PDF Format:


August 24, 2015
7:30 P.M.

Michelle Distler - Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember JenkinsDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember VaughtCity Attorney Rainey
Councilmember Meyer Finance Director Rogers
Councilmember SandiferInformation Technology Director Bunting
Councilmember Kenig Planning Director Chaffee
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Councilmembers AbsentTransportation Manager Sherfy
Councilmember NeighborCommunications Manager Ferguson
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Sr. Engineering Technician Schmitz
Deputy Planning Director Allmon
Business Liaison Holtwick
(Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)


MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening and welcome to tonight’s meeting of the Shawnee City Council. We are still experiencing issues with the audio system. Although the house mics are not turned up, the audio is broadcasting online and being recorded. 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. I will do a roll call vote at this time. Councilmember Neighbor is absent. Councilmember Pflumm?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer?


MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig?




MAYOR DISTLER: Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence.

(Pledge of Allegiance & Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Before we begin our agenda I would like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the 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 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 roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers’ names who vote in dissent so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is 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)


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is D, Mayor’s Items. Tonight I just want to comment on how proud I was to represent the City at the Pentagon last Friday to formally accept the Freedom Award recognizing the City’s actions in supporting employees who serve in military capacities and thank Sergeant First Class and Firefighter Doug Simms for nominating us. This award reflects the value that our community has for our freedom and those that fight for it. I want to thank the management of the City organization for upholding these important values.

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

MR. MORRIS: Good evening. David Morris (Address Omitted). About nine months ago I came before the body and showed some images of some roads that had been recently milled and overlaid and had some concerns about them. I come before you tonight basically a year later to -- I have some questions and show more photos. So, one of the roads I talked about a year ago was 57th Street between Nieman and Goddard. Today they are getting worse. This is a mill and overlay project that’s a year old. So, that’s a foot for reference point.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: What size shoe was that?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It looks like it’s three. It wasn’t that (inaudible).


MR. MORRIS: Again, a reminder that this is a one-year mill and overlay project. This is 60th Street. Again, a one-year mill and overlay project. You can see where it was started and a new mill and overlay project that was going on. Again, one year. This is 62nd Street. This is some of the images that I brought to you about a year ago. This was right after it was paved. This is it currently. And if you can see the squiggly lines from that was existing right as it was -- right after it was paved, so it’s got nothing but worse. This is a piece of 57th Terrace. That’s basically three months old. It was just done about three months ago. This was, as you can see there’s mill grooves in here. This is a road that had just -- was just prior to them -- put the tack on it that had been milled. This is prior to the overlay. Here’s another section of that same road.

So my questions tonight are, one, are we following the guidelines, ordinances, the design and construction manual of the City on these mill and overlay projects?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I think we’ve talked about this before that every street is different. The streets in your area particularly have a very limited base and structure, so, yes, we follow the guidelines, but those have to be adapted street by street, so.

MR. MORRIS: Okay. And I’m assuming that the contractor is following the contract based on that. So, I mean as a taxpayer to me I don’t feel like I’m getting my money’s worth. It feels like we’re, you know, putting on a whole lot of lipstick on an old sow and calling it a racehorse. And, you know, I can’t imagine that obviously these aren’t lasting seven to ten years or five years. They’re not even lasting one year, quite frankly. So, do we need to relook at our policy based on the fact that we’ve let some of these older roads go so long that the base has catastrophically failed? And if we continue to do as the policy exists right now, we’re going to have more and more of this. And my assumption would be, correct me if I’m wrong, that as taxpayers we’re going to pay again to have that repaired.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s a huge issue, a huge question and we continue to talk about our policies all the time. And certainly as we’re moving into this much bigger program, we’re going to be looking at everything again. We look at everything again year after year. So, it’s hard to tell from your pictures the little spots of what exactly the issues are, but I’d be glad to have somebody look into those areas further too.

MR. MORRIS: Well, I brought that up nine months ago. It doesn’t seem like anything has changed but gotten worse. And I don’t know that the policy has changed either to address known issues. And we’re continuing to do mill and overlay in some of these older areas where the base is catastrophically failed and we’re going to continue to repeat this same cycle.



CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- don’t want to speak to details.

MR. MORRIS: Well, as a taxpayer, I mean that – as a taxpayer, you know, in business and in life I have always been taught that it’s cheaper and faster to do it right the first time.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If you had the funding to do it right the first time.

MR. MORRIS: Well, I just voted for more funding.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh. And as I said, with the bigger program we’re certainly going to look at our program again, but I wouldn’t want to raise anybody’s expectations that we’re going to be able to reconstruct the base of the amount of streets we have that are in the kind of shape that your street is. We certainly are going to begin to make more progress than we would have.

MR. MORRIS: So, I would request that -- I would ask my Councilmen from Ward II to request that we review this policy, our mill and overlay policy, to see, in fact, if this is the best use of taxpayers’ funds, the wisest way to do that.

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

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: There’s a few issues on this, David, and I’m sure you know of it. You know, we’ve developed roads and we’ve done some of that in our own business. And some of the pictures that you have there show different issues. But one of the issues is on the outskirts of the road towards the ditch, you have a thinner road. Where if you have curbs and sidewalks and storm drainage, you have a standard thickness throughout the road, so you have more security on the ends and it’s not going to crack up and break off so bad. I can see that being a downfall on a road. Part of this money that is coming out of our -- this new tax that has come through is to address part of the curbs, sidewalks, storm drainage and some this -- curbs and sidewalks anyway on some of the streets, but just a small percentage of it. It’s going to take a long time to come through and do some of that. One of the questions that –

MR. MORRIS: It’s potentially over a hundred years.


MR. MORRIS: No, it will.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: One of the questions I have is I know we have two-year warranties on a lot of different parts of our roads and a lot of different sidewalks and curbs. I have to agree a little bit when you’re putting asphalt down and you have it down for three months and it’s pulled and has a one-inch gap in it, is that warrantable? Are we able to call the people back out and have them fix that?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Possibly. We’d have to look at this (inaudible).

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Without our expense, you know. And we need to hold, I mean, if these people are getting our bids, and I think I’ve said this before, we need to hold them accountable. And not get back and say it’s going to cost more in legal fees to do this. We need to hold them accountable to where they know and at that point eventually they’re going to fix them probably a little bit better, or watch out so they don’t have to come back, I would think. But there are so many issues that I agree with you that we would probably maybe get some warranty work on. But on some of the other issues on the cracking on the sides of the road, that’s a thinning problem and until we can put curbs in to where we could make the road stationary across it, you know that.

