PDF Format:


August 10, 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 Vaught City Clerk Powell
Councilmember MeyerFinance Director Rogers
Councilmember Sandifer Information Technology Director Bunting
Councilmember KenigCity Attorney Rainey
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Guest Councilmember BlakeDevelopment Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Police Chief Moser
Fire Chief Mattox
Councilmembers AbsentAssistant Finance Director Kelly
Councilmember KemmlingAssistant Public Works Director Gard
Transportation Manager Sherfy
Communications Manager Ferguson
Sr. Engineering Technician Schmitz
Deputy Parks and Recreation Dir. Lecuru
Sr. Project Engineer Schnettgoecke

(City Council 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. Her name is Sydney Blake and she is 13 years old and goes to Hocker Grove. She will serve as a guest councilmember for Ward II. She 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: Guest Councilmember Blake?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig?



CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mayor, just if I could. Could I clarify for just a minute? So, if you press the button, they need to press their buttons to speak in order to project the audio onto the Internet.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. But it’s just not going out to here.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, it’s not working to expand the voices out here. But still use your microphone.


MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. That’s fine.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & MOMENT OF SILENCE MAYOR DISTLER: Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence. And, Councilmember Blake, 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 after I ask for public comments on each item. I would also like to remind Council to please turn on your microphone when you would like to speak and be sure to speak directly into the microphone so we can get a clear and accurate record for the minutes. In addition, while we won’t do a do a roll call vote on every vote I will state Councilmembers names who voted in dissent so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.

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



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 7-0)

D. MAYOR'S ITEMS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is D, Mayor’s Items. I wanted to let the Council and the public know that a small revision was made to the Council Committee meetings from July 7th, 2015, on pages 13 and 14. Councilmember Kenig was discussing the CSR system and the transcriptionist inadvertently indicated that it was Councilmember Kemmling. The minutes have been updated to reflect this.

E. APPOINTMENTS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is E, Appointments. Item Number 1 is to consider Appointments to the Planning Commission. I am recommending the appointment of Doug Hill, Kathy Peterson and Les Smith to the Planning Commission. There are three actions required.

The first action is to consider appointing Doug Hill to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Brandon Kenig, with a term ending on June 30, 2017. Is there any discussion from the Council? Is there 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 7-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider appointing Kathy Peterson to the Planning Commission with a term ending on June 30, 2018. 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 7-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is to consider appointing Les Smith to the Planning Commission with a term ending on June 30, 2018. 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 7-0)

If any of the appointees are in the audience, please stand. Thank you very much for volunteering to serve on the Planning Commission.


MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Also I’d like to state that all three of those are from Ward IV.





COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That makes at least four, maybe five on the Planning Commission from Ward IV.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: We’ll take care of that next time.

MAYOR DISTLER: We have a very engaged ward.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider an Appointment to the Community Corrections Advisory Board of the Johnson County Department of Corrections. I am recommending the appointment of M. Anne Lightcap to serve on the Community Corrections Advisory Board of the Johnson County Department of Corrections with a term expiring on August 10, 2017. Is there any discussion from the Council? 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. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0). Is Anne in the audience tonight?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: She was unable to attend.


F. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is F, Business from the Floor. Is there anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight's agenda? Okay.

G. PUBLIC ITEMS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is G, Public Items. Item Number 1 is to Consider a Cereal Malt Beverage License for 7-Eleven, 16675 Midland Drive. 7-Eleven has submitted an application for the sale of cereal malt beverages in original and unopened containers and not for consumption on the premises at 16675 Midland Drive. The recommended action is to consider approving the license through December 31st of 2015. 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 7-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with Tevis Construction, LLC, Forest Trace, Fourth Plat Subdivision, 13500 Block of W. 49th Street. For the purpose of stimulating development activity, the Governing Body passed an ordinance creating the option for a property owner to receive a conditional abatement of excise tax. Pursuant to the Policy, Tevis Construction, LLC, has formally requested to be considered for the conditional abatement of the excise tax for development of a four lot single family residential subdivision.

The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement. Is there any discussion from the Council?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. Is anybody here from the Planning Department?

MR. ALLMON: I’m here.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mr. Allmon is here.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, there you are, Doug.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I wanted to question you guys on this one because I thought that we were doing fine with Forest Trace as far as that being a viable subdivision for development. And, you know, we usually use this areas I would think we’re having a little difficulty encouraging somebody to develop. And so I’m kind of wondering why we’re doing this in an area where we’re already doing reasonably well.

MR. ALLMON: I would answer that this is a tough part of the subdivision. The fact that we’re completing out the cul-de-sac, there’s some terrain issues that make development of that site difficult as well. And I think that’s the intention behind the idea of it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I might add to that, truly since we adopted this we have not made that distinction. We have offered it to any development that has come forward. So, the Council has approved those.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We’ll just abate anybody.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: True. Yes. Based on the conditions.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, the excise tax.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I understand it’s excise tax.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But still that’s --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There’s been discussion about the theory of doing that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And also when you guys developed this tax, but I mean it’s, I remember when you developed this abatement planned for abating the tax. But to just throw it out there as freebies all the time, I don’t know if it seems like a reasonable thing especially in a subdivision that is being fully developed. I mean, I can see in certain areas of the community where we’re really trying to encourage people to develop difficult parcels and so on, but I don’t know. I don’t really get it.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.

MR. TEVIS: Madam Mayor, my name is Daniel Tevis, (Address Omitted). I’m the applicant for the excise tax abatement. And I’d like to just answer or just to respond to Mr. Jenkins’ question.


MR. TEVIS: The four lots that we’re talking about are an undeveloped parcel for the Forest Trace subdivision. They’ve never been engaged in that particular subdivision before. So, the fourth -- so, the tract has basically been vacant ground for the last 18 years. Thus, the ground, the subject property that we’re talking about that the tax abatement would be applicable towards.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. But will it be included as part of Forest Trace?

MR. TEVIS: It is. But there’s significant infrastructure that has to take place for those 12 lots to be constructed. We’re going to put a new sanitary sewer in and extend utilities to those lots and put a new cul-de-sac in. So, the improvements are basically the same as what an undeveloped piece of ground would be subject to as far as a regular development. And I just wanted to offer that comment, so I appreciate your consideration for --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No. I appreciate your comments, but I’m not really aware of that piece of ground right there.

MR. TEVIS: Understood.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And that’s pretty helpful. Thank you.

MR. TEVIS: I appreciate your comment. Thank you, guys.

MAYOR DISTLER: And I apologize for the mispronunciation of your name. Is there anyone else 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 7-0)

H. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 20, 2015 MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is H, Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 20, 2015. Item Number 1 is to Consider Approval of SUP-07-15-07; a Special Use Permit to Construct a 160-foot Lattice Telecommunications Tower, Generally Located in the Vicinity of the 7200 Block of Martindale Road. On July 20th of 2015, the Planning Commission recommended 6-0 that the Governing Body approve SUP-07-15-07 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Is there any discussion from the Council? Is there anyone in the audience who 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 7-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 Is to Consider an Ordinance Approving Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Goals and Objectives, and Chapter 5, Land Use Guide. On July 20, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended 6-0 that the Governing Body approve the proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The recommended action is to pass an ordinance approving
the proposed amendments. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Neighbor and then Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I found the description in the packet very interesting as far as the number of these parcels and what is envisioned for them going forward. And they could be very useful for those people looking to develop and do things in Shawnee going forward to help our development process. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I’d like to extend appreciation to the Planning staff and the Planning Commission. They did a really nice job on this. I think it’s the best one I’ve ever seen, and I was on the Planning Commission for over 20 years and we were updating all the time. This is well done and it provides a lot of additional background and information in there which makes the decision process -- it guides the decision process a lot better. And so I’d just say good job. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I want to thank you, too, for doing a good job. I know in the past we had an opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission and discuss some of the issues with the Land Use Guide. If we could to that in the future that would be great also. So anyway, but I think they did a good job, too.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Is there 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 7-0)

Having passed, Ordinance No. 3128 was assigned.

I. ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 5, 2015, CHAIRED BY COUNCILMEMBER MEYER The next item is I, Items from the Council Committee Meeting of May 5, 2015, Chaired by Councilmember Meyer. Number 1 is to Consider an Agreement for Legal Services. Councilmember Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. The Council Committee unanimously recommended to continue the contract for legal service. Rainey and Rainey has
provided legal services to the City for over 40 years and staff has negotiated a new agreement. And this is just an extension of a conversation we had earlier this year regarding whether or not to bring legal services in-house or seek a formal contract agreement with Rainey and Rainey, so this is the agreement that we talked about that time. So, we can open it up.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there any discussion from the Council?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just want one clarification. I believe when I was reading this it said that the agreement could be terminated by either party with two months’ notice, is that correct?



