PDF Format:

July 27, 2015
7:30 P.M.

Michelle Distler - Mayor

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 MeyerInformation Technology Director Bunting
Councilmember Sandifer City Attorney Rainey
Councilmember KenigPlanning Director Chafee
Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Police Chief Moser
Fire Chief Mattox
Police Captain Tennis
Assistant to the Public Works Director Gard
Transportation Manager Sherfy
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Sr. Accountant Oldham
Sr. Engineering Technician Schmitz
Deputy Parks and Recreation Dir. Lecuru
Battalion Chief Hoelting
Communications Manager Ferguson
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
Mgr. of Parks & Rec and Facilities DeGraeve
Deputy Police Chief Orbin
Police Captain Brunner
Police Captain Mendoza
Police Captain Hein
Police Captain Brimm
Police Officer Seichepine
Police Sergeant Baker
Planning and Research Manager Collins
(Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)


MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening and welcome to tonight’s meeting of the Shawnee City Council. I would ask that you please silence your electronic devices at this time. I am Mayor Michelle Distler and I will be chairing this meeting.

Tonight we have a very special guest with us. His name is Riley Rambo and he is a fifth grader at Grace Christian Academy here in Shawnee. A few months ago, Mr. Rambo toured City Hall with his class and expressed an interest in learning more about the Councilmember’s role in City government. Tonight, he will serve as a guest Councilmember for Ward IV. He has read the packet, and will join in the discussion and will cast an honorary vote on each item.

I will do a roll call at this time. Councilmember Neighbor?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Rambo?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig?




MAYOR DISTLER: Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a brief moment of silence. Councilmember Rambo, would you please lead us?

(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Before we begin our agenda I’d like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Council at any of those times, please come forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record, then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear your comments, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes and no person may speak more than twice to any one agenda item. After you are finished, please sign the form to the right of the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address. During the meeting I will call for motions and I will ask for public comments on each item. I would also like to remind the Council to please turn on your microphone when you would like to speak and be sure to speak directly into the microphones so can get a clear and accurate record for the minutes. In addition, while we don’t do a roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers’ names who vote in dissent, so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.


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



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Mayor’s Items, and I notice that we do have a Boy Scout in the audience. So, if you would stand and tell us your name and school and what troop you’re with.

(Scout from Mill Valley High School introduced himself to the Council)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you very much. Thanks for joining us tonight.


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is E, Business from the Floor. Is there anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight’s agenda? Please come forward.

MR. BOLEN: Hi. Brian Bolen. Do you need my address?

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, no. You don’t have to state --

MR. BOLEN: Or I can sign in?


MR. BOLEN: Okay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, yeah. I’m sorry. You do state it. Either way.

MR. BOLEN: That’s fine. (Address Omitted).


MR. BOLEN: So, I had an incident today. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out here. A solicitor from a company who has solicited me in the past at my residence where I have a no soliciting sign over my doorbell, this is the third time they’ve rang my doorbell. I am a stay-at-home dad and a full-time student and they always come during nap time. And I’ve called the police each of the three times. This is the first time they caught the guy. It’s been a different person each time. And they do a good job responding, the police do. My concern is that the company is out of Lenexa and they are breaking the laws in our town consistently. Either their employees aren’t trained to not ring the doorbell, or up until a week ago the officer told me they did not have a solicitation permit for the -- I guess the City requires them to have that. So, I gave you all a copy of a letter that I sent to them. I’m not very happy about them. I don’t know a way to go around it. I don’t want a kid that is trying to make ends meet, you know, I’m sure they don’t get paid nothing, you know, anything to sell these things. I don’t want them to go to jail because the company is incompetent or purposefully telling them not, you know, to ignore the no solicitation signs and not carry -- none of them have been carrying a permit. This guy today, although they did have a permit on file in the City, he wasn’t carrying identification. He wasn’t carrying a permit. He was paperless is what he told me. And I got his name. Fortunately he gave it to me. But I know it’s petty when there’s other crimes going on, but it is against the law and it really irks me when I get woken up from nap. And my kids. And that’s the big thing, so. Thank you.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: What are you wanting from us?

MR. BOLEN: Oh, yeah. Well, either -- what I’d like to see is their solicitation permit revoked. I have a lot of -- there’s a Facebook group, Shawnee Concerned Citizens or whatever, and there’s a lot of people on there that have indicated the same company ignores the no solicitation sign. So, it’s a plague. I’ve had people come up and knock and then apologize right away, oh, I didn’t see your thing even though on the picture you can see it’s right above my doorbell, but anyway. And I don’t know if it’s possible to revoke their business permit if they keep doing it. It drives me bonkers. There’s been a lot of complaints on Yelp for the same thing. And that’s why I think it’s a company thing and not an individual thing.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’m really glad that you called the Police Department and if they responded, then we should have record of it. And if they are consistently violating the ordinances there is action we can take. So, we absolutely will look into it.

MR. BOLEN: Okay. Yeah. So, I’ll continue to call the Police Department and --


MR. BOLEN: And the guy was extremely helpful. And like I say, I didn’t want to send a guy to jail because he was nice. The one before was combative verbally and I had to call 911 on that incident because he wasn’t leaving. And so, I don’t know. But I appreciate your time. If there’s any other questions, I’ll go sit down and --


MR. BOLEN: All right. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you, so much. So, and if you could sign the -- are there any other items from the public? Seeing none, the next item is F, Public Items.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 1 is to Conduct a Public Hearing and Approve the 2015 Revised Budget. The 2015 Budget has been amended to reflect various fund balances carried forward. There are three actions needed on this item. The first is to conduct a public hearing. I will accept a motion. COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to conduct a public hearing.


MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded to conduct a public hearing. All those in favor say aye.


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

We are now in a public hearing. We are now in a public hearing. This is a formal public hearing required by law. The public hearing will begin with a presentation by Finance Director Maureen Rogers. Ms. Rogers’ presentation will be a review of the 2015 Revised and the 2016 Budget. Although the specific public hearing and the vote that will follow is specifically for the 2015 Revised Budget, I will allow comments and discussion on the 2016 Budget also because they are so intertwined. We will have to open and close a public hearing on the 2016 Budget in the next item.

After Ms. Rogers' presentation, I will ask the Councilmembers if they have any questions specifically related to the presentation. I will then ask if there are any comments from the public.

If anyone from the audience would like to speak during the public hearing, please raise your hand, I will recognize you to come forward. As I stated earlier, in order to have an accurate record of the meeting, when you come forward to speak, please state your name and address. Following your comments, please sign the sheet to the right of the podium.
In order to have an orderly meeting, all comments must be made at the microphone and are limited to five minutes. No person shall speak more than twice to any one issue.

Following public comments, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Once the public hearing is closed, we will have a Council discussion, followed by a motion.

Ms. Rogers, please go ahead.

MS. ROGERS: The presentation tonight, the goal would be to give kind of a high level, all funds overview of mainly the 2016 budget. There will be some mention of the 2015R, and also to give a little bit more detail about some questions that have come up in some of the more recent discussions.

The City’s financial condition is strong as the auditor came and talked about back in June. And the goal of the 2016 budget is to take advantage of the tax base recovering and growing. We also have debt levels decreasing. We have a Moody’s Aa1 rating and strong reserves and budgeting for strong reserves. And there’s always the balance between the level of reserves and that is a good philosophical discussion that there has been going on in these presentations.

The reserve policy sets the target of the General Fund at 30 percent of the fund balances of percentage of revenues. Many of our funds have fund balances in them, but only the General Fund has reserves in it. The fund balances in other funds are just timing of projects. They’re not designed to have reserves.

Debt levels. This is the outstanding debt from 2011 projected into 2020. We pretty much know what our debt is because it’s fixed rate and the two orange bars are the two years we’re talking about, ‘15 and ‘16. We have close to -- about an average of $6 million in debt paying down every year and about an average of a million dollars in annual payments for principal and interest paying down every year. This assumes, of course, that -- this graph is existing debt, not any plans for future debt. We do have plans to do a prioritization exercise with Council sometime in the next few months or even sooner maybe.

This is a little bit modified slide that we’ve seen earlier in the presentations. The blue line is the City’s -- is the change in growth or reduction in the City’s assessed valuation, clear back to 2007. And through the recession years there were most of the years that went down and then it went back up some, 1.37 in ‘14 and just over 5.0 in ‘15 and then 6.94 in 2016. Actually 2016 is the first year since back in 2008 that the assessed valuation has exceeded what it was back in 2008. The mill levy has stayed pretty much constant. It has actually -- it went down some last year and actually is lower than it was in 2007.

This is another look at our history of assessed valuation. The green line is the Consumer Price Index through the end of ‘14, and then it’s just assumed to be two percent on out for the next few years and then it tracks the same blue line that you saw in the graph before. So, because of the downturn, even though CPI hasn’t gone up much over these last few years because of the downturn, the valuation at this point is still not caught up to the CPI and so that shows what that relationship looks like.

A little bit of history of City of Shawnee’s reserves. The way that they’re -- there’s a percentage that we budgeted to since 2008 has changed some depending on the situation. It was generally a little bit less in the early recession years. In every case except 2012, the actual reserves came in at the end of the year to be significantly more than what was budgeted because we budget our revenues conservatively and we have never spent anywhere near all of the dollars that were budgeted. The only year that was different was 2012. And what we did there is the year actually ended the year before with a good amount of reserves. And we chose in the revised budget to do a one-time $3 million transfer. So, that was how that ended up.

Here is where our reserves are budgeted for the proposed ‘16. Compared to our peer cities, other than Leawood, they calculate their reserves different than we do, so I didn’t include them. We have at 36 percent the largest percentage. As you can see our revenues are lower. I would say that it’s prudent. Generally the smaller the city you are the larger percentage you want to keep because the idea is that the larger the city is the more diverse its tax base. City’s mill levy is the same as it was last year at 24.52 mills. It will change just slightly when the final mill levy is calculated to issue the tax bills as it always does.

Just to go through the calculation how a Shawnee home or any other home in Kansas is valued. The average market value right now from what Mr. Welcome at the Appraiser’s Office told us back in March, 228,503. And you multiply that by the statutory residential rate of 11.5 and the assessed value would be 26.278. If you multiply that by the mill levy divided by a thousand, because a cent is a 1/100th and a mill is a 1/1000th, 644 a year. And if you looked at it as a monthly payment, then it’s $54 a month. If you look at some of the other taxes of various kinds that the City charges, just kind of an average of what they might be for this type of a home, franchise taxes, stormwater tax is $36 per home. And then pretend that you spend $1,000 a month at Walmart or on the type of goods that would be sales taxable, the City’s sales tax rate at 1.625 would be around $16 a month or 195 a year. So, total taxes for this pretend household would be around $1,100 or $92 a month.

The 2016 proposed budget, just over 79 million in expenditures. Fund balance is just over 22 million. So, the total budget, since we include the fund balances along with the expenditures is 101,446,082.