MR. MORRIS: Well probably 90 percent of the images that I showed you were not the edges and were both what appears to me, I’m no expert, but appears to me as when it was laid, it stretched and it never got repaired at the time it got laid, which is 62nd Street and the 57th Terrace.


MR. MORRIS: The others are right in the center of the road.


MR. MORRIS: And, you know, these are fairly good sized pieces, but not the whole roads. And it just seems to me is, from a taxpayer that maybe we address some of these areas that have catastrophic failures, especially in the centers of the roads.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right. Well, what I was told was when we go in to do a road, in a lot of cases, or most cases, they come in and they find the worst parts of the road and they’ll tear that out and repair it first before they mill and overlay.

MR. MORRIS: But that wasn’t the case in this area.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That wasn’t the case obviously in this.

MR. MORRIS: Right. Right. So, I’m just sharing my concerns.


MR. MORRIS: You are the policymakers and the decision-makers. And as a taxpayer I don’t mind paying taxes, but I want them to spend wisely and I don’t see this as being spent wisely. Thank you.

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

MR. PFLUMM: So, I don’t know if they repaired that before they put that asphalt down or not, but I was under the impression that we were going to look at it, you know, nine months ago. I thought you were going to have --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. As far I know we did. I believe Mr. Freyermuth went out and looked at with one of the street folks.

MR. PFLUMM: So, and I think I, I mean, I think we talked about it before, and it was fairly close after they had laid it down about, you know, if we needed to get the contractor back out there, then we should really do that. But, you know, maybe instead of making them rip the whole street up because I don’t know that that’s going to -- if they lay it down again, I don’t know if you’re going to get a better road, but you might want to seal it and put crack sealer and stuff like that in some of those areas. So, and I don’t know, but I know in a parking lot when a parking lot starts doing that you put crack sealer down and you know and it lasts a lot longer. And if you need to do it again, you do it again. So anyway, that’s just my opinion, so I didn’t know where we were as far as Ron Freyermuth going out there.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If you look at the first pictures that David put up, or some of the first ones, and this is an issue I think is going to be ongoing until we address kind of a bigger picture. A lot of this really started -- when we look at what changed with trash trucks. You know, back in the days of Ronnie Deffenbaugh, he had two guys on the back of a truck and that truck drove down the middle of the road and they would jump off, grab trash containers and dump them in the back of that truck. And now we have side load trucks that basically run the edge of those roads. Well, they do in my neighborhood, except I have a curb and it doesn’t really effect it as much. But to expand on what Mickey is saying is, it’s not so much that whether it’s a thin or thick you put a 60,000 pound truck on the edge of that road, and not just once a week because in your neighborhood, two or three haulers. What do you have, three?

MR. MORRIS: Well, and let me make something very clear, it is something that I voted for that was probably when I was on the Council that’s probably one of the things that I wished I wouldn’t have voted the way I had. Hind sight is 20/20. The intention was good. The unforeseen

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: On a single hauler?

MR. MORRIS: Yeah. The unforeseen results is catastrophic because in our neighborhood there is three haulers and each one of them has –


MR. MORRIS: -- recycling, trash, and some of them have yard waste.


MR. MORRIS: And so that’s twelve vehicles on each side of the road, not just --


MR. MORRIS: A week yeah. And it’s –

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: A maximum. A maximum of 12.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And so it is, except I’m going to go -- I think it’s something we need to address, and I was pretty vocal about this and I have been. I don’t think it’s really -- there’s a case we made whether we could go single hauler or not, and I get that. But at the expense of our roads, I think we need to really look at that. You know, I would to look at roads where, and I don’t know if there are any. I’d love to look at a neighborhood where there is, or a street where there is no curbs and gutters that’s got one hauler and see what kind of problems we’re having, or maybe there is, you know, it’s two of them. I just know in my neighborhood, once a week a truck comes through and it’s done. I think both from a safety perspective with children and from road damage, I mean I think the less we -- because that truck maxes out at – he can max out at I think 20, 40, 60. It should be the upper 60s, 68,000 or something like that, 66,000 pounds. That’s a lot of weight. That’s a lot of weight to put on the edge of that street and they’re turning sharp corners.

MR. MORRIS: And in the older parts of town there’s a significant crown to that road and it shifts that weight to the side.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It does. And like I say those roads have been that way for a long time, except when that track – when you know Ronnie had the trucks and had the guys on the back, we didn’t’ have that problem. I mean it just – it wasn’t running the edge of that street and now we have it and so, you know, is this a reason to go, okay, do we change our policy on do we look at single hauler, which I know is controversial, or because the only alternative is, I think to stop that -- I think the only way to stop that is, is curb and gutter, I don’t know if we can dictate, I mean I don’t think we have the ability to dictate what kind of trash truck they run down the street and I think that’s probably just as controversial as a single hauler because we’re really meddling in somebody’s business. I could be wrong, I don’t know. But I know one of the other haulers out there are still running rear load trucks, but, you know, it looks like the industry is more and more going to the side load and the automatic arms. But I do, you know, personally I’d like to get it on an agenda down the road in the not too distant future and talk about this because I think it’s going to be an ongoing problem. And in your pictures, the one you have where you can see all the way down the road, I mean that’s so obvious. That’s just, you know, yeah. When you look at that far of a distance where it’s just breaking up the edge of the road.

MR. MORRIS: It’s probably a couple things, probably the base has failed on it.


MR. MORRIS: And the trash.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You said 90 percent of your pictures weren’t on the side of the road.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s what you said.

MR. MORRIS: Well, I’ve got as many more.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But you can walk around –

MR. MORRIS: Whatever.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But even walking around those neighborhoods --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I’m just telling you, I mean, it’s not a trash truck issue.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Even walking the neighborhoods where there’s no curbs and gutters you can see that edge damage in a lot of places and I think it’s going to continue to be a problem.

MR. MORRIS: And I am a small businessman and I advocate for small businesses and diversity and that, but I think, again, as I stated before, I think it’s one of the worst votes that I made on this Council to vote for that in hind sight, and I don’t like, still don’t like the idea of a single hauler, but I think in this case it’s probably a much wiser alternative because of the huge amount of traffic that it puts on these roads that aren’t designed for it. Thanks.