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, you could fire us with two months’ notice?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I made him give us at least two months.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I was worried about that [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You never know. He might just say forget that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone for 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 7-0)

J. STAFF ITEMS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is J, Staff Items. Item Number 1 is to Consider Agreements for the Council Chamber Remodel Project. The 2015R budget includes funding for the full project. The total project budget is $235,000. The Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) developed by Turner Construction for design, construction, and project management is $125,658. The agreement price with SKC Communications for audio/visual upgrades is $68,181.

There are two recommended actions. The first is to consider an agreement with Turner Construction. The second is to consider an agreement with SKC Communications. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. The more information that we get on this, I just -- I know we’ve talked about in the past. I really think that -- I don’t know that I necessarily like the design-build concept, especially for this room here. I think that we could probably get more of what we need for a more economical price if we actually go out for bids and request. If we’re going to audiovisual, you know, why don’t we go out for bids on the audiovisual. If we want to, you know, get new chairs, maybe, you know, whatever, I think that -- I don’t know that we need a conference room back here. I don’t know that we need a new dais. Maybe it needs a facelift. I just think that we should, you know, that we should put the brakes on this thing and probably put together a short spec and go out for bids.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: My only question would be to Mr. Pflumm is are you saying that you want staff or you want the City to GC the project? Do you want to bid each individual component and then GC the project or hire a contractor and individually bid it?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, we could put a spec together and then contractors could bid the job. General contractors bid the job.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, you have a general contractor bid it.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Based on a design that we come up with?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. So, let’s say we do that and there’s a conflict. Let’s say something doesn’t come together right and so here we are as a city, and that’s why I like design-build is you have one point of reference. If something that goes wrong, you have one person that you deal with. So, if we hire the architect, if we put together a design and then, you know, we go and bid for a general contractor to do it and there’s an issue and you have an architect saying, well, that wasn’t my issue, that was the architect. You know, the architect -- and the contractor is saying, no, that’s not my issue, that’s -- it could tie it up forever. And it’s happened. And I’ve seen it happen. And my concern is in a project like this as a City, could it be done cheaper? Maybe. At the end of the day it’s still the same contractors that are bidding it. It’s still -- that contract is going to go out for bid just a general contractor would and say, you know, bid these individual components, carpet, paint, sheetrock, everything else. You know, I support it from the standpoint of a single reference, a single person, single party responsibility that has designed it, has bid it, that’s contracted it that we can go to. And if there is an issue in the middle of the construction that it’s their responsibility. You know, and then your other comments, and I’m just going to say it again, this room hasn’t been touched in 20 years. I mean, you know, can we do a facelift to the dais? I guess you could. Does it accomplish what we want? I don’t know. I mean, the whole idea was to get cabling and some other things into the dais for some technology upgrades and which we can’t do unless we saw through some concrete and come that way and do it. It still doesn’t solve the issue of what is not -- it’s kind of a privacy issue we have here where we don’t have a two-tiered dais like most every other governing body has or we’re kind of sitting behind something, kind of where everything we have is sitting right out kind of eye level with everybody. I mean, you know, in touring other council chambers, you know, we’re way behind the eight ball. And I personally don’t want to be behind the eight ball. I think we’re too big of a city, we’re too fast growing. And, you know, if we’re going to put ourselves out there as the place to do business, then I think we need to portray that image, and I just don’t think this is portraying that image.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Neighbor and then Councilmember Meyer and then Councilmember Pflumm and then Councilmember Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. I would point out, you know, just a couple of things. Last time there was a major upgrade to this building, this inside here was 1990. That was in the 20th century. The population of Shawnee was roughly 36,000 people. Less than one percent of all the information transmitted was on the Internet and Consumer Price Index was 127.4. Now, we’re well into the 21st century. The population in Shawnee is 65,000 and growing. Everybody is involved with the Internet, tremendous amounts of information cross it daily. We’re now into the fiber. The City is involved with that. As just found today we have electronic problems going on right now as far as our microphones in here. And the Consumer Price Index is up to 386,000. I’m sorry, 238. By and large Shawnee has basically -- we’ve grown about almost twice in the last 25 years since this building was majorly renovated. I think that people we find here park down here when you come in on Shawnee Mission Parkway is designed to be a good welcoming for anybody coming into Shawnee, to show that we are a progressive thinking city. That’s what we try to do. Frugally, I would admit that that’s what our patrons think and what they expect. I am for this project. This project started out well -- almost $600,000 and has been pared down to the bare bones. And I think it’s a good project. I think we need to do it, to, you know, it’s time to move forward. We need to keep our image up and keep our image moving forward. That’s what the people expect. That’s what we need to do to attract more people and more business. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. I don’t disagree with the need for upgrades, particularly the technology. No question. I guess my concern or personal frustration or I guess the one I’m back and forth about is I don’t have a great frame of reference for what these costs look like, so this is a little bit of Greek to me. So, I guess I would feel better if we had a couple of options, be that the bid process or whatever it is. And I don’t doubt that Turner has put together a good proposal, but I just don’t have any idea. I don’t have anything else to compare it to. So, I would feel better about it knowing that we’re getting the most bang for the buck and, you know, seeing how much we can get for the budget that we have.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, just to kind of, you know, go back. I mean, as far as some comments that were made in reference to the way projects go. Ninety-nine percent of the projects out there are bid to general contractors and the general contractor gets the job done. The design-build process really lends itself so that you don’t get what you wanted to get. Because when it was originally proposed to us we had a big long list. And that list is roughly half of what it was for the exact same dollars. So, I just think that we should go out for bids and go to a general contractor and, you know, and then have, you know, have the project done, and put together a very simple specification. You know, I know we need ADA approval, but I think we can get away with having a ramp that we move in and out for, you know -- we don’t have anybody up here that’s handicapped. And we want to accommodate them, so we’ve got to have a ramp available, but we don’t have to have it in the way. And if we do put a ramp in, we can run our cabling through the ramp. I mean, there is millions of ways to get the cabling from one wall up here. And the other way is to do it wirelessly. So, there’s so many options out there that are so much more economical than what’s been proposed. So anyway, that’s my opinion.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I just wanted to draw your attention to some documents in your packet. I did go and check with some of the surrounding cities and try to get cost information for some of the upgrades and remodel projects that they did. I wasn’t terribly successful, but I did get some cost information back from Prairie Village and the City of Overland Park. Granted they’re not apple-to-apple comparisons and, you know, the size of their space is different. And I guess one of the other issues to is some of the other cities, they were having difficulty locating cost information, so that information hasn’t been forthcoming. I think Overland Park was probably the most similar in terms of the scope of the project and everything that it included with the facade and facility renovations and the technology upgrades. And so that pricing is there and you can see that it came in more than ours. The other difficult or the challenge that I have with this is that most of the cities conducted these upgrades separately, so they would engage on a facility renovation as kind of a first phase or prior to a technology upgrade. It wasn’t common that I was found those that were coupled together, which made it more difficult to get cost information as well. And so just to throw that out there. There is some information there which you can see. I hoped to get more, but have still been waiting on getting some of that information. But to provide at least some basis of comparison for what’s been done out there and try to get -- see what costs are relevant, so, just wanting to mention that. Then have a second point, as to what was brought up, if I could get a clarification on. I know we have some sunk cost with this project already in terms of the design and what is that? I guess if we go and take this out to bid completely, that’s going to be costs that’s not going to be able to -- we’re not going to be able to get that cost back. So, what is that cost? And if we take this out to bid, we can’t use this design either because it’s proprietary. So, what does that mean in terms of -- do we -- when we take that bid are we going to be dealing with three, four, five different designs and having to choose between a design? Does it give us less flexibility and leverage in terms of deciding what we want and picking and choosing? And that’s it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And Mr. Powell could probably address those cost issues best.

CITY CLERK POWELL: Yes. Stephen Powell, City Clerk. So far we’ve spent $23,000 for the Phase I process, which included preliminary design and the development of the guaranteed maximum pricing.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And, Mr. Powell, you might just clarify. What portions of that are actually bid?


