PDF Format:

CCM11022015.pdfCCM11022015.pdf

COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
November 2, 2015
5:30 P.M.

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember KemmlingCommunications Manager Ferguson
Councilmember VaughtDeputy Public Works Director Sherfy
Councilmember MeyerFinance Director Rogers
Councilmember SandiferParks and Recreation Director Holman
Councilmember KenigSenior Project Engineer Lindstrom
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Neighborhood Planner Grashoff
GIS Manager Hemsath
Dir. Development Services Wesselschmidt
Business Liaison Holtwick
Police Chief Moser
(Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 5:30 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: (Beginning of meeting not recorded) be joining us shortly. 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 go to the podium, or I guess, yeah, right. It’s still there. I will ask that you state your name and address for the record, and then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear you, I would ask that you speak directly -- is there a microphone there? Okay. Speak into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes. After you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address.

I would like to also remind Committee members to speak loudly and very clearly and wait to be recognized before speaking. Our temporary audio system will broadcast our meetings online and archive a copy for the minutes, but they will not amplify the sound in the room tonight.

B. ITEMS

1. REVIEW 2015 CITIZEN SURVEY

We have two items on tonight's agenda. The first is to Review the 2015 Citizen Survey. In August and September of 2015, ETC Institute of Olathe administered the City's second ever Citizen Satisfaction Survey. Jason Morado with ETC Institute will present the final results of the survey. This item is for informational purposes only. Welcome, Jason. Come on up.

MR. MORADO: All right. Thank you. My name is Jason Morado. I’m a project manager at ETC Institute. And ETC is a marketing research company based in Olathe. And we provide a lot of different types of market and research services, but the thing we really specialize in is doing community surveys for local government organizations. So, today I’m going to go through the results of the citizen survey we administered for the City of Shawnee in August and September of earlier this year.

So, ETC is based in Olathe, but we’re a national leader in providing market research for local government organizations. Since 2006, we’ve surveyed over two million people in 850 cities in 49 states. The only state we’re still missing in Delaware. We’ve done a few surveys in Hawaii and Alaska, but nothing yet in Delaware. So, this really is the type of work that we specialize in.

So, just a quick overview of what I’ll go through. I’ll go through the survey, purpose and methodology. The bottom line up front, which is just kind of our quick takeaway, the survey results. And I’ll go through some major survey findings, summary and conclusions, and if there’s any questions, I’ll take those at the end. Although if you have a question while I’m going through it, please feel free to jump in if you’re afraid you’ll forget it by the end.

So, there are several things we hope to accomplish with a survey like this. One is to objectively assess how satisfied citizens are with major city services. And there’s really two levels to this. On the very first question of the survey we asked residents to rate their satisfaction with major categories of city services. And then later on in the survey we asked residents to rate their satisfaction with some more specific areas within those services. So, really it’s kind of a big picture, a macro level, and also a micro level approach to the survey. Also with this survey we’re able to compare the City’s performance with residents in other communities on both a regional and a national basis. And we’ll look at some more specific examples of that in a little bit. And then also with the survey we’re able to compare results to the previous survey, which was administered in 2012. We asked quite a few of the same questions. And then the survey is also a great way to help determine priorities for the community. And we’ll look at that in a more detail in a little bit also.

So, the survey methodology, this was a seven-page survey. It’s a typical length for one our citizen satisfaction surveys. Usually they’re six to seven pages. And I mentioned it included quite a few of the same questions that we asked in 2012. The survey was administered by a combination of mail and phone, and the surveys take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete, so it’s a little bit of a longer survey, but it covers a lot of topics.

Our goal was to get at least 400 completed surveys, and we actually ended up with 462. So, we had a really, really good response. Residents really responded filling out the survey. And the results of the 462 surveys had a 95 percent level of confidence, have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent. So, essentially what that means is if you did the same survey a hundred times, 95 times the results being plus or minus 4 percent from what we’re reporting. So, there’s always some margin of error when you’re doing surveys like this. But overall, those results are really, really accurate.

So, here’s a map of the City. The red dots are households that completed the survey. So, we had a really good distribution throughout the city. This distribution is really similar to the actual population density in the City. And it’s very similar to the distribution we had for the previous survey also.