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

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, I drove around with Mr. Morris and I got to see these first-hand, not just the pictures. And the pictures are good, but it’s pretty extensive. And my reaction when I got out of the car and I started seeing basically this kind of wear and tear on our brand new roads was I was just irritated. Anytime you buy something new and you see it hold up like that, it’s just -- it’s kind of irritating to you because it just doesn’t seem like you are being a good steward of the money and, you know, so when I saw that I agree. My first question was, okay, well, did we follow policy? And if no, I mean we need some kind of recourse. If yes, then how do we change the policy to prevent this from happening again in the future? Because if we’re going to continue to spend money on roads that have this kind of wear and tear three months, nine months to a year out, I’m not sure now effective that is, if it’s even worth doing it at all. And I think that would be -- I’m not saying yes or no, I’m saying that we should look at the policy and figure that out. Is that even worth doing if it’s going to wear that quickly? And what can we do in the policy to change it? What kind of recourse do we have if it wasn’t done properly because that one stretch from Nieman to Goddard, it just surprised me how many we had there. And then I can’t remember what picture you showed, David, where it was in the center of the road and you could see the line from where we had started the mill and overlay again. But I mean it’s just – it was really unfortunate to see that. So, I would be in favor, and I don’t know if we need to make a motion or what, but I would be in favor of reviewing our policy on this mill and overlay, how we decide what we do, what our contracts are like, what kind of recourse we have, what kind of warranty we get from who puts it down. And maybe we can change it because one of the things that Jeff said that was interesting is we used to have one set of trucks going down the middle now we have multiple going down the side. I mean things change over time. And so it may be a policy that made sense at one time maybe doesn’t make as much sense now that we’ve had – now that things have changed over time. So, do I need to make a motion? Or do we just put this on –

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We will be presenting, as we usually do, probably in January, the mill and overlay program for 2016 and so that would -- all those issues would be part of that discussion. And in a few meetings, even prior to that, where you’re going to discuss streets several times, or we have several different street issues coming forward to the Council, so I think a variety of those issues will come up as part of those discussions. And then as we prepare for the mill and overlay for ‘16 absolutely is where we talk about those things.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. First, I have to echo everything that Mr. Kemmling said. I was in the same car with him. We went out and looked at this together along with Dave Morris. And the bottom line was some of it is due to the weakness of the shoulders and some of it was just poor workmanship. It was obvious. And I’m not a roads guy. You don’t have to be a smart guy to just see where they had put the asphalt on and they tried to stretch it too far or whatever and there was literally cracks where it was separated because they tried to pull it too far. As soon as it rains, or it gets to be fall time, it’s raining and then we get freezing and then what happens. That road is not going to hold up and it’s pretty expensive work. How are we ever going to get caught up on our roads if we’re going back and replacing them every year? I mean, we’re never going to get ahead of the power curve on this. So, I certainly think we need to relook at our policy, but I think we also need to look at putting some pretty tough inspectors out there to at least see that we’re getting the job done right the first time, at least to spec. And if spec doesn’t hold up, well, that that gets back into our policy area kind of looking at how we’re going to deal with that. But, boy, we certainly shouldn’t be seeing just shoddy workmanship. That part I was very disturbed about. So, I would certainly concur. I’d like to do whatever we need to do, whether it be in the form of a motion or whether Carol and her staff just start presenting to us different options. So, I wonder in the next few meetings we have prior to the consideration on the mill and overlay for the next year. But either way is fine with me. I just want to make sure we address it and don’t let this get off the hook. I think we really need to focus laser beams on this one and get this fixed the best we can.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I would just agree with what my colleagues from Ward II have said. I think we do need to look at it. And I just want to clarify with you, Carol, will there be a time that we can specifically address the policy then and look at maybe adding more teeth to it or some sort of clawback, or specifically that as aside from just kind of looking at the projects. I just wanted to make sure we had clarity on that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We certainly can and I use the word policy loosely and I don’t to take too much more time on this since this wasn’t an agenda item, but there are a number of standards and as I’ve said, each street is different. Truly to fix those problems, we need to tear out and reconstruct all those streets in all that area, which as all of you know is far more than we could ever afford. So to put down a proper base and build a proper street. So, we do need to think about then what is the next best cost effective way to handle those streets. And so we’ll be discussing all of that beginning in September with the discussion of just prioritization of street projects in general and instead of doing new capital projects would you rather go out and repair and reconstruct some of the older streets. And it’s all an allocation of funds issue.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I partially agree with what you just said, but I don’t agree with everything because as I talked about, some of this was right down the center of the street where they were stretching the asphalt too far.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that could be.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, that’s poor workmanship there. That’s a whole different category. And I think we really need to be tough on our inspections and get out there and right after this work is done. And if there is some issues, sorry, guys, get your butts back out here and let’s get this redone because you didn’t do a good job. Because I think we’re paying the full price to get it done. We’re not getting any kind of big bargains here or anything like that. We ought to be getting the decent work that we pay for.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah, my head was going exactly where yours was, Eric, too. I think it’s more of, I guess maybe getting a policy of consistently how we do this, when it applies, what the procedure is, how we inspect it, on and on. Yeah, I agree with you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the audience that has anything not on tonight’s agenda? Mr. Morris?

MR. MORRIS: Does this count for my reply too? I think the majority of these areas that I’m seeing, except for some of the sides, I would disagree that we need to replace the whole road. I think there’s some areas that we just need to cut out and replace and then at the time that we do do mill and overlay, and it’s got a good base to it and we won’t have to go back and redo that. That’s a policy question and it’s a decision for this Council. But I don’t see this as all or nothing and it gets presented like that a lot of the time. I think there’s some small sections that you could do that would really help in these roads. Thanks.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. F. PUBLIC ITEMS MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is F, Public Items. Item Number One is to Consider an Ordinance Allowing Temporary Alcohol Sales by the Shawnee Downtown Business Association for the Wheels and Dreams Event on September 13th, 2015. The Wheels and Dreams Car and Bike show scheduled for Sunday, September 13, 2015, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Shawnee Downtown Business Association has requested approval to sell alcohol at the event which requires the special event permit and an ordinance. The recommended action is to consider passing an ordinance allowing the temporary sale of alcohol within the area designated. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Let me ask a question. Is this going to be an annual activity?

MAYOR DISTLER: It has been.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And we expect it to continue to be there every year? I’m just kind of wondering if we should maybe look at it as something that would be a permanent granting for this specific activity.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I believe the state law requires us -- Mr. Powell can answer that.

