PDF Format:

CCM06062017.pdfCCM06062017.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
June 6, 2017
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 MeyerParks and Recreation Director Holman
Councilmember SandiferPlanning Director Chaffee
Councilmember KenigPublic Works Director Whitacre
IT Director Bunting
Fire Chief Mattox
Deputy Police Chief Orbin
Police Major Larson
Deputy Parks and Recreation Dir. Lecuru
Communications Manager Breithaupt
Senior Project Engineer Moller-Krass
Transportation Manager Manning
Business Liaison Holtwick
Police Captain Baker
Human Resources Director Barnard
Accounting Manager Oldham
Chamber of Commerce Chairman Brown
(City of Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

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

Before we begin the agenda, I'd like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I’ll offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to this Committee at any of those times, please go to the podium. I’ll ask that you state your name and address for the record, and then you may offer comments. So that members of the audience can hear your comments, I ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes. After you are finished, please sign the form at the podium to ensure that we have an accurate record of your name and address.

B. ITEMS

1. BUDGET PRESENTATION - 2017R/2018: WRAP-UP AND DISCUSSION

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: There is only one item on tonight's agenda. It’s a budget Presentation for the 2017R/2018 budget and includes wrap-up and discussion.

Public presentations and discussions for the 2017 Revised and 2018 Budgets began in May. Carol Gonzales, City Manager, will make a brief presentation and the remainder of the time will be available for discussion on the budget.

Welcome, Carol.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Thanks. Well, we’re just going to try and summarize. We had our lengthiest meeting in May and appreciated your all’s endurance for that night, went through everything. And our expedited schedule is going well with the plan to adopt the budget on July 10th, which is two weeks earlier than we usually do, which we built that in in case we had to deal with the tax lid issue. But it will be nice to have it done then.
2017R-2018
Budget Wrap-Up

[Priority-Based Budget Results slide]
So, tonight I’m just going to again summarize, wrap-up. As I’ve said several times, this is a really, really good budget. No tax increase. It’s the culmination of many years of tough decisions by elected officials and hard work by staff and elected officials to get there. It’s a budget that protects our assets. We’ve been talking about that for ten years, getting revenue sources in place that take care of our streets, our stormwater systems, our equipment, our buildings, and our people and our technology. Those systems and funds are in place. Those plans are in place. And this year they are funded, which is really fantastic.

[Expenditures slide]
We’ve also done a really good job of keeping our overall goals and results in mind and aligning the dollars we spend with those results. This graph shows the expenditures by results and by function. Seventy-four percent of the total dollars is allocated to Public Safety and Public Works, which have been identified and obviously our highest priority and highest cost items. Total budget expenditures of about $80.7 million.

[Mill Rates slide]
One of the other kind of good things about this budget we’ve been working toward that we’ve achieved is to reallocate our mills amongst our three mill levy funds to get them where they need to be to adequately fund the things that are in them.

So, the increase in the Public Safety Equipment Fund, we were able to accomplish this year, which is great to finally have that fund self-sustaining to fund the equipment replacement schedule that we have in place.

And then the Debt Service Fund, we’ve brought that down as debt as fallen off, so it’s at a good place. Increased it slightly last year with the increase of the fire station.

And then the General Fund has been kind of what’s left over and then we figure out how to fund operations with that. And it’s at a good place also. So, again, a process that we’ve been working towards for several years and have wound up in a very good place. I won’t say this allocation will last forever. Things will change. Different issues will come up and every year we’ll look at it again and make sure we’re on target with where we want to be. But I think this is a really good place to be this year and hopefully for the next few years going forward.

[Budget Highlights slides]
So, you have seen and heard departments talk about these highlights. And so the highlights are things that are included in the budget that are a little bit above and beyond the normal course of duties. So, I’m not going to repeat what they explained to you and what you had in your packet at the last meeting. But we did shift these then. We had them allocated at that meeting or listed by fund and revenue source. And this time we moved that list around to list them by our results, which I thought was really interesting to see how they spread across the results, and good new efforts continuing to support the results that we’re trying to achieve. So again, really good changes, good add value programs for safety, mobility, infrastructure that hopefully that pipe repair to be able to move that up a little bit. We’ve been needing to get that done for several years. To be able to fund the Nieman Now! with the Economic Development Fund and the good bids we got tonight.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve got some questions that were back a couple slides, one at least. One more I think. Yeah. I’ve got some questions on this one right here. So, you’ve got court security down there. I’m not quite sure that I’m in favor of it that, you know, the part-time bailiff position without a -- I guess what’s the difference between what we’re doing now and what we want to be doing with that?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Let me let Stephen address that. He’s going to be more able to do that.

CITY CLERK POWELL: Stephen Powell, City Clerk. We currently have one part-time bailiff. And with our caseload increasing our bailiff is spending, I would say the majority of his time doing fingerprints. And so we are relying on a warrant officer, or in some cases another officer to provide court security. So, this item would provide a second part-time bailiff as well as screening equipment, so that when folks are coming into the courtroom they would go through metal detectors.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. All right. And then the other one on that list is the, and I think I’m the one that asked for this, but I don’t know that I’d want to spend $40,000 on doing a study on the streetlights. I’m almost thinking that we could possibly do that in-house.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We are going to do a good portion of that. And I might -- is Doug here? We’re going to do quite a bit of that work ourselves and may not need the 40,000. But the cost benefit and the financial part of it we may have to -- we will have to contract out, so.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But if we can determine our own ROI, you know what I mean?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If we can.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Then it’s up to the members up here, yes, we do it, or, no, we don’t. It’s just a straight numbers game.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I’m --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s just a matter of the time to calculate those numbers and come up with those numbers.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Whether that staff has that time or whether we contract that out.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right. I’m just not in favor of the 40,000 to do that. But anyway, I just -- just go ahead.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And for the record, that’s Councilmember Pflumm speaking.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sorry about that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Again, Nieman Now! The forecasts support that. The Economic Development Fund is a big portion of that. At some future date we may want to talk more about taking some of that debt and being able to put it back in the Debt Service Fund to allow more flexibility in the Economic Development Fund. But for right now, that project would not be moving forward at the pace it is without the Economic Development Fund funding.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins has a question.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just to ask for clarification. Are we incorporating into this Nieman Now! project the burying of the utilities?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is that in this --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- in the numbers we’re dealing with right now?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yep. The numbers have all been updated and the forecasts do support those new numbers.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Thank you.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And while we’re on -- oh, sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: While we’re on this slide, I mean, so we’re asking for two Parks people. One guy is a Recreational Coordinator and the other guy is a Parks Maintenance Technician?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, they’re adding two additional individuals?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh. The Recreation Coordinator will, we’re estimating offset their salary by 50 percent the first year. And our goal is 100 percent by the second year with revenues, programming revenues. The current Recreation Coordinator pays her salary with the fees that she generates through the programs that we advertise.