So, a quick overview of the survey results. We found our residents have a very, very positive perception of the City. A couple of examples of that, 93 percent of residents rated the City as either excellent or a good place to live, and only two percent rated it as below average or poor. And then another example, 91 percent of residents rated the City as excellent or a good place to raise children, compared to only two percent who rated it as below average. And no residents at all rated it as poor. We also did some benchmarking comparisons to see how the City compared to other communities. So, we found that satisfaction with Shawnee services rated above the Kansas City Metro average in 51 out of 61 areas that were rated. So, the City is doing a great job of meeting the needs of residents. The City also rated significantly above the Kansas City Metro average in 39 of those 61 areas. By significant we mean a difference of at least five percent or more. And then also the City rated above the U.S. average in 46 out of those 61 areas that we compare. So, we’ll look at some examples of that in just a little bit.

And we also took a look at the trends. Overall the ratings are down a little bit from the 2012 survey. In most cases, two or three percent, just a little bit. But the results, you can see they’re still significantly above both the regional and the national average in most areas that we rated. And then you add overall priorities for the community for improvement over the next couple of years. Maybe it’s some city streets and flow of traffic and congestion management.

Now, we’ll take a look at some of the actual survey results. We found that residents have a very positive reception of the City. Here we asked residents to rate various items related to their perception of the City. You can see the dark blue where residents were very satisfied, light blue were satisfied, white neutral, and then the pink is dissatisfied. So, you can see the satisfaction ratings are much higher than dissatisfied in all the areas. In particular, the one that stands out to me, 86 percent of residents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the overall quality of life in the City, and that’s compared to only two percent who are dissatisfied.

And here we asked residents to rate various quality of life issues related to the City. Here are the dark blue or excellent ratings. Light blue is good, white is average, and the pink is below average. So, you can see the ratings are really, really high in all of these areas. In particular, what stands out is that at least 90 percent of residents rate the City as an excellent or good place to live, to raise children, and also as a place to call home. So, really, really high ratings in really all these areas.

Here we asked residents to rate their satisfaction with major categories of City services. Again, the blue are satisfied ratings. The pink are dissatisfied. So again, really, really high satisfaction ratings. The thing that stood out here is there’s no area at all where the dissatisfied ratings are high. Usually even if ratings are good overall there’s at least one or two services that residents are a little more unhappy with. But here is where each one of these nine services that were rated, less than 20 percent of residents were dissatisfied with any of these services.

So, here we have a map of the City. And what we did here is we broke the survey results down by a census block group. So, the reason for this is to see if residents in different parts of the City rate services differently. So, this one is based on the overall quality of life in the City. And you can see the dark blue areas where residents are very satisfied, the light blue are satisfied. But really the key to this chart is that the entire map is blue, which means that residents in all parts of the City are satisfied with the overall quality of life. What happens is a lot of times even if the overall results are good, once you see this map you’ll still see certain neighborhoods or pockets where people are dissatisfied. But you can see here the entire map is blue.

So, now we’ll take a look at some benchmark comparisons. I mentioned earlier we saw that satisfaction ratings for Shawnee are significantly higher than both the regional and the national averages. So, the blue line is the satisfaction ratings for City of Shawnee residents. The red are the results for communities in the Kansas City Metro area. And then the yellow are the results for residents from across the U.S. So, the blue arrow means Shawnee rates significantly higher than the average, which is still a difference of five percent or more. And a red arrow would mean significantly lower. So, you can see the City rates significantly above the regional and the national average in all nine of these major categories of City services. In particular a couple that stand out where the City is really way above the averages, parks and recreation programs and facilities. You can see the City is 22 percent above the regional average, 23 percent above the national average. Customer service from City employees, Shawnee is 20 percent above the regional above and 21 percent above the national average.

So, your perceptions of the City. From this area you can see Shawnee is significantly above the regional and the national average in four out of five areas. The other one results are about on par with the averages. The one that stands out the most here to me is the value received for City tax dollars and fees. You can see a 59 percent satisfaction rating for the City compared to only 43 percent for the regional average and 46 percent for the U.S. average.

Here are ratings of the community, generally quality of life type aspects as a great city, a place to live, as a place to raise children, as a place to work. All these areas the City rates significantly above both the regional and the U.S. average.

Here is the City maintenance. The City rated above the regional average in all these areas except for maintenance of major City streets. A little bit below the regional average there, but still above the national average. And you can see with the blue arrows the City rates significantly above the regional average in seven different areas.

So, this is the only one where the results are a bit lower, code enforcement. You can see four to five areas the City rated below the regional and the national average.