CITY CLERK POWELL: Under state law we have to pass an ordinance each time.



MAYOR DISTLER: Is there 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: Item Number Two is to Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider Projects for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan. This is the first of two required public hearings to consider purposed projects for the Community Development Block Grant Funds in the estimated amount of $240,348. There are three actions required. The first action is to conduct a public hearing. Do I have a motion?



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0).

We are now in a public hearing. This is a formal public hearing required by law. The public hearing will begin with a presentation by Planning Director Paul Chaffee. After Mr. Chaffee’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. 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. Chaffee.

MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. The City is required to hold public hearings for the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant Funds. This is the first public hearing, and the second public hearing will be held in September. This year the City will submit an annual plan, which is basically the grant application for the use of CDBG funds. This annual plan will be the second in our current five-year consolidated plan. The amount to be received is based on HUD’s formula that takes into account the community’s population, income levels, age of housing and other socioeconomic factors, so each year the grant amount varies slightly.

The final amount to be awarded will be calculated by HUD in February or March of 2016. In 2015, the city received $240,348 in CDBG funding and the Department of Housing and Community Development has advised that the grant amount to be submitted for 2016 funding is the same as the 2015 fiscal funding. The purpose of the CDBG program is to provide assistance to low and moderate income residents. Every five years a consolidated is adopted and each year the annual plan is submitted for approval that conforms to the five-year plan. The application contains three components. The first is to provide funds to human service providers that provide direct assistance to Shawnee residents. Cumulatively, human service providers may receive up to 15 percent of the total funds received. In 2016, the amount allocated to human service providers cannot exceed $36,052 assuming full funding is received. Secondly, funds are to be provided for rehabilitation of existing residential structures. And finally, funds are to be used for low income, for neighborhood infrastructure improvements and census tracts that qualify based on the percentage of low and moderate income residents.

For the 2016 plan, Human Service Recipients. The dollar amount requested by human service providers exceeded the $36,052 that is expected to be available for funding. Staff has proportionately reduced the request from each agency to bring the request for human service funding into compliance. Staff recommends the funding included in the application be reduced to the same funding level as 2015 to meet the 15 percent requirement in the following manner. Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas, $4,800; Johnson County Parks and Recreation, $11,100; Salvation Army, $7,500; and YMCA of Greater Kansas City, $12,500. It should be noted these grant amounts will again proportionally reduced if the City of Shawnee receives less than $20,438 for 2016.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Excuse me, Paul. How did we come about this distribution? These numbers for who gets what.

MR. CHAFFEE: It was the amount that they, the applicant had requested.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That they requested.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right. Johnson County Parks and Recreation, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas have requested CDBG funding from the City of Shawnee in the past and have demonstrated the ability to use and administer the funds.

And very briefly, YMCA and Johnson County Parks and Recreation uses their funding to subsidize before and after childcare and summer childcare, and Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas and Salvation Army provides assistance payments to Shawnee residents.

The Residential Rehabilitation Program. The City contracts with Johnson County to provide housing rehabilitation services. The services are provided under the Minor Home Repair Program. Projects undertaken include plumbing, heating, roofing, handicap accessibility, and remedy of interior code violations. The amount recommended for this program is $25,000, the same as in previous years.

For infrastructure improvements. In the proposed five-year consolidated plan it is noted that improvements that enhance a project or standalone project that will provide street improvements including curbs and gutters, sidewalks and paving or stormwater improvements would be a priority. Staff recommends the CDBG funding for 2016 be used to supplement funding from the city stormwater utility for the improvement of Barton Street between 66th Terrace and 67th Street. And I do want to note that this is the project that’s indicated in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan for 2016. The use of approximately $179,448 in CDBG funds will supplement 21,000 in construction costs from the Stormwater Utility Fund. The estimated total construction costs of the project is $200,000.

The City did receive two other applications for funding this year. Two other nonprofit agencies submitted requests for CDBG funding. The Governing Body may consider allocating a portion of the City’s funds for these uses; however, if these agencies are funded with CDBG funds, the funding would be required to be reduced for the proposed use of funds indicated in the City’s five-year consolidated plan. The City is not obligated to provide CDBG funds to agencies that make such requests. This year Community Living Opportunities has requested $10,000 in CDBG funds for a one-time grant to replace carpeting with hardwood flooring to assist with the mobility of their clients in two duplex properties they own at 22611 and 22613 as well as 22709 and 22711 West 71st Terrace. Residents of the units are either intellectually or developmentally handicap. Community Living Opportunities is a non-profit organization that provides housing for their clients. A couple, they call house parents, lives with the residents and teach life skills and many of the residents are also placed in an environment to learn job skills during the day.

The friends of Johnson County Developmental Services provides living space for their clients with significant disabilities who require daily supervision and full-time assistance. The non-profit organization owns a property at 11400 West 69th Terrace. They are requesting funding in the amount of $6,000 for a roof replacement and $1,450 for insulation. And staff does want to let the Governing Body know that since we’ve received this grant application, we’ve been in consultation with the County’s Weatherization Program and they’ve indicated that Johnson County Development Services also made a request for funding for weatherization services through them and that they would receive the funding; however, they had not heard anything back from JCDS at that time if they were going to accept the funding from the weatherization program or not.

The second public hearing on the use of 2016 Community Development Block Grant Funds will be on September 28th, 2015. The grant applications is expected in to be submitted in December, I’m sorry 2015, where after such time as the 2016 CDBG allocation are committed by HUD. And the purpose at that second meeting is to confirm the projects that are in the grant application and to authorize the Mayor to sign the grant application.

Staff recommends that the Governing Body set projects for the 2016 CDBG application in the amount not to exceed $240,348, to include the services and activities indicated in the five-year consolidated plan. Barton Street improvements, 66th to 67th Terrace, $179,448; Minor Home Repair Program, $25,000; Salvation Army, $7,500; Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas, $4,800; YMCA of Greater Kansas City, $12,500; Johnson County Parks and Recreation District of $11,100. In the event the Governing Body desires to provide CDBG funding to Community Living Opportunities and/or Friends of Johnson County Developmental Services funding allocations to the above list activities must be reduced by the amount of funding that would be provided to either organization. That concludes staff’s presentation.

MAYOR DISTLER: Does anyone on the Council have any questions?



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Minor Home Repair Program. Could you give me just a little bit of background on do we use the entire 25 every year? Is that a popular program? Is it working well?

