we probably need to give some more time there. Maybe we need to take it away from something else. So, those are just a few of the reasons that we’re really looking to expand our interconnect network through the more signalized locations.

And we’ve actually been partnering with Unite to do that right now and install some fiber width in the City. And this is going to have some other applications just signal timing. But we’re actually looking at connecting to another ten locations. And we have this connectivity in place right now. There’s still some additional equipment we need to basically get everything up and running. And I’ll discuss that in a moment. But we’re making progress in the right direction. After we get all these locations done we’ll be up to 24 out of the 61 total locations within the City.

So, that being said I still think we have a ways to go. This graph just indicates where some of our neighbors are at. Olathe, Lenexa and Overland Park have between 92 and 98 percent of their signalized locations with interconnect so they have all the capabilities that I discussed earlier. Right now we’re at about 23 percent. And once we kind of get all these new locations online, we’ll move up to about 40 percent. So, we’re definitely moving in the right direction, but we still have some room to grow in my opinion to bring more locations online. And that’s kind of where I see us moving forward.

So, in order to make this happen there are several things that we need. One, this first item says Cobalt is an example of a signal controller. We’ve got about 35 of our 61 signalized intersections that have signal controllers that are relatively up to date. And we’ve got about 25 that are a little older. And the issue with that is a lot of that times that software it just starts to get antiquated and it doesn’t communicate well with these new software systems that are used to control these signals. And kind of the example I’ve used in the past is like running Windows 95 operating system on your laptop. You can probably get it to work, but it’s not going to work very well with a lot of the other software that’s out there. So, we’re currently in the process of updating all our signal controllers and we’re hoping to have that done next year ideally.

In addition to that we also need to have obviously some kind of connectivity, whether it be fiber or wireless. Now, IT has a city-wide kind of fiber master plan, but that’s unfunded at this point. And so I’m going to be working with them as we move forward to kind of determine what are our priority corridors that we want to get connectivity to. We know we can’t do everything at once. We don’t have the financing, or we don’t have the funding to do that. So, what are our top priorities and how are we going to make that happen. That’s going to be part of this plan and we’re going to kind of flush out the details as necessary.

And then the third item up here is just an example of a network switch. And this is basically what the fiber plugs into and then you run that into your controller. And so that basically allows you to have network security on your system.

[What do we need? slide]
And this is the final item. This is a screen shot from TransSuite, which is a central signal system software that Operation Green Light uses. So, every dot that you see on here is a location that’s currently online and that’s part of the OGL network. And we’re very fortunate that we’re part of the OGL cooperative agreement because we’re going to be able to kind of hop on their network license free of charge once we have all this connectivity that I’ve been talking about. And if we purchased this as a standalone system this would probably be at least six figures, maybe up to 200,000. So, this is a big cost savings for the city and really kind of the final piece of the puzzle once we get everything else taken care. So, that’s really what I have in mind on the traffic operations side.

[Safety Analysis - Vehicle Crash Patterns slide]
The next item I want to talk about is safety analysis and looking at crashes. And when I talk about this I mean our first priority when we’re looking at crashes is always that we want our citizens to be safe and are traveling from A to B. We want them to be able to make it home safe, so that’s our first priority. But we also know that anytime there’s a crash that has a negative effect on traffic. If two vehicles are stopped in a lane that roadway has reduced capacity. And even if they’re off to the side people often slow down to see what’s going on. So, as we move forward we’re going to make sure on a yearly basis that we’re doing a good job analyzing all of our crash data either on a three year or a five year rolling period.

And this is an example from 2011 on a spreadsheet that we did. And on the top the spreadsheet are intersections you would expect a lot of crashes, Shawnee Mission Parkway and Nieman, Shawnee Mission Parkway and Pflumm, Shawnee Mission Parkway and Quivira. And so we’re going to have a lot of locations where our crash rate is correlated to the amount of traffic we have going through the intersection.

[Crash Countermeasures slide}
But really what we want to look at in addition to that is are there outliers. Are there places where we’re having a lot more crashes than we would expect based on the amount of traffic that’s going through that location. And those are going to be the locations that we start looking at and trying to determine if there any vehicle crash patterns. And if so, what are we going to do to address those. For instance we may have -- we may have a location where we have a lot of collisions at night. A simple solution to that is to say, hey, do we want to install some additional lights out here to make this intersection more clear to drivers and help address that. We may have an intersection in a neighborhood where people are running stop signs and we may go out and say, well, we have foliage that’s growing over stop sign or the stop sign may be faded. Those are all countermeasures that we’ll be developing in response to our crash analysis.

And so when it comes to signing, pavement marking, lighting or clearance intervals, I kind of describe those as low cost countermeasures. We’ll also be looking at countermeasures that are more high cost. An example of that may be that if we’ve got a -- let’s say we’re at an intersection and we don’t have a left turn lane and people are turning left from the thru-lane and we have rear-end collisions because they’re stopped in that left lane and they’re getting run into. We may say, well, we don’t have the funding for it right now, but in the future it would definitely be nice to have a left turn lane at this location.

So, we’re going to have a lot of needs here and we certainly won’t have the funding for everything. But what we want to do is make sure we have a plan in place. So, if we have a CIP project come along or there’s safety funding that becomes available, we have a list that says, okay, these are our worst locations and this is what we need to do to fix them.

[Why do we need a Traffic ADA Transition Plan slide]
So, the next item on our plan will be a traffic component to our ADA transition plan.

And just to give you a little background on this. Back in 1992, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. And that was basically a federal civil rights law and mandated that people with disabilities have access to all buildings that were open to the public. So, a part of that there were a bunch of regulations that came out of that law and they were also mandated that cities come up with a transition plan to determine when they were able to -- when they would be able to upgrade all of their facilities to make sure they were in compliance with the law. Well, like I said, there were a lot of regulations that came out of that. But what happened was there were quite a few gaps in the regulations. And so actually in 2005, there was a new set of guidelines that came out that really addressed a lot of things relevant to traffic and at signalized intersections. And that was a draft document known as the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines or PROWAG. So, that came out in 2005. There was a subsequent revision in 2007 and then another revision in 2011, and it’s still actually in draft form. And I touch base with FHWA almost every year and I always hear, well, it’s going to be finalized next year. So, I just heard that it’s supposed to be finalized in 2017, but I’m not holding my breath on that.

But the bottom line is we really need this plan because we want to make sure the city retains control of our transportation funding dollars. There have been instances in the Kansas City area where cities have not met ADA law and the Department of Justice has come in and they’ve entered into a consent decree which basically mandates how much funding the city has to spend to address these items every year. Those terms are usually a little onerous and that’s something we definitely want to avoid.

So, part of this plan will be really to determine what guidelines are going to moving -- we’re going to be using moving forward. And really the issue at hand is that since PROWAG is still in draft form, it’s kind of considered a best practice moving forward.

So, any new design we’re doing we’re going to be using PROWAG. But the issue really comes into play. Anything that was built after 1992 and may not PROWAG, when did PROWAG start to become an acceptable standard. So, that’s just a detail that we need to get in and figure out. And you talk to, you know, five or ten different traffic engineers you’ll get five or ten different answers. So, we’re going to do our best as part of this plan to eliminate a lot of that ambiguity and really figure out what our standard is going to be moving forward.

