PDF Format:


September 08, 2015
7:00 P.M.

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Killen
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember Vaught Finance Director Rogers
Councilmember MeyerInformation Technology Director Bunting
Councilmember Sandifer City Attorney Rainey
Councilmember KenigPlanning Director Chaffee
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Police Chief Moser
Deputy Fire Chief Scarpa
Neighborhood Planner Grashoff
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Deputy Public Works Director Sherfy
Stormwater Manager Gregory
Deputy Parks and Recreation Dir. Lecuru
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
Mgr. of Parks & Rec and Facilities DeGraeve
(Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Good evening and welcome to tonight’s Council -- oh, there’s an echo. Welcome to tonight’s Council Committee meeting. My name is Stephanie Meyer. I am the Councilmember from Ward III and the chair of this committee. Besides myself, the Committee members here tonight are Jim Neighbor Ward I; Eric Jenkins, Ward II; Mike Kemmling, Ward II; Jeff Vaught, Ward III; Mickey Sandifer, Ward IV; and Brandon Kenig, Ward IV.

[Clerk Note: Mr. Pflumm arrived at 7:05 p.m.]

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 Committee at any of those times, please come forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record and you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear you, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes. After you are finished, please sign the form to the right of the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address. I would also like to remind Committee members to turn on your microphone when you would like to speak so we can get a clear and accurate record.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We have two items on tonight’s agenda. The first item is to Discuss Mobile Restaurants. On August 4th 2015, the Council Committee reviewed information related to mobile restaurants or food trucks. Staff was directed to prepare draft regulations for further consideration. Lauren Grashoff, Neighborhood Planner, will present additional information. Please hold your questions until the end of Ms. Grashoff’s presentation. There are several decision items that Ms. Grashoff will review, so we will go back to those after the presentation. So I think what we’ll do is have the presentation, maybe do public comment and then move on with the decision points. So, welcome, Lauren. Go ahead.

MS. GRASHOFF: All right. Thank you guys for having me back, happy to be here. As we kind of discussed at the last meeting, food trucks are becoming a growing trend, especially here in the Kansas City area. So with input from the Committee as well as some other of the food truck owners, we have drafted some regulations for what we’re calling mobile restaurants and we will be reviewing those tonight. Again, we started the discussion at the Council Committee meeting on August 4th. At the August 27th Shawnee Partnership meeting, we did get a few -- we did get input on a few items as far as if some of the downtown business owners thought it was appropriate to have a restaurant for buffers. And then also if there was -- if it would be appropriate to allow them to park in the public right-of-way. So after that, we drafted these regulations. We provided the draft regulations to the food truck vendors that attended the meeting earlier this August as well as some other vendors that we’ve worked with in the past. We sent a mailer to all the Shawnee restaurants so that they knew we were having this discussion. And then again tonight we’ll just be reviewing the regulations, some of the items we wanted some more clarification on, so that’s what -- at the end of this discussion we’ll go over some of those options.

So, just to review kind of what our current practices are. We currently do not license mobile food vendors, but they are required to have a food establishment license from the State. Right now the food trucks can operate on private property at public events with approval of a Special Event Permit. Those are issued to the business that’s holding the event, not the food truck. And those we allow two per calendar year. We also allow operation of the food trucks without a Special Event if it’s a private event, or if they’re participating in a City-sponsored event. And then as far as when they are parked and when not operating, they have to comply with our commercial vehicle regulations.

So, included in your packets were the draft regulations that we did include added to the business license section of our municipal code is what we’re proposing. So, to start off with, again, we kind of have a different word for food trucks, we use mobile restaurant. It’s any temporary or transient businesses offering the sale of food or beverage in a vehicle, trailer or push cart. That does not include ice cream trucks, produce stands, or special or seasonal sales.

The first section would require the mobile restaurants to have business licenses to operate within City limits. And this is similar to any other restaurant that would operate here in Shawnee. And then part of getting that business license we would require them to just show proof of that food establishment license, which they already have to have from the State. The fee would be a $100 fee, and that’s the lowest rate that restaurants are required to pay. We thought it was kind of equal since they are a restaurant, we’re calling them a mobile restaurant. But we did use the lowest fee that we require for restaurants, and that would be prorated.

And this is one of our first kind of alternative options to discuss. What is drafted in the regulations right now based on input is that no Special Event Permits are required if the food trucks are participating in a City-sponsored event, if they are on private property, whether they are serving to the public or private, so that would be whether there’s an event or a sale event at a company and the public is invited to attend, or if it’s at a private business and they just are allowing the food truck to come for lunch and only serve their employees. So no Special Event Permit would be required. And then they would also be allowed to vend in public right-of-way. You’ll see later on there’s a few kind of stipulations to vending in a public right-of-way.

Option Two would be the current practice. So that would be we would require Special Events when vending on public property, or private property, excuse me, and serving to the general public. And then a Special Event Permit would not be required if they are participating in a City event, or if they’re operating on private property and not serving to the general public.

And then Option Three is kind of a mix of these two. Really it would not require a Special Event Permit unless there’s more than one mobile restaurant operating on a property at a time. So, if they kind of develop some sort of food court kind of, multiple vendors on one property, then that’s something that we think might be appropriate to have a Special Event Permit to make sure that all the access ways and the fire trucks would be able to get in if necessary. Otherwise, they would not have to get the Special Event Permit.

As far as where they could vend, they would have to be parked on a paved surface. They cannot operate in residential zoning districts unless part of an approved block party or other private event, and then they would have to be parked on a private driveway. We think that basically would help out with any traffic issues, people needing to get down the street and there’s not too much congestion if they’re parked on the private drives. They must have written consent from property owners to locate on private property and then they cannot operate on vacant property.

Again, they cannot cause traffic issues. And then this is something that the Shawnee Downtown Partnership thought was appropriate, to require the 50-foot buffer from the permanent brick and mortar restaurants during posted hours of operations unless they have permission from that restaurant. So, that would basically be you couldn’t pull up in downtown Shawnee right in front of one of our restaurants. There would at least need to be that 50-foot buffer. And then items could only be sold curbside from an on-street parking space if they are operating in the public right-of-way.

And then here is another set of options, and this is with regards to location. We have four different options if you guys feel that maybe some of them need to be combined or we can throw in Option Five. Option One would be they would not be permitted at public facilities or parks unless part of a City-sponsored event. Option Two would be they are permitted at public facilities and parks and this would not require any sort of special permitting. And then Option Three would be not permitted at public facilities or parks unless located in an on-street parking stall or approved as a City-sponsored event. And then Option Four is not permitted in a public right-off-way along parade routes on the day of the parade. I think in particular with this we were thinking about the St. Patrick’s Day Parade.

Just a few additional regulations. With regards to cleanliness, we don’t want debris kind of scattered everywhere, so all trash and debris would have to be contained and then cleared before they leave the location. And then mobile restaurants have to comply with the City noise ordinance, so this would apply if they have music or any sort of noise device and then as well as the generators that they do often operate on.

The last two items for the additional regulations requiring a portable fire extinguisher. I think this is already required from the state of Kansas to operate. We just wanted to include that. That was one of the items that when I talked with the Fire Department that they thought was an appropriate regulation to add there. And then the last one, the use of artificial lighting. They can use it as long as it’s no taller than the vehicle itself and it would need to be facing down basically so people could see the menu and the ordering window, downward fixtures. Then they could not have any sort of flashing, strobing lights to attract attention.

Signage, the next section. We would allow obviously the permanent affixed signage that’s already on their trailers. We would allow an additional A-frame sign. You can kind of see one in the picture here from an event. This is the same that’s allowed for restaurants. It would be a 15, or not to exceed 20-square foot in size for an A-frame sign, and that could be kind of out in front of or right around their vehicle. They would not have to get approval of a temporary sign permit to post those, but they cannot display any sort of other temporary signs, so no flags or banners, balloons, anything like that. And they would have to comply with our prohibited signs that’s already part of our sign code which would be changeable copy, again, flashing lights, moving signs, off-premise signs, just some examples of those.

Parking when not operating. We specifically brought up this section. We do have a complaint about a food truck here in town that is parking at a residential property, so we wanted to get input about this right now. And we didn’t purpose any changes to this, but this, you know, is definitely a discussion item that mobile restaurants which meet the definition of the commercial vehicles cannot park or store their vehicles within residential areas. So, what we consider commercial vehicles you can see is larger than 24-feet in length, 8-feet in height or 8-feet in width, licensed with a weight capacity of more than 16,000 pounds, or designed to transport more than 16 people. So, I can answer questions now and then discuss. We can then go to the alternatives after some input.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you Lauren. Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. On the signs, on the A-frames, I thought the restaurants right now had to have somebody, a living person holding the sign, not have an A-frame out in front of their place.

MS. GRASHOFF: They are allowed to have the A-frames. We don’t have anything in the code that restricts the person holding the signs except basically that they can’t be blocking the sidewalk in public right-of-way. We don’t require that they have those though, but they can use the A-frame.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: They can use an A-frame?



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other initial questions? Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I have just a comment.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, yeah. Eric and then Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I just wanted to say I think you did a good job of capturing all the discussion items that we had on this, and I like some of the ideas on the options. I think what we’re doing too is we’re keeping it simple like we talked about and not putting a bunch of regulations in there. If we need to get tougher we can. I just had the one question I had was, and I think I already know the answer, but I was just going to ask it anyway. I don’t see any cost to the City in doing this as far as additional public safety cost or anything else. Have you as a group determined that it may cost us some additional money as a City to allow these facilities?

MS. GRASHOFF: Yeah. I mean besides the, I mean the business licensing processing fees that are associated with those, I think we had discussed just internally that if there are any sort of complaints it probably would be the Police Department that would follow up on-site with those, so you know the fees, just time associated with that. But there hasn’t been any kind of direct research about if there’s a monetary impact.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean I don’t see anything here, but I just figured I’d ask the question if it came up in the discussions with you and the staff, but there may be some cost. Okay. I didn’t know if there had to be an offset, that we needed to talk about some sort of offset for that, but it sounds like we’re okay.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just wanted to tell you sorry I’m late because I really wanted to get here for this, I was at another meeting. And I’ve zipped through here on the front ones that I missed, but you did a good job putting all that together and I like some of those options, so we can discuss that here in a minute when we get some comments from other individuals. Thank you.

MS. GRASHOFF: Okay. Thank you, guys.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Come on up, sir, yeah. And if you’ll just state your name and address for the record.

MR. IRELAND: My name is Joe Ireland. I have the Crave truck, Crave of Kansas City. All of these look pretty good. I guess I would like a clarification on vending in public right-of-ways. What is that? What is a public right-of-way?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Did you say you had some maps that you were going to put up later? Or, oh, I thought I heard maps.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Public right-of-way would be street.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: City-owned property, City owned right-of-way.


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Parking spaces along the street.

MR. IRELAND: But that doesn’t happen, so we’ll bypass that then. And I understand along the parade routes, I wrote down safety. I’m sure that’s a safety concern on that. Okay. I guess what I’d like to get into then is the revisions of Chapter 10.02, labeling it as a commercial vehicle. I see that more as a recreational vehicle standards rather than a commercial vehicle. That’s what you have on your pamphlet is a commercial vehicle, all right. If you go down through the restrictions here, the 24 feet in length, the height, the weight, the 16 people doesn’t qualify for any of those. Okay. It makes a comment in here about making deliveries, we don’t make deliveries. All right.

I guess what I would like to say is, you go out and do an event like we did Saturday night over in Missouri, west, the Kansas City Star. You know you come back and you have 200 bottles of water you need to reload into the truck because you just served 200 bottles of water. That all has to be reloaded. None of you folks would want 85-degree water. You’re going to want 35-degree water, so it has to be loaded that night in order to cool down overnight. So, you’ve got pop, water that you have to reload, the same as the food. When you totally sell out, you have to reload. And I don’t mean in the morning, I mean that evening, you know, when you get home at 10:30 at night, 11:00 at night. So deliveries, that’s not going to happen. There are no deliveries from a food truck. All right. There’s more of reloading like it would be in an RV. You go out in your RV and you come back, you going to just lock the door and walk away from it? No. You got to clean it up. Dan, when you get done with your family meal on a Sunday, do you just walk away from the kitchen, or do you have to clean it up? You pretty much have to clean it up. Are you serving 6 people or maybe 300 people? When you’re doing 300 people, there’s a little bit of a mess, all right. Not that you throw food around, but it gets a lot more hectic in that little kitchen than it is in your kitchen at home.

I guess the other point is, you know, are you inspected by the health department at a minute’s notice in your kitchen? No you’re not, we are. Eight times this year so far. Not that we have a problem, we always pass, but eight times this year. So, when I clean up that night to go out the next morning, you never know if that health department is not going to be there wanting to check your water temperature, your fan, everything has to be operating. So, you’ve got a little bit of maintenance that you’ve got to pull on that vehicle along with that.

I guess again, going back to the RV status, you’re loading and reloading your food like you do in an RV. You’re loading and reloading your supply items like you are in an RV. I guess five or six blocks from my house there’s a 42-foot RV. He’s got batteries that has to be recharged because it’s just sitting there. You know, I have batteries that need to stay up because some of the fans operate off the 12-volt, and it’s going to take juice out of your battery as you’re sitting there, so the batteries have to be recharged. That 42-foot motor home that’s only a few blocks from my house is 45 percent larger than my truck. I’ve got a standard sized-truck, a 16-foot truck. He’s 45 percent larger, almost twice as big as my truck. He’s 25 percent taller than my truck and yet he’s sitting right out there where everybody going up and down Quivira Road can see. And here’s the problem that I see. It hasn’t moved for 20 years. Check me. His name is Bob Brady in case you wanted to double-check, all right, and he’s a friend of mine. I’m just stating a fact. So I see it.

I mean as the other thing, we have four refrigerators going. I can’t unplug those refrigerators at night, they have to stay running. They stay running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, same with the water system. I have to have the hot and cold. It takes a while for it to heat up. It doesn’t take but a very little short time for it to cool down in case the weather is down to 30 degrees at night, so it has to stay plugged in. So I see, I treat it more as a motor home than I do a commercial vehicle.

Again, none of the restrictions of a commercial vehicle fit this vehicle. I’m not hauling 16 people, two max. Two seats, two seat belts, that’s it. Even our help has to drive separate, all right. The height, it’s no taller, well, it’s not as tall as Mr. Brady’s motor home. His is a lot taller than mine and that’s not including the air conditioners which exceed that 25 percent that are sitting on top of that. All right. So I just see it -- I don’t see it falling into commercial vehicle category. I see the Mission Heating & Cooling vehicle that comes home just another couple blocks from my house, comes home every night, sometimes it doesn’t even leave during the day. I mean he’s just got a box fan, just like I’ve got, sitting in his driveway, sometimes it moves, sometimes it doesn’t.

I will be the first one to tell you, mine on Monday does not move, that’s my restocking day. I have to go and restock everything in that truck on Monday. I am reloading, loading and unloading and making repairs. So, it’s probably not going to move on Monday. That’s kind of a planned down day if you want to call it that. But the rest of the week it’s out, sometimes twice a day. We call them double headers. I mean it’s very busy, so it’s not there a good portion of the day. We leave at nine o’clock and get home at 2:30, and it may not quit. I mean like on a Friday night or a Saturday night, it’s not uncommon to see me loading at 1:30 at night, still loading at 1:30 at night. When you serve the volume of people that we serve, it takes a while to do it.