MR. CHAFFEE: We do. It’s done well. And if you look at the -- we have the five-year schedule included in the packet from the past five years. We’ve been funding that program since we became an entitlement city in 2003. One of the requirements of HUD when we became an entitlement city was that the projects that we had participated in in the past under the county’s program we still needed to participate in in the future. The City, prior to 2003, actually spent more money out of our General Fund to give to the Minor Home Repair Program than we do today. Today out of the General Fund we still provides their administration fees, which we can’t use CDBG funds for. And then we do provide a small amount, around $6,000, for some SEED money annually because the way HUD has been releasing funds lately it’s a long time before any projects can be undertaken. An example, last December we turned in an application. We received the notice of a grant agreement that the Mayor signed a few weeks ago. We’re in a 30-day period before we can request the release of funds. And then there’s up to 45 days before HUD has to release the funds, so even though you’re supposed to get your money in January or February, it’s looking like October. And if there weren’t any funds available, even a minor amount for Minor Home Repair, they’re sort of stuck. So, at least we have some money in those situations where we have folks who need something done quickly that we can at least fund them a little bit. But we have no trouble spending $25,000.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But I wasn’t asking if you have you have trouble spending it.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I was kind of wondering if it was adequate. Are we are getting a lot more demand than we have dollars there?

MR. CHAFFEE: Not really.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Or is it about right?

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. Toward the end of the year we’re waiting two or three months before they see the funds start rolling around again. So, and Johnson County is very good at reviewing the projects, making sure that we’re not doing improvements on a house that don’t need to be done, that we’re correcting the issues that are there so we can stretch the dollars wisely.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I was just kind of wondering on Johnson County Parks and Recreation, you know, what are those dollars going for exactly? And you know this Community Living Opportunities sounds like a very viable charity.

MR. CHAFFEE: What Johnson County Parks and Recreation District does is they use the funds to subsidize childcare during the summer with their summer programs. A lot of parents may have daycare opportunities during the year, especially those who may participate in some sort of a before and after school program and then in the summer when the school is closed down they still need to provide some sort of childcare activity, so this can step in. And the folks that receive the money from YMCA for before and after school, we don’t also give them funding during the summer, so the groups are different merging, so you don’t have one family who’s hitting it in two different sources.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Come forward. If you could state your name and address for the record, please.

Public Comment

MS. MEAD: Yes. My name is Lorena Mead. My address is, let’s see I just moved. (Address Omitted). And I’m with Johnson County Developmental Supports and I’m here on behalf of Friends of JCDS, Friends of Johnson County Developmental Supports. This is our first year asking for CDBG Funds. It sounds like you’re kind of looking at those funds that you have funded before and I just wanted to put in a plug for Friends of JCDS. We have 11 homes. Friends of JCDS has purchased 11 homes throughout Johnson County with the use of – well, they’ve purchased them. And then with the use of CDBG funds through Johnson County Government, have gutted the homes, made them barrier-free, accessible and now house 45 individuals with multiple physical and intellectual disabilities. The home that we are asking for assistance for is a home that we bought in 1998. It’s our second home that we purchased and it’s in Shawnee. The home was built in 1951 and you know what, it needs a new roof. The roof is over twenty-five years old. With the help of Johnson County Weatherization we’re able to use those $1,500 that we originally asked you for to help us with some of the insulation. But this is a one-time request for us that we are asking you for $6,000 to roof this house. We’ve got three women with some pretty significant disabilities who live in these homes, who live in this home on 69th Terrace. And as I say, it would be a one-time request from us and we would really appreciate consideration of that. The women, they are, like I say, have significant disabilities and the roof on the homes has been -- there’s been ice breakup and so the roof is really in bad shape. Just for your consideration we would really appreciate you to think about that and support our individuals with developmental disabilities who live in our county, who deserve to live in a wonderful home just like you and I do. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to this item?

MR. STROUSE: I’m Mike Strouse and the Executive Director of Community Living Opportunities. We’re another candidate and we serve approximately a little over a hundred people in Johnson County, many people in this area. We have a couple of homes, actually four homes that are in duplexes that we’re specifically asking funds for flooring. We have people who have pretty significant physical and intellectual disabilities, very, very hard on flooring. The funds actually are greater -- that we are requiring to redo the flooring are significantly greater than what we’re requesting, but we’re using the funds to unfortunately have to replace underlayment and also the flooring to put in more of a commercial grade wood-like appearance that will last. And I know there’s a lot been discussed of doing things right the first time and I think this is one of those things for us that flooring can be replaced every few years with people who have very heavy wheelchairs and other kinds of mobility devices and this is really, really important to us to get flooring and unfortunately it’s just too expensive. The way funding works for our program, there’s funding for services. The men and women that we serve pay out of their SSI and little bit of subsidy, it goes beyond that potentially with HUD, but very little. And so the rest of it we have to raise from the community and we would really appreciate your support for this project.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, do we have to decide here tonight, Paul, what exactly goes where? Because I was going to ask staff if they could go back. I mean I know we have another public hearing before anything actually happens and it’s actually in next year’s budget anyway. But is there a possibility that, you know, our Barton Street improvements, if we have a little more in the stormwater utility or, you know, in our roads budget that we didn’t use that we could -- and I don’t know what the dollar amount might be or anything like that. Maybe it’s what you need, maybe it’s not, I’m not sure and also it goes for you also. But I don’t know. If we could look at something like that I think it would be really worthwhile.

MR. STROUSE: Thank you.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mr. Chaffee can respond to the timing of everything.

MR. STROUSE: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAFFEE: The timing for the first public hearing is to determine the funding levels for the different organizations. At the second meeting you’re approving the grant application itself basically and authorizing the Mayor to make the signature, or put her signature on the grant application. I do want to note that if you funded the project, other projects that would be the maximum dollar amount that they would receive. If their bids came in under that dollar amount those funds could be moved at a later time into another or one of the other categories. The agencies just don’t get a check for $6,000 to go out and do their thing for the homes. What they’ll have to do is enter an agreement with the City of Shawnee with a funding up to a certain amount of funds. They’re going to have to receive three bids from qualified contractors to perform the work and then as we do select the most responsible person to do that type of work. So there may be some cost savings, there may not be if the bids come in high, the agency may let the City know that they’re not going to accept the funds. They’re also potentially subject to some increased audit requirements and those costs are on them to cover those increase costs that may occur for the audit portions of it and then none of their administrative costs would be recoupable under the CDBG program. So tonight if there’s some movement around we’d need to get that accomplished and then we can sort of set the dollar amounts for our second public hearing.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I have a question or maybe a suggestion. We were just talking about the CLO and JCDS projects, and both of them seem to sort of fit into what Rebuilding Together Shawnee does. So, Mel, I might, sorry to pick on you. I think we’ve done non-profit homes. We did Christmas Bureau Rebuilding Together Shawnee, so I wonder if that’s an avenue for them as well as their Shawnee non-profits that maybe they could get some of it. It’s not a huge dollar amount, but maybe if we don’t fund, maybe they could go to Rebuilding Together Shawnee and seek some funds from them.