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The SKC is entirely a state contract and has already been bid, correct?

CITY CLERK POWELL: Right. That’s absolutely correct. All of the construction components would be built or bid by Turner Construction as the general contractor, so all the sheetrock, all the wood, all that would be bid. The pricing that they developed is based on estimates that were prepared by their design consultant, which is HTK Architects as well as folks inside Turner Construction who have that experience in putting together pricing. Does that answer the question?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes, that does. And that was all based off of the maximum figures that we provided to the --


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: -- Council at the onset?



CITY CLERK POWELL: The $235,000 maximum is what they could not go over.


CITY CLERK POWELL: You’re welcome.

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

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I just want to, you know, and Mr. Pflumm brought it up, so when you talk about it, ADA is a big part of this. You say you could put a ramp, I don’t think we could. If you look at where our doors are, it would be very difficult to ramp up to this dais. And if you did, you know, if we got someone elected this next election and we didn’t do anything and was in a wheelchair, you couldn’t come down without moving every chair in here you couldn’t do it. And let’s look at the position of Mayor who sits in the middle. If you had a Mayor that -- who got injured, spend few months in a wheelchair. I hope that doesn’t happen. I’m not trying to jinx you, but the reality is you really can’t. The access behind you is tight. And that is one of the, you know, going on the tours and looking at the other council chambers that is one of the things that was a common theme amongst them was adequate room behind the chairs to the back wall and handicap access to it, so that if you did have someone in a wheelchair or someone that had mobility issues, you could actually get them and move around and get to a seat and we don’t have that. So, I guess the question would be do we spend a whole lot of money on what we have and then take the chance of a couple years down the road, a few years down the road, someone gets elected who has mobility issues and then what do we do then? Do we take that 50 to $100,000 we spend kind piecemealing it and throw all that away and redo it anyway because now we have to because we have someone with a mobility issue. So, I just -- I think if you’re going to do it, do it right. I think as a City, as a municipality you can’t ignore those issues. I mean, I think we have to be at the forefront of mobility access or we’re just not doing what we’re supposed as a municipality. The other thing I would say and I don’t know, I mean, you know, and I don’t want to -- I don’t know if he’s just, I don’t know if I should even bring this up. I know several months ago we had a -- we were doing something on a road out in western Shawnee and, you know, Ernie Straub has got a construction company in Shawnee here and he pays attention to what we do. And, you know, on something completely -- I wouldn’t have expected him to show up on, he came in and just, you know, hammered me and hammered us for spending money on a road out there, so I’m assuming he’s paying attention on this. And I would just have to think that if we were just phenomenally out of line on this, somebody would have heard from him. I mean, he, you know, he would have called me. He would have called Stephen. He would have called somebody. He’d call one of you guys. I haven’t heard from him. And he’s not sitting in the office yelling at us. Maybe he doesn’t know about it. Maybe he didn’t see it. I’m assuming he does though because he pretty much pays attention to what we do. So, I don’t know. And I’m not saying that to be facetious. I would think that if this was totally unreasonable I’m pretty certain Ernie would have voiced his opinion on that and I haven’t heard from him. So, you know, I think it’s something we need to do. We could spend a whole lot of time bidding it and doing different things. The design-build works. I’ve been involved in the design-build projects. It’s not a bad way to go because you’re still going to go out and bid each one of those components. It’s not just him putting a number on it and we’re going to be able to see those bid numbers, so, I support it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Who put together the first estimate, you know, based on the $235,000 and the list of items that we were semi-promised for the 235?

CITY CLERK POWELL: Turner Construction and SKC and then the architect HTK worked together during the Phase I process to come up with that guaranteed, well, the guaranteed maximum price I should say. Let me back up just a moment. That 235 number came from the budget process in 2014, in 2015 and then 2015R, that’s where that 235 number came from. We had several items budgeted individually. And as we looked at those and thought, well, all of these items relate to this room, why not pool that money together and see if we can get a better project out of those resources. So, that’s when we came back to the -- or that’s when we created the committee that looked at -- did all the research last fall and came up with those recommendations that we presented in the, I think around February we came back to a Committee meeting and presented those recommendations. From all that information the Committee recommended that the Governing Body approve the design-build process for that project because there were so many components to it. That for staff to have to bid out all those little pieces and be the general contractor for that, it would be more difficult than having one person kind of work together with the contractors and the AV consultants and the designers to come up with a project that would fit within that budget. So, we came back to Council. The Governing Body approved the design-build process. We put that out to bid. We had two teams who submitted proposals. We had an internal committee who ranked those. Turner, SKC and HTK Architects had the highest points, so then we brought the Phase I contract to the Governing Body, which included the preliminary design and the development of the guaranteed maximum price for the project, which included all the components that are in the two contracts that are on the agenda tonight.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Let me just add something to what you said there. When that was presented to us there was a list of items there. I mean, I know I thought the $235,000 price was rather high for what we were doing. Okay. I know that the Mayor had mentioned that, you know, that’s as much as a house. That seems like a lot for really what we were doing to this room. And we’re not taking out those rooms which was probably 80 percent of the issue. So, really we’re down to, you know, more superficial type items and we’re still paying the exact same dollar amount. I mean, we’re not even removing those doors and making those bigger.