Here are comparisons to parks and recreation. Once again, the City is above the regional average in all seven areas, significantly above six out of the seven. In particular the ones where the City is really far above the average, the number of City parks, outdoor athletic fields, walking or biking trails.

The one to me that really stands out here is overall feeling of safety. You can see Shawnee rates 10 percent above the Kansas City Metro average, 11 percent above the U.S. average.

And then satisfaction with emergency services. You can see there are six areas where Shawnee rates significantly above the regional average and the U.S. average. The one that stands out to me the most, that very top row, local police protection, 13 percent above the Kansas City Metro average in that area, 14 percent above the U.S. average.

And the satisfaction with communication. You can see a couple of areas where the City is significantly above the averages. Ten percent above the regional average in the availability of information about City services and programs. And then six percent above the regional average in City efforts to keep residents informed.

So, now we’ll go on to the trends. Overall, the ratings are down just a little bit from 2012 in a lot of areas, but still as you saw they’re still well above the regional averages. Here are some of the areas that had a notable increase in satisfaction since 2012. And a lot of this is really based around customer service with the City employees. You see City employees giving calm, accurate and complete answers to questions. City employees doing what they said they would in a timely manner. This is general responsiveness. City employees helping to resolve residents’ issues to their satisfaction. And then City employees being courteous and polite. Another couple areas that had significant increases, how residents rated the City as a place to work and the City’s senior programs.

And then a few areas that had a decrease in satisfaction rating since 2012. How safe residents feel in City parks and recreation facilities, the ease of registering for programs, the level of public involvement in local decision-making, efforts to keep residents informed about local issues, quality of the City’s newsletter, visibility of police in retail areas, quality of the City’s web page, and then availability of information about the City’s programs and services.

So, then we also took a look at some of the top priorities for the community. So, this our important satisfaction analysis. And what this does is it factors in both satisfaction and importance. There was a series of questions on the survey. First we asked residents to rate their satisfaction with various services. And then as a follow-up we asked which of these services are the most important to emphasize over the next two years. So, really the areas you want to focus on are those that have a combination of a low satisfaction rating and a high importance. So, based on that the top overall priority, maintenance of city streets. Residents rated that as the most important service to emphasize over the next two years. And that ranked ninth out of these nine options in terms of satisfaction. Then the second highest overall priority is flow of traffic and congestion management. Residents rated that as the second most important. That ranked sixth out of nine items in terms of satisfaction. So, here is another important satisfaction rating. This one is specifically about maintenance. The top overall priority, overall maintenance of city streets, residents rated that as the most important and it ranked 13 out of the 14 items in satisfaction. Then the second highest priority, maintenance of sidewalks. You can see residents rated that as the third most important, then it ranked last in regards to satisfaction.

This one is specifically for parks and recreation. Satisfaction ratings were really high for parks and recreation, so none of these came out as a really high priority. But the highest priority among this group is the number of walking and biking trails. Residents rated that as most important, then it ranked fifth though in terms of satisfaction.

And this one is rated specifically on emergency services. Again, the satisfaction rating was high on all these as well, so none of these are really high priority. But the top one from this list is visibility of police in the neighborhoods. Residents rated that as most important and then 10th in terms of satisfaction.

Some other survey findings. Here we asked residents to indicate their primary source of information about City issues, services and events. You can see we asked the same question in 2012. So, the yellow is the results from 2012, the blue are the results from this recent survey. So, you can see really everything ranked in the same order. The top two sources once again were Shawnee Dispatch and the City newsletter CityLine. Really the only significant difference is Facebook, Twitter and social media. It’s still ranked as the source used the least often from this list, but you can see it increased a lot just from 2012.

Then we also asked residents if they used the City website in the past year. Fifty-nine percent said they had. So, from that group we then asked how easy it was to find the information you were looking for. So, 85 percent of residents of those who visited the website said it was either very easy or somewhat easy to find the information they were looking for compared to only 13 percent who found it difficult. Then we also asked residents if they contacted the City in the past year. Thirty-two percent said they had. And from that group 84 percent said it was either very easy or somewhat easy to contact the person they were trying to get in touch with. That’s compared to only 14 percent who found it difficult.

And then here we asked residents what are the types of business that you feel are the most important for the City to pursue. Kind of a wide list of answers. There wasn’t any one or two that really stood out. But the ones mentioned the most often, specialty groceries and food services, department stores and then clothing stores.