MR. CHAFFEE: And I believe Lorena made some of those suggestions. We’ve even looked into would the roof for Johnson County Developmental Services be eligible under the Minor Home Repair Program. The answer to that was no because they do receive some rental payments on the project, so they wouldn’t be eligible for the use of CDBG funds. And then, you know, the other option that may be open for Johnson County Developmental Services that we’ve spoken with the Weatherization folks is, once they get in and do the audit, the full audit of the house, they may be able to do some roofing under the Weatherization program also. So there may be some other avenues to pursue. You know, and then secondly for all of our service providers, with the exception of the human service organizations, they can start expending funds January 1st because they’re not subject to the release of funds in the comment period, where everyone else is the Minor Home Repair Program, infrastructure. The other types of homework are subject to those, so they really may be looking at funding not receiving funds until October of 2016 before they can start their work. So, there may be some other avenues that we can pursue that would get the work done quicker.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. Carol, when we went on one of the NLC trips, and I think Michelle was there too when we spoke with the people that were doing the roofs and if you could like out a certain amount. It was a government program and they would come in and do a certain amount of roofs at once. It’s been about three, four years ago.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We don’t really have any information on that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I don’t. And we could sure do some research.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But I remember – you remember something about that?


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And it was a program that they had that if you could get I think three, four, five roofs lined up, they send a crew in and they take care of them.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh. Yeah. Vaguely but I don’t remember details.


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, the next action would be to close the public hearing. So, I’ll accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0).

MAYOR DISTLER: The final recommended action is to consider approving projects for the 2016 CDBG application to include Barton Street Improvements, 66th Terrace to 67th Street. Minor Home Repair Program, Salvation Army, Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas, YMCA of Greater Kansas City, and Johnson County Parks and Recreation. Is there any discussion from the council?



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, does staff kind of work with these two groups to see if there’s another motive or another funding source to help them out?

MR. CHAFFEE: Sure. Paul Chaffee. Yes. Staff will continue to work with those organizations, I think Lorena has already begun to have some discussions and will continue to have those. One of the reasons that we haven’t had a lot of time to delve into them is that applications we didn’t get in until three weeks ago was the deadline. So we’ve been trying to scurry around looking for other opportunities and we did find the Weatherization Program, you know, at least and there may be some other opportunities with Rebuilding Together Shawnee or some other organization that may have an interest in assistance.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just have one other question, too.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: If you look at the CDBG history of program expenditures and impact and you look at how many people we’re taking of for X-amount of dollars that sure has got a lot less bang for the buck then it used to. I’m looking here, for example, in 2013 for $11,510 we took care 38 kids at Johnson County Parks and Rec. In 2014, for $10,475 we took care of 20 kids. We had 18 less kids and a thousand less dollars. And that’s (inaudible) in here.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. Let me address that. HUD has changed the way that you can count the children. It used to be that if you provided assistance to one child in a family of five you could say that assistance was provided to five people because you helped the family. Now you can just count the child that was involved in the program.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. That looked pretty glaring.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: All of a sudden you’re getting like half the kids for the same price.
MR. CHAFFEE: Right. And it does look that way.


MR. CHAFFEE: So, yeah, that’s where the change has been is HUD is just looking for the person actually served rather than the family as a whole as how they used to take a look.


MAYOR DISTLER: 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. All those in favor say aye.


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed, nay? Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)


MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is G, Items from the Planning Commission meeting of August 3rd of 2015. Item Number One is to consider SUP-08-15-08; a Special Use Permit for Attention to Detail, LLC to Allow Operation of an Auto Brokerage with Zero Inventory in The Commercial Highway Zoning District, Located At 12694 Shawnee Mission Parkway. On August 3rd 2015, the Planning Commission recommended 6-0 the Governing Body approve the Special Use Permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I was curious from reading this. Does this business generate sales tax or any kind of revenue for us?

MR. CHAFFEE: They will generate sales tax at the point of sale is actually through that office. If the point of sale, they’re basing more doing office work. More than likely the point of sale is going to be not in Shawnee, but at some other point where the car is delivered.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would just – I brought this up last time we talked about dealer’s license, we need to modify our language a little bit on policy. We – auto you can’t actually broker. You can’t actually broker automobiles in Kansas. So, we call it brokerage, but –

MR. CHAFFEE: I think it’s the term that we use, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t know if we really should because it’s actually illegal to be an auto broker in Kansas, from my understanding of the dealer law. You can wholesale, you can retail, but you can’t broker, which implies that you never own it. Obviously what they’re doing here is their wholesale operation using that address for a dealer’s license.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Which if they do retail, you don’t have a wholesale license anymore, so the retail -- even if it’s retail at another location, if it’s that -- if that’s where the license is, if they actually retail to the end user who is going to pay sales tax, then we’ll collect sales tax on it, so.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

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



MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Do we have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I thought somebody said so moved.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Somebody didn’t say so moved?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It sounds like he did.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I thought I heard somebody say moved, I said second.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I just said so moved.

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 next item is H, Staff Items. Item Number One is to Consider an Agreement with Unite Private Networks for Fiber Installation. Since 2006, the City has been building upon its Fiber-Optic Master Plan as opportunities arise. Unite Private Networks is working to connect all Shawnee Mission District schools with fiber. UPN contacted the City about co-locating fiber on the portion of the project to connect City facilities. Staff has negotiated the co-location of fiber along nine miles for a cost of $240,000 over a five-year period. The recommended action is to consider approving the agreement. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I was kind of wondering, I know you got that math in there but, you know, first of all, do we need it? And then second of all, how much more fiber-optic cable are we going to be wanting to put in the ground? I’ve never been under, you know, I guess, the need for fiber-optic, for us to put it in when we can rent it.