Kind of expanded the idea earlier in the presentations of looking at our budget by function and trying to take out some of the effect of transfers since transfers are double counted when they’re taken out of one fund and put in another. So, about 4.9 million in transfers is taken out of the graphs. But just in general revenues, sales tax 41 percent and property tax is 33 percent. So, that’s the majority, about three-quarters of all the City’s revenue. Charges for services, fines and permits, about 12 percent. And then other types of taxes, the gas tax, liquor, stormwater, and hotel would be about seven percent and then franchise about eight percent.

Expenditures by Function. I took a graph that we looked at about a month ago and made a few changes to it. We took what -- got to looking at what was in general government and moved some items that are really more about community and economic development, what’s in the Economic Development Fund, the TIF, TDD, the CVB fund, move those over into here. We also looked at the debt and divided it out by the type of projects that were built. And so some a small amount of it was Parks. That’s added into Parks. Public Safety land, Public Safety Justice Center, that debt is now included in with Public Safety. Thirty-five percent of all funds’ expenditures are Public Safety.

The blue items, the three items here are Public Works Services, which is the staff. Basically the shop and everything that goes with the daily maintenance, the things that Public Works does on a daily basis. Stormwater, which would be the labor and also Parks and Pipes and the Stormwater, the project money in the Stormwater fund. The Street Maintenance Program, which is the contracted work in the Special Highway Fund. And then 12 percent of the City’s revenue is debt payments that are for streets. So, if you put all those type of items together, 41 percent. So, as we’re looking a little bit at the City’s results and priorities, 76 percent is going to Public Safety and infrastructure mobility.

Last fall the Parks, Pipes and Pavement tax was passed by Shawnee voters, so in the 2016 budget will be 4.2 million in new revenue for street maintenance, bringing that program with outside funding up to 9.3 million in 2016 from 4.8 million in ‘15. And looking ahead in Parks and Pipes, in ‘16, we begin a series of five projects to upgrade stormwater in the Nieman Road corridor downtown. And in 2016, on Parks there’s 200,000 for the trail from Nieman to Turkey Creek.

One of the big themes of this budget was conservatively rebuilding pre-recession service levels. And one of the ways that that’s incorporated into this budget is bringing the funding for Equipment, Facility Maintenance and Technology up to an average amount, or set the stage for every year to have an average amount that ties to our database of equipment and its lives. Increasing funding for Stormwater and restoring critical positions back from when they were eliminated during the recession.

These are the seven results from the Priority-Based Budgeting Process. And as we said the safe community -- by priority, as Council prioritized them, safe community and effective mobility and reliable infrastructure are where most of the money is going in this budget. And then on down there are pieces of every, or pieces of the budget that support each one of these results. And I’m not going to go through and read all of these. We’ve talked about all of these in the budget process, but for the benefit of the public I wanted to have those -- these are printed out in the back and this presentation will be online. But there are goals that support each one of these results.

If there’s any that anybody wants to park on, I’ll just go through these slides slowly. I will mention that the reserves are budgeted at 36 percent of General Fund revenues.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And when is that ending? Is that ending in 2015?

MS. ROGERS: 2016.


MS. ROGERS: And then these are just pieces, so they would fit, of the budget hearing, the notices of budget hearing that were published in the Shawnee Dispatch. And as we mentioned at the meeting before, the 2015R budget, there are two funds that need to be legally changed because in order to take leftover money from 2014 and use it in ‘15, and everything else that we talked about in the 2015R budget fits within the legal limits that were already approved last year. And then the 2016 budget notice, we’ve really kind of talked about pretty much everything that is on here even though this has a lot of numbers. There was a slide that showed this column and the mill levies. What is actually being approved is this dollar amount of the ad valorem tax.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Rambo has a question.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER RAMBO: Why does it take more money each year?

MS. ROGERS: Pardon? Oh, sorry.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER RAMBO: Why does it take more money each year?

MS. ROGERS: Well, that’s a good question. Because things cost more every year. And then also one of the big stories about this budget is that, remember when I showed the graph that went up and down, mostly down and up I guess I should say. Over the last few years, you may not remember, there was what’s called a recession where the economy isn’t very good and the value of the buildings went down and people didn’t shop as much and there wasn’t as much sales tax. And so there wasn’t -- we had to cut back on things. And so this budget is kind of -- we’ve been in a process over the last several years of trying to bring some of our service levels back. There’s some things we’re not keeping up with and some of our things are getting old and need to be replaced. So, that’s why one reason why this budget is going up as well.

MAYOR DISTLER: Does that answer your question?



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m confused here. A few slides back you showed property 6.44 annual, franchise tax which is franchise fee, correct, on utilities?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We’re showing $230. That’s only, I mean, according to the City’s website that should be about a $50 a year average, isn’t it? Because it’s only like four point something percent of -- what’s the combined on that?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: What we’re trying to represent here is the five percent that’s on individual household bills every month. So, your gas, your phone and your electricity combined the five percent. So, an average house is all those bills times the five percent is the franchise fee.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But that’s still not 230. Getting five percent you’d be spending --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I think to use that number we used my bills, so that was kind of how we came up that average.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Who have you got for phone service? Yeah.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I use a lot of water. I don’t know.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What do you go -- what do you keep your air conditioning at, 60?



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It just seems, well, it’s because I’m looking at the stats we show on the City’s website which is averages of five different sized houses and it’s nowhere near that. We’re showing a monthly -- because what’s the total? Oh, it’s five percent. Let’s say 2.5 percent -- I see. That must be an old one then. Okay. Never mind. I’m not confused anymore.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, sorry, Maureen. I just had a question, or I guess a point of clarification regarding the fire trucks and a little bit of the conversation we had before. I think I was probably confused, I don’t know about anyone else. So, we are, just to walk through it, financing the 2016 vehicle and then putting money aside for the 2018 vehicle, that’s correct?

MS. ROGERS: Yes. The way the budget is right now and as the proposed is to have a five-year lease on the truck in ‘16. And in the meantime, we’re putting money aside into the Public Safety Equipment Fund to fund those lease payments and then also build up cash, so that the ‘18 truck and future trucks can be cash funded.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Was there a conversation about, I guess I’m just curious about the decision to not cash fund ‘16, take the money from reserves and buy the truck and not pay the interest versus waiting until ‘18 for that truck. So, I guess it’s a philosophical conversation maybe, but, yeah.

MS. ROGERS: We did. We talked about that and we talked about kind of the balance between how far do you take your reserves down in one year.


MS. ROGERS: But on the other hand it’s paying for -- it’s reducing debt. I don’t think that purchasing the truck in the first place is really under – it’s pretty much decided that’s something we need to do, so it’s just a matter of how to fund it. So, it was kind of a philosophical discussion and it would save some financing costs, but then there’s also, you know --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The drawn down on other reserves.

MS. ROGERS: It is really the philosophical.



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, a question on that. The 2016 budget, what percentage of that or what dollar amount is going into that 2018 purchase?


MS. ROGERS: We had a transfer for 600,000 and then there was a shift in mills that’s projected over time to help take care of some of that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, but right now that 2016 truck, how are we going to finance that, because we discussed that. There’s two different ways. One, if we get a loan from the truck manufacturer from just a regular finance company. You indicated it was around five percent or I think it was Ms. Gonzales.

MS. ROGERS: Yeah. Around 4.5 or so.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And then if we, you know, issue bonds it’s like 1.5 percent.

MS. ROGERS: They’re running around for, well, if we were to do a five-year instead of a ten-year, it might not be too far off of that. We have to look, too, at the issuance costs with GO bonds. There’s quite a lot that goes on and normally the financial advisors will say unless you’re -- for something, even though 1.3 million is not small, it’s in the scope of what we usually do a GO bond for. It would make more sense to do one if we were doing a GO bond for something else. This year we really aren’t. In ‘16, I don’t think we will be either. But we can definitely look at the different methods of financing. And we will look and see what makes the most sense. The budget just includes the lease financing.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught. I’m sorry. Mr. Neighbor and then Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Just a question. You mentioned the transfer of 600,000. Now, is that -- that wasn’t just for the fire truck, that goes for the -- that goes to the Equipment Fund which is building up the Equipment Fund for various Public Safety --

MS. ROGERS: Yes. Right.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: -- and other pieces of equipment. Okay.

MS. ROGERS: Right. It’s holistic, looking at the whole fund for Police and Fire and what all else is in it. It’s not tied just to that truck.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, if I’m hearing you correctly, and this would probably be compared to IRBs or Industrial Revenue Bonds, I think a break-even or the magic number in industrial revenue bonds is like 3.5 million. Anything less than that your acquisition costs or bond cost exceeds what you actually save in IRBS. So, we’re kind of in that same situation here where you’re saying, yeah, you could bond a million dollars, but it costs you so much on the front end of the bond that when you weigh it against the lease, even though the interest rate is higher on the lease, you’re spending less money because the bond -- we have the acquisition costs or the bond cost, so there’s probably that magic number I’m guessing when we do bonds. It’s not a --

MS. ROGERS: Usually three percent savings. It’s usually when we refund it’s three percent. But I don’t think that with this budget decision we have to be locked into a specific mode of financing, so I think it makes sense to just look at what is the most cost effective and what --

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak on this item?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I guess I do have another -- are you done?

MS. ROGERS: If you need me, I’ll be right back up there.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I didn’t think you were done. I thought you were --

MS. ROGERS: Well, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, in our budget talks, I mean, we went through and then the General Fund we were deficit spending $3.6 million. Nowhere did I see that up here in your numbers here tonight.

MS. ROGERS: Well, there is a, I guess, how do I say this? I guess we talked about the desire to build up pre-recession service levels, and so we ended ‘14 with 51 percent reserves. And so this a way to take down those reserves some because at 51, they’re at a pretty high level. As a finance director, I’m going to be one of the people who’s going to be the most protective of our reserves actually. So, there’s always -- it’s really a philosophical issue of balance. It’s like you have in your own household. Do you want to hang onto your money because you think something might happen or whatever or do you want to go ahead and invest in things. And there may not be a right or wrong answer morally or philosophically, it’s really just what is the right thing to do. But the proposed budget, as staff has brought it forward, believes that with 36 percent budgeted reserves, we will have adequate reserves to make the investments for the future and to bring those service levels back up to where they need to be and still be able to do the other. And it does show a deficit because when you take down reserves, that’s just how it looks.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, but I’m not exactly sure, but I thought you told us, and 2017 is projected to be 22 percent reserves.


MS. ROGERS: As you go through the years because we tend to always not spend all of the expenditure budget and we budget conservatively for the revenues, we’re going to end up with more money, more reserve percentage as we end the years actually than what it’s budgeted for. Ideally, it would be wonderful to have that 30 percent or whatever it is going straight across. But in reality, that would actually build reserves. So, that kind of depends on how we want to present things. And again, we get back to the philosophical discussion.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, to clarify for myself. Is what you’re saying the one chart where we assumed our reserves were going to be at the one level, but they were always above the assumption because we don’t spend the entire amount that we budget and because we are conservative, more revenue comes in than we anticipate? So, that’s what you’re saying right now just to clarify?