Then we asked residents how supportive they are of having the City use incentives to attract new businesses or to redevelop underutilized areas. Sixty-five percent were either very supportive or somewhat supportive compared to only thirteen percent were not supportive.

Then we asked residents would they be in favor of the City installing charging stations for electric vehicles at City facilities. You see a little over half, 52 percent said yes. And that group was then asked, how do they think it should be paid for. Fifty-two percent said user fees. Forty percent said a combination of City funds and user funds. Just three percent said funds from the City. And then five percent didn’t have a preference.

And then we asked residents how supportive they would be of the City building a new indoor community center at 61st and Woodland. Fifty-seven percent were either very or somewhat supportive compared to 21 percent who were not supportive and 23 percent you see not sure.

Just then a quick summary. You saw that residents have a very positive reception of the City. You saw several samples of that. We also took a look at the benchmarking. We saw how the City rated significantly above both the regional and the U.S. average in 39 areas overall. Then we took a look at the trends, something notable, increases and decreases since the 2012 survey. And then the top overall priority of improvement over the next two years, maintenance of city streets and flow of traffic and congestion management. So, that’s all I have. Are there any questions?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Thank you, Jason. Before we break into questions, I just want for the minutes to reflect that Councilmember Pflumm joined us at 5:34, so welcome. Does anyone have any questions or any discussion? Brandon?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I have a question. In the comparisons to the metro average and then the U.S. average, how many cities are included in the Kansas City Metro for that comparison? And then the U.S. average, to what extent, what does that comparison look like as well?

MR. MORADO: Sure. There’s two different sources of data we use for those. The Kansas City Metro average includes about 30 communities where we’ve administered surveys in the past three years. And the report does list what those communities are. And then for the national average, that’s based on a survey that ETC does every year with about 4,000 randomly selected residents from across the U.S.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other questions or discussion from the Council? Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item?

MR. WICKER: How much did the City pay ETC for the survey, your service?

MR. MORADO: I don’t know if I have that.

MR. WICKER: Approximately.

MR. FERGUSON: About 13,000.

MR. WICKER: Fifteen thousand.

MR. FERGUSON: Thirteen. $13,000.

MR. WICKER: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And, sir, if you’ll just state your name and address for the record so we can get it on the record.

MR. WICKER: My name, Warren Wicker, (Address Omitted).

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the audience who would like to speak? All right. If not, thank you. We appreciate it. Again, this item was for informational purposes only, so no action is required. If Councilmembers have suggestions on issues that came up maybe during this, feel free to bring that to me or City Manager Gonzales.

2. DISCUSS REVISIONS TO POLICY STATEMENT PS-68, STREET IMPROVEMENT POLICY.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The second item on tonight's agenda is to Discuss Revisions to Policy Statement, PS-68, the Street Improvement Policy.

The Policy Statement defines and establishes the City's Street Improvement Program funded by one-third of the revenue from the Pavement Sales Tax that was approved by voters. A Street Improvement Program Task Force was established to develop criteria for the selection of residential streets to be improved. I believe there are several members of the Task Force here tonight, and on behalf of the City Council we want to thank you for all your hard work on this project. So, thank you very much.

Patty Gentrup, The Novak Group, facilitated the process with assistance from several staff members. Ms. Gentrup and Deputy Public Works Director Sherfy will present the recommendations of the Task Force. Welcome.

MS. GENTRUP: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here with you this evening. I always find the ETC Institute presentations really interesting and all the robust information that is provided to communities who go through that survey process. It’s really not a surprise to me that streets are kind of the number one priority for your community. And the reason I say that, it seems to me that that’s consistent with the voter approval of the sales tax last year to make improvements to your streets.

So, as you recall that was a three-eighth cent tax that will raise about $12.8 million. $3.1 million of that will be for chip and seal improvements, but $9.7 million will go for residential street improvements. The Council made a commitment that to determine how those funds should be used there would be a public process. And you asked for applications in the spring for a task force to take a look at these issues and you had more applications than we had places to fill and we ended up with 12 residents who spent a lot of time over the last six months or so in developing the criteria.