CITY CLERK POWELL: So, I think the list that you’re referring to is the needs and the wants that the committee that was formed to research this issue came up with. They worked together to develop all the things that they felt that we needed as a city versus things that we wanted, but didn’t necessarily need. And I think when you’re referring to knocking out those back walls that was more of a want than a need. I think we realized pretty early on that 235 probably wouldn’t accommodate that when you looked at needing to upgrade the audiovisual system and then making some other modifications to the room. And so that list of needs and wants did come from that committee. And then Turner and their team used that list sort of as their, I don’t want to say like a grand plan, but sort of a master plan to say, well, if, you know, you wanted everything on this list, here is what the cost is and then staff worked with SKC, Turner and HTK to narrow that down to the items that are currently in the two contracts. And we ended up from the list of needs and wants with almost all of our needs met, and I believe a couple of our wants were met. So, we did go through that list pretty thoroughly and we worked with them very closely on identifying if we wanted a new dais, you know, what are the different options for materials. You know, do we go with a Formica counter top which isn’t very durable or do we go with a little bit higher grade. So, we worked with them on just about every single component to make sure that we could get something that was durable, would last, was within budget. You know, we took to heart what some of you all said during those discussions where you didn’t want something that was way over the top. You didn’t want something too flashy. You wanted it to be more modest. And we felt like Turner and their team worked really well with us to get us to where we are today. So, I hope that answers your questions and gives you a little bit of background on it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It doesn’t make me think that we’re getting all our money’s worth, but I have one question for Brandon. A minute ago did you indicate that most of the other cities individually bid out like the electronics and then the, you know, let’s say the dais and then the seating and that, or did they do them all as one big project?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, several of the cities I reached out to, it had been done in two separate projects. And typically that was just -- that was based on, you know, needs at the time. So, hey, you know, we’re going to do the technology upgrades now because we have a need for them. And then, you know, Phase II, which came later was the building upgrades. There were a couple cities, a handful of cities said they’d get back to me. So, that’s based on the ones that did get back to me. So, for example, Overland Park did it all as part of one and so they were able to go back to that in terms of 2005. Prairie Village, it was separate. Roeland Park, it was separate. I don’t have exact cost information from them, but I spoke to their city clerk on the phone and those were two separate projects. But in most cases it wasn’t bid out every item separately, but it was two separate packages. It was the technology upgrades as one and the facility is another, done at usually two different time periods.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: A couple things I’d like to say and that is, the first one is kind of a small thing, but I wanted to throw it out because we’ve heard argument to the contrary. And although we’ve almost doubled in population we’re actually talking about reducing the size of this facility as far as seating capacity, so I think that’s a significant point. If we have so many more people to serve why are we making the Council chamber seating capacity less? Okay. Aside from that last week, last Tuesday, we sat and we were presented a lot of information concerning the drainage situation in this community. And the fact that we have aging pipes, aging culverts. We’ve got sinkholes now that we didn’t have before. We’ve got pipes collapsing. We’ve got some emergency repairs that we’re going to need to do. And we’re here spending $235,000 to dress up this room. And I’m having trouble with that because I can see in real terms needs out there, very serious needs that are not going to be addressed in our infrastructure, maintenance of our infrastructure while we’re jazzing up this room. And I’d like to have a nice room too. I mean I’m not going to sit here and say I wouldn’t think that was really sweet to have a very nice Council chamber. But I’m thinking we’re getting out of focus here. You know, our primary responsibility is to the City. When people check their money into the kitty and say, you know, go take care of things, they’re looking for public safety. You know, we want to have a fireman if we’ve got a fire. If somebody is trying to break into my house, I’d like to be able to call the Shawnee Police and have them come to my house and respond quickly to take care of that situation. We like the water to drain from our property in an appropriate manner. We like the roads to be good. Those are pretty critical items and those seem to be the things we’re ignoring to a great extent while we’re focused on a lot of other personal items. And I would submit that if I’m looking at a city with respect to whether that’s a place I want to conduct business in, I want to live there and so on, I would pay a lot of attention to the condition of the infrastructure in that community. Do the roads look bad? Are they not taking care of those? How are they going to take care of me? Is the drainage bad? Are we having backups? Are we having flooding we shouldn’t be having? Have we got collapsing facilities out here that are in need of emergency repair? So, to me it’s really kind of a -- I know that this $235,000 is not going to fix that. I mean, it’s a drop in the bucket. But what it is, you’ve got to start somewhere. Where are you going to start saying, hey, I want to turn this thing around and put a focus on those things that really are critical issues for this community and we’re going to really work hard to get those taken care of. And, you know, if we have a banner year and we got a bumper crop or whatever and we want to do some things here in this Council chambers, okay. I’m not opposed to the idea, I’m opposed to, I guess to the great extent the timing and the fact that we are really ignoring some very important things in front of us in kicking the can down the road and saying, oh, let’s don’t worry about that, let’s just fix up the Council chambers, hire more people, let’s just do all this stuff. So, let’s just satisfy our wants and let’s ignore our needs. And so that’s what I have to say about it. I think it’s a real issue. And those people that are saying they’re not getting any comments in regards to opposition, I have. I’ve received a number of e-mails from my constituents saying, what in the world are you guys doing spending all that money to fix up the Council chambers. And I’m not making that up. I’ve got a number of them that have stopped by my office. I’ve got them in my saved file over there for Council business. I can pop them up for you and let you read them if you’ve like to. But, yeah, there is opposition to it. And I think some people on this Council have received some of those e-mails as well. So, that’s what I have to say.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would just say, first of all on e-mails, I just want to address that while I’m thinking about it. I think I’ve only received one e-mail of opposition. It was actually someone from Ward II. I would just say this about -- when you talk about reducing the size of the room, yeah, it does seem like we’re going backwards, but number one, we have technology now that we’re invested in that the idea is I think to put less demand on this room. We have less and less people attending. We have more and more people using technology, so I think the technology investment is paramount in what we’re doing here. That has to be done because I think we have more and more people that want to listen from home, and I know people would love to see us put in a video system and broadcast it. And I’m all for it if we want to step up to that next level. But let’s talk about the size of this room. So, I look out here right now. So, let’s take staff members out of the equation here and we have a couple here because they got appointed to the Planning Commission. Ray just got up and left and went out the door, so he’s a frequent flyer. He’s here every week. We’ve got a reporter from the Dispatch. We’ve got two other people, three other people here, four maybe. I mean, the only time this room ever is full is when we’re giving awards or we’re, you know, honoring somebody for something. The room fills up for usually about ten minutes and as soon as it’s over, they can’t get out the door fast enough. So, here this is what I find interesting. Yeah. I know you’ve got a lot of e-mails. I’m sure you did. You’re in Ward II. I got one from Ward II. But there’s a $235,000 expenditure that we’re going to be voting on tonight and we have an empty house. There might be somebody out there that wants to get up and talk about it, maybe they will. But for the most part I don’t see 20-30 people out there ready to get up and line up and oppose this. And they might get up, you know, one or two of them. But I’m just -- I don’t get it. I mean, if there’s that much passion out there where are they all at? They know it’s 7:30 on a Monday night, we’re having a meeting, this item is on the agenda, they should be out there. And when I don’t see that, I don’t get the e-mails, you know, I’m assuming that people are -- their attitude is, yeah, I want to live in a nice city and I want things to be nice. I mean, this is what I find really amazing is everybody jump in the car and drive out to the Justice Center and go sit in our court because we have a nicer facility for people that go to court in Shawnee than the facility for us to come in and conduct the City’s business. Does that make sense? I mean you’re not going to put -- you’re not going to build a 20-some million dollar building and put in a less than nice courtroom. But for the people that are going to court in Shawnee because they got arrested or tickets or whatever else, they go into this beautiful facility and we’re sitting here conducting the City’s business. We have developer’s coming to us wanting to spend 30-40 million dollars in our City and this is the room we do it in. But if you get a speeding ticket and you’ve got to go pay it, you go to a $23 million or whatever building. You go into this beautiful courtroom. Why wouldn’t we want to have just as nice a facility here to conduct business as we do to conduct court? I mean, I would think that we would want that at equal image.

MAYOR DISTLER: And to clarify, is it like six less seats or eight less seats, do you remember?

CITY CLERK POWELL: I believe the current seating capacity is a little over a hundred, so we’re losing about 25 seating capacity. But the chairs would be purchased on a joint purchase agreement with the Civic Centre because they are replacing their chairs this summer too. So, we would be able to reuse the chairs that the Civic Centre is replacing and store them in one of the back closets, so that if we ever did have a meeting where we needed that extra seating, we would have the space to set up the chairs to bring it back up to capacity as well as use the lobby to seat people out there if we ever needed to. There is currently an audio feed into the lobby, we just don’t use it because we never have to seat anyone out there.

MAYOR DISTLER: And that’s part of the overall vision as well to increase the functionality of this room --


MAYOR DISTLER: -- for other community uses versus just these meetings.


MAYOR DISTLER: So, we would get more use out of this room with an investment in the room.



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just -- that brings up another point. I mean, kind of got the impression that we were going to have a monitor out there, or at least those doors would be open so they could see the monitors. You know, that’s really not that expensive to put a monitor out there, so that if we’ve got individuals that are waiting to talk about their particular subdivision or something like that, they could hear and they could see what items that we were going over at the time. So, I’m not opposed to an upgrade to this room, I just think that we’re not doing it in a frugal manner. We’re not doing it, I don’t know, the way that most of the people I know that would expect us to do it. And I don’t know. I just kind of thought it was kind of expensive for all those items we had up there and, you know, we’re only getting half of those. So, are we ready for a motion or --

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, I was going to see if anyone from the audience wanted to speak to this item.

MR. ERLICHMAN: You say this thing is not working?

CITY CLERK POWELL: Just speak a little louder.

MR. ERLICHMAN: Ray Erlichman, (Address Omitted). When this came up a few weeks ago I learned something about this project, which I was not aware of at the time, and Mr. Kenig touched on it this evening, that the designs are proprietary. Now, as most of you know I’m not shy about voicing my opinions, so I’m going to voice it. For us to spend over $20,000 and we don’t own those plans, I think personally that’s an abomination. We should own those plans and we should be able to take them to whatever contractor we want to build it. It should not be theirs. It’s ours. We paid the money for it. Let’s talk about a couple of things that are on here. Number one, we talk about this conference room that might go in back there and it’s only going to be roughed in now and finished off a couple years down the road. When I was up here a couple weeks ago I said, you know, where is the money going to come from because that thing is going to have to be totally soundproofed. Otherwise, when you folks go into executive session everybody out here is going to hear everything that’s going on in there. And somebody mentioned that it was soundproofing that was already included in one of these figures. And when I looked at the figures again tonight I didn’t see where that was included. So, I don’t know about that. I mentioned the Kevlar. That’s a feel good, gee, wouldn’t it be nice. In my opinion, a waste of money. I think I tried to describe what would happen if somebody came in here. They’re not going to be shooting down at the skirting on the dais. Now, something else caught my eye and that was the comment in this list about the money from SKC, or what it would cost SKC to do the audiovisual, and that it was based on the State of Kansas contract. Now, I don’t know how many folks sitting on the dais have ever dealt with the State of Kansas. I have. I’m a vendor to the State of Kansas. When something is on a State of Kansas contract, it is not necessarily the lowest price. What it is, it’s the lowest price for those who bid on it and gave it to the State of Kansas on a contract. And I’m going to make a statement and you can verify very easily by contacting any of the departments, KDOT or any of them. Because a lot of companies don’t bid on those contracts, those purchasing items from the State -- for the State I should say, don’t have to go with the contract if they can get equal or better at an equal or lower price. Now, there’s a couple of variations on that. And let’s just say Pflumm and Company has a widget for $12 and Jenkins and Company has the same widget for $10. Pflumm and Company is on the contract, but the State purchaser can go with Jenkins because it’s lower, it’s the same item. If Jenkins is the same price, they can still go with them. They don’t have to go with the contract. But now let’s take another example. Let’s say Kenig and Company has a widget and it’s $16 and Pflumm’s is still $12. But Pflumm’s has a guarantee spec to last one year and Kenig’s widget has guaranteed specs, it’s been proven to last two years. His yearly cost on his item to the State is now $8, this is $12. So, that person in the State can go to Mr. Kenig and buy it from him. So, just because an item says it’s State of Kansas contract does not necessarily mean that it’s the best price out there. It’s the best price that was given to the State for those companies that wanted to bid on the State contract. A lot of companies don’t want to bid on state contracts. You know, sometimes there’s guarantees where they have to hold a price for a year or two or three or whatever the case may be, or they have to hold it for two years and the State can force them to take it for an additional two years. A lot of companies don’t want to do that because they don’t know what their P&L is going to look like two, three, four years from now. So, that’s something that I think needs to be looked into. My comment a couple weeks ago, certain things do need to be done. The audiovisual is one of them. But some of this fluff, I can’t see it and I think, Ms. Meyer, I think you mentioned this evening something about having a menu for an option or something. Was that -- did I hear you correctly?


MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. Well, I left my hearing aids at home and the mics aren’t working, so I just wanted to make sure I heard that correctly. And I think that’s what we need. But I said what I wanted to say.

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

MS. PETERSON: Hi. I’m Kathy Peterson. (Address Omitted). I think part of the problem with either dissent or approval is more that people don’t -- they’re just seeing the facelift portion of it, they’re not seeing the nitty-gritty basics that you guys are having to deal with. And that would be, number one, yes, this building was built a very long time ago. I just experienced renovating an older facility. And you get into things that were done differently 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago that become costs and it appears that SKC and Turner and those guys have -- they understand the situation and that’s why they’ve given you the number they’ve given you. But the ADA compliance and the technology upgrades are what has to happen to make those happen. The fluff is really just new face that you have because you have to tear that out. You have to dig up the concrete. As someone who is looking to do business more and more in Shawnee and encourage others to come here, yes, the fluff, I’m sorry, we see it on our TVs every day. It’s a commercial. Sometimes they’re annoying as all get out, but they obviously work. So, we are competing with other cities that have decided to make that move. And if we’re going to continue to compete we have to have the same electronic capabilities, the same presentation. And you can do that at a reasonable cost that doesn’t defy who we are which is down-to-earth people. And as much as I hate to say this, that number with what has to happen unfortunately is not that scary. It is what it is today when you’re just -- it’s a reasonable number in my experience unfortunately, but it is. So, thank you. Nice to see you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Would you like to come forward?

MR. KRUEGER: Hi. I’m Nick Krueger, (Address Omitted). So, I’m a little bit partial to this. I’m with SKC. So, I thought I’d just come in and kind of speak my mind on kind of what’s been going on. So, my company has been local here to the Shawnee area for probably 20-plus years. I serve on the Development Council, the Chamber of Commerce. So, while you can go out and bid these items out and maybe save ten percent, whatever it is, you’re taking that business outside of the local economy from a Shawnee perspective. So, that’s it from the AV side. And being in the industry for ten years, the one thing, a caveat if you do bid this out and take it piece by piece by piece, be very careful of your change order process. That is one thing that’s going to stick you on the back end that you will not -- you will not be [inaudible] those costs. It’s the overall change order. People miss a cut, they say, oh, that wasn’t part of the spec. It’s going to be $10,000 to fix that cut. So, whatever direction you guys decide to go, it might look like a lot up front, 230, we can save 10 to 15 percent by bidding this out bit by bit, you’re going to pay for it in those change orders. So, that’s all I have.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve got a question for you.

MR. KRUEGER: Yes, sir.



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think I saw it in there. But roughly, what’s the ballpark on that?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: 63K. So, I mean, we got a lot more than 63K and that’s most of what I think that we were looking to get was the audiovisual type of stuff, you know what I mean? So, I don’t think anybody here has an issue with, you know, making a facelift or making upgrades or whatever, they just have -- I just have a problem with the process. The design-build process is not necessarily beneficial for the end user.

MR. KRUEGER: The design portion of it was competitively bid out because we were part of that process. We had to come in, present --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Competitively to who though? I mean, it’s a point system, right?

MR. KRUEGER: It was open according to the website. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I got the information off the website and that’s -- we showed up for the bid meeting and put our best foot forward and we were awarded it. So, it was a competitively bid process. Again, the design-build portion protects you those costly change orders. Because I guarantee in the industry any time and every time we work with another individual and they’re not protected from the change order process you’re not paying an average of 10 to 12 percent markup like the State of Kansas called here, you’re paying a 50 percent markup to do that change order. So, it just costs you in the long run.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I understand. I bid contracts, so.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I’m going to add. I meant to bring that up, too, and I’m going to totally agree with what he says and I’m glad he brought that because the change order process can absolutely kill you in a deal and that’s what nice about the design build. Go back to what I said before is you have one person responsible from start to finish. They design it. They spec it and they bid it and they build it. And if there’s a change order based on something that was unforeseen that’s their problem, or that they missed. Now, if it’s a change order that we see and we want to do this different, obviously we’re going to pay for it. But I mean I can show you, you know, I could parade a group of people in front of you and talk about change orders that have totally destroyed a project, I mean, ran them 20-30 percent over budget because of lack of communication between an architect and what they spec’d and the contractor who just, you know, for whatever reason not everybody was on the same page, just does away with that. I mean, at the end of the day personally, yeah, are we spending a little bit more, we could be. But is it worth protecting because I think we’re better protecting the taxpayers’ money. I think when we leave open-ended and we try and manage that ourselves and deal with change orders then we could realistically go way over what we’re spending. This is a guaranteed max. Guaranteed max. This is what we’re going to spend. And I think that better protects the taxpayers’ money than entering into the realm of unknown.

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

MAYOR DISTLER: I will accept a motion on the first recommended action.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would like to make a motion.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’d like to make a motion that we send it back to staff and, you know, maybe change the processing and go out for bids and work with an architect and get it done that way. I think we’re going to save a lot more dollars.


MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. I will take a roll call vote. Mr. Neighbor?






MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Blake? You’re fine either way.


MAYOR DISTLER: Yes? Okay. Councilmember Vaught?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig?


MAYOR DISTLER: So, the motion passes.

MR. RAINEY: The motion passed. It was 4-3. Did everyone else read it that way as well?


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 4-3). Well, I guess we don’t have a second recommended action then do we?
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Item Number 2 is to Consider Approving a Payroll and Human Resources Information System Contract. Automatic Data Processing (ADP) has been the City's payroll software provider since 1985. In 2013, the City issued an RFP and began looking at vendors to streamline processes and increase efficiencies. After considerable research, staff is recommending Ultimate Software UltiPro for the Payroll and Human Resources Information System. The recommended action is to consider approving a contract with Ultimate Software UltiPro. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion on the first --


MAYOR DISTLER: I’m sorry. Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thank you. You know, I was just not really clear on what the cost of converting over [inaudible] system was going to be because I know it had pretty good numbers on what we’re paying now but I didn’t really understand from the packet here whether that was going to be a significant increase in cost or whether it was going to be flat line or I don’t really know.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I believe it’s on page 265 of your packet.

MS. KELLY: Debbie Kelly, Assistant Finance Director. The conversion fee is $37,320 to transfer all of the employee data from ADP over to UltiPro with some possible additional costs for check history and position history that’s included in that $25,000 in 2016.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just one of the other numbers here, too, annual service cost.

MS. KELLY: Right. That’s the annual cost to process payroll in HR. That’s the annual cost, $21 a month per employee.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: All right. And what’s the current?

MS. KELLY: Current cost for ADP is $87,500.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, it’s an increase in cost?

MS. KELLY: Right. But we’re increasing our modules as well. We’re adding on-boarding and performance assessments.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And then you’ve got an estimated additional 25,000 in 2016 for the implementation services?

MS. KELLY: That’s for historical data and time clocks and some additional items that we may need.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: But I would also -- down here it says, “Quoted cost for both annual service and implementation are within the already budgeted amounts,” correct?