MS. ROGERS: If you show in our forecast back when we had the other presentations, the fund balance percentage going down through the years, it’s also assuming this type of arrangement where every year as we’ve shown we end up with less. You know, I can’t guarantee what would happen in the future, but that’s a good and prudent assumption to make.

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

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, in the last, I don’t know however many years, because I know we had an anticipated 51 percent reserve, what was our forecast in that budget, our reserve forecast?

MS. ROGERS: That one was 40.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. So, that’s with net. So, what we’re showing is our last several years.

MS. ROGERS: Yes. Forty and fifty-one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And so historically we’ve always ended higher reserves than what, or for at least since we’ve been tracking at higher reserves on what we --

MS. ROGERS: Yeah. And occurred even through the recession.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, if we just base things on history, history tells us that, unless some weird anomaly happens that -- anomaly, tough word. That’s like saying aluminum I guess. But I mean, and that’s all you can really do. I mean, that’s how I kind of think is, you know, I got make my decisions based on history and what we do in Shawnee. So, it would appear that historically we’re always, always our actuals are always above our anticipated. So, while we have that graph showed this worst case scenario, we’ve never hit that in recent history. We’ve never hit that worst case scenario because we are very protective of what we --

MS. ROGERS: During the recession, the dollar amounts that we underspent expenditures and over-collected revenues was smaller. That was a smaller gap. And then when -- in years when we’ve done better, it’s been larger like this last year. But the percentage that we budgeted, because as we go through the -- and there will be another downturn at some point, there always is. But as we go through those downturns we get even more focused on every dollar. We always are looking at that, but it becomes even more critical.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, as a financial professional, you’re a CPA, correct?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, as a financial professional, would you say that, because down through it there were deficit spending. I don’t -- while it appears that you’re spending more than what you’re taking in, you’re actually fulfilling needs using your reserves, which are at this point 20 percent higher than what our policy states. Our policy is a 30 percent. Thirty percent, right? So, a 30 percent reserve balance. We’re at 51. So, if we have these needs that need to be filled in the City and we’re using this 21 percent additional reserve to them, would you really -- would you look at that as deficit or would you look at that as, I mean, how would you view that? As a financial professional, what’s your opinion on that? I mean, I guess someone could spin it that way and say we’re deficit spending, but we have these issues and we have this bigger than normal reserve account, and so.

MS. ROGERS: Well, technically it is a deficit because if you just look at the way the financial statement looks it is a deficit. But the reason that the budget was proposed the way it is, is because of the need to make investments. The type of things that are being proposed, we believe that, as staff, that there is -- I guess a good way to say it would be that we’re not -- it’s not spending for things that are not needed. Like for instance on the equipment, somewhere that money has to come anyway. My understanding is sometimes in the past is focusing kind of on one year maybe before like Brian came in and put together the forecasts. It was looking at that one year in a vacuum and trying to find where that money would come from to buy that equipment. What we’ve tried to do is take a look out with each piece and see what is actually needed, so that we set that groundwork, so that it’s not as hard for Council to make that decision. It’s kind of already put in place that each year that funding is going to be there for the facilities and/or technology. That’s something we haven’t had to spend as much money on in the past, but it’s something that is a big need. I believe as a financial professional that it’s prudent to plan for those things because they’re going to need to be spent anyway at some point.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, the alternative would be if we have these needs and we’re saying these are necessities, we either find savings in the budget to equal what we’re spending out of reserves, which would be reduction in services, or we increase taxes. I mean, that’s pretty much it. We either raise revenue or reduce expenditures to make this up. But we’re above 30 percent, well above 30 percent. We’re not endangering our reserves. We’re not endangering our bond rating, so I mean, it makes sense to me and I guess that’s what I’m getting at. It sounds like this is good policy.

MS. ROGERS: And we talked about Moody’s and about how they view things. And we can’t call them up and say, hey, here is our proposed 2016 budget, what do you think of it, what would you rate it. It doesn’t work that way. They look at everything holistically about our demographics and a number of things. You have to look at what their values are. Their values are planning for the future, reducing debt. Oddly, the best ratings go to people who hardly ever issue any debt, so that way there’s no risk. And keeping strong reserves. And so if you look at all of that as one picture those are all I guess competing needs. The need to invest in the future, the need to provide those funding streams for things that we need, equipment. The staffing that’s included, that speaks to bringing service levels back up to what they were or even just a portion of the way back up to what they were. So financially, I feel like I could talk to Moody’s and defend this budget without any problem because of the type of planning that it involves.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm and then Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, just to throw out one thing. I mean, it hasn’t always been what we projected. You know, we may have a couple years in there where we project a lot less than what we bring in, but there’s other years when, you know, we -- the Justice Center, we projected that we were going to, you know, bring in so much from sales tax to pay for the Justice Center. And we had to take money out of the General Fund to pay for the Justice Center when the sales tax could not pay the bonds. So, just because it’s on paper here there’s no guarantee for this at all. Okay. So, I just want you to know that we’re deficit spending $3.6 million here and it’s not whether we buy a fire truck, it’s how we buy the fire truck. You know, it’s -- we have done a decent job of bringing down our debt levels because we haven’t spent anything. We haven’t spent anything on streets and, you know, since 2009 really. So, it’s not always -- yeah, and we did debt finance it, which, you know, I don’t know. I disagreed with that policy.

MS. ROGERS: Well, I do want to point out that for the Justice Center debt we didn’t actually have to move -- we talked about having to move money from the General Fund. We were actually able to refinance that bond and save nearly a million dollars on that one. And also in the meantime, sales taxes came back up, so with a combination of those two things we didn’t have to move money from the General Fund.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, we never took one dollar from the General Fund?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. I was under the impression it was like 500,000, but that –

MS. ROGERS: Unt-huh.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And another thing on the budget is, you know, we -- not everything is a need. I mean we have some wants in there. You know, when we put in personnel, I mean, I think that you told us in the last meeting, the wrap-up, it was like $350,000 worth of dollars for salaries and benefits and everything for those individuals. But those carry over each year and they get bigger each year, so, you know, when we sign up for that kind of thing, you’re signing up for a lot of debt coming down in the future. So anyway, that’s just -- I just don’t agree with the policy of, you know, spending $3.6 million more than we’re making.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, I guess less of a question, more of a statement. The reserve spending in this instance doesn’t really bother me at all. I don’t think it actually runs counter to kind of what I believe and this is why. I think that citizens expect that the Government is going to bring in enough money so that we have a rainy day fund in the event that we need it. And otherwise, we’re providing services. If we’re hoarding money to a 50 percent reserve, that tells me we’re taxing too much and we should return those monies to the citizens because we are keeping way too much money. So, that’s my thought on that.

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

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. Maureen, just a clarification, too. These are, as you mentioned, projected costs, so obviously this is part of the planning process being able to as best as possible project years out, be able to make spending decisions. But we do revisit the budget process annually, so adjustments can be made.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Obviously if we encounter a year where we have some unforeseen cost, we start looking at other places to cut so that we don’t have to DIP further than what is projected and we stay within those parameters, is that correct?

MS. ROGERS: Yes. We are looking at our expenditures all the time. And then as you see we have -- we actually revise our current year budget, so that, for instance, if the situation changed significantly, say later this year, then we’re not bound to spend everything that’s in the -- we wouldn’t anyway, but there could be adjustments made. There could be course changes made if we had to. And then also the forecast, the ten-year forecasts don’t bind in any way. We’re just -- they are -- while our budget is logged, the forecasts are a planning tool, so that we go through every year and look at it.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Right. And I see that, too, because obviously our needs can change within a few years and we obviously don’t want to be locked down, you know, completely in terms of funding levels and what we’ve projected. So, this is something that obviously we can revisit year to year.

MS. ROGERS: Uh-huh.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just a comment. We’re looking at the 2015 budget. We haven’t approved two items, Special Highway Fund and increasing that, increasing Stormwater Utility. Of course, there’s a number of other things that we are going to purchase in 2015 with this revised budget, that is, hiring new staff and some equipment purchases, et cetera. They don’t show up here. And I don’t know, I just feel like that ought to be demonstrated for the public as well, what else we’re doing. These aren’t the only two things we’re doing. We’re spending quite a bit more money than those two items. And some of them are fairly substantial. So, you know, I don’t think that’s really open and transparent necessarily.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Is it not true from what you said in here though that those additional costs and other things are already covered and budgeted in the 2015 budget, these are the ones that exceeded the limits and that’s why we have to talk about those?

MS. ROGERS: Yes. The purpose of this item is to make the changes to those two funds in order to amend them.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Pages 14, 15 and 16 of the packet are the more detailed listing of the 15R budget and changes to the expenditures and highlights.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item?
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The second action is to close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to close the public hearing.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). The public hearing is closed. Is there any discussion from the Council?
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The third recommended action is to consider approving the 2015 Revised Budget as shown in the Notice of Public Hearing. Is there a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.



MAYOR DISTLER: And the nays are Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Pflumm. Motion passes. (Motion passes 6-2)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Conduct a Public Hearing to Adopt the 2016 Budget. Notice was published for the 2016 Budget reflecting a property tax levy of $18,841,561. The mill levy of 24.520 remains the same as last year. There are four actions needed on this item. The first is to conduct a public hearing. I will accept a motion.



MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded to conduct a public hearing All those in favor say aye.


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: We are now in a public hearing and will follow the same procedures as the previous public hearing item. Are there any Councilmembers who have questions? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item?

MR. HOUCK: Rod Houck, (Address Omitted). I’d like to understand what the increase in personnel is for 2015 and 2016. What are we actually adding in staff?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There’s two positions added in 2015R, a Facility Technician and a Police Officer. And in 2016, there are three positions added, a street inspector, a fire inspector, and -- he’s doing really well. Maintenance worker in the Public Works Department.

MR. HOUCK: So, the facilities technician is in ‘15?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It would be added in 15R.

MR. HOUCK: You know, a number of years ago things were pretty bleak. In fact, I was just reviewing for a MARC presentation I’m doing in a couple months on volunteer programs, I was reviewing some of the facts about our budget in 2008-2009, or 2009-2010, and what our staff reductions were and what our revenues were. Things were pretty bleak. And we came up with a volunteer program with the goals. These were goals of the program. And that included, you know, doing more with less, and capability to use the resources of our citizens to do things. So, I think a facility technician is one of those areas. Do we really need a full-time person to do that? You’re shaking your head, yes. Can’t we divide that responsibility among some volunteers and save, you know, 60-$70,000.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Today I walked through the lobby and I smelled something burning, something hot. And actually I didn’t smell it, another employee did. And so I called Steve Thompson, our Codes Administrator. He’s currently the one who wears the hat of one of many of his hats and Steve came up. Brought the Codes person, they looked into it, figured it out and dealt with it. It’s an ongoing constant, constant need every day.