So, I guess I’m not going to challenge too many things on here, I think she did a great job on there. I guess my biggest challenge is calling it a commercial vehicle. I guess it may be a commercial vehicle, but what’s the difference between Mission Heating & Cooling or Mr. Brady’s RV? I see it more as Mr. Brady’s RV. Mine is moving. This one hasn’t moved for a long, long time. Any questions?


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. You know, I see your point, but I also see a business on wheels which makes it to me in my view a commercial vehicle. If you sleep in the vehicle it’s only because you’re changing shifts. But it’s considered a business on wheels. It has your business name on the side of it. I don’t believe that there’s any more to me convincing that it would be a commercial vehicle. Mission Heating & Cooling, I can’t answer that question if he’s driving the thing home back and forth and has to leave at 6:00 in the morning to go fix somebody’s air conditioner or furnace. You know, I don’t know how you can compare that to a commercial vending machine. If we were to approve this, this would open a bag of worms up, you know, for so many other people that are trying to park their vehicles in front of their house or at their house, that it would be very difficult to probably define the differences in some of them.

MR. IRELAND: Well, I don’t know who the other people would be because it looks like I was the only one invited tonight. I mean there are no other representations as it were.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We’re talking about food vendors tonight, we’re not talking about all different commercial vehicles.

MR. IRELAND: I know. I mean the rest of the people. I don’t know that they were invited. I don’t see any of the rest of them here.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think they were invited.

MR. IRELAND: Were they? Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other questions? Dan?


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: This is a – I guess my commentary, or my question to staff, the way I read this proposed ordinance is it says mobile restaurants, which meet the provision, and then it outlines, of course, what the provisions are. If you’re saying your truck doesn’t meet these provisions, my understanding is it would not be classified as commercial even though it’s a food truck. Is that what this –

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It would have to meet the definition of the commercial vehicle.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. So if his food truck was not 24-feet in length, 8-feet in height, 8-feet wide, 16,000 pounds, then it would not be considered commercial even though it’s a food truck with the proposed ordinance, is that correct?


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, does that address kind of what you were talking about? It’s only commercial if it meets those requirements.

MR. IRELAND: Well, those are pretty vague requirements. I mean because commercial vehicles can be anywhere from a pickup truck, you know, with Excel Construction on it. I mean that’s typically a commercial vehicle.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But it doesn’t meet the definition here of not being able to park.

MR. IRELAND: It’s just a pickup truck, and that’s what I was saying on mine. I cannot carry 16 people and I don’t know where they come up with that. You know, it’s not 24-feet in length. It’s not 16,000 pounds. It says right on the tag it’s 10,000 pounds.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. So according to this proposed ordinance your truck –

MR. IRELAND: It has a personalized tag on it, it doesn’t have a commercial tag on it.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. Right. So, according to this proposed ordinance your truck is not considered commercial.

MR. IRELAND: I say it’s not so much commercial as it is more of an RV.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right. So, I think what Mike is just saying is that this provision then wouldn’t apply to your truck, so you would still be able to park it there because you’re not meeting the standards for commercial.

MR. IRELAND: I don’t see that it’s any different than --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well it doesn’t --

MR. IRELAND: -- Mission Heating & Cooling, which by the way doesn’t leave at 6:00 in the morning.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right. It’s not different. That’s what we’re saying because your truck doesn’t meet these three criteria that you would still be able to park there just like the Mission truck or whomever, yeah. So, you would still be doing business as you have been.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Except that if you got a step van it’s taller than eight feet, isn’t it?

MR. IRELAND: Pardon me?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If you got a step van, it exceeds eight feet in height, doesn’t it?

MR. IRELAND: It’s probably somewhere around eight to nine.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So then that might, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And that’s another question. I mean you say 24-feet in length, 8-feet high, or 8-feet wide. Is it any of those and you’re a commercial vehicle? Because what if it’s a –

MR. IRELAND: Well, the vehicle is eight-feet wide.


MR. IRELAND: I mean everybody falls into that category. I mean a flatbed trailer is going to be eight feet wide in most cases.


MR. IRELAND: So, that’s very typical as far as the width. That’s not a challenged item I don’t see it. I mean almost every vehicle is almost eight foot wide. I mean your car is not, but any vehicle that is larger than a standard vehicle is going to be eight feet wide, so that’s not a challenge. The height, again I don’t see the difference between that and a much larger motor home.


MR. IRELAND: There’s another one parked very, very close to my house, I mean within one or two blocks. He is parking it on the side of his house, but you can see it from everywhere, the front, the back, the sides. And it’s much, much larger than mine.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, to have a business like yours might be a little bit different then, you know, a restaurant that has a mobile vehicle also, right? So they’re, you know, they’re doing the same thing you’re doing, but they’re using a restaurant as a base, but you and a lot of other people are using your house, so you really need access to your truck, you know. So, I think we can look at these provisions here and say, you know that, you know, maybe we need to modify these a little bit so that the really big guys are not parking out in front of the house and that kind of thing. And then you know maybe we -- I don’t know what the numbers are, but I think we should look at those.

MR. IRELAND: Right. And you know I’ve seen again within a block or two of my house tractor trailers. Not the trailer, just the tractor parked in the driveway, front to back. You know, a driveway is usually 30-foot long, takes up the whole driveway. Maybe he’s only parking there overnight, but when he comes back, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth several times when he’s not out on the road. You know, that happens and I know it’s just an overnighter, maybe a two-nighter, something like that, but that happens all the time around my house and not just on one occasion, more than one occasion.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that would be a violation of our ordinance the way it’s currently written.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Right. And we’ve written variances for, you know, your neighbor.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We have one very old variance from before the ordinance was passed.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Right. But I think we could probably look at that part. I mean, I don’t know what the other Councilmembers think, but I mean I can see a 32-foot food truck and I can also see a 16-foot and, you know, there’s a big difference between those two items, so.

MR. IRELAND: But I just fail to see the rationale. Yes, it says Crave of Kansas City on the window and not in huge, not in huge, I mean, it’s not as big as what that board is right there. Yes, it does say that on the side, and the motor home has four or five colors and a swoopy thing going down the side, very bright. You know mine is very bright, it has to be, should be. I just fail to see the difference.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It might be also that I live in an association which it wouldn’t be allowed anyway. In fact, the ward I represent is mostly associations. So I’m just going to, I don’t think I’m going to drive this in real hard. My concern though is when we start, when we start tweaking our commercial vehicle ordinance we’re really opening up a can of worms because then we start getting, I mean then what stops, okay, let’s make it a bigger vehicle and it might be a restaurant but a guy could run an electrical supply business out of his garage and park his delivery vehicle in front of it every day to restock and have that same excuse. And I understand what you’re saying, and it’s a tough one, except I always look at it as it’s a benefit for you but then you’ve got people all around you and I would have to ask myself, and I’d want to ask the neighbors, and really I’d want some more input from the community on this. Do you want, you know, theoretically a 24-foot, 10-foot tall step van painted bright colors parked in the driveway day in and day in out in your neighborhood or next door to you, and I think some people would probably be opposed to that. And the problem is you probably don’t hear a lot of complaints because I have a neighbor in my neighborhood right now that’s been dealing with something for two years, but won’t -- just doesn’t feel compelled to complain on their neighbor. That’s just kind of how it is. And a lot of what you’re talking about with motor homes, a lot of those things are code violations, but we are a complaint driven city. So, unless one of those neighbors complain, we don’t have codes guys drive around looking for codes violations. Now if somebody was to complain on that person, Codes are going to drive out there and they’re going to look at it and they’re going to send them a letter and say you’re in violation, and then it’s addressed. When neighbors are being neighborly typically they don’t complain on their neighbor if it’s not an issue. I would have concerns, and honestly I said may, you know, I live in an association, most of what I represent are associations, so I’m, you know, I don’t think I’d lose sleep over it, but I do have a concern with when we start manipulating those, you know, that policy, we are really opening up ourselves up to everybody and, you know, bigger trucks and people using that same logic saying, well, you know, I have to restock out of my garage, I have to -- we’re a slippery slope because then all of a sudden, because it truly is a commercial vehicle. I understand what you’re trying to say but you’re running -- nobody runs a business out of an RV. And as soon as they do, it’s then a commercial vehicle. And whether you tag it commercial or not, you’re running a business out of it and it’s a tough one. And you know the beautiful thing about what you do is, you can run it out of your house and it saves you a lot of money. But if you’re in a fairly tight neighborhood with close neighbors, I think that can be a challenge and honestly I don’t have an answer for it, but I do have a concern with kind of manipulating our commercial vehicle policy. So, something to think about.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I was just kind of curious of where you’re going with this because you think that we’re, at least I got the impression that you think we’re going to change our commercial vehicle and it’s going to impose things onto subdivisions and I don’t believe that anyone said that as any --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, it doesn’t impose anything on subdivisions. No. What I said is, subdivisions – what I’m saying is I live in a subdivision, so if we change this, my subdivision rules still apply.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Doesn’t get affected.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: My concern though is I would want more input from the public because we’re talking about one or two or three food trucks probably living in the City and changing a policy that affects everybody for the benefit of a few. And I really would -- because that policy change could bring a lot more commercial trucks, other types of trucks. You can’t just say food trucks. We’re not going to be able to single out and say if you have a food truck and it’s this big, you can do it, but if you’re in the plumbing business you can’t. I don’t think we can really dice and slice that way. So, are we opening up a can of worms? That’s my question. And, you know, is it fair to everybody? And I don’t know. I mean I think I would like a little bit more input on that before we just kind of change our commercial vehicle regulations, so.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m okay with that. Could we get really what our commercial -- are these the items right here for our commercial vehicle? I mean, maybe we need to be more specific because Mr. Ireland just said, I mean, just about every single box truck, if it’s got a, you know, a bigger bed on it, its eight feet wide. And they may or may not be commercial vehicles.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We can get you that whole section of the code, and Mr. Ireland is reading from it. He’s already obviously looked at it.

MR. IRELAND: I don’t know if there’s any more than, I don’t know if this abbreviated or not, but I mean I have it right here and it’s really basically two paragraphs.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Did you pull that up? Oh, the brochure. It probably covers everything just in layperson, yeah.

MR. IRELAND: Is this it?


MR. IRELAND: Except for making deliveries. Again, we don’t do that. In most cases the vehicle is being used for ongoing construction or maintenance of a residential property. You know, we’re not maintaining. Commercial vehicles are 24-foot in length, 8-feet in height or 8-feet in width. Vehicle licensed as a truck. Again, I’ve got a personalized tag on mine. It’s 10,000. I don’t even have a DOT sticker on it because it’s under 10,000, or 10,000 or less, I guess is the regulation. 16,000 pounds. It’s not designed to transport 16 or more people, it’s not. And flatbed trucks, dump trucks, it’s neither of those. Tow trucks, not. Cement mixer, no. Utility wrecker, no, you know, are considered commercial vehicles regardless of the registered weight and size. It’s not any of the above, so it really -- to me it does not fit into that category as a commercial vehicle. I realize it’s registered as a business.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mickey and then Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I’m in agreement with Mr. Vaught here on some of this. The area that I’m representing, there’s a lot of homes associations and then there’s also a lot of the areas that the homes association are gone, they’re done. I believe my job up here is to look at the best interest of the citizens in my ward. I don’t have a home’s association any longer in my housing area. I would not want to look at a food vending tuck next to somebody’s house or in their driveway in my street. And as this has been said, there’s no question that it’s a commercial vehicle. You’re making a living out of a truck, or you’re making money out of the truck and it’s a business. And it’s undoubtedly a commercial vehicle. An RV, as he says, they’re not running a business out of. There is a difference in them. Now, I don’t know how yours is actually licensed. RVs are licensed at 26,000 pounds. And if you put them on a scale they’re probably 32,000 realistically. Your truck is licensed at 10,000 pounds because that’s what the truck is designed at. And then when you put all the equipment and everything back in it have you run it through a scale to see if was under 16,000 pounds? Because I bet if you run it under a scale it’s probably over 16,000 pounds with all the equipment back in the truck.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Maybe with that water.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But realistically, yeah. So, you know, we can dance around it and call it different things, but I would have to go off the indication that it’s a commercial vehicle and I also believe that if we start tweaking or changing any of these regulations, that we are opening up something that is going to change for a number of different type of vehicles to allow them in people’s driveways and allow them. As Jeff said, somebody is going to come up with a reason to do something with their vehicle in their driveway if we change the ordinance to allow it. The ordinances were put here to help and preserve people’s property values. When you start filling up driveways and stuff with commercial vehicles I think that that could definitely make a dent in it. I don’t have anything against food trucks, but I wouldn’t want one in my back yard.

MR. IRELAND: What if everybody on the block to the north, the south, the east, and west okayed it?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We’re still opening that bag of worms to allow people to do that. And that’s what I’m not sure I want to get involved with.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I’m sort of with Mickey and Jeff on this in the overall scope of it. But one thing we’re talking about, we’re talking about a vehicle. There are a lot of, well, they’re food trucks, but then a lot of the other part is a number, and my son works with one and basically it’s not self-propelled. It doesn’t have an engine, it’s a trailer. So, my thought is, you know, we’re talking about a commercial vehicle. I think these regulations, I don’t see anything here other than the word “trailers” about the signage. For example, if you just had yours in a trailer and towed it with a pickup truck, it’s not really covered here as far as I see and I think we would need to make -- probably need to --

MR. IRELAND: I can show you half a dozen of those. Excuse me, but I can show you half a dozen of those that are parked again within blocks of my house that are parked there [inaudible] basis.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, maybe, but this is what I’m saying. I think we need to do a little more homework here and make it a little more, hate to use the term specific, but make it a little more specific for this particular type of vehicle, be it a trailer or the others, you know make it so it fits all of them and not just focus on something that isn’t necessarily self-propelled. Because trailers fit in it too and we see it, you know, in Old Shawnee Days and things, people bring in their trailers and they sell out of the things. So, of course, if it’s food there are many more regulations. You have to be licensed by the State so on and so forth. But I would think that trailers that are towed that serve food out of them are going to have to have the same regulations.

MR. IRELAND: And there’s quite a few of them that are 16-foot long.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. So, anyway, my point. I think we can work a little bit more and define this a little bit better before we go forward before we actually do make it final.

