PDF Format:

July 7, 2015
7:00 P.M.

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Killen
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember Vaught Finance Director Rogers
Councilmember MeyerCity Attorney Rainey
Councilmember Sandifer Planning Director Chafee
Councilmember KenigDevelopment Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Human Resource Director Bernard
Police Chief Moser
Fire Chief Mattox
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Assistant to the Public Works Director Gard
Transportation Manager Sherfy
Police Sergeant McCorkill
Fire Marshals Sands
Communications Manager Ferguson
(Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 p.m.)


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Good evening. Welcome to tonight’s City Council meeting. Council Committee rather. My name is Stephanie Meyer. I am the Councilmember from Ward III and I am the Chair of 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; Mickey Sandifer, Ward IV; and Brandon Kenig, Ward IV. Before we begin our agenda I would 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 those times, please come forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record and you may offer your comments. So that the 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 after you are finished, please sign the form to the right of the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address. I would like to also remind Committee members to turn on your microphones when you would like to speak so we can get a clear and accurate record. And I have heard that the recording secretary is having some issue hearing some folks, so please do remember to turn on the mics, speak into the mics. So, thank you.



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We have four items on tonight’s agenda. The first is to discuss parking along 49th Street. At the May 11th, 2015 City Council meeting concerns were raised about on-street parking along the south side of 49th Street east of Nieman Road. Staff has performed a traffic study and Transportation Engineer Sherfy will make a presentation on the findings. Thank you.

MR. SHERFY: Good evening. Mark Sherfy. Tonight we’re going to do just a brief review of the item brought up in the May 11th meeting, that is the parking concerns on 49th Street, specifically between Nieman Road, which on this diagram is on the left, and Bluejacket, which is the road on the right of the sheet here. As we give this short presentation we’re also going to talk about the process staff goes through for each one of these as they come up as several times a month both Public Works, or the Police Department will respond to concerns about parking on street. So, this is 49th Street here between Nieman and Bluejacket. And you’ll notice the symbols with the “P” with the slash, the no parking symbol. The north side of 49th Street is designated as no parking for the entire length of this corridor. And also on the south side for the first 60 feet east of Nieman there to the first duplex there, there is no parking here to corner from the duplex to Nieman Road. Don’t have a written history as to why these have been this way or why these were posted. Probably from complaints in the past. The width of that street is typically 25 feet wide. So, that is the existing conditions out there.

Upon hearing that at that Council meeting on May 11th, both Police and Public Works quickly did an evening review that evening and did not note any emergency issues. There was room for two vehicles to pass. There were cars parked on the street on the south side, legally parked, even with a tire in the gutter, but still legally parked. And there were open spots in the driveway as the resident did bring forward. Staff was able the very following morning to do a peak hour traffic observation. Staff was there for about an hour and actually did a -- performed a traffic count for the main 30 minutes of the morning, 7:25 to 7:55 a.m. They indicated that there were 74 vehicles and one bicycle using 49th Street. There were three instances where cars did have to pass each other around three parked cars at the start of that 30 minutes. They did so without any difficulty. And over the course of that 30 minutes, all three of the cars that were there from 7:25 to 7:55 left and there were zero cars by the end of that study. No emergency issues were noted during that time.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: A question on that. What time did school get let out there at Bluejacket, Flint? Not let out. What was time was, you know, what time does school start there?

MR. SHERFY: School starts for Shawnee Mission School Districts --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is that a grade school, or what is it?

MR. SHERFY: -- I don’t have one in elementary school. I want to say 8:10, 8:10 a.m.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Grade school is 8:10.

MR. SHERFY: Yeah. 8:10 a.m. and then it lets out in the afternoon at 3:10, somewhere around there. I might be off a couple minutes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. That’s about right.

MR. SHERFY: 8:10 to 3:10.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, just thinking of your, you know, when I read that I saw 7:25 to 7:55. You might have wanted to do it to 8:10 or 8:15 because those last individuals --

MR. SHERFY: I was there until 8:10. There were enough cars.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- that drop off are the ones that come through flying a hundred miles an hour.

MR. SHERFY: Yeah. There were no parked cars after 7:55, and the amount of traffic dies off significantly at 7:55 on that day.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: How do you know that, Dan?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I did traffic control for 12 years over there at St. Joe.

MR. SHERFY: Good question.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: You saw Mickey dropping off his kids.

MR. SHERFY: The Police Department conducted traffic counts. They had counted their radar counter down from May 16th through May 28th. That’s quite a long time. They got really good data for us. On average on a weekday, which is slightly more traffic than a weekend, there were 1,512 vehicles a day on 49th Street. And we also wanted to compare that to 55th Street. The same time period there were 5,365 vehicles per day. So, the City has a circulation plan that’s approved. I have the document here if we want to see it. And it gives the classifications for all the streets in the City, arterials, collectors, minor collectors, residential streets. And those are based somewhat on a grade pattern throughout the City. 49th Street is classified and has always been classified a minor residential collector. This is about the traffic volume that we tend to see on minor residential collectors. There is no standard for how we do no parkings on each of these classifications on minor residential streets because we tend to have a higher traffic volume and we tend to have more instances of driveways on those types of streets. There is sometimes when we have no parking, sometimes we have not. And there’s a list in the packet memo of different things. It is not consistent throughout. It is sometimes complaint, sometimes safety driven history. 55th Street is classified as a major collector street as would be 67th Street would be another one if you could get a bearing, so would Pflumm as a major collector. And it tends to have three, four times the traffic volume of a minor collector. We almost always have parking restricted on both sides of those although they’re not always necessarily marked because we haven’t had issues. So, we tend to not put the signs up if we haven’t had problems on the major collector. But the general rule of thumb, major collectors do not have parking allowed on either side. Minor collects are case by case. Staff also reviewed the accident history. From 2010 to 2015, there is one reported accident on this corridor. That was an intersection accident at 49th and Reeder where a vehicle was going south on Reeder at -- did not yield to the stop sign and hit a car on 49th Street, which caused that car to hit a parked car on 49th Street. Not necessarily a passing on 49th Street issue, more in terms of somebody driving a little too aggressively coming off of Reeder. That is the only reported accident in the last 4˝ years. The Police Department did a wonderful canvass of the neighborhood. There were 14 homes on the image I displayed first that have driveways that front onto 49th Street. And those are the ones that typically, by policy, we consider the ones impacted by a restriction. So, the Police Department did try to contact all them and talk about the parking habits and about the parking issue. Five of those fourteen properties would support no parking on both sides of 49th street, four would not. Two were neutral on the issue and three were unavailable. We weren’t able to get those tenants there or property owners at the time of our canvass. So, kind of a 50/50 split there. Maybe a little more of a majority, but not an overwhelming consensus for sure.

The procedure that staff goes through on regulatory signs. And a regulatory sign is a sign you can get a ticket for disobeying. Stop signs, speed limits, parking. Those are regulatory signs. They’re white and black or white, black and red typically. Policy Statement 42 is a policy that has worked very well through the years. It was effective in 2001 and last revised in 2014. The section of that policy state for no parking signs pretty much lays out the process we go through anytime we get a request for no parking. A lot of these requests are just simply I don’t like where my neighbor across the street parks his car at the end of my driveway, and I’ve asked him and he won’t move it. The City wants that to be a good neighbor, neighbor-to-neighbor discussion and not a regulatory discussion.

The policy statement says that a site review, when these things comes up, will be conducted by Public Works, Police or both departments whenever no parking signs are requesting. That site review is a trigger for both Police and Public Works to look at it from a safety standpoint. Is an emergency vehicle going to get by when there is a parking issue. Usually there is. Somebody may have to slow down or put it in reverse to let the emergency vehicle to get through. But by and large there isn’t much of a safety concern in a lot of these.

We will instantly, without even canvassing the homes or asking the homes if we have hills or sight distance issues, vertical or horizontal, the signs will go up without any further discussion. Because this regulatory sign is something the Police Department will have to enforce, that policy statement says that the Public Works, Transportation Manager or Public Works Director or designee can’t go installing no parking signs without the consent of the Police Chief. That’s in the policy statement. And again, we install them when there’s emergency access issues.

It also says in the policy statement that signs are installed if the impacted residents or their representative homes association requests the restriction. I know the intent of that sentence -- or that may seem like that’s anybody who drives through there is the impacted resident. The intent is the impacted residents are the ones who have houses and driveways on the restriction. This sentence comes into play on the homes associations that have pools or common areas for soccer and baseball practices. You’ll get complaints from other neighbors saying when they have practice or with the pool we want no parking on one side of the street, will you please post that. We don’t want to follow that as complaint driven. If the homes association wants to as a homes association come in and say we recognize a problem, we would like to do one side or both sides, then we will do that. The issue is we don’t want to take it from complaints, we want to take it from a neighborhood concern. So, that is the intent on that. The impacted residents are the ones impacted by a restriction.

The City chased no parking around Shawnee Mission Northwest for a decade. Sometimes no parking signs to solve a problem have unintended consequences. If the intent on 49th Street is to get all those folks to park in their driveways, some will comply. Some or their guests when the driveways are full, they’ll move to other locations. They’ll move to Reeder or to Bluejacket. So, you have to be cognizant of the impacts of restrictions.

So, the recommendation staff has. The parking restrictions currently in place on 49th Street alleviate emergency access concerns. We’ve already done the north side. We’ve done the first 60 feet east of the intersection. We also have confirmed that not all of the adjacent residents impacted are in support. And through following the policy statement, staff would recommend no further action. With that, I’d open it up to any questions or comments.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Thanks for looking into this. Personally after talking with several of the individuals there in the neighborhood, and I don’t mean within the 14 houses right there, I mean, all the way up and down 49th Street, which is what -- which is really the people that use that, and then all the people north of 49th. And then it’s really used kind of as a cut-through street to get down to I-35. So, I would have to, you know, side with the residents on this and say that, you know, one, wherever your diagram is that we should go farther to the east with the no parking signs on the south side of the road. I mean, you could probably go to Reeder there and try it out. And I would contend that all of those duplexes right there that you see on the south side of the road that not one of those individuals is going to want a no parking sign. So, that’s like a guarantee so every one of those residents is going to vote the other way. And anybody traveling through there that’s done it several times, and I have, my in-laws lived up there, so I traveled that street for, I mean, 30 years. And I agree with Mr. Mills. And he couldn’t be here tonight. He called me today and said, hey, you know, I’ve got to go some -- one of their relatives has passed away and he’s got to go to Florida. So, you know, I told him, hey, I would just, you know, speak some of his concerns. But, you know, he’s just like, you know, he’s going to get a petition up and all kinds of stuff with all of the people in that, you know, from Switzer to County Line to, you know, 50th Street. You know, the people to the south probably don’t use that as much. But those people to the north use that street, I mean, quite frequently. And I mean I would think the majority would agree with Mr. Mills and I agree with him. I think we need to go at least back to Reeder and try that. And if there is, you know, we can always take them out. I mean, you know, we tried this for a while and the residents are not happy. They’ve brought it up at least two more times, maybe three. And so, I don’t know, I think it’s time to do something and, you know, I agree with Mr. Mills. So, have it go back to Reeder. I know he wants farther down than that, but at least that would get the cars turning in off of, you know, off of Nieman Road. Given them a little bit of time and stuff like that to react to oncoming traffic, so. And, well, your comment earlier about the person coming off of Reeder, that wreck, you know, the car ran into a parked car. You know, we don’t know the whole circumstances there. Maybe they ran a stop sign, you know, I don’t know. But they hit a parked car. So, I don’t know. I just -- I don’t know. I would go with Mr. Mills’ comments, or at least go back to Reeder and try that out for a year and see what -- I don’t think you’ll have a lot of complaints after you put it up for a few months, you know. You’ll probably never a complaint, but I don’t know. So, that’s my opinion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any further discussion from the Council? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I suppose -- did you want to make a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I’ll make a motion that we go with the residents in the area and, you know, do no parking signs at least back to Reeder to the east of Nieman Road on the south side of the road in addition to the signs that you’ve already got posted there.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there a second?


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


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Those opposed nay.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-1)


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The second item on tonight’s agenda is to discuss the 2015 Citizen Survey. Later this year the City will partner with ETC Institute of Olathe, Kansas to conduct a citizen survey to help measure public opinion of the effectiveness of City services and programs. Communications Manager Ferguson will make a presentation.

MR. FERGUSON: Good everyone. Excited to be with you and give you an overview of where we stand on the process. Get some feedback and overview of the process from you guys as well. So, just a little background. So, we’ve begun the process for putting together the 2015 survey. To give you a little background. 2012 was actually the year we did our first citizen survey, so this will be the second. As you can see from this slide that the results from that survey were overwhelmingly pretty positive about City services and quality of life in the City of Shawnee. Terms of other ratings that from the 2012 survey had high ratings in terms of public safety, parks and rec programs as well as customer service that citizens received from City employees.

As I said, we’ve begun the process with ETC Institute of Olathe to begin the process of putting together the next survey. Obviously it’s a three-year gap at this point by the time we finish this survey process. Hoping to get into a two-year, regular two-year cycle of putting these together so we can see regular trends and get regular feedback because I think this is a great way of getting some unbiased public engagement opportunities with the citizens of Shawnee.

As I said, we’ll be working with ETC Institute out of Olathe, Kansas. They are a nationally known market research firm here locally in the metro area. As you can see from this map there is really not a part of the country they have not worked in. A lot of great feedback from other cities that have worked with them, and we had a good experience with them in 2012 and have decided to go ahead and work with them again. As you can see some other local cities that work with them include Overland Park, Lenexa, Olathe, a couple of cities on the Missouri side, Blue Springs, Kansas City, Missouri as well use their services. But again, nationwide, they have got a great reputation for this type of research and this type of service in terms of citizen survey. Citizen surveys, I can tell you I’ve been to conferences all around the country and have gotten great feedback anytime their name has been mentioned.

One of the reasons we’ve had good results working with ETC is that first bullet point you see where they specialize in Geo-Coding. That’s basically a fancy way of pointing things out on a map. They are able, and that’s important for two reason. One, I know it’s been mentioned in some previous discussions with the Council and City staff about making sure we get proper balance across the City in terms of feedback from citizens on the citizen survey. They are able to, with the system they’ve set up, as they get surveys in be able to analyze where those surveys come from. So, if there is a part of the City, part of the community that’s being under-represented in terms of feedback, they will work to get feedback from those areas of the City, so in the end we get a good proper balance. And the second is you get great in-depth insight into the results themselves. You can compare areas of the cities in terms of feedback on different issues and different questions and see how different areas of the City reacted.

So, getting to more of this year’s process. A draft of this year’s survey has been completed. It’s been provided to you in your packet. That was completed last week. City staff has had a brief chance to review that and take a look at it. We’re pretty happy with it so far, but obviously we’re asking for your feedback and opinions as you take a look at it as well. Once that survey is -- this year’s survey is finalized, I mean, we’re hoping to do that hopefully in the next anywhere one to three weeks. ETC will get those printed, then we’ll mail them to 2,000 randomly selected households in Shawnee. They’ll wait a couple weeks and then they’ll follow with phone calls to those households that they have not received surveys from and will offer those households the opportunity to complete the survey by phone.

One important thing to note. Obviously 2,000 compared to the size of our City with our population is a small number. That does not mean that the rest of those citizens that are not randomly selected will not get a chance to give us feedback. We will put this survey on our City website so that everyone has the opportunity to let us know their thoughts and opinions on these questions. It will be just as if they were selected. Now, in terms of the results themselves that are presented at the end of this process, it will be based on the 2,000 because they’ll have to be statistically validated and that is not possible from just doing an open survey on the City website.

As you can see here the goal for ETC is to have 400 of those completed. And then at that point once they get to that point they will begin to calculate and tabulate the results. One, as we get into the final results for the process works from there, they get the 400 surveys completed. They calculate the results and then they will draft, ETC will draft a final report for us to take a look at, explaining kind of the results and some of the trends and some of the things they found in their analysis. We’ll post those results on the City website. And then at that point probably that will be sometime early in the fall, at some point this fall. Looking probably like the November Council Committee meeting, a representative from ETC will come, answer questions and present in terms of what they found and what they got out of this survey. Again, it will allow us to compare trends from 2012, see our trend lines where we’re going.

One other important thing to note as I finish up, then I’ll take questions. 2012 survey, for those of you that were here then and seen the draft survey, now you’ll notice a lot of the questions have remained that same. That is on purpose. Again, for the purpose of seeing trend lines and seeing comparisons in 2012 to today. We have included some of the newer questions on there. Have included discussion points that the Council has discussed recently, whether it’s legalization of fireworks, electric vehicle charging stations at City facilities, various economic development initiatives as well. So, with that, happy to take any questions.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I know you guys have mentioned this in the past. What’s the overall cost of this survey?

MR. FERGUSON: The cost -- the total cost is 13 --



MR. FERGUSON: A little over $13,000. And that has been budgeted previously.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I got a couple questions, Dan. Looking at Item 32 here, “Would you be in favor of the City installing charging stations for electric vehicles at City facilities?” Well, you know, that’s kind of a loaded question. What’s the right answer? Yes? I mean, it doesn’t say are you in favor of the City installing electric charging stations for electric vehicles at City facilities with the City picking up the tab for the electricity.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Then the guys will go, well, no, let me think.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They’re going to at least stop and think because --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- that’s what we had to do. We had to stop and think because it was going to cost money. If it was just a matter saying [inaudible] go out and have a great time, put all your things in, no sweat, we probably would have said fine. But I didn’t think it was an appropriate expense to pass on to the citizens of Shawnee.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, I would like to have that modified to where it reflects that it is going to cost the taxpayers money if they say yes to that and we do that. And if that’s what they want to do, that’s great. At least that way we’ve got some foundation for that.

MR. FERGUSON: Right. And I know you’ve got another question, just to respond to that real quickly, Councilman Jenkins. That is a discussion we had internally when we first saw the survey. We had similar thoughts and opinions because you do want to give some, and we had that thoughts and opinions on a lot of these questions before this draft was finalized and making sure that on certain issues such as electric vehicles that there is, you know, potentially some context added to that so that people are aware of sort of a further discussion that’s been happening. So, that’s certainly something we can take a look at.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’m especially --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric, I would jump in on that too real quick. I think if we’re doing that, it might be helpful to also provide the cost of that so, so it’s not --


MR. FERGUSON: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s not just a lose question. And I think the same thing applies when you talk about like the City charges residents a stormwater fee of $36 per year. And that’s all fine. But if they, yeah, I vote for an increase, what’s the increase. Are you going to jump to a hundred dollars? Or, you know, I mean I don’t know. And I think anytime we’re talking about increasing cost it would be helpful if we could frame them in the context of what cost.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, the people answering these questions would at least know they would be doing it with some knowledge available to them.

MR. FERGUSON: No. I think it’s a good point and I think if you notice on one of the issues we asked about was the potential to construct a new community center. That’s been a discussion point. And on that question we did ask in terms of a ratio of, you know, if it was potentially funded through property taxes, given a level of property tax to see what -- kind of what the appetite would be, if any, for that. So, certainly that’s a strategy or something we can take a look at.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think it’s important to get good data.

MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And we want good data.

MR. FERGUSON: Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The other one, 33. “It is currently illegal to sell or use fireworks in the City of Shawnee. How supportive would you be of the City legalizing the selling and using of fireworks within the City limits?” I think that’s kind of a loaded question to a certain extent, too. I would say something to the effect of the City Council is reviewing the option of legalizing fireworks in Shawnee. How supportive would you be in the City legalizing the selling and using of fireworks within the City limits?

MR. FERGUSON: And again, something we can analyze. That’s why we brought it to you, it’s a draft. Now, we did have -- originally when that question was drafted, it was a little more loaded than it was now. We tried to, you know, it was my recommendation that we try to simplify it a little more just to provide -- just to provide the basis of information of where we stand right now, but certainly we can analyze it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I really want to know the answer, what they have to say.

MR. FERGUSON: Right. Yep.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I want it not to be --

MR. FERGUSON: I understand.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- bogus data that we kind of led them to an answer in any way.

MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. It’s a difficult, as you guys know, it’s a difficult balance when you’re kind of working on these questions where you want to --


MR. FERGUSON: You want to give them a basis of kind of facts and information, but you don’t want to make it so long and so overloaded that people -- that sort of drowns out what people think and they’re just, you know --


MR. FERGUSON: I’d compared it to a high school who wanted to get done with a test, you know.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I agree with you on that.