[What does a Traffic ADA Transition Plan consist of slide]
Once we’ve determined that standard the next step is really going to be going around the city and documenting any deficiencies we may see. After we have that list we’re just going to be developing cost estimates and ranking potential improvements. When we’re ranking improvements anything that’s next to a school or maybe a senior living facility or if we get any special requests from the public those locations are generally going to be moved higher on the list. Any location where we may have a lot of pedestrians that may or may not be able-bodied.

After we have a list of everything and cost estimates we need to come up with basically a reasonable timeline to address all those. And at that point it’s just about working your plan. So, we’ll just look for opportunities to address all those issues, either with projects from the CIP or if we have signal replacement projects or even part of the mill and overlay program as applicable.

[Public Involvement slide]
So, the final item that I want to talk about tonight is public involvement. Since this was number 2 on the Shawnee Citizen Satisfaction Survey, it’s something that’s obviously important to the public. And we just don’t want to come up with kind of some top down improvements without getting a lot of input from what people have to say. I mean when it comes to these types of items the public generally has a lot of ideas and we want to make sure that we incorporate that into our overall plan.

So, as we’re working through and kind of flushing out the details of this plan I will be working with the City’s Communications Manager to really look for opportunities to reach out to the public, get their input on these items. There may be some items that may from a traffic engineer’s perspective might not be as high up on my list, but it may be very important to the public. And so if that happens, we want to make sure those are incorporated into the plan as necessary.

[Traffic Improvement Plan slide
So, just in summary, this plan was basically developed in response to the 2015 Shawnee Citizen Survey and the results that came out of that. And we’ve really got a four-pronged approach that we’re going to be looking at. Traffic signal operation, safety, traffic input into our ADA transition plan and public involvement. And we’re still kind of at the beginning strategic stage of this plan. And so as details, as those details continue to flush themselves out we’ll continue to keep the Council informed about kind of what our plans are and what we’re planning on doing moving forward.

At that point I’d be happy to answer any questions.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, Kevin. Are there any questions from the Council? Eric?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Not really a question, Kevin. I just want to say I think this looks really great and I think it’s good we’re getting our head wrapped around this thing by coming up with a good plan. So, I think some yeoman’s work has been done and I appreciate it. Thank you.

MR. MANNING: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I agree. Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I guess I just have a comment in reference to fiber optic cable versus radios. You know, if we have fiber optic cable in the ground, great. I don’t think it’s in the same economical factor with radios. So, I think you’d probably do -- for what we’ve already spent on fiber optic cable we probably could have done every intersection in the city with radios. So, I would just recommend that you look at that really closely.

MR. MANNING: Yeah. I mean that’s really the tradeoff. I mean fiber optic is always going to be much more expensive. Generally the bandwidth and reliability are going to be superior. The opposite end to wireless radios is, you know, not as reliable and certainly don’t have the bandwidth, but generally it’s going to be a big cost savings. So, that’s, you know, it’s not going to be necessarily one size fits all, but we’re going to definitely look at what’s going to be the most cost effective option and what we can really get done with the funds that we have.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And we’re really not transmitting a lot of data.

MR. MANNING: Yes. And part of this too is I’m coming this from purely a traffic perspective. The City has other needs. Police and Fire have other interests that may involve transmitting a lot more data. So, all those things will have to be taken into consideration and we’re all working together with IT to make sure all the City’s needs are met on that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Any other discussion from the Council? All right. Thank you, Kevin. Is there anyone in the audience who like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none. This was for informational purposes only. So, thank you again.

4. DISCUSS THE 2017 STATE LEGISLATIVE PLAN.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The fourth item is to discuss the 2017 State Legislative Program. Assistant City Manager Nolan Sunderman will present information about the issues and priorities for the 2017 State Legislative Program. Welcome, Nolan. As you come up I understand that it is your 21st birthday perhaps?

MR. SUNDERMAN: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, I’m glad you’re spending it here with us.

MR. SUNDERMAN: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Congratulations. I’m sure we can get someone to sing Happy Birthday for you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Happy Birthday.

MR. SUNDERMAN: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: See, there you go.

(Off Record Talking)

MR. SUNDERMAN: So, we’ll go ahead and get started. Thank you for that. We have a few new faces in this year’s legislative delegation. Returning we have Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook as well as Representative Linda Gallagher. New faces this year we have Representative Tom Cox, Representative Cindy Neighbor as well as Representative Shelee Brim. So, that’s kind of the delegation for this upcoming year. Just kind of wanted to give you an idea of those districts in case you’re not aware. 17 is Representative Tom Cox, 18 there to the right is Representative Cindy Neighbor, 23 there just below that, that northern section, is Representative Linda Gallagher, and then 39 out west is Representative Shelee Brim. And then of course this is the senate district that covers a majority of Shawnee and some additional adjoining cities there.

So, just to kind of give you an idea of the agenda development process and how we got here. We not only look at legislation that has been approved and introduced the last couple of years prior, we also work with other cities, Johnson County, as well as the League, Chamber who is here this evening as well, and then get input from staff and then Council.

So, items on the horizon, as the legislature comes in they have a $350 million budget shortfall, so obviously that will be a major topic of discussion. We also have education and what a new funding formula will look like for K through 12, as well as a potential discussion on Medicaid expansion.

And so the draft sections this evening, we have Home Rule, Finance and Taxation, Open Government, Economic Prosperity, Human Services, Public Employees, and then we’ll also kind of discuss whether we want to keep the Public Safety section as well.

HOME RULE
So, the first section is Home Rule. So, we have a general statement basically in favor of Home Rule, a discussion about the repeal of the tax lid. Absent that repeal, this is kind of the change for this year. Absent that repeal of the tax lid we would look at moving to a petition process similar to a charter ordinance. We also have the limits on appraised valuation growth as well as unfunded mandates.

So, I’d stop just with that first section if there’s any questions on the Home Rule section. Okay.

FINANCE AND TAXATION
The next section is Finance and Taxation. So, we have Sales Tax Exemption, Statutory Pass-Through Funding, and the Tax Base Policy. Really with the Statutory Pass-Through Funding, Topeka deals with the state budget shortfall. We want to make sure those funds continue to come to Shawnee. And really the motor fuel tax and the alcoholic liquor tax, I believe that’s a little over $2 million to the city.

So, any questions on Finance and Taxation? Okay.

OPEN GOVERNMENT
The next section is Open Government. We’ve had a couple of pieces of legislation introduced the last few years. We wanted to make sure this stayed on in terms of how we have our ability to communicate with legislators and other levels of government, our ability to lobby as well as any potential changes to the Open Meetings and Open Records Act.

PUBLIC SAFETY
The next section is Public Safety. As you all know it took us a couple of years, but we were able to get the Metro Law Enforcement Mutual Aid bill that was finally passed. It took a little longer than I think we expected, but that did go through. That leaves us with no really specific piece of legislation in this year’s section. And so Councilmember Kenig has offered a suggestion and I’ll go ahead and --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. So, just to comment on this. My thought was, you know, in light of a lot of recent national events and the fact that public safety is going to continue to be a challenge for us as a growing city, I think it’s incumbent to have maybe a statement that alludes to having continued cooperation and collaboration with KHP and KBI and just having that as a statement in there. So, not necessarily pointing to specific policy proposals or funding mechanisms, but just acknowledging the fact that that inter-agency cooperation and collaboration is key for us as a growing city and to combat, you know, many of the issues we face with active shooter investigations, terrorism and all of those related incidents that have come up throughout the year in our state and then other states as well.