MR. IRELAND: Well, I would appreciate it because I mean we’ve enjoyed what we’re been doing. I don’t know if I said this the last time or not. I don’t need to do what I’m doing. I mean I retired 17 years ago and I’m okay. I don’t need to do this. I don’t know why we’re doing this other than we just [inaudible], I don’t know how we’re going to get out of it. So it’s not like I need the money or anything like that, but we’re kind of having fun with it. I mean I’ve offered you guys, you come up to the truck, I know who you are, I would take care of you. We take care of a lot of people, you know what I mean? We serve a lot of freebies. The Beauty and the Best, well, that’s a lose it proposition to come to Beauty and the Best because there’s so many people in Shawnee we know, you’re giving a lot of food away. So, and that’s the ones we invite them to. All your close friends, you tell them to come to that one and that’s the closest one. Aristocrat Motors or something like that. So, I would appreciate the extra time it would take on that. Because again, it’s one of those things, it just as to move, it has to be plugged in, and its going and coming all the time. I guarantee you it’s going and coming more than Mission Heating & Cooling. Because I go right by it every day and it doesn’t move. And it’s sitting right out there where everybody in the world can see it. Not on our road. There probably isn’t 30 cars a day go down our road. Because if you’re going down our road, you either live there or you’re lost. Just ask the police. If they come down our road, they’re lost or they’re looking for somebody because they never come down my road.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Jeff and then Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You hit on something real quick, and my mind was kind of going there before you said it so, and we don’t want to turn this into, you know, a whole lot of exercise for staff. I wonder if we could come up with, and I don’t know if it’s even feasible. You talk about getting permission from neighbors. I don’t think it’s good for the applicant to go ask for permission because people feel pressured.

MR. IRELAND: Send Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. But I think it would be –


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think it would be interesting if somebody could, I mean would it be possible as long as you –

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You might not want to do that.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Let’s look at the guidelines and say, because most food trucks are probably 18-feet? You’re what, about an 18-foot step van probably?

MR. IRELAND: They will vary. I mean the funnel truck that was here last month, he’s a lot shorter. I mean I think he’s about 12-foot.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: There’s not too many of them are 24-feet. That’s a long truck. That’s a big step van.

MR. IRELAND: That is a long truck.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, where you’re really -- the sticking point with you is height and you’re right at eight-foot width, I think. Most of them are right at eight feet aren’t they?

MR. IRELAND: In width?


MR. IRELAND: Oh almost every vehicle is eight foot.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: On the box fan or step van, yeah.

MR. IRELAND: I mean, not with cars. Other than cars. But you get a good-sized truck, a dually truck or any other truck --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You should be -- you’re probably right at it and then you’re probably just over on the height.

MR. IRELAND: Mission Heating & Cooling is eight feet I can --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But do we, you know, and I don’t know if we can do it for just food trucks, I guess that’s my question. I don’t want to open this can of worms where anybody can go and say I want to park my commercial truck. You have a valid concern and that’s kind of why I’m struggling with this because you’re right. You have refrigerators. You have -- it’s not like you just go and park your truck and empty it out in the back of your car and then go load it up again. You know, there’s a process where somebody could have an applicant, they could submit an application with a fee attached so that our staff time recovers their cost and then we send the letter to, well, we pick a distance, I don’t know.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, we could do it like we used to do the dog permits.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, we send a letter to whatever area and there’s, you know, but the tough one is we’d have to renew it annually because somebody could sell the house, somebody else moves in and then they might object. But it’s got to be anonymous and it’s got to be one of those things where if someone doesn’t want it, it’s not going to be disclosed because, you know, you don’t want neighborly wars. But I don’t know, is that, are we getting a little, and are we getting kind of in the quagmire deal? That has happened.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We still do that with the dogs, we just do it administratively, so.

MR. IRELAND: Is that like more than one, more than two? What is it?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s 200 feet from the front door or something, right?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean this is kind of a new kind of thing we’re dealing with. I mean, that’s, you know, if you had a bunch of neighbors who don’t care, then what do we do? Do we do it? But the problem is I don’t want to do something that says, yeah, you can do it and then that next meeting we have someone up here screaming at us saying I’m so tired, you know, I got this food trucked parked here, I’ve got to look at it every day, I can’t sell my house. And that’s always our concern, always my concern is it’s the flip side to it of the person that bought their house that feels like they were protected and then we kind of changed the rules on them. So I don’t know, I mean I don’t –

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And Stephen was clarifying. We don’t use kind of a consent process on the dogs. It’s a mailing and notifying, giving them the opportunity to oppose.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The reality is you could send it to 15 people and two or three won’t probably return the consent, most people ignore it. And like most things and, you know, no response is a positive response typically is how that’s treated. So, I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know how hard it would be. I mean I think we would have to attach a fee to it. There’d have to be an application fee because we’re going to have staff time posted and somebody is going to have to do it. I don’t know if it’s, you know, everybody weigh in. I don’t know. I don’t know if it’s something we want to look at.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I mean, good point. I mean, here’s the thing. I mean, we’ve got thousands of RVs probably in Shawnee, if not multiple hundreds, and how many food trucks do you think we have at residential?

MRS IRELAND: Smokin’ Fresh BBQ.

MR. IRELAND: Well, Smokin’ Fresh, she was here last month.

MRS IRELAND: And it’s a trailer, so she’s parked right next to her garage.


MRS. IRELAND: And she’s okay.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I mean, we’re talking about even if food trucks went gangbusters, you could probably quadruple and we’d have eight in the whole City.

MR. IRELAND: That would be a lot.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And that would be a lot. So, I don’t know that we’re talking about, you know, great numbers, but the -- I got another question for you, and I don’t know how you’re doing your sales tax, but I think you have to do it whenever your sales tax whatever city you’re in.

MR. IRELAND: We do that quarterly. I mean, we do the same thing for Missouri quarterly, and Kansas quarterly.

MRS. IRELAND: And whatever city we’re in.

MR. IRELAND: And it depends on which city you’re in because there are [inaudible].


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The city you’re located or city you sold the food in?


MR. IRELAND: The city that you sold in.


MR. IRELAND: So, if you go to Overland Park you got one tax rate, Lenexa another, so on and so forth. So, it’s a process.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, we want you selling in our City limits as much as possible, you know.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And so, you know, whatever we can do to encourage, you know, those type of food trucks, events, you know, whatever, it’d be great. So, I don’t know. Maybe we -- you just said you couldn’t do it just for food trucks and I guess I don’t understand why you couldn’t do it because it’s such a different type of industry than anything else that’s out there.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I don’t know if you could do it.

MR. IRELAND: Well, I guess when I looked down through here, and we excluded ice cream trucks, and I’m thinking, why? What the hell is the difference between an ice cream truck and a food truck?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It has to be plugged in.

MR. IRELAND: I mean it’s got a generator I’m sure. You know, it’s doing the same thing I’m doing, it’s keeping stuff cold. And buy one sometime, it’s not even cold. It’s going to melt in your mouth real quick. So, it’s the same thing. It’s just maybe out of a van rather than a full-sized truck. And I’ve seen ice cream trucks. There are ice cream food trucks, so to speak, popping up to where they’re bigger, larger, more selection and so on so forth.


MR. IRELAND: So, that’s going to happen. But what is the difference between an ice cream truck and a food truck?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Just sell ice cream now, just add one to it.

MR. IRELAND: I’m just being realistic.


MR. IRELAND: I just think that, yes, I’ll agree it’s considered -- it’s a commercial, but I think it’s more on the RV side. I think it’s more on the RV side than it is the commercial side.


MR. IRELAND: I like the idea of polling the neighborhood because I don’t think I’d have a problem in our neighborhood.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I like the idea of a poll, too. I wanted to say I’m a little bit reluctant to redefine the universal definitions for commercial vehicles and then carving out an exception. That also leads to issues where, you know, do you have other exceptions and that can get out of hand. Is there an opportunity to look at the delivery provision and maybe look at how that is defined and maybe clarify that? It seems like that would be the better route to maybe clarifying what is a delivery. Maybe opening that up because I think that’s where there’s a distinct difference between your type of business as a food truck and other types of businesses. And if we look at that provision we wouldn’t have to go down the route of redefining commercial vehicles which I think has a lot of perils.

MR. IRELAND: Four years ago I was told it’s similar to an RV to where you’re -- when you’re loading or unloading. Okay. And anybody that’s ever had an RV, you’re loading and unloading pretty much all the time if you’re going out in it. I mean, if you’re an every weekender, you’re going to be loading and unloading because there’s certain things you’re going to take back in the house. There’s certain things you’re going to duplicate and leave in the RV so you don’t have to take it back in the house. When it comes to food and water and stuff like that, you’re going to be loading and unloading all the time. When we’re out every day, sometimes twice a day, you’re loading and unloading all the time. And that’s where I was told way back four years ago as long as you’re loading and unloading, you’re okay. And I loaded and unloaded today.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: In the Commercial Vehicle section the Code does allow the --

MR. IRELAND: That’s kind of the delivery thing.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Right. And it uses the word “loading” and “unloading”.

MR. IRELAND: [Inaudible]. We’re not delivering to your address. In a sense we are I guess if we do --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Delivering to your truck.

MR. IRELAND: [Inaudible]. Delivering to the truck.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Ireland? Dan?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, actually as far as the options, you know, I don’t know that they’re directed towards Mr. Ireland or not, but maybe, you know, what about the parks? I mean, you know, Neil, I know you have some events out there at the soccer fields. Do they have food trucks or -- they don’t? So, you know, are we -- what do you recommend?

MR. IRELAND: We did an event out at Shawnee Mission Park. It was called Touch a Truck where they had the fire trucks and ambulances and I don’t know what else they had, but it was Touch a Truck and they wanted us out there because it’s a truck. The food trucks, I mean, we’ve had - I’ve had ladies come up, their kids are dying to eat out of a food truck. They don’t care what you’re serving, they’re just dying to eat out of a food truck because they see them on TV. And we were out there, we didn’t get any special permit. I mean, they invited us there and we went. We’ve been to Antioch Park for their event, whatever that is. I mean, I won’t go again because they invite too many people and it’s just not worthwhile. So, it’s one of those things. But, yeah, we’ve been to both those parks. I didn’t get a special permit. I guess I didn’t know that I needed one. But again, that’s a public event. That Touch a Truck is kind of a public event.
[Inaudible; talking away from microphones]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Just a sec. Let’s wrap up with Mr. Ireland and then maybe hear from Neil, so we can keep kind of things in order.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Did anyone have any questions for Mr. Ireland? Did you have any other comments, sir?

MR. IRELAND: I’m going to look at my --

MRS. IRELAND: I just have one thing. I’m his wife.


MRS. IRELAND: We furnished pictures to the City of Shawnee.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Would you mind coming up and stating your name and address? Yeah, sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Give us your Social Security number, too.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: First born as well. Thank you.

MRS. IRELAND: Chris Ireland. We furnished pictures for you guys to look at. And we have a driveway at our house. It goes down. We have another garage under the bottom. And if you back that truck down that driveway they drove by even right there. Drove by and he said you had to really look deep to see that truck down there.


MRS. IRELAND: So, if we could park down there we’re more than happy to do that. You know, we can make it work. But I would say our biggest problem is the refrigeration. We have --

MR. IRELAND: Four refrigerators.

MRS. IRELAND: Yeah. And this weekend I loaded like 300 pounds of meat in that thing. And when we come home I don’t have anywhere to unload that or keep it. We have a freezer and a fridge and all that, so that’s our -- and if we store the truck somewhere we have to have somewhere we can plug in for electricity because we can’t function without it. So, that’s just all I was going to say. And, yes, we do [inaudible]. But we do pay for events in that park. I don’t think anybody will let you just drive into a park and park and do it.


MRS. IRELAND: And the other thing I wanted to say is, I’m not sure, you need to check on this, but I don’t think in the state of Kansas it’s even legal to just pull up on a street somewhere, like anywhere, like in front of the courthouse, wherever, and serve food. I don’t think that’s legal. You can do it in Missouri, but I don’t think it’s allowed in Kansas.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Well, thank you.

MRS. IRELAND: And we wouldn’t do that anyway.

MR. IRELAND: [Inaudible] the last time, we don’t do that.

MRS. IRELAND: We just do the private stuff.


MRS. IRELAND: But I just wanted to make that clear that if we could park that thing down there, we’ve got to plug in. That’s our big thing.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. And I appreciate the clarification.

MRS. IRELAND: And we did ask every neighbor up and down the street because we live on the last street where you have to know you’re back there or you wouldn’t even drive down there. And everybody knows. None of them seem to mind because obviously we feed them all anyway.


MR. IRELAND: We have that privilege.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Mickey, did you --

MR. IRELAND: I don’t have anything else, just let [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. And if you’ll both -- I’m sorry, Chris, if you’ll both sign the paper there on the right. Thank you. And, Mickey, did you have a comment for them?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, I had the comment for Carol. Is it possible that there could be a special use variance, that if it was approved through the Planning Department? Like as they say, if it was to be in a certain location behind their house going down a lower driveway where it is not visible.

MRS. IRELAND: It’s not visible just like the people who were telling that were here last time, the Smokin’ Fresh BBQ lady. Their trailer is right next to their garage and she says it’s legal because it’s a trailer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But if we had a special use permit of some sort just for this. As you say we have a long-time variance that we’ve allowed for one person. If we had a special use permit that would be allowed that for any reason it was not in the spot it was supposed to be at, the permit could be pulled.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We could ask Ellis to look into it. My first inclination is do we want to just change the commercial vehicle ordinance to provide -- it doesn’t provide for a variance right now. The one we have I believe is grand-fathered in. So, it provides for grand-fathering, but not for a variance.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, we would have to --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, we’d have to come up with some kind of language based on what criteria would we consider that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That way we could allow one item.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I was kind of thinking along those lines, Mickey, the same thing. A variance would seem like that would be the way to handle this because we’re not talking about large numbers. I mean, a handful maybe City-wide. And if that could be handled through some sort of variance process, either with a site plan. Have them come in and show you where you’re going to put it and it gets approved, and whatever. I mean, something along those lines is where I’d like to see it go because I don’t think this is going to be an overwhelming issue for the community. And that doesn’t open the door for the floodgates for everybody else to just pour through there, so I’d like to pursue that concept. Not the specific, we don’t have the specifics obviously, but pursue that kind of idea of going in the direction where it’s an approved item which is a variance to our normal practices.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Okay. So, Dan, you had a question regarding the parks for Neil. Come on up. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: What I was kind of meaning was out there at Stump Park. You know you --

MR. HOLMAN: A permit for special events.


MR. HOLMAN: We would allow, if we invite you to come and we can do it in a safe manner. What we – our biggest problem at Stump or Gum Springs with all the soccer --


MR. HOLMAN: Ice cream. No.


MR. HOLMAN: They just pull up. Just right in the center of the parking lot and start doing ice cream. And you’ve got 200 kids. So, then you have people backing up and trying to get around the kids, it’s just -- we usually have to call the police on them.


MR. HOLMAN: And they do it constantly. But if you’re invited and we can do it in a safe manner, and the food and the kids or the parents can eat and stand in line in a safe manner, then, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Because I mean last year you guys brought up that the guy rented Stump Park or did the big soccer thing. You know what I mean? He had a soccer tournament there.

MR. HOLMAN: Yeah. A couple guys.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And it cause all the problems because everybody was parking all over.

MR. HOLMAN: Well, I mean --


MR. HOLMAN: We had that again this year where you had parking on the street. The problem was that we didn’t order Johnny’s.


MR. HOLMAN: Because he said he would and he didn’t.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But what if you invited, you know, like food trucks in at that time and --

MR. HOLMAN: We have, let me see, who did we have? Before we had Oasis. Well, Moe’s and then there was an ice cream, Oasis on the bigger tournaments.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, you do have a food truck out there?