MR. FERGUSON: That’s your point. That’s certainly -- it’s a science and that’s why ETC is really good at it. I’m sure they’ll be able to work with us on those things.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. I agree with that. But we are -- we use this document --

MR. FERGUSON: Oh, no. Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- as part of our decision-making process.

MR. FERGUSON: No. I was not trying to [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, therefore, I want to have -- I want to have confidence in the data basically.

MR. FERGUSON: Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The other thing I was curious about here, and I’ll finish up mine, then we can go on to somebody else. But it talks about -- you talked about the fact that if you fill out the survey online or do some other method that it doesn’t go in the overall results. Okay. Where does that information get reflected?

MR. FERGUSON: We will get those results. It’s just in terms of the final presentation and the final draft of the report. That will be based on the 2000. We’ll certainly be able to get results from those --



MR. FERGUSON: By us most likely. I’ll have to look into that. I honestly don’t know.


MR. FERGUSON: ETC will do -- have the results based on the 2000 that they’ll be able to statistically validate. I will have to check with them and --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean, if somebody feels highly motivated and says, yeah, I want to be part of the survey --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- and they go and take the time to fill out this fairly lengthy document --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- just say, well, you know, that’s nice, we don’t really care because, you know, we’re not going to use your stuff.

MR. FERGUSON: No, no, no. We will -- I think the best way to answer that is that there will be more statistical validity to, I guess make up a phrase, from the 2000. But in terms of finding results, certainly we can calculate those results. And those will be taken into context specifically.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I don’t think I have any problem with it being reported separately, side-by-side or whatever.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean, but that way they at least, oh, that’s interesting. Now, the people that just went online and filled out --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- are kind of different from the folks that, you know, respond to the mailer. There might be some insights there somewhere.

MR. FERGUSON: No question. And I think the only thing with the online version of this survey, just like anyone else that holds a survey on a website you have, you know, you do get instances where people will fill it out, you know, 15, 20 times, so you have to have some balance in there in terms of weighing the results. But to our point certainly we don’t want to make people and our citizens feel like they go online, fill it out and it sort of drops in a bucket somewhere.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: File 13 or something.

MR. FERGUSON: And those results will be looked at and we’ll certainly analyze those as well.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Lastly, Dan. How are the households randomly selected? What’s the random selection process for this mailing in 2000?

MR. FERGUSON: They have a sampling plan that they go through. And it’s something they have used. They have been in business for about 30 years and it’s very similar. They go city by city. I am not smart enough to explain what that sampling plan is. I can certainly get you more information on that. Again --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Could you ask them to send -- I don’t know if you want to send it to me offline in an e-mail or something.

MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d be curious as to how they --

MR. FERGUSON: Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- select these 2,000 residences out of Shawnee. There’s got to be some kind of basis here.

MR. FERGUSON: No, absolutely. It is a random sampling plan. There is a science and a formula behind. I don’t want to -- I want to do it justice by giving a correct explanation.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Great. Thank you.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan, did you have a question?



COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m kind of curious now that we’re talking about some of the verbiage here. On 24 and 25, it talks about incentives.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I think it might be good if we elaborate on what incentives are.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Because incentives could just mean abatement of a property tax.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But it could also mean, you know, subsidizing with a sales tax, and those are two different things we’ve discussed here.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, I would be curious what the average citizen reading incentive what they would -- how they would interpret that. And if we could clarify that there are different types of incentives and maybe see if they’re in favor of one more than the other or not at all.

MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. We could certainly, and if I’m on the same page with you, look in terms of adding some language, whether it’s a TIF or a community improvement district and some of these other sorts of things that the Council has discussed. Certainly we can look into that. Absolutely.



COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. Follow-up on Councilmember Kemmling’s suggestion, maybe a question that has to do with the types of developments.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Obviously you have commercial developments. You have office developments. It would just be kind of interesting to see kind of what that breakdown looks like.




COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: -- had to do with the website and citizen interactions with the website. I was wondering if there was any internal discussion about having a question specific about the CSR. I was just kind of curious a break out of how many citizens know about the Citizen Service Request, how many use it on a regular basis. Obviously there’s a lot of ways to interact with the website itself, but --

MR. FERGUSON: No. I think that’s a great suggestion, something we could certainly look into. So, yeah, would be happy to do that.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. And I just say that because I get really good feedback from the citizens that do us it.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: But I don’t know how many actually know about it, so it would be good to see what those look like.

MR. FERGUSON: Absolutely. It’s a great suggestion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I’m with Brandon on that one because a lot of people don’t really know about it. If they have a complaint, the first thing I do is tell them, hey, have you filled out a CSR.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: What’s that? So, if we could do some education on just what a CSR is, and then we’re going to get a barrage of them, right? Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, and they are getting ready to roll out soon our new app for the CSR, which will look totally different, and we will be doing publicity on it. So, maybe this would be an opportunity to say the City is preparing to launch a new application.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: How many are using, you know, find a little bit more about current usage.

MR. FERGUSON: That we can explore somewhat.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: That would be a great lead-in obviously to the app. The last question I had was follow-up to Councilmember Jenkins on methodology of the surveys.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’m sure they have like an algorithm or a process to make sure that, or try to get as close to 400 as possible.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, I would be curious in kind of just knowing kind of what that is.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Because obviously when you get less than 400, it’s less statistically significant, so.

MR. FERGUSON: Right. No. Be happy to. And that’s something I should be able to get all of you fairly quickly.




COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other discussion from the Council?

MR. FERGUSON: You guys are tired now already.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would just put in my plug. I’m happy to see the community center listed as among the questions since I hear that all the time as I’m sure Jeff does as well. So, thank you.

MR. FERGUSON: Thank you all.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this item? If you would you just state your name and address for the record.

MR. TERRILL: Certainly. I’m Ben Terrill. And I live at (Address Omitted). And I’ll be sure and give that to the City Clerk as well before I sit down.


MR. TERRILL: Great questions. I think this is a super thing that the City does. And most of the concerns I have have already been addressed by the Councilmembers, which is excellent. I wonder if there would be a possibility going back to comments that were made at the May 19th meeting, Council Committee meeting when fireworks legalization was being discussed. Members brought up at the time, in fact, Councilmember Jenkins brought up the issue of a public fireworks display. And there was some discussion around that, which I copied and pasted down here. Apparently between 2001 and 2008, according to the record, we jointly ran a fireworks over at Shawnee Mission Park with the City of Lenexa. And City Manager Gonzales made a point of responding to Congressman Jenkins that the cost at that time, who knows what it would be now, was that our half of the cost was approximately $40,000 off the top of her head at that time. She didn’t have the statistics, but that’s what she could remember. What if we added a question to the survey that said something like this? The City used to provide a public fireworks display in honor of Independence Day at Shawnee Mission Park in cooperation with the City of Lenexa. This was stopped after 2008. How supportive would you be of reinitiating this program? Because it’s right -- it would be right there next to legalization of fireworks, so they’re thinking fireworks. And they’re thinking that gives them, you know, something to balance. Let’s see. I’ve got a couple of kids. I really don’t want them shooting off fireworks, but if we had a public display, yeah, I’d be in favor of that. And maybe it needs to have some parameters about cost also, I don’t know. But I think it would be worth asking.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think that’s a great idea. I would include, yeah, parameters about 60,000 or whatever it is. But I think that makes sense to add that in as one of our questions. Thank you. And, Jeff, did you --



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, if you’ll sign the -- yes.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m agreement with that one, too. If we could add that, that would be great.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What I would say is that we absolutely need to reflect the cost. Because if we’re --


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- going to reflect the cost of what could amount to maybe a few thousand dollars a year for charging stations, then we should probably let people know that the fireworks is going to cost them 40 or 50,000.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, I agree. Yeah. I think otherwise, yeah, why wouldn’t you say, yes, fireworks.



COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And before we would determine that it’s going to be 40 or $50,000, we need to also make sure that Lenexa would join with us again. Other than that, it would cost 60 or 80.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I’m not sure we could get that answer prior to getting the survey out. So, maybe we would come up with some -- if it’s split, this is what it would be, but the total might this. Because Lenexa has so many activities on the Fourth of July that they already have had for years and year, when we did split it, we ended up bearing the overtime costs and all the staffing costs because they’re staff was working during the day. So, that was a lot of our costs. They did split the actual half of the fireworks show with us, so.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And maybe we include a little larger cost and just say of up to whatever the cost would be.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. What are thinking, like 80 grand or 75?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean, what do you think?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: If you’re doing half, you’ll have to figure 80.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’ll do an accurate assessment of what it would be.



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Figure a number that’s reasonable.



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But not too low either.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there any further discussion from the Council? All right. Seeing none, I don’t think a motion is necessary. I assume you all have what you need to move forward. Perfect. All right.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The third item on tonight’s agenda is to discuss Councilmember appointment process. On February 3rd, 2015, the Council Committee discussed this item and asked staff to conduct further research for consideration. Staff is seeking feedback on the Council’s desire to modify the current charter and/or to adopt a formal policy addressing the City’s current practices. Katie Killen, Assistant City Manager, will make a presentation.

MS. KILLEN: Good evening. As Councilmember Meyer said, Katie Killen, Assistant City Manager. Tonight, I’m going to give you a little bit more information on the vacancy process. And I just want to make sure, you know, that most of the time we’re going to give to you to discuss this and provide any direction, but City Attorney Rainey and I will be here to answer any questions that we can at this time, especially in light of the new election law that does cover vacancies that’s still trying to take care of clarification and possible future action that might be on it next session.

So, starting off we’ll recap information that was presented at the February Committee meeting. We have some new councilmembers since that time, so just to review it. Then briefly discuss the federal level and state level, how those appointments are conducted and what statutes and U.S. documents dictate those since there has been some discussion. Also look at that new election bill in reference to the vacancy section specifically and then also go on to explore some different examples that have been discussed over the last couple of months that have come up.

So, starting off with the February Committee meeting, we had discussion about authority versus practice, which we’ll go into tonight again, a brief history of the City of Shawnee and how the vacancy process has worked. Review the different methods that different cities responded to in Johnson County and in major communities across the State of Kansas on how they fill vacancies. And then at the meeting, of course, there was a motion to table it until tonight’s meeting, so that’s why we’re talking about it.

So, starting off with authority versus practice. When we’re kind of talking about the different ways that cities get to the decision-making process of a vacancy, I’m going to refer to authority when I’m talking about actual codes and ordinances that actually dictates specifics on how and who make that final decision. When I talk about practice I’m talking more about a procedure that could be informal or some more informal policy document than an actual charter code. So, in terms of the City’s history of actual authority, that’s set out in our charter ordinances. And this is a brief history of how that charter has actually changed over the years. In 1962, under Charter Ordinance 1, it was under direct elections that councilmember vacancies were filled. And then in 1964, it changed to a mayor appointment type of process. And then it was in 1974 under Charter Ordinance 12 that we have the process that we currently still have today where the councilmembers would appoint that and the mayor is able to vote in specific instances. And we’ll look at that language here in a second. And that has been continued as the charter ordinances were updated, with the most recent one being Charter Ordinance 40, which you all adopted in 2009.

So, in Charter Ordinance 40, it is Section 7 that lays out how the vacancies are to be filled in terms of councilmember appointments. And that vacancy needs to be filled within 60 days or it would go to a special election. Then in Section 5, that’s where it stated how the mayor may be able to vote on such a vacancy, and that is when the number of favorable votes is one less than required. So, Shawnee’s practice at the time, the prior practices I have it referred to here. And back in February was to publicize the vacancy. The City Clerk put out information on deadlines and forms that the applicants would need to submit. A meeting date for the interview was set. The interview format was random draw. And then really the process was just the first Council motion was the first one kind of to be nominated out of that group. In our last appointment process the Governing Body decided at that time to modify that process. And so we still continued to publicize the vacancy in a similar way, still have the interview with the order determined by random draw. But then changed it with the whole nomination process of having that written out, displayed on the screen and tallied. And then following the procedure on the person with the most nominations getting that first motion and then how it would proceed if there were ties, and then also how it would proceed if a motion were to fail.

In terms of survey results that we shared in February, they varied across jurisdictions, but there were four categories, if you will, of how those processes are set out in different cities in Johnson County and again in major cities we asked, Wichita, Topeka, the UG and Johnson County Government outside of Johnson County cities. So, in terms of the first method, the Council/Governing Body form, which is what the City of Shawnee currently has. Again, it would just be the Governing Body or the Council that makes that nomination and recommendation and appointment. There are variations though in terms of process to get there. Just like we changed our process, some cities actually have very specific interview processes that they go through. Some of them have additional votes to kind of whittle down the number of candidates they have. So, the processes do vary.

In terms of the mayor, with council approval, there are several communities in Johnson County that have this as their form. The mayor gets to that decision again in different ways. For example, in the City of Mission, they do create a small committee that includes the mayor and other members, some other members that actually go through the interviews and talk with the different candidates. And in other communities, it’s just simply the mayor who would make that decision. And then, of course, they bring it to the Council. Similar system as the boards and commissions that we have and then the Council would approve.

Another form that is out there is a very specified committee, so this is an informal practice. This is actually spelled out inside of their codes where a group of elected officials make the recommendation to the rest of their governing body. And this is set up in different ways from these communities. In Leawood, for example, it’s the mayor, council president and the other ward member. In Overland Park, it’s the mayor, the council president and then a specific chair of some of their committees. And then in Wichita, they have an actual district board system already in place. And so one of the jobs of the district board, should there be a vacancy in that district, would be to go through the candidates and propose nominations and recommendations to the council.

And then finally, direct elections. The City of Roeland Park has this. And even though cities don’t necessarily go to direct elections first, many do have provisions inside of their charters to go to an election if the vacancy falls within a certain number of days of an election or if the decision isn’t made, it’s kind of the way they would move forward to make sure there is representation.

So, moving on to some new information, and like I said, I’ll just briefly touch on this since it has been brought up. In terms of U.S. representatives, how those vacancies are filled in the State of Kansas. It’s outlined in Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and then it’s put out in statute in K.S.A. 25-3501 through 08 and a special election is called by the Governor and the district’s parties actually nominate the candidates for their specific parties in those districts. There are ways for independents to get onto the ballot as well and those provisions are set out. And then there is also a specific section inside of the statute that if the vacancy falls within a regularly scheduled election there’s a different procedure to follow, but it still goes to a special election. It goes to an election.

For U.S. Senators it’s outlined in the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also K.S.A. 25-318, and that’s a government appointment. And then that appointee serves until the next election of representatives to Congress. And then at that election whoever is elected would just serve out the term of the previous senator.

In terms of state representatives and senators, if there is a vacancy there that’s outlined in K.S.A. 25-3903. And in those instances a district convention is called again for their specific areas of the party they nominate and elect the member and then the governor does the formal appointment of that person.

Moving on to what we now have as law, as many of you know the State Legislature passed new legislation this year changing the way local governments will have elections going forward. And there’s also information inside of that that talks about vacancies. And that’s House Bill 2104. And inside of that section that is also included in your council packet, I didn’t want to put a big block of text up here for you to have to read through. It sets out a process for the governing body to actually do the appointing and it talks about an initial 60-day time frame. It discusses that if after 60 days that appointment doesn’t happen that a 45-day time frame for a special election comes into play. And then it also mentions that cities have the ability to use a procedure that they already have in place if it fulfills a 60-day time frame. I will say there are many questions that still remain with not only the section but the rest of the election bill and how this is being interpreted or will be interpreted. We have had preliminary discussions with the county election office, with League of Kansas Municipalities and they’re still looking for guidance at the election office, hopefully from the Secretary of State’s office and the League is still looking at possibly having a trailer bill next year. They’re already been in discussions with one of the election chairs and he has started that discussion process. Not sure if it’s going to come in the form of an interim or a work group, but they know there is issues with this bill. And so next year there will probably be a trailer bill to kind of clean up some of the things inside the bill, so just to be mindful of that.

Moving on to the three examples that were discussed the packet. One example and one possibility is that if you liked the process of that modified practice that you just used for the last appointment we could formalize that inside of a policy statement and just make sure everything is clearly outlined inside of that.

The second example would be to move to special elections. I know that’s been something that has been discussed. We would probably start with Roeland Park as a template to work through. They had some really good language in terms of timelines that we’d want to work closely with the election office to make sure it would meet deadlines that they would have, or expect, or need. Like I said though, there is still further clarification that’s going to be expected in the next couple of months hopefully from the Secretary of State’s office so that the county election office might be able to give us a little more direction on some of that. And then, of course, we’ve discussed this before, a charter change would be required for this type of change.

And then finally example three is the town hall election that Mr. Erlichman described at the May 26th Council meeting. It outlined how it would work and he passed that out. And I also included it inside the packet tonight. And essentially the voters of that ward would be able to come together in a town hall meeting, have you all interview and be able to hear that interview process and then cast a vote for who they believe should represent them. And I mentioned in the packet, and I would just reiterate tonight there are questions, if this is the direction you’d want to go, that we would really need to sit down and talk with the election office with because there are state statutes that give the election office the authority over elections for local government and also just some of the Help America Vote Act requirements out there and how close is this to a regular election and would need to fall under those, so things to be mindful of.

So, that is pretty much the information I have prepared for you. Of course, if you have any other ideas, we can look into those. We’ll do our best to answer your questions tonight. But as I said, there is still quite a bit of unclear pathways to navigate with this new election law. So, happy to hear any discussion you have tonight and answer your questions as best we can.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you, Katie. Is there any discussion from the Council? Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ve got two comments and they really consider two different options because we had a number of options presented to us, so I’ve got my feels on two different separate options. I feel like we have an opportunity now to go to an election process, a regular election because of the timing of the new City election cycle. I think what we had before with one of our wards not having a councilman to represent them right in the middle of the budget preparation process was kind of a big negative. I think that was sold as a negative. I think it was a negative. Now, with the election cycle changing, we would have a really comfortable margin of time to go ahead and have the special election and have the person run and knock on the doors and get to know his ward before he stepped into the chair and elected by the people of his community. So, I think we got a really good opportunity to make that change now whereas before it did look a little bit more difficult because you didn’t have anybody there to represent you during the budget cycle. The other comment I had, and if we do stay with what we have, and that’s the choice of this Council, then I would like to just modify it slightly what we did the last time and that would be that we wouldn’t vote the night of the interviews. We do an awful lot of voting up here with stuff that’s just literally hit us five minutes before we have to vote. And I really don’t like that very much. And I don’t think any of you guys out there would like it very much either if you’re sitting here. And so I just presented something to you and five minutes later you’re supposed to say yes or no. I like to think about this stuff a little while and let it rattle around inside my brain a little bit and see what I think about it and then maybe vote on it in the next meeting. So, I would suggest something along the lines of go ahead and do that interview process, do whatever we do and then the subsequent meeting, Council meeting we’d actually do the -- we’d cast our ballots the way we wanted to. That way we have a chance to really digest what we heard and maybe go back and reread some of the stuff. We want to reread it and have a little more opportunity to make a good decision.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would just jump in, Eric. I support elections. I have for a while. I guess my question to your line of thought here is the vacancy could occur at any time really, so.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I mean, I guess I like that the elections have moved to fall, but, yeah. Dan. So, that was just my ramble. I don’t know. Go ahead.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I agree. I’m in favor of going to an election process of the people. And so I think when I talked to Brian Newby the last time we discussed this, I think there’s going to be an election every fall. So, depending on when the vacancy occurred you would possibly only be out 12 months at any given time and piggy back on someone else’s election, so it wouldn’t cost the citizens of Shawnee any additional dollars.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think Mickey was next.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I think staff is looking for more time to do a little more research, aren’t they?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, we’d like to hear your all’s direction on what you would like to do.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Then I think obviously we’re going to have to look at whatever interpretation of the statute comes about and then see whether or not it complies. So, that was the thought tonight just to get some direction of what the majority, where the majority would like to head, then we’ll have to evaluate it with the new law.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I’m kind of in agreement with Eric a little bit that, you know, with the -- being able to make a decision the next following meeting and being able to digest some of everything, you know, all the applications and résumés instead of just reading everything and trying to make a decision on the spot. But, you know, I think that was a pretty good idea.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: You know, I just go here back to the packet and this talks this H.B. 2104. This bill is just -- it is very hard to understand, to know -- well, I got a story, but I want to -- it’s hard to know where, in fact, the rules and rocks are going to be because there is a number of interpretations starting with the state and the Secretary of State and he’s got to make his determinations and set out how this whole bill is going to be implemented. There is a need for a trailer because there is other stuff involved in it that, you know, there’s an uncertainty. And then we’re going to get to -- the county people will go and do their procedures and then we will finally know what the rules are procedures, policies and things to go for. But right now it’s just sort of like shooting at a moving target. The one thing I would just throw in here that I did like out of the bill, it said, “Prolonged vacancies in the governing body of a municipality deprives citizens of their right to representation and act as impediments to the orderly function of government municipalities.” Typically it says a person filled within 60 days. I believe that’s what our -- we do it in 60 days, or then it calls for --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We would just call -- you all would call for an election within 60 days and then --