And the Community Center Study is in Parks and Pipes 2018 to begin work on visioning for that project.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a question on that. That seems like an awful lot of money for a study. That really does. $200,000.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And we haven’t defined the scope of that yet. So, obviously if we don’t need to spend it we won’t. But that amount does fit in the Parks and Pipes sales tax forecast.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I understand if it’s in the forecast, but I just -- I don’t even know if I want to see that $200,000 going forward. I might want to see that number come down so that at least we’re looking at it -- we’re thinking in terms of a lower number than $200,000 to conduct a study. We’re talking about a one site analysis. $200,000 just seems really out there.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. Again, and Mr. Holman might be able to speak to the scope better than I can. But we would like to do as much as we can towards that in terms of what kind of resources does the community want, surveys of the community, public meetings, get feedback from them, then do cost analysis of what those kinds of things may cost, what kind of revenue they would generate. So, there’s a lot of things that could be done. But again, we will develop a scope that gets accomplished what we want. Hopefully it would be less than 200, but we felt like that was a good number to put in there to have in case.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I would just counter. I think it’s probably going to be -- I’ve seen these now kind of through what I do during the day. And they’re not inexpensive and I think it’s better to maybe have a little bit of a cushion there that we don’t spend, so that we get everything that we want. We’ve been talking about a community center for, gosh, I think decades now. And we’ve never really been able to define what it is, so we can get an idea of what the thing is actually going to cost. So, I think if we’re going to do it, we want to make sure that it’s a robust study and it covers everything that we want so that we get an accurate picture of kind of what we’re looking at when we have the conversation moving forward about the community center.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just want to throw one thing out. I don’t necessarily believe we’ve been talking about a west community center for decades. We had an idea several years back about a west pool, outdoor pool, not an indoor pool. It wasn’t a, you know, structure like some of the other communities are building today. So, just throwing that out from years past.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would counter. I’ve seen a study that included architectural drawings from at least a decade ago that did involve a community center. But regardless, I think we need to take a look at what it is the community wants, if that’s a community center or an outdoor pool or whatever it is. We need some idea, a more concrete idea of it.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: For the overall cost of what this is going to be, this is not a lot to look into it and try to figure out what it’s going to take. Twelve years ago I remember on this Council that we were talking about an indoor pool, trying to have competition against Sylvester Powell. And it was going to be -- we have the two -- the kids’ pool, the young kids, teenagers, and we were talking about an indoor pool. And that was brought up actually by Dawn Kuhn really pushing it --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would agree with you.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: -- about 12 years ago.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: She said decades with an “S.”

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Oh.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I retract my “S.”

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Carol, can you elaborate on the previous study we had on this in the past and why that’s not viable anymore?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It was done quite a few years ago. Maybe I’ll let -- where’s Neil. Let me let Neil speak to that.

MR. HOLMAN: Neil Holman, Parks and Recreation Director. I think it was done about ten years ago. At that time when we were looking at the property we had nine, I believe we had nine properties that we were looking at throughout Shawnee in the western part. We put together those nine properties and then we also looked at partners. And that’s what the charrette was also designed off, the partners. That one of those was the library. But it was on the other side of the street and that was out of that district. So, they wanted to be closer to like the K-7 area, so that lost a portion of that and dollars that would be put into that, into the project to go to the new site that’s over there at Silverheel. Yeah. Silverheel and Shawnee Mission Parkway. The county was also looking at being a partner in which they came and said they would even be considered a partner now. But they also did the Millcreek Recreation Center on Shawnee Mission Parkway and Vista Drive. So, those two major partners are gone. But now -- so, we need to re-look at the scope. And the scope of what, you know, maybe the people -- maybe the citizens don’t want what was kind of designed and laid out at that time. So, maybe we will -- now, it’s a new time to -- have a citizen group, a task force to re-look at some of the needs that the residents do want. It’s because there was an indoor pool plus outdoor pool. You know, jogging. There’s racquetball. There was -- but, you know, racquetball is down, so maybe it’s spinning classes or, you know, maybe it’s a different thing that individuals would like to have.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. And that went as far then to have blueprints and everything, that previous study?

MR. HOLMAN: No.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Or just --

MR. HOLMAN: We just had -- it’s a charrette.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. HOLMAN: It’s just a program charrette so we can get the size of -- like there was three basketball courts. Okay. Well, full-sized courts we know what those are.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. HOLMAN: And how many people that will accommodate. And then some of the classrooms in that program charrette, that’s what they’re called. So, we had people that would draw right then as you build this center from the comments. And then at the end I think it was like 110,000 square foot.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. HOLMAN: But that was library, some other rooms that we could share with the library and stuff like that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And there was no design of the building.

MR. HOLMAN: No, no, no. No design. We don’t go that depth.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. HOLMAN: We look at what it cost and then we put a cost per square foot to get the overall. But in this one I would like to say that, you know, so you have the parking lot, just the community center, the parking lot. But then also what the rest of the land would be. So, you know, you’d like to master plan the site as well because there are some -- there’s a lower area there that I know it floods, but there is potential to have maybe some fields, soccer fields, no fences, but something like that.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, that was going to be my follow-up then, what was going to be the scope of this current study? What are we going to get for the 200,000 for this current study? What’s the scope of it?

MR. HOLMAN: Well, we haven’t developed it yet.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Oh, okay.

MR. HOLMAN: Yeah. Until we get the money, I mean, I don’t want to, you know, nothing more is going to make me upset than have to spend $200,000 and put it on the shelf.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Uh-huh.

MR. HOLMAN: And then we’re not going to do anything with it. So, I mean, I’d like to have everyone involved and a have a good scope and have a good plan. But I’d just hate to see it in a three-ring binder $200,000 and put on a shelf.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.

MR. HOLMAN: So, I mean, that’s just me. We could spend it on other things.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I just think we need to keep in mind that, you know, when we’ve looked at citizen surveys and this public has asked and supported a community center, and so we’ve just got to decide if we want to deliver or not. I’ve supported it since the day I got elected. Obviously that was in a pretty tough economic time. But, you know, if we don’t do these things when we have the opportunities, then once again we’re going to watch the communities around us. I mean Lenexa is building one. Olathe has one. Everybody, you know, you’ve got Merriam, Mission, everybody has got community centers. And Shawnee, the third largest city in Johnson County doesn’t have a community center. And, yeah, we have a Civic Centre, but it’s a little different. But not only that, when we look at public services, I mean, west of -- I’m not going to say Ward III because a lot of Ward IV is out there and part of Ward I. West of 435 is really under-served when it comes to public entities like that. I mean you don’t have -- you have -- we have a nice trail system. But when we look at children, we have a mass amount of children out there. That’s where all the young families are moving. And we have aging population to the east. And so a lot of these services, there’s a lot more demand probably west of 435 for something like a community center. And there’s a significant amount of tax revenue generated west of 435. I know because I’ve pulled the numbers from the county. And it’s big. And so we have taxpayers out there with very expensive houses paying a lot of taxes that are saying we want a community center. We want to see this happen. And I mean at some point we’ve just got to have a real conversation about how do we get this done. And this is a start. We had a meeting a while back when we had some visioning and we have some people that are interested in partnering with us. There’s a soccer club out there that’s interested in partnering with us. I mean there’s some interesting opportunities. And I think we could do, and kind of what the meeting was, how do we do this so that it looks different than what everybody is doing. I don’t want to build an Olathe community center. And I don’t want to build a Lenexa community center. But I think Shawnee, we have an opportunity with that piece of ground to do something really neat, really interesting. I mean kind of like skate parks. I have kids out in my neighborhood all the time asking me, well, how come we don’t have a skate park out here. Because, I mean, we have one, you know, off Swarner. It’s not real convenient for west of 435 kids. And that’s, you know, there’s a lot of kids out there and we don’t have a skate park. And so this is things like that we’ve got to really think about. So, when we talk about a community center it’s not just a building with some basketball courts. It’s going to be a recreational complex. And this can get as big or as complicated or as, you know, whatever. You could have cyclocross track. You’ve got -- we’ve got how many acres we have to work with there?