MR. HOUCK: I just think that it’s an expenditure that we really ought to look at do we truly need it. I know somebody who has that background who just retired, you know, could probably do a lot of that, so.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’ll take him, too.

MR. HOUCK: What?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’ll take a volunteer, too.

MR. HOUCK: Okay. I mean, it’s the kind of thing that we need when we -- instead of just jumping out and saying we need an additional staff person, I happened to talk with our volunteer coordinator two or three weeks ago. And it’s just amazing some of the people who are working in the door with great credentials to do things. So, make sure we go back to looking at, you know, doing more with less. Mr. Sandifer.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I agree with you to a degree.

MR. HOUCK: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I think that there probably ought to be City staff that is insured through the City that would be climbing up ladders getting on buildings. And for, you know, somebody to come in and do some light maintenance around here, yes, absolutely. And there’s very qualified people out there.

MR. HOUCK: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: For somebody that might be, you know, on a high ladder or at a risk and to bring a retired individual in would not probably be favorable with a good outcome.

MR. HOUCK: Okay. Point well taken. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I agree with you a lot more than Mickey does.

MR. HOUCK: That’s a change.


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: The one thing about the addition of this position is that this person would oversee all of the facilities and it would seem if he had volunteers you’re still going to need somebody to supervise them, but this would be one person that would supervise all the buildings, know all of the needs when different issues came up to try and coordinate, to streamline it and probably could see, achieve more expeditious and more cost effective maintenance than we’re probably doing now.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I do agree with Mr. Houck because an individual that’s retired, it’s not a full-time job to handle this stuff. And, you know, to manage that part, and you may or may not get somebody with a lot more experience than the guy you’re going to hire. So, it could be a lot better to have a volunteer than it would be to have a direct employee. So, I mean, I agree with you, we should look at it. If there an individual out there, I mean, that would be great instead of, you know, spending 60-$70,000 on a guy you may get just some regular workers to do it. So anyway, great idea.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t think we’re looking for a maintenance person to go and do the maintenance. We’re looking for a person that oversees the maintenance of the facilities, whether he is able to do the light work himself or hire someone to do it. To say it’s not a full-time position, I don’t know, we’ve got -- how many buildings did we figure between --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Between eight and nine.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I mean, nine facilities, plus we look at the parks we can get into even, you know, taking some of the load of the parks person. You’ve got restroom facilities. You’ve got, you know, every park has -- you have, you know, seating area, a canopy, whatever. Maintenance -- I think the position can evolve into a lot. I mean, when we talk about it saves us a lot. I think my concern with what you’re talking about, while I think a volunteer would be able to help, volunteers run at their own schedule. So, when that volunteer wants to go on a six-week cruise, then we don’t have their expertise for six weeks, versus that employee is employed with the City and we dictate a schedule and we dictate when he’s going to be here. So, I understand volunteers, they commit a certain amount of time. But if this guy is gone for six weeks or eight weeks on a vacation and then this guy is filling in over here, his knowledge of the systems and the continuity of what we’re doing could be totally different. And I think that would be my concern is I think this position where we want continuity.

MR. HOUCK: Well, what if you --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If the guy that -- if the one guy who is really involved in the system understands the water issue in a building and he’s gone and just like happens at the fire station and all of a sudden the fire chief is standing in three inches of water, well, this other guy comes in and maybe he’s not knowledgeable on what this issue is or whatever and then we’re kind of back to where we are right now is we got a whole bunch of people involved in something because nobody really knows what to do versus this one guy is responsible for making sure that all these things move forward and get done. I love the idea of volunteers. I think if this position grows I think he could utilize volunteers on some expertise levels, but I’m not sure I’d want a volunteer in the position. I agree with the position. I’m just thinking of a real estate position, you know, it’s a property manager is basically what it is. If you have a lot of properties, you have a property manager. And that property manager, he’s responsible for that property. I mean, he’s not responsible to go in and hands on and do it himself, he’s responsible when the tenant calls up and says I got an issue, he responds and he knows who to call, he knows how to get it fixed, he knows who the vendors are. And over a period of time he learns those systems very well and he learns the HVAC systems. He knows what kind of system it is. He knows who works on it and who’s better to work on it than others. And that knowledge base builds to where you do save a lot of time and a lot of money using that knowledge base they have. Volunteers there’s no commitment they’re here for the long run. They could be here for six months and gone. And I think that turnover doesn’t accomplish what we want to accomplish because they’re constantly having to -- that new person is always going to have to come in and relearn the system, relearn what we have, and that’s kind of I think the goal of this position is that person who has the complete understanding of where we’re at. So, that would be my concern.

MR. HOUCK: I’d just leave you with one thought. Think outside the box.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak on this item?

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The second action is to close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Oppose nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0).

MAYOR DISTLER: The public hearing is closed. Is there any further discussion from the Council? Mr. Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I’d like a clarification on Action C where it talks about approving an increase in property tax revenues. That’s not saying that we’re increasing the rate, it’s just saying that we collected more because the valuations went up, is that correct?


MS. ROGERS: Because what’s being approved is the dollars, not the actual mill rate.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. We haven’t increased the property tax rate. We just collected more because the valuations went up?




COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I just had a statement on the budget as follows. Much has been said and some has been written in the media about how this budget session has been a good one in terms of open discussion and exchange of ideas. I concur there has been some significant discussion, but when the budget review process is summed up, none of the suggestions which impacted the final budget numbers were accepted. There were no comprise. No attempts were made to incorporate cost saving measures. In addition, those presenting ideas for reducing costs or redirecting tax dollars to other priorities were accused of micromanaging, lacking in confidence towards City staff or marginalized as simply addled or confused. I personally have been addressed many times about the city manager form of government. It’s not really a difficult concept. The Governing Body, that is, the City Manager and Mayor set the goals, we set the objectives, the priorities and the level of resources to be provided to the City Manager to accomplish those stated goals and objectives. The City Manager is then expected to carry out those directions of the Governing Body successfully. The Governing Body is directly responsible and held accountable to the citizens of Shawnee. The people exercise their power through their elected representatives. And if their representatives do not represent them well, they elect another representative. The City Manager is not accountable to the people. They do not elect the City Manager and they cannot remove that person. That would be the job of the Governing Body if performance by the City Manager failed to meet reasonable expectations. As I said it’s simple. All you have to do is Google city manager and you’ll get this information. And I know that because I did. As I have argued previously concerning this budget, we are deficit spending. In fact, we are deficit spending about 3.6 million of our reserve funds even though we have substantially more income as a community. We have millions more in taxes from a recently adopted sales tax increase. New hotels currently on the planning board are under actual construction are bringing more money in for the community development people. Although our mill levy remains constant, new appraisals on property are moving upwards substantially creating a larger property valuation to be taxed. This results in additional taxes on people. You don’t just look at your mill levy and say it stayed the same. Did your property tax bill remain the same? Is that a tax increase? I would have to say that writing a large check for your property taxes is a tax increase. It’s funny how you were told you’re not paying higher taxes, but your tax bill gets bigger. I must in good conscience vote against this budget. I do not think we arrived at the final budget numbers in good faith. When not one budget trimming suggestion or redirection of fund suggestion is accepted for implementation, it’s hard to agree that the current budget process works for the citizens of this community.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I would just a couple of things here in response. Number one, the hotels, yes, they’re going to come online, but they aren’t in this budget and they won’t be until they actually are online. And then I do believe at the Committee meeting we voted on a number of those propositions that were brought up through changes and none of them passed.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I would concur with Councilman Neighbor as, and I think the point he’s trying to make they weren’t ignored. They were discussed. They were discussed at length. And like the political process should be, the people that were elected considered them and voted whether they thought it was a good idea or not. I’ve had ideas that didn’t make it. And that’s just how it is. I would just say this. I got elected five years ago. I know Mr. Pflumm here has fought this budget every year since I’ve been here and every year before I got here, I think every year since he’s got elected. But the reality is we’re an Aa1 rated city. We’d probably be an Aaa1 city if we didn’t have as much debt, or we raise the mill levy. Because what they’re looking at is our revenue, revenue against debt. If we raise the mill levy or we wait out the reduction in debt, we’re going to be an Aaa1 city similar to Overland Park. Our bond rating is much higher than the state and other municipalities. Here we’re sitting with a 51 percent reserve fund. Now, Mr. Pflumm has voted no on the budget. Every year he’s said that this is wrong, we shouldn’t be doing this. But we’re paying down debt. We’re not bonding anything. We have a low mill levy compared to our competing cities. We’re the lowest in Johnson County. You know, Aa1 rated city, 51 percent reserve fund. I mean, I kind of look at where we’re at financially and I go, wow, we’re in great shape. And we have a budget now, we’re spending more on roads than we ever have in the history of the City. So, yeah, we did increase revenues with the sales tax, but it’s a targeted sales tax like all special revenue funds are. So, that one can only be spent on that. So, yeah, we put out to the voters and we didn’t do that actually. We just put it on the ballot and the voters went out and they said we want to spend an additional percentage on sales tax because we want our roads maintained, and that’s where we’re putting that money into. We’re doing what the voters wanted. But they made that choice, we didn’t. We didn’t impose that increase. Yes, people’s taxes go up just like inflation does. When you look at that CPI number, I’ve said this over and over and over. When we look at that valuation number that graph was on the screen. In 2007, this economy tanked. The only year -- the only year we had negative inflation since 2007 was 2009. It was a 0.4 percent negative inflation. Every other year was at least one percent. No less than one percent increase in inflation. And even in those bad years you saw 2 to 2 percent increase inflation at the same time our valuations were decreasing. So, while we’re losing on one hand, our expenditures, because we buy goods just like anybody else does. We’ve got to go out and buy services and goods, so inflation is rising on an annual level while our property values are decreasing. So, we’re taking in less money every year with the bad years and our costs are continuing to increase. We didn’t hire anybody. We put -- and when you talk about a hiring freeze, we basically through attrition, we just kept reducing our workforce to the point where we’re like here are we now going we need to hire some people. We’re back to where we were. We need to get some people back on the books and get some things done. But I’m just amazed listening to everybody rip apart this budget, not everybody, a few people, rip apart this budget when we’re sitting here with an Aa1 rating, a 51 percent reserve fund. Our debt levels have been dropping dramatically. We’re spending more on roads than we have ever have. Police and Fire are funded at an adequate level. In fact, they’re funded very well. Our mill levy is in line. I’m, I mean, I know where some people in the City can go, well, you need to fix this because it’s broken, I’ve said this before. It’s not broken. So, you know, respectfully, Mr. Jenkins, I agree. You threw some ideas out there and some of them were considered. But they didn’t make sense to me and obviously they didn’t make sense to the majority of the Council, so it’s not like we just said, no, we’re not going to do that. We considered it. We discussed it and we voted on it and we decided that that’s not the best course. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, that’s politics. That’s government. That’s how we do it. I think we’re in great shape. I think we’re going in the right direction. I hear positive things from people. And what I don’t hear from people in my ward is, you know, what I’m hearing from people in my ward is I want more stuff. I want, you know, I don’t want to see you guys starve the City. I want to see it funded. I want a community center. And it’s going to cost us a lot. We’ve got to get our head around that. They’re asking for it. You know, they want to see us grow the City and invest in the City. And it takes money to do that and you don’t get there by starving the City.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And to be a little more transparent on just being a little more specific was, you know, some of the ideas that were brought up, there was some ideas brought up. They were discussed as everybody said and they were voted on. You know, one of the ideas was to put a million dollars more into the streets out of the General Fund for an unknown period of time until everything is up to snuff on the streets, which that would be just indefinitely because you will never be completely up on the streets. And to take that out would pull from our reserves. We’re having the most money spent on streets in the history of Shawnee. And we do not have the manpower to take care of it at this period of time. And we don’t have the street inspectors to inspect the streets, the work that’s going to be done on the streets. And we need maintenance workers to help with this. And one of the positions that, and suggestions that were brought up was to do a hiring freeze and not to hire these individuals because we had an inspector as one hire and a street maintenance person as another. And I can’t see bringing that kind of money into the City and to do the street work that the people want to get done and not bring the people out or inspectors to do the inspection, you know, because you can’t depend on the companies that are doing the work to do their own inspecting. You know, so to do a hiring freeze and to put another million dollars into a fund that we’ll be lucky enough to spend at this time, I couldn’t agree with it. So, to be transparent that is some of the issues that were brought up and I’m not for that.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. Just a statement. I recall from the last meeting there were five proposals brought up. There were two that failed, the moratorium on staff hiring except for public safety, and the one million more towards street maintenance. There were three other proposals in looking at outside contractors for street sweeping to save funding on maintaining a street sweeper in-house. There was also proposals on simplifying the budget and setting aside funds, stormwater funds into a reserve balance so that we could utilize those as matching funds. And I do believe that those three there’s general consensus around those in terms of moving forward. And so those are being investigated. So, there were two that were actually voted down. There were three that we’re moving forward with in terms of actually looking at those and having staff investigate.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I have to respond to some of this because it’s getting kind of out of hand. First of all, we’re talking about a million dollars for roads. You see it up here tonight, our General Fund is $47 million. We’re spending 415,000 of that $47 million on our roads out of our General Fund. Okay. I have an objection to that. And that was my concern. I expressed it here. I think you characterized that inaccurately. That wasn’t the way it was presented. It was presented as a fact that our roads -- you say we didn’t do the sales tax as a City Council? No. You just didn’t fund roads for years and years till it got so bad you could pass a sales tax. I mean, come on. Let’s get real. That’s how you got the sales tax through, you let the roads go to heck. And then you said -- and then the people of the city, oh, I can’t stand this, I’ve got to vote for more taxes. I mean, let’s get real. What’s really going on here, guys? This is kind of a joke what’s going on here. You talked about several things were accepted. Not one of those things was a budgetary item. Not one. I’m talking about changing the -- doing something with the budget itself, cost savings, et cetera. Hiring five new staff. That’s a $350,000 additional cost to this community and it’s a long-term cost, all the way through retirement and those retirement years. So, it’s a very long-term cost that we’re accepting in that. I still don’t believe this facility manager idea is worth a darn. I mean, I think we -- that’s an extra duty for somebody on the staff. I had extra duties all my life, both in the military and with my federal government position. That was my job. I was safety officer. I was the guy that was supposed to be the last one out if there was a building evacuation to make sure everybody got out. All this kind of stuff. I mean, everybody does that stuff at almost every place of business. But here we’ve got to hire a guy for $68,000 a year to do that job. I find that objectionable. I don’t really think we need to do that. And I want to have a great city and I want to spend money on the things that need to be spent on to keep our city a quality community. But I think that we do have to be a little more introspective about some of these expenses we just take on so blithely. I think I find some objection to that. I’ve expressed my objections that I was mischaracterized. I’m trying to set the record straight.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer and then Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Eric, I have a question for you.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Regarding the $1 million transfer to the roads. I agree with you we need to spend more on your on roads. But your proposal moved 41 million from the General Fund to roads, which is deficit spending. So, you are in favor of deficit spending if it goes towards what you want, or --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No. I came up with several cost-cutting measures that would offset that.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Like the staffing, for example.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That was never presented.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Like the City Hall improvements that we’re talking about spending $235,000 on this room. I mean, are you kidding me? That’s ridiculous. But I came up with some valid cost saving alternatives so we can put some money into roads. And, you know, I hear people talk over and over again how we want to have a city that people can come into and say, wow, that’s first class. Well, drive across our roads and think how first class they are. All you see is tar and potholes and stuff like that. I mean, if we want to present a good image, our roads present an image of our community, everybody that drives here. Okay. But the City Hall doesn’t present a big image to everybody that comes to Shawnee because a few of them come in. A few people come in and see the City Hall. But it’s certainly adequate. We’re functioning just nicely now. We can do government business here just fine. I do have -- I think we could upgrade some audiovisual. It might be nice because some people have complained they can’t hear everything well and it’s kind of difficult with trying to record the minutes and some of those things. And I was -- I think that makes sense. That makes some sense. Okay. But do we need to have this, you know, luxury estates place in here with a $30,000 dais with Kevlar and every city official has got an iPod, or iPad. And I mean, come on, guys. This is -- I don’t think that’s spending the taxpayers’ money fairly or wisely and I did present cost-cutting alternatives that would have offset that. Yes, I did.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I don’t disagree with you about the chamber, but you’re never going to be able to convince me that, and I’m not -- fine, you did present some options, but the way the proposal went was $1 million offset from the General Fund with some savings that didn’t get up to that. You didn’t have parameters about how long you wanted it. At the time you weren’t even sure it was one million, it could have been more, you just wanted a general percentage. There are no specifics in that proposal. And I don’t feel like it would be good government to approve that. If we go back and put some teeth around it and make some specific next year, great, let’s have that conversation. But I think it’s a mischaracterization for you to say that we didn’t consider it at all when there weren’t any parameters around it. Would it have been responsible for us just to spend money without any idea of what we were doing or what the time frame was?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. There were some parameters. The parameters were we have a $45 million budget that comes in here, our income and General Fund, and we spend less than one percent of that money that’s contributed by the taxpayers of this community. And they expect they’re going to have roads and they’re expecting to have policemen and firemen and they expect that those kinds of things are given. Those are things that they should get from their taxes they pay in both sales and property taxes, not just in special taxes for roads. But out of the money you pay, you expect to have some darn roads. You know, hello? That’s a fair thing to ask for out of your General Fund. And we’re putting less than one percent of our General Fund into our streets program. And look at the state of our streets. Now, I will concede we’re putting a whole lot more money into streets this year because we got new taxes. We’ve got new funding streams coming in to pay for that. But that still doesn’t satisfy the moral requirement that people should get something for the money they put in.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I don’t disagree. And I’ll just say one last thing. I remember from that meeting, great, I’m glad we’re spending. We are spending more money on roads. From that meeting Mark Sherfy said we are going to struggle to spend the amount of money that we have given the current staff level. So, do we increase staff to make up for that funding or we just throw money at them that they can’t spend?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Do you remember my comment that evening after that was said?


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I said there’s such a thing as temp employees that aren’t long term FTE.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Was that included? I mean, what are the costs for that? I mean, it just -- I don’t feel -- all right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They weren’t able to be discussed because everything was terminated. I moved for a motion, boom, it was over. There was no time to really flush anything out.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’m sorry. We had an extra meeting to discuss your concerns. As I’ve stated before, I’m sorry that that wasn’t enough. I’m sorry that three of the five was accepted.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We didn’t discuss all of them, did we?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I don’t know. You never sent me the document.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I’m sorry. Brandon said he was going to send it to you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Either way, as Brandon said, we discussed all five of them. Three of the five moved forward. I’m sorry that they weren’t all five. That’s government.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What document are we talking --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Once again -- once again --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What document are we talking about?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The document I provided to all the City Councilmembers at the meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, how did Brandon have it?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: She didn’t get one because she wasn’t here. He got one because he was at the meeting. She wasn’t here that evening.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes. First of all, I would take issue, having been on the Council since 2010, that the reason that money was not spent on the roads is that to provide the services to the citizens of Shawnee there wasn’t enough money and the mill and overlay program had to be suspended for two years. There was no will, no intent, or anything about that to try and create a situation where we would impose a sales tax on the people. I would point out that in the Parks and Pavement, which was passed last November, 50 percent of the people in Shawnee voted. Sixty-nine percent voted for Parks and Pipes and 63 percent voted for the pavement. That’s an overwhelming majority. And everybody’s ward here voted overwhelmingly for both of those two issues to move the City forward. I think that is an excellent testament that the people appreciate what we’re doing and the way we’re taking the city and I think this budget continues on with that and I am very much for passing this budget.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. I was taking that as insinuating that we were setting the public up for something for this tax issue. And like we were doing something wrong or illegal trying to deceive the public.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I didn’t say that, Mickey. You know I didn’t say that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But that’s the way I took it. And I don’t know how many other others might take it. Don’t. It’s my turn. Okay. All right. And also how much money are we -- did we actually have for the streets other than the 400 and some thousand dollars? We had a 1.5 million out of the impact fee, out of the Deffenbaugh fee.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: In the Special Highway Fund?


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I will let Ms. Rogers say that, so she can look at the numbers themselves. The money in the General Fund that’s allocated for streets is in the form of employees and our street maintenance division in addition to the 415,000 than actually --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right. There’s more than just the $415,000.