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- the timing would depend on when the election office -

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes. The 60 days. But then the law goes on, says if the appointment is not made within that 60-day time frame the governing body shall pass a resolution which has to be held within 45 days. I believe we have heard from the county election office that they need somewhere between four and five months to set up a special election. So again, there’s an answer here somewhere, but there’s so many unknowns going on again as we go forward. It’s just sort of hard to figure out who is on first, who is on second. But I will -- and, Eric, I think that’s a good idea as far as -- I like that idea of modifying our current procedure perhaps so that if the interviews and then come back a week later and let it soak in and think about it. I think that I could agree with that easily, so.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m going to agree with Stephanie on the first comment. I would say that when we talk about getting in on the next election cycle, we don’t know when that vacancy is going to occur. So, if someone resigns in January, we’ve got until that following election. So, and that kind of brings back another question about the election process because, Dan, you’re saying that we can piggyback on these elections. But, you know, what if we’re eight months away from an election? Do we wait eight months? So, if we’re going to go to the voters and we’re saying this is the best way to do it and we’re going to give you the opportunity to vote and we’re going to piggyback on an election, but if we’re eight months away and we’re not going, then are we spending 40 grand for an election or 30,000, whatever it costs? And do we need to educate the voters and get them to understand that this isn’t always free. Because we do have a time frame here, we’re probably going to want to fill it. How long do you want to let that seat sit? At the end of the day that’s why I really have an issue with the election process. Truth is, I wouldn’t be concerned about winning in an election in my ward because I’ve won two. And I think most people who go out and run those elections, but, you know, I guess when I look at what other cities are doing, the fact that Roeland Park who I don’t think we want to model ourselves after, is the only city that’s having an election. I look at these other cities and we’re probably more transparent on our process. I mean, we’ve got cities that the mayor makes a recommendation and, you know, take it or leave it. If you don’t take it, then the mayor is going to make another recommendation till you find one you like. I mean, you know, this is in our control and, you know, elections or votes don’t always go the way you want them, but we’re the governing body, we make those decisions. But it is by far the cheapest way to do it and it’s the quickest way to do it. We can have a seat filled in short order, 30 days, 60 days, and it doesn’t cost a dime other than, you know, a few hours of staff time preparing documents. I’m not opposed to waiting a week, but I’m questioning it because I guess what I’m saying, thinking is it’s not like we’re seeing this information for the first time that night. We’ve had their résumés and we’ve had their cover letters and we’ve had that information in our hands for a considerable amount of time to review and then we have an interview process. It’s not like we’re interviewing 75 people for a job. There’s usually a handful of people. And I mean, I feel pretty comfortable based on having all that information in front of me, reading it and then listening to him speak that night, deciding whether they’re the right person or not. My fear waiting a week is I think it’s like any other big decision. I think you really open yourself up to the possibility of a KOMA violation because there is no way that we’re not going to have private discussions and e-mails regarding who we’re going to appoint going on throughout this Council. And we’ve already skirted the issue recently I think and, you know, I think we really opened ourselves up on that one. That’s a pretty big decision and it’s a pretty big decision on this Council because we’re pretty divided on these appointments. And I think we sit there for a week. And I think the amount of chatter is -- I think we just really expose ourselves, so that would be my concern on that. And as long as we’re talking about the survey, let’s put the question on the survey. Let’s ask the public how they want us to appoint, but let’s put the dollar amount in there. Are you in favor of us doing the appointment process as we’ve done for X-amount of years, which is a long time, that costs us no money, that’s, you know, this is how it works, or do you want to have an election that couple potentially cost us $40,000 to fill a vacancy that might only be filled for eight months and then we have another election. If we’re going to put all these survey questions in there, then let’s put that in there. Let’s put the dollar amount in there so people understand what we’re talking about. Because I still -- when I talk to people in my ward and talk about this process, they go why would you spend money on an election, there’s no point. Because anybody that really understands the government goes it’s what everybody else does, isn’t it? Yeah. Well, why don’t we? And we do. And I don’t know why we want to change it. Especially when we look at what these other cities are doing. I mean, I’m trying to figure out why we want to be like Roeland Park. Some of these cities that we’re looking at here are incredibly successful Johnson County cities. It seems to work for them. I don’t know why it doesn’t work for us.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff, I would just say your comments about why you’re concerned about waiting a week are exactly part of my concerns about not having an election and keeping the process the way it is because we do open ourselves up to this. We do have a history of having KOMA problems. We have, for better or worse, the City of Shawnee we have not been able to do an appointment process without a huge upheaval and controversy and I don’t think that it’s a process that’s working exactly for those reasons.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, our last one wasn’t -- there wasn’t a controversy, a KOMA controversy.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And we never -- and there was never --


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: There was never a violation of KOMA.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No, I’m not saying there was a violation of KOMA.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No. Absolutely I am not saying that that’s what happened. But I am saying that we open ourselves up to that. We have gotten all of this bad, I think justifiably so, all of this bad publicity about what’s been happening. Take it out of our hands and the decision belongs with the people of Shawnee, with the people of that ward. They should be the ones making the decision on this. I would just say regardless of which way it would be go, I would be strongly, strongly, strongly against kicking the can down the road yet another time to wait for --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, then if you’re concerned about the people of that ward, then let’s look at these other cities and say, okay, the mayor with the other councilmember and a committee member from that ward.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Let them appoint. Let them make the recommendation with approval of the Council because they’re the ones most in touch with their ward. I mean, if we’re really concerned about that. Because if the person -- if I nominate somebody that’s totally crazy, I’m sure I’m going to difficult time in my next election and I think anybody up here would. So, if you really want to do it right, then let’s say fine. If it’s -- whoever the city member is in that ward, along with a committee member, whether it’s the Planning Commission, whatever and the mayor, and they get together and they agree on an appointment and then we approve it because that’s the closest to that ward. They’re the ones that are in touch.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, I think the citizens are the closest to that.




COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: They represent that ward.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, you’re going to have to go out and you’re going to have to talk to your ward and say, listen, these are your choices or who do you want. It would be like when Dawn resigned. I could have went out in Ward III and I could have talked to a lot of people and said, hey, you know, number one, I could look for a candidate myself, or I could have just put it out there on social media or whatever and gotten people’s opinions and made that recommendation based on what I hear back from people. I mean --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s exactly why we don’t have that process, so.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But it does work for other cities. And I don’t see them having this conversation, so it obviously works and it works with some really big, very successful cities. So, you know, I mean, it’s not like a wild idea this came up with that’s in the packet and people are doing it and it’s working. I’m not saying that’s the way we should go, but when we really talk about, I mean, it’s amazing we’ll sit up here and we don’t want to spend a couple thousand dollars a year on electricity for electric vehicles, which I didn’t find anybody against that when I was talking to them. But we’re willing to spend $40,000 a year for a fireworks show or $40,000 a year for an election. Not a year, but 40,000 for a special election. Okay. If we’re going to be that -- if we’re going to sit there and talk about we need to watch, we need to protect the people’s money, let’s protect it. Let’s protect it all the way and let’s not spend things. I mean, because I guarantee you not everybody wants a fireworks show. I could go out and I guarantee you I could find you 20 percent of the population that says I don’t want to spend money on that. That’s foolish. Or, you know, we go out and I guarantee you I could find people out there that will say I don’t think we should have a special election, that’s a foolish expense of money. So, do we just ignore those people? But on the other side when we’re talking about electric vehicles, the people that support it, do we just ignore them and say, well, I think you think that’s a good idea but we’re not going to do it. Yeah. It goes both ways.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I don’t, and then Mickey, sorry. I guess I don’t see that as an apples to apples comparison. I think it’s a philosophical conversations. Do we want government more involved or less involved in the decisions.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thank you. That’s what I was going to say.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I think Jeff made a good idea of putting it out on the survey. You know, we’ve got to do more research on it. Everything isn’t completely decided. I think we ought to allow the City to do the research and put it out on a survey and let’s find out what the people say. I mean, as you say the people run the City. It is their City. Let them make that decision, you know, and see where the survey comes back.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, other than waiting on clarification from the legislature which is like tantamount to like, I don’t know, lots of terrible examples, what information are we waiting on that we don’t have that the City hasn’t been able to research? It feels like we have a pretty complete picture right now.


MR. RAINEY: Well, leaning forward, Ellis Rainey, City Attorney. Secretary of State guidelines, we’d like an opportunity to sit down with the Johnson County Election Commissioner’s office. They haven’t figured this out yet. They don’t know whether the legislation was intended to be preemptive. You know, are we allowed to charter out of this legislation. They haven’t even placed it in the statutory books yet, so we don’t know what chapter it’s going in. We don’t know what the revisor is going to do to the text of what was passed by the legislature. The League of Kansas Municipalities who, you know, we receive a lot of advice and direction from, Katie and I have spoken with them probably daily for quite a long time. I spoke to them twice today. Their office is still divided over how they’re interpreting this provision on vacancies. It’s not often that -- I’m pretty quick to admit when I don’t know something. There’s a lot of people that don’t know the answer to this one yet. But mainly those three groups the -- I’d like to see the Secretary of State administrative guidelines. They have jurisdiction to promulgate rules and regulations governing elections. Any election that the City conducts is conducted by statute under the authority of the Johnson County Election Commissioner. So, I’d like to know whether they believe that we’ve been preempted by state law and whether we can even have some other provision other than what’s in the house bill. You know, and if you guys decide you guys want to do A, B, or C and we call the election commissioner and say we’re going to do A, B, or C, and they say we don’t believe you have statutory authority to do that, that’s something we’d kind of like to know in advance. So, I think what the continuing emphasis is on here is if you guys can tell us kind of what policy you’re interested in pursuing, we can start meeting with these people and say this is what they’re looking at, what is your interpretation of this.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I appreciate that. But I know you guys have talked to Newby previously and I’m sure he’s aware of the conversation that we’re having about the possibility of going to an election. At any point in time did he ever say that’s going to be a huge problem, I don’t think you should do that, or anything of that --

MR. RAINEY: The special election?


MR. RAINEY: Let me just kind of I guess go into a little bit more of that than I had anticipated. The county election office is advised by the Johnson County -- by someone on the Johnson County legal staff who I have spoken to several times obviously about this. And they have, the last time I spoke to them last week, not had an opportunity to sit down with Mr. Newby. I understand he’s been out of the country and he’s not been available. They have not sat down with him since this legislation was passed to figure out what his opinions are on the legislation and whether they think that it was intended to be preemptive or if it’s not preemptive.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I have Mike and then Dan and Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’ll make a statement real quick and then I do have a question for you. I think our -- we have basically our big debate right now is whether we want to appoint or elect. I’m in favor of the elections. That’s just a statement. My question for you is Dan had talked about piggybacking to save money and I like the idea of saving money. But the way I read this is we don’t have the option of waiting if it’s more than 105 days out. Is that how you read it?

MR. RAINEY: Again, everybody has to understand there’s not full agreement on this, but there is a widely recognized means of reading that statutory provision that it was just adopted and is not placed in the statute books yet, as saying that the governing body first makes the decision. Then if the governing body is not able to do so within 60 days, then you are obligated to call the special election within 45. So, if that is intended to be preemptive of your charter ordinance, then, yes, I can see somebody saying you had 60 days to fill the vacancy and you failed to do so, so you shall pass a resolution and there shall be a special election within 45. So, depending on when the vacancy occurs --


MR. RAINEY: -- you may not make it to the fall election.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, there’s potential to piggyback, but it wouldn’t be a guarantee like we say because of the waiting period. My other -- okay. My other question and maybe this shouldn’t go directly to you, but Mr. Neighbor brought it up and it’s what I remember as well is that it was going to take us more than 45 days to organize and hold a special election. Is that true? And if so, why does the statute say we only have 45 days to hold one?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s a good question.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Very good question.

MR. RAINEY: He’s a little bit upset about that.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that’s not our decision.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s an election commissioner decision.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. So, is it in our opinion he would -- that the Johnson County Election Office would have to do this within 45 days, or is it unrealistic?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: There’s no way. You couldn’t even sign up.

MR. RAINEY: Yeah. I don’t really think it’s appropriate for me to comment on his position, particularly if he hasn’t met with his staff yet. I understand that they were not aware, they were caught by surprise by the 45-day provision. And I understand from talking to their legal staff they do not believe they can comply with that because there are other statutory provisions that were not amended, that they are required to comply with in regard to the ballots and the preparation of ballots and the notice of ballots and the publications and the registrations. They don’t -- it was my understanding from their first review they did not believe they could comply with that physically and still comply with the other statutory provisions.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. All right. Okay. So, aside from the question maybe another statement or a question to the Council is if we don’t change the statute or if we keep basically what the state has, it may be prudent of us to decide early on whether we would appoint or not because then we could give the election office extra time instead of waiting the full 60 days and then telling the if we decided to go that route. Just a suggestion if we left both options or if we just adopted the state language as is.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I’m just I guess reiterating that I had talked to Brian Newby, you know, a while back and, you know, the hope was to piggyback on other elections. If not, then I still think it needs to go to an election of the people, so that’s my opinion.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’m looking at the recommendation by the City staff, and that is to provide the staff with direction on further research, changes to current authority and/or practice. And I think we’re -- I’m fully ready to do that. I don’t think we’re voting on the actual process tonight, but I think we are talking about what we’d like the staff to continue research and start putting together for us. And I would like to see them put together an election process. That would be where I stand.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Sounds like you’re heading towards something, but first, Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I just would go back that as fluid and as uncertain as his H.B. 2104 is, I could see us doing all sorts of -- spending all sorts of time and work and everything trying to do something and it could come down to lots of staff down and it could come down and be 180 degrees out of what where we think it might go. And I know I made the motion the last time to kick the can down the road again. But, you know, very honestly I just don’t have enough information to I think make a good decision here on the election side of it because there are too many uncertainties. I go back to my thing is the old fall back is we’ve been doing it one way and basically for 40 years it’s worked. Maybe that’s the way to go for a while here and then continue to look into this. But I think that this bill needs to be -- we need to understand what it says before we go down that path because I can see us having to back track a lot and redo ordinances and all sorts of things that would just be a waste of time and the Council’s money.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you. Just a couple of observations. I think the idea of a direct election sounds appealing. I do have concerns with voter turnout and getting the message out there. We have low voter turnout in our regular elections as it is. But if you have a special election, you know, randomly based on, you know, when a vacancy occurs and a timeline that’s put out how many people might show up. I would be curious to see in the special elections that Roeland Park has had what their voter turnout for those specials has been compared to their regular spring elections. So, that might be something to look into just to have that information available. With that in mind if we were going to do a direct election, I would prefer to do like a mail ballot, so there is that preference that gets out to everybody. But then you have added cost and so that’s not a possibility.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Can’t do it anyway.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Can’t do it. It’s in the law.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, is there a possibility, and this might not be allowed by statute, but to do a modified version or some type of hybrid where you have 90 days out or less from a regularly scheduled election you have an appointment because you have the upcoming election anyway. And anything further out from 90 days you have the election, so that way you have that representation during that entire period leading up to the next election. And that’s something that might be a way to kind of resolve the issue and account for cost, but also provide that level of representation that might be necessary.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, then the Council would pick the temporary replacement and it would go to a special election. Is that what you’re thinking?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: They would pick the temporary replacement if it’s 90 days out or less from the regularly scheduled election.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: A regular election.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: If it’s beyond that, it would be a special election as scheduled.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, and that’s I guess what I’m asking on the election is, so, you know, we’re going to be in the fall elections of odd years?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, are we also going -- if there’s a vacancy are we going to use the even year elections to fill that vacancy? I mean, we can put a vacancy, a vacated vacancy or a vacated council seat election on the ballot with U.S. Senators and state representatives and the President. Otherwise, we’re every two years, right? So, I mean, I think what Brandon is saying is interesting is you look at the time frame. You say, okay, here is how we’re going to do it. If we’re X-amount of months to the next available election which would be an odd year election, then let’s do the -- let’s hold off and let’s run them in the election. If you’re out of that time frame, then we appoint until that first available election whether it’s in their cycle or not, which would be fine. So, like if, you know, if there is three years left on that term and you got appointed you only fill a year till that next election and you’re going to be in -- and you’re going to have two ward members in that election from the same ward. But if you’re within that time frame, close enough time frame to that election --


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- then we don’t appoint.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Oh, is that how we do it or not?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Do you appoint for the full -- do we appoint for the full term or until the next election?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Till the next election, next City election.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Are you saying to the next election we can piggyback on because that’s what originally I had indicated.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But I don’t think we can put it -- can we piggyback on even year fall elections?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. And that was my intent with this.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But do we want to piggyback on an even year fall election?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think we can, yes.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I don’t think they even referred to that, did they?



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think you can, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And then how are we doing it with, you know, if we have more than one. If we have more than two, are we going to run into a primary in August and then we’re still going to let that seat sit vacant until November for the general? So, now we’re talking -- we still haven’t filled the seat. So, we have X-amount of time to fill this seat. We have a primary election in August. If we have more than two, so are we going to pick the top one in August or is it a primary because it’s an election? So, theoretically just like our spring elections we have a primary, but they’re not going -- August, September, October and November, so what, four months, you know?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Did the election bill indicate primaries? I thought it didn’t.

MS. KILLEN: The election bill doesn’t actually specify primaries inside of the vacancy provision. That actually the primary definition is not consistent throughout the bill and not just one of the issues with the bill currently.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s a problem with this from before, there’s so many unknowns on this. You know, I’m not absolutely opposed to the election. I don’t want to be spending 30 or $40,000 to do it because I think it’s pretty foolish. And I think we’re going to have some issues. Like I said when we start talking about primaries, I think just the span between the primary and the general breaks our rule of how many days we have to fill the vacancy because -- or I guess theoretically because we could have that election come up. But unfortunately we’ve got to get to that general by the time we do it. So, can we pick the top one out of the primary? If we legally say, okay, you’re going to have five in them, the most votes gets it. And what if the most is 25 percent of the vote, do we want someone sitting on the City Council that got 25 percent of the vote? Because normally in a primary you take the top two and then you’ve got to go get the majority. Or do we say it’s a primary, you’ve got to get 50 percent. If you get over 50 percent, then it doesn’t go to the general, you’ve got it. Otherwise, you’re going to general and then we got four months today. It’s just a lot of questions here. I’m not -- I’m just, you know, I’m playing devil’s advocate here because I think we need to answer these questions.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m in agreement with some of that. I think, you know, Brandon’s idea came up with some logic to it. But coming up at a primary of five people coming in you’re going to have to do something on a primary anyway if you’re going to put it up for an election or you can’t -- or you’re going to run five people down a, as he says, down the line. That’s kind of an unfair advantage for some, you know, you know how it is. But they need to narrow it down to two people, so you still -- the time frame of what they’re setting up is not going to work anyway from what they’re doing other than unless you were talking 45 days to a primary and then go past that to the oncoming election.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: For you to start the election process you’ll have 45 days --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- for a primary or whatever.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean it doesn’t say that, but.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right. It doesn’t say that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: They don’t -- I don’t think they mean you need to have -

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That’s where we need to -- we need to get some definition.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But that’s why I continue to redirect us back to what the recommendation of staff was, which was to provide them direction for further research and so on. And my direction for further research would be to further research the possibility of moving to an election process to fill vacancies.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, I agree with you on both counts. But mainly that we do -- I think that is an appropriate and responsible outcome of tonight is to figure out one way or another what we’re leaning towards and move down -- I’m not saying we have to approve one way or another, but to move in that direction.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I would move that we direct the staff to do the further research and look at those possible changes to current authority and so on and bring them back to this Council so that we can further pursue the idea of elections to fill vacancies, asking for their first report back to us at the first meeting in December.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I will hold that for one moment and see if there is anyone from the audience who wants to speak first.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I wanted to make a comment before he started talking.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Jeff and then the audience.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would just ask that, so that we don’t waste staff’s time, can we ask, can we put staff off on that until the state actually figures out this bill?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No. That will be next July.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, then why would we spend staff time to do all this when they could come up with something that could be negated? It’s not like they’re sitting around with nothing to do.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But every decision we make can be negated by the next legislative session.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, you’re just saying let’s just ask staff to spend time doing something when you have a bill that the state has passed that they’re still in discussion on how it’s going to work and it could totally change. So, we’re going to have them research something, bring us back information that could be totally -- totally null and void because the state has said, well, no, that’s not going to work. That makes no sense to me.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none -- oh, yes.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Go ahead. We do have a motion on the floor, but go ahead. No, it’s fine. Go ahead.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: When we ran two councilmembers at the same election, how did that work?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We ran them for two separate seats.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One seat was a four-year term and the other one was a two-year term.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And the people applying checked whether they wanted to run for the four or the two or how did that work?