I’d like to point out that there were four meetings. For the first three meetings we had full attendance, so all 12 folks came. I think that’s pretty amazing. And for the fourth meeting, not all 12 came, but everybody made sure that they gave their input, either prior to the meeting or even the day of that meeting. And I think that speaks to their commitment to the process. The first three meetings were monthly in April, May and June. And that was really when the Task Force came together to really identify what that matrix might look like. We started out with brainstorming, what was important to the Task Force members as they considered streets in your community. But then they also said, okay, it’s great for us to come up with these ideas and what’s important to us personally, but let’s take a look around and see what other communities have done as well, can we learn from some best practices. And at the same time they asked staff if we use one criteria over another, what is that -- what is the effect of that. And they continually checked their work from one meeting to the next. We would bring back the information. We would remind them what their decisions were and how we used that and then we checked their work against how that might be applied to the 57-plus lane miles that are eligible for this.

After the June meeting staff really went to work and came back in October with cost estimates. So, applying their criteria to the top 11 streets, what could be done with that money. And I will tell you that $9.7 million sounds like a lot of money. It will pay for four lane miles. Now, that was not -- the Task Force would not -- would be deterred by that because they realized that this is a long-term issue for the community. We are not selecting streets, but the Task Force is recommending to you the decision criteria that should be used in making those decisions. So, with that I’m going to turn it over to Mark Sherfy who will take you through the details.

MR. SHERFY: Thank you, Patty. Mark Sherfy, Public Works. Thank you to the Task Force. There are actually eight of them here tonight, eight of the twelve. And I did hear from three others, just phenomenal. They have committed through and through. And I can guarantee you that this process is better than anything staff would envision without their input. We had a rough idea of where we were going to go and you’ll see in a minute – I’ll try to point out where the process changed things, and in my opinion for the better. So, I’m really glad that you guys are here today. Certainly very thankful for their participation throughout. It was an extremely good process.

Also I’d be remiss if I didn’t let the Council know that we had four people with City staff involved in the process from four different departments that also helped us give a very broad concept. We had a Planning Department representative, our IT department representative with the nice presentations that you’re going to see here which is available right now on the website, the City’s website. The presentation that I’m going through, it’s called a story map. It’s a little different than a PowerPoint. Whenever you see a map you can zoom in, you can move around and see different things, it’s a neat concept. It really was kind of -- probably a first for us, but a first at least from the Task Force’s standpoint. Also Development Services for doing the cost estimates and Public Works. So, a lot of people involved for a really good process.

And Patty, she and I didn’t combine our presentations here, but I want to just let you all know the first hurdle was about ten minutes into the first meeting. And I think even though we never said to the Task Force you’re here to pick the streets, that was the mindset when they came that first meeting of we’re going to pick the streets. And then we realized that we had 58 miles, lane miles of streets to pick from and that $9-10 million doesn’t go very far. But we got past that when we realized we’ve never had a process to fund this. And the Task Force figured it out really, really quickly that that one-eighth cent, that one-third of the three-eighth cent sales tax was to push the City in a new direction that we never had the funding to do before. So, they got through that and they realized the importance of using some data and some metrics to help guide this process and make certain it’s successful in the next decade, so we got through that hurdle really quickly.

Okay. So, I’m going to try to go through this presentation. This was the same presentation that we summarized things with the Task Force at the fourth meeting. This is one of your candidate streets. And the picture is really indicative of what a lot of these streets are like. We really like this picture. It shows a really good pavement and a nice pretty street with some parking and trees, but it also shows ditches that get harder to mow. It shows edges of pavement that crumble under traffic loads because there isn’t a curb to hold onto that and it doesn’t show any sidewalks or abilities for folks to walk to school or walk the dog in the neighborhoods. We have 58 lane miles of streets that are similar to this. So, a nice opening slide. Okay.

We went through about 19 different criteria. And the Task Force chuckled. The engineers were kind of -- me, I was taking it in too and spreading it out in a spreadsheet and we had columns and it was confusing, but we ended up with seven. And that was the beauty of having the public in this process. They came up with the criteria. We vetted them. We talked about them. We gave weights to them.

The first criteria was the safety component. The narrower the street, you know, the more important it’s perceived that we need to do something about that. So, we measured using an online mapping, a GIS mapping the average width of these streets. This one here is how we would have measured an average section of 56th Street. It’s 16-feet wide. Again, the streets range from 12 feet wide to 27 feet wide. And then if we work through how its [inaudible] different points we weighted that on a ten-point scale. That was street [inaudible].

The next one was traffic line. Traffic line was also important. The conversation was to make certain as many vehicles as possible, our residents are getting the benefit from the street once it’s improved. The higher the volume the more points. This one was rated 15 points. Highest volume we found was 2,100 vehicles a day, the lowest volume was 10. Typically each house on a street generates ten trips per day. So, we had a street that only had one house on it.