MS. ROGERS: Around 1.7 million in gas tax.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I didn’t say that. I said General Fund.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, that all comes out of the General Fund.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It all comes out of the General Fund.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It all comes into it, it all gets written out of it. So, you know, making this -- I’m taking it that we’re being set up to look like we were doing something incorrectly and we did the very best with what we had at the period of time when we were going through a recessional period. A lot of our employees had left by attrition. And replacing them, we’re at a period of time that they need to be replaced because as Stephanie said, you just throw money out there if you can’t do it right. We have the money to fix our roads and to start a program. And to do a freeze, a hiring freeze at this period of time when we need the employees to help put this plan together would be a very -- it would be doing a disservice to our City. There are a lot of services that our City offers and it’s more than just Public Works, Fire, Police, there’s a lot of different services. And a lot of the different services are asked for and the people don’t want to get rid of them. You know, so we have an unbelievable city and they’re doing great. I can’t see not voting for this budget. This budget is putting together a plan that is well beyond what we’ve ever had in this City. So, I just take it as a disservice when people think that we’re trying to do something dishonest and deceive the public to get a tax through or to do different things and I just can’t see it that way.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, the decision to reduce spending on roads was done prior to my election, which I got elected in 2009, ‘10, whatever it was.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Five years ago. Let’s just say five years ago. And that was done obviously because appraisals drop, revenue dropped dramatically. And historically recessions lasted a much shorter period of time than this one did. Was it a gamble? Absolutely. It was a gamble. You know, I think if I’m not mistaken, I’m not going to speak for the people up here who made that decision, but I would assume that you looked at it and went, okay, we’ll reduce spending and a normal recession should be over in X-amount of time and we’re going to recover this except as we all know this recession just dragged on and on and appraisals continued to tank and revenue continued to tank. And it just got to that point where we’re stuck. And it wasn’t intentional. It was just in, you know, it just didn’t work out the way I think everybody anticipated or would like it to have worked out and that’s just how it is. I take a totally different approach than you on General Fund expenditures on roads. I made the statement when we talked about the sales tax. And, you know, we have a considerable amount of our revenue of sales tax come outside of our community, it’s like n excess of 40 percent. And actually I think it’s higher than that because I started doing a little more research on it and talking to Shawnee Mission Ford, which is probably our biggest sales tax generator, and the percentage of vehicles he sells outside of Shawnee is huge. So, let’s say in excess of 40 percent of our revenue comes from sales tax revenue comes from outside of Shawnee and that’s the money used to pave our roads. Well, you know, not everybody that uses the roads is a Shawnee citizen. I think it’s great that all these people come and buy goods and services from Shawnee and that money, part of that money they spend is in a dedicated fund that goes to pave roads and maintain roads. On the General Fund, mill levy, General Fund, I would rather see this spent on things that I utilize and the citizens of Shawnee utilize specifically which is mostly public safety. While people outside of Shawnee will utilize that, public safety, our parks, the park next to me, our infrastructure outside of our roads, some of our infrastructure issues. You know, we have a lot of services that are really specific to Shawnee. So, in my opinion, if we’re going to use General Fund money, yeah, let’s use the General Fund money on things that we pretty much utilize as residents of Shawnee. And if we have people from all over different communities driving up and down our roads and fatiguing our asphalt, then the money they spend should go towards that. Get our head around it because that’s what the State of Kansas is doing. I mean, they’re going to be a consumption tax. And so all of our highway funding, if they get to their march to zero, then all of our highway funding will be sales tax. So, I mean, how is this different? I don’t know. Because people will come into Kansas from outside of Kansas, you know, from other states and they’re going to spend money here and that money is going to go to pave the roads. So as a Kansan, should I complain that, well, I don’t think that’s right? I mean, I think we should -- I mean, I don’t know. I can’t get this argument that, and I really don’t understand why it’s such an issue that 400,000 coming out of the General Fund, the reality of it is we’re spending more on roads than we ever have and this was a decision of the voters. It wasn’t a set-up. We didn’t purposefully run the roads down so that people would be in -- motivated to vote for it. It was just, man, this recession isn’t ending. And the chart was up there. CPI kept climbing. Our appraisals kept tanking and I remember running the numbers a couple of years ago. We lost I think $9 million in revenue, something like that, 9, $9.5 million in revenue in a few short years. So, let’s look at our budget right now. And let’s think on the 2015-Revised budget, and we’re going -- what if we had $9 million less. What if we had $4 million less in revenue to deal with? What would we do? Because that’s what this Council was faced with. I mean, $9 million from 2007, and then within a few short years you had $9 million less to spend. What else are you going to do? I guess you could empty out City Hall. You could sell off parks and you could, you know, the only really thing you could do was reduce spending on roads and take that gamble that this recession is going to end, revenues will come back and you will jump back on the program, but it didn’t. And that’s a gamble. And we solved it and we solved it very well because it’s working. And we’re going to get our roads back into shape. And we’re actually for the first time in the history of this City, we have a dedicated fund to road improvements, which is curbs and gutters. I mean, remember part of that money is going to curbs and gutters. We’ve never had a dedicated fund to curbs and gutters. This is a good thing. This is a great thing. So, I’m going to go back to what I said. You know, Aa1 rated city, 51 percent reserve account. You know, and when we look at numbers of employees, we have a hundred less employees Lenexa. We have 20,000 more people. I think they have more than a hundred more people than we do. We 15 or 20 square miles bigger than they are and we have 20,000 more people and more lane miles of road, 715 lane miles of road compared to their, I don’t know what it is. I don’t know how much. My god, I mean, cities that are smaller than us have like a 100, 120, 130 more employees. Not five or six more employees, a hundred-plus more employees. And we’re saying, oh, we should have a moratorium on hiring. I’m like, oh, my god, I don’t know how we do it. I think it’s amazing we accomplish what we accomplish. But I’ll end this by saying this. When we talk about the moratorium when you proposed it, I remember you saying that a moratorium on employees other than public safety, so if this was five or six public safety employees, would you still want the moratorium or would you approve five or six public safety employees regardless of that cost, okay, but they’re public safety. Would that just be an automatic support? Because it’s not all public safety. It all works together.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Several things have been said about several things in our conversations over the past few months. But tonight, you brought up one thing here about the reduction in the roads budget was taken before the recession ever hit. If you go back and look in 2009 is when we took $3 million out of the roads budget.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The recession tanked in 2007. The economy tanked in ‘07.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: September 2008 is when the real estate crash happened, okay.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, we did the budget in 2008 at this time. Okay. So anyway, that money, and I recommended strongly against doing that because you can’t get that money back in there. And it’s really difficult to do that. So, that’s one of your comments there. The next thing is deficit spending. I mean, we’re going from 51 percent to 36 percent in two years. The spreadsheet that was given to us has it, I don’t know, in another six years going to one percent. I know that’s a projection just based on our spending levels and everything. But, you know, I just don’t think we should be doing that. So, I think it’s going to have a negative effect on our bond rating. So, and just -- we’ll see what happens, okay. Hopefully we do a lot better than what you think. Okay. So, in the 2015R budget, you know, one of the reasons why I voted against that was because of the street sweeper. Okay. We are going to look at the street sweeping, but not the street sweeper. The street sweeper is still in the 2015R budget. Okay. Street sweeping, whether we do it in-house or out of house, my personal opinion is at this time we don’t need a new street sweeper. Okay. If they’re a five-year, you know, item that we have right now. So, I don’t think we need to replace it at this time. Anyway, those are my comments.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I want to make sure, maybe I didn’t make it perfectly clear, but we won’t purchase the street sweeper until we have bid out and analyzed the costs and all that will come back to you. So, there is money available for the sweeper, but it will not be purchased.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, maybe you didn’t understand that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right. Thank you.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Just make sure, Dan, that, yes, you voted against 2015, but you vote against every single budget since you’ve been elected.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That is incorrect.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t believe you’ve ever voted for a budget, have you?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Why don’t you go back and find out.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: How many have you voted for? Since I’ve been elected you’ve never voted for a budget.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, you’ve only -- how many years you been here?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I’ve been here for five.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve been here for a long longer than that.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I understand that. So, how many budgets have you voted for? I mean, you’re the one that voted on them. So, I wouldn’t know, you would. How many did you vote on?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I voted on every single budget.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: How many did you vote yes on?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I can’t tell you that right off hand.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: How many did you vote for versus against?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I don’t know right off hand.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. My understanding is you --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve got a good hunch.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s been my understanding that you haven’t, so maybe you voted in support of a couple?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Maybe you don’t know then.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, if you go back and look and then get with me --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: In recent history, I know in recent history and several years before I arrived you voted no. But we’re in pretty good shape financially, so I just think it’s fair that when you talk about budgets we’ve had some really good budgets and you have not supported them. I’m not concerned with the bond rating. We have a finance director that’s a CPA. They’re very protective of the reserves. I would -- I’m more in tuned to listen to the CPA and the professional whose job and reputation is on the line than you. That’s what she does for a living. And when she looks at me and tells me that this is going to threaten our bond rating, I’m going to believe her. Because if it does, she’s going to have to answer to us and I don’t think she wants to do that, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Is it appropriate for a motion now?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t think all discussion is through yet. I think that would be premature.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, we still have to -- the third action, there’s still more discussion. The third action is to consider adopting a resolution approving an increase in property tax revenues over the amount levied to finance the 2016 Budget. So, is there any more discussion from Council in that?



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

Having passed, Resolution No. 1760 was assigned.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is to consider approving the 2016 Budget and the corresponding projects and programs as shown in the attached memo from the June 16, 2015 Council Committee meeting, and setting the total taxing authority at $18,841,561 and directing staff to publish the Notice of Vote. Is there any discussion form the Council? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak on this item? I will accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm was the nay.


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Pflumm, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Kemmling voted nay for the record. Motion passes. (Motion passes 5-3)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider Final Plans for Johnson Drive and Woodland Intersection Improvement Project, P.N. 3399. Final plans are complete. The total budget for construction is $320,000 and is funded through the County CARS program and the Special Highway Fund. The recommended action is to consider approving the final plans and authorizing staff to proceed with the bidding of the project. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item?



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)


MAYOR DISTLER: Next Item is G, Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 6, 2015. Item Number 1 is to Consider SUP-06-15-07; the Special Use Permit for Bobbi Hunt, to Operate a Group Daycare for up to Ten Children, in the Planned Single-Family Zoning District, Located at 5720 Marion Street. At their July 6, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body approve a special use permit subject to the condition in the staff report. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.


MAYOR DISTLER: Wait. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0) You voting there, buddy? (Directed to Guest Councilmember Rambo.)


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is H, Items from the Council Committee Meeting of July 7, 2015, Chaired by Councilmember Meyer. Item Number 1 is to Consider No Parking Signs on 49th Street. Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. All right. Just the one item. Council Committee recommended 7-1 that the General Fund direct staff to install ‘No Parking’ signs on the south side of 49th Street from Nieman Road east to Reeder Street per Policy Statement PS-42, Regulatory Sign Placement authority to place signs rests with the Chief of Police and his or her designee. Should the City Council desire to have the authority to direct staff on the installation of 'No Parking' signs, staff would request additional time to make appropriate revisions to the policy statement. So, I guess I would just open it up for discussion on that. So, Jim.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I would offer that this PS-42, and I take real credence with staff requests additional time to make appropriate revisions. Because if we’re going to do this and regulate as a Governing Body every parking sign that goes up in the City, the policy statement needs to be changed. Because if we do this, we’re in violation -- would we be in violation of policy statement?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It would be contradictory to. It’s a policy.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But it would be contradictory to the policy.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I would -- my suggestion would be to allow staff time to have a chance to make the appropriate, do the research and come back and put it on a Council meeting, correction, a Committee meeting. I know that here about six or eight months ago, Mark, we had the meeting, a neighborhood meeting with the 51st and Cody group about some stop signs. It was a neighborhood meeting. And we got together and talked it out and came up with a satisfactory solution on that one, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Mr. Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Did you make a motion?