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It said so on the ballot.



COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. So, if I were to apply, I could say the two-year or the four-year. Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: A motion has been made and seconded.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Could I get a roll call?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Actually did you have a comment, Brandon?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Just jump right in.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Sorry. I was going to ask if Councilmember Jenkins would amend his motion to if we could also allow the City staff to look at kind of an amended version or hybrid, you know, with different spans in terms of election. If it’s, you know, this period or 90 days out versus not an appointment because I would be interested in those alternatives as well.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: This motion wasn’t at that level of detail really.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It was wanting them to research this and come back to us in the first meeting in December with this is where we stand. This is where we stand with the legislature at this point. This is what we feel are the options of moving ahead with your election proposal and then we have to go from there.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s like step one in my opinion.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But can I clarify then?


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Because I understood it to be very clearly that the motion was direct staff to research an election process.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That was my interpretation as well.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. Yes. But you’re going to come back to us with your research on the election process and then we have to analyze that and take a look at where we want to go from there. Is it going to be a good thing? Is it going to be a bad thing based on your research? Obviously we’re going to have to make some determination based upon that information in that research.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But I think that it might be, to both of your points, it might be helpful if we’re in the process of researching a special election to look at a hybrid as well, so we have both options available.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Be more than happy for them to do, you know, whatever research they want to do.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Just to be clear to staff.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You’ve got to put that in the motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Why? I’m just asking them to research it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, you’ll accept his amendment.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s pretty open. It allows them to do almost anything at this point.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Does that allow you to look at --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I have heard that now that that was intended to be a broader scope of election options.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. It’s broad. It’s looking at -- but we’re -- it’s focusing on the election process as opposed to an appointment process, but it’s very broad about the varying courses of action you may come back with based upon the research and based upon where the legislature clarifies some of these points and so on. And then you may not even be done in the first meeting in December, but you may have kind of a rough here is where we’re at so far and we go from there. I mean, but we need to move the process and start moving it forward is where I’m coming from here.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is everyone in the Committee clear on what this motion is then?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It’s a broad open motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Looking at elections in general including some other options.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s embracing the election process as the choice.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes. Okay. That being said --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Along with research in the part of a hybrid situation.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, that’s a hybrid.




COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. That being said, I’m going to do a roll call vote. Councilmember Neighbor?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Pflumm?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Jenkins?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kemmling?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Vaught?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Sandifer?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kenig?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The motion passes. (Motion passes 7-1)



CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Can I also ask, the issue was brought up and discussed about including this question on the survey. I have some concerns, and we’d like to bounce that off ETC if that is something the Council would like to move forward with. I think it’s a very complicated issue. We could try to simply the language with ETC. But if I could get a sense or at least a consensus or not.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would like it on there.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m not keen on it being on.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: To weigh in on that one, I mean, it would be very difficult for people to really understand the complexity of that issue. I mean, based on -- we can’t even --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I thought you wanted people to decide.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We can’t even get it situated amongst ourselves just to have you research it. Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, perhaps we should do another attempted motion to include that if you would like to.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Chairman Meyer, I might also -- did you vote on that last?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I didn’t. Aye. So, do you want to --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would move that we include the language for the election options in this survey.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there a second?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor aye.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All those opposed no.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Motion passes. (Motion passes 5-3)

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Whew. The final item on tonight’s agenda is a budget presentation.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Councilman Meyer, we aren’t clear on who voted which way. Could we do a roll call, please?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Of course. All right. I’m going to do a roll call vote on the question on the citizen survey. Councilmember Neighbor?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Pflumm?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Jenkins?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m going to say no, but just for this current survey. If we were to ask it in the future, I might have a different vote.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Councilmember Meyer, I am an aye. Councilmember Vaught?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Sandifer?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kenig?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The motion passes. (Motion passes 5-3)


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Again, the final item on tonight’s agenda is a Budget Presentation. The budget wrap-up was held at the June 16, 2015 Council Committee meeting. After discussion, the Committee voted 4-3 to move the budget forward to the July 13, 2015 City Council meeting as recommended. I asked staff to provide additional information relating to proposed 2015R/2016 budget items. City Manager Gonzales will make a presentation. Thank you.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Great. The items that were in the packet memo and that we’ll be addressing tonight, again some of them to varying degrees because I don’t want to be too repetitious of things that have been presented before. We tried to generate some new information that would help -- be helpful. And if it’s okay with you Chairman Meyer, maybe after each issue we’ll pause in case there’s discussion going forward. And I am going to do most of the presentation. I will have a couple of guest appearances to help me through more complicated things like fire truck replacements.

So, the first issue was with regard to street sweeping. The think the question was about the concern about purchasing a large piece of equipment. So, we had begun to gather this information and we completed that just in terms of what other cities are doing, how many lane miles they sweep per year, what level service they provide, how many sweepers they own and sweeper replacement schedules. So, kind of just more interesting than anything. Most of the larger cities, all of these larger cities do their street sweeping in-house. We also updated our 2012 numbers to identify what are actual costs, City costs per lane mile for sweeping are. And add 2014 numbers, that generates a $38.66 per lane mile. In the past, well, and we did look at a few other smaller cities that do contract out. Currently DeSoto contracts with American at 89.76 a lane mile. Mission Hills contracts with American at $90 a lane mile. And Spring Hill contracts with American at $135 an hour. So, they have a little bit of a different structure. In 2010, the City did have a contract for part of our street sweeping program. If you all remember, those of you that have been here, we used to contract out parts of it because we didn’t have enough lane staffing to complete as many times and as many passes as was our goal. And so in the 2010, the cost for American was the contract that year at 47.05 a lane mile. In 2011, that contract was with McAnany for 54.20 a mile. All that said, you know, we are certainly open to bidding out this and seeing what kind of pricing we get. Our experience in the past has shown us that the City’s cost is much lower than the contract prices that we’ve gotten on bids in the past, but we would be glad to go through that process. It will take some staff time to prepare a bid obviously. But other than that, I don’t know that there is any downside to bidding it out.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just have some questions. You know, are we -- did we really encompass all of our overhead costs? You know, you have operator labor? I mean, you’ve got 58,000. And in here we had two guys.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Did hours that they spend on the sweeping program.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I understood. But did, I mean, so $58,000. I mean, are we including, you know --


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- present day cost on benefits for pension plans and every single thing?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The benefit costs are included.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It seems kind of low for two different guys and, you know, maybe we didn’t need one of those individuals or maybe one of these other new hire positions that we have, you know, coming down the road could be, you know, filled with one of those individuals. You know what I’m saying? So, I just have a, you know, even -- we only used the operator there, but, you know, do we really need those guys outside of the $58,000, we’re using them specifically for street sweeping. I know you brought up snow plows and, you know.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: They’re maintenance workers, so they, yeah, they plow snow. They fill in on crews as needed.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We don’t do that very often either, you know, so that’s -

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And we need many maintenance workers, so there is always work for them to do. We try to -- we use them to fulfill our goals of lane miles per year of sweeping. And as we achieve our goals, then we allocate their time to other needs.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I would be in huge favor of going out for bids and, you know, but if we go out for bids, it’s all how we go out for bids, right? Obviously the last time keeping up with pricing it was a lot higher than I got just making a phone call. So, you know, maybe we go out for bids and we say, hey, you know, if you’re doing X-amount of lane miles because maybe we end up, you know, keeping the -- at least the one truck that we have and then the older one, you know, maybe we’d get rid of that. Instead of purchasing a brand new truck maybe we use, you know, an outside contractor for the next few years until we maybe phase out our street sweeping machine. So, you know, you’ve got to -- and then these employees, I know you’ve brought up that you want to hire new employees. I mean, you know, we could move those into other positions slower, you know, by having them do street sweeping, but phase that program out of in-house and going to contractors and all that. So, what I’m getting at is if we go out for bids, if we say, hey, you’re going to do a thousand lane miles, the cost might be high. If you’re going to do 5,000 lane miles the cost is probably going to be lower. So, maybe we get some options if we actually go out for bids.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We sure could. We could divide into -- if you’re going to do our entire program what would you charge us for that and here is the expectations related to that. We could calculate how much we think we could get done with the one sweeper for a period of time. It’s not going to last forever.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Understood. But when we purchased that it was a ten-year device, right?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh. It’s a 2009 I think is what that sweeper -- the sweeper that’s still working better than the other one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, do we still think it’s a ten-year device or do we think it’s really like a seven or eight-year device?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We think -- the 2003 is the one we’re replacing.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, it exceeded the ten years.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d be kind of interested, too, in that one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have -- Eric, just a second. I have Mickey, Mike, and then Jim and then you.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Now, on our numbers and when we’re doing our chip and seal do we use our street sweeper in there to sweep that all back up? Is that over and above your normal lane miles that you’re working the truck?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’ll let Mark address that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I thought the contractor did that.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Maybe not. They did on my street.

MR. SHERFY: To answer the question -- Mark Sherfy, Transportation Manager. The last several years we have -- the City, as part of our fleet reduction, we got rid of our chip seal machine, so we do not do chip sealing in-house anymore. The chip seal contract does have street sweeping in there. I think two passes. We have swept the street in addition to that with our own equipment.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right. And that’s over and above our numbers that we’re looking at here. That’s not considered into these numbers?

MR. SHERFY: Correct. Correct. That is the -- those numbers are in the street sweeping program.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, we have more -- right. So, there’s more of an expense --

MR. SHERFY: [Inaudible]

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: -- that would be entailed by getting rid of our street sweeper?

MR. SHERFY: There is. Our street sweeper also would do special events.


MR. SHERFY: -- for Old Shawnee Days, Tour de Shawnee, the parking lots, Splash Cove around [inaudible].


MR. SHERFY: Many other things that we do throughout the year that aren’t necessarily a program cost, although I believe the employee hours are tracked as street sweeping. So, it’s probably employee and fuel are in those, but it gets a little loosely defined on the [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right. So, it’s -- when we’re saying that we don’t need a street sweeper, I would like to let the Council know that we use it for more than just this. You know, so, it’s not something we want to try to phase out and eliminate because it would be very costly to contract out for all your special little events. And to also go back and use it on the chip seal an extra couple of runs, two or three runs on the roads. You know, so.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But it’s so many --


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: To comment, I mean, it’s so many lane miles. And the more, you know, maybe we don’t get rid of our street sweeper. My overall first thing was when I saw that street sweeper in the 2015R was, man, that was, you know, that was quick. We just bought that one. And so, you know, I mean, that was -- and then it really made me think, so I called, boom, I got a more economical number than the numbers that we were presented in 2012.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I thought, well, why are we doing it in-house. And if it’s --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: If it we don’t run it 24 hours a day we’ll probably be okay again.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, if it’s more economical to do it out of house, it’s still going to be more economical to do it out of house for special events.



COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And I’m a little ignorant on this subject, so help me out. The sweeper collects debris off the street, correct, and then how does it dispose of that debris?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: There’s a field back here.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There’s all sorts of rules about it.

MS. GARD: Caitlin Gard, Assistant to the Public Works Director. We have a special waste permit through the state of Kansas. Sweeper debris is considered hazardous waste and we have to apply for our special waste permit every year and then we take it to the Deffenbaugh landfill once we sort it at our shop, and it is disposed of at the landfill.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, is that the price, the price for that included?

MS. GARD: No. Our disposal of the debris is the only cost that’s not included in this.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Do we have any idea of the cost?

MS. GARD: It’s $28 a ton to dispose of debris. In 2014, we deposited about 660 tons, so about $18,500.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That should probably be up there then, huh?

MS. GARD: It is. Before when we have contracted out street sweeping disposal of debris was also not included in those contracts. So, what would happen is in the previous years whomever had our contract would bring back the sweeper debris to our shop and then we would then dispose of it. Staff would dispose of it.




COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: As Mickey said, it’s still our problem.

MS. GARD: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It’s always been our problem, always will be.

MS. GARD: Well, not necessarily. We could write in our contract that the contractors would have to safely dispose of the debris.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But you still have to pay for it.

MS. GARD: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. My question is, so the, and I’m not trying to get too deep in the weeds here. Basically the program is about 2,800 miles a year for street sweeping. That is just the normal routine that you go ahead and set up. The cost per mile in ‘14 was 38.66. And if you just look at the -- and go back in 2012. Anyway, 2010, it was -- let’s say 28 bucks. 2014, it was 38. 2010, the contract was 47. So, we’re probably figuring 50 -- 58 -- $59 a lane mile when the contract goes out. I think it -- I mean, I think we need the street sweeper for a lot of things. But again, if somebody wants to come out and do it and it frees up our guy to do something else, I think it’s fine. But I think it -- again, the piece of information that I’m missing here is that we need to put it out for a bid to see, in fact, if it is going to be cost effective. At that point we make a decision.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I just one comment on it. And that was the street sweeper we already have. It’s a 2006 you said?

MS. GARD: ‘09.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: ‘09. I’m sorry, 2009. So, it’s six years old. I’d certainly want to hang onto that. And I think it would be very useful for the special events that Mickey was talking about. We could contract out our routine street sweeping for the miles that, you know, there’s some set amount of miles that we want them to do. Holding ours in reserve, that’s going to put a lot less wear and tear on them as well because we’re not going to be running out there to do everything. But we’ve got it very responsive to ourselves to fix things that we need to have fixed on short notice. And we don’t have to worry about bidding it out and trying to figure out somebody that does that into a contract that you’re going to fudge on and charge extra to try to get that in there. And we’ve got that covered basically. So, you know, I’d be comfortable holding off on a street sweeper for a couple of years anyway to take a good hard look at it. Do we really want to continue to do that and the one we’ve got is certainly going to be fine until then and maybe even extended its life a couple years by using it on a more random basis instead of on a regular service like we’ve got now. So, I think I would support at least holding it off right now until we get a better feel for it on how that works out. And, of course, like everybody said we need the bids. We’re kind of talking in the dark without bids.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s a hundred dollars mile, I mean, you’re talking something different.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, this is in the R budget. If we don’t do this and so it’s going to take, what, 60 days to do a bid process?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, how does that work? Because we’re approving the -- if we’re approving the --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. I mean, we wouldn’t buy it. The funding would stay. It would move and carry over, cash carryover.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, we’d just continue using the ones we have until we --


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- approve it again. And so I’m not opposed to doing a bid. I will say I just did some quick research here. This is interesting. This is from the National -- it’s from Knowledge Network, which is leaders of the corps of better communities. And this talks about meetings. Eighty-six participants, municipal participants reported street sweeping expenditures per mile swept with an average of $47 and a median of $36. So, we’re right into it on our cost. I mean, we’re definitely not out of line based on other communities. But if someone wants to do it cheaper absolutely. But I do think our bid -- my concern is what’s been addressed by Mickey is special events. And we’ve got to think of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, Old Shawnee Days Parade, the car show, you know, Spring Starts Here. You know, any other events we have downtown, any events we have around the City that, you know, we need to -- if we don’t have a sweeper, then the bid would have to clarify an on-call rate. And that’s going to have to be equated into the whole thing. It says, you know, at any time you need to do an event. So that’s a big concern. I’m not sure I want to phase it out. But like I said, if somebody wants to sweep and save us money I’m fine with that. I will say sweepers when we talk about age, back in my former life when I used to sell used municipal vehicles and trucks and equipment, a family owned a few street sweepers that came through municipalities and I don’t think years is relevant as much as use. And when you run one as much as we do, you know, don’t assume 2009 is in pretty good shape because those sweepers get hammered. And there’s a lot of moving parts and a lot of things that wear out. And there’s water and there’s a whole lot of other things and they rust and they’re just, you know, they have a very short life span. And when they do start breaking, they break big and they’re very expensive to fix.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just -- I think the whole thing started when we threw the street sweeper for 2015R budget. And so, you know, it wasn’t in there for 2015 budget and that’s the only budget that’s approved today. There was no budget approved at the Committee meeting.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes. It was. The street sweeper was in the 2015.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The street sweeper was in there originally?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. Then I missed that. All right. Well, sorry. But so anyway, that was my thing on, you know, definitely I don’t think we should purchase a street sweeper in 2015. And I don’t know that -- I think there is several other topics and things that we can do that would be higher on the totem pole than the street sweeper. Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Like the conference room, right?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: There is several things, millions of things --


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- that would come ahead of street sweeper. Especially when we have two street sweepers now. And granted they get old, but what’s the new one, 280,000? What was the estimate on it?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two sixty. So, 260,000 is -- that’s a lot fireworks.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s a good show.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But anyway, so that was the original thing, so you know, you brought up, you know, what are we going to do.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’d rather have clean -- I’d rather have clean streets than 30 minutes of bang, pop, boom.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, we’ll need them after the fireworks, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. We’ll need them after the fireworks.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, I think the core of this whole issue, and that’s funny. I mean, if for some reason we’re taking sides on this I would think that everyone up here would agree that first and foremost we want clean streets. And it’s going to cost us, you know, whether we get us doing it for $38 a mile or somebody else does it for $38 a mile, I don’t really care. I just want to make sure that it’s getting done and our streets are getting clean. And I think everybody -- are we all on the same page on that? Because I think we’re spending a whole lot of time arguing about something that -- so, let’s go to bid for it. I mean I’m fine with it. Let’s got bid it. We’ve got the money in the budget. And if the bid comes back at $52 a mile or 65, well, obviously it’s not a good idea and we’ll go back and do it ourselves and buy the machine because they’ve got it cost out. And if you want to throw the, I mean, if you’re -- however you want to want to bid it, I think we should have that option in the bid that says we dispose of the waste because we know it’s going to cost or you dispose of the waste. I think the problem with them disposing of them waste is, they don’t know how much waste they’re going to get and that’s a tough one for them to budget. So, we could give them historicals, but, you know, I mean, that can run up to cost. They know running the machine. They can pinpoint that down to the penny. But the waste I think is probably why most people don’t want to dispose of it because that’s a variable that’s hard for them to pin down. And I think if we throw that in there we’re going to get a skewed number, but I think we should because I think it will kind of tell a tale kind of where people’s head are at on this. But I’m fine. I mean, just bid the thing and do it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But after what Ms. Caitlin Gard said, why would we include it now when we haven’t included it on our own numbers and we haven’t included it --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’ll just include it as an alternative.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Just do it as an alternative. Like I said, I think it would just be interesting to see. I mean, I’m fine either way. I mean, I just --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We can put it on the survey.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. But I mean, I said at the end of the day we just all want clean streets and we to get them done as cheap as possible. So, let’s bid it and see what we come up with.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, it sounds like there is consensus around bidding.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s just fine.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’ll bring that back to you. It’ll be a little later than we had planned. This fall probably.



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: You made the conversation longer, Jeff. We could have wrapped it up.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Next topic, Downtown funding. And Councilmember Pflumm had asked this question and I did have an opportunity to talk with him and clarify a little bit what his concerns were. So, hopefully this is helpful in at least answering what’s in the budget related to downtown and certainly if the Council wants to do something more different that’s up to you all.

So, the primary, we can gather together the different projects related to downtown. So, the first three are the NRA fund. Those are going to be more of the activities and programs of the downtown, the Downtown Partnership. And I’ll add that while that 15,000 shows an expenditure out of the NRA Fund, it is actually a transfer from the General Fund into the NRA, so that we can keep those downtown expenditures together. And the rebates are an in and out. You know, we get the money back and then we pay it out, so those are direct costs to the City. In fact, we only pay out 90 percent of what we receive. And then the ten percent creates the funding to pay for the grants and loans. It’s been a really good program.