So, definitely open to discussion on that, but I just felt strongly we should include this as an addition.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think it’s great.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I don’t have a problem with that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you.

MR. SUNDERMAN: The next section is Economic Prosperity.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: If we’re still on the public safety.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d be interested in seeing this addressed, the public safety, from the standpoint from the emergency management function as well and our connection with the state and the inter-relationships between city-county-state as far as how they’re all going to be tied together through perhaps the employment of exercises or at least tabletops or something, so we get municipalities and make sure we’re all on the same page. I think that would be a good goal. I don’t know how well that would play out as far as actually getting it done. But I think we -- it’s a reasonably stated objective to say, hey, we’d like to be fully integrated top down in our emergency management function.

MR. SUNDERMAN: I don’t know if there’s proposed language or if the Fire Chief or Police Chief have any comments.

POLICE CHIEF MOSER: I’m sure we can come up with something.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just something that kind of keeps it all -- try to keep it all tied together and actually the inter-relationships so that they’re active and even perhaps looking forward toward and exercise or whatever so that when we do have to deal with a significant emergency management situation there’s all these open channels of communication and things are already there. It’s well established. It’s been tested.

MR. SUNDERMAN: In the proposed language it says, “The City encourages support and cooperation of public safety partners.” Would it work if we said emergency management partners? Kind of the same line of thought, or would you like it a completely separate topic?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: This one seems to be very much looking at law enforcement. And it’s kind of different really. So, I think maybe a separate section on that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I could just recommend that Eric work with, you know, staff to come up with something between now and the City Council meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Brandon.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I was just going to add one thing. Yeah. And I think Eric’s language would probably be a little more detailed, would feed well coming directly below, you know, this statement, kind of as a more general statement. But I also just want to acknowledge and thank, you, Nolan, for working with me on this language ensuring that it was kind of inclusive of all of our public safety needs. So, thank you.

MR. SUNDERMAN: Chief Moser helped us, too.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And Chief Moser, too. So, everybody that helped out thank you.

ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
MR. SUNDERMAN: The next section is Economic Prosperity. So, no changes in this section. Really the transportation question and how those funds will be allocated. You know, we’ve had a number of projects that have been delayed across the state. It’s not only the immediate term of transportation funding, but also the potential for another long-range transportation plan and whether that will occur. And then education funding as you all know, with the discussion of a new funding formula.

HUMAN SERVICES
The next section is Human Services. And obviously we’ve seen an impact with the recent hire of a mental health co-responder for the city. And so we’ve seen those impacts here at the local level and so we’ve continued to maintain these statements in our agenda as well.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
And then the last section is public employees. So, we’re keeping the KPERS statement on there. KPERS funding will continue to be a discussion and how those funds are allocated at the state level and whether it becomes fully funded. We don’t believe we’ll have the accrued leave issue and some of the more details that came up in the last couple years and the battles that we fought with kind of more the HR policies and how much leave a city could offer. But we’re keeping the KPERS statement planning too on the legislative agenda.

And that’s it. Unless you guys have any further discussions we plan to fast track this item to the December 12th Council meeting. The session begins on January 9th, so we’ll be working to meet with our Shawnee delegation between now and then to make sure they’re aware of our positions on these issues and then we’ll be providing updates throughout the session.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I do have one, less about this, but a more speculative question. I’ve heard regarding the property tax lid there is going to be some effort maybe by the municipalities or counties, I’m not sure whom, to kind of include more exclusions to take out some of the teeth of it rather than a full repeal. I don’t know if we’ve heard anything about that.

MR. SUNDERMAN: Yeah. I think they’re working to potentially talk about adding some exemptions. You know, we would hope that would occur. Then also with that petition process versus going to a mandatory election right away. We hope that will kind of decrease the strength of it a little bit.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion from the Council? Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I just have a concern on some of the things we have in here, whether they should be in here or not. I mean, most of them are pretty, don’t really harm anything particularly, but things like education. I mean obviously you all want education, but what’s the City Governing Body’s role in education? That is clearly a state issue. And at the local level it’s the school board in conjunction with the state school board. I’m just wondering why it’s in here. I mean, it doesn’t hurt anything necessarily, but, you know, that’s not really in our purview to push through the -- through our elected representatives I didn’t think. The other ones are probably going to be something like human service support. I don’t really know where we’re coming from on that either. I mean, I don’t think it -- I guess it’s not bad to say we support that stuff. But I mean it’s kind of really kind of outside of our lanes to a certain extent.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would, if you would want to make a comment, Nolan, feel free. I would counter that I think there is value in everything that we have here. And from an education perspective, you know, it’s the cornerstone of Johnson County, certainly of the communities here. I think it’s vitally important to the cites in Johnson County and Johnson County as a whole that we maintain a quality education system to keep businesses coming in, to keep residents here, to keep the county moving forward. I think that’s very important. And in terms of human services, I think there’s a very real cost. I mean, we’re talking about mental health cuts with this funding deficit that we have. That’s just one example of a way in which a city could be really directly impacted by human services supports and there are many, many others.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know, I don’t think we’re on the same track together, but that’s not unusual.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, I’m not trying to be offensive.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ll just say nobody said we don’t like education. I mean, that was ridiculous.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I didn’t --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean, of course we support education. But I’m saying is that really a City Governing Body function. Yes or no. And I would definitely say no it isn’t. Do we favor quality education? Absolutely we do. And there are organizations that they’re in place to make that happen. And if we want to just stand on the sidelines and be cheerleaders I think that’s great. Let’s all say, yeah, we want great education. But is that an item that we’re seeking through our state legislated process as a Governing Body?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, I would say that it is, Eric. And excuse me --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: In fact, I prefaced my comments by saying I don’t think anything in here is damaging.

[Banging gavel]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric, stop. I was not finished. And I would say that nobody is saying -- nobody is saying that we have to agree on it. What we could do if you feel that strongly about it is we could go down and we could vote item by item on whether or not it makes it into the platform if you want that strongly for your vote to be recommended that you don’t support the City supporting these items. That’s completely within your purview. If you would like to do that, I would be happy to accommodate you with that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, yeah. I think I would like us to go through it one by one because otherwise you throw the baby out with the bath water by just saying no.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And there’s some things you -- you don’t want to just necessarily throw it all out by saying no. So, by doing that at least you could express where you stand on specific parts of this.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I think that I would just want to remind everyone that we should do that respectfully as we go through these policy positions. That a lot of staff members, a lot of community members, a lot of work has gone into this. That perhaps we have a difference of opinion. And in that case feel free to vote against that plank on the platform. But in the end we’re all going to be voting on whatever the overall platform is that comes through. So, I am happy to go down the list and vote on all of those.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I have a comment. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in here, but I don’t know that we have to go down each individual item and vote.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I don’t think we need to go down [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Should we take a vote whether we should vote?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. We should take a vote on whether we should vote. That’s a great idea, Jeff. All right. So, I’m going to go ahead and do a vote on whether or not we should do an item by item vote as it were on each plank of our city platform.
[Councilmembers talking off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: -- Finance and Taxation.