MR. HOLMAN: We have our – and then we have our concession as well.



MR. HOLMAN: I mean, we do. But again, it’s in a safe area.


MR. HOLMAN: It is kind of, you know, either fenced or in an area that we’ve designated as like a little food court.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Jeff, you had a question for Neil?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. And this kind of goes, and I was going to bring this up because what we say on here on this Option One is not permit a public citizen, unless approved as part of a City-sponsored event. This soccer tournament is not a City-sponsored event, so would we say of, and just drop out the City and part of a sponsored event? Because I would say if the soccer guy is renting Stump it’s --

MR. HOLMAN: Because of the -- I’m sorry, Jeff.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, that’s what I’m wondering though. When --

MR. HOLMAN: Half of the -- what is there 800 teams and we’ve got thousands of people out there and that’s why they’re parked in the neighborhoods and everything. So, our concession stand can’t handle it. So, we --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I know. But we’re not sponsoring. The City is not sponsoring that event.

MR. HOLMAN: It’s our concession stand. They’ve paid for the tournament. They want concessions. Okay. So, we run the concession stand. We’ll call up the Oasis ice cream guy.


MR. HOLMAN: And then you work for us. You know, you sell here. Moe’s, you sell here.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And the only thing I’m saying is the language in this says it’s approved as part of a City-sponsored event. It’s not a City-sponsored event, it’s a --

MR. HOLMAN: Yeah. It’s not a City-sponsored event. [inaudible] a tournament.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I mean I think we just have to work on that language and make sure that -- but that was all my concern on that one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other questions for Neil?




COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there anyone else from the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Back to Council discussion. So, maybe we should run through the different options. I think we start with the Special Event Permitting options if I’m correct.
MS. GRASHOFF: All right. So, Option One is as you see in the draft regulations. Again, that’s no Special Event Permits. And we can change this language. Whether it’s participating in a City event or event on City-owned property, we can change that. And then basically Option One is no special events. The Option Two would be basically how we’re doing -- practicing now, just clarifying that. So, a Special Event required if vending on private property and serving to the general public. But no Special Event Permits required when participating in a City-sponsored event, or operating on private property not serving to the general public. Then Option Three is the mix of those again, which would be the special event permit is only required if there are more than one mobile restaurant on a site.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Does anyone have any feelings about that one way or another? Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Question for you. Let’s say it’s a City-sponsored event, they don’t need one, period, regardless if there’s one or two or ten, right?

MS. GRASHOFF: Typically if it’s a City-sponsored event, then like Neil said they get invited or there is some sort of process that they have to go through to be a part of that event.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If I remember from our last discussion, when we talk about special events, there’s already a special event permit that the person doing the event has pulled. So, this would be an additional permit?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I mean, when we talk about like under Number 2, so Option Two, Special Event Permits required when vending on private and serving the general public. Is it an event permit and a food vendor permit or --

MS. GRASHOFF: No. We would go under the existing Special Event Permit, which gets issued to the business that’s actually hosting the event, whether they are just having food trucks or they’re doing sales and, you know, trampolines, whatever. It would be issued to the business that’s hosting the event.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Only if it’s open to the public?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Now, if it’s private, they don’t need a Special Use Permit, or they don’t need an event permit and the truck doesn’t need --

MS. GRASHOFF: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Which would be like Number 1, right? No Special Event Permits are required to participate in a City event -- operating on private property and not serving the general public at a private event or --

MS. GRASHOFF: Yeah. Basically in this instance this would just, which we’ve included in the regulations that they would have to get the property owner’s consent. We would want them to have that written with them while they’re operating on that property. And really that’s all that would be required of them with Option One.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just wanted to come out in favor of Option Number One. I think we talked about keeping it as simplistic as possible. If we had to tighten up requirements due to some obvious deficiencies in the language or whatever we could do that later. But I think that’s the way to go.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I agree with you. Okay. All right. I don’t think we need an official vote, but is everyone good with Option One?



MS. GRASHOFF: And then these options have to do with vending at specific locations. So, this Option One would be not permitted at public facilities or parks unless part of that – it could be, I guess we could change this language if we want it to be a City-sponsored event, or if it’s an event basically on City property. Option Two would be they’re allowed at public facilities or parks and this would be with no permits and no restrictions. Option Three would be not permitted at public facilities or parks unless they’re in an on-street parking stall or as approved. I think when we are thinking of this would be over maybe by Splash Cove. There’s some on-street parking stalls. They could pull up in those. But again, that might have an effect on, you know, what’s going on in Splash Cove and sales within Splash Cove. So, something to consider. And then Option Four, not permitted in public right-of-way along parade routes. And again, we can kind of lump this in with some others if that is appropriate.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. Can we approve two options like Option Number One and Four?

MS. GRASHOFF: Yeah. Definitely. Because I know it was one of your concerns at the [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It was. And I would be in favor of One and Four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d like to just --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d like some minor modification to the language in Option One saying not permitted at public facilities or parks unless approved as a part of an event sponsored by the City or other recognized entity, something like that. So, it’s you’re invited is basically what we’re saying there. You’ve been invited by the City. You could be invited by Bayer if they’re having a big deal or somebody else having a big deal. That would just -- it wouldn’t just be City, it would be City or, you know –


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- a recognized entity, that it’s an event.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That makes sense.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, my concern with that one though is what if I have a, you know, rent a shelter and have 50-60 people, that’s not an event. That’s my party and I want to have a food truck feed everybody. We’re saying that under this it wouldn’t be permitted.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You’d have to have an event permit.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. But even with the event permit you’re saying on here not permitted at a public facility unless approved as part of a City-sponsored event. My party is not a City-sponsored event, so theoretically, I can invite a food truck to feed my party.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If you have to rent a shelter, you would have to get a permit, a shelter reservation. And perhaps you could build it into that process.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We should because I think that’s kind of an avenue for people to go to. Or if you’re having -- because I’ve seen some parties out there where they’ve got 150 people.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s what I said with what I was suggesting. That’s what I said with what I’m suggesting. If there’s an entity that’s asked them to come there, they just didn’t show up at the public park and they’re selling out the back of their truck or whatever.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Or in conjunction with a shelter rental.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They’re at an invite or at request.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I was saying in conjunction with a shelter rental or something like that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You could almost say, yeah, they’re there at a request of -- by request.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anyone else? Okay. Brandon. You raised your pencil. I don’t know.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No. I was just going to say –

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Neil has something, too.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I can see that this, you know, almost as a City-sponsored event, licensed event or shelter, registered shelter, I mean, to accommodate just the different types of events because I think that’s what we’re trying to do here is not limit it to just something that’s specific with the City. But if you have an organization, too, that’s using that park that day and wanting to have that that they have that capability and that we don’t exclude them, so.


MS. LECURU: Just a suggestion. A City-authorized or permitted event. Because when we -- anytime like you said with the shelters, somebody had to reserve that park shelter from us, so we know that they’re going to be there. If it’s a shelter rental and it’s for that private party that would be one thing. But if it’s a shelter rental and they’ve inviting, you know, everyone to come to come to make it a public event that would be a separate situation. But a permitted event, not sponsored or supported by the City, or authorized by the City.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That makes sense.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Would that allow then if you’re -- so, then if I had a shelter and had 50 people, could I --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It would be City-authorized, you’d have to get a permit.

MS. LECURU: And it would be -- as long as you have the permit from the City to use that shelter then you could have a food truck there. But then you would determine whether or not that do you want that just to be for a private party and that would [inaudible] a public event or a private event. So, if it’s just for you and your friends and somebody else walks up and this is a private event. Or if you’re going to say, hey, everybody come out. Churches do that. Churches will rent, you know, a shelter and they wanted to have that and invite everybody to come. So, that’s the difference between a private and a public event. Both of them do require a shelter permit.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I’d just throw in here when the Taste of Shawnee at Old Shawnee Town and there were several food trucks and trailers in there. However that works seemed to work just fine. And I would think that would be the very same thing.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I got a question that goes back to Swarner Park and then maybe Gum Springs. Do we want to exclude those because it -- is it safe? Is it not safe? You know, if it’s not safe, then we may not want to, you know, you may not want to do it there regardless. But, you know, I want you guys to weigh in because you deal with it.

MS. LECURU: Swarner Park and Gum Springs, if there is food trucks or if there’s food vendors there it’s at our request and we’ve hired them to provide it for a special tournament or event in a place which is a safe location.


MS. LECURU: [inaudible]

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Does anybody rent those fields? I mean, I know that soccer people rent them, but do they have their own tournaments there that we’re not sponsoring?

MS. LECURU: There’s no tournament there that’s not supported by the City, that we run the concessions.


MS. LECURU: It’s part of [inaudible] that we hire the concessions to be ran there.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And when I’m at those eight a.m. games I really appreciate the coffee they have.

MS. LECURU: We want you to enjoy that.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’m just concurring with Mickey, too. I think we need Options One and Two.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m sorry. One and Four. Yes, thank you. With, of course, some of the language we talked about, open it up a little more.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. We all good with One amended and Four?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Moving on. I think there was a little bit -- do we need to circle back to the commercial vehicle conversation? Do you need clarification on that?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: What I heard is first to try and develop some kind of process.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I know why I’m going to come back.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. And we can work on that. So, depending on how crazy that process is might determine whether we come back to a committee, or if it seems pretty straightforward and it seems like it would be workable, then we could bring it directly to a Council meeting with the ordinance and the changes you all recommended tonight.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s what I was wondering. It didn’t seem like it was maybe ripe yet to make a motion to move it for the 24th in case it does get complicated.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. All right. So, I think we’re good to move forward then with that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes. And so just to clarify. We can bring it -- we’ll try and bring it forward to a future Council meeting. It may just not be as soon as it normally would. We’ll work on that. If we feel like it warrants more discussion, then we’ll get with you, Chairman, and we’ll put it back on the Committee agenda.



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I assume we don’t need a motion then at that point? All right. Great. Okay.

And before I leave this item, I just want to circle back for purpose of the minutes that Dan Pflumm from Ward I arrived at 7:05. Didn’t mean to make it seem like you came at 7:30, but I was so engrossed in the conversation, so sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No. That’s all right.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think it was 7:02.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It was actually 7:05 and then I had to go get my packet and look at it and then come in here.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’re with you. All right.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The second item on tonight’s agenda is a Prioritization Discussion and Exercise. Since 2013, staff has been developing a long-term funding plan that will protect the City’s assets and ensure funds are being spent in the areas that are the highest priority for the community. City Manager Gonzales and staff will present information about potential future projects. Ms. Gonzales.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We have quite a parade of people today so you won’t get bored with me. But we’ve been talking about this for quite some time, talked during the budget process about beginning this prioritization. And as it said in the packet memo, and Maureen will talk in a few moments in a little more detail about as we get to ‘17 and ‘18, and because we have been very disciplined about not doing capital projects and not taking on more debt there may be a little light at the end of this tunnel. And so it’s important for you all to begin to think about what are the highest priorities to address. It’s been fun for us to look through all the projects from the past and all the things we’ve heard in the last few years to think about, what things to bring forward to you. And so tonight you’ll hear descriptions of a pretty long list. It’s not by any means all the projects that could be done. And so if there are things that we didn’t include on the list, bring them up. If there’s projects you’d like to see costs on or would like to see included in the prioritization, then we can prepare a cost sheet and incorporate that.

So, the purpose is to begin this prioritization discussion. There isn’t really a deadline other than, you know, by the time we get to the budget process next year and begin to think about CARS projects in the future and SMAC projects, it would be good to have some of these things lined out and think about our CIP ‘17 to ‘21, which seems like a long time from now, but to begin to incorporate some of these projects in. And it’s just I think good for the public to have an idea of what projects are planned into the future. So, when we do get questions we can say, well, that is on the list because now for so many years we’ve just had to say we don’t know and there just aren’t many things on the list.

So, the process that we’re hoping to go through tonight, and mostly just educate, inform, answer questions, discuss this list of projects here from you all if there’s any other things you would like to see. Then we developed, and you have a great big sheet in front of you, kind of a project decision sheet. So, after tonight’s meeting, and if we need to add some projects to it we will, but what we’d hope is that you go home and look at the materials and have discussion tonight, but then think about what you think are the highest priorities and we can talk a little bit more about that at the end of the meeting about kind of how to do that. And what we’ll actually do is send you a live spreadsheet so you can plug the numbers in, not have to pencil them and add them on a calculator. Then based on all those priorities, staff will gather and tabulate and then by November hope to come back, say, okay, now we’ve gone from this big list down to this list and we still don’t have enough money to do all these things, so let’s have more discussion about how to narrow it down further. So, that’s kind of our goal.

So, with that, I’m going to let -- Maureen is going to talk about the money and what options and what’s coming forward with the funding.

MS. ROGERS: When we were in the budget discussions, if you remember the debt service forecast, it showed as we went through to 2025 the fund balance growing over that period of time because debt we’ll be paying off and the forecast assumed no new debt at that point. So, there was capacity. And it looks like at this point if everything continues to -- the economy and other factors continue to bear out the way we were thinking at the time we did the budget, then there would be the ability to begin to bond in 2018 with the first debt payments in 2019. And just to make some assumptions in order to do this exercise, based on that forecast you could make a good assumption in big round numbers that there’s about $5 million a year debt capacity which equates to around $600,000 annual principal and interest. To get that number we’re kind of assuming maybe rates went up. Hopefully they won’t go up too much, but a three percent rate to allow for some increase. Right now we’re not that high. If we issued bonds today, it would probably be around two percent or a little bit below two percent. Ten-year maturity on bonds, except for the -- if the Community Center was one of the projects chosen, making the assumption that would be 20 years. And then it wouldn’t be necessary to have to do $5 million every year. If we wanted to do a big project, we could skip a year and let capacity build up.

Another funding source that we wanted to talk about this evening, to keep in mind, would be the Stormwater Utility Fee. Just as a review or maybe not everybody understands how this works in the first place, how the fee is calculated. Each home is assessed $36 a year and it shows up on the property tax bill. An Equivalent Residential Unit is what that $36 is called. And that also some cities also express that as a monthly charge, maybe if they have utilities like Olathe does and they actually send out monthly bills. Commercial properties, that same $36 ERU is incorporated into a formula that involves square feet of impervious surface. And all of those fees together generate around $1.7 million a year. That’s what goes into the Stormwater Utility Fund. And then assuming it’s expressed monthly, if you went from like $3 to $4 a month, that additional dollar would equate to around $570,000.

To compare a little bit with other cities around us. I didn’t include Leawood because they don’t really have a dedicated funding source for stormwater. These are just dedicated stormwater funding sources. The first line, those ERUs for those cities, that shows ours is $3, Lenexa is $8.50, Overland Park is $2, and Olathe is $5.55. On the revenues generated all four of these cities have the stormwater fee. And I added in the Parks and Pipes, or the Pipes sales tax on ours. And then Overland Park has one mill that is dedicated for stormwater. Another funding source for Lenexa, they also in their capital improvement plan have about close to 16 million in debt that they plan to -- or in project costs, about 13 million in debt over the next five years in their CIP in order to convert corrugated metal pipe to concrete or line it. So, that’s another funding source they have. Then the miles of pipe maintained in the system for each of those cities is in the next line. And then I just took the revenue generated from those dedicated sources to get some kind of idea how those dollars compare.