Number three, criteria three, also 15 points. Usually traffic volume is indicative of the density of housing on the streets, but not always. Sometimes one sees -- even though they’re all residential streets, they tend to carry more thru-traffic. So, this component was one that, I don’t think we would have come up with on our own. This is the number of residential units per lane mile. The residents who live on there, are they going to get a benefit by a street that we put a sidewalk in front of. So, you should see on the slide here, the red street going north and south up and down, it shows nine driveways that front on that street. So, we calculated a number to determine how many residential driveways, residential units would benefit from the streets. The east-west one only had two driveways showing. So, all those ranged from 247 units per lane mile to some of our candidate streets having zero lane, or residential units per mile. The 247 units is on 60th Street between Nieman and Flint. There is two apartment complexes there with a lot of residential units on it. Definitely a way of looking at things that we hadn’t necessarily looked at before.

Criteria Four, distance from school. We kind of had this as an idea right off the bat, but we wanted to show everybody how we measured that. From the end point of the segment to the closest public or private school. The distance, not as the crow flies, but as the student would walk. So, the blue shade there would be the nearest school to Larsen Lane, and that’s the distance walking to Nieman Elementary. The closer to the school the more points. We went from several segments that had zero distances to the school to 13,000 feet on 65th Terrace off of Barker. Ten points.

Along that same thing, for criteria theme, for Criteria Five, this is from a park measured the same way. The various range from zero feet to 9,500 feet. Marion Street is north of 71st Street between Monticello and Woodland, so it’s quite a distance to the nearest park out there. I think the nearest park is the one on Monticello south, the name of that park, Monticello Springs, 3 and 2 baseball [inaudible].

Number six was probably the one we had the most discussion on. We really struggled with -- the Task Force struggled with construction costs. They struggled with stormwater, the buildability of these streets. Really difficult to quantify that in a way that we could use it from year to year. But this the way we came up with doing that. This segment right here in red shows that on each end of the segment if we were to do that, it connects to existing curb streets. Not all of our curb streets necessarily have storm drainage. But for the most part if it has curbs, it’s collecting water and it’s moving it somewhere that can handle it. So, the thought is don’t build a street and improve it and put your curbs and your storm inlets to an area that isn’t designed to handle that. We wanted to make certain we fixed streets that were a continuation either upstream or downstream of existing storm systems. So, that was weighted ten points. Really a nice way to handle a lot of things we wrestled with during the Task Force conversations. One of the issues were that the larger the street segment like that one there that shows the highest number of connections was Elmridge. That’s the road that goes up around Hereford House from Midland Drive to Red Oak Drive. It’s a very long segment. It did connect in eight places. Many of them connect in zero places. But the vast majority of them connected in zero, one, two or three places. So, we wanted to make certain we took that into account.

And then along that same line, the seventh criteria, also worth ten points, was connections to streets with sidewalks. Somebody on the Task Force said very early on we don’t want to build sidewalks to nowhere. So, a number of places that a project segment connects to existing sidewalks was important. This piece here of Flint Street in Shawnee Village, if this were a project, it connects to existing sidewalks in one, two, three, four locations. If that was four or more that project would be here at this time. So, a total of those would be 80 points. None of the streets got 80 points. We wanted to then take this information and see how far we could get on a list with the $9.7 million we estimate to have going to these funds. And this map here shows the 58 lane miles that were candidate streets in red where the live link, the story map comes in. So, west of K-7 there are a few. Around I-435 you see Elmridge, you see some other streets, Bell Road, and a lot of eastern Shawnee as expected.

When we applied those seven criteria on that eight-point scale across the city we found 11 streets that scored higher than the rest and it was the three-way tie for 9th place. So, we decided we would go and do construction costs estimates for those top 11 streets. There is a pretty small margin between Street Number 5 and Street Number 20, but there was a gap. There was a break at 11. And we knew we wanted to do construction cost estimates. So, Paul Lindstrom went out and did that work for the three estimates. And we wanted to show you kind of graphically how they came out.