MR. HOLMAN: Well, there’s 26 acres.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. That’s a big chunk of ground. And we can do a lot of neat stuff on that. So, and it’s not just going to serve Ward III or part of -- this is something that, you know, it’s going to be city-wide, but we need to get something like this west of 435. People have asked for it. People want it. People want to know when they’re getting a community center. And this is a great start, so let’s get this ball rolling and really figure out what it’s going to take to do this.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Neighbor and then Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I’d just like to echo Jeff’s comments. I think it’s important, you know, 200,000 is a number that’s going to go into the budget. But it is a start to do. And Neil referenced and Carol and again, Ward III representatives, do something. Let’s do it unique. Let’s do it Shawnee. But again, let’s do it right and we need the information to make the right decisions. And I think this would be a good place to start. We don’t have to spend it all, but just a good study and get going, so.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Actually I recommended this site to a world class soccer training facility and had some people out there. They were just in the news there in Olathe. So, we kind of missed out on that deal.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Can I say something?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. Councilmember Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, you’re saying we should give up our community center ground completely or --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: They were willing to partner.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Well, I mean did they came to us.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: They came to us.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I would just add if we’re serious about doing this we have to start from somewhere. So, if we decide not to do this I think we’re sending a message we’re not serious about doing this at least in the next couple of years on getting the ball rolling. It is something that west of 435 gets asked about a lot, especially with the young families out there. So, that’s my thoughts on that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The last result then, Good Governance and a lot of good projects in there. Probably the biggest one, not decades, but at least a decade we’ve been talking about new financial software. So, that project needs to get done. The funding is available in the forecast for that, so very pleased about that.

Some more fiber build-out, which as we talked about at the May meeting has been very, very, very successful. Our IT folks have done a great job working with Public Works and with other cities to get a very good fiber network and continuing to build that. And as we build Station 74, to figure out how to get the fiber out to 74 also. But been a very good program that I think you all approved funding for that maybe just three years ago is when we actually started funding that program. We’ve made a lot of progress.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve got a question.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: On the police awning, I mean, how often are our cars not in use, individual cars?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Deputy Chief Orbin can talk to that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And are these for patrol cars or --

DEPUTY CHIEF ORBIN: I’m Doug Orbin, Deputy Chief of Police. So, we always have some cars that are not in use because we have three shifts 24 hours a day. And we don’t always shift out one for one for cars. So, we have more officers on one shift compared to another shift. Plus we have special assignment cars that may -- that are assigned to like the traffic unit, community services, stuff like that that may be sitting at times that would be at the station. So, this awning would cover like 20 spots that would cover cars. And that would also cover our shift change area. So, for those shift change times when officers are coming on or off shift they would cover those times as well.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. Thanks. And another item on here, I’m going to kind of I guess be vocal on the fiber optic build-out. I don’t have anything against you or anything. I’ve questioned why we need that. There’s a lot of wireless technology out there that we could, you know, tie in Station Number 74 with some pretty reliable wireless communications and things like that. And I’m not sure that we need, you know what I mean, almost $400,000 worth of fiber in the ground.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And we’ve had that discussion multiple times on the necessity of fiber. So, I’m not sure if we’ve rehashed or not, but I had been also skeptical or maybe leery of laying the amount of fiber we’ve been doing at the cost we’ve been doing it at. And I know we co-located, and that was cheaper. But I’m with Dan to some degree. I don’t know if fiber is the best way to connect our stations or our facilities, so I’ll just voice that.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. Councilmember -- go ahead.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’d just like to be sure what we’re actually using the fiber optics cable for because there are some advantages to fiber optics as well. Having spent a lot of time in emergency management, when things get ugly, pretty much you can forget your wireless, they’re all jammed up because everybody goes onto their cell phones and stuff and you don’t have much capability to communicate with anybody at that point. So, fiber optics would at least at that point still be able to allow communication if that’s what it’s for. If it’s only for transferring data between our location out at the Justice Center and here and that’s all we’re doing and stuff like that, I don’t really know. But if it’s very important to our communication system it may make a different -- it may make a major difference.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The one example, and certainly Mr. Bunting can speak to this far better than I can. But the one key example that right now we would not even be able to be a participant in is that county-wide the cities are collaborating on a records management system for the police. All the law enforcement agencies, except I think Lenexa hasn’t signed on yet. But every other city has signed on. The county is going to be the hub. If we were not able to connect into the county’s system, which comes from our fiber connecting into Lenexa, then connecting into Johnson County, we wouldn’t be able to participate in that county-wide law enforcement database system that’s going to really guide all of our law enforcement and be our repository for all our law enforcement records.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I guess I had a question on that one right there. We have to have a dedicated fiber to Lenexa to Shawnee --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Okay. Now, you’re talking out of my league. We’ll let Mel --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Or Shawnee to Lenexa to Overland Park to wherever. Because I know there’s other ways of doing it.

MR. BUNTING: Okay. Well, good evening. Mel Bunting, IT Director for the City of Shawnee. Dedicated fiber, the short answer would be yes. Because of the data that we’re going to be sending across that is going to be -- it’s going to have some oversight. It’s called a criminal justice information system. We go through a regular audit, our police department does. Our court system goes through an audit. And long story short that data that we transmit through there has to be a secure network connection between the two facilities as we transmit that criminal data. So, the mindset is if we have to encrypt and protect that criminal data and protect and prohibit unauthorized access to that data.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m with you a hundred percent, but it doesn’t have to be our fiber.

MR. BUNTING: Correct. True statement.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. So, we don’t need it in the ground then.

MR. BUNTING: And really, you know, this is the same statement I made two years ago about it’s really something that we brought to you. And, you know, that’s why we’re here and having these conversations. Because had we not we’d be, in my opinion, we’d be not doing our due diligence or homework bringing these things to you as our Governing Body to make those decisions. You know, the technology, and it’s, you know, I’ve been in this business almost 40 years I hasten to say. And in the 90s and early 2000s the emphasis was owning software. That’s what you owned. You purchased software. You capitalize your investment in software. And the technology around communications was what I would say immature, so you would lease those lines. I remember when I got a 14/4 connection in the bank when I worked for a bank, I thought I had smoking speeds. You know, and then we went to 28/8 and, ooh, wow, you know, so, you know, so we had -- and then we got a T-1, a 1.5, wow. So, those leased lines continued to be advantageous for organizations to purchase because of the changing demands for bandwidth. It didn’t make sense to invest or even afford to buy this being communication systems. But today communications systems is a corporate asset, simple as it is. It’s as critical as an asset as the stormwater. It’s as critical as an asset as a building. You’ve got to have high bandwidth communications to run the technology that’s coming in our organizations today. Whether it’s managing our traffic controllers or bringing in video or providing training for our facilities. Our fire stations want to have a centralized training organization or a program where they do training one facility and all the employees in the fire station participate in that video. And so we’ve got to have broadband. We’ve got to have high speeds to provide that communications. So, in today’s terms the software that we now subscribe to is now we have to lease that. The Microsoft world and the big entities are now moving to subscription-based software. And it’s just the way it is. It’s hard to capitalize software today. That being said coming back to the fiber, it’s my opinion that it’s as critical as an asset as owning a building. And so my question would be to the Governing Body is does it make sense to lease those lines and continue to invest in a reoccurring cost for communication systems that are going to be critical to that building, or do you lease the building? I mean from the numbers that I’m pulling in, and I continue to research this and continue to work with the utility companies, it’s a 15 to 20-year payout on fiber. And you own those assets. So, in the 15-year span you’re going to own those communications assets and you no longer have those reoccurring costs. And so from my vantage point and why we would recommend it and why I’m recommending it and promoting it is I feel this is as vital of an asset as owning a building. It’s vital as an asset as putting stormwater in the ground. It’s critical communication systems to our today technology.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Brandon, I’ve got a question.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just following up with you, Mel. Where are we at in the process with laying the fiber? Are we getting close to having what we want in there, or are we -- is this just a piece of a larger picture that we’re still going to be working on year after year?