Another thing to think about with these systems is what they’re -- how they’re made up is not the same. As far as a corrugated metal pipe, Shawnee has 59 percent of our system is CMP. Lenexa is 34 percent. Olathe is the most like us at 42 percent, and in their funding structure. Overland Park actually has not allowed CMP for many years and less than five percent of their system is CMP. And they’re continuing and working to eliminate all of that. So, that’s really all I have in my section.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, these are the projects types that we’re going to talk about. In your packet was a copy of the proposed CIP. So, none of the projects on that CIP are on the list to discuss tonight because really you have already seen those through CARS applications and bringing them forward in the past. However, those aren’t carved in stone. So, other than probably projects that are already scheduled for 2017 we’re probably committed to. But if there are projects on that CIP later in later years that you have second thoughts about after hearing some of the other projects tonight, then there is flexibility there. So, we want to make sure you know that.

The other thing, we’ve kind of used the word ‘project’ a little bit broader than normal, and I said that in my packet memo. We included I think three different options on just allocating those funds instead of toward debt for capital projects, towards maintenance, or towards our Street Improvement Program, so you’ll hear a little bit of that tonight. And then several of the project sheets, as you look at them, talk about if we would move forward with this quantity of work, additional staffing would be required. And obviously on the facilities there is that provision too. And Deputy Chief Scarpa will talk about that a little more specifically on the Fire Squad concept because that is really about people in addition to a facility.

So, the other street projects that are not on the list tonight, and I’ll get up in a few minutes and show you a whole list of those, are some projects that some may be on the CIP, but there are ones that we consider development driven, might not be constructed until a developer came in and was ready to develop at that location and/or might be ones we would want to drive in order to increase development. So, we won’t talk about those in great detail tonight.

So, as we think about priorities obviously what -- and projects, and this is kind of the exercise staff has gone through to think about what’s most important to us as a community. So, of all these projects what supports the kinds of results that we want to achieve. And then these other more specific criteria. And as I said, staff went through old CIPs. We went through notes and direction from Council and inquiries from the public on projects that people are interested in and weighing them against all these different criteria as they were – the criteria is relevant to the projects. And that’s how the list that you see in your packet was developed. So again, it’s not an exhaustive list at all.

So, with that, I’m going to let Mike Gregory start out and talk about Stormwater.

Stormwater Projects and Maintenance

MR. GREGORY: I’m lucky because I already covered this a few weeks ago.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Well, you’re done.


MR. GREGORY: I’m done, yeah. So, here these first five projects that are on the list there, those are ones that I brought up last time. But these are ones that we’ve identified need to be done, but they’re also projects that we cannot get any outside funding for like the Johnson County Stormwater Management Program. So, those figures, if you have any questions about them you can ask me about them.

But two are -- or three of them rather are for really large pipe failures that we’re seeing coming down the line. And two of them are systems of pipes that were all in one place, so we called it a project. And the last item there is an amount that we’re going to be needing to continue doing maintenance.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Mike, on the Seven Hills project, isn’t their homes association able to help on part of that culvert? Because isn’t that a pretty good section of theirs?

MR. GREGORY: Well, that is really all part of the City’s system.


MR. GREGORY: Yeah. And it’s a very large pipe. I don’t remember exactly.


MR. GREGORY: But it was around seven by eight-feet wide or --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay. And that’s all City?

MR. GREGORY: That’s all a City structure.


MR. GREGORY: It was all replaced down to the last hundred feet of it because that’s where our City limit was by Lenexa.


MR. GREGORY: At the time it was in good shape.


MR. GREGORY: But now it’s starting to collapse and rusting out. We are glad that it hasn’t. Fortunately if it does --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Because that’s what we were looking at when we did all that other stormwater work.

MR. GREGORY: Right. We’ve done other work through there.


MR. GREGORY: Right. So, it’s something --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay. I thought that they had some ownership of that, I wasn’t sure.

MR. GREGORY: Not really.


MR. GREGORY: They own the pond --


MR. GREGORY: -- and all that. But the pipe coming down and then where the head wall is that would be us.


MR. GREGORY: Any other questions?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, just any of those pipes there metal?

MR. GREGORY: All these are metal.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All of them. That’s what I figured.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah. I walked through the one that was nearby your house, and unfortunately it was about this much shorter than me, so it was like this the whole way.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But the projected cost you’re showing here for these, what is the replacement? Is that going to be one of those liners being put in? Is it going to be tear out and replacement?

MR. GREGORY: Seven Hills would have to be a replacement. 75th Street would be a replacement to concrete, possibly lining. 63rd and Halsey would have to be replaced because it’s collapsing in. There’s a big hole there. Johnson Drive and Widmer, that would have -- we believe that lining it would be the best because it’s so long and it would work out well. And then Renner Road under Shawnee Mission Parkway that one has just decrepit and we’re going to have to replace quite a bit of it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Do these numbers reflect that? The concrete ones you talked about and the concrete linings you talked about. So, that’s the assumptions you made in bringing those numbers?

MR. GREGORY: Uh-huh. That’s right. Well, I did have two kinds of numbers for Johnson Drive and Widmer. Full replacement and lining. But we decided that there was no choice. I mean, lining was the way to go. Okay.

This is just a location map for where those are located or found. And this is just a summary of things that you’ve heard before already. Basically talking about our Citizen Service Request. And that talks in there about our SMAC type projects, something on the Parks and Pipes and then $3 million in our budget for the next five to six years. And then about a million a year would be a good number to address maintenance and other kinds of issues. Whenever we -- like the projects that we do throughout town, all the different locations. But every year we do a certain amount of inspection and that usually turns up about $1-$1.5 million worth of work. And that’s really all I have.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you.

Quiet Zone Projects

MS. GARD: Good evening. Caitlin Gard, Assistant Public Works Director. I have brought this item to the Council’s attention many times this year. I think we’ve had about three or four different conversations about quiet zones. Tonight I’m going to be showing you five different project proposals, four of which will install safety measures at four crossings to silence those train horns. And one of them is a proposal to close a crossing. With five of these -- if we move forward with all five projects, that would eliminate five of the 14 crossings in Shawnee.

So, this is the project list. On June 2nd, if you remember myself and Mark Sherfy came forward with a prioritization schedule. If you remember we prioritized all public and private crossings based off of the number of trains per day. That’s determined by what train line they’re on and then also what the number of residential units within one mile from each crossing. So, tonight we’re going to be talking about the top three crossings that ranked on the public prioritization schedule and the top two private crossings that ranked on the private prioritization schedule.

This is our first crossing. It’s at 59th Street just east of Woodland. This ranked number one on our public prioritization list. It has 89 trains a day and over 1,700 residential units within one mile. The recommendation at this location would be to install medians and channelization. That is the cheapest option if you want to be able to apply for a quiet zone. This area would need significant road improvements. I’m not sure if any of you have been down to that location, but it would need significant grading and a widening of the road to install medians and channelization.

Our second project is at 55th Street. This project ranked number two on our prioritization schedule. It has 89 trains a day. It’s on the same train line and it has over 1,400 residential units within one mile. Both this location and the 59th Street location are right by those ball fields. And those are the majority of complaints we get when residents or anybody from outside the City comes in. There are 89 trains a day on that line, so everybody at the ball fields gets to hear those as well.

So, at 55th Street here, since there is an access road within 60 feet of this crossing, we would have to build a four-quadrant gate. That is the most expensive option unfortunately. But in addition to these gates there would only have to be minor road improvements, so it would really just be the cost of the gate and engineering and any items associated with that.

The third crossing that we’re going to talk about is the Switzer crossing down the Fort Scott line. This is actually going to be our most inexpensive option or crossing to silence. There are already gates at this location which is actually very nice, so all that we would have to do is put medians and channelization. The road is wide enough so we wouldn’t have to do very -- we wouldn’t have to do significant road improvements. We’d just install the gates and channelizations. I’m sorry. There already are gates, we’d just install the channelization.

The fourth proposal is our number one priority on our private prioritization schedule. And this is at 73rd Street and Martindale. This is currently a private crossing. Staff has been in discussions with the property owner to determine if there’s any way that we could convert this private crossing to be a public crossing, which would make it significantly easier for staff to apply for a quiet zone. It’s really not -- it’s very difficult to apply for a quiet zone if it’s a private crossing. Many different agreements would have to be made with individual private property owners. So, we’re discussing converting this to a public crossing. If that were to be the case, we would have to relocate -- there are current signals there that are I guess stop and go signals to go into Kansas City, so a lot of trains back up at this location and so they -- it’s kind of like a traffic signal for trains and it’s right at this crossing. So, we’d have to relocate those signals and then we would also have to install a four-quadrant system. Like I said that’s a pretty expensive cost as well. So, once those are installed then we could go ahead and apply for quiet zone at this location. Any questions?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Do we want -- I definitely want to see quiet zones out off Martindale. There’s no question about it. But under my understanding was even if we were to get the quiet zones installed and put in out there, that any place that we’d have a walking trail or the streets, which is on Martindale right directly next to the tracks, if for any reason somebody is riding a bike or walking on there, even though it’s a quiet zone, the trains are required to blow their whistle, is that correct?

MS. GARD: That’s correct. There’s an FRA rule, and I’m sorry, but I can’t give you the distance to the track. But if the conductor of the train feels it unsafe for a pedestrian or a vehicle or an animal that’s close to the track, they can blow their horn at any time.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s not mandatory.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’re talking -- the most of the complaints we had were late night, you know, train whistles and –

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, granted. But early mornings that’s what they said. If somebody is out walking it at say four or five o’clock in the morning, or jogging along that road on Martindale right next to the tracks, you may get one or two of the engineers that blow the horn.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It would be better than all of them.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, I know. My point is that it will not eliminate all the train whistles. You know, it’s going to eliminate probably a good part of them, but you’re still going to get some complaints because they’re still going to blow the whistle at some periods of time is my point, is that correct?

MS. GARD: Yes. The FRA rule, and I honestly am sorry I don’t know that if it’s required or if it’s just at the discretion of the conductor.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: He does. Can we ask him just a minute?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff and then Dan, too, after that.

MR. TREDENNICK: The conductor has the option of the blowing the horn if there is something on the track. Whether it’s a person walking, or if it’s a deer to just get rid of them. But we’re putting up with 530 blasts a day.


MR. TREDENNICK: And if we got a couple times a day where they got to honk at a deer or a guy walking, we’ll take it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And I’m sorry, not to interrupt you, but if you could state your name and address for the record.

MR. TREDENNICK: I know better than that. I should have. It’s Jack Tredennick, (Address Omitted), Ward IV.


MR. TREDENNICK: Also I might say, Caitlin and Mark and the group have done an outstanding job of working, finding, I think, a way to make this work. We visited -- I visited Mike and I visited with the landowner yesterday morning. He’s kind of coming along thinking this might be a good thing that he’d like to see happen. And he’d be – sounded cooperative and so he’s waiting for a survey I guess that we’ve got coming along and it’s been good staff work.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. And Jeff and then Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m going to say something real quick and it could probably wait till you’re done here. But I’m looking at these quiet zones and I’m looking at these dollars and I’m looking at Switzer for $84,000. And I’m asking the question, so on Lakecrest Drive we put in a crossing guard. And I remember when we approved that. And I said something about why don’t we do a quiet zone. It was going to cost -- the answer was it was going to cost us so much more. But I’m seeing here we’re just $84,000 because on the Switzer quiet zone we already have arms? So, it’s only --

MS. GARD: Yes. Switzer and Lakecrest are very similar. The issue of what happened at Lakecrest is -- let me back up a little bit. When a crossing is a public crossing, it gets placed on the state of Kansas prioritization schedule for improved safety measures. And the state of Kansas will install single gates. So, I guess double gates. And there are only so many crossings prioritized every year and they’re re-prioritized every year based off of number of vehicles per day, trains per day, et cetera. And Lakecrest was on a schedule and we weren’t -- I don’t want to say we weren’t notified a significant time in advance, but the state of Kansas came in and said, okay, we’re installing double gates within the next two months. We said, whoa, can we talk about a quiet zone? Can we talk about maybe silencing the horns at this location? And to meet safety measures per the FRA at Lakecrest we would have had to widen the street significantly. We could have done -- could have done a channelization, or no, because of that curve?

MR. SHERFY: Mark Sherfy. Caitlin is exactly right. The challenge at Lakecrest was the state came and said we want to do this next year. We had inquired with them on installing a quiet zone. The problem was the width of Theden or Lakecrest currently at the time, and still is today, is very narrow. There was conversation with them on moving their pole standards out farther so that we could have a time to build a wider road with the median that’s required. They can’t just put their things up on their timeline and have them so far away from the curb line if you will because there’s certain regulations and specifications on how far the red flashing light is from the edge of the pavement. So, we would have had to get our street project done in advance of them putting their signal thing up, and we just didn’t have the months to get that done.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, what’s frustrating about this is we’re looking at these projects that the taxpayers spread all over Shawnee are going to pay for. And I have a developer who actually came to me, and I mentioned this to staff, and said benefit district my development if you can do a silent crossing. And now we don’t have one. And that’s, you know, that frustrating because we could have had a silent crossing. And we had a landowner that would have paid for most of it. He was willing to do a benefit district. I don’t know how we allow those things to slip by.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I was going to bring up the Switzer one. Did you mention how many homes are affected?

MS. GARD: Yes, I’m sorry. I did have that number. There are 30 trains on the Fort Scott line and over 2,600 residential units within one mile.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Within a mile, but not very many of them are real close to that, right? That’s down there off of Switzer.

MS. GARD: Within one mile. Sorry, we didn’t do one within a half mile or a quarter mile.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. So, I mean, even though that’s the lowest cost one, I don’t know that we gain a bunch, you know, a lot of benefit like we do, you know, out there off 79th Street in western Shawnee.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. We had a complaint off of that one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Have we? I mean, have we ever had a complaint?

MS. GARD: At 79th Street?


MS. GARD: 73rd. There’s a 73rd Street and a 75th Street.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: 75th Street. It says project location, it looks like 79th on the map here.

MS. GARD: Complaints on Switzer, I’m sorry, minimal. I don’t think I’ve received one. I’m not sure about Mark.

MR. SHERFY: Because they’re all in Overland Park -- or they’re Merriam.

MS. GARD: It’s very close to different cities.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, there’s no real residences there anyway.

MS. GARD: There’s apartment complexes.



MS. GARD: Still within one mile.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And across the highway, yeah, you are correct. But still --

MS. GARD: I’m sorry, I should have said there are citizens in the audience that would like to speak to this issue. I’m not sure how you would like to proceed with that. After I’m done talking or end of the presentation.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. We can do it after you’re finished with that section. Yeah, thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, in addition to that Switzer one, the 73rd out in western Shawnee on Martindale, you didn’t mention how many residents were there, did you?