MS. KELLY: Yes. It’s all budgeted.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. If there’s no other discussion I will accept a motion on the first recommended action.



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 7-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of the Public Drainage Easement on Lots 27 and 28, South Monrovia Subdivision (SAV-15-001).

As part of the negotiation for additional drainage easements for the 59th Terrace and Quivira Road Storm Drainage Improvement Project, the owner of Lawrence Glass and Mirror Company located at 12215 Johnson Drive requested the City vacate portions of existing drainage easements that are no longer necessary. The owner of the property has submitted a petition requesting vacation of the easement. A public hearing and passage of an ordinance is required.

There are three recommended actions. The first action is to conduct a 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: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0).

MAYOR DISTLER: We are now in a public hearing. This is a formal public hearing required by law. This public hearing will begin with a presentation by Development Services Director Doug Wesselschmidt. After Mr. Wesselschmidt's 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 and I will recognize you to come forward. As I stated earlier, in order to have an accurate record for 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 hearing, 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 Council discussion, followed by a motion.

Mr. Wesselschmidt, please go ahead.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Thank you. As stated, Doug Wesselschmidt, Director of Development Services. Jeff LaCombe has presented a petition on behalf of Lawrence Glass & Mirror Company to the Governing Body requesting the vacation of a portion of the public drainage easement located at the rear of 12215 Johnson Drive on the Lots 27 and 28 of the South Monrovia subdivision.

As part of the negotiation for the additional drainage easements needed for the 59th Terrace and Quivira Road Storm Drainage Improvement Project, that’s not the current one that’s going on, but the project just previous to that, the landowner requested the City vacate those portions of the existing drainage easement that staff has determined are no longer necessary with the completion of the new storm drainage system. The subject easement follows the alignment of the existing storm drainage sewer that was abandoned with the completion of the new storm sewer.

The area to be vacated contains approximately 436 square feet and is located on the north side of the new storm sewer, which is at the rear of their building.

Staff has scheduled a public hearing on the petition before the Governing Body at their meeting tonight. Accordingly, a notice of public hearing was published in the City’s
newspaper on Wednesday, July the 15th, in compliance with the Kansas State Statute. As of this date, staff has not received any inquires or written objections, nor have we had any inquiries or objections from any of the utility companies. The staff’s recommendation is that we vacate the 436 square feet of storm drainage easement that we no longer need.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are there any questions from the Councilmembers? 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 7-0). The public hearing is closed.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there any discussion from the Council? The third action is to consider passing an ordinance ordering the requested vacation. 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: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

Having passed, Ordinance No. 3129 was assigned.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider Bids and Award Contract for Street and Storm Sewer Improvements, 59th Terrace - Flint Street to King Street, P.N. 3392, (SMAC TC-21-069).

This project is included on the Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2015. Bids were received on August 4, 2015. The recommended action is to consider awarding the bid and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with Kansas Heavy Construction in the not to exceed amount of $433,291.75. 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 7-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 5 is to Consider Approving Final Plans for the 2015 Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, P.N. 3409, and Authorizing Staff to Advertise the Project for Bid.

Final plans are complete and the estimated total cost of the project is $754,691 and is funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund. The recommended action is to consider approving the final plans and authorizing staff to advertise the projects for bids. 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 7-0)

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Thought you’d like that.



K. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is K, Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to Ratify Semi-monthly Claim for August 10, 2015, in the Amount of $1,508,382.74. 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 7-0)
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2, Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have an item they would like to discuss? Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Can we go back and can I ask for a clarification real quick, or is it too late on the committee redo? Because the motion that Mr. Pflumm made I think is a little vague because we asked staff to go back and individually bid things except we have nothing to bid because we can’t use the design we have. So, are we going to go back and start from square one and go up for bid for an architect or what’s the plan?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Staff is going to have to get together and figure out a plan. We obviously have no one in-house that can develop specifications, so, we would have to hire an architect. How we would go about that we’ll have to look at the --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, we’ve approved something tonight that we really don’t -- there’s no direction on it because we can’t bid anything individually because we don’t have a plan. And so we’ve already spent --


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- 20-some thousand dollars on a plan that basically now we’re going to throw away and start over and pay -- so, are we going to bid that first and then take that and spend the money on that and then figure out how to piecemeal it out because I’m really confused on how this process is going to work now because we have a motion to bid stuff individually when we can’t because that’s not our plan.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’ll just say, I won’t speak for Dan, but my understanding, and maybe I’m wrong in my yes vote is I don’t want to take necessarily Turner and SKC off the table. I’m just looking for a comparison of what a comparable project might be from other folks. I very much think they should still be in consideration. I don’t think we should take that off the table. I’m just looking for a comparison.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’m not sure if that’s going to be an option. That would be up to Turner and SKC whether they’re --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, they wouldn’t want to remain in contention?



CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I don’t know. I don’t know how the contract is written or what the provisions are [inaudible] to that.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I was just going to say we did indicate before we made or during the motion was to get an architect and go out for bids, so that’s what the indication was, so we could get some information.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Nothing to kill Turner or anybody like that, it’s just --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It was to kill the bid that we had going and to start fresh with a new bid. Send it out for bid again when we’ve already accepted bids. That’s what it is.

MAYOR DISTLER: And do you have a rough --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, we’ve done in the past.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do you have a rough estimate of what an architect costs? I’ve never hired one, so I don’t know.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Don’t know right off the top of my head.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It’s going to cost a lot more than $235,000.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. I have. It’s going to cost us a lot more than what [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, since everybody is just discussing whatever they want to discuss, I would say also that I [inaudible] anyway. I was in favor of some audiovisual type stuff. I don’t even know if an architect would need to determine what we’re going to need in the way of audiovisual upgrades.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I’ve got some questions on the traffic on Johnson Drive, actually with our construction project right at, I guess it’s Monrovia to the west and then also the construction project at Village Cooperative. I’ve talked to them several times, you know, about the parking situation. And, you know, so I don’t know how we got there but a lot of people have indicated displeasure. And then today we got several e-mails from one individual and that’s been a dangerous situation right there at Pflumm Woods. If we’re going to allow them to shut down that lane, we shouldn’t allow them to go all the way to the entrance of Pflumm Woods because the visibility was -- it’s been incredibly bad and I’ve notice it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I came out there today. I live in Pflumm Woods. And I could not see squat trying to come out. And I was trying to turn left on Johnson Drive coming off Noland Road. And I tell you, they were parked all the way down to the intersection and I couldn’t see anything. So, I just tried to sneak up and not get killed. Eventually I did go ahead and start pulling -- here comes a car, by gosh. He comes roaring down and it’s about a 45-55 mile an hour raceway anyway people coming down that hill. And so finally I just had to take my chances and I did manage to get out and make a left and head down toward my office near City Hall down here, but that’s really dangerous. And then when I come back here later today, they had two large trucks full of lumber and they had the whole thing shut down. You couldn’t even get down Johnson Drive at all. They had the lanes blocked and you were kind of having to zig-zag around. You could go one lane and you could kind of dodge in between these trucks carrying large loads of building materials. It was just untenable today. I mean, we can’t always do that. I know they’ve got to park somewhere and we’re trying to cooperate with them and all, but that was unacceptable today.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Carol, could you address those two, both of those? I know everyone that I know that is calling the one right there at Monrovia a speed bump. And I brought that up to our staff. And, you know, they did that pavement work right there and they could have went ahead and paved over that bump that goes across the street there. And I know we want to slow people down going through there. We definitely don’t want anybody hurt, so I don’t know what our answer is to something like that. But could you address that, please?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. I can’t give you the details on the Johnson Drive project, maybe Mr. Wesselschmidt can. As far as the Village Co-Overland Park, they have been told to remove the lane and open that lane up by five o’clock tomorrow evening.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, that started as us working with them and trying to allow them to load and unload. It kind of turned into a parking lot which certainly wasn’t our intent and it’s exacerbated and Doug spoke with the project manager today and they’re going to make a different arrangement. So, there will be some from time to time, traffic control as they do have to unload things.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And that’s understandable.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But we’ve asked them to do that on a temporary basis.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean, if they need -- maybe they shut it all down if they got a big crane or something coming in or, you know, something like that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You literally have no line of sight today. You cannot see oncoming traffic.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: As the City Manager indicated, we directed them to remove that lane of traffic. Again, it was intentionally set -- or we walked with them so that it gave them a lane to load and unload, but it ended up being a parking area, so they were loading and unloading in other lane. We’ve asked them to get that out of the way by the end of the day tomorrow. And then with school starting on Wednesday, we’re going to be in a much better situation.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, you know, Doug, they’ve been doing it all along. But they at least were back far enough up the hill where you could at least see an oncoming car.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Today they were literally all the way down to the entrance of Pflumm Woods.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: There’s a no parking sign there.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They were literally like three feet from the --