MR. BUNTING: I think it’s a long-term journey. I don’t want to sit here and tell you we’re going to be done in two years or five years or ten years. I think what we are doing is we’re looking at opportunities to partner and approach it in a different flavor than what our neighboring cities have done. You know, and pardon the expression, but for decades they’ve been putting fiber in the ground, and they have. I mean Olathe, Lenexa, Overland Park, their public works, their development services programs, when they go into a street they bury it. They put a lot in the ground.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I mean I understand that. But I’m just trying to get some kind of idea in my head here about how far along in the process are we and how much further do we have to go?

MR. BUNTING: Which is part of our master plan in working with our Public Works Department is identifying those traffic controllers in those core intersections where we want to manage and put emphasis on traffic management and get access to those assets. And so our focus right now is how do we get west. You know, we’ve just talked about the Civic Centre, or excuse me, the recreational center that we’re talking about out west. Great opportunity to figure out how we can make that bridge as we build that facility to get our high-speed communication systems in the ground to facilitate that. And so we’re looking at how we could partner with projects that come upon us and/or agencies that are already -- maybe have fiber in the ground.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. From what I understood we were piggy-backing on a lot of the fiber that was being laid --

MR. BUNTING: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- in the past. I don’t know if this is part of that or not, but in the past I know we’ve talked about that.

MR. BUNTING: Yes. Some of this is part of that to partner with them. And some of it is also to put our own fiber and bury our own fiber. You know, I’m -- we’re working off numbers. We’re trying to get to those locations specifically on the Shawnee Mission Parkway. Get all to those traffic streetlights, or excuse me, traffic signals on Shawnee Mission Parkway. So, we’re trying to figure out how we can get there as well as down on 84th Street, the traffic controllers that we have there as well.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It kind of sounds like you don’t know how far along we are. It’s not like we’re 40 percent or 80 percent or --

MR. BUNTING: Oh, okay. I see where you’re going. Okay. I can get you that number, but shooting off the hip I’d say 60 percent traffic controllers.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We’re probably more 40 percent. We’re way behind the other cities [inaudible].

MR. BUNTING: I’m thinking as far as having fiber in those locations where all we’ve got to do is finish the connection. Yeah. We can get you that number if you want to --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, it’s just more of a curiosity because, you know, we’re bringing -- this has come up as a recurring expense. It’s not just a one-time expense. I think somebody said, okay, let’s put the fiber in, that sounds good. And then the next think you know, wow, next year is we need $350,000 to do some more of this. So, I’m just trying to get an idea of, okay, how much of this are we looking at, you know, in the big picture. Where are we going with this? And I’m not even taking sides as to whether it’s good, bad or indifferent. Just trying to get a feel for, you know, what we’re faced with down the road.

MR. BUNTING: Yeah. I don’t have any visual representations here quickly available. But I would say most of the fiber that we have built out, and we’ve done a great job with that is most of the City is to the east of 435. So, now our focus is how do we get west. And that’s where a lot of the cost is coming in. And, you know, we’re looking at that. You know, obviously anything we do within the fiber spectrum we’ll be bringing that forward obviously. And so then you as a body can vote on that. But most of the build-out and the funding that is in place here is to address our western area of Shawnee.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, you’re talking about traffic signals and things like that. But as far as critical facilities and critical connectivities, like we would have between City Hall and of, course, the Justice Center where we, you know, we have two locations where we store our data and so on. Those are pretty much done. So, we’re looking at really things -- we’re mostly looking at traffic signalization projects and those kind of things for the future?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And 73 and 74.

MR. BUNTING: Yeah. Yeah. The facilities out west. Yes. And that would be a true statement, yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Vaught, then Councilmember Kemmling, and then Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We’re talking on fiber. Everybody is really, you know, by no means am I an IT expert, so I guess I would just ask, and the only way I could really make an educated decision on this would be what’s best practice. I mean, and I think you’ve already answer it, but what’s considered best practice in the industry right now? What are other cities? I mean, obviously locally here that’s what they’re doing. Is that the nationwide trend? Is that’s what’s considered best practice is to bury our own fiber?

MR. BUNTING: The short answer is it’s a critical asset in today’s technology world. I mean the best practice is to provide yourself with a lot of opportunity or growth capacity in your communications. As, I mean, now we’re talking, you know, when we had cameras, you know, now we’re talking hi-def and high resolution and higher, you know, it’s just all more -- it’s just consuming more and more bandwidth and more and more data that we have to move in a very finite amount of time. And the answer is fiber. Yeah. So, it, I mean, my opinion would be that is a best practice, especially when we talk about the assets that we’re trying to connect, which is our buildings and our traffic signals and our intersections, and what may come in the future, so.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Mel, I agree with probably almost everything you said. I think it is important that we have that dedicated to high bandwidth connection between the city. I think at least my question was not based on whether we needed that, it was whether, like you said at the very end there whether we need to own it or whether we should be leasing it. And so I agree with you, you need to have that secure. Dan kind of hit on it. It is there to lease. So, if we don’t run our own, we can theoretically lease it. So, I guess that’s maybe where my question was coming in or my philosophical question was coming was should we own it or should we lease it. And just from my own experience, I had a 14/4 and a friend of mine ran a BBS and we would dial-up to that. And it was popular. He was charging people money for it. He was going to lay like five new phone lines. And we all know that phone lines connecting to the Internet lasted a very short period of time. So, I guess my hesitation is when I look at a 15 to 20-year payout, I’m just wondering is the fiber now like that phone line was back then? It’s great now. But when this pays out in 15 to 20 years, is a gigabit going to be next to nothing. And I can’t remember the total bandwidth you talked about per strand, but I know it was a lot. And that sounds like a lot. That 14/4 sounded like a lot back then too when I had to download like a three megabyte game, I couldn’t -- I mean it was awesome to get it at that blazing speed. And so I guess that’s my question. I feel like it’s so hard to future-proof in technology. My original computer had a 120 megabyte hard drive. And I remember guaranteeing my dad if he bought this one gigabyte it would never fill up. And now we know a gigabyte is nothing. And so I just -- I’ve seen technology race so quickly, faster than I could ever imagine or future-proofing is so hard. That’s when I see a 15 to 20-year payout, I just wonder if this is going to get bypassed or our needs are going to be more than what the current fiber is offering by the time the payout rolls around. So, that’s my philosophical difference. It’s not like you said that, yes, needing the secure high transfer rate, yes, those are all important. I guess the philosophical is more should be owning or should we be leasing it thinking that possibly this technology will be dated and that we’ll need something better before our payout comes along. So, that’s where my questions were at.