MS. GARD: Eighty-nine trains a day. That’s the Emporia Subdivision line. And there are just a little over 300 residential units within one mile.

The last project I’m going to talk about is the 75th Street private crossing just south of the 73rd Street crossing on the same subdivision line. Eighty-nine trains per day with just over 290 residential units within one mile. We do have two options for this crossing, two options that staff seems feasible. The first one, and which is the more likely one, is to purchase the property to the southeast of this crossing. There’s about 80-ish acres for sale currently. And that the property is split, not really down the middle, but there’s a northeast portion of this property that is cut off from the rest of the property by the railroad tracks. And the only way to access that property is via this crossing. Staff has had conversations with the property owner and at this time they’re not willing to split the property for sale. So, if we would like to purchase the property it is on the market for over $1.95 million.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, Mickey, you’ll buy that?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Do they take checks?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’ll sit here while they cash it.

MS. GARD: The other option for this property is a project that we talked about before and that is an access from the 73rd Street crossing down to where 75th crossing would connect. And there has been discussions with BNSF and the private property owner regarding where this access road should lie and who would be willing to maintain it, would the City maintain it. And we’re still in discussions with both of those entities. But that would be about a $580,000 project.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, isn’t that land adjacent to the park anywhere?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes. Both of these, the 73rd Street crossing and the 75th Street crossing properties are both adjacent to Shawnee Mission Park.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m sure they need some land.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The park can buy it, then that would make it part of the park.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. And there are residents who would like to speak to this item? Yep. I think it’s you, come on up. And we’ll do name and address again just for fun.


MR. TREDENNICK: I just wanted to support the two private crossings. Particularly the 73rd Street crossing. And the 75th Street crossing has just as many residents involved in a mile, but they’re farther away in that mile. The 73rd Street is within 50 yards of some of our residences. I’m representing the Brittany Ridge Homes Association here. And these residences at Brittany Ridge, Bristol Valley and Woodstone Meadows primarily that are involved. And we don’t need to go through everything we went through on June 2nd. But we got 570 horns a day there. And it’s become a health issue for some people getting tinnitus, ringing in their ears from it, people not sleeping, et cetera. So, this is a big deal for all of us in that neighborhood. And we appreciate the effect that’s going in. The private crossing has been the big hang-up as I understand over the years on this. And it looks if we can purchase a small piece of land on the opposite side of the tracks from Martindale and then create the public crossing out of this, it sounds reasonable. And the landowner yesterday morning, he’s told us about the conversations he’s had with the City. I think he said you only needed like 400 square feet of area 10 by 40 or 400 by 10, something like -- 40 by 10.

MS. GARD: Sure. To give you guys a little bit of an update on where we are at the 73rd Street crossing. Staff has met with the private property owner and the state of Kansas and the FRA has both approved a very initial site plan for the City to purchase a 40 by 10 small piece of right-of-way on the east side of the tracks, on the east side of BNSF right-of-way on this individual’s private property. We’re currently in negotiations with the private property owner to determine if this is something that he would be -- he and his family would be interested in. And we are also in the process of getting a survey done. There are some items of personal property that may be located on BNSF right-of-way or the survey might be incorrect, so we’re currently redoing that survey.

MR. TREDENNICK: That’s just what the private property owner told us yesterday, so everybody is on the same wavelength there. The 73rd Street crossing and the connection there, while we would love to see that be done, we would not want it to interfere with the -- we would not want the 75th Street crossing to interfere with timing or progress of the 73rd Street. So, the 73rd is our -- because it’s rated in here as a higher priority and it would be for us as a higher priority as well. But I don’t really have anything else other than to say we really need it. We appreciate the fact that it would make our life better and help the property values as well.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you so much.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’re going to get into streets and Mr. Lindstrom is going to do most of that. But this is just the list I talked about earlier of street projects that we call them development driven, ones that could rise in priority if a developer approached us and was interested in pursuing those. So, 43rd Street east of K-7. We do have 43rd Street west of K-7 is on the Capital Improvement Plan. I won’t hit all these. There’s a couple of just small segments there along Renner Road if that property south of the bowling alley were to develop, then that developer would be expected to put in improvements on the east side of Renner, which would finish that off. Clear Creek Parkway, that Number 6, we are in conversations with the owner around that property and could be bringing that forward as a benefit district, quasi-City-developer partnership project. So, that would be a really nice road to get built. And then a few of those other smaller ones. Number 3, 62nd Street, Widmer to Pflumm, again, there’s some improvements there south of what was the Cobblestone project. And as you all know there’s a project looking at that site again. And so if they came in we would hope to maybe work in partnership with them where they’d improve the north side and the City could maybe improve the south side and we’d get that street all finished out. So, those are eight different projects that aren’t on the list but could come up if some kind of development occurred. All right. I’m going to let Paul go through the many street projects.

Street Reconstruction

MR. LINDSTROM: Paul Lindstrom, Development Services. Don’t be scared of the list. It is long. I will try and go through these briefly. I do have a map for each one of these in case you don’t know where they’re at. First, I want to say these are just in alphabetical order. There’s no ranking on these, so they’re just right down the list. So, we’ll just go through these one by one. I would point out, too, that out of the 780 land miles we have, this equates to about 40 of those, so it’s a pretty small portion of streets in our City. Also, I want to indicate in our standards we do designate certain roads for arterials and collectors, so these are the definitions of all those. I believe that’s all in your packet. So, if I do mention an arterial or a collector this is where the information is at. Of course, local streets.

The first project is 47th Street out in western Shawnee. You probably know we just overlaid that last year, but this is a segment that is not complete. The only segment between 435 and K-7 that it does not have curbs or sidewalks on it. So, kind of an important piece to finish off that segment. This also is an on-street bicycle lane designation to complete that, so that would finish that up also. There’s the cost for that. I think we probably have brought that to the City Council when we were doing the overlay.

The second project is 51st Street. This again is a segment between Quivira and Quivira Drive is the last segment that needs to be improved as a collector street. This also has future on-street bike lanes which would actually go down Quivira to the west down 51st Street. So, once again, that has no curbs or sidewalks on it, so. With a price tag of a couple million dollars on that.

Each one of these you’ll see has construction and mostly engineering. So, a lot of these smaller projects do not require a right-of-way.

62nd Terrace. We’ve talked about this street, or at least a lot of people have talked about this street in connection with Flint. So, this is kind of a standalone project, but more than likely we’d do this in conjunction with Flint Street. Narrow street. We know it’s got ditches, no curbs, no sidewalks. So, improvement to this of course increases safety. This is a busy street similar to Flint.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And that’s not high on your priority that street?

MR. LINDSTROM: It is on our list of streets that we’d like to consider. Like I said these are not ranked.


MR. LINDSTROM: That’s your responsibility is to rank these, so.

Moving on, we’ve got -- so, that’s the cost for 62nd Terrace.

71st Street out west. Of course the new park going in. This goes right along it. We do have Mize School out there, so this has been a well-talked about project. Right now there are just short pieces of curb and sidewalk, so this would continue that throughout the stretch of that. And, of course, with the increase of residential going out there. That does have a pretty good price tag, but length on that is 1.25 miles.

Ballentine, more downtown here. I know we’ve been talking about that for a while, too, so that’s on the list. A residential street. Acts more like a collector residential. So, that street from 62nd to Johnson Drive, there’s connectivity. It is ditches, no curbs, no sidewalks. And you’ll see a lot of these. Essentially they’re -- they just have no curbs, no sidewalks. The safety, there’s no room for pedestrians or bicycles.

Going back out west, Clare Road. You’re going to actually see a couple different segments. We broke it up just because we know the cost is too much to do for one project. So, the first segment here. Clare is actually considered a future arterial. We probably would not build that right away of course as an arterial, but currently it’s a narrow ditch section street. It’s going to be a repetitive thing that I say on all these streets that we’re trying to kind of upgrade.

Second leg of Clare Road. You’ll see the price is a little higher than the first leg because of the -- if you’ve been down Clare Road you know there’s about a section in there that I think the street goes down to about 13 feet if I remember. It was about that narrow at one point. So, that would take that alignment and make some improvements with that for future development that would happen out west. This would be another segment of Clare Road, so the price would be similar, a little better terrain to work with, so it might be a little cheaper. One again, future development. You have a narrow street.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Let me ask a question real quick. And I mentioned this a few years ago, has there any kind of discussion on rethinking the idea of Clare being more of a main road and kind of pushing that onto Mize, which is -- already has the other main intersection there. You’ve got the schools on it. And kind of taking Mize, I mean, curving around and using that as the --

MR. LINDSTROM: It is my understanding that was proposed at a -- it might be shown at a circulation plan for the future. So, yes, I do believe that does show up somewhere, but not proposed at this time. We would take --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because I think a lot of the -- some of the widening has already been done and it’s a lot more room to work and it’s a straighter road and it would be so much --

MR. LINDSTROM: We would take a look at that once the development occurs out there as an option, yes.


MR. LINDSTROM: And if you have any questions about any cost, please let me know, I can stop. A lot of these are pretty straightforward costs based on building the collector and not an arterial at this time.

Here is the Flint Street plan that we just talked about related to 62nd Terrace. Similar aspects. Narrow street. Ditch sections. A lot of traffic from the school and the church there. So, I think everybody is familiar with that street. It’s been mentioned a few times.

Going back out west, Gleason Road. Once again narrow section, ditch section. This would be good for future development. It could be potentially I guess part of that development that Carol was talking about, but we would see this being approved to collector standards.

Going back downtown, Goddard. Again, that’s been talked about quite a bit. This is a good connection between 55th Street and Johnson Drive. So, I know that it’s got a lot of storm drainage issues and it has sidewalk on adjacent right to the street I guess you could say, but it has no curbs. So, I know that there’s been much discussion about this. So, once again, this would increase the safety for pedestrians and vehicles by widening.

This is a segment that we’ve talked a little bit about internally and how to break this up or not break it up. This actually is a segment that is a very narrow section. Once again, ditch sections. But it includes Lawrence Road, 66th Terrace and Elmridge. So, the reason we didn’t add the last segment of Elmridge next to Midland Drive is that segment is already improved with curbs. Actually it’s already widened. It’s improved with curbs and storm sewer on the west side. So, that shows up as a different project which I believe was on the one that Carol showed you earlier. That’s got a pretty good price tag just because there is no improved storm sewer or curb, sidewalk. It’s a lengthy project. I believe that is 1 miles. And we could break that up if you’re wanting to. If you think one portion of it is more important than the other, we can definitely do that.

Midland Drive. This was actually on our CIP several years ago. Mickey, you probably remember that.


MR. LINDSTROM: So, this is back on our list. There are some segments that do not have curb or sidewalk, some narrow sections, maybe some storm sewer improvements that should be done as part of this. So, that’s why this is back on our list as a future improvement. This is designated as a future arterial, but we would not plan on widening that to four lanes.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Now, would this be considered as a two-lane on the repairs down the road?

MR. LINDSTROM: We would discuss that at the time it came up. We’re not proposing to make it a four-lane if I think that’s what you’re asking.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But if you’re making it a three-lane with bike lanes, it’s still the same width as a four-lane.

MR. LINDSTROM: I believe this is designated for future on-street bike lanes, so we would have to discuss that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Which would be three lane and a bike lane?

MR. LINDSTROM: We’d have to discuss that cross-section at the time.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But you’re still a four-lane road by measurement.

MR. LINDSTROM: There’s options.


MR. LINDSTROM: There’s options to do two lane and bike lanes and just widen out at the intersections. There’s options. So, it’s not a three-lane with bike lanes the entire street.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You’re trying to fill the room up.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: All of these similar to -- the questions about to Mike about the stormwater, you know, we used our best judgment on what we thought was logical in terms of the pricing, but if and as any of these projects came forward, the design would all be discussed and alternatives would be looked at and that would have impact on the pricing, so.

MR. LINDSTROM: Midland Drive. I know this has been highly talked about, too, just because there’s a lot of on-street bicyclists today even though the pavement section does not allow that. So -- excuse me?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

MR. LINDSTROM: So, this again I think was years ago on at least a portion of it was on our CIP. So, this is back on again. We know it’s an expensive project. I’ve got over $10 million to do this. So, that would include the lighting, curbs, sidewalk. Actually this is an on-street bicycle lanes and a rec trail on the south side. So, it’s designated for some good pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Moving back out west again we have Mize Road. And I believe I have three segments here that are all similar. They’re narrow, ditch section. Obviously if you’ve driven them there’s not much to them, so they would be not up to our standards. As you go farther south on Mize Road, now you’re getting into where the school is at. So, you know, like I said we took these apart so you could do segments at a time. Not intended to do any one first. So, you’ll have three segments of Mize Road there. And again, that is intended to be a future arterial road. So, it’s going to be high traffic in the future.

And my all-time favorite. Mickey’s, right? Ellis’ all-time favorite, right? Monticello Road, where do I start? You know, it’s definitely a narrow ditch section road. We’re very familiar with it. It’s been on the CIP before. As you can see it is a high dollar project. Our intent would still be to pursue federal funding on this. I don’t think we could probably do it any other way. Anyway, this is a project that I know we’ve all heard about several times, so.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Is that federal funding where you have $7 million down for our part?

MR. LINDSTROM: It’s 5 million would be the state funding and then 3 million for CARS funding. So, the 7 million would be our share.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It’s still approved, isn’t it?

MR. LINDSTROM: No. No. We had to let that go. So, we would have to reapply. I believe next year is when they’re asking for applications again for the next five years. Again, this is a road that is designated for on-street bicycle lanes and recreational trail.

This is kind of a new addition to what we think is a priority. This came about with the Nieman Road study. I mean, if anybody drives it, there is actually quite a bit of traffic on this stretch of Roger Road. It is narrow. It has ditch sections, so we think it’s a good project for the future in order to accommodate the Nieman Road improvements that we do.

And I believe this is the last one. Woodland. As you can see there’s a lot of new alignment going on there. We actually have a lot of increase in traffic out there on Martindale and Woodland because of the new housing going in. This would be alignment based on some future development that happens out west. Part of this does have bicycle, three bicycle lanes. I believe the part that goes to 75th Street and then to the west. So, this would be also a future arterial road. And once again that’s an $8.4 million road. Any questions? I believe that’s the last one for me.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One thing I’d like to see on this list, and I’ve talked about to Carol and a few other people is, and as long we’re talking about Woodland, let’s go the other direction going north. So, Woodland stops at 47th Street. I know somewhere there’s a plan that I’d looked at running a bridge over the railroad, so I, you know, made comment about the railroad crossing at Lakecrest. That’s a problem because we forced a developer to build that road and gave access to an industrial park. And so we have residential people living in $450,000 houses, and periodically people in their infinite wisdom want to go to 435, so we got dump trucks. We got semis. We’ve got things coming around that corner, coming up Lakecrest and pulling through that residential neighborhood. And it happens more than it should. So, you know, Lakecrest should really cul-de-sac at that railroad crossing. It goes away completely. And I really want to know what it would cost because you’re already -- you’re not doing, I mean, you’ve got that hill there. You’re just going to bring Woodland over top of that tracks and drop it down. A few things it does is it gets rid of that crossing. It gets rid of Hermes crossing which Hermes is trying to do. I don’t know if anybody knows it or not, they’re growing wine grapes out there. He just put up his trellis system. He’s getting ready to plant and we’re going to have a Shawnee winery. But he actually wanted to do an event center. His insurance company just said there ain’t way with people driving over the tracks and then you’d have to do a private crossing and it was very expensive. It would open up that, but also we have so many acres down there that just aren’t going to develop if you can’t get to 435. If you’ve got to go all the way to K-7 it’s potential, you know, light industrial ground and warehousing. So, when we look at some of these projects I really want to know what it costs to take Woodland north over the railroad and --

MR. LINDSTROM: That it is actually on a circulation plan, that alignment that you’re talking about. It ties into 43rd Street, so we can come up with a cost.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because that’s one of those ones that’s actually going to -- I think at the end of the day it’s a revenue generator because it will open up a whole lot of ground for development.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Good job by the way.