Then moving on to the larger projects and the activities that have gone on in the last two or three years related to downtown. So, in 2015R, in the Economic Development Fund there’s $30,000 for the Turkey Creek Trail project. So, that is the design of the, and working with Merriam to explore and design of a trail from downtown down to the Turkey Creek. We’re very hopeful about that. So, that, the match, the grant is the design. And then in 2016, in Parks and Pipes the Turkey Creek Trail project -- is that in Parks and Pipes? Yes. Because it’s a trail. Sorry. In the Parks part of the pipes, so I was getting ahead of myself. So, they have 200,000 for the actual construction of that trail. Then in Parks and Pipes also, if you all remember, and we’ll talk about it a little more when we talk about stormwater stuff at the end, but we do have a large stormwater project. We looked at Nieman Road and there was like a 6200 project, a south, a middle, a north, all of which we would like to do over the next 10 to 15 years. But the first one and the one that was most eligible for the SMAC funding is the south leg of that. So, based on the SMAC funding and you all accepted that funding, the 768,000 in ‘16 is in Parks and Pipes, and then there is another allocation in ‘17 for the second part of that stormwater project.

Then the Economic Development Fund in 2015R has $50,000 for the TAP grant match. This is the Nieman Road right-of-way allocation project. So, this is the next step, the design part that came out of the corridor study to look at more landscaping, more pedestrian friendly. Whether we move to three lanes, whether we re-stripe to three lanes, to look and do more actual design work on those concepts. And so our match is 50,000. I think the actual grant is another 100-150 to do that project in ‘15. Because KDOT has been very thinly staffed the last couple of months, we haven’t been able to get them to approve letting us putting it out for an RFP. We just got that approval about two weeks ago and so that is out right now and scheduled to come back July 17th. So, we haven’t been able to move as quickly on that as we wanted to, but our hope would be to complete that project this year. And then in 2016, actually have a partial amount for a preliminary implementation, whether that be the re-striping, whether that be some -- we aren’t sure what that first phase would be, but we wanted to allocate some funds in ‘16 to begin work on it. And then in ‘17, there is actually construction bond payments that began in the Economic Development Fund for a construction project on Nieman Road. So, designed this year. Next year begin a phase of some first phase of construction and do construction in ‘17. So, there is funding in that Economic Development forecast that we looked at for actual construction of Nieman Road. Don’t know what that’s going to look like yet. And then as I mentioned in 2016, the design of the Turkey Creek Trail and then the construction in ‘16 and then the stormwater project design in ‘16 and construction in ‘17. So, that’s kind of how that pans out, and tried to kind of come up with kind of what that schedule looks like because I get confused sometimes about PSPs and TAPs and SMAC projects and all the different things going on. So, hopefully that helps clarify what is actually budget in the now.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Could you back up that one slide there? So, I mean, realistically the last two were the only things that are associated kind of with let’s say that study that we had done.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You know, and that was really my concern is, you know, we had that study done last year and, you know, I mean, my think, I mean, I was under the impression that, and I think everybody else was that I talked to that indicated that we were going to three lanes and bike lanes and all that. And my whole thing the whole time was, and we only, you know, we only contracted them to do a study from 57th to 64th, you know, but --


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. Whatever. So, regardless, we did a very short segment. We did the most traveled segment and traffic count. And so I think we could do the -- if we’re going to do a three lane, I mean, we could re-stripe the thing. And I know you’ve got a project out there, you know, and I think you indicated on the phone 700,000 in 2017 was the first bond payment.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s the first bond payment. Right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Right. So, the overall project cost, was that the 14 million that we had -- that they had kind of presented as one of the options, not the option, but one of the options.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Seven hundred and forty thousand times ten years plus interest, so it would be a $10 million project.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. So, my whole thing was just we did it last year and I really didn’t see a lot of, you know, movement.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. And we had hoped to move much quicker on that Nieman Road study and KDOT literally has held us up for six months, so that’s part of the delay.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I understand. Okay. So, that was my thing. If we were, you know, looking for areas to really make an impact in our City, I mean, downtown is really one of them. And I don’t know. You know, I’d like to see us do something, you know what I mean? So, that’s the reason why I brought that up.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You can put stone on that building over there and brighten it up.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: There is a little bit of stone there.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Get your clock on the right time.



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You know, I agree. I need to --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But you can see it now that the lights are bright.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I need to beat the guy over the head that broke it. You know, that’s my problem.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I agree. And when we talk about our downtown and, you know, I served on the steering committee for that and I’m passionate about doing something with this downtown because it needs to be done. My concern was, and when we talked about that and kind of, you know, as we after the meeting and kind of say, okay, let’s stripe it and then we’ll see how that goes and I wasn’t in support of doing it in stages because I think we’re going to get a lot of push back. I think if we just go and stripe it and don’t do the sidewalks and don’t do some of the landscaping and I think people are just going to be the assumption that this is it. This is what we spend money on. It’s just we’re going to put some stripes on it and nothing else. I think if we’re going to do a project, we’ve got to go all in. I mean, it’s got to have maximum impact. Because at the end of the day if we all agree that’s what we want is the end product, then I think we need to figure out a way to let’s fund the project and let’s do it, so that we go and we do it and people actually see the results of the project. Because my concern is if we just go in and re-stripe three lanes, I think we’re going to have some, well, what is this? I mean, you know, it’s not going to really catch on as far as the big plan and there’s no way we’re going to be able to educate people on this is the big vision. This is what we’re going to be. So, you know, I don’t know how everybody else feels. My thing is let’s figure out this funding and, you know, kind of like I said before, go big or go home. If we’re going to do it, let’s do it and do it right, so that there’s a maximum impact. We get media attention. You know, get a lot of press on it. We get a lot of publicity and that’s going to kind of spur some attention to the area that might bring in some of what we need. So, my thoughts, I mean, you know, I think if we just do three lanes, I think we kind of lose the impact of the whole intent of the walkability and the pocket parks and the landscaping and what it really -- the true intent is. So, I don’t know what anybody else’s thoughts are on that.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I’m just thinking to right now we’ve been telling people like in my ward in western Shawnee that there’s a lot of interest in Monticello Road. And we know what that’s going to cost. And then to consider investing $10 million into the downtown right now which would not bring in as much economic development as a new road out west for the properties that are out there I think it’s something we also need to weigh out, you know, when we go determining where we’re going to put money because we don’t want to go out and just over-fund everything either. So, I agree downtown needs to be dressed up, but you’ve got to look at what’s going to bring in the most money in the economic development side, too.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I didn’t say spend $10 million downtown. That’s what staff is indicating to us.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, no. I know. But that’s what I’m saying.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That was one of the options.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Maureen did my math. She said the project we’ve budgeted is six million. Now, I will say that we haven’t designed anything yet, so we really don’t know that cost, but that’s what we have plugged in.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. And I’m just mentioning, you know, down the road when we’re able to start funding roads of what we need to do. You know, where we need to go anyway.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I understand what you’re saying. And Monticello is right, you know, it borders my ward as well and I think it’s important to do. But I think we can’t -- when we look at projects like this I think you can’t always quantify the economic return when we’re talking about roads. And, you know, our downtown, that’s our image. This is who we are. I mean, this is our front door. It’s the front door to City Hall. And when people come to City Hall they don’t drive down Monticello, they drive down Nieman Road and Johnson Drive. And if we don’t protect this and we don’t make an investment in this, then our image is tarnished. And I think the problem we have right now is the way it looks. I mean, when I was on the steering committee in the middle of the day a group of us walked down and I believe your sister served on it, didn’t she? Yeah. And so, you know, we walked down Nieman Road. You know, since then I’ve made a point to walk down Nieman Road to various places and you don’t feel safe. You’ve got cars whizzing by you at 45 miles an hour, literally three feet away from you. There’s literally nobody that walks, I mean, I’ll walk down Nieman Road, there won’t be anybody on the sidewalk from Johnson to Shawnee Mission Parkway. There’s nobody walking. That’s our downtown and that’s not the downtown we want. So, I agree. I think we need to look at the big picture, but I wouldn’t say -- I’d have a hard time saying that this needs to, you know, I don’t see the economic return on this, so we need to focus on other things because, you know, we can make that argument about a lot of things. And we don’t because I don’t think that’s what -- I don’t think we can quantify an economic return on everything we do. But we’ve got to do something with this downtown. And when we look at our rents and we look at the kind of tenants we get and we look at some of the people that are leaving, you know, nobody knows it by now Nallia is leaving. We approved her special use. You know, based on recent events she couldn’t get any enrollment for dance because people have now a bit of a fear of our downtown. They don’t feel comfortable. They don’t whatever. That’s not good. I mean, when we start going down that path, man, that’s, you know, when you can’t -- when you start losing 30-year -- 25-years she’s been there. When you start losing 25-year tenants because people don’t want to enroll anymore because mothers are going, yeah, I just don’t, you know, you need to wake up and go, yeah, we have a problem and we need to solve that problem, so it’s an issue. I mean, when you have an empty building down the street that sat for a while and the only person that goes and rents it is a discount smoke shop, what does that say about our downtown? And maybe they’re willing to pay the most money, I don’t know. And if they are, then that’s scary because that’s basically -- that’s our downtown then. That’s our demographics and that’s who we’re attracting is discount smoke shop clientele and I don’t think that really is the image we want to portray. So, you know, and we do. We need to make an investment. And I think it’s important to turn this downtown around.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anyone else? Brandon?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’ll just make a comment. Based on what I’ve seen in other cities when they’ve revitalized their downtowns that there is a spillover effect into the city as a whole, a multiplier effect in terms of development, bringing in businesses not only for the downtown area, but surrounding areas, adjacent areas. So, I think it is key, it is critical. And also to establish a sense of community. Our city is great in that we have a lot of great community events and festivals throughout the year, but we want that sense of community to be year long, you know, and that’s difficult to have now and we really don’t see that. I don’t know want to name names of other cities because I don’t like to compare ourselves, but there is a lot that we could do with downtown to make it vibrant, make it economically competitive and thriving. So, I think the sooner the better that we can start to see some of these designs. I’m really excited to see what comes of it because I think this is really kind of the next frontier of where our city goes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible], Brandon. Brandon, would you agree then that, you know, do you think you need to have a really big vision though and go and do it? I mean instead of piecemealing it a little bit because I think you lose the impact. I mean, what I’ve seen, and you’re right, but I think cities have succeeded through downtown. It was a big vision. It was a big vision and once they put it together and promoted it, they didn’t go and piecemeal it over ten years. They went in and they revitalized. They redid their downtown. And over a short period of time they created a buzz, they created the attraction. Do you agree with that?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I think I agree with that for the most part. I mean, there has to be a vision, too. Obviously there’s a lot that I think we’re going to have to wait and see on. If there’s any phases I think that we’ll be able to start on prior to that. And I think there’s something to be said for building up excitement, too. You know, getting information out there and starting some of the phases to getting construction going. But, yeah, the vision is key to bringing it all together, so we are limited on what we can do at this point. Until we see what the vision is, we agree on that vision. Once we have consensus to move forward we can, you know, kind of rapidly, you know, start to visualize and realize what downtown should be for us. And again it’s not going to mirror what we have in other cities, but it should be something uniquely Shawnee.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anything else on this item before we move on? Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Okay. Fire truck funding. I did talk to Councilmember Pflumm a little bit. I’m still not quite sure I understand the question, but it gives us an excuse for Chief Mattox to give you this really cool presentation that we’ve been wanting to do because we’ve put it together on the replacement program. And I think for the first time after seeing it I understand our replacement program, so I hope that you find it interesting. And then when he gets done, Maureen is going to talk for just a few minutes about the cash funding option and the forecast and then hopefully that will play into any question that you have.


FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: Good evening. John Mattox, Fire Chief. Well, I found out trying to explain our fire truck replacement program is kind of like trying to explain friction loss to a new firefighter. So, if you want or do you want 2Q2 + Q/nozzle pressure, I can give you either one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’ll take the pictures.

FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: For tonight we’re doing pictures. As you know our plan has been for years is what we’ll call a ten and five. Ten year replacement, go into five years as reserve, then we get rid of the truck. That’s based on history. We know at about ten years those trucks are not as dependable. You know, they’re a lot more repair. And so at about 15 years it’s a good time to get rid of them. So, in our first picture this is where we are today. I kind of explained this to Maureen the other day. It’s mathematically impossible to have a ten and five-year replacement program because we don’t directly replace. And I’ll show you that here in these pictures. Here is where we are today. I know they all look alike, but trust me they’re all very different. Station 1, the in-service or front line trucks are just the picture. And then -- oh, I missed a reserve. Sorry. And then we highlighted the reserve apparatus with the yellow box. That 1998 engine over there is a reserve at Station 3. That’s where we are today. So, our plan in ‘16 you can see that we took the reserve engine that was at Station 71, goes out of service. And if you’re real quick at math and ten and five, that’s a 28-year-old truck that we’re getting rid of. We haven’t been able to maintain the ten and five for several reasons. The new purchase in ‘16 would go to Station 2. The truck reserve, that was at reserve at Station 1 goes away, and the reserve that was at Station 2 then goes to Station 1. So, that’s kind of what it looks like in ‘17. No new purchases. And then you get to ‘18, and I even have to have notes even though I have pictures. In ‘18, the engine that was at Station 73 goes away, the reserve. The reserve from Station 1 goes to Station 3. The new aerial goes to Station 1 and then that aerial goes into reserve. This is part of change and our proposal when we were doing this is to take this to, instead of the ten and five years, it’s an eight and eight. Eight year front line, eight year reserve. So, our plan now is actually to hang on to a piece of equipment a year longer than the original plan, but mathematically it will work. And my math is not good. It will take about 30 years for this to be a direct replacement. And just based on our ten and five over the last 20 years, it’s going to change. I mean, it changes due to necessity. We don’t just automatically replace them when it gets to that point. That’s how we have a 28-year-old truck. And you’ll see there at 18, that’s a 20-year truck. But we also don’t want to be the department that comes up here in June and go, oh, by the way, we need a million dollars next year. So, the only way to plan for this is to have a replacement program and have it on the books. Have pictures, pretty pictures. Nothing in ‘19. Those blanks obviously we purchased in ‘16, purchased in ‘18. Nothing moved. Then you get to ‘20 and we’re getting closer. We’re getting rid of a 17-year-old vehicle that came from Station 3. And that’s our first year of a direct replacement. Reserve from 3 goes away. The new engine would go to 3. The current one at 3 is then at that eight year and goes into reserve. Nothing new in ‘21. And then ‘22, you can see we’re at 14 years, so it’s kind of close. The new goes to Station 71. That out of service would be the one from Station 2. We moved a vehicle to Station 2. You’d really have the 2Q2 + Q/nozzle pressure, wouldn’t you?



FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: Friction loss.


FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: So, this has been the best way we’ve been able to -- because in the past when I said, well, we’re buying a new engine and we go buy a new engine and, you know, it doesn’t go where the engine we got rid of was or vice versa. So, by putting these pictures with it I think it’s made it easier. I may have confused it more, but if you go, I mean, if you go back and you can track where a vehicle goes through this. Clear as mud? So, here is where we’re talking about now. Taking an engine out of service, the 28-year-old engine. Purchasing a new -- it says aerial. We’re still looking at quid as well. Aerial basically means it has longer ladder. It has to have ground ladders and hose. A quid has ladder, ground ladders, hose, pump and water. Our curb aerial has all that, but it doesn’t qualify for a clamp because of the hose lengths. When you get that size you can’t get enough hose on there to qualify, so. So, we’re still weighing our options for that. But that’s what we’re talking about now. I think Maureen will talk about the financing of it. Any questions? I guess you wanted a little bit more to hear. I’m sorry.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, what about station, you know, if we add a station, then what happens to your equation?

FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: Honestly, if we add a station around ‘19 it works out better. Because when you have an eight and eight and an even number of stations, it doesn’t take as long for it to work out. And our apparatus committee actually threw this out. What was the first one we showed it? It went like 20 years, you know, on that replacement program.


FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: With a Station 74 in, was it ‘19 we had it? I think it was ‘19 we had it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Which we need to plan on this. There’s a lot of [inaudible].

FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: I can go dig out the other PowerPoint if you want. It has it -- I’m just kidding.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Maybe that’s in the survey. Do you want that or a citizen -- Mr. Vaught.


FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: So, that’s the program. Questions? That’s the last picture. Did it help?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It helped me. Thank you.

MS. ROGERS: Not sure if this answers anyone’s question, but we’ll take a look at what it would like if we also cash funded the 2016 fire truck, which was something staff looked at earlier. One of the concerns that we had was the impact on reserves which might possibly create an impact on the bond rating. Because it would lower the reserve percentage, but then also it would reduce future debt. So, those are both values that Moody’s has, that it just depends which one you go with. So, it’s possibly -- could kind of come out a wash. But one thing that whenever our reserves are budgeted to be lower than they were the year before, it is kind of a red flag to Moody’s. If there’s a good story behind it, then that is something that can work out. And if you give Moody’s a call and say, well, what do you think about if we took this course of action, it’s kind of hard to get a direct answer to that question because they like to look at our situation holistically. When they come in to look at our bond rating and look our demographics and our valuations and all that, they don’t really want to just take one aspect and give you an answer. But they do have factors that go into their ratings and paying off debt faster or issuing less debt is a good thing to them. Also having high reserves is a good thing. So, you just weigh the two together. If we were to cash fund the 2016 fire truck, it would be an increase in ‘16. The transfer was 600,000. Need about another 950,000 to make that purchase. We had 600,000 transferred to the Public Safety Equipment Fund in ‘17 and ‘18. Definitely wouldn’t need the ‘18. Depending on how the numbers come out, a big part of this transfer would also not be needed as well, but I didn’t remove it there because the point of this exercise was to really look at the effect on the fund balance in 2016. The proposed budget showed 36 percent and this would take it down to 34 percent. The 2015 budget was budgeted at 38 percent. So, we’re just kind of trying to weigh that reduction and how that might be perceived. Economically, cash funding the 2016 fire truck makes really good sense. This is the little chart I showed earlier that looks at leases on future fire trucks at ten years compared to cash funding. And the savings are significant. What we have for ‘16 is a five-year lease. And that would save around $130,000. So, the impact, it would really be somewhat of a risk I guess with Moody’s to take reserves down to 34 percent. But it’s also a good story and it makes economic sense. So, if the Council is interested in that, that is a story that I think staff could tell, but just to be aware there is some -- it does put up a red flag.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Do you happen to have the spreadsheet that had -- we were at 3.6 negative, right, now 4 -- that’s if we cash fund this year.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The General Fund forecast, Maureen.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, originally that’s why I brought this topic up was because we’re -- whenever we go negative we’re drawing on our reserves and -- it doesn’t matter what the equipment is, whether it’s a dump truck or a fire truck, those guys -- if they need it, I mean, that’s our job to get it for them. It’s how we fund it and how we position ourselves. And that’s what alarmed me. You know, 3.7 million in 2016 right there is alarming.

MS. ROGERS: And that’s kind of -- well, at the ‘14, we ended with the 51 percent fund balance. And over the last few years our goal has been to position ourselves to be able to have sustainable future funding for equipment, and so that was in the proposed budget. That was considered to be a high priority. So, that was a use of reserves. When you use reserves you’re going to have this red number, a deficit. That’s what’s just going to happen when you use reserves. And another item we had was increasing our stormwater and there were several other things that we talked about in prior meetings. So, really in a perfect world you would have no red numbers here, but then it really becomes a policy decision as to when you have a 51 percent. There were needs that we had to improve our position in the future with relation to equipment. In this particular situation with the cash funding this fire truck, the decision is not really about whether we’re going to buy it or not I don’t think at this point, it’s just how to fund it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Where to put those dollars, right?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, you’re moving those dollars into a firefighter equipment fund for that particular one, right? And then when we buy it we buy it.

MS. ROGERS: Right. And the effect on the General Fund would be the same whether you bought it directly out of the General Fund or whether you moved it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Unless it’s years because then your fund balance is lower. So, from an outside entity, yeah, you’ve got these other funds. But those funds are allocated. So, if we put something -- let’s say we put a million dollars in a firefighter equipment fund. Can you take that million dollars and put it back in the General Fund if Moody’s starts, you know, lowering our bond rating? I don’t think so, but can you?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: They wouldn’t lower our bond rating over a million dollars.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I think what Maureen has been trying to say, is saying very well, but that Moody’s looks at so many different factors. And because our reserves have traditionally been very, very good that they aren’t concerned because we have a plan and our plan is about funding equipment that needs to be replaced and funding facilities. And so Moody’s has been very supportive of that, especially because even though we budget to spend reserves, in ‘14, we didn’t spend reserves and ended up with a surplus.