MR. BUNTING: Mel Bunting, Information Technology Director. And so, the questions kind of start with the math.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Let me interrupt real quick. Didn’t we already have this conversation, that’s why we’re at this point here? Didn’t we already go through this whole process of the mapping and the needs and why we’re doing this and now we bid it and that’s why we’re at this point?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The Master Plan has been discussed and looked at and so the approach is that as companies come in and there’s opportunity to co-locate, we don’t actually go looking for opportunities. Although, I say that there have been a few limited times we have for key locations. So, as UPN came into our community and contacted us if we had interest in co-locating, then it fit with our plan and they’ve been very good to work with, so.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But we had this whole conversation about why we’re doing this. I mean I understand what you’re saying do we need it, but we spent two hours talking about whether we want to run around fiber or whether we want to use public fiber. We’ve spent a long time discussing this, so I guess if we want to hear it again, here we go.

MR. BUNTING: Okay. So, the whole context of what we’re here today, or tonight, is to make this decision or offer this decision to the Governing Body. As the IT Director, what I can tell you is, is where the industry is going. Technology is in every facet of our lives. It’s in our vehicles, it’s in our homes, it’s in our appliances, it’s in our hips, it’s in our purses, and now it’s becoming part of our mobile computing environment. Technology is being used. Technology is coming. It’s here, it will continue. And pulling some information off of some websites is that in five years the mobile devices will be expected in America alone will be one billion. Our demand is 28 times what it was in 2009 for networking, for speeds, for devices to move the data of these increasing devices. In 2014 alone it grew by 63 percent, 32 million more mobile devices are in our population today than it was in the beginning of 2014. So, our demands for this speed and for the data movement continues. And so the other facet that’s coming is, is that now there’s new phrases and new initiatives and it’s called Internet of Things. Internet of Things are about connecting devices, smart devices, devices that provide or offer you some type of action or a purpose, a function. Smart appliances, smart homes, smart vehicles, smart cities, all of these things are gaining in momentum and popularity in the organizations. Neighboring cities are leveraging their fiber infrastructure to become smart cities, to change the way they manage their infrastructure, to change the way they build out and evaluate and make decisions of how their city runs and operates. And so as the IT Director, our demand for fiber and our demand for networking continues. It’s not going to go away anytime soon. It’s going to only increase based upon our past. And so this decision is why we’re here is to make or offer this opportunity to the Governing Body, those who govern the City to help evaluate if this is something really in our City’s future.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, to add to my question there, I mean, what do we get from, you know, I mean, what information are you looking for out there? I mean I know –

MR. BUNTING: So, this is really a, and as far as in the Master Plan, this is really one of the best opportunities that have been offered. And the fact that this, what you see, along this corridor here coming down Nieman, coming down 75th Street and connecting through Quivira and coming back along Johnson, I’m sorry 67th and coming back along here on Johnson Drive is really a very positive thing for our City because these are the areas that have the most congestion, the most traffic, the most populous, and it also passes many parks that we offer as well as the traffic controllers that we want to connect to.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But we’re connecting to those, if we have any of those cameras there which I understood we were going away from.

MR. BUNTING: Cameras.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Like at street lights, is that what you’re trying to say?

MR. BUNTING: Well it’s about managing the traffic controllers. It’s about connecting other applications. Operation Greenlight is wanting to connect and build out. KC Scout is wanting to connect and build out. And so these are applications that are coming into our community and it’s about managing the traffic and it’s about using the tools that are available to help manage that traffic.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Did you do a cost comparison versus the last one we did at, that was on Quivira Road, close to 75th Street I think?

MR. BUNTING: In comparison to?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Like cost per foot, cost per mile.

MR. BUNTING: Yeah. And that’s in the packet, the packet memo. And the basic, using the numbers that we’ve used in previous times of 19, I believe, yeah, $19 a foot is close to $900,000 for the equivalent amount of fiber that we’re getting for the price of 240,000. I mean, if I may take it a little bit further is, you know, this is really a great opportunity to address some of the key areas of our City for fiber for networking. It’s about future proofing our City for communications infrastructure. Technology is going to become part of our infrastructure just like our storm, our streets and all these other things. Technology is here. It’s going to be in every facet of our community and it’s only going to intensify in our organization, in our City, and in our community. And so this is a great opportunity to put in nine miles of fiber that will invest and provide our City for communications for technology needs for the next 20-plus years. And I’m really – I really appreciate Unite Private Networks for their opportunity to come to the table to offer this opportunity to the City. Being here with the City for 16 years, living in this community, this is an excellent opportunity for us. And I kind of liken it, we all kind of like what’s going on with the Royals right now. I kind of liken it to like baseball. I don’t want to say this is the ninth inning with two outs and two runners on and we’re down two runs, but I think we’re getting pretty close to the end of what are opportunities are going to be for building out our fiber. Google has come through. AT&T has come through. Sure West has come through. Time Warner has come through. And now we have one more opportunity. I don’t know how many more opportunities we will be offered, or afforded to co-locate and to share that cost with other utility companies that come through our community. I never want to say never, but I know our opportunities are becoming few and far between. But this is really a great opportunity for our community and this is my recommendation.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Dan had asked, I didn’t know if you said it, is this nine miles going to complete the Master Plan, or is there more above and beyond this nine miles?

MR. BUNTING: So, it does a lot for what I would call the Eastern Community. The part of our fiber build-out is a long-term endeavor. I’d hasten to say that we’ll be done in the short term or in the future, but as you can see what you have in yellow is part of what we want to do as we go west. And again, as those opportunities present themselves we will definitely pursue those and look at them as a cost benefit and those opportunities we’ll be bringing them forward accordingly.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. Also I’m not fully getting the math on this. When we co-locate, I can’t remember, do we share a conduit and we just have our own fiber or do we lay our own actual conduit?

MR. BUNTING: Each utility company that has come in has offered us different packages or opportunities if you will. When Google came through, they gave us separate conduit. Unite Private Networks is not giving us a separate piece of conduit, but they’re basically – fibers are built into a fiber strand in groups of 12. And so what they’re giving us is in groups of 12 inside one piece of conduit. So it’s – we’re more entwined, if you say in bed with United Private Networks more so then what we would do with Google because we have our own conduit. We have our own autonomy of what we can do with that conduit, if you will.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. I guess I still don’t see the math in this though. If we go half -- if we split the material cost of the conduit and then we pay for our own fiber, how does that only wind up being 240,000? I mean half the conduit is going to be a little over a hundred, the fiber itself is 166, to me that puts us over 240 right there and that doesn’t account splitting the installation cost.
MR. BUNTING: If I understand you, why is the number only 240?