MR. SHERFY: Good evening, Mark Sherfy.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: David wants to say something.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, sure. Yeah. Sorry. We were going to do comments at the end, but that makes sense. Come on up. Come on up.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Let me guess. Rogers Road.

MR. MORRIS: They just know the drill, name and address. David Morris (Address Omitted). One of the things I would like to see to give you guys some help and input is how many times like some of these projects have been on a CIP and back off. For example, Goddard. I know that it’s been on and off for more than 20 years.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I don’t know if we go back that far.

MR. MORRIS: Well, it has been.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I mean, I know it has been on the CIP for a long time.

MR. MORRIS: So, it’s not really a promise, but it’s sort of like it’s an important thing that it’s gotten on and Council people have worked hard to get them on and for various different reasons they’ve come off. I think it shows an importance of that project. So, it would give also the Council sort of more information to make some decisions on that. The other area that I noticed tonight that there was a lot of, and it’s not just Goddard, there’s other, obviously Woodland and some of the other -- Midland and some of the others have been on and off CIPs, but I think it will give you as a Council more of an idea throughout the years what’s been important. Also there’s been comments about working on these projects for future expansion, future development. I think also, especially in the downtown area, it’s more of not necessarily a future development, but it is, but it’s to stem the tide of blight and to be able to redevelop the downtown area. I think those are really important factors. So, thank you.


Curbs and Sidewalks

MR. SHERFY: It’s still good evening. Mark Sherfy, Public Works. The next slide here brings up a few topics that we’ve talked about quite a bit over the last couple years. We don’t have any maps. We don’t have any costs on these things, but they’re two really important items that are near and dear to many citizens and Councilmembers alike.

The first is dealing with the reconstruction of our streets, our residential streets. We call that our Street Improvement Program. And then the second bullet there is just maintenance for curbs and sidewalks. So, let me first just address that these are much like stormwater. They are taking care of and rebuilding things we already have. Must like all of Paul’s projects there, some of those are improving upon more collector streets, but this is more geared towards the residential. This SIP, the Street Improvement Program, you all know that one-third of the 3/8th cent sales tax passed last year is going towards residential street improvements. That’s about $9.7 million over the next decade. And there are 57 miles of streets that are candidates for that. The mayor appointed a citizen task force a couple of months ago. They have had three meetings. They’ve done some excellent work. Their next meeting will be in October. And in November, we’re going to bring forward a policy statement that they have -- the original policy statement that we provided to them that you all approved a year ago, they’re going to make some recommendations to that and they’re going to set some prioritization ideas for you guys in making decisions on residential streets or residential collector streets going forward. It’s really good work. I look forward to them and myself bringing that forward to you.

Some of the slides that we’ve seen today, Ballentine, Goddard and Melrose are a part of that SIP matrix there. What this bullet here is particularly talking about is the $9.7 million over the next decade is certainly a start. And our goal is to redo four lane miles of these 57 streets. That leaves us with 53 more to do. Some of those streets are such a low priority we may never need to go and do those, so don’t have to feel obligated we have to get them all done. But what this slide here is saying if we wanted to double the number of streets and make even additional progress over the next decade another $9 to $10 million would double the amount of money going to the Street Improvement Program candidate streets. That might actually take off some of the slides that we’ve seen here earlier. That might go into other neighborhoods that aren’t, or haven’t been on the CIP before. So, that’s what this slide, this first bullet here is looking for is, is additional revenue, debt funded, whatever to expand the SIP that we are now getting started with.

The second bullet, additional curb repairs. I’ll back up a minute to Policy Statement 11, which has been a longstanding policy statement for how we do our curb and sidewalk maintenance. Curb maintenance is based on number one, ADA complaints. If we have a problem with an ADA ramp, we fix that. The second priority of our curb replacement program is anywhere we do a mill and overlay, we fix any curb and sidewalk issues on that street. We mobilize, we get them taken care of. That street needs to be addressed. The third priority is citizen complaint driven. We do a pretty good job the last couple years of dealing with the majority of the citizen complaints, but we’ve also had very small programs. And the number of citizen complaints tends to be -- fluctuates the same amount as the size of the program. That is because the citizens see us out doing work. They see us doing repairs and they wonder why we haven’t gone around the corner to do more of them. So, complaints grow as the program grows. They tend to grow. And then the fourth criteria is just being proactive. We only two or three times in the last five or six years have been proactive on curbs.

So, it’s very frustrating to folks to see a curb complaint taken here and maybe one or two houses over and right around the corner we don’t get to that. The reality is we feel our estimate on the staff side is there’s about 80 miles of curb that needs to be replaced and that’s a $12 million price tag at $30 a foot. So, if we wanted to address all of our curb program complaints, we would estimate we would need $12 million in a year to get that done. That’s one of the challenges we have here.

Staff is concerned that as the street maintenance program doubles next year we’ll probably have twice as many curb complaints coming in for a while. And as we have the mill and overlay expand some will -- it’ll go away because we’re addressing more on our mill and overlay streets. But it is going to be something we’re going to have to wrestle with the next couple of years. So, considering that maybe some additional funding is something we need to consider for a couple of years to be responsive to our citizen requests.

Signalization Projects

And the next slide is signalization projects. We have a couple of signalization projects already on the CIP. The only one that we don’t have on the current CIP is Johnson Drive and I-435. This would be a pair of signals for Johnson Drive. I remember -- well, we have applied for federal funding out here. It hasn’t met that criteria. We don’t have enough accidents to get safety funding for it. The goal with this project would be to interconnect these two traffic signals with the one at Johnson Drive and Renner. So, in theory, anybody going east or west on Johnson Drive should only have to stop once. People turning into the corridor would maybe have one or two stops. That’s not what we design those things for. But we would also want to also install these traffic signals and add some street lighting. It’s fairly dark out there if you’ve been there in the evenings. Five p.m. in the evening you can have a long wait coming off the ramps. Something we need to start looking at as a potential improvement project. And if we built any of this stuff, we would certainly try to set the pole standards far enough away that if any development were to happen to the south and west on the Hodgkin property of the interchange there, we wouldn’t have to relocate anything we’ve currently done. So, the price tag for that is estimated on the next slide here. Any questions on curbs, streets or signalization projects?

Facilities Projects

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Okay. We’re going to wrap up with facilities. And I believe you got a few replacement sheets. We struggled with, you know, all the CIP sheets that we tried to show operating costs associated with the project. And obviously the facilities are a little more complex, so make sure you get your sheets replaced, just a few tweaks on those. So, Deputy Chief Scarpa is going to talk about some fire station options and then Parks and Rec Director Neil Holman is going to talk about the west community center, Parks maintenance facility. And thinking about Mr. Morris’ comment about the CIP, I’m not sure on 74 if it has ever been on the CIP. The squad is a relatively new concept, so has not. But I know the last two facilities have been on the CIP in the past, so with that, I will let Sal --

DEPUTY CHIEF SCARPA: Good evening. Sal Scarpa, Deputy Fire Chief. I’d like to take a couple minutes this evening to talk to you about a couple of public safety projects that are of critical importance to us in the Fire Department. If you would indulge me about 60 seconds I’d like to read you the executive summary or our station location study. “The Fire Department has recognized continuous and ongoing growth within the City. Growth in the residential and the commercial population has made Shawnee one of the fastest growing communities in the state of Kansas. The community has also experienced increased growth and target populations that tend to have an impact on emergency services, namely the very old and the very young. The growth in the community increase in the targeted populations has had an impact on emergency call volume. The department has recognized a 65 percent increase in calls for service between 2004 and 2014. Our western district alone has recognized a 27 percent increase in call volume from 2010 to 2014. Projections for our continued growth in the community have an impact on the reliability of an emergency resource being available for service when a call for service is received. Growth in the northwest part of the community is of significant concern to us. Significant growth in the northwest part of the City coupled with a single resource available to service the western part of the community has yielded some unusually long response times to this part of the community. In an effort to decrease response times to this area the department is recommending the addition of a fire station, Station 74, in the northwest part of the City. In addition to other benefits, it is expected that the creation of the station will have a significant impact on response times in this area of the community.”

One of the things that we did was that we conducted a comprehensive station location study in trying to determine where would be the best place to put Station 74. It’s been talked about in the past, certainly before I came here. But it’s something that’s kind of come to the forefront for us here recently.

I’d like to show you a map, if you will, and we’ll talk a little bit about some of the response times. This is a best case scenario travel time for response units today to the northwestern quadrant of the City. Normally red is a really good friend to the Fire Department. In this case red is really bad. And so what we’re seeing here, what’s represented here is travel time only for fire units responding from Station 3 which is out west to the northwest quadrant of the City. Obviously the closer you get to a one-minute response time or a two-minute response time the shading goes to green. We’ve determined that what our stakeholders are truly interested in is basically three things when it comes to public safety. They want a prompt, professional, compassionate response. We think we do a pretty good job at providing the professional and compassionate component. We know that we have an opportunity to improve in the promptness area. And that’s what this project is all about, is increasing our response capability to this portion of the City.

So, in looking at this second slide, what you can see here is if we put a station in the northwest corner of the City, we have a significant impact on a lot of that red that was on the previous slide. Response times drop dramatically. And again, these are strictly travel times. This does not include call processing time or what we call turnout time, which is when fire fighters get their gear on and respond from the station. There are actually only three things that you can do to impact travel times. Two of them are technological. The first one is called closest force response. And that basically means you send the closest capable unit to the emergency that is capable of handling that emergency. And the way we do that is with automatic vehicle location through our county dispatch system. They know exactly where all of our resources are at any time of the day and they send the closest available unit to that emergency. So, we have what we call AVL or automatic vehicle location systems already working for us. The second thing we can do is what’s called signal preemption. Which basically means we take control of the traffic signals in parts of town and we change them so that we can quickly get through the traffic congestion without causing any undue harm to the community. That we have in the form of what’s called Opticom, the system that we employ throughout good parts of the City and they’re on all of our emergency response apparatus. So, we currently employ those two technological enhancements today. The only thing that we can do affect response time, travel time specifically, is to put more stations in. Without having a station on every corner, which we know is unfeasible, we’re trying to do the best that we can to impact the most amount of people with the least amount of money.

So, this station here is proposed in the northwest quadrant of the City. There’s no specific location identified yet. If the Council decides to move forward with this, we would certainly look at that. We have some ideas that we’ve done some modeling on. That is all part of our station location study which it pretty comprehensive and it’s certainly available to you.

What we’re anticipating is approximately a $4.6 million project. $2.7 million of which will be the building, $800,000 for fire apparatus, engine, financing, and then of course staffing. It’ll be a single company with four people each day. Are there any questions specific to the station location before I move onto the next piece? Okay.

I’d like to talk to you real briefly about our second initiative that we feel is critically important for us. It’s a concept that was presented back to you in 2013 in the early part of the year called a squad concept. If I could take you back a little bit. The idea of a squad concept is a rapid response vehicle in our high volume areas of the City. In the eastern end of the City where our call volume is the densest and our community is most densely populated, we have a significant amount of EMS calls. Sixty-five percent of the calls that the Fire Department runs today are EMS in nature, or medical in nature. Unlike many of our counterparts in the region, we run a significant amount of fire calls compared our EMS calls. Most agencies are running 75-85 percent EMS calls. We’re about 65 percent.

The idea behind the squad is to provide rapid response in this high density environment and to keep fire apparatus available in the high volume district. We have the dubious distinction for several years of having the busiest engine company and ladder company in the state of Kansas. The busiest station in the state of Kansas. While some of our enthusiastic fire fighters would really enjoy that title, it’s not something we’re terribly proud of. It just means that we’re running our calls -- running from call to call quite a bit. And with call volume increasing, and it’s suspected to continue increasing, I think this is a challenge. So, what you see here is the call total, medical calls that are run out of the different stations over the past four years. And the projections are this will continue to increase, specifically with the population increases. We’ve seen a 90 percent increase, you know, population age 75 and older over a ten-year period. A 46 percent increase in the population age 65 to 75 in a ten-year period. We’re seeing a large number of group of people that are entering the next phase of their life. And typically those people tend to call in emergency services quite a bit. That’s what represented here.

Since 2010, the Fire Department has run approximately 29,000 calls for service. Again, about 62 percent of these are medical in nature. A typical medical call initiates a fire department response of one to two fire trucks and a battalion chief depending on the severity of the call. Call volume ratio is approximately 3:1 from Station 71, the headquarter station to the other two stations. Station 71's call volume has increased 30 percent since 2010.

Reliability or availability of Station 71 units is currently stretched. This is why we’re considering the squad concept. The squad is basically an emergency response vehicle much like an SUV with two people on it. We’d have to find a place to house it. Currently we don’t have the capacity to house it at our Station 71. We are beyond capacity. So, we’re proposing two options. Option One is acquire land or a home in Station 71's district, which is going to be quite challenging. As you can imagine the east end of the City is pretty well populated. And finding land suitable for us that would not create more noise than what the citizens already have to deal with would be challenging, but it’s certainly a possibility. We’d be considering the neighborhood impact. We’d have to renovate the home to meet the needs for the fire department to staff that home with up to 24-hour personnel. It would be another facility to maintain. The other alternative is much needed renovation at headquarters Station Number 71, which was built in 1975. Initially housed some volunteer people and minimal staff. Now, houses five administrative staff, soon to be six, and ten emergency response personnel and growing. And currently a Station 71 renovation would meet spatial needs if we were able to do that, operational needs, and allow for the squad deployment out of the station. Again, there would be no need for any additional facilities to maintain.

Here are the anticipated deployment options, or the staffing methodology, excuse me, for how we would see this deployed. In year one, we’d hire two fire fighters, an EMS staff person, acquire the rapid response vehicle, which again would be very much like an SUV or a Tahoe or something similar to that. Year two -- excuse me. Year one, service would be delivered during peak times only. In year two, we would expand the peak times by hiring two additional fire fighters. And in year three, hopefully transition that car to a 24-hour operation, which would not only allow us to do the things that we need to do with respect to responding to EMS calls, but allow us to do what some of our other partners in the region are doing, and expanding our EMS program.