[Councilmembers talking off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think it would have to be -- yeah. I think it would have to be each individual item. That would be my assumption. So, I guess I would accept a motion that we vote on whether to vote on the planks of the platform.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Do I have second?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. All those in favor say aye.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Nay.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to vote on the 2017 state legislative platform items individually. The motion carried 7-1, with Councilmember Pflumm voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Well, we’re voting on the items then. All right. Let’s get this party started. Okay.

First up, we will have a vote on Home Rule Authority. And this will be -- an aye vote will be to keep it in the platform to be clear. Home Rule Authority, all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. All right. Home Rule Authority stays.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Home Rule in the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Repeal the Property Tax Lid and Maintain Local Control Revenue and Spending. All those in favor aye.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, JENKINS, KEMMLING: Nay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I have three nays. That would be Councilmember Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling.
[Therefore, the motion was made to repeal the Property Tax Lid and Maintain Local Control Revenue and Spending in the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Limits on Appraised Valuation Growth. All those in favor of maintaining that in the platform, aye.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, JENKINS, KEMMLING: Nay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I have three nay. And that is Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep the Limits on Appraised Valuation Growth in the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 5-3, with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Non-Partisan Municipal Elections. To retain this item, all those in favor say aye.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, KEMMLING: Nay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I have two nays. That is Councilmember Pflumm and Kemmling.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Non-Partisan Municipal Elections as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 6-2; with Councilmembers Pflumm and Kemmling voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Unfunded Mandates. To maintain this in the platform, all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. All right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I meant to say aye. Sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’ll go with that. All right.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Unfunded Mandates as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sales Tax Exemption. To maintain that in the platform all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Okay.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Sales Tax Exemptions as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Statutory Pass-Through Funding. To maintain that in the platform all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. All right.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep the Statutory Pass-Through Funding as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0. ]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Tax Base Policy. To maintain that in the platform all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Okay.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep the Tax Base Policy as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Intergovernmental communication. To maintain that in the platform all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Okay.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Intergovernmental Communication as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Kansas Open Records and Open Meetings Act. To maintain that in the platform, all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Okay.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep the Kansas Open Records and Open Meetings Act as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The new public safety language. And I will take just Brandon’s piece of it first. To add that to the platform, all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.
[Therefore, the motion was made to incorporate Councilmember Kenig’s language into the Public Safety portion of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The new language to be drafted regarding emergency management in the platform, to add that to the platform pending the drafting of that language. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Okay.
[Therefore, the motion was made to incorporate, once drafted, Emergency Management language to the Public Safety portion of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Economic Development. To maintain that plank in the platform all those in favor say aye.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. We have one nay and it’s Councilmember Kemmling.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Economic Development as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 7-1, with Councilmember Kemmling voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Transportation. To maintain that in the plank of the platform, all those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Okay.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Transportation as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Education. To maintain that in the platform, all those in favor say aye.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, JENKINS, KEMMLING: No.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I have three nays and it is Councilmember Jenkins, Kemmling and Pflumm.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Education as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 5-3, with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Human Services Support. To maintain that in the platform, all those in favor say aye.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS JENKINS, KEMMLING: Nay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I have two nays. It’s Kemmling and Jenkins.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Human Services Support as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 6-2, with Councilmembers Jenkins and Kemmling voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Adequate State Psychiatric Hospital Resources. I feel like this is a yes now. All those in favor of maintaining that in the platform say aye.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. One nay is Councilmember Kemmling.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep the Adequate State Psychiatric Hospital Records as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 7-1, with Councilmember Kemmling voting no.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And lastly, Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS). All those in favor of maintaining that plank in the platform, please say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oppose nay. All right. We made it through. Okay.
[Therefore, the motion was made to keep Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) as part of the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other discussion from the Council? Okay. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, staff is recommending this item be forwarded to the December 12, 2016 City Council meeting for consideration by the Governing Body. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I have a motion and a second on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. One nay is Councilmember Kemmling. The motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to forward to the Governing Body the 2017 state legislative platform. The motion carried 7-1, with Councilmember Kemmling voting no.]

5. REVISIONS TO POLICY STATEMENT PS-7, CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The final item is to Discuss Revisions to Policy Statement PS-7, Conduct of Public Meetings.

Councilmember Jenkins requested revisions to PS-7 to allow one spokesperson for a neighborhood or group a longer period of time to speak for a specific issue. In addition, the Mayor also recommended including language related to individuals reading letters on behalf of others. City Manager Gonzales and City Clerk Powell are available for questions.

Councilmember Jenkins, did you have any introductory comments?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I could make some introductory comments. What the purpose of this is, is to address situations that we ran into very -- not in the distant past with the Vantage Apartments where there were a large number of people who wanted to discuss the issue with the City Council and to express their opinions and concerns and so on. And our current method in our policy statement is to allow five minutes for someone to get up and say what their concerns are about any given project. And watching that whole process transpire it became obvious that, wow, when you do these five-minute increments, all you get is a lot of disjointed comments and you get a lot of emotion and you get a lot of stuff going on, but you don’t really get a very cogent picture of what’s the concern. And that’s why I approached Stephen Powell and Carol Gonzales on it, you know, it would be good -- and these aren’t something that happens all the time. We really don’t deal with these very large public pushbacks on a regular basis. It’s an occasional thing. But when we do have one I thought it would be nice to have some kind of process where the citizenry could present a cogent argument on why they oppose that development. And in so doing I sat down with Carol and we drafted out a little bit of language here. And it’s in the packet I think. But it says, when a development project being considered by the Governing Body that will impact a specific neighborhood, the Council will allow public input to be provided in a different manner than the usual five-minute increments. In lieu of the individual comments, residents in the area may form a group by submitting an Application to the City Clerk to be recognized as a Development Interest Group for the purpose of public comment at a public meeting. The minimum number of individuals needed to form a development interest group is 12. The application will include signatures and addresses of all the members that are in opposition and a statement with no financial interest will designate the spokesperson for the group. In other words, if they’re wanting to kill it because they got a better deal and they’re trying to make money on this they wouldn’t -- that wouldn’t be a reason. It would be -- it would have to be they’d have to sign a statement where they had no financial interest specifically in that property. The Group may prepare a formal presentation and/or consolidated comments. Written comments should be presented to the City Clerk by 12 p.m. on the Thursday prior to the meeting for distribution to the Council with their Council Agenda Packet. At that meeting, the Spokesperson for the Group would be able to speak for up to one hour. All members of the group would be in effect ceding their five minutes of time, 12 times 5 is 60, (as described in (a)–(c) above) to the Spokesperson and would not be allowed to make further comments at the meeting. In other words, their five minutes are included in that. So, they’re not going to be able to do all that and then come up in a parade and get a whole bunch more five minutes and emotional vitriol. However, other people in the room that are not part of that group would certainly still be entitled to their normal five minutes because not being a recognized group does not disenfranchise them from being able to make a statement. And addendum we’d like to add to that is perhaps the spokesman for the group need not be a member of the group, but could be an outside specialist who has entered into an agreement with the group to represent them. They may hire an attorney or an accountant or an engineer, a consultant or somebody like that to speak for them and prepare their presentation for example.