MS. ROGERS: The concern that staff had was about the magnitude of using the reserves in one year being a red flag. But as I said, if you have a plan and if you’re going to buy the item one way or the other and you save financing costs and reduce future debt that may be just as good to them as keeping the reserves high.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean, this was a red flag to me. And so that’s why I brought it up.

MS. ROGERS: Well, the story and the rationale that we’ve given Moody’s when we’ve talked to them, we haven’t talked to them this year because we’re not issuing bonds. We’ve talked to them about how we have a database of equipment pretty much like we’ve mentioned here and that there’s a replacement schedule. And the purpose of drawing reserves down is not to go and spend it on items right in that year, but to create a sustainable plan for the future on that equipment. And so those are two values, creating sustainable plans is a value to them and having high reserves. So, I think what they don’t want to see is reserves coming down too fast or reserves being used to just be spent. If it’s to create a plan for future spending or to cash fund something that you were going to debt fund that’s a good balance for them. I can’t say that for sure. That’s their choice, but.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And then you also had up there 4.5 percent interest on a lease. But when we sell bonds I mean we’re probably at --

MS. ROGERS: Well, a lease is more expensive. It’s not the same type of financing as a GO bond because it’s not the full faith in credit and it doesn’t have all the huge list of bond covenants that a GO bond has.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But what’s our interest rate on a bond?

MS. ROGERS: Bonds is around 2.5 percent at this time.


MS. ROGERS: But we have leases that are higher than that. It’s a different type of financing.


MS. ROGERS: It could be less than that. But I talked to Springsted and that was the estimate that they gave me.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Bonds have a lot more cost going in, too, don’t they, than a lease?

MS. ROGERS: Right. They have a lot more. There is some legal cost with bond counsel on a lease because -- it’s not a whole lot, a few thousand dollars because it is a tax-exempt lease.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Sure. I mean, I, you know, we talk about reserves and I’m not concerned about spending our reserves because my understanding is, you know, about 25 percent we’re in pretty good shape from everything I have read. And I know we have neighboring cities that are below that. But what, I mean, I think I’m going to have to agree with you. So, I mean, if I’m getting this right, so Moody’s, I mean, what they want to see is a plan and fiscal responsibility. So, if we’re telling them, instead of spending interest because I mean there’s not a whole lot of cities that have 50 percent reserves or 40 percent reserve accounts. That’s huge. So, if we’re going to spend ourselves down to 25 or 30 percent reserve account, a reserve or whatever you call it, a fund balance, but we’re doing so, you know, we’re -- instead of paying interest we’re paying cash. I would think that’s got to be a positive for Moody’s looking at what we’re trying to accomplish. I would think that, and then tell me if I’m wrong. And I’ve done -- I’ve read a lot. It’s amazing how many companies, or municipalities out there have a ten percent reserve fund, eight percent reserve funds. I mean, it’s like, oh, my god. I mean, obviously they don’t have the bond rating we have, but I think we’re safe 25 percent and up, or I mean does that --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Our policy is actually 30.

MS. ROGERS: And we would not recommend going below. These numbers that we’re looking at for ‘16, they’re above 30. But there is concern about, you know, going down five percent or six percent or something like that. It’s a big drop in one year.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean, you know, at the end of the day it comes down to revenue and expenditures. And I think anything we do, I mean, if we’ve got to figure out and increase revenue to not -- to eliminate financing at 4.5 percent I’m all for it. Bonds, you know, we get money for 1.5 to 2.0 percent. Those are big number bonds. You’re not going to write a $10 million check to do something typically. But, yeah. If we can cash fund, you know, things that we would otherwise do at 4.5 percent, man, I’m all for it. Because when you start taking a million dollars and paying 4.5 percent that number compounds pretty quickly and there’s a lot more we can do with that money, you know, like have a fireworks show or something like that. Four percent of a million, there you go, 40,000.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But we didn’t save anything.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We didn’t save anything. We spent it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But, I don’t know. I mean, I like the idea. It’s an interesting program. You know, anything we can, I mean, if we can get away from leasing and paying cash that’s great because leasing does -- and at the end of the day when you start looking at everything you’ve got on a lease and you start looking at interest that you pay on leases, instead of 4.5 percent, I got a, I mean, I bought a car for recently for less than that, you know, 3.75 percent on a used car. So, when you’re starting a lease and you put that lease factor in it starts to build up, so.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anything else on this topic? All right. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I do have one question. Could you just, and I should have asked you this before we started on the budget stuff. Can you just give us the timeline of the next two steps, you know, in Council meetings?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Of the budget process?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. The budget. When we set our limit and then the next one when we set actually, you know, I don’t know. I’m just wondering.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Sorry. Multi-tasking. Hold on one second.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The scheduled showed us setting the limit at the July 13th meeting and having the public hearing and voting on the July 27th meeting. Okay.

The next issue that was brought up by Councilmember Jenkins was just discussion of the new positions. You all heard me walk through all those positions. I have included all that information again. I know you don’t want to hear me talk through it again, so I thought maybe this was more appropriate discussion amongst yourselves. I’d be glad to answer any questions as would any of the folks behind me if there is specific questions. Just for reference, the recommended positions are these five.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, the facility technician. I think we’ve kind of noticed that we’re -- it seems like we are -- our process costs us more than we could do it. But let’s say the roofing process. You know, we have internal people and then we hire a contractor to work with whoever would to get -- to go out to other contractors that actually do the work. I would think if we are going to hire a guy, an individual for a facility technician that we would eliminate that, I mean, I think that that process for the air conditioners, I don’t know, three, four years ago and the roofs, I think we’re going to save 25-30 percent on that contract as maybe in this room here, you know what I mean, that 234,000 included a lot more when we first talked about it. But then when we got down to it, it didn’t include that much. So, I don’t know that I’m in favor of our process. You know, and I think we’re still a small town and we can still manage that and especially if we’re going to hire an individual, you know, that can manage that kind of stuff. I think we can eliminate one step or one markup in there in that process because I mean we definitely found out in that roofing thing that there was a lot of cost in there, you know. And I don’t know, you know, we can get down to nitty-gritty details, but I mean, you had brought this position up and, you know, I was like if we’re going to continue our process the way we have it, then we don’t need the guy. If we’re going to change it and maybe, you know, try to eliminate and try to be as frugal. Just one thing on the roof. You know, if we could have went to three different contractors and said, hey, you know, what do you guys recommend. And then, you know, we put together a semi-spec and we get, you know, some bids in. I think they would have came in lower than what it cost us. Okay. And I understand that was the process and it’s, you know, it’s pretty functional. It worked. I don’t know if it’s the most frugal way to do things. So, those are just my opinion on the facility technician.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Dan, I’m addressing specifically what you just said here. You know, as I understand this that for example Chief Moser is responsible for maintenance repairs to the Justice Center, Codes Administrator of City Hall, senior firefighter at the fire stations. The point is that we have senior management people involved in doing this and it seems like this person would add -- relieve those people who have time constraints and important jobs to do, this person could get a better overall handle on what needs to be done everywhere on the daily or weekly basis. And I’m sure they would come up with as they go through it with some sort of efficiencies as well. I think it’s a good idea.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I do want to clarify. It would never be my intent that this person would be a roof expert. So, to do the many things that Jim mentioned. But I wouldn’t feel comfortable -- there wouldn’t be a reason for the City to have a roof expert. We would hire a consultant to look at the roofs, assess them, recommend the best treatment, so I just want to be very clear about that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, that’s your intent, right? I mean, your intent would be to hire a consultant. What I’m throwing out there is a little bit different alternative. Rely on those people that are experts and do it every single day for a living because they’ll come in and tell you, hey, this is what we recommend, you can put this kind of roof on and it ends up being more economical and you can still get three bids and, you know, you still go out and do all that. It eliminates one guy in the middle.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It could work that way on a variety of different things besides roofs. It just depends on the time and expertise of the person.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff and then Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The only issue I’d have with that is, you know, to when you go to a roofing contractor, they’re going to sell you the product line they carry and they’re going to sell you what they make the most profit on. I know it because I’ve dealt with them and you did. And I can take you to a building that I own that the previous owner spent $47,000 on a 4,000 square foot roof for a membrane that should have cost 20,000. I think it’s hard. I mean, you know, in the big picture we sit up here and we hold staff accountable. We hold staff accountable and we hold Carol accountable for things that happened in this City. So, if staff went out and talked to a few contractors and they said, well, what do you recommend and then they sell us this or that, we don’t have an expert opinion, then we’re at the mercy of this contractor. You know, is it legit? Is this a good product? How do we know? And, yeah, I think some of that onus could be put on us and we need to do the research. But if we go with that product and it doesn’t work out, who do we blame? And then we go after staff and we say, well, you bid this wrong or you shouldn’t have done this or you wasted our money, so I think what I would say is if you’re not going to involve -- when we start doing projects like that, if we’re not going to involve somebody that has an education that’s going to recommend an outside opinion on what the best product is then you’ve got to agree not to hold staff accountable for the results. And you’ve got to say whatever happens happens. And if it doesn’t work out, well, that’s our bad just like you on your building. If you hire a roofing contractor based on what he tells you you own it because you made that decision. So, basically what we’re trying to do is trying to circumvent staff’s decision and say, well, you know, let’s do it this way, but then we’re still going to hold them accountable for the results. I’m going to read something real quick, and this is real interesting on our form of government because I always love how people say we need to run like a business. Government should run like a business and I hear that from a lot people. So, let’s say, this is from Wikipedia, which is really interesting, a comment about forms of government. “The legislative body, which is voted into office by public elections, appoints a professional manager to oversee the administrative operations, implement its policies, and advise it. The position of “mayor” present in this type of legislative body is a largely ceremonial title, and may be selected by the council from among its members or elected as an at-large council member with no executive functions. The city manager position in this form of municipal government is similar to that of corporate chief executive officer (CEO), providing professional management to the board of directors. Council–manager government is much like a publicly traded corporation. In a corporation, the board of directors appoints a CEO, makes major decisions and wields representative power on behalf of shareholders. In council–manager government, the elected council appoints a city manager, makes major decisions, and wields representative power on behalf of the citizens. The city manager is, in turn, responsible for hiring a city staff to carry out implementation of city ordinances.” That’s pretty simple. When we start telling the staff and we start telling Carol don’t hire this person, hire this person, then when things don’t go right you’ve got to take the -- you’ve got to be willing to stand up and take the heat for it. Because what she’s saying is for me to properly run this City and implement our ordinances and do what I think needs to be done, then I need these positions. And, you know, we haven’t hired anybody in a long time to speak of unless it was public safety. And so we need to give back and start staffing. We’ve got a backlog of CSRS. I think we do have a facilities issue with not having one person. With the amount of facilities we have spread across the City, we need somebody to oversee that. And, you know, they might have, you know, they may not be a roof expert, but we might find somebody that does have an education on roofs that can be an asset there. But I think somebody that understands building systems and materials and processes is no different than a millwright in a mill or a plant manager who is responsible for that facility. We kind of need that same one point person that is making sure that we’ve got some continuity among things. When we talk about running it as a business that’s it. I mean, when we start, and that’s what I said in this last meeting. You know, it was misunderstood that, oh, well, Jeff, doesn’t think we should oversee what staff does. No, absolutely I do. But I think we hire a city manager to make those decisions. So, when it comes to hiring -- if she was sitting here with 27 positions she wanted to hire and couldn’t really justify any of them, I think we’d probably have an argument and say, well, I don’t think that’s necessary. It’s pretty much laid out, the intent or the purpose of these positions, what they’re going to be used for and the need for them. And the fact that we really haven’t had staff come forward and asking for new hires in quite some time like this would tell me that we’re probably there. We’ve been growing. We’re at -- what do we have, 350 home permits right now? Last year, I think 300, 350? Are we probably on track for -- what do you think, Paul?


MR. SHERFY: Probably 250.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Or 250, 300. You know, we’re building houses again and we’re growing. We’ve got commercial development. We need to service that. We need codes inspectors. We need these things to stay on top of it. So, I would think if staff is asking for it, I’ve never seen this staff just hire people for, you know, to sit around and do nothing. I mean, it’s -- in my opinion, it’s not our job to reach in and micromanage her -- what she thinks she needs for staffing to get the job done and take care of the policies that we pass.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I respectfully disagree with Councilman Vaught on that. I think it is our responsibility to be held accountable by our constituents. And my constituents certainly talk to me and I think they talk to a number of people sitting up here. And they expect us to get the budget within -- to put some restraint on the budget because they’re paying for that. This is not money, my money. This is their money. We just got this showing charts up here where we’re spending our reserves. Okay. Well, as long as we’re spending our reserves, no problem, we’ll just go hire people. Now, I put in my moratorium statement that we were not placing any kind of moratorium on public safety. So, that means police officer and fire inspector are a go. However, we’ve been living without a facility technician for a while. We’ve been living without this maintenance position for a while and we’ve been living without this inspector for a while and I’m sure we’d like to hire them. That would be nice. And when times get better we may want to do that. That’s why the word moratorium means putting it on hold. It does not mean never, not even on a prayer. It says a moratorium for one year is what it said where it would be reevaluated this time next year when we’re looking at the budget again. And maybe at that time maybe we’re doing pretty good. Sales taxes are doing pretty good or mill levies are coming in pretty nice and you know what, maybe we can handle that. But right now I see us going backwards on our budget. We are actually spending more money than we’re taking in and we’re reducing our reserves. And I don’t see any reason why we would go out and make additional expenses, especially expenses like staff which are renewable every year. Not only at the same rate, but at a higher rate because you have pay raises and so on as well in benefits, the increasing benefits all the time because those health insurance plans don’t get cheaper every year, they get more expensive every year and it all gets more expensive. And those are long-term commitments. Those are multi-year. Some of them may be 30-years plus when you hire somebody on the staff. And I didn’t mean to say anything about that very hard when we look at hiring new people on. Now, I want a great city. I want good staff. I want people to get out and do their jobs. We all do. But I think we’re hard-pressed right now to justify hiring those additional three staff positions when while we’re spending our reserves.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I was just going to comment about my original comments. If the process of purchasing roofs and air conditioners and stuff like that is to hire a contractor, then that’s the reason why I said that I’m not for this facility technician individual. If we’re not going to hire a contractor and we’re going to use this individual and he’s going to save the City dollars, then that’s the reason why we hire a guy like that. So, those --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You mean a consultant?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That was my original comments.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Hire a consultant or hire a contractor?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, we hired a consultant --


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- which is a contractor, okay, to evaluate our roofs, okay, when we can rely on multiple, you know, people that do that for a living and we can -- if we’re going -- we either do it one way or the way. We either hire the facility technician or we use contractors. That’s what I was indicating. So, you know, I mean this way we’re spending money both ways.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I can tell you what. In Ward III, I don’t hear anybody saying you’re not spending our money wisely. What I’m hearing them say is I want the street done. I want the sidewalk fixed. The people I represent have expectations, so I’m looking at this little slide here. Public Works Open Work Orders, June 12, 2015. Chuck hole patching, pavement repairs, 122. Curbs and sidewalks, 28. Stormwater drainage issues, 87. Stormwater quality detention facilities, 7. Stormwater system cleaning, 70. Streetlight repair, 21. I mean, I think our residents have an expectation that we’re going to take care and maintain this city. And if it takes a couple extra people to do it, then we need to hire them because we’re obviously not getting it done with the personnel we have. And it has nothing to do with open management. It has nothing to do with a broken system. It has to do with there’s just not enough manpower in Public Works to solve all these problems. And I really -- it amazes me because, you know, Eric, you’ve taken that same path that I’ve heard from other councilmembers that if we don’t put a moratorium, but we can’t touch public safety. And I can tell you what, go talk to public safety. They’re offended by that. Because guess what, they live in this city too. And they know that this city has to work together and everything has to work together. They have to have quality roads to drive on. They have to make sure that everything is working. So, when you just say that we’re going to exclude public safety from any moratoriums or we’re going to exclude them, they’re offended by it. This is their city, too. And they want a quality city. And they don’t want to be singled out saying you guys can do whatever you want, you have a free pass, but, you know, the rest of you guys you’ve got to figure out how to make due. It doesn’t work that way. When you start looking at our backlog of work orders I guess you could say that maybe, you know, go visit Public Works, tell them you guys need to work harder and work faster and get more done because, you know, we just don’t want to hire anybody else, it just doesn’t make sense right now. You know, we’re adding more rooftops. We’re adding more lane miles of road. We’re a growing city. At some point we need to spend some money and we need to grow them the amount of people to maintain this. It’s just inevitable. I mean, there is no way around it. And when you look at the amount of employees we have compared to other cities, wow. You know, Lenexa. We’ve already gone through these numbers. I mean, you know, comparably we have the lowest numbers [recording error]. But I’ve been sitting here -- no? Because, Eric, I’ve been sitting here for five years.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’ve been sitting here for five years looking at this. You just got here. And you’re going to come right out and say that, well, maybe we should put a year moratorium. We’ve had a moratorium for several years now. There’s been no hiring. And we’ve gone through a recession. We made it through without tax increases. We’ve done it right, but now we have needs. And we do have an increase in revenue. And revenues are up. And now is the time to do it because need to address these needs.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I would have to challenge you with the things you said haven’t been done what does that have to do with those positions up there? There’s no correlation at all to the things you’ve said would even work. I will challenge you with that right now.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You’re talking -- maintenance position. Facility technician and inspector.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And you talk about filling holes and fixing streets. I’m talking about fixing streets. In fact, I’ve said we’re not spending enough money on streets.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. So, let’s look at inspector. Should we just not because we are backlogged on inspections. Should we not inspect?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: My point is you cannot draw a correlation between the things that you’ve said are needing to be done and those positions, frankly.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s it. Period. End of story.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Maintenance position. What’s a maintenance position?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s a maintenance position. You tell me. You’re ready to vote for it, aren’t you? Tell me what it is.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You tell me. What’s the maintenance position? Do they not maintain?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: If you don’t know, you shouldn’t be voting for it, should you?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Is the word maintain in maintenance.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is that like the bill you got -- is that the bill you have to pass before you can figure out what’s in it?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What is the maintenance position, Eric?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay, guys. We’re going to move on.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Let’s do.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim. I have Jim, Brandon and then Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I would just make a real simple, simple statement. I know this stuff is here. Guys, all of this, what these people are supposed to do, it’s in the packet. It tells exactly what each one of those people are going to do and how they’re going to do it and what their responsibilities. They’re going to be and who they’re going to take after. It’s in the packet. Thank you.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, I just want to say that I appreciate that we’re having this debate because it says that all of us take this seriously and obviously the use of taxpayer funds when it comes to hiring and these types of decisions. With the facility technician position specifically, I think it is notable we do have eight buildings, eight facilities. We’ve grown a lot. We didn’t always have eight, so there wasn’t always a need for a facility technician. And with those buildings comes a large number, large amount of equipment and appliances that need upkeep. So, when we look at that, too, I think it’s, you know, assessing cost I think is critical, but we also need to look at the savings in terms of increased efficiency from staff who have more time to do other things as well. And just knowing for corporate experience when you don’t have somebody who is dedicated to all of that and that falls on the shoulders of staff who have more immediate priorities, whether that be in police or public safety, you know, they’re weighing that against everything else. Obviously that’s not an immediate priority, so it’s something that, you know, gets put off until it becomes critical. So, having a technician who can service all eight of these facilities, and some of them have pretty impressive square area that we’re talking about, I think there would be plenty of work for them to do and we’d see efficiencies and we’d see savings in terms of staff being able to follow up on CSRS and some other items as well. So, just something we’d consider on the debate.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ve been elected four times and I’ve hit the streets and the doors probably as hard or harder than a lot of you guys up here and a lot of you know that.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And I spend a lot of time at the doors when I go there. And I ask questions and I let them ask questions. I go in and I ask them what do you want. And I’ll tell you what. They’re not afraid. The people out there are not afraid of paying taxes. They want to know that the money is spent well. And what they’re voting for is to put representatives up here that are going to spend it wisely. They’re not afraid of having it there and letting us use it as long as it’s wisely. You know, so to come in and say that, you know, we’ve got -- we’re going door to door and people want us to cut back, start pulling in our reins and doing all this, I’ve never heard that once, you know. Maybe I got to the wrong doors, but they get me elected. But, you know, the people are not afraid to spend it as long as it’s spent well and they know that it’s bettering what we have.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I mean, the ones of us that are up here that are like that we’ve all gone to doors, we’ve all heard stuff. And I guess since we’re the only ones there you kind of have to take our word for what we hear, what we don’t hear. So, I mean, I don’t -- I’m not going to go into that part of it. I am kind of curious though. Mr. Vaught made a statement on behalf of public safety that you guys are insulted for the moratorium on hiring of other positions. I’m kind of curious if the Police Chief or the Fire Chief would like to come up and make that their official.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I don’t think we want them to weigh in on that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I would ask them to --