Here are the potential costs associated with Option One and Option Two. As you can see, obviously Option One is much cheaper. It’s acquiring a house and doing some renovations and then putting the resources in that home for about 1.3 million. Option Two incorporates a complete renovation of Station 71. There is space that is currently vacated by the Police Department moving out to their headquarters that is not being used. We’re currently heating and cooling that space, but we generally don’t use it because it’s unusable for us the way it’s currently constructed. We require a complete renovation of that space and then a subsequent renovation of the current space and not doing any renovations to the bays where the apparatus is currently located or the basement. And there’s a cost there of about $4.6 million. Are there any questions relative to either one of those projects?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The 4.6 million, did you actually put a, you know, have a plan that you put to it and had a contractor kind of give a high level view of it, or where did that number come from?

DEPUTY CHIEF SCARPA: We contracted with an architect to come in and give us an idea of what that would look like. Staff had expended a couple thousand dollars the early part of this year, late last year to have him evaluate Station 71 and Station 73 They gave us renderings that we were able to cost out for up to three years. It’s about a four percent increase each year. So, that’s where the numbers come from.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, the 4.6, so it’s not a complete -- I’m guess renovating the station, but primarily the existing bays stay –


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- and taking what’s now the -- what was the former police side and redoing parking and adding bays over there.

DEPUTY CHIEF SCARPA: We don’t add anything to the footprint of the building. The footprint stays the same. We completely rehab the old Police Department. And then once we move the administrative staff over to that side of the building, the operation staff part of the building would be completely rehabbed to incorporate the needs of the people.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you.

MS. LECURU: Good evening.


MS. LECURU: I’m Tonya Lecuru and I’m the Deputy Parks and Recreation Director. And I’m going to speak to the western community center site and then Neil will speak a little bit more about the Park Maintenance Facility.

So, as has been mentioned before, some of these things have been on and off the CIP for a number of years. And I can say for sure that at least this one has been on there off and on for about 16 years because that’s how long I’ve been here, so we’ve taken some different looks at it. Different times it’s looked different ways. It was an expansion to the Civic Centre at one point. And then also an additional outdoor aquatics facility in western Shawnee. So, it was two different pieces. And in 2005, Councilman Kuhn asked if we could look at that, what it would look like in western Shawnee to combine those two things together to provide a service out there. So, that is what we did. In 2007, yeah, this has been updated. The information in your packet may be incorrect. But in 2006, we started looking for some locations for -- to place this community center in western Shawnee. We looked for options, things that could accommodate the different areas and amenities that we’d like to add to this facility. So, in 2009, or sorry, in 2007, we actually purchased the land here at 61st and Woodland. This site was chosen after we did a charrette to make sure that the site would accommodate what we were looking to accomplish. So, in November of 2006, we conducted a program charrette with a variety of different organizations and groups to discuss possible partnerships, programming spaces, needs, site opportunities, site restrictions and constraints. That charrette that we held the Johnson County Library was a part of that, Johnson County Parks and Recreation District, the DeSoto School District, USD #232, as well as members of our Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. We took that information and gathered it all together and talked about what we could do with this site, what would benefit each of these areas, what other partners are possible. And so this design here that is shown, the site plan, the concept drawings, it’s nothing specific other than what would fit, what could we do. So, we took this information from the different needs assessments that we’ve done over the years. In 1998, we conducted our first needs assessment to look at what we’re doing, what we’re doing right, what the citizens want. We also conducted in 2000 when we were looking at renovating the Soetaert Aquatic Center as well as renovating the east pool, we conducted a needs assessment specifically to aquatics and we talked about some of these things that we put into the site plan. In 2003, 2008, and 2013, all of these needs assessments addressed a variety of different options with indoor aquatic space in western Shawnee as well as additional aquatic space, and recreation space in western Shawnee. So, all of these things were put together and discussed with the group that we talked with.

Based on those community needs and assessments that we did, we’re looking at what the community needs as well as what they want. The Shawnee Civic Centre, our current recreation community center, was opened in 1991 when the population of Shawnee was approximately 38,000 people. And the majority of the population was east of 435. Since 1991, the population has grown nearly 70 percent with a large portion of that population west of 435. I’m sorry. I’m [inaudible].

The City has 797 acres of park land west of 435; however, only 26 percent of that park land has been developed. With that, there’s eight parks west of 435 and 23 parks east of 435. What we’re looking to do is to take the facilities and put them in the western Shawnee that will accommodate all of Shawnee, not just the western, but make it more centrally located. We have taken some information from the Olathe Community Center that they have recently developed. They opened theirs in July of 2014. We’ve taken their information and we’ve compared it to what it would look like if we would develop one here as well. That’s the expenses that you’re seeing here.

The part of the things with the recreation facility, it provides so much more for the community, opportunity for people to gather, to increase the benefits of the community. It allows for opportunities for people to gather and to have an area, an area for them to have health as well as fitness as well as places to gather with recreation, aquatics, indoor aquatics facilities as well.

One of the things within a community center at this location, it would also allow for cost recovery. So, we’re looking at the expenses comparison to what Olathe has currently built and the expenditures that they’ve looked at. It’s a similar facility to them. And we’re looking at perhaps a 50 percent, minimum 50 percent cost recovery on the operations of the facility. Not on the capital cost of that, but on the operations of that. There’s so many opportunities for passes and rentals facilities, programming, different activities that people would be a part of that they could -- this facility could help support it.

The feasibility study and business plan that was used to develop these numbers was conducted by PROS Consulting. And that is an organization, a business that works specifically in parks and recreation facilities. So, they were able to develop this plan with good history and good understanding of the thing. After the feasibility study and the business plan was done, then Ballard King, which is another organization, came in and they reviewed those things to make sure that the business plan that was developed and the revenues could be generated by such a facility were accurate.

There are so many ways that things that can go into a facility that can make it cost recover. And other things that you put in there just for the amenities to help make it a great facility. Such as like a recreation pool. We’re looking at an indoor facility, indoor recreation. That is one of the greatest weaknesses that we have in Shawnee, that we don’t have any indoor aquatics facilities that’s open to the public. And so with that type of amenity we could look to partner with the school district for some indoor lap lanes to do some -- their swim team as well as ours, that would be a good partnership with that. However, an indoor lap lanes will not recover costs. However, when you add the indoor amenities with the splash and the slides and the fun leisure type amenities, then those two balance each other and then you can see a cost profit to those different areas to your facility.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just got a suggestion there. I mean, I know we’ve been talking about this western community center for a long time, and I think I mentioned it years and years ago when we kind of think outside the box. And, you know, it was brought up to me that, you know, really there’s no swimming venue in the Midwest. You know, what if we made it more of an athletic type of a venue that would bring people in for, you know, events and tournaments and, you know, meets and all that kind of stuff. Just throwing it out there, so.

MS. LECURU: So, just aquatics or --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That was brought up as far as aquatics, like I say, you know, there isn’t one supposedly anywhere that you can handle a big, you know, Olympic type of an event or anything like that. So, you know, if we’re going to spend that kind of money and, you know, and only recover 52 percent, you know, if we maybe look to something else and, you know, through hotel revenue and, you know, people from out of state, bringing them in here, like we were talking about ten years ago as far as the soccer complex out there in the bottoms area. You know, so anything you can bring people in from out of town I think would be good.

MS. LECURU: One of the other areas or partners that we talked about was with Metro United and some of the other sports or soccer, indoor soccer environment if we put in the Astroturf and things like that. So, there’s some partnerships that could bring in some off-season tournaments and things like that as well as with, like you said, the competitive pool area to bring in the big tournament, great big meets and things like that; however, you’re going to need to balance that out with the day-to-day operation to be able to make that see more a profit to balance.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Just saying we should look at it.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Just a couple things here. Number One, our nemesis city to the south is going to build a big natatorium out there in the 87th Street area and that’s going to be Shawnee Mission. So, I would think that that, you know, well, that might not be good. But the other part is if it gets competitive swimming going, this could be a help for this because I wouldn’t think DeSoto is going to be doing anything like that. The second thing is, and I’m sure you thought, just, you know, just down the street is that athletic place that Johnson County Parks and Rec has. And while I think it would be a very much of a tight rope to try and build something. Hopefully they both complement, do something to complement and not compete with each other since they’re only half a mile apart, so.

MS. LECURU: That’s one of the things that we have always been very cognizant of is not the duplication of services rather the complement of services. The Mill Creek Activity Center, which did move into the Old Shawnee Fitness location, is a gymnastics facility primarily. So, that is their gymnastics, their base there. Other activities that go on there basically are for parents and family members to do something while their children are participating in the gymnastics facility. But we did talk with Johnson County about that. There’s other areas within their organization that they’ve looked for indoor space as well, perhaps a theater. With their Theater in the Park to provide some sort of indoor partnership with that. So, there are areas to complement rather than to compete.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you.

MR. HOLMAN: All right. Last one. Well, if there was an award for the oldest building in Shawnee in the City system, we’d have it, hands down. The Parks Shop, Parks Maintenance Shop -- oh, Neil Holman, Parks and Recreation Director. Sorry. The current facility that houses the Park Maintenance staff was built in the 1920s. The building is over 90 years old. It was the first county fire station building in the county. In 2002, there was a study done on all the -- probably most of the City buildings in the system. And obviously that was probably one of the worst ones because it needs to have something done with it.

The study showed numerous deficiencies - age, size, location, environmental and structural. Those haven’t went away. You look in the front, there’s four bays. Two of them, the drains go to the sewer. The other two we had to fill up with concrete because they went to the creek, so we can’t use those. So, we have to be very careful with what we do in those other two bays. Structurally, we’re having some wall flaking on the west side in the back. It’s a cinder block building and some of those are starting to fail, so we will be maybe down the road be looking, if we don’t do anything, looking for a fix on that.

That building houses nine full-time and two seasonals. Again, it’s very small. Five of the full-time staff has one desk and they share one desk and they all share one computer in that office.

The study recommended it being in the center, somewhere center location of the City. And as we go through the slides you’ll have a better understanding of where a lot of our activities are.

Just a little bit more background. We have 35 parks. We have 30 miles of trail. We maintain 40 athletic fields. We have 421 developed acres and then on the other hand we have 592 acres of undeveloped land, and most of that is out west. So, on the east side there’s 217 acres of developed property on the east of 435, and 797 acres on the west side. And those probably those two biggest areas is the two riverfront properties that doesn’t have that -- that are undeveloped.

This shows since 2002 when the study was done, these are all the parks that we’ve developed. On the east side we did the Jim Allen Aquatic Center, the Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park, Pioneer Crossing. We took over two cemeteries, developed Quivira Glenn, Sister Cities Park and Water Tower. And then out west we’ve bought the 55th and Belmont property, the old Hayden property, Buffalo Ridge, Clear Creek Trail, #1, #2 and #3, the phases. Erfurt Park, which is coming online here pretty soon. Garrett Park, Monticello Springs, and the western community center property.

This is a map that talks about the storage areas that we have since our place can’t handle all of the equipment, all of the fertilizers, seed and then also the decorations and event stuff that we -- all the items that we provide.

Well, number one is 55th and Belmont. That has on it undeveloped property that has a house and two barns. Those are right in the middle of residential, so we have to keep those up. We can’t let them go down, so that takes dollars out of the General Fund to keep those up. Number two is the western community center site. That has two houses on it and three barns. We just spent money just repainting one of the houses. Again, in a residential area. Number three is a property we don’t own, we rent. It’s a public storage area that houses almost about 280-290 snowflakes. You know, the Christmas decorations down Shawnee Mission Parkway? Well, that houses our snowflakes. Number 4 is the Parks Shop and Number 5 is Fire headquarters. We have three rooms downstairs in their basement that houses files and some other stuff from Shawnee Town.

So, when we look at that centralization, when the site plan was done for the Justice Center and Fire Station 72, as you see right up there, there’s the future Parks Shop right there in the back. There’s three to five acres back there. That was in the site plan planning back then. And I don’t know when that was?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: 2002, 2003?

MR. HOLMAN: 2003? Justice Center and the –

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I believe it was in ’08.

MR. HOLMAN: Okay. ’08? I thought it seemed earlier.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, it was completed in ’08.

MR. HOLMAN: So, the planning was, yeah.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, the planning was 2003 –

MR. HOLMAN: So, that was to get us in the center of the City and we already have the land, because we bought all the Park land, or the land for the two, the Justice Center and the fire station.

With that up there, you know, up there it’s a very nice complex lead you’d want to follow in that complex. I don’t think you’d want a butler building out there. That probably wouldn’t look very nice. That wouldn’t look very good in the punch bowl. So, you would have it looking at a $3.7 million facility. And that’s between the 15,000 to 20,000 square foot building to house the stuff, the equipment. And then at that time we would take all the buildings that we have in the system that we take care of, tear those down and get rid of those and everything would go into one building. So, that would save time, gas, having all your equipment and product under one roof. So, that’s it. Any questions?


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What’s going on with the building next to the Public Works?

MR. HOLMAN: Well, we hope to be bringing something to you soon.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean, is that something else that’s been talked about for Parks as utilizing that one?

MR. HOLMAN: We’ve got -- we’re looking at what we need to do in that building to get it ready and then also looking at our building as far as maybe selling it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Would there be a benefit of Parks next to Public Works and the crossover services?

MR. HOLMAN: Yeah. I mean, we do snow removal. So, we’re out there with Public Works.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But as far as utilizing shop space or like as far as --

MR. HOLMAN: I mean, they’ve got 50-some people and their equipment and it’s a different, sign department, all the different --


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It certainly -- there would probably be efficiencies we wouldn’t even think of having them there. There are some provisions on the sale of the building that they’re working through, whether it would -- we wouldn’t be able to buy the building right now, but we are talking with them about a possible lease.

MR. HOLMAN: But it would be good to have both buildings, both of those.


MR. HOLMAN: Again, in the center of the City, which we would like. And then still be able to take down everything and move into one roof.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you.

MR. HOLMAN: Thank you.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Thank you all for your attention. What I heard was to -- we’ll get numbers on that Woodland extension. We can asterisk on here related to CIP and kind of the ones that have been one before, so you’ll have that knowledge. So you take this with you, look at it. Maybe we’ll wait like a week before we revise. So, if you think of other projects, why wasn’t that one on there, or I just thought of this, call me and then we can add those onto this sheet. We’ll then send it out in a spreadsheet format and you can have a couple weeks. I talked about the 16th getting it back, but I think looking at the October schedule and that probably we would plan to come back in November, so that could give you all a couple weeks to play with the document, look at it and think of how you would allocate. So, the concept is that you’d have $50 million and how much would you -- what projects would you pick. And then if you would want to allocate Stormwater funding to include that on this column over here with the goal of that being that everybody will have an array things and we’ll try and bring those together in an organized way and have further discussion about the priorities.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Thank you. And thanks to everyone on the staff involved in that. I think that was a really fantastic presentation all around and really interesting to talk about the future of Shawnee. So, thank you all. Is there any other discussion on this issue from anyone on the Council?



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, just a sec. Hold on. Geez. Anyone else from the audience who wanted to speak for this item first? Okay. Well. If that’s the case, I’ll accept your motion and I think there was a second. A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.


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

(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 9:58 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 14, 2015

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary



Stephen Powell, City Clerk

File Attachment Icon