I also thought it may not be a bad idea to think in terms of each side should be limited to a ten-minute rebuttal if the developer responds to the presentation. So, I wouldn’t like to see a situation where the developer would get up and he would slam the presentation and maybe make statements that weren’t even fair and the group would not have a chance to reclaim from that. So, we could possibly look at a way that they could also speak again if the developer would put out some additional information. And that in a nutshell is it. I’m not sure the language is exactly correct. It’s a first short that Carol and I put together hoping that this would be a departure point for discussing this and coming up with something that would work real well for these once in a while, but very difficult situations.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, Eric. I appreciate the effort. I think it’s a good idea to find a way to consolidate some of these comments. I think I had Jim and then Dan and then Brandon.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. Yeah. I read through this with interest and since I’ve been on. Okay. I turned it on. So, I read through this with interest and I think it’s a good idea in principal. Since I’ve been on the Council the last six years, this is the 12th time we have visited PS-7. We keep working on it. I think we keep getting it better. It keeps us transparent and things. I drafted a little something, and if, Stephen, I could have you put that up. Just some changing and wording from where Eric was going with. One of the issues I have of the term using a development project, I have a very difficult time using the term development and putting it into policy when it could be conceived as negative by developers around. We also have had in this last year, although we certainly had the Vantage thing, we’ve had train horns. We’ve had smells from the landfill. There was something else going on. So, we come to these situations of oftentimes where there are a number of people that would like to speak, but then as Eric said they get up and they seem to be disjointed. So, I think the idea of, and I use the term public interest group for subject XYZ because it’s more general and fits and then it could be done. And then, you know, just to go through it says, my wording was, and again, this is not the where all, but it would be my thoughts on this. When there is an issue on the agenda to be considered by the Governing Body that will impact a specific Shawnee area, the Council will allow public input to be provided in a different manner. In lieu of individual comments, Shawnee residents,” and I think it’s important that we’re talking about residents and we’ve talked about this before about having people come from some other place. But anyway, “Shawnee residents in the affected area may form a group by submitting an application to the City Clerk to be recognized as a public interest group for XYZ for the purpose of the public comment, either pro or con, on the designated issue XYZ at a public meeting. The minimum number of Shawnee residents needed to form the public interest group is 12. The applicant will include the signatures, addresses, no financial interest and designate a spokesperson. The group may prepare a formal presentation or consolidated comments. And then again, the written comments are to the Clerk on the Thursday prior to the meeting for distribution to the Council and inclusion in the Council -- in the posting of the Council agenda packet. At the meeting the spokesperson for the group would be able to speak for up to 12 minutes on the designated issue. All members of the group would be in effect ceding their time as described in (a) to (c) above to the spokesperson and their prepared comments and would not be allowed to make further comment on this subject at the meeting. But if there’s another subject obviously they would be able to do that. I think it’s important -- oftentimes we see people come up and read and we will hear the same thing two or three or four times again from the same person. I think we put a time limit on it so that their presentation is thought out, cogent, and get their point across because otherwise, you know, if we have an hour from four or five different groups we’d be here until two or three in the morning and basically it’s a rehash of much of the same stuff. That’s my thought.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, Jim. So, it sounds like sort of an amendment to the initial language, the changes would be just expanding it to a general issue instead of a developer, which I think is a good idea. And then you changed the time to 12 minutes total from an hour.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Great. All right. Eric and then I’ll let him jump in and comment and then -- yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’m fine with changing the development interest group. That was just something we put in there just to get a starting point, and then we can call it whatever we want and whatever everybody agrees with is fine with me. I do want to push back on the 12-minute limitation. I think that’s inadequate to do what we’re talking about. So, it’s, I mean, why bother, 5 minutes, 12 minutes. I mean, I don’t think that’s enough time to really put together a really comprehensive PowerPoint presentation or something along those lines, a professional type of a presentation. So, I would have to push back on the 12-minute limitation. The other suggestions I didn’t have any trouble with at all.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Thank you. All right. Dan and then Brandon and then Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, just first off, I’ve never been in favor of time limits. Okay. It’s really kind of up to the individual running the meeting to whether they’re providing pertinent information and then stopping them. You know, so I don’t agree with your 12 minutes. Sixty minutes is really reasonable. Twelve people, I’m not necessarily in favor of that. I think -- I don’t know what the number is, but 12 seems like a lot if you’ve got, you know, right now we give -- we allow, based on PS-7, five minutes and five minutes. So, that’s ten minutes per individual realistically. And I don’t know why the guy has to sit down and come back up for that five minutes right now either, so. But anyway, I just -- you’ve got some really good comments and Eric has thrown in some good comments. I would just say that, you know, I don’t agree with the 12 minutes on his end and I’m not necessarily in agreement with Eric’s development interest, so he’s agreed to change that already. Anyway, and then the number of individuals I don’t know that it has to be 12. I mean, that seems like a lot, but, you know, whatever.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I would just jump in quickly to say that I tend to agree with you that it’s hard from the purview of the person chairing the meeting to determine what is duplicative or, you know, the information I could feel like is not relevant, but that person who is getting up who is a resident of the city probably feels like it’s pretty darn relevant. So, I think it’s hard to have kind of an arbitrary sort of cut-off like that. So, I like what Eric -- the direction he’s going in so you can have better parameters around it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But I mean if there is -- if they’re just stating the same thing over and over and rambling on, it’s really up to the person that’s running the meeting too --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- you know what I mean, shut them down. And I did have one more thought, you know, that having all their information by Thursday, I don’t know that that’s realistic, you know what I mean? They may not even have that opportunity. You know, they may not know what’s being talked about the whole meeting until Thursday, okay. So, I don’t know that that’s really relevant. So, it would be great to have all that information before the meeting. But if they don’t get their packet until, you know, that time, how would they even know what to discuss. So, I just -- I don’t agree with that part.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think it’s a good question. I would guess that it mirrors what we’re asking the developer or Deffenbaugh or whomever the responding party on the other side is. So, if the developer will say in this case has to have their information for the PowerPoint to be included in the packet by Thursday at noon, it would make sense to have the sort of opposing side as it were have to follow the same guidelines.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Are we doing that for the developmental person, or whatever the issue is person? We’re requiring that they have their information in the packet? I mean we don’t -- the stuff tonight wasn’t in the packet, I mean, even tonight, so.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, all the information presented tonight was in the packet. The presentation documents themselves, but all the content was in the packet. I mean, this is a change. So, if we wanted to require that of both sides ahead of time we could. I think Eric’s and my thought was that that gives you all time to review that. Staff will have the packet materials, which in a lot of ways represents what the developer or the Deffenbaugh is going to say.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Whomever -- yeah.