The number one street segment from the point criteria was Flint Street from Johnson Drive to 62nd Terrace. You’ll see in a moment Candidate Street Number 4 is here. But at the moment the project we’re talking about is Flint Street. The nice thing about this slide and being able to see what’s going on in the story map, it’s adjacent to a school. It’s adjacent to a park. The brown dots indicate places where there’s existing curb. The blue lines represent existing sidewalks. The traffic volume and units per lane mile were all showing you how that project scored. It scored very highly, number one. The estimated cost of construction for that street is $2.8 million. A lot of factors went into that. The width of the right-of-way, number of trees, a quick look at utilities. It is a construction cost estimate, but one that’s had quite a bit of time put into it already. So, $2.8 million for Project Number 1, 0.95 lane miles.

I’m not going to go through each individual project. I’ll probably stop at two and just kind of scroll through, but a theme emerges that the map helps us see here. Project 2 is Goddard Street. Close to a park, close to a school, close to existing curb, so there is a storm drainage network nearby that can be tied into. And then sidewalk along Goddard with connections on each end. The units per lane mile is not as dense, but the traffic volume is higher on Goddard. 0.88 lane miles with a construction of $2.9.

Project 3 is Monrovia. You can start to see the themes, Caenen Park, Ray Marsh Elementary, sidewalks, curbs. Density is a little bit more on that particular street.

Segment 4 is 60th Street. This is the one that had the apartment complexes. It didn’t do this for me earlier today, but we should be able to zoom in and see the aerial. If not, we can get that corrected. I’m being inpatient. As you zoom in on the map you can aerial footage as you get closer. There is our plan on Number 4. One of the things to talk about here, every year when we come back and visit this list or when we’re ready with the funding for the project we would want to re-score the whole city. Project 4 would score more points in the future if Flint Street was done in front of it. But this is a nice easy way each year to go through any new construction we do with a matrix, this backup of data.

And I’ll just roll through the next five, McAnany. You see the curbs, you see the park, you see the school. Project 6 and 11 are in Shawnee Village. Got Nieman Elementary. You’ve got Water Tower Park. Extensions to existing systems. 57th Street off Nieman downtown. Monrovia from 51st to 55th. Lots of curbs. It’s a ditch section street. 51st Terrace from Cody to Nieman. As I zoom out you can see the parks and schools close by. And a three-way tie for 9, 10 and 11. Cody Street, a little farther from the schools. And the last for our three-way tie is Shawnee Village, which was real close to Nieman Elementary.

So, piecing that all together, this is the list of the top 11 projects. $19.3 million to complete those projects. It’s seven lane miles. We know, or we’re projecting that we have 9.7 million for this part of this one-eighth cent sales tax. We also shared with the Task Force that the first two projects, Flint and Goddard have been on the prioritization discussion list. They’ve been on prior CIPs. It is possible, if that’s something the Council chooses to fund on the CIP that perhaps that could be funded through debt service and not funded through the Street Improvement Program, which may allow us to go farther down that list. So, the Task Force is aware of that.

The good conversation at the Task Force, somebody raised the question, they said -- somebody asked, it might have been Patty that asked it. Are you okay if we don’t go in the order on this list. And I think the consensus of the Task Force was, you know, you have to look at secondary criteria, which are mentioned in the policy statement that I’m going to transition to. There’s a set of secondary criteria in your Council memos. They were identified as leveraging funds, resident support, construction cost and the current street rate. Those were all things that you couldn’t quantify on an annual basis. But as long we’re applying those after we take the list on an annual basis that perhaps that would be good justification to look at other streets or to pass streets or to move different from the list. I don’t think there was any issues from the Task Force, I’m looking at their faces now. But somebody had said it’s okay if they do 11 over 7 as long as there is a good reason that they do that. So, I won’t ask for nods, but that was what I took from the meeting.

So, this is the list. We obviously can’t do it all right now, we need a little bit of help. But we ended this whole presentation, a lot of conversation early on about the eastern part of the City getting all the residential funding. And I really liked it when somebody coined the phrase are we going to use a shotgun approach or a rifle approach to this one-eighth cent sales tax. And kind of what got lost in all the residential street improvement discussion about adding curbs and sidewalks and rebuilding streets is that there are two components to that one-eighth cent. There is the 3.1 million over the next decade that goes to no longer chip sealing some of the streets in western Shawnee. So, we wanted to show on this slide that 25 percent of that one-eighth, 3.1 million over a decade is going to do streets in gold. And that $9.7 million of that money would go -- that’s the streets in blue. That’s the set of lane miles that we would have money to do four of those. So, conceivably this is the target map. It may not necessarily be what we do. We’re not picking the streets. We’ve only got the process and policy in place to guide us as we go into the future. But that could be the map of where that one-eighth sales tax could go in the next decade if things go well.