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No, not yet. Of course we discussed this in Committee, but reading the staff’s memo here, there’s a couple things that I thought were kind of interesting. The ones directly affected by the signs, the ones that would have their streets changed to no parking were the people against it, the ones who had voted no when we polled them. And the people who weren’t going to have the signs in front of their yards directly affecting them were the ones who wanted them. And I think that’s a little bit telling because it’s kind of like saying if it’s not my problem, I’m for it. If you don’t restrict my parking, I’m okay with you putting signs on other people’s. And so I think that that’s an interesting thing to consider. The ones that will have their streets blocked off would be the ones that would be opposed to it. I also do question where the additional traffic will go. I know we said in the packet here, I mean, it’s going to go someplace. It’s not like the cars are going to vanish. So, I don’t know if by trying to solve this problem we just create another one. So, I was for this in the Committee, although reading the packet here and analyzing a little bit more, I think I’m actually opposed to it now.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer and then Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I agree with Mike on that. And I, just as a broader issue, don’t know that we want to get in the business of the Governing Body determining where no parking signs go. It seems like that kind of opens itself up for political crony nepotism of the worst sorts and kind of just a mess.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No. And I’m going to -- well, I voted no to move it forward because I just didn’t agree that we as a Council should be making those decisions. But believe it or not I’m going to agree with Mike. I know this is something. What’s the date? Someone write this down. This day in history Jeff Vaught agreed with Mike. No, it is. I think it’s -- and you’re right. When I looked at it, what my concern is, is while there’s no guarantees you’re not going to get a no parking sign in front of your property when you purchase it, these are properties that someone purchased in good faith that they’re going to have adequate parking. And I think we’re altering that. So, you know, if it’s a detriment to their property value, I think we’re going to have to have some tough things to answer. And I think that policy is for a reason. Stephanie is right. When we start -- when we have the ability to start making that decision, to put parking signs here and there wherever we want, none of us are traffic experts. We’re not the chief of police. We don’t have that, you know, knowledge of why you do and why you don’t. So, you know, the statistics on that street weren’t, while I know it’s an inconvenience for some people, it just didn’t, you know, statistically it wasn’t like we had, you know, an accident a month there or it was just an inconvenience. But honestly, I have people park on my street in my neighborhood on both sides of the street and we’ve got to stop and wait for one to go through while the other one goes through and it’s an inconvenience. But, you know, that’s life and we deal with it, so. I just, you know, I think we’re punishing property owners who I think it’s going to be very difficult. And honestly what Mike said is very true is where do those cars go. They’re either going to go on the street across the street or up the street.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Or how about in the driveway?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The driveways, they’re going to park in the grass because the driveways are single lane driveways. And when you have more than, I mean, just like my neighborhood. I mean, I have neighbors that have a three-car garage, three wide. They have three cars in the driveway. And if they have another, you know, two kids, they’ll have that and they’ll have one parked on the street. I mean, that’s just reality. So, if you’re in a duplex and you’ve got three drivers in the house and you got a single lane drive, I mean, every time -- and so what do you do park them three deep and every time the front person he’s got to go and move two cars, it’s not going to happen. I mean, if you want to do something, then let’s, you know, let’s start mandating that there’s no more single lane driveways. Let’s make it a part of our planning policy that says no single lane driveways. You’ve got to have a driveway and additional parking space. But then that kind of defeats this whole trend, of permeable space which we’re trying to get away from paving and asphalting everything and concreting. We want permeable space and ground so that -- and that’s why we have a movement to park on the street. That’s kind of where this is coming from is we already have a road, less driveway, more grass, better for the environment, parking on the street. So, we’re kind of counter to what popular design standards are by taking that away and forcing them to throw a big chunk of concrete in their yard and take out grass. But, you know, I’m not disagree. I know at some point and sometimes I’m inconvenienced, but I don’t, you know, I don’t see by statistics there wasn’t a tremendous amount of accidents and I don’t see where it justifies it, number one. Number two is I don’t think we should make that decision.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. This is not an issue that I have a real strong position on, really. It’s kind of a coin toss. You could argue either side pretty comfortably I think. You could argue for the guys that are worried about the traffic and safety hazard. You can argue about the guys that got the property already there. So, my issue is not so much with the issue. My issue with the overarching concern of overriding a policy statement. A policy statement is a policy statement. That’s guides us. It gives us something to go by. But if this Council decides that they want to do something and there’s a policy statement to the contrary, I don’t think that should be an inhibiting factor if we weigh it carefully and decide that’s where we want to go anyway. So, my only point is that, you know, I don’t want to get all wrapped around the axle on that fact that it’s a policy statement. I really have a hard time pushing really extra hard for this particular subject.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And you know me I don’t have any opinions on anything, so.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No strong ones anyway.


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I think we got rid of dog permitting for this very reason, so it tied up all the time and I can see it happening again with the parking issues. And as Mr. Jenkins, I can go either way on this. I’m not real strong, but I’m probably going to agree with Mike and I think just leave well enough alone because they are going to go somewhere. And they’ll just move further down the street or they’ll, you know, they are going to move somewhere.



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

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It would probably clarify that the Council make a motion to take no action on the recommendation.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to take no action on it.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.


MAYOR DISTLER: The opposition was Mr. Pflumm. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-1) I. STAFF ITEMS

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Staff Items. Item Number 1 is to Consider Bids and Awarding a Construction Contract, and Accepting Conveyances of Land, or an Interest Therein for Public Purposes, for the Caenen Street and 59th Street Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3406 (SMAC TC-021-066). This project is included on the Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2015 and bids were received on July 15, 2015. There are three recommended actions. The first is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a construction contract with Pyramid Excavation and Construction, Inc., Kansas City, MO, in the amount of $787,711 for P.N. 3406. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider accepting conveyances of land. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I would accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: The final recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign two easement documents. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Bids and Awarding a Construction Contract, and Accepting Conveyances of Land, or an Interest Therein for Public Purposes, for the 60th Terrace and Earnshaw Street Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3407 (SMAC TC-021-067). This project is included on the Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2015 and bids were received on July 17, 2015. There are two recommended actions. The first is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a construction contract with Blue Nile Contractors, Inc. of Claycomo, MO, in the amount of $764,009 for P.N. 3407. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider accepting conveyances of land. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider Agreements for the Council Chamber Remodel Project. The 2015 R budget includes funding for the full project. The total project budget is $235,000. The guaranteed maximum price developed by Turner Construction for design construction and project management is $125,685. The agreement price with SKC Communications for audiovisual upgrades is $68,101. There are two actions on this item.

MAYOR DISTLER: The first recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement with Turner Construction for a guaranteed maximum price of $125,685 for final design construction and project management of the Council Chamber remodel project pending approval by the City Attorney. Is there any discussion from the Council? Ms. Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. I just had a couple questions about the cost if I could. I haven’t been able to -- I thought we had a little bit of a line item, but can I get a cost for what the conference room build-out is, the portion of that?

CITY CLERK POWELL: The conference room won’t be built out on the inside.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, right. Yeah. The construction for the outside.

CITY CLERK POWELL: It’ll just be the shell of the wall.


CITY CLERK POWELL: Are you wanting that cost?


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It’s 32,000 and change.

CITY CLERK POWELL: The new wall for the conference room is priced at just over $1,700.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, that’s a build-out?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. That’s the total.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s just the wall.

CITY CLERK POWELL: That’s just the wall.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s just a wall because we’re not completing anything.



CITY CLERK POWELL: And that wall, just as I stated in previous presentations, the platform that this dais sits on is solid concrete. And so in order to get the cables into the dais for the microphones and the audiovisual components there needs to be -- the cheapest option is to do the false floor and move the dais forward. That was part of the design. So, that conference room provides access to pull all those wires and cables from the closet through the ceiling, down the wall and then back up underneath.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I just want to clarify. I know there’s been some talk on this and some e-mails and I guess people don’t understand what we’re doing here because there is the -- people insinuated that this is just for the Council. Like, you know, we’re spending $235,000 so we can have a nicer room to conduct our business. And I think people need to remember that it’s not just us. There’s a lot of other, you know, Planning Commission, other boards that meet here, but it’s a very limited room right now because basically we have church pews and they’re unmovable. The goal of this, so everybody knows, is to make this a very versatile room. The movable chairs gives us the ability and with the technology of doing where you can use this for a training room. You can use a lot of different city departments which we do have with some challenges sometimes in here with scheduling in the room that’s big enough. Which creates a big enough room, it creates a bigger meeting room without this government-style all the time fixed in place and better technology where it becomes a very versatile community room. Or I shouldn’t say community room as much as a very versatile room for a City to utilize for, actually whether it’s training, whether it’s, you know, whatever it is. And we don’t have that. We don’t have a large room this size that can be utilized for that type of stuff. So, you know, and I hear people. Well, it’s a lot of money just for the Council and you’re just trying to make your -- no. It’s to create a more versatile room. It’s going to be nicer. It needs to be nicer. I truly believe that. I went on the tours. I toured these other municipalities and I invite anybody to get in the car and you can walk in any of them any time you want and go to these different cities and look at what -- how they present themselves as a city, and it far exceeds what we’re doing. And, you know, we’re the one of the big players and I think we need to present ourselves that way. I don’t look at it as a waste of money. I’m looking at it as an investment in Shawnee and our image and image is important. I truly believe that. But it is. I think at the end of the day we’re going to have a room that’s usable for a lot of other functions other than just this type of meeting.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer and then Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I guess I just am really torn on this. I feel like there are a lot of things in here that I really like. The technology piece for sure. The stuff that’s going to I think directly impact the citizens. I guess just I would have liked to, I don’t know, if maybe there was a way that we could have gotten a cost breakout so we could sort of, you know, figure out how much -- what part of the project and what we don’t. It seems like it was kind of presented as a full set and it’s kind of here you go, here is what we’re going to do. So, that’s my hesitation and frustration about because there are some things that I would certainly cut from it, but here we are.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I originally voted in favor of doing something to the Council chambers and it seems though at the time it was $235,000 budgeted item and we were going to do a lot more than what we’re doing. And, you know, I just don’t think we need, you know, bulletproof, you know, Council or dais or whatever you want to call it. And I think that’s kind of wasteful spending. You know, we don’t have it now. You know, if someone comes in here, I mean, they’re going to do something bad anyway. So, I just -- I can’t agree with what we’re getting for the 235,000. Originally we were going to open that whole wall in between those closets. Maybe even then -- then it was at least, you know, where the windows were. And, you know, now we’re not opening anything up, so I just can’t vote for it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: My question is the Communications package part of this is 68,000. Does this current setup -- can they do what they say for 68,000, or is it going to cost more to upgrade the communications to what we desire?