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But it wouldn’t be the same thing as one of them getting up to the podium answering questions. So, it is kind of -- I think Eric and I just thought it would be helpful a little time to look at it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. And we also, you know, for the developer you’ve got the entire site plan analysis. I mean, you know, the planning --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Which would have already been completed.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The Planning department did that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And the Planning Commission’s comments. So, you’ve got a lot of information there, but you don’t have any information on what the outside group was going to talk about. And my feeling was this isn’t really for those smaller in size projects that maybe don’t know about until Thursday before the meeting. These are meetings that -- these are situations where everybody has been raising hell about it for three months, you know, and now we’re coming to the meeting and they’ve got a way to really make a real presentation at that meeting. So, my focus was pretty much specifically on that and trying to contain it where it doesn’t get so open that we’re going to have hundreds of these groups forming and stuff and coming in here. I mean, I’d like to be able to focus specifically on those much more -- the ones where’s there’s a much more significant public outcry and there’s really an opportunity to address that issue and give them that opportunity and say there you go, let’s hear what you’ve got to say and have them make a real professional sort of presentation to the Council so we can really get a good feel for where they’re coming from, what it’s really all about. Because I think everybody here, and we’re kind of scratching our heads and we’re hearing all these five-minute emotional things and people are mad, they’re upset. But trying to put together what really is the issue, what are they really saying is kind of hard sometimes. And I think this would really facilitate that a great deal. So, like I say, I purposefully made it kind of light so that it would just fit certain kinds of situations or larger kinds of situations. If the Councilmembers want to make it broader and more open to allow more opportunities I’d be happy to listen to that. But this was kind of intentionally limited to this kind of format.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Brandon and then Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I really like this. The only concern that I had initially, and you actually addressed it in here, was ensuring that those who participate as part of a group forfeit their time individually, so that way you don’t have time being monopolized by one side that maybe doesn’t get to go to somebody else. You address that in here, so that’s great. And I think this helps streamline the way we conduct the meetings. And I think it also helps cut down on the redundancy and those that want to be able to plan out something can work together and have a very solid I think presentation that outlines everything so you don’t have, you know, an issue where you have some of the same things being said over and over and by the end of it you have people that are frustrated because they have something they want to add to that side that hasn’t been said because of all the time spent on some of the more redundant issues. I do agree with Councilmember Neighbor’s suggestion to make it a little bit more inclusive and open it up. I think that’s necessary to cover, you know, the broad spectrum of issues that may result in a lot of public input. And then the last thing I would add is I do think you would need a time limit just to be able to, you know, conduct the meetings appropriately. I think if you don’t have the time limit eventually you get a point where you get into redundancy and it does -- at the end of the day that’s time that’s taken away from somebody else whether it’s the opposing group or just somebody on the same side who wants to be able to add something of their own. And I’m not aware of any, you know, public meetings that are conducted that don’t have any type of time limits built in just to make sure it runs on time. I don’t know that -- I think 13 minutes is too short. But if there is, you know, 60 minutes or less, I wouldn’t go over 60 minutes. But if we could find something good between 30 and 60 minutes I think that that’s fair. And I think, too, maybe we have, you know, a provision that is a group that’s compiling and creating the presentation that they want to give and they find out that, you know, maybe they need more time that they can petition us for that and we can -- because every issue is going to be different that comes before us. And there’s going to be some issues that are going to be more complex and may need that additional time than others.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. I think Councilman Neighbor’s suggestion is a good one. I believe that we need to keep our standards even. You know, we require the City to give us our information by Thursday. We require other people to give it to us earlier to put it in the packet. If somebody wants to come up and bring up their suggestions, they need to give it to us up front just like we require everybody else. The time limit -- I was on the Planning Commission with Mr. Jenkins and we were in a meeting from seven o’clock one evening till 3:30 in the morning. And it was pretty redundant, but the wording kept being changed and it always came back around to the same thing. And I remember after the meeting we sat down and talked, and I believe you were one of them that said we’ve got to do something about this. You know, we can’t have the same thing over and over and over.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think it was more like 4:30, Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. It probably was.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because I went home and showered and went to work.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. But it was quite the evening. And the chair of the Planning Commission was allowing the people, but it was a, I mean, there were people standing all the way out in the parking lot. And they were taking turns just reiterating the same things in different words. And it was -- it was not productive. And so to have a 12 or 15-minute maximum we’re going to run into the same thing. And giving it an hour we’re opening it up to basically the same thing all over again. And we’re going to have five and six-hour meetings on some of this stuff. Well, people are going to be -- they’re going to have an hour that they can have a marathon, you know, with it. Saying the same thing over and over and over but in different words. I think if we cut it -- if we kept it, you know, go from 5 minutes to 12 -15 minutes I’m okay with that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Pardon?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Each individual has ten minutes.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Carol.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I might just point out in Paragraph (e), that very last sentence we kind of exclude this paragraph from the previous ones. But if we would want to say that (c) applied to this issue also and had a shorter time period, I mean, you could maybe 30 minutes. But then if a councilmember felt like that 30 minutes wasn’t enough, then they could make a motion similar to how we have done it in the past.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That’s doable.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think that seems -- a 30-minute or something seems logical. That way in case they’re not done --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I tend to agree with Mickey that if you set it at an hour, they might feel the need to fill an hour when maybe what they can say can be said in half that and allow ability to move on. I think I have Jeff and then Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No. And I was going to bring that up. I agree with Carol on that. You know, if someone has got some really interesting information we can obviously just keep extending their time like we can already. And we’ve talked about that as although extending every five minutes people lose their momentum. But an hour, I think you’re right. If you give somebody an hour, I mean, an hour is a long time. You can get pretty mundane in an hour. Now, if it’s very enlightening and they have great information and, you know, we keep renewing their timing, well, for now, I’m fine with that. I would say we could either do 30 -- even 30 minutes. I mean, you know, the most popular speaker series out there is TED Talks. And TED says that anything longer than an 18-minute talk is excessive. I mean, 17-18 minutes is what’s considered a good concise presentation that keeps people’s attention. You know, obviously the level of speaker is not coming forward, but I mean do we do, you know, even if we did 15 with 15-minute renewals up to an hour where we just take a vote real quick. Because obviously you could run into a little bit of, you know, a quasi-filibustering technique where someone is just going to know, you know, they have an hour and they’re just going to sit there and talk about whatever for an hour and just to talk and I don’t think we want to be subjected to that just because we passed a -- our policy says that. So, I would say on material, you know, we’re going digital. So, it’s not like, you know, it has to be printed on Thursday. I mean I don’t have a whole lot of heartburn over it and if they have it 24 hours before the meeting, which gives staff or even, you know, or 72 hours or something like that before the meeting, or not 72, 48 hours or 36 hours before the meeting.