MR. BUNTING: And I know my answer is I wish I had a crystal ball.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, Mike touched on it. You brought up a 15 to 20-year payback. I mean normally in the industry, you know, they look for a three-year payback. And then if it has a three-year payback, boom, that’s an easy, oh, go ahead and do it. So, I mean, I’d probably lean with a 15 or 20-year payback, I would lean towards leasing it a lot more than purchasing it because of what Mike said. I mean by the time you end up paying for it you’re maybe 15 or 20 years behind the eight ball then. So, and you brought up the Civic Centre, then let’s say we have a new civic center. I would almost say that we absolutely don’t need a dedicated fiber optic line to that civic center that we own. I mean, there’s just not a big speed or any -- you’re going to have the speed, you just may not be 100 percent as secure. And I think it will be, but I’m just throwing that one out there as I just don’t know that that’s a big, you know, Old Shawnee Town or the Civic Centre, or new civic center is probably not high on the list for connectivity. But anyway, the 15 or 20-year payback is a long time. And leasing would probably be a much better option if that’s the case.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ve just got a question about the availability of funding. Because since this is tied to -- it seems like some of this is tied to the law enforcement. I was wondering if there was anything in terms of DOJ grants to help assemble this program for the exchange of data and so on between the police departments because that seemed like that would be something they would maybe help communities out with is funding that and getting that online. And is there anything like that out there that we can tap into?
(Off Record Talking)

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. We could sure look into it. As Mel stated earlier, most of the other cities have the fiber in place already, so I’m not sure we could get funding to put fiber in place just because we don’t have it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, it wouldn’t unusual to have unfunded mandates. But sometimes mandates do get some funds out there.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Sure. Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And if there are some, I’d sure like to grab hold of them and --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. We could sure look at that. Okay.

[Financial Highlights slide]
Just in kind of the highlights which we’ve talked about. No mill levy increase. Budgeted reserves are at 31 percent, which is above our 30 percent target. The addition of the 1.5 million a year from the Public Safety Sales Tax, we discussed that quite a bit at the last meeting. And the direction was to allocate half a million a year towards reserves the first three years to be helping with the offset of the firefighter grant and carrying that on forward. And then a million dollars a year as a placeholder for future projects and the two projects that we’ll begin working on later this fall that was directed by the Council to look at Station 71, what kind of updates to that facility, some kind of an analysis of it in more detail than what we’ve already done, and then streetlight purchase. And that certainly won’t take all the funds that we will be getting over the ten-year period. But those are two good projects to start with and we’ll begin on those this fall.

The mill shifting I talked about and the forecast on the debt payments that supports Nieman Now!

[Economic Development slide]
So, the only other item that had been mentioned several months ago to bring up during budget is the allocation of the Economic Development Fund. And there was some materials in your packet on that of how much we get per year. This is the breakdown of the allocation and I apologize because I mis-spoke in the packet memo. I had forgotten, and we did a lot of research on minutes, and discovered that the first two years of the impact fee, or the first three I guess, we actually used those to build up the Economic Development Fund capacity. And then it was in ‘14 that we began to split that in half. And part of it went to the Special Highway Fund and a part to the Economic Development Fund. And so the way that allocation works and has worked every year as we brought the forecast to you is that we take the SEDC contract off the top. We split the remainder in half. The half and the SEDC contract go in the Economic Development Fund and we pay the contract out of that fund. The remaining half goes in the Special Highway Fund towards the mill and overlay program. And so these are the costs that -- the revenues that come into that from the impact fee.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Carol, I have some, I guess some concerns about the way these funds are distributed. Because if you look at the purpose of the ordinance and everything that was put in place to levy these costs onto Deffenbaugh, the justification was for streets, damage to streets, and picking up loose garbage or whatever, these kind of negative impacts from the landfill. And we’ve taken these funds and we’re putting them into economic development, which, you know, that’s not a bad thing that we’re putting them into economic development. But it doesn’t seem like it’s an honest use of those funds. If I’m telling somebody, hey, I need some money from you because you’re tearing up my streets and stuff and then they give me the money and I say, oh, really, I’m not going to use it all for the streets, I’m going to go use it for other stuff too. In fact, I’m going to use more than half of it for some other purpose. And the purpose I told you I really need it for because it’s your fault you’re messing my stuff up. And, man, I’m just having a hard time figuring out how do we get away with that. If I was Deffenbaugh I’d say obviously you don’t need $3 million, you need $1.363 million for your Special Highway Fund, why am I giving you three-something. I mean I’m serious. If I was Deffenbaugh I’d be pitching a real stink about this.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, on page 5 -- no, it absolutely sticks to streets and economic development. And that was the discussion through the negotiations with Deffenbaugh, through the development of the policy and the agreement. So, on page 5 of your packet it talks about the streets --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I’m looking at page 5.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- and the truck traffic. And then it says, “Adverse effects would also include any loss to the City, if any is shown to exist resulting from land included in a Special Use Permit ... not being platted or developed for other purposes that could generate greater revenue.” And that was certainly the discussion at the time that the -- that one of the impacts of the landfill was that it impacted our ability to generate commercial tax base. And so that was very clearly understood at the very beginning and has been understood ever since then. And part of the development of that economic development policy in the fund, so that --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t think that’s that clear in there, but I guess you think it’s that clear because you were here for the discussions.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, that -- and maybe because I was part --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But as I read that it wasn’t very clear to me.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- of all those discussions at the time. And that was absolutely the two prongs of the impact.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, there’s a lot of economic development funds being spent in areas that have -- are not impacted by Deffenbaugh whatsoever and the landfill and its odors or anything else.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s an impact to the entire community, not specific -- we’re not using their funds to fix a street that their truck destroyed. And, in fact, a lot of the economic development funds are being used for streets also.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. But I could see it, you know, I could see us spending it on the streets because they do cause damage to the streets, especially the edges of the streets when they come over close to pick up the trash cans. And we’ve got those -- some older streets that don’t have the built-up shoulders and stuff, so they suffer damage. And you could even maybe see it for even some stormwater because those big trucks running across that some of our pipes and stuff under those roads may be contributing to the collapse of those pipes or something along.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You may be able to argue that, I don’t know.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. We never addressed stormwater with this.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But, you know, it just -- to me I’m having trouble figuring -- putting some kind of correlation between Deffenbaugh and our economic development. I guess that’s nice to get the money, but it’s -- I’m having trouble wrapping my head around that as to how that equates.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes. As being on the Council when this went through the others, you know, I think PS-65 addresses many of these things in quite a bit of detail. So, I just would suggest it’s not on that sheet.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I read it [inaudible; talking off mic].

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, then we agree to disagree.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I guess so.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I’m just -- I’m reading that again. I mean, “Adverse effects would include any loss to the City, if any, if shown to exist resulting from land included in a Special Use Permit for a Sanitary Landfill not being platted or developed for other purposes that could generate revenue for the City.” In other words, we have a thousand acres that’s a landfill that’s not a thousand acres of houses, commercial property and other things on 435, which is pretty valuable property. I mean, and then the other big keyword in here is the adverse impacts include, but the key phrase is, “but are not limited to,” which pretty much means you can use it for anything you want. That’s legal language that says let’s include this, but not limited to this, which means it’s pretty much unlimited. So, I understand what you’re saying, but it’s pretty clear language in this.