CITY CLERK POWELL: What is quoted in the Communications is what we would get. I’m not sure I’m following your question.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, the question is though, but for them to do that for that price, are they assuming they are going to have to the backdrop and run the wires and all the other?

CITY CLERK POWELL: Yes. SKC and Turner Construction have worked hand-in-hand on this project, so SKC’s quote is based on having the wall to bring all the cables through and not have to cut into the floor or to the slab that the current dais sits on because there’s currently where the cables that are up there run, but those conduits aren’t large enough to pull the proper cables forward completely full.


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig and then Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. To follow up on what Councilmember Meyer said. I think for me the aspects of this that are most appealing are the capabilities to engage the citizens much more directly in the process, much closer with the monitors, with the technology and hopefully to save on paper costs for those of us that want to use our gadgets and be able to use those completely without paper supplements. But I think those are definitely the redeeming qualities. The more I think about it, the one concern I do have is with the Council conference room remaining unfinished, and maybe somebody can help me recall if we had discussed how long that would be and when that would be budgeted for. Because my one concern going forward is that in future years when we’re weighing the cost of needs, to me that’s going to always be a lower need and I’m always going to be reluctant to fully fund finishing that room compared to all the other priorities in our City. And in turn, if we have an unfinished conference room for years, you know, that also sends a message as well to our residents and to taxpayers. So, Carol, maybe you have some insight into that area. Had it ever been discussed?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I believe Stephen has a cost for the finish out of the room, both just the wall and then even with the furnishings and technology.

CITY CLERK POWELL: The furnishings, and then including, you know, proper technology to really make that a functioning conference room, the estimate that Turner provided was $33,840. And that includes conference table, chairs, building out, soundproofing it, fully finishing that room out. And, of course, those are estimates. Those aren’t based on bids.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Right. Because that would still have to go to bid as a separate item.

CITY CLERK POWELL: Absolutely, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. The one other question I had too was ensuring that the -- I know comments were made that the chambers with the technology upgrades would be AV ready as well as video ready. That doesn’t mean we’re going to have video capabilities though. That would require additional implementation, is that correct?

CITY CLERK POWELL: Correct. The system, as SKC has proposed it to be would be able to grow with us as we wanted to do video or other types of technology upgrades where we would have the rack space in our audiovisual closet. We would be able to sort of plug and play components to achieve what other type of feature technology growth we wanted.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, feasibility and cost of that would have to be investigated further though?




COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I guess I would -- thank you. I’d just feel more comfortable if we had a better cost breakdown maybe from Turner Construction. How did we land on Turner as our vendor?

CITY CLERK POWELL: We did a design-build process. So, I’m going to have to go back in my mind when we started this.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I think maybe it predates me.

CITY CLERK POWELL: It was last year. We had money budgeted in 2014 and 2015 and then money forecasted in 2016. So, when they were all -- all those pots of money were all related to this room. So, we decided to look holistically at what could we get for that amount of money. We had the committee that went and did tours and kind of researched everything. And they recommended that we do the design-build process. So, the Governing Body approved design-build as our procurement method and we put that out for an RFP and a couple of vendors responded and Turner received the highest ranking. And then that’s who we moved forward with for the Phase 1 contract, which was the $23,000 that was listed in your packet for them to do preliminary design and engineering work, to provide the conceptual drawings and to provide the guaranteed maximum price.


CITY CLERK POWELL: You’re welcome.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We did pay them for that though, right?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, we paid them for that, we do have a design. If we don’t do it now we could also bid it out and maybe, maybe not, get a lot lower price. Don’t know.

CITY CLERK POWELL: I don’t believe we could do that under a design-build contract --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We can’t use their design.

CITY CLERK POWELL: -- because we don’t have any final designs at all from Turner.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, they wrote that in the contract, so we’d have to use them.



CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And, Stephen, I believe that the SKC pricing is all on the state contract, so it has been bid by the State of Kansas and it is State of Kansas contract pricing. And the remaining construction element will be bid out, so the pricing is still -- those are estimates that you’re looking at, so all that will still be bid out.

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

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: They’re estimates, but these are the cap, right?

CITY CLERK POWELL: That $125,000 would be the guaranteed maximum price; however, once they bid, if those numbers come in lower, then there would certainly be some cost savings. In a design-build situation those savings can be shifted around. So, if sheetrock comes in really low, but paint comes in really high, you have that flexibility to cover any of those costs.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m looking at page 148 on this thing. You mention projection assumptions. It says, “Union labor is not included in this quote. If union labor is required on the job site, a change order will be issued to cover the additional labor cost.” That tells me they’re not locked in on cost. Prevailing wage labor -- let’s see. “The labor has been quoted at $75 per hour based on the State of Kansas Contract Number 36842.” Wow. Seventy-five bucks an hour for a guy that’s coming in here and putting in carpet and stuff. That’s kind of atrocious.

CITY CLERK POWELL: I believe the $75 an hour that’s based on state contract is for SKC to do the audiovisual work, so that would be pulling out all of the equipment, reinstalling all of the equipment, wiring it all, programming it all.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That only pertains to the audiovisual. Is that what you’re telling me?

CITY CLERK POWELL: I believe so, because the audiovisual --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But they can change the labor cost on us if they have to use union labor. They can raise the price according to this.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But they don’t have to. We’re not a union state.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We’re not a union city.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It says prevailing wage labor rates are not included in this quote. If prevailing wage rates are required --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If we require it, but we never had.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We don’t require it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We don’t require it.




MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please come forward.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Ray Erlichman, (Address Omitted). I made a few notes here for myself. One thing, the upgrading of the AV system in this chamber I think is a mandatory, almost it’s got to happen. The system is very bad. People can’t really see the displays in the back. People can’t really hear people that are speaking up here because maybe you folks can because they’re talking directly at you. You can see their mouths and everything else, but these microphones and everything else don’t carry properly in the back. A lot of people that come up here that don’t have big booming voices and they talk very softly. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, that’s them. But you can’t hear them half the time. I had a little trouble listening to Mr. Powell a few moments ago and my hearing aids are in, so that’s got to tell you something. After the AV upgrades, to me everything else is fluff. Let’s start with the back with the conference room. It’s going to be roughed-in, then there’s going to be a cost down the road to finish it. I didn’t hear anybody say anything about what it’s going to cost to totally soundproof it. That could run a lot of money or run into a lot of money. The reason why I bring up soundproofing is just listening to this Council a little while ago in open session regarding the budget. It’s not the first time that it gets contentious. That’s what’s going to happen when you have a legislative body. There will be contentious conversations and some of them will get loud. And when you’re executive session, supposedly behind closed doors, certain things could be said that would not necessarily go over very well in a Sunday church service. And if you’re going to have the conference room back there, what’s it going to cost to totally soundproof it, so that when your executive sessions are held, they’re not heard out here. Has anybody gotten an estimate on that?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Wasn’t that part of the --

MAYOR DISTLER: I thought that was part of the thing.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I believe that was part of what Mr. Powell had said.

CITY CLERK POWELL: Yeah. I believe that’s part of that $33,000.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Does that include soundproofing?

CITY CLERK POWELL: I believe so, yes.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. That’s a lot money. Kevlar skirting. I think Mr. Jenkins made a comment about that. Everybody is entitled to opinion, I’ve got mine and I happen to agree with Mr. Jenkins on that. A little common sense and a little high school geometry, what do you need Kevlar skirting for. If you’re going to have an active shooter in this room come down here, they’re going to be shooting up, they’re not going to be shooting down. And if somebody drops down for protection, the active shooter is going to have to drop down and do something. I think that’s a waste of money. That’s ridiculous. I remember a couple of years ago somebody running for office in this city said that they were going to make sure that they carried concealed in the Council chambers and their opponent who is a sitting City Councilman made mention of the fact that he didn’t think it was necessary because we had appropriate police protection in the Council meetings. I think that --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That was me by the way.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Beg your pardon?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That was me by the way.

MR. ERLICHMAN: I know it was you.


MR. ERLICHMAN: I just didn’t want --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You can say it. You can say Vaught said it.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. Well, Vaught said it. Okay. And so I just think that’s a waste of money right there. As far as some of the other expenses that go along with this remodel, I think a lot of that money could be used for other purposes. We’ve had some recent turnover in public safety. I think some of that money could go to cover some replacement people. Before Mr. Kenig was appointed there was a very heated discussion regarding whether or not we should have special elections. And an estimate for a special election for Ward IV I think came in at approximately $30,000. And a couple of the Councilmembers were very much in favor of doing that. And that is something that is designed to let the people speak. And to me and those who know me know how I feel about that. That’s very important. And the extra money that would be going into the fluff, as I call it here, could be used down the road for something like that. But when Mr. Pflumm mentioned it, and it is on the record, Mr. Vaught asked Mr. Pflumm if Mr. Pflumm would write out a check for the $30,000 for the special election. And I know Mr. Vaught is very much in favor of making this Council chambers look nice, to look along with some of the other cities. So, I’ll ask the question. Would you, sir, be willing to write out your check for 160,000 or whatever it costs? Anyway, I think that money could be better spent in other areas. I think the AV is about the only thing that should go forward. That’s my opinion and I’ve said it. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay. I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would make a motion actually that we table until the next Council meeting, so we can get a little bit better idea of the cost breakdown in this contract.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would second that.

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

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Can I ask a question real quick?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Can you clarify cost breakdown?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. I’m just trying to get a better handle on mainly the Turner Construction piece of it, just what that is made up of. So, if there was more of a line item of some sort available, that would be great.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Is that feasible? Can we do that? I mean I don’t see why not. I mean, are there --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I assume they have it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’ve looked at it and I didn’t really understand it, so we’d be glad to share it. I mean, it’s complicated.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Can they provide it in a way that is --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I mean it’s got a little different numbers and lines and construction terminology so I’m not sure how helpful it will be, but we can certainly provide it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I’m just thinking if they, I mean, we’re giving them a fair amount of money. I would think they could come up with a document we could understand. Yeah. That would be helpful. Thank you.

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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement. I would assume that you want to postpone this as well, the SKC Communications.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure, yes. I would make a motion we postpone that until the next Council meeting as well.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And would you like a similar breakdown?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That would be great.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And we have the same document from SKC.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Might as well. Let’s do it.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to Ratify Semi-monthly Claim for July 27, 2015, in the Amount of $1,981,165.02. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have any item they would like to discuss? Seeing none, we are going to let --

K. ADJOURNMENT MAYOR DISTLER: We are going to let Councilmember Rambo take us home.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER RAMBO: If there are no other items I will accept a motion to adjourn.



GUEST COUNCILMEMBER RAMBO: A motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.


GUEST COUNCILMEMBER RAMBO: All opposed say -- all those opposed, nay.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You won’t get any nays on that one.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER RAMBO: Motion passes. We are adjourned. (Motion passes 8-0)
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 9:44 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 August 5, 2015

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary



Stephen Powell, City Clerk

File Attachment Icon