(Off Record Talking)

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m thinking 24 hours or 36 hours. But, you know, if we had it in time, if it was given to us digitally where we have time to digest it and see it, I think the biggest, if I’m not mistaken, your point for having that is so that we have the material in front of us. So, if they’re going to be speaking for a long time we actually have the ability to review that material. You know, I don’t know if we, I mean, I don’t have a problem with -- as long as we have it within 24 hours, I think that gives us time to -- it’s not like we’re going to study it and memorize it, but it gives us time to look it over and see it. So, and I would say, you know, Eric kind of touched on this and I agree. This is going to be a pretty rare occasion. I mean we can put a whole lot into it, but the reality is, you know, I’ve been elected five years, or six years now, and I’m thinking I can’t think of probably a couple times where we’ve had that much, you know, involvement on any one issue where you’re going to have a group of people get together and do that. And there are typically like what we saw in Vantage, it’s going to be a pretty motivated group that’s going to come together and so it gives them an ability to get a spokesman and so I don’t have any heartburn with it. I would just, like I said, I don’t -- if someone says I think, you know, we could cap that and say, you know, no more than hour, but 15-minute segments and we just keep, you know, somebody can make the motion and renew, but obviously they’re just rambling on for 15 minutes about nothing. Do we want to listen to that for an hour and that’s all I ask.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: What about a hybrid of 30 minutes allotted time and two 15-minute extensions? I think I have Jim and then Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I just would, you know, this has been a real good discussion. I think we all agree we need something in place. Maybe it needs to be a little broader. But at this point in time is it appropriate to take the ideas we have here and, you know, I’d be, Eric, I’d be glad to meet with staff and things and hammer something out and get some more -- something a little more definitive and come back and go forward with it then.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No. I want something that’s going to good when we’re done.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Oh, I know.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t want something that’s just slopped together. Obviously Carol and I sat down we didn’t just slop it together, but we spent some time thinking about, but it was still basically throwing something up against the wall for discussion so it could be fleshed out here. That’s what this -- the purpose of this meeting frankly. But I would like to get back to this -- the time limit thing a little bit. It does, of course, say right in here up to one hour.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And the other thing is I think it’s kind of self-policing frankly because we’re asking them to provide us what they’re going to say at that meeting in advance. Okay. I think that’s a big deal that I’m going to have that and I’m going to look at it before the meeting and is that an hour’s worth or not. You know, and I mean they’ve only got an hour when they put that thing together. And I think that’s where you get -- you kind of kill some of this redundancy stuff because it’s not ad hoc, it’s not ad-libbing. They’ve got to prepare this presentation and make it available to us. So, that’s why I really don’t want to pinch it in too darn tight. I think giving them the hour leeway to work with, we see the packet. If it’s all a bunch of redundancy, then we’ll know that before we ever get there or we may even say something at the meeting that says, you know, we read the packet. I mean, come on this stuff we’d like to hear pages 1 through 15, but after that you’re just saying the same thing over and over again. I think we could probably police that. But it does give them that much time. Most of the time I don’t know why they’d even -- I think Jeff has got some valid points there. I don’t know why it’s going to even take them that long a lot of times. So, but that just kind of opens up if there is some sort of proposal that would take that much time to get a decent proposal together it’s there. We don’t have to jump through hoops and change things and make modifications. It’s allowed for. We’ve encompassed in our overall consideration.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I appreciate that. And I do think we want to make sure we’re giving them adequate time. I just think it’s kind of self-policing as well if we say something like 30 minutes and then we have an option of two 15-minute extensions. That way you’re still hypothetically getting an hour if you need it. But I just know how some of these presentations go here and everywhere. And if I’m given an hour I’m going to talk for an hour.

(Off Record Talking)

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You’re the one developing it. You got together with a group. You’re a consultant or an attorney or whatever in this case and you’re going to present this for them and you’ve been told you’ve got 30 minutes, you’re a professional. You’re going to prepare a 30-minute presentation. So, you’re going to have to throw out whatever you figure you don’t have time for. You’re just not going to be able to discuss that because you don’t have time. Because those people, I think we’re going to get some pretty professional presentation by doing this. And that’s why I really kind of hate saying we’re going to limit you to 30 minutes and go with this 15-15. That really screws up somebody that’s trying to present it to you in advance and have it all prepared. Do you see what I’m saying [inaudible; talking off mic]. That’s an issue. That’s where it comes back to haunt you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And I see now even with our five-minute rule I think people prepare for five minutes and consistently get to the end and say, shoot, I’ve written more than five minutes. I’m not exactly sure what five minutes is. I think there’s going to be some times when a group comes in and maybe doesn’t completely judge it. And if they fill it, you know, if they want to get to an hour and fill and hour and we feel like they’re filling it with redundant material, if we give them the initial time, cut-off, whatever it is, with some extensions, then we have a bit of an ability to police that as well. And I think, you know, a professional who is giving -- I’ve given presentations before recently. I think a professional giving a presentation isn’t going to be that thrown off by a quick motion to extend a presentation. I think that would be fine.

Dan, I think. Brandon, did you have your -- okay. You can fight it out.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve got a quick one. We’re talking 60, 30, I think we should just go with 45. Do we need to send this on to the Council or do we need to send --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Whatever you all want to do.