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: They don’t want to make that their official statement? That’s kind of odd.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I don’t think that’s appropriate to ask them to come up.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Yeah. I don’t think it’s appropriate to make that statement on their behalf either. Going on with it, I agree with Eric. We are sitting here and we see a spike in revenue. Okay. It’s good to see that now. These could be 30-year expenditures and I’m not sure if one year increase is going to be enough for me to want to make that kind of investment this year. Maybe it would be next year, but we’re looking at Greek markets, the EU having issues. China potentially could have a 1929 equivalent going on. I’m not a hundred percent sure that we’re out of this yet. And until I am, I wouldn’t be in favor of putting these new in, these new positions in place. I don’t see the correlation between getting streets fixed in these, especially when we’ve been making the argument for more stormwater, for more maintenance on the streets. And so I agree. If that’s what the citizens want, then let’s put that money in those areas rather than hiring these today.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, there’s a flooding issue in the Fire Chief’s office, correct?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: All right. So, who takes care of that now? So, if his office floods, what’s the protocol?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The Chief will try and do as much as he can. If it gets out of hand, Development Services steps in on contract kinds of things because that’s what they do. So, they’ve got a couple of staff people that --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, they’re spending -- so as department leaders are spending a whole lot of time trying to figure out a flooding issue because we don’t have a person, a facilities manager that their job is to -- we have a flooding issue in this building, let’s take care of it, so they go take care of it. Or they have a leak in this roof, so instead of the department head, who as we know is a higher paid position in the City, spending their time taking care of a roof leak instead of running their department like they should, I mean, it’s kind of like the CEO or it’s kind of like the department, the director of a department in a large corporation when there is a flooding issue is on the phone calling out the Steamatic and calling out the roof in a -- no. They call the facilities manager and say, hey, get over here, we got a leak. And the guy shows up and he’s on it and he takes care of it. And then they go on doing their job that they’re getting paid to do that they have an expectation of getting done. It’s pretty black and white to me. I’m trying to figure out how this is so foreign to everybody. We just don’t have City Hall. I mean, what have we got? City Hall. We’ve got three fire stations. We’ve got a Civic Centre. We’ve got Old Shawnee Town. We’ve got the Justice Center. We’ve got a Public Works building. We’ve got the Parks and Rec building. We’ve got facilities at the parks, a lot of them that while Parks would probably maintain that, I’m sure that person could still have some involvement in some of that. I’m sure I’m missing -- we have the other buildings sitting on Midland, the fire station not in use. I don’t know. What else do we have? I mean, it’s not like we just have one building and this guy is going to sit around and wait for something to happen. You know, it’s no different than property management. Property management, you have a portfolio of properties and you’re that property manager and that’s kind of what you do. If you’re the facilities guy, then your job is oversight on those properties that if something goes wrong and you get a phone call, you go figure it out. So, if your phone rings at three o’clock in the morning and says we’ve got some wind damage on our roof, instead of Carol and a department head down here trying to figure out this piece blew of a roof, you’ve got a facilities guy that’s down here three o’clock in the morning on his cell phone calling up an emergency roofing contractor to get down here and patch this thing up, so that we don’t have a flood in one of the rooms. It’s pretty basic. That’s their job. And I’m sure it’s kind of a 24-hour on-call job where, hey, we have an alarm, we have a problem. We have a, you know, whatever it is, you’re the guy that’s going to go take care of it. Otherwise, you know, what you do? You pull people that aren’t necessarily knowledgeable on those situations and they’re kind of fumbling around trying to figure out what to do. I mean, this is how corporate America works. So, if we’re going to run like a business like everybody thinks we should, then we need to start getting our head around this and do it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It seems as though we’ve pretty well exhausted the conversation on this topic, so I’m going to go ahead and call the question. Does anyone have a motion they would like to make on this particular issue?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I would move that we have a moratorium on hiring the new positions on the 2015R and the 2016 budget with the exception of those positions designated as Public Safety.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Jim?



CITY MANAGER GONZALES: To clarify those two positions, you might just say the titles.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Specifically the police officer and the fire inspector as indicated on the chart shown before us.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. I believe the Committee last time recommended the budget go forward to the Governing Body.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: And it was passed. And these were included in it. So, this would change the recommendation that was made at the last Committee meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right. We would have to rescind the action from the previous Council Committee meeting. That’s correct.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We can just change it on Monday.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think if it’s okay, depending on how you want us to move forward with this. If we could get through each item and then maybe in the end if there are changes to rescind the motion and then do them all at once.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: At once. That would be fine.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: To make it a little cleaner. Okay. Does that work for everyone?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And again to Councilmember Pflumm’s point, there’s two more opportunities to have discussion at the Council meetings.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And those would be separate, right? You’ve got 2015R individuals and you’ve got 2016.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The way the item would be structured on the 13th agenda would be to separate the 15R budget and the ‘16 budget, yes.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, we have a motion and a second on the floor regarding the moratorium on all but Public Safety positions?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No, I did not second it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike did. Yeah. I got you, Jim. I’m going to go ahead and do a roll call vote on this.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: How many votes does it take to moratorium?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, is this just a polling vote because --


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- I guess I’m confused.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. We’ll make it a polling vote then --


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: -- and we’ll just include everything in the motion at the end if that works.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, explain again what we’re doing.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’m just going to do a poll to see if this going to pass, if it’s something the Council wants to move -- the Council Committee wants to move on to make the change. Does that make sense? Okay. All right. Councilmember Neighbor?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Pflumm?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Jenkins?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kemmling?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Stephanie Meyer. I am a no. Councilmember Vaught?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Sandifer?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kenig?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. So, the poll as it were fails and we will move on to the next item. (Poll fails 3-5) Thank you.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I do have a few slides on this. The issue was brought up of perhaps increasing our contribution to roads from the General Fund. So gain, we just tried to pull together some information. Some you have seen before, but maybe it’s in different formats, but to provide some backup in discussion you all would want to have. So, this is what we showed as a 2016 Street Maintenance Program funding. So, that’s a $9.3 million program in ‘16 from a variety of sources of revenue. The General Fund transfer is 415,000 that goes towards the Street Maintenance Program, bridge, seal, other maintenance. And then as you all know other sources of funding that we have for our Street Maintenance Program.

This is the Special Highway Fund forecast just trying to look out a few more years in terms of the allocated expenses or projected expenses for the mill and overlay program. So, you can see the -- remember that 9.3 number includes outside funding, 1.4 million of outside funding. So, this forecast doesn’t show the outside funding because this is just our funding. So, in ‘17, 7.7 would be our funding, 7.8, 7.9, and then there would be additional CARS funding on top of that. So again, just to kind of give you a sense of what the future programs will look like.

And then we did similar as we did on the Fire forecast, and we just picked a number because we hadn’t heard any number bandied about. But if we were to pull a million dollars more out of the General Fund in ‘16 and put it in the Street Program what that would do our reserves. And Maureen talked about reserves and those impacts earlier. It would bring it from a budget of 36 percent is what it currently sits at proposed, to 34 percent. And we just tried to pull together some information basis for any conversation you all wanted to have.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone who has questions or would like to speak on this item?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, since I proposed it I guess I’ll speak on it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, there you go.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m looking at this lane miles overlay 2013 and 2017, and I notice in 2013 you have 42.25 miles. In 2014, we did 11.3. In 2015 we did 18.45. Then we’re talking about this year going to 44.8, getting back up into kind of the norm. We’re 55 miles behind. So, at this rate it’ll take three years just to catch up to the area we left there for a couple of years.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. It’ll be much more than three years to catch up. In fact, even in the ten-year projection --


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- we don’t catch up.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just by this little piece here with the three years it would take us three years to catch up.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’m sorry. One thing that might be informative to your discussion, too. We did -- Councilmember Pflumm had asked for a history of street maintenance funding also. I mean, we have never funded an $8 million program or a $7 million even back when we were funding a good program in ‘06 and ‘07.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. But, Carol, we need to frame it properly. Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I just gave him a history.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We passed a 3/8th cent sales tax. It would put an additional tax burden on the people of Shawnee in order to bump that number up.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Up to the seven million.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. We’re only putting $415,000 out of the General Fund into there, is that correct?


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, out of a General Fund, that’s the money, people pay their taxes. They pay their mill levies. When they go to the store they’re paying their sales taxes and all. And of all those taxes that are coming into the City of Shawnee, we’re taking out $415,000 toward roads. All this money is coming from other sources. So, it’s kind of a bait and switch operation if you want to be really frank about it. We said, oh, we don’t have money for roads, we’re going to pass a new tax because we’re not putting the money that the taxpayers are giving us for -- look at our priorities. What’s the number one priority? Public safety. Number two priority for this city, infrastructure. We’re putting $415,000 of our General Fund into our infrastructure there. Yeah. We’ve got gas tax revenue. We’ve got land impact fees. We’ve got all this other stuff. But the taxpayers are paying the money for their number one and number priorities, it ain’t going there, is it? Only 415,000 of it is going there out of the entire City budget, okay?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Out of the General Fund.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Sales tax revenue obviously that they’re shopping in stores is going into –

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. And I think that’s kind of shortcoming on our part especially when we’ve let them go for quite a long time. Now, I think it’s great we’re putting in what we’re putting in, but I tell you what. You know, we’re buying fire trucks in cash. We’re hiring staff. We’re doing all kinds of stuff. Well, you want to know where the money could have come from, some money could have come from right there. You could have done it on time. Bought the fire truck on time like Councilman Pflumm was talking about. We could do other things. But a million dollars, that’s still only $1,415,000 from our entire General Fund going to our roads and keeping our streets up. That’s kind of paltry if you ask me. So, I came out with this statement saying, you know, I think we ought to put a little more in there and everybody is acting like I’m coming from another planet or something. That seems pretty natural to me that we would spend some of our General Fund on our infrastructure.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Certainly a policy decision of this Committee.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, that’s where I’m coming from. It’s pretty simple.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I’d like to make a little correction on what you said there. You said that we placed an extra burden on the people of Shawnee. We did not. The people of Shawnee voted to put this in place. We did not place this on them. Number one. You know, well, I don’t want to get into an argument. I’ll leave it alone.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Mickey is absolutely correct. We didn’t place a burden on anybody. We gave people the option and they voted for it overwhelmingly just like they voted for Parks and Pipes overwhelmingly because that’s something else they support. You know, I think we’re following the state model. I mean, we all, you know, everybody -- a lot of people in this room want to support and are sitting up here and want to support what the state does and think that, you know, the governor and that legislature walks on water. Is this not a consumption tax? Is this not what the state is trying to do is trying to get rid of income tax and load it with sales tax? So, is our road maintenance program not just kind of modeled after the state saying this is going to be more consumption based because it’s consumers. And a lot of people from outside our community drive on our roads. I think it’s great. As a taxpayer in Shawnee, I think it’s great that so much of our road maintenance money and revenue comes from something other than the mill levy. You know, I mean I see people with Wyandotte County tags, Missouri tags. I know people from all over this community drive into Shawnee to buy goods and services and cut through our city and shortcuts from, you know, Lenexa into Wyandotte County. And if they stop and buy something that little 3/8th cent sales tax, that helps pay for these roads. I think it’s awesome. You know, I’d rather see the mill levy that I spend, the property tax I spend, you know, on other programs that we need. And, yeah, let’s let people from outside of our community where the majority of our sales tax dollars are spent or half of it or 40 percent goes to our community. I think it’s great. I mean, I don’t know why we need to put, I mean, this is like Carol said. This is the most this fund has ever been funded. This is huge. And we do have a plan. And we’ve all sat up here. Most of us have sat through many presentations on our road rating system, how many roads are rated at what level. There was a lot of thought process put into this on where we need to be and how much we’re going to spend and what it’s going to take to get it to a certain point. And we are focusing on the worst roads we have and we’ll move up from there. You know, I think when we look at our roads there’s some roads that definitely need attention that would be great to get them done this year, but, you know, unless they’re the worst condition road, I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a game changer. I guess the question is how much do we fund it? What’s your number? Do you want to put 15 million into it? 20 million? I’m being serious.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I gave you a number.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I said a million to 1.5.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: A million to 1.5. So, we need to -- so, we have $9.3 million going into the road fund and we should just add another -- this is the most it’s ever been funded. We have a program in place. And if I’m not mistaken, our sales tax revenues, are we up this year over last year?

MS. ROGERS: Somewhat. Two percent.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, we’ve got two percent growth in sales tax. So, that’s going to additionally fund. There’s some other retail projects on the horizon, some big ones that no matter what we do with TIFs or incentives that 3/8th always comes to roads, so that’s additional funding. I mean, if we really want to grow this fund, then let’s get some retail built and let’s collect some sales tax revenue.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric, can I ask a point of clarification in your proposal?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sorry, I didn’t ever see it. So, a million dollars, is that a one-time? A million to 1.5, is that a one-time transfer from the General Fund or is that an ongoing? Are you thinking of it as like --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think there should be a basic percentage of our General Fund, which is applied to our streets.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, we have decided that we were going to go ahead, at my suggestion I must say, but it was at my suggestion, we did prioritize the City’s needs. And number one we said was going to be Public Safety. That’s why I like to exempt Public Safety from that moratorium I proposed because it was a number one priority this community. And if you read my original position paper, it said we may entertain some possibilities of someone in Public Works because that’s -- works right into our infrastructure idea. So, I feel that the percentage of money that this City puts forth on their roads from the General Fund of all the money we take in on our General Fund, $415,000 is a very tiny percentage of that. And you can say, wow, we’re going to spend more than we’ve ever spent before, well, that’s great because we really put work off on our roads for quite a long time. And we have councilmen here that talk about image all the time. What do you think of the image when you drive down the roads of Shawnee and they’ve all got tar and patching every which way and they look like hell frankly. I was just looking the other day, I just kind of made note of it. It looked pretty darn bad. A lot of our roads do. Gee, what about those developers that are driving in here maybe wanting to build something in Shawnee and look at our road system. They’re going to be, yeah, great, I don’t want to build with these guys. They don’t even take care of their streets. So, you know, I could turn that argument back against you because I hear it all the time thrown at me. But the bottom line is that’s a pretty big thing, what do your roads look like? What does your infrastructure look like? What kind of shape is it in? That is a top priority for this community. Not only in looks, but in serviceability and wear and tear on our vehicles, our taxpayers vehicles and so on. And like I’m delighted that the amount of money we’re going to spend is more, but there’s a reason why it’s more. We just added a whole bunch more to the sales tax. I don’t care whether the City Council imposed it or whether the voters voted for it. I can tell you one thing there was no organized opposition to the sales tax, so every sign out there was for the City. Let’s vote for the sales tax. And everything was vote for the sales tax. There wasn’t one negative comment anywhere in the newspaper, a sign or anything.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: There was opposition. There were signs.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I missed it. I couldn’t find it.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It must have been too minuscule to see. The bottom line is it doesn’t really matter who did it. We’ve got a whole bunch more money coming in from the sales tax, an added sales tax. But that does not relieve us of our responsibility to manage the funding that the people are paying into the public coffers, a certain percentage of it would appropriate be spent on maintenance of our roads and infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And I don’t disagree with you on that point. I guess I was just -- I apologize. I haven’t seen the position, a little bit behind the eight ball. I was just wondering if the 1.11 or 1.5 million is if you’re thinking of it as kind of a -- to shore up the fund until the 3/8th funding increases or once the 3/8th, once the sales tax funding heading towards roads does increase, does that offset what you’re planning to or what we should plan to do for --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think if our roads are up to speed and they’re looking good, I think that’s certainly a decision that can be taken at that time saying, you know, I think we’re really pretty caught up. All that stuff we’ve deferred and laid off on for quite a while, we’re in pretty darn good shape. This $7 million or whatever is doing the job. I think we’re in pretty good shape. That may be a different decision at that point. This is a --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: This is an annual budget.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That’s 12 to 15 years down the road.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Before our roads are squared away?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Because they have to -- they keep getting worse and [inaudible]

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Exactly why we should be putting more money into them, Mickey. That’s my point.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thank you. That really endorses my point.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have Mike and then Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Carol, in ‘06 and ‘07, we were spending at least a million from the General Fund, ‘11 and ‘12, it was over a million. Where did that money go instead of into this fund?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Revenues declined with the recession and so that was one of the places where the Council chose to reduce expenditures.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. So, if revenues go up, I mean, we could restore it to the levels that we had before?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Again, policy decision --


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- of this Governing Body of how you want funds allocated.



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I was just going to throw out there that based on our other slide up there by, you know, I don’t think you can throw another million or 1.5 million. I agree with Eric’s comments that a certain percentage of the General Fund needs to go towards the priorities that the citizens have selected in their survey, and that was roads. But if we increase it a million dollars here, I know I’m against going into $3.6 million in the red. So, going another million is going the wrong direction. So, unless we take that from something else, then, you know, I can’t see doing that. But I’m not opposed to making a certain percentage of the General Fund go towards roads. And I think that’s a great comment, so. But anyway, I’d like to see that 3.6 million go down, not up. And you know, I think I’ll probably reiterate that on Monday night and two weeks from Monday or whatever, but I don’t know. I can’t see myself voting for bringing down the General Fund 3.6 million.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I agree with you, Dan. Jeff.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Could I hear from the expert on our roads, Mr. Sherfy, on his opinion on our plan to -- that we put in place with this fund and increase revenue and kind of how that looks again because I know he loves talking about roads and I know you look really bored sitting there.

MR. SHERFY: Well, I apologize. Riveting conversation I’m sure. I can’t tell you how excited Development Services and Public Works are to have more money for roads than my -- in Shawnee’s history next year. We are going to have our hands full spending that money with the staff we have from a planning standpoint. That’s just pure and simple. A couple years ago, you have the slide, we spent a million, two million. Now we’re talking seven with relatively the same staff. So again, we have a larger program than we’ve ever had. We have the same staffing levels. So, I want to comment to that first. As far as the plan goes, the number that was passed at the 2/8th plus the 1/8th for the SIP was going to hold the line on our pavement conditions. So, the comments are sort of half right on each side. We aren’t making the streets better. We’re holding the line at the $7 million number. And that was the analysis done in 2012. So, if your question was what does the plan bring. That is keeping the pavement conditions at a level we are. We are going to have several years at the level here where we’re going to be putting a lot of tar on the streets. We’re going to continue blow patch and have the stuff behind the blow patch. It is where we’re at. It takes staff to do that. But we are going to hopefully -- well, we will in the next ten years have a better cross section of our streets. More streets at three, four, five, six, seven and eight. Right now we have what I’ve called that bell curve at four and five. So many streets come in at one time. So, we will be a healthier street city in terms of the number of streets at each classification of street a decade from now with that plan. And that’s very exciting for us. So, I hope I’ve answered the question satisfactorily.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And just while you’re up there, Mark. It would probably be helpful if you had another 1.5 million dollars because of that 1.5 million perhaps you could hire some temps. Because when I’m talking about staff positions I’m really seriously focused in on PFT, permanent full-time positions. But a temp position, a one or two-year, maybe even three-year terms, that’s a whole different ball game. You’re not dealing with long-term obligations. You’ve got a handle on that staff and you know when they’re going -- how long they’re going to be there and how you can budget for them and all that kind of stuff, so it’s really a different ball game than PFTs. And that kind of money would allow you to perhaps plus up a little bit and be able to handle that load and be able to do the additional work.

MR. SHERFY: And we could talk for a long time on that, and that’s not what we’re here on right now.