So, that’s really the summary of the presentation. What we’re asking for this evening is in your packets there’s Policy Statement 68, which is the Street Improvement Program Policy Statement. Before the sales tax was passed last year you all approved Policy Statement 68, which then at the time said this is what we’re going to if this sales tax is passed how we’re going to spend that one-eighth. We’re going to form a task force and bring this back to you. Tonight we present it with the support, unanimous support of the Task Force a revised Policy Statement 68 that reflects their work.

So, we’re open to any questions about criteria. Any questions about construction estimates, Paul Lindstrom can answer that as well.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you, Mark and Patty and everyone on the Task Force. It looks like you’ve done quite an outstanding job putting this list together. So, I will turn it over for questions. Mickey, I think you’re first up.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: When we put this all together before we put it out to vote, I thought it was pretty specific that one-eighth was going to be just curbs and sidewalks in some of the older parts of the community, is that correct?

MR. SHERFY: No. The original Policy Statement 68 and the original ones in the packet, too, did have two components. It had -- because we recognized, the Council recognized early in the process that the majority of those streets are in eastern Shawnee and we knew we had a lot of folks in western Shawnee that are living on the old county roads that we chip seal every three to five years and then we do blade patching on. We’re about the only municipality that repairs street -- in Johnson County, that repairs streets with blade patching. To get support across the community, knowing full and well that the blue streets probably would end up in eastern Shawnee there was a need to do some things in western Shawnee. So, if you read the original Policy Statement 68 we did divide that into 75/25 percent split. Seventy-five percent of the one-eighth going to residential street improvements and twenty-five percent going to chip seal street upgrades. So, that is the split here. The chip seal upgrades, it’s a lot easier to mill off, remove an inch and a half of these chip seal streets. It may be a little thicker in some places, and put that asphalt, not building any curbs and not building any sidewalks. The dollar doesn’t go nearly as far when you’re doing reconstruction work. That was the original intent before the tax passed.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anyone else have any questions? Jeff.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think it’s awesome we’re having this conversation and I just need to commend former Councilmember Neal Sawyer, who when we discussed this he was adamant that this was to be part of the policy and this is the first time we’ve actually had a funding source, a dedicated funding source for this. And I think -- I just want to recognize him for that because he put himself out there and got the job done, so.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just want to thank all you guys on the Task Force for spending time and going through this process and [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: And I’d just piggy-back on what Dan said. I think it’s very important because now we have the policy, we have a place to start. Probably going [inaudible] going forward, and we thank you very much for your time and efforts and probably be coming up [inaudible] some time [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any further discussion from the Council then? If not, is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, staff is recommending that the Committee forward the policy statement to the Governing Body for approval. I would accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there a second?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)

C. ADJOURNMENT

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: If there is no other business to come before the Committee, I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: A motion has been made -- did you have something, Eric? Go right ahead.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I just wanted to bring up something because I think it’s been emphasized by this, or reinforced the survey, the part about enforcing codes. And I’ve been approached a number of times, most recently today by actually Neal Sawyer who you were talking about. And it was -- the discussion was on rental homes in Shawnee and rentals [inaudible], that these buildings are not taken care of as good as they could be. And that’s not really probably making the neighbors very happy. It wouldn’t make me very happy to [inaudible] take care of the property. And like I said we may want to take a look at it and put it on our agenda to, obviously this is not the time to have a full discussion, but [inaudible] something to work on. I’d like to see if it can show up on the agenda for discussion of whether or not to emphasize our codes efforts on these buildings [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Dan and then Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Just a little tidbit of information. Staff may know about this already. But it looks like in western Shawnee we’ll be getting a full-fledged library like what we were promised several years ago, and so I thought I’d bring that up. So, it’s a lot better than the Redbox type of library that they were going to give us. But I don’t think it’s a done deal yet, but [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Just to piggy-back on what Eric said. The City of Overland Park is has implemented, just as you suggested, codes and Roeland Park [inaudible] piggy-back [inaudible] and then I mentioned [inaudible]. So, that would probably be a good source for us to [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is that it? If there is nothing else, I believe there is a motion and a second on the floor. So, having said that, all those in favor of adjourning, please say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

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

(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Adjourned)

CERTIFICATE

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

/das November 17, 2015

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk











File Attachment Icon
CCM11022015.docx