MR. BUNTING: That was the number we negotiated with Unite.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I believe he’s looking at the column to the left, which is just the comparison of if we did it on our own, this is what it would cost and then if we do it with Unite, then the column on the right is the total cost.

MR. BUNTING: Yeah. Yeah, basically yeah. Did I answer your question?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah, I guess so. Jeff’s right. We’ve had this conversation, I think at least twice since I’ve been on the Council. I’m not sure if everyone on the Council has been here for this discussion. I know it says here January 7, 2014. I know at least two of us weren’t here, maybe three at that point in time. It’s not an incredibly interesting conversation that we’ve had over whether we want to buy our own or not. I don’t think the debate is whether we need this bandwidth, I think the debate has always been whether the City should own its own dedicated, or whether we should lease, and it’s gone back and forth.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’ve never done a cost comparison with leasing it or putting our own in that I know of.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, you know, this is hopefully an entertaining story. But I keep this computer in my basement, I think it’s a 633 megahertz eMachine that has a sticker on it that says “Never Obsolete” because it could connect to the Internet and update itself. So, I just feel like technology changes so quickly. I don’t know if we can really guarantee that the fiber bandwidth is going to keep us above and beyond for 20 years. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But predicting technology and where it goes is difficult to do. And you know one example of that is Mel just said one billion mobile devices and not a single one has a piece of fiber attached to it. So, I don’t know. I agree with Jeff, I’m not sure if we want to hash that out again but for those who haven’t been there that’s always been the discussion, do we buy it or lease it, do we build our own or do we rent it, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there 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.

MAYOR DISTLER: And that was Mr. Kemmling. Motion passes. (Motion passes 6-1)

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number Two is to Consider Approving the Bid and Awarding the Contract for the 2015 Crack Seal Program. On August 14, 2015, sealed bids were taken from two contractors for the 2015 crack seal contract. Staff is recommending awarding the contract to Pavement Management, LLC in the amount of $160,838.86. The recommended action is to approve the bid and award the contract. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion. Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I did have one comment, I don’t know. I’m looking at the bids here. Wow, there’s quite a difference in the two bids. $139,000 in the two bids. Do we know why? One guy does just a whole lot more careful work, or he’s more expensive (inaudible).

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: In one case that one year we had somebody put it on so thick we had to take an asphalt grinder over and grind the street.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible] won’t even do it.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We chip sealed over it. It was my street. Jeff’s street they were allowed to do that because he had little bitty tires like this big.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m just wondering because all the stuff I looked over at Goddard that was – that’s where they tried to stretch it too much, so I don’t know.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: They had to repave his street. And then my street they went ahead and put chip seal on it.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That’s because you’re a Pflumm.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, I will accept a motion.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed, nay? Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number Three is to Consider to Approving a Contract for the Planning Sustainable Places Part II Planning Project. In November of 2014, the City received a grant of $95,000 from the Mid-America Regional Council for the City’s Planning Sustainable Places II (PSPII) application, “Linking Historic Shawnee: A Multimodal Downtown Connectivity Plan.” On February 9, 2015, the Governing Body approved a grant agreement with MARC for implementation for the latest PSPII initiative, which includes a study to identify and prioritize pedestrian linkages and neighborhoods east of Nieman Road and provide best route alternatives for pedestrian bicycle route from Nieman Road to the Turkey Creek Trail System located in Merriam. The City issued the RFQ and received four responses. Staff is recommending awarding the contract to Confluence Associates of Kansas City. The total project budget is 125,000 with 95,000 to be funded by MARC Grant and the City’s total match of 30,000 will be funded by the Economic Development Fund. The recommended action is to award the contract. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.


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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed, nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 7-0)

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Miscellaneous Items. Item Number One is to Ratify the Semi-Monthly Claim for August 24, 2015, in the amount of $1,528,953.65. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll 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 Two is Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have any item they would like to discuss? Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. We got an e-mail a few months back from Mr. Dave Holtwick about some of our sign ordinances and if anyone had any suggestions that they could bring that in. And so I’ve talked to several people around the city and I know that the Chamber has done some word of mouth asking and stuff like that, so what I would like is that if you know if, and I was going to get a hold of Paul before the meeting and I didn’t have a chance to call him because I’ve been traveling a lot, so sorry about that. But if staff could get together and bring that to a future committee meeting, I know that there’s a lot of issues. And kind of one of the big issues is, you know, the film we put on the windows and whether it’s on the inside or outside. And you know, so there’s a lot of issues with that. So, if we could just do that that would be great. Or if there’s any issues with bringing it to another committee meeting or anything like that I’d be glad to discuss it now.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I know that the Chamber has hosted several meetings and gotten some response, so we have some information and feedback. And Dave has been part of those, Paul has been part of those. Actually we’ve done one I think each year the past two years and brought some changes to you last year. I don’t know if this last couple meetings elicited a lot of suggestions for changes, but I know that Dave and Linda are working on that and so we can bring something forward in the future.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I just know a lot of individuals, not just downtown, but in the entire city they wanted to say something about it but they didn’t want to really be vocal because then somebody’s going to be out there looking at their windows and their signs. So, anyway, that’s what’s going on out there. But good luck putting that together.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are there any other Council items? Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a question on whether we’ve made any progress or where we are with that whole concept of developing a way to address these sort of blighted areas as far as where all these vacancies and so on. I mean, that one restaurant down on Shawnee Mission Parkway, it used to be the Asian restaurant, boy, that’s really horrible. There’s a number of these type of things throughout the community, and we were talking about doing something about that. Where are we at with that? Are we making any progress? Are we going to come out with a concept to be presented to the Governing Body for action or anything like that?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We certainly could. I know Mayor Distler has asked us to do some research on the tax on vacant buildings and so we’ve begun some of that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know, Carol, I don’t even think it’s going to be like a one size fits all, I think it’ll be a combination of possible actions that we could take to address these kinds of situations. But right now it’s just too darn easy for so many people that own these facilities to just let it go and not do anything. I think that creates a problem for us, it makes our community look bad, so I’d like to do something about it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We could brainstorm on other ideas as we bring the other concept forward.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are there any other items?


MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. I will accept a motion to adjourn.



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


MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed, nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned. (Motion passes 7-0)
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 8:50 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 September 4, 2015

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary



Stephen Powell, City Clerk

File Attachment Icon