MR. SHERFY: But PFTs don’t do the mill and overlay program. Put in an inch and a half to two inches on there. Really where I tell you and we’ve said it in the presentations where the million dollars will go first is our curbs. We have our open CSRS in the packet today, but we don’t record every one that’s out there. We rely on our citizens to do that. If we went to every curb complaint in the neighborhood we would spend our curb money in a single neighborhood. It’s just the reality of how much curb issues we have. We have that slide that’s grown from 36 to $39 million that would take -- if we had $39 million, we could spend it all now and get our system right. That’s not what we need to do. We don’t need it all right because it’s all going to come crashing at the next point. But almost half of that, if I remember, is in curbs. So, if you want to talk temporary or part-time positions, yes, bring in a curb crew together led by somebody full-time to lead a curb crew might be a way to spend some money there, but that’s not anything we recommend and that’s not in the discussion today. That would be something that we could look into the future for additional funding.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a point of clarification then. That I think of those as being different than PFTs. If we do hire for surge purposes, temp staff for certain issues, that’s not a long-term commitment.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That person knows they’re going to be let go. They’re not expecting a career. There is no commitment made to them long term. It’s a big difference.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. If there are no other questions or comments on this I might just do a poll then rather than a formal motion on Councilmember Jenkins’ proposal to move one -- do you want to stick with one million?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One million from the General Fund into the Roads program. So, I will do a roll call on that. Councilmember Neighbor?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Pflumm?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Jenkins?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kemmling?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I am a no. Councilmember Vaught?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Sandifer?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kenig?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The poll as it were fails. (Poll fails 3-5). We will move on to the next item.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Okay. Stormwater Management Program. And I’ll go through this briefly because I think all of this was in the packet and hopefully you had time to look through it. But the concern was raised, and I understand why, that we actually had to decline some funding for grants from the SMAC program. And so I just wanted to give a little history of the SMAC program or we call SMAC, SMP is what the county calls it. That that’s been around since ‘88. It’s a 1/10th sales tax. It comes into the county. Then there is an advisory council that has developer prioritization. It’s intended to address the issues that water doesn’t stop at city limits and so this is a county-wide sales tax to help alleviate flooding and significant flooding issues. And so it’s been around obviously for quite a long time. The grant program provides for 75 percent. So, even when we do get those programs we get 75 percent funding which has been a great asset for the City of Shawnee. We haven’t run the numbers recently, but I know that we have gotten at least our share of that SMAC funding and probably a little more because have had such an aggressive program of identifying problems and we have a lot of hills and a lot of creeks.

So, each year the SMAC advisory council and the county staff develop a capital project list. We submit those. You all see those things that come through called PES, preliminary engineering studies. As we identify flooding areas then our staff has the PES done to determine whether or not they’re going to meet the criteria and how well they might school. A little tangent for a minute. There have been some times where a project has come in and it hasn’t scored very well or it’s so large that it didn’t score well and so then we’ve gone back with our PES and kind of carved out phases which is kind of one of the things we’ve done here around Johnson Drive. When you take them back in smaller increments there is sometimes their benefit ratio rises. And again, our staff is very adept at using that SMAC program to the best interest of the City of Shawnee. So, this annual capital project is developed based on the submissions from all the cities, any cities in Johnson County that want to submit programs that are eligible. So, just as an example this is the list then that was developed for 2016 based on the initial submittals. So, then the cost bid benefit ratings are calculated and included in this list. You see that’s the third column from the left. And so then this -- the annual amount varies a little bit depending on how much carryover there is. But the annual amount that the county has to spend is about $14 million. And so they kind of look at this list and they draw the line and they go down until they hit cumulative total of about 14 and they make their first offer to cities. And say here is what programs are eligible this year, here is what we can afford to fund. And so we sit down as staff. We look at what they’re offering us. We look at what matches are available to us. And so the match money that we have traditionally used for many years, I think since the Pipes tax was pretty much originally passed is our Pipes sales tax money. We have not used General Fund money. We have not used other funds. We could. There is no rules about what money is used for matching. But this Council’s preference the last 10 to 15 years has been to use that Pipes sales tax and to do those projects. Use that as the match. So, based on our forecast looking out, we look at, okay, we were offered -- you’ll see Nieman Road, 52nd Circle was right at the top of the list. Nieman Road corridor south, Nieman Road corridor north, those were our three that scored high. Some of them big projects. The 52nd Street project is not. So, based on what funding is available in the Pipes portion of the sales tax is what we then use -- that’s how we decide what projects we’re going to accept. It also has an element, and I mentioned this in the packet memo and Mark mentioned it a minute ago, too. It’s just staffing capacity. We have one Stormwater engineer, one tech. They can only manage so many projects. If we had more money to match them, we would either have to hire more staff to manage the projects or figure out a different way to do that. The thing I do want to emphasize is that many cities decline projects that are offered. So, this is the end of what at this point that the county has approved. Because cities that were offered declined, some other than use. And so the county this year has a program of $12.8 million. Any extra rolls into next year’s program. We do know how the system works very, very well. And we know that in the future we will be offered these other projects that are further down the list. They’ll continue to climb up and the benefit ratio will have the matches as we’ve projected in our forecasts and they won’t come off the table. We aren’t losing the chance. We just aren’t doing them all at one time. So, that’s kind of the story of the SMAC funding. I don’t know if there’s any comments or questions about that.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Just real quick on the timetable. From when they approve, how long do we have to give them an answer? What’s that window to either accept or --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, Doug, do you know?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: About a month because then they’re needing to work out a list and then go to the next round to check in with them and see [inaudible].


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s kind of a dynamic process for a while --


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- as cities are declining and accepting.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I mean, we basically have to make our decision relatively quick though once one comes in or once it comes in because --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We do. Although I would say it’s really not that quick because we know -- we plan ten years out. I mean, you know what’s coming down, what projects are going to be offered next, what’s going to score next.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. So, we’re pretty confident in our ability to predict which ones will get funding and which ones won’t?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. Yeah. And as Doug said, they do come back. Sometimes they’ll offer us the first, which may have, I think is what happened this year. They offered us the 52nd Street and the south. They came back and offered us, because there were enough others that declined, then they came back and offered us again north. So, then we do -- in that regard then we do have a quicker time frame and our recommendation as you all saw was to decline that because we didn’t have the funding for the match.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other comments on this item? Eric?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just my suggestion. I brought this suggestion up and what I’d like to do to enact the suggestion would be as we go through the year, we do projects that come in under budget fairly often. That’s not an unusual thing. And what I’d like to do is sequester those funds that are the savings from the budget amount that’s in our budget, that difference and have Maureen stick that over in this other column somewhere and we reserve those funds. And then if we get into a situation where we need matching funds for something like this, that would be a ready source of that. It wouldn’t add anything else to our budget as far as our projections. It wouldn’t have anything to do with deficit. It would just be re-categorizing those funds where they would be used for Stormwater Management projects.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And those funds stay right here in the fund. If we underspend a project or it comes under budget --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I know. But I was wanting --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- we absolutely --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I know we don’t spend it or throw it away or something, but I’m just saying earmark those for this. And then if we don’t wind up using it --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: They’re marked for the Pipes fund.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And then if we don’t wind up using those at the end of the year, they would just be returned to the surplus, of course.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: They stay right in the fund for next year.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But I would like to see them earmarked is what I’m saying so that they would be earmarked for that gets put --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That’s what the fund is.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think Eric might be talking about maybe like a -- if we had, you know, we have 200,000 from a roads project or something, right? Because this is this Parks and Pipes fund.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, you’re talking about other projects.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Other projects outside of this.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean, it could be –


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- a capital improvement project --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- that came in $70,000 under what we had budgeted for that and just kind put that over in a reserve holding area for the potential for paying for if we got matching funds. In fact, matching funds on almost anything really. I hate turning back 75 percent or some kind of match that’s offered to us. And I would like to see those monies earmarked, just set aside and we don’t fool with them and stuff. And then at the end of the year if we don’t spend them it would be recurring every year. We’d have to go back and start all over again and that money would just be returned to our surplus if we didn’t use it by the end of the fiscal year.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s kind of new, different concept. So, I’m thinking more about, we have these projects -- and we haven’t done any capital projects for so many years now.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s a paper transfer is all it is into a square where it’s held there during the year --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. I understand that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- from whatever project it was throughout all the City’s projects, various projects we’ve got going on. This one came in under 7,000, this one came in 12,000 under and we just start -- we just earmark those funds and put them over here and sequester those. And if we get one of these great matching opportunities on anything, it could be this, it could be something else. Boom. We could use those funds to do that. I mean, the Council would approve it, of course, approve the project. But that we have the money available. We wouldn’t have to be scratching our heads like where are we going to come up with that. It’s already identified. It’s already there. It’s already approved in the budget for expenditure this year. I mean, it just seems like a no-brainer to me to do it like that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s a good idea. Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Excuse me. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but it seems to me this comes in, we come in under budget for a thing, for example like in roads and others, but it seems like there’s always enough projects in any one of those and you just take those monies and do more in that same category on a given year, so the monies are pretty much -- I can understand what Eric is talking about. But it seems to me that you’ve always been able to use up the funds because there’s another project somewhere that you can apply those two because you have money in that account.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, so for example on a street project, if we think about ‘16, so those are funded out of the Special Highway Fund that we were looking at. So, if Quivira Road, 47th to 62nd Street comes in under what the project would be, the way it’s currently structured is those monies would stay in Special Highway. They would be -- then we would have more money for mill and overlay the next year. So, it kind of works the way you are talking about, just that we have streets in one fund and Stormwater in one fund because that’s how the funding sources work.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think what he’s kind of indicating is, you know, you had indicated to me that, you know, 2014 budget we didn’t spend all the 2014 budget. But we possibly in 2014, we could have used, you know, 250,000 to leverage a million dollars. Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There’s always fund balance to use if the Council wants to.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I agree. I agree. So, what he was talking about is really the reserve number, you know, and I mean this would be a bad year on the reserve number to look at something like that just because it’s 3.6 million bigger than it should be.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know, like I said any money left over at the end of the year if we didn’t use it is a match for something to leverage it for a large grant or something like that. It just would be returned to our reserves at the end of the year.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, it’s not spent. It’s not like we have to spend it. If we need it and we’ve got a great one that pops up and we can grab it and run, let’s do it. I mean, let’s don’t pass that opportunity up.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If I’m mistaken, so Parks and Pipes sales tax and then the road sales tax we need to be careful because when we acquire money through a sales tax it has to be used for that specific purpose. So, when we’re talking about, I mean, we would have to kind of, you know, break down our, you know, if you had a project imminent, you have to break down your -- I don’t know how you would do it. I mean, you would have to say, okay, here is our total budget. X-amount of this 300,000 left over you’d have to use it on a percentage I guess of the percentage of sales tax revenue versus an entire program would have to be backed out of that. And then Parks and Pipes you, you know, the Pipes money you can’t divert that out of the Pipes program because this comes out of sales tax. Am I right? Sales tax has to be spent on what the program is for, isn’t that correct, or no?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The sales tax has to be spent on stormwater.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I mean whatever it was voted for.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The voters voted to use that for, that’s what it has to be spent on.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, if we have it, it has to stay within that fund and within that program.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It has to stay -- we have to spend it for that purpose.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We account for it in a separate fund for transparency. That’s been the wish of the Council.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, when it comes in under budget you have to put it back into the fund.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It has to be spent for that purpose. It’s certainly easier to track if we keep it in the same fund.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And this would be for Stormwater? This is what we’re talking about Stormwater I think.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I mean, if you’re talking about, and which I think and if we kept in that same fund in the same program, as long as we’re doing that I think we’re fine. So, do we -- I guess the question is do we, you know, I think when you brought that up is when we were talking about before there’s a one we didn’t go after, some SMAC funding I think we didn’t go after.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We had two of them we let go.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, the question is if we would have had, if we would have taken -- if we would have projects coming in under in that past year would we have been able to use that? I mean, you know, does the timing work or otherwise we’re just rolling it back into the fund and have it for, I mean, at the end of the day we’re spending all that money on Stormwater. So, does that -- could theoretically that produce additional funding by having available funds to leverage that have already been budgeted and not have to worry about funds that weren’t budgeted for SMAC funding. Is that what --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You’ve got your General Fund you could use to -- she already mentioned that, to do what Eric wants to do.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, you can’t. But what you’re trying to do is to keep it all within one program.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s not what --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t think you have to keep it all in one program. The point you could just -- it’s just a paper transfer to a fund code that’s going to be a reserve fund code [inaudible] matching fund projects. I mean, it’s not complicated. It’s readily available cash. You’re not sitting here wondering where you’re going to pull it from or whatever. And if you just spend the leftover money all year, well, here’s an extra 40, let’s go spend it, then you’re not going to have that cash reserve available. This would be kind of a way of self-restraint in a way. We’d have the money available because we wouldn’t have just gone in and spent it on something else in dribbles and drabs all year and just [inaudible]. We’d have maybe sizeable amount in this fund code that would be available to do these types of projects if they become available. If they become available, obviously it goes back in the fund. It’s great. It makes our percentages go up on our reserves if we don’t use it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I like the idea. I think what maybe Jeff was saying was, so if we have like a roads project that we are under budget, the funding has to -- can be used for SMAC funding match. And then just making sure we aren’t using the pavement tax for Parks and Pipes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It would have to all be legit and be able to pass the test of the auditors and all that kind of stuff. So, only those kinds of funds could be transferred over there.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, yeah. That’s kind of what I was saying. Keeps the funds within the program.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, the ones that have to stay within the program because the General Fund can go pretty much anywhere.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Is this the last item?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, yeah. Did we do want to do anything? That’s a good idea. I don’t know if we want to --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What’s your thoughts on it, Carol? You’re kind of looking deer in the headlights.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, I think it would need a little research on our part to figure out funds and structures --


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- and maybe we could bring some ideas forward.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s fine. If you’d be happy to pursue that --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- and come back and say how we could do it because that’s the rough outline of what I’d like to do. Now, obviously the devil is in the details, it always is. But if you guys could take a look at that and say, you know, I think we could make this work. We can’t do it all funding streams. Some of them are restricted and all this various thing. But we could do with to a significant extent where we would be able to have a funding pool that we could use those matching funds for federal funds, county funds [inaudible] have available. And it would be, boom, we got it. It’s right there, now, let’s go do it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And again, we will look into it. The challenge with any grants and any matching funds is we have way advance knowledge. They just don’t come up at the last minute other than these SMAC programs when someone declines and then we all of a sudden have another opportunity. And, you know, we discussed debt financing that project, but again --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ve done a whole lot of programs at the federal level and we -- it wasn’t uncommon to have year-end money that we could grant out.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Send them our way. We never hear from them.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There are grants programs, lots of them. And, yeah, if you’d come up in September or late August or whatever and people weren’t using the funds that we had programmed their direction and money became available, we put it out there and it does get put out there.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Carol, does that give you enough to move forward?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Kind of. We’ll figure it out.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Perfect. Did you want to say something before the last?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Just I was just wondering before the next meeting I think I indicated that all the capital purchases -- do you have a spreadsheet or something with those for 2015R and 2016?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Oh, yeah, you hadn’t asked for that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I thought I did. But anyway, and then --


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Just the things we got in the budget for, you know, like the street sweeper and the, you know, whatever is in there.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: More than what was in the department presentations? Or do you just want them all isolated?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Do you have them in one deal? Can I get them one spreadsheet or is there any, you know, it can’t be that tough.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Maureen will look for just a minute.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And you don’t have to get it to me right now, if you could just e-mail it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But I think you already have it. That’s what we’re trying to find.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And possibly I could. And then also you guys mentioned that you have an equipment, you know, basically database spreadsheet, whatever you’ve got.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s a Lotus Notes database.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Lotus Notes. I could probably convert that into something.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’d be glad for you to come over and look at it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Can you get it in CVS format, or --


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I’m pretty sure you can. Yeah. That’s simple putting it into a spreadsheet. It will be no big deal.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. It’s huge. I mean, it’s a huge document.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But did you have them per department or do you have one?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: You can sort them per department. You can sort them per year.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. I’m just curious. If we could get that, that would be great. And then also could you give us the cost for those five positions? Is there six or five positions?



CITY MANAGER GONZALES: They’re on the slides.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: They’re right there on the sheet.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Overall number for the five exact number. Can you just, you know --

(Councilmembers talking off mic)

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right. Whatever. I’ll do it.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Last item. Councilmember Jenkins has given us some feedback and good perspective as a first-time councilmember looking at the budget. Just about trying to make it a little more user friendly and so we did -- make some fund changes for this budget year, and continue to look at that. We might bring an item to a Committee meeting in the future just on the various funds at what they’re kind of separate from the budget process, which ones we have to have, which ones we don’t have to have, so that you all could have that discussion. And then we had in the past done a budget brief and that kind of got lost during the recession in staffing reductions. But Maureen is already well underway of preparing the one for this year, so hopefully that will be a good tool. Mayor Distler is going to start her Coffees with the Mayor, and so we’re hoping to have one of those ready if not July, for the August coffee with the Mayor and we can distribute it a variety of places.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, in the past we had decision packages, you know, for each department, you know, and that was a real simple way for all the Councilmembers to weigh in on each decision. I know right now you kind of do that and you recommend everything and then we like that. But I really liked the way that we used to do it. And then it ended up being one sheet, a spreadsheet on, you know, e-ticketing or fire truck or whatever it might have been. There was a deal there, then it had all the Councilmembers’ names. They gave it to us. We just went choo, choo, choo, choo, you know, and costs associated with each one and all that kind of stuff. So, that would be much easier for individuals that are newer and stuff like that, that they can weigh in on what’s important, what they think is important to their constituents. So, that’s the way we used to do it and if we could, you know, kind of revert back a little bit.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We kind of got out of that when we quit having money for new things.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And so then you remember we had the chart of what do you want to cut. Those weren’t nearly as fun as the charts of new things.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I know. I know. But we’re buying new stuff. We’re buying stuff and we’re buying, you know, mowers.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It doesn’t matter.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, those are all, you know what I mean? All that kind of stuff is --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Maybe incorporate that discussion into this discussion of funds and just how to approach the budget.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What you were talking about though because you brought up the e-ticketing, those were outside. Departments already made their recommendations on this equipment and this and that. What those were is we had, okay, we have a half of a million dollar sitting here unbudgeted or whatever it was, if I’m not mistaken. But e-ticketing was --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. It’s been a long time ago.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. E-ticketing was --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: E-ticketing was one item.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It was one item, but what it was was a group of items --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m talking fire trucks.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, it wasn’t. What you’re talking about was a group of items that was --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Mickey, you’re the only one that was here when we really did it, you know, but so.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But that was, I mean, when I got on we were talking it was like a few hundred thousand --


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- or 500,000 that was unbudgeted.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: She knows what I’m talking about.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So we have these different initiatives that we want to do. We can’t do them all, which ones do you want?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m talking about when there is a certain number of equipment money in a particular parks budget every year, whether it’s a replacement or not.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And again, the equipment issue, and that would be a discussion for another day, so maybe we don’t need to get into that. But, you know, the whole goal of the Council over the past four year since the recession was to try and build that funding stream and a comprehensive replacement schedule. And we have worked very, very hard to do that. So, that’s why we don’t bring item by item those two, although they’re in the presentation. But we can combine that into another Committee discussion.

MS. ROGERS: The capital equipment list is on the June 2nd presentation, page 43, and then Public Safety on page 45.


MS. ROGERS: 43 and 45.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess so, yeah. Go ahead.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just -- I really -- this is not something that requires any kind of Council vote or anything like that. It was just something that struck me when I was going through the budget process. I know that Councilman Kenig has some trouble with it, just getting his arms around all this stuff when you first walk in in April and then budgets are coming up immediately. It gets pretty complicated with all the funding streams, all the spreadsheets. It’s a pretty significant process. And then I also noticed how the audience was picking up on it. It was pretty tough. It looked like you’re looking at a fish market with all the blank stares and everything. But I appreciate the way you took that suggestion and have tried to do something with that. That’s really helpful because this hasn’t been like I’ve had to push hard for this. You guys have been really good about saying, yeah, let’s see what we can do to make this easier, and I think especially for like our public hearings it would be really great if we had something pretty simple especially for that kickoff one. And I know we’re going to get much deeper in the weeds after that, but everybody kind of walked out here saying, golly, I kind of know what we’re doing.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s every year from here on out.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, thanks for doing that. I appreciate that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Carol, do you need any sort of a change to the motion that’s already passed to deal with street sweeping at all? That was the only thing that was, but I think --


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Well, I just want to thank you and staff again and everyone on the Council for taking time to go through this budget process again. I know we passed it last time, but I think the more opportunities we have for input from other Councilmembers, citizens, everyone the better off we will be. So, thank you again for --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Not like the state budget.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So smarmy tonight. So, thank you again for that.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: If there is no business --



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: There has been a motion and a second. All those in favor, aye.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. (Motion passes 8-0). All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.

(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Adjourned at 10:44 p.m.)


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

/das July 21, 2015

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary



Stephen Powell, City Clerk