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Right. Their explanation today was they had some new people on the site, HVAC people. First day on the job, they just parked there. Contractor had them move their trucks. So, there was a difference later on the day than there was this morning. Yeah. This morning we told them they have to -- well, something somewhat related or unrelated is that whether the upcoming phases, they need to get a water line and just a water line all the way across Johnson Drive, so there will be some lane closures as they work their way across Johnson Drive. On the storm drainage project, based on scheduled work with the contractor and their subcontractor doing the paving, and with some cooperative weather this week, hope to have all the paving completed by the end of the week. So, we’ll be out of the road by the end of the week. So, they’re working in front of the office building there --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The workout place there.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: -- today and tomorrow to get that put back in. Again, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday out there paving. So, it should be a pretty good looking road by the end of the week.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And they’re a good contractor, I’m not disagreeing. I just think they left that up there for a speed bump on the -- that’s what everybody is calling it.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. I wasn’t the intention, but it certainly served that way, yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No, it’s already been covered. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Did it slow you down, Dan?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Actually you can’t, I mean, I don’t think the speed was issue really. I mean, everybody -- I think everybody is going slow anyway just to be cautious.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: On all this construction going on, I think I have to cast my vote in favor of AT&T and their fiber optics cable they’re putting in because they’ve substantially exceeded Google in the numbers of utility lines and telephones and gas lines that they’ve broken or torn up. It’s been ridiculous. They’ve evacuated multiple houses several times. Haven’t had a phone since last week sometime. It’s just awful some of the work that’s going on out there. It really is. Pathetic.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other Council topics?



COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I just wanted to get back to the remodel project.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And just a minor clarification. I think part of that I misunderstood, if opening this up for bid causes us to lose out on the pricing that’s something that was not something that I had been fully aware of. I think that part of the issue I have is that we do have 23,000 already sunk into this. And so I think it’s one thing to make adjustments in terms of lines items with what we already have. And then, you know, look at some of those line items if we take those out and, you know, take those to bid to somebody separately. But I am cautious about losing out on our pricing and then being in a situation where with inflation and higher costs of materials that we have a greater project cost overall now based on where we are. So, I just want to say that that is not something that I realized at the time that that would take us completely back to square one in terms of taking this deal off the table, which it sounds like it does.

MAYOR DISTLER: And my understanding, too, after listening to Mr. Powell is that it all has already been competitively bid. It was a bid process. And so not only would we lose the 23,000 investment, we’re going to a competitive bid process that we’ve already done and we have to hire an architect. I don’t know what that costs, but as I said all my renovations I’ve save significant amount of money because I do my own labor.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Are you available for the chamber?

MAYOR DISTLER: You know what, I am. I am. I will do it. So, I don’t know what this means. Are you wanting to –
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I would just say, well, based on that, I mean, I would motion for a re-vote or at least if we’re going to look at this, adjustments to this existing agreement rather than going back to square one, which I didn’t know that’s where that takes us in terms of opening this up for bid. That it takes everything completely off the table.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We’re still in the meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think it would just be a motion to reconsider I would assume.

MR. RAINEY: We’ve looked at something like, and I’m looking at you because I think you were the chairman when we were discussing whether we could bring an item back up. And I thought the proper motion if it’s made at the same meeting with the same notice would be that proper action would be a motion to reconsider. And then if that motion to reconsider is seconded and prevails, then you would reopen the same item again for discussion at the same meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Are you making a motion to reconsider?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes, I do. I make a motion to reconsider.


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Okay. So, first we’ll take a vote on the motion to reconsider. All this favor signify by saying aye.


MAYOR DISTLER: Oppose nay.


MAYOR DISTLER: So, the nay votes were Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Pflumm. Motion passes. (Motion passes 5-2). Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Now, that we’re back on it, I would echo Brandon’s comments. My understanding in support of it was simply to get some competitive alternatives just to make sure that we are in the appropriate ballpark here. I had no intention of taking Turner and SKC off the table. I just needed some comparison is what I was kind of going for in that rather than starting from scratch.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And could you clarify comparison of what? And I want to reiterate what I think Mr. Powell said. All the items, probably not the very small things, but the items within the construction and work within the construction project will be bid by Turner within the project. So, there will be comparisons within the components of the construction, is that correct?

CITY CLERK POWELL: That’s correct. Turner has to follow the City’s purchasing policy.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And I understand that. I guess I’m thinking more globally and maybe I guess I need some input on whether that’s possible because I agree with Dan that I think we had a much larger list that with the amount of funding that we had that got down pretty significantly. So, I mean thinking more of on a project-wise scale rather than the part and parcel of it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I believe the challenge with that, as Councilmember Kenig found and we found as we tried to call other cities. Every project is different. It’s apples, oranges and bananas, so it’s very difficult to do that kind of comparison. If there are other ways to compare it, we’re just stumped on how to do it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I just wish there were some, I don’t know, a construction company, someone who has done this outside of a municipality maybe who can weigh in and say this is a reasonable cost. You know, some basis of comparison here that I feel like I don’t completely have.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, sure. I agree with that.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean, I guess we could, you know, I think I understand where you’re going on this, but I mean we just approved a 400-some thousand dollar stormwater project.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, that’s a need, not a --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, hold on. But do we know that that’s a -- how do we know that that’s a fair number? I mean, how do we really know that any bid we get is a legitimate number? I mean, that’s why it’s a bid process. So, I think what, I mean, what I’m hearing is, and I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, and maybe this isn’t right. But what I’m getting from some people is that we’re getting hustled by Turner because he’s controlling the numbers and he’s going to run those numbers up and max them out and we’re going to get less service for the dollar. And hold on, and maybe that’s not what you meant, but that’s the gist I’m getting. And so Turner, like any other company, he’s a general contractor, so when he takes this component he’s going to go out to the subs and he’s going to bid it. They’re going to come and bid it. If I’m not mistaken, do we see those numbers or not? Do we see his bid numbers?