You know, I’d like to say this. A priority is nothing -- or a budget is nothing more than a reflection of our priorities. And so it’s not my priorities. It’s not Stephanie’s, it’s not yours. It’s not even the Governing Body’s priorities. It’s the community priorities. And so we have a lot of the community that says, yes, we want public safety, do you support that. We have a lot of the community that says we want economic development. I support that. I also support public safety. I also support a lot of other things. But we need to listen to this community. These are the things they want. And not one -- any one -- I mean we like to get up here and kind of want to separate those little segments and, well, that’s not important to me, we shouldn’t do that. Well, there’s a lot of things that aren’t important to me, but I’m going to support them because our community want’s them, so it’s what’s good for our community. Economic development is important to this community. In Ward III, people want economic development. They want things to happen. We’re not writing checks to companies as foolishly, oh, you know, let’s give you a few million dollars here and -- we’ve been pretty good with this Economic Development Fund and using it right, using it for good projects. And, you know, honestly if this becomes an issue, let’s do it. Let’s get a full report on everything we spent out of the Economic Development Fund, what we’ve spent it on and what the results of that investment were and let’s track it. Because it’s -- we go through this every year. And we want to beat up on the Economic Development Fund. We are challenged in Shawnee. We are challenged topographically. We are challenged with demographics. We have challenges in Shawnee and this helps us overcome those challenges. So, even with the Economic Development Fund, even with the ability to help these projects, we still don’t have 10-15 projects in the pipeline like our neighboring cities do. We’re sitting here just kind of waiting for a big one to come along. This fund has been a good thing. We’ve used it for some good things and we’ve been able to do some things with it that has given us a competitive advantage that has helped us probably achieve and land some projects in the past. But it’s, you know, I don’t think we’re abusing it. I don’t think we’re being irresponsible for it. And I do think the language is pretty black and white that it can be used for economic development.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: For the record, since I kind of had trouble following that because I don’t think I made an attack against economic development at all. That wasn’t the point at all. The point is we are receiving these funds from Deffenbaugh for a stated reason saying that they have caused damaged to our roads and so on, so therefore, we think there should be an impact on that and we’ve assessed that impact fee and they’ve agreed to. That whether that money should be going into the Economic Development Fund that is a question for me. I don’t say we don’t fund economic development. Perhaps this is not where it should come from is my point.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’m just going to go in and add something, then Mickey can go. So, I just want to second what Jeff said. So, the adverse impact of the landfill extends far beyond just the wear and tear on the roads. It extends to an entire space that we cannot utilize for commercial growth in our community to serve our residents. So, that’s number one. And number two, so I guess this is a question for Carol. Has Deffenbaugh stated any type of objections or, you know, that this -- does it seem correct, or that they have issues with us funding economic development through this fund?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. No.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. So, that’s never come up before?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Unt-huh.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. Thank you. And I would also add, I guess what the alternative is because this is the core way that we fund economic development. So, what is the alternative? How are we going to fund that? A lot of other cities dip into a lot of other funds and tip directly into taxpayer funds on a regular basis around us. So, is that something we want to do? So, that’s an option. But traditionally we’ve been very conservative in how we’ve economic development. And it’s been funded mostly through this fund only, which I think differentiates us from most other communities around us.

Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And I was around when this thing was put together, too, and Dan was. And it was all pretty well stated cut and dry of this. You know, anybody that doesn’t believe that the landfill has made an adverse effect on our economic development up and down the corridor all the way around there needs to reevaluate a little bit more. So, part of this I’m sure was into the economic development area because trying to enhance the area around there also. We’ve got, what, 365 acres or 85 acres right next to the landfill that we’re having a heck of a time marketing. And it’s a prime piece of property. Is that not affecting economic development? You know, we need to use that money to help promote things and help get things in that area also. You know, so I believe that it’s spread out and when it was put together years ago, I think it was all of these factors were put in together and I think that’s -- I’m good with it. And I also agree with what Councilmember Vaught, the way he was -- what he put together.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’ll jump in real quickly. Jeff said that we go through this every year and it seems like we pretty much do every year. I think, I don’t know the point to me is not whether the wording of the contract, it’s more just the idea that we can use this money for something other than the Economic Development Fund should we choose. Now, we’ve chosen to use it for the Economic Development Fund every year. And every year I propose we use it for something different. So, kind of the same dance we’ve done every year here. But I did want to emphasize the fact that this is not like the sales tax where we’re 100 percent dedicated and it has to go someplace. It is a choice that the Council has made to split this impact fee. And that is the way the Council has decided, the majority of the Council has decided every year.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: That’s fine. That’s the way we’ve decided to and it was alluded to earlier. The Economic Development Fund has helped us to do a number of things. And to do those things and, you know, just go back and it’s probably going to cost us three mills to do those very same things. And is that the choice you want to make?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, just to wrap up, if there are more questions and more research needed anything we had blocked out a June 20th date for a meeting. If we’re satisfied where we’re at tonight and want to move forward to publishing the notice on June 26th for the July 10th meeting, that’s the direction we could go then.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I kind of have a wrap-up, not a wrap-up question, but a question from line items from each area. I wanted to summarize the totality of the new positions or expanded positions. So, if you’ll bear with me, tell me if this sounds like everything. We’ve said that we want a Johnson County Mental Health Co-Responder going from half-time to full-time.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that’s a contract, not an employee, but yes.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. We have the police facility technician, that’s going to be a new part-time job.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Part-time.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: We’re going to convert the part-time prosecutor to full-time, but it’s not really a huge difference because the hours were not a big change. The engineering tech, we’re going to get a part-time engineering tech. We’re going to get a full-time park maintenance technician, a recreation coordinator position, which you said is going to be hopefully offset by the positions they do. A finance generalist and a human resource generalist. And then we’re going to convert a part-time human resource to a full-time. Does that sound like the totality of the changes in staffing?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes. In staffing, yes.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. And just commentary, not necessarily any one of those positions. It just seems like a lot of additional staffing especially the year after we were -- we couldn’t make it without a mill levy increase and now we’re talking about an increase in a lot of different areas. I wonder if maybe we’re a little too hasty in adding these.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would agree a hundred percent. So, your question to us --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. So, I think the question is, if I may just interject, are there -- these additional items, are these just items that you want to discuss? Do you want -- is there thoughts on having that additional Council meeting on the 20th? Or should we have that? We would skip ahead and have the public hearing if we do not to utilize that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, if I could meet with you a little bit in person, I mean I don’t necessarily need the June 20th meeting. I think if we, you know, work a little bit in between there, then I would probably be okay. If not, then I wouldn’t mind having that June 20th meeting. But it’s up -- it’s whatever you --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Glad to meet, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. So, probably you and Maureen here or whatever we can pick a day or something and --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- kind of go over stuff that -- when I wasn’t here the other day.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. So, if there is agreement, I think we will go ahead and forgo the June 20th meeting then, which takes us to the public hearing. Is there any further discussion from the Council? Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sorry. I’m kind of weighing in at the end. I guess just an overarching comment as we go into our budget hearing. I’ve kind of been listening tonight, as tends to happen it seems like every year the conversations we’re having are should we continue to fund economic development, should we look at providing an amenity to part of our community who has been asking for one, should we look at fiber that every other city has. And I just want to caution us. I think this does, to speak Jeff, say a lot about what our priorities are and our visions are. And the more we kind of beat to death the idea of economic development and growing as a community the more other people are seeing that. And I don’t think that that’s necessarily who we are, but I certainly don’t think that’s who we want to be. So, I just -- it makes me nervous when we -- when our conversations constantly go towards stopping all progress in the City and maintaining kind of status quo because the status quo isn’t, frankly, good enough where we are right now. So, I just -- those are just kind of my thoughts that are milling around, so.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You know, if we need an extra meeting to discuss those items because I don’t necessarily believe that anyone is against using fiber optic cable. It’s really -- it’s like the streetlight program. Do we buy the streetlights or do we rent them. That’s really all it is. It’s a money thing. So, that’s a simple, you know, calculation, you know what I mean. So, and 15 to 20-year payback just in personal thoughts here is that’s a long, long payback.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. And I appreciate that. And I think that’s a conversation we probably don’t need to have a separate meeting for. I’m just thinking of like looking at the budget and what we want to do as a city bigger picture and making sure that we’re focusing on making progress, bringing development, having amenities, having services, continuing to have the positive feedback from the community. Not specifically the fiber optics, but just kind of an overarching comment from the conversation. So, I don’t feel like we need another meeting, but that’s me.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just wanted to make sure.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And, Dan, one thing that maybe the part of what you said, so something I’d like to do in the fall is maybe have a meeting and just talk about our economic development mind set, the programs we have, how those are structured, and, you know, the understanding behind that so that, you know, I think it’s a good refresher for us to have that from time to time and why we have the programs in place and how they were built and when and how that structure is changed. So, I think that would be good. So, that’s something that’s going to come down the pike. And the second thing I would say is that economic development rated very high on our community survey. And I’ll say that, you know, from my residents one thing I’m asked about all the time is Westbrooke Village and what the City is doing to partner to, you know, bring in tenants there and help make that viable. So, it’s definitely on the mind of our citizens.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, just to go, I mean I’m in favor of your economic development stuff in general. But probably overall and budget-wise I would want to I guess be really tentative on hiring individual people. I mean there was some good -- there is some good items or people on there that we’re going to add. But I don’t necessarily think that we should just rush into it. You know, so anyway, I agree with Mr. Kemmling 100 percent on that. And if we have to have a meeting to discuss that in more detail, then we should have it. But if we don’t, you know, I’m okay with that too.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. For the record, I think I’ve been lectured by about five different people on this Council tonight about I don’t support economic development and that’s ignorant. If you haven’t figured out already that that was not about me being opposed to economic development and this Council supporting economic, then you guys need to open your ears. Because I actually came right out and said it point blank that I support economic development. So, where the hell I’m getting all these lectures from you guys about we’ve got to have economic development or you’re some kind of nut case, I don’t really appreciate that very much. And I’m going to draw the line right there. That’s enough of that. I was very clear that I was not talking in terms of we don’t need economic development. But I was talking in terms of the fact that maybe it’s coming from the place. And I am not saying I wouldn’t fund economic development for this community, but I may -- I did think when I read this information tonight, and I wasn’t there when you all figured out what you wanted to do with Deffenbaugh, but when I read it, it came across as, you know what, this was supposed to be for keeping -- taking care of our roads and stuff the way I understood it. I don’t need a lecture about economic development from you guys. I support economic development in this community. It’s vibrant. It’s important to keep our community vibrant. It’s important to move forward. I support fiber optics. I think that was clear from the way I talked about that as well. So, I don’t know why this big misinterpretation is going on unless it’s intentional or something, but I didn’t really appreciate it.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Vaught and then Councilmember Meyer and then Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Just real quick to what Mr. Kemmling said. I mean I know since 2007, or 2007, 2010 when I got elected, we haven’t hired an incredible amount of people even since then. I mean we went some years there where we had very little hiring. We have a lot of growth going on again. And so when we look at some of those positions, you look at Parks positions. We added Erfurt Park, but we didn’t give them people to maintain it. And, you know, I mean I can’t even maintain 5,000 square feet of grass right now. I haven’t mowed it in ten days. I’m probably going to get a codes violation. So, and I’d be mowing it tonight, but I’m sitting here. It’s, you know, I mean when we -- when we -- we’ve got to all keep that in mind. When we expand Parks, we’ve got to give them resources to maintain it. And Erfurt is not an easy one to maintain. That’s a high maintenance park. I mean it’s beautiful. It’s a premier park. But it’s not, you know, you can’t ignore it. It’s just -- it can’t be ignored. And then we look at, you know, stormwater. I mean we’re going to be doing a lot more projects, which means you’ve got a little more engineering work. I mean as we grow and as these projects come online, it takes staff to do this. And so I mean I will say the culture in Shawnee that I’ve learned is I don’t see a whole lot of people sitting around doing nothing. I’ve come into City Hall before and I mean it’s like where did everybody go. I mean it’s like there’s nobody here because everybody is out just doing stuff. And there’s enough to do. So, you know, by no means are we overstaffed. I have a pretty good feeling that, and since 2010, I’ve, you know, when staff is saying we need a position, I don’t think it’s, you know, I don’t think it’s pie in the sky. I don’t think they’re just -- well, let’s put someone here and hopefully we’ll find something for her to do. There is always, you know, there is always, you know, should we contract that out, should we do this. I think Parks, and I will say I think Parks, I mean, it’s amazing that they’re able to do what they do with the staff they have. Because you look at, I mean I think Lenexa has, what, 50 more parks staff members than Shawnee. I mean, it’s crazy. I mean their parks department has as many as our city does. I mean, it’s -- Lenexa is like they’re 400 employees or something, aren’t they?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Over 400.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I mean they’re smaller than we are and they have twice as many employees. Now, I don’t want to be Lenexa.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: They do. And they’re, you know, they’ve got a big tax based because they’re doing a lot of cool things. And, Eric, it wasn’t -- I wasn’t attacking you on economic development. I think we all want economic development. I think we disagree on how we’re going to get there. There’s a certain faction that doesn’t believe in incentives or doesn’t believe that we can achieve it that way. That we should be able to develop our community based on the merits of our community and people should just come here because we’re that good that people just want to locate in Shawnee. I’m not saying you said that. But that’s been said by some people in political positions that I’m just kind of amazed at. Because the reality is, is whether we like or not economic development incentives are a fact of life. And it’s just how it is. And so, you know, when the state passed the, you know, passed the law on TIFs and said go do your enterprise zones, Shawnee dropped the ball. Because at that time we were like, well, you know, we’re a residential community and we didn’t enterprise zone 435. We didn’t enterprise zone mass swatches of ground. I think Lenexa, you know, enterprise zoned everything within their borders. So, they can TIF anything they want. And it’s kind of sad that they do because you look at them and you go, oh, my god, really. I mean, I think when we look at incentives, you know, by no means are we reckless with them. And so when I look at, even that fee, and I think that’s where this conversation is, is, you know, what is a good use of that fee. I was a part of that process on that as well. And I felt good that we took a part of that and we said we need to do things that stimulate economic development. No different than when I suggested and proposed let’s limit the excise tax. It was controversial, but it worked. We have, you know, 300,000-400,000 square feet of industrial buildings on 43rd Street and another one that’s getting started that literally would not be there except for suspending the excise tax. And so we all talk about things. When it comes to economic development that’s always been my focus. That’s always been my passion. And I’m constantly thinking what can we do to make things happens. What can we do to -- and, you know, some things work, some things don’t. Hopefully I learn from my mistakes. But I think we’ve made some really good progress. And I do believe we’ve used that fund in a very good way. And we’re not abusive with it. And Mr. Kemmling is right. I mean could it be used for -- yeah. We could sit up here and vote to go buy, you know, go do whatever with it, but we don’t. We’re responsible. We don’t do that and I don’t think we will. And I think we’d have a public outcry if we did. So, come on. So, I like the direction we’re going. But I will just say about the employee thing, we’re growing. This community is growing. We’re adding more people. You go out, I mean, we’re doing, what 300 -- we’re going to do 350 permits this year probably, residential permits. We’re back on pace for that do you think? Or is Paul -- what do you think, Paul?