[Inaudible; Councilmembers talking over one another and off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, I think we have three things that we need to determine with this. One is the parameters of who falls into this group. And it sounds like everyone is agreeable to Jim’s broadened definition. Okay. So, that’s good. And the second I think is when material is due? And then the third would be the time they have to speak. So, Brandon and then Jeff.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. So, I was just going to echo what you just said, Council President. You know, I haven’t been on the Council as long as the rest of you, but I know the time that I have heard I haven’t heard a presentation that’s been 60 minutes, you know, even from a developer or from anybody else. And, you know, I think that even looking at staff presentations, you know, piecemeal those haven’t been 60 minutes unless you string those together. So, I do feel 60 minutes may be too much time. At the same time 12 to 15 minutes is not long enough because going off what Councilmember Jenkins said if you have a group that presents a very professional PowerPoint presentation that’s full of facts and statistics you want them to be able to do that seamlessly and 30 minutes is a good amount of time to do that without interruption. So, I do kind of favor the 30 minutes with the 15-minute extensions. I think less than 30 minutes if there’s interruptions or if we cut them off and if they ask for other time they don’t have that flow to their presentation and it can be kind of detrimental, so I support the 30 minutes because I think that’s a solid time frame to be able to give a presentation. And then if there’s questions on it that can come from us and from others after.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ve got an idea on that if we could just --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I had Jeff first and then you, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, I’m sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No, you’re fine.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And actually whether -- I’m fine with 30 minutes, then doing 15-minute extensions if we have to. And just something to think about and where you come up with your number, you’re just stating because there’s 12 people and they each have five and you multiply out. But I mean that’s the assumption is that you have 12 people with 12 different things to say. They’re going to come up and each five-minute block is something totally different than what the former person said, which we all know never happens. Typically you have 12 people saying the exact same thing. And so if you use that logic, then you could, you know, one person could come up and basically cover 12 people in five minutes and say the same thing. Obviously our point is to get one person expand on that a little bit. And I’m fine with that. I think, you know, let’s do -- I can get on board with 30 minutes. I mean, that’s, I mean, you sit in one spot and stare at a clock for 30 minutes that’s a long time. That’s a long presentation. And a lot of our presentations that we get, like you said, from staff, I mean, we cover a lot of material in a 15-20 minute presentation. So, I think 30 minutes is plenty. If what they’re saying is very enlightening anybody can make a motion to extend their time and get a second and we all vote to extend it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I was just thinking in terms of if there was to be a mechanism where they could request the extension prior to beginning their presentation if they already knew their presentation was going to overrun 30 minutes right before you even started this instead of having this -- running into this disconnect where we’re having to stop, vote, then get back on track again. Appeal in advance. Appeal before the presentation begins.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would think that (c) would allow for that because it doesn’t say they have to be at the end of their time, right, Carol?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Correct. And it doesn’t set any time frame. I think traditionally you all have done another five minutes for people, but it just says extended. So, there could be one motion that says 30 more minutes or 20. It wouldn’t have to be limited.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know, if there was some way they could appeal it before they could started if they do. And I’m just trying to think outside the box. We don’t know what the -- we don’t even know what the presentation is going to be, you know what I mean? We haven’t even tried this yet, so. If we got the thing in our in-boxes there and we’ve looked at it, wow, this is quite a presentation these guys have. And he gets up there, or he or she gets up there, before they even start say, you know, with all due respect, Mayor, we’d appreciate if we could in advance request an extra 15 minutes because we’ve timed this presentation out and it’s really going to take us 45 minutes to give it. And to have a mechanism in there like that would seem like that would cover that. Because I agree in many cases 30 minutes isn’t going -- should be more than enough for a lot of presentations. I’m just trying to cover all aspects --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- you know, already have it figured out before it comes.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That makes sense. I have Mickey and then Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m okay with the 30-minute bit I think and extending it. I don’t want it -- to go ahead and allow them to extend it ahead of the meeting that to me is opening up another box here. And, you know, I’d like to try it first, you know. This is something different than what we’ve had. And going to the 30 minutes is quite a bit different from what we’ve had and what I’ve been used to for quite some time. And I’m willing to make improvements, do some changing, but I think I would like to stick with the 30-minute ordeal. People prepare for that. And if they have something longer we can deal with them at the end of the 30 minutes and I don’t have an issue with that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Jim and then Dan. Oh, all right. Just Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Our current one doesn’t really say at the end of their presentation or anything like that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s true.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I don’t know why that’s a big deal.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It hasn’t been an issue.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean you can do it --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Other than that Planning situation.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. It sounds like there is some consensus around 30 minutes with two 15-minute extensions allowing (c) the purview --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic] 15 minutes. Whatever the motion is for.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, sure, yeah. I mean do we want to --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s really already provided for in that language.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic] for an extension.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, 30 minutes. That’s all you’ve got to say.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic] to extend based on [inaudible]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. That works for me. Thirty minutes with the ability to extend per subsection (c). Does that work for everyone? Do I need a vote? Would anyone like a vote? All right. Eric, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Before we go to vote because I think we’re discussing that. But I also wanted you to remember I added that language in there about the spokesman need not be a member of the group, it can be an outside specialist who has entered into the group.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I think that’s fine.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We’d like to have that in there.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Oh, I didn’t hear you say that. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I read that. You probably weren’t -- you probably thought I was just reading the statement and weren’t listening that closely because the last part there I added -- tacked on after the final word of meeting it said the spokesman need not be a member of the group, but can be an outside specialist who has entered into an agreement with the group to represent them. An example could be an attorney, accountant, engineer, consultant, et cetera.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think that makes sense. Is everyone good with that? Okay. Lastly, is everyone good with materials due by noon in electronic form Thursday? Mike.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I might be maybe nitpicking the wording a little bit, but what I see written comments I tend to interpret that as almost like a transcript of what will be read. And I think that’s -- I don’t know if that’s exactly the way we want it worded or if you guys maybe see it differently as opposed to maybe an overview of what will be discussed or main points that would be discussed or a summary of what would be discussed because typically, like we were saying, if it’s a development issue they’re normally not going to give us a transcript in our packet ahead of time. It’s more an overview of the project, here it is, and then someone will get up and actually speak details.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just say a copy of the presentation.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. A copy of the presentation.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. Okay. I’d be -- okay.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because that implies we want to hear what their presentation is in advance as well.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That kills two birds with that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Great. Broad in definition, 30 minutes, keeping (c) as an extension option, noon on Thursday, copy of the presentation.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, one last thing because -- well, this isn’t mine, my comments here. This is one of the other items that we’re talking about changing in there. Michelle had wanted to -- the Mayor had wanted to put in that people would not be allowed to read somebody’s letter for the record. If they’re not there, they’re not there.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yep.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They could submit their letter, of course.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Are we all good with the Mayor’s suggestion? Yeah. Okay. So, we will incorporate that as well.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Ms. Meyer, are we good with the 12? We had talked a little bit about 12 people.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Twelve. Are we good with 12?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Twelve what? Oh, 12 people.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Twelve people to form a group.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I don’t like 12, but --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: You want an even number, 10, 15?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I like ten better.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Fifteen is not even.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Ten? Twelve?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think we should take a vote on it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Cheaper by the dozen.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I want less than 12.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Do you have a number in mind, Dan? Nine? Ten?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Ten.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’m fine with ten. Are we --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You just want to get your way on something?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, I don’t really care. I mean, it’s not that big of a deal.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’re going to give you ten, Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Is that why you’re voting no?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I liked it until Dan, yeah. No.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Nobody ever even [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Are we good with ten?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Ten doesn’t bother me.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Ten is fine.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Ten. Okay. All right. Anything else we would like to wordsmith in this? I think we’re good. All right.

Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Yes. Ma’am, if you’ll come up and state your name and address for the record.

MS. BRACKETT: My name is Lisa Brackett. I’m at (Address Omitted). And I was supposed to speak for our street on the other point, but I didn’t see that there was anything necessary to do that. I don’t understand what you mean by the 12 person minimum. Are you talking about neighborhood, individuals needing to --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Not quite. So, yeah. That was the idea. So, when we have a large number of residents who feel strongly about an issue or are impacted by an issue, typically what the plan -- what the process outlines is each person gets five minutes to come up and say their piece. And what we’re trying to do is find a way for them to collectively come together and pool their time as it were to 30 minutes is where we kind of landed. So, we’re saying that we need a minimum of ten residents to agree to pool their time with a spokesperson. Does that make sense?

MS. BRACKETT: Yes. And I can understand that and I can understand your point of view. But what I’m worried about is the fact that you’re talking about ten people trying to work ahead of time even for some of these more difficult and broad issues. I think that seems almost unreasonable. I mean, we had a petition. We got 16 out of 17 people on our petition. We have four residents, you know, actual properties here tonight I think unless somebody else is here I don’t know about. And I just think that sometimes people aren’t aware until the zero hour. They don’t have the way to communicate with everyone to get a quorum of people and then have a meeting about it and then somebody say, well, who is going to speak on some of these issues. And I just think that’s unreasonable and kind of un-democratic actually. So, I just wanted to --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I totally agree with you. I want to be clear what we’re saying is not this is the only way you can speak on an issue. So, you would still be able to come up and speak under the normal five minutes. All four of you, heck, all ten of you could decide you all had something different you want to say. Those rules still apply. We’re just looking for folks who want to have another option to come together and speak for a longer period of time if that makes sense.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: If a group hired a lawyer or something like that that’s what they’re kind of, you know what I mean?

MS. BRACKETT: So, then they’re not filibustering or they’re not having 12 people in a neighborhood and then a representative they’ve hired and that sort of thing.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Absolutely. Yeah. You would maintain every, yeah, ever other option. You would be free to continue to speak just like this.

MS. BRACKETT: Okay. And I also like the point that was made by several people, I know Mr. Pflumm and some others that really it should be up to the moderator.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure.

MS. BRACKETT: And I also thought the point made about the number of minutes of a presentation. I think anything over 30 is superfluous.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I agree. All right.

MS. BRACKETT: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, ma’am. And if you’ll sign the form on the podium, yeah. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none, do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Do I have a second?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to forward to the 1/9/17 City Council meeting for Governing Body consideration with Councilmember Neighbor’s broadened definition of the group, with ten people required to form the group, with a 30-minute time limit to present with the ability to extend per subsection (c), with the spokesperson not having to be a member of the group, and group presentation materials due by noon on the Thursday prior to the meeting in electronic form, and the adding the Mayor’s suggestion of reading letters from other people into the record. The motion carried 8-0.]

C. ADJOURNMENT

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. That concludes our agenda. I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have a motion and a second on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to adjourn. The motion carried 8-0.]

(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Adjourned at 8:39 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 January 2, 2017

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk









File Attachment Icon
CCM12062016.docx