CITY CLERK POWELL: Yeah. We would be able to see those.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. So, everybody that bids for him, we’re going to see those numbers or staff does. And you’ve got to remember, this 235 is a not to exceed number, so, if it comes in at 200,000, then we’ve got another $35,000 to do more with than what we anticipated. I think what Turner is doing, he’s been doing this a long time, so when you’re bidding sheetrock, it’s not real hard. He pretty much knows that it’s X-amount of dollars per square foot for finished sheetrock ready to paint. And he knows that paint is X-amount of dollars per square foot and he knows that carpet is X-amount of dollars per square foot. He knows that electrical is X-amount per drop. I mean, he doesn’t really have to -- these guys know this because they do this every day. And then most of it comes off of a computer and it comes off of a standardized bidding that everybody uses. So, these numbers are going to come in pretty consistent. A lot of it is who’s busier than who. If someone has got some people sitting around with no jobs, they’ll get more aggressive on it because, hey, let’s get this job because we’ve got, you know, we’re paying these guys, we’re going to lose them or whatever, so that’s the process. And so it’s not like Turner is just going, okay, you’re only going to get this much and then I’m going to just throw this erroneous number. So, I don’t know. I mean, like I said that’s why I’m coming back to this going we’ve already spent a whole lot of money getting to this point that’s just going to vaporize and we basically start this process all over, is that really what we want to do. We’re going to see the bids. We’re going to see the competitive bids for each component, or staff will. And I guess if we really wanted to see them we could tell, hey, we want to see what the competitive bids were. It’s not private information, so, you know, if that’s what everybody is saying, then let’s go ahead and say we want to see the individual bids, the competitive bids on each one. But it’s not going to exceed that 235. We know that. Versus what I said before, this other process, it can easily exceed that because of change orders or whatever else. Unless it’s a change order that we impose because we change our mind, it’s not to exceed. That’s the number.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, and I know, too, in the beginning when we initially saw the total number, it was an overwhelming number. But I know for me then once I saw the breakdown, it made more sense to me because I’m not in the business. Ms. Meyer and then Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I agree with you. And I think, no, Jeff, that wasn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m not trying to be disparaging of Turner. Turner could be completely on par. I just don’t have again a frame of reference for that. And I’ll tell you I am getting, you know, I’m hearing from people. And they’re not saying, it’s crazy, don’t remodel. I think everyone is on board with that. But they’re saying is this an appropriate cost. And I, you know, have a journalism degree, not a construction one, and I’m like, I don’t know. Well, they’re telling me the people who want the contractor telling me it is and I don’t feel good about that answer. That feels like an intellectual copout to me. So, I feel like I wish that I had some way to say, well, we’ve looked at others and this is in the ballpark and it’s an appropriate amount to spend.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. And just to echo. So, I share some of Councilmember Meyer’s concerns as well because I’ve been agonizing with this and trying to know if this is a reasonable cost. So, I will say we are where we are right now. We have a sunk cost of $23,000. It appears to me that if we start this from scratch it will be more expensive either way because we start out with 23,000 in the red. But I will say for future projects like this it would be helpful in the case of maybe Turner getting numbers from them on how much they charge for similar projects, what the cost would end up being. So, even on a contractor basis we have a frame of comparison with projects that they have done in the past that have been similar in nature even it’s not, you know, the City Council chambers, but something that we have in reference. You know, and even just going to the other councils that are out there and getting the numbers from what they’ve done. And again, you know, I’m still -- I still don’t even have the numbers on -- I’m waiting on more numbers from some of those cities. But having some of that up front to kind of know kind of frame of reference in terms of what this is. And it is unique. It is not a house. It’s going to be more. It is commercial. It’s not something mixed if you look at the totality of the project. But anything that we could get up front that helps us with our frame of comparison for our project work would be helpful going forward when we have these kinds of projects so we know and there’s no question because it would be nice to be able to look at that, have that frame of reference and being able to go, oh, yeah, we’re assuming this is good and not have any question about that. And then that information we can get out there. So, I just -- I do think that at this point this project is probably the -- is the best in terms of cost and overall savings based on where we’re at and where we’re going to have to go down the line. But information I think would be helpful to being able to shift through all of this. For those of us that don’t have construction/architectural backgrounds, you know, that are more in other realms.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Mr. Pflumm and then Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I guess the biggest area of contention is the design-build process. And so, I mean, you know, we’ve already started, you’ve already spent some dollars. I think they even indicated that, yeah, you could probably get pricing. You know, so the whole thing is projects in the future we should put them out for bid just like a drainage project. We put a pipe in the ground, we bid it, give it to the lowest guy. If he’s a comparable contractor a lot of times gets the project. So, that’s the major, you know, area of contention right there is just the process. [Inaudible]. Okay. Doing a design-build is not necessarily going to give you the most economical project.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Lots of interesting conversation. Is it okay to make a motion now?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Can I just jump in here for a second? I totally agree with you, Dan. You know, I think moving forward that’s absolutely what we should do. My consternation now, too, as the Mayor pointed out, we approved a design-build process at the beginning of this, so this is kind of where we are. I was just looking for a point of comparison.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right. And I remember I think it was an 8-0 vote when we approved the design-build for this. Mr. Vaught and then Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I want to go back to what I said. Everybody just think about something in the future and I’m going to keep going back to change orders and Kathy got up here and spoke to it. Or not Kathy did, but the gentleman from SKC did. And, you know, do a little research on change orders. They will kill you on a project. And when you hire that architect and you approve that and they do your construction drawings, then you take those and you go out to bid, you have two different parties now who are going to say, no, that’s not my problem that’s the architect’s problem. And I know that because I’ve experienced it. And it cost me a lot of money. So, when you’re a city -- when we’re talking about protecting the taxpayer money and we’re saying how much is this project going to cost, we can say maximum 235. That’s the not to exceed versus we could approve a project and we could get eaten alive on change orders because this is a little of a -- you’re going to have some moving pieces here. And we’re going to run into things that, kind of like what Kathy said. This is an old building. So, you run into something that we’re not aware of. All of a sudden we’ve got a problem. I mean, you know, moving forward, yeah, we’re going to discuss this again and figure out how to do it. But do a little research and talk to the people in design-build. There’s a reason that it’s fairly popular out there and this is one of the reasons. And it’s utilized a lot more than people realize and it doesn’t always come in more expensive.

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

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, I’m ready to make a motion when everybody is done talking.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I just want to make a comment about something that was said by Mr. Vaught about how do we know that bid we had on the storm improvements was a good deal. And I would refer him to page 277 of our packet where it lists one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine different contractors who bid on this. The range of the bids is 433,000 to 572,000, which is a substantial amount of difference being top to the bottom. Plus you’re even putting a page over here and find out the guy has been working for 15 years, we’ve used for a number of projects and thought he did a good job. I was pretty comfortable with that. That one really kind of made me feel okay. This other project that we’re talking about now with improvements to the Council chambers we don’t have that kind of information and that’s where I’ve got some issues with this.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just have one more comment. You brought up that it was an 8-0 vote, and at that time I was actually ready to make a modification to the chamber here. I had voted against it twice in the past and all that. And I thought it was a high number with what we were getting at the time. We’re only getting half of that. Okay. So, now I think it’s much higher. So, that was the --

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, no. It was just that the contention was that it was design-build. But it was design-build was what we voted for. We didn’t vote at that time to go out to bid. That was the point that I was making.


MAYOR DISTLER: It was the process that we were voting on and that’s what you were saying you had a contention with was the design-build. Well, that’s what we voted on was design-build.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But it was based on the information we had at the time. Any information that we had we were getting a lot more. When they actually came back and provided what we’re getting for the 235, it was a lot less than what we had been, you know, perceived that we were getting.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Neighbor. Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I just want to make a comment before Councilmember Neighbor makes a motion. Yeah. Just to echo some of Dan’s comments. It would be easier if we’d look at -- I would be interested in looking at the process going forward. I think one challenging aspect of this is because we are doing so much in one project and trying to get a handle on all of the different components. One thing when I was looking at -- speaking with some of the other cities is a lot of what we’re trying to do now they’ve done throughout the last several years. So, we are behind on much of this. And I think from a cost perspective if we would have done this piecemeal, or some of this throughout probably the past, you know, 10 or 15 years especially we would be looking at a cost savings as well and there would be more -- there would be greater understanding in transparency around line item costs which [inaudible]. So, that’s just to say going forward, too, if when there is an opportunity to make upgrades, you know, on an individual basis and where we have the ability to do that and to save while doing that. I think that also makes sense. We’re in a situation now where we have a slew upgrades that we’re making with the sunk cost of 23,000. But again, just want to put that out there in terms of looking at the future, having it open and on the table. So, thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. And correct me if I’m wrong. This whole process was put out for bid to start out with, right?

CITY CLERK POWELL: Yes. We issued an RFP for the design-build process and we only received two responses to that.


CITY CLERK POWELL: And so we went to them according to the information that was in the Council packet at that time.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. Now, okay. I would like to make a motion to have the Mayor -- authorize the Mayor to approve and to sign an agreement with Turner Construction for a guaranteed maximum price for construction project management of the room portion of this in the amount of $125,658.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Is that the right motion?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Is that the right amount, Steven?

CITY CLERK POWELL: You’re reading Motion A or --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I’m reading -- I’m taking Action A and then I’m putting in the 125, the guaranteed maximum price developed by Turner Construction for design, construction and project management of 125,658.

CITY CLERK POWELL: The price is 125,658.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Pflumm. Motion passes. (Motion passes 5-2).
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I would also move that we authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with SKC Communications for audiovisual upgrades in the amount of $68,181.


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 7-0)


MAYOR DISTLER: And I believe if there is no other items --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Motion to adjourn.

MAYOR DISTLER: -- Councilmember Blake will take us home.


GUEST COUNCILMEMBER BLAKE: If there are no other items, I’ll accept a motion to adjourn.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: She’ll accept a motion to adjourn.

MAYOR DISTLER: She needs a motion first.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second. Sorry, Mickey, you’re out.

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


GUEST COUNCILMEMBER BLAKE: All those opposed say nay. Motion --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You against that one, Dan?

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER BLAKE: The motion passes. We are adjourned.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Speak for yourself.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER BLAKE: The motion passes. We are adjourned. (Motion passes 7-0).

MAYOR DISTLER: There you go.


(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 9:11 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 17, 2015

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary



Stephen Powell, City Clerk

File Attachment Icon