MR. CHAFFEE: Probably 250.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Or 250-300. Yeah. So, you know, I mean, you start adding rooftops it takes manpower to service that. And you can’t add that many houses and streets and all that without adding people to service that. And it’s just like a growing company. You’ve got to add employees to keep up with that growth, so.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I would just weigh in. Eric, I apologize if you felt as though my comments were singling you out. I didn’t mention you. I was not intending to single you out. I am merely commenting as my purview with an opinion as all of the rest of us here that the tenor of the conversation to me was reflective of that. If you’re interpretation that in your own mind, I apologize, but that is not the case. I am thrilled to hear that you support economic development and I look forward to working together on those projects in the future. But I think just as we are allowed to disagree on every other issue we can have a disagreement on the conversation, so.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And I wasn’t lecturing you, you know. In one hand you’re telling me that you like economic development, which do. The other hand is you don’t want to fund it. You know, so you balance it out yourself. There wasn’t any kind of a lecture here. I was emplaning to you what the situation was when that all came into effect the way I understood it. You know, you’re after, you know, you -- when you --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Perhaps you misunderstood. Because we were talking about the source of the funding --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- not whether it should be funded.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I understand.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, no, you apparently didn’t, but --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But whenever you bring up something in the economic development line there’s a lot of us that’s pretty passionate about it. And it kind of touches us a little bit. And when somebody wants to come in and try to de-fund it or to move the money somewhere else that’s when you’re going -- you can take it however you want. Maybe just grow a little thicker skin. You know, sometimes you’ve got to take it. But when you put it out there like that and that’s the way it’s interpreted to me, I’m going to come back and say something.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And I’ll add I apologize if you thought I was lecturing you as well. So, I was just giving my opinion and trying to explain kind of where I was coming from and my thoughts behind that.

Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, it looks like --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: We are not having a meeting June 20th. I do ask if you do have any other questions on those positions that you get those to City Manager Gonzales so that those can be presented during the public hearing. If there’s research that you would like to be done, then feel free to send those to me as well and I’d be happy to help out with that.

So, seeing as there’s no further discussion from the Council, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item tonight? Yes, sir. If you could come up and give your name and address.

Public Comment:

MR. ERLICHMAN: Ray Erlichman, (Address Omitted). I just wanted to touch base real fast on an item that’s not going to be in the budget right now, but going forward down the road. We’ve been talking about for quite a while now upgrading Station 71. And personally I think you folks might want to look at that again a little deeper in taking a 40-year-old building and trying to modernize it. I think you might want to give some serious thought to starting from scratch. Things have changed over the years, communications, electronics, this and that. Even domiciling because we now have more, well, mixed fire stations than we did in the past. And that becomes a matter of importance. So, I think you might want to look at that because, and I know I’m going to get in trouble for this next statement, but I’m going to say it. Fixing up a 40-year-old building like that is like putting lipstick on a pig. And if I’m going to get in trouble for that one that’s, well, that’s me. What can I tell you?

All right. The other thing I want to talk about, and it came up on that last chart as far as the Economic Development Fund and the streets. And no, we’re not going to talk about that specifically. But that the economic development portion part of it includes our contract with the Shawnee Chamber for economic development. And over the years I’ve made some comments about that. And it’s time that I think, in my opinion for what it’s worth that maybe you folks should take another look at that. We’ve been without a director of the Economic Development Commission for quite some time. We have two people within the Chamber, within the economic development area, the Director or Executive Director for Visit Shawnee and then the Director of Business Development and Retention, who from what I understand the two of them have been doing a bang-up job. I don’t think anybody can question what they’ve been doing for the City. But without a director for economic development, what’s happened to the City’s money. Now, I’m not going to go through it by line by line because you folks have been here all night and you don’t want to hear it, you don’t want to see it. So, I’m going to give this to the City Clerk. It’s the most current 990 form filed by the Chamber, which would be for the year ending 2015. 2016 would be somewhere in Washington at the IRS right now. And 2017 won’t be filed for another year or something like that. There’s some things in here that are quite outstanding or standing out I should say, they stand out. And my only question is what’s happening with our money that goes to the Chamber. Is it really -- what’s the accountability? What’s been the accountability of the funds without Mr. Nave being there? What’s happening with his money that he didn’t get paid? Personally I think it’s time that the City gives some serious thought to bringing those three positions into City staff. That would then couple with the business liaison person within the City. The City Governing Body would have more control on the funds. They would be able to actually request information as to how the funds are being utilized. And based on the performance from what I’ve heard from various sources, I think that if the City did bring those positions into City staff that the individuals that are currently occupying them be given priority preference for keeping their positions as City employees. In other words, I think that they already have their hands on the pulse of the situation. And I don’t think they would need to be replaced. I would just like to see the movement from the Chamber and let the Chamber be self-sufficient as far as running itself based on donations from the business community. Because when you look at this and you see the amount of dollars that are government grants, I think personally I think it’s outrageous. That’s all I’ve got to say right now because like I said, you folks have been here long enough tonight. I was going to go into it more detail. There were a few items that I was going to highlight on the overhead. Read it for yourself and you’ll see what I’m talking about. That’s all I’ve got to say.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. Where’s the --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’m sorry. [Inaudible; talking off mic.]

MR. ERLICHMAN: You stole the sign-in sheet.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. What Ray had talked about there brought up a thought. We discussed that Station 71 remodeling and everything and we were going to arrange for like a tour and an explanation of this is what we need. And I think that would be extremely useful. Have we still got that on tap done?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes, absolutely. As I said earlier we’re a little swamped right now planning to build a new fire station.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But we definitely would do a tour.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But I mean one of the comments he made was about putting lipstick on a pig and there could be some truth to that as well.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean this is -- we really need to get our heads around this thing and, gee, what do we want to do out there with 71.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. We need to look at the whole thing.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: All options.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, if -- so next item, so I would enter a motion to direct staff to prepare the Notice of Public Hearing based on the proposed 2017R/2018 budget for consideration by the Governing Body at the June 26th City Council meeting. The Public Hearing would be held on July 10th. Does anybody have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. So, we have a motion --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: -- that’s been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All those opposed. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to forward the proposed 2017R/2018 budget forward to the June 26th City Council meeting, at which time the Governing Body would consider setting the legal expenditure limit for the budget and the date and time of a budget public hearing. The motion carried 8-0.]

C. ADJOURNMENT

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: That concludes our agenda, so I’ll accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All those opposed nay. Motion passes. We’re adjourned.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to adjourn. The motion carried 8-0.]

(Shawnee Council Committee Adjourned at 8:16 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 June 21, 2017

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk



File Attachment Icon
CCM06062017.docx