PDF Format:

CC01112016.pdfCC01112016.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
January 11, 2016
7:30 P.M.

Michelle Distler - Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Killen
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember Vaught Finance Director Rogers
Councilmember MeyerPlanning Director Chaffee
Councilmember Sandifer Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Councilmember KenigParks and Recreation Director Holman
Public Works Director Whitacre
Police Chief Moser
Fire Chief Mattox
IT Director Bunting
Business Liaison Holtwick
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Police Captain Larson
Police Captain Brunner
Communications Manager Ferguson
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
(City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

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

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

MAYOR DISTLER: Tonight after the Pledge of Allegiance we will have our usual moment of silence. I would like to dedicate that moment of silence to former Councilmember Frank Goode who passed away on Christmas Eve. Mr. Goode was the longest serving Councilmember in Shawnee’s history and spent many, many hours in this room and in this community listening to citizens in making decisions that have and will continue to impact Shawnee for many years to come.

Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence.

(Pledge of Allegiance a Moment of Silence)

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

C. CONSENT AGENDA

1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 2015.
2. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 2015.
3. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2015.
4. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 2015.
5. CONSIDER REQUEST FROM THE SHAWNEE GROUP OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS TO WAIVE THE RENTAL FEE FOR SHAWNEE TOWN HALL.
6. CONSIDER AGREEMENT WITH LENEXA FOR MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS TO GLEASON ROAD.
7. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE 60TH TERRACE & EARNSHAW STREET STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT, P.N. 3407, SMAC TC-21-06.
8. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 AND FINAL FOR THE JOHNSON DRIVE AND HALSEY STREET STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, P.N. 3394, SMAC TC-021-065.
9. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE 2015 CRACK SEAL CONTRACT.

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

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a second?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

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


[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 8-0.]

D. MAYOR’S ITEMS

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Mayor’s Items. I do not have anything this evening.

E. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

MAYOR DISTLER: Next is Business from the Floor. Is there anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight’s agenda? Okay. Seeing none.

F. PUBLIC ITEMS

1. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE LEVYING AND ASSESSING MAXIMUM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CLEAR CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Public Items. Item Number One is to Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider an Ordinance Levying and Assessing Maximum Special Assessments for the Clear Creek Improvement District. At the December 14, 2015 City Council meeting the Governing Body adopted Resolution 1767 setting a public hearing for the time to consider assessments and any objections for the Clear Creek Improvement District.

In order to levy the assessments, the Governing Body is required to conduct a public hearing and to pass an Ordinance levying the assessments in the manner set forth in the Petition and Resolution creating the Improvement District. There are three actions required for this item. The first is to conduct a Public Hearing. I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to conduct a public hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]

a) Conduct the Public Hearing

MAYOR DISTLER: We are now in a public hearing. This is a formal public hearing required by law. The public hearing will begin with a presentation by Paul Lindstrom, Senior Project Engineer. After Mr. Lindstrom’s presentation, I will ask Councilmembers if they have any questions specifically related to the presentation. I will then ask if there any comments from the public. If anyone from the audience would like to speak during the public hearing, please raise your hand and I will recognize you to come forward. Following public comments, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Once the public hearing is closed we will have Council discussion followed by a motion. Mr. Lindstrom, please go ahead.

MR. LINDSTROM: Thank you. Paul Lindstrom, Development Services. I’m here to discuss the Improvement District for Clear Creek Parkway. We have already discussed this. This is kind of a timeline where we been up to today. We’ve actually been to a couple of Council meetings to discuss this, to create a public hearing for the district.

The last meeting on December 14, we actually created the district, and we’re here today to establish the ordinance to levy and assess the maximum assessments. Also pointed out on the timeline here, our intent is to have an engineering contract if this passes this evening, to move on with an engineering contract to bring it to the next Council meeting on the 25th. Anticipating a quick design, but trying to get it out by June 27th for bid and begin construction in July. Because of the length of the project, over a mile, it’s going to take at least five to six months to construct, so our intent would not be able to get it to the ‘16 taxes, but to the 2017 taxes. So, by next August of 2017, we would be able to certify to the county for -- including on December 2017 taxes.

We’ve seen this before. This is the map of the district. The hash lines represent the area and we’ve noted the tracts within that district. So, the improvement project would be just from Clare Road to Hedge Lane, and then the rest of the project to the east of the proposed roundabout would be per City funds.

Once again, we’ve seen this information. This is just a reminder of what we’re going to be building, a collector roadway, 44-foot back to back, back to curb, back to curb with a 70-foot right-of-way. Possibly more right-of-way if needed especially around the roundabout area. In this area is 0.4 miles in length and includes your typical improvements within that section.

I’ve put this up here, we showed it last time. We actually had some change in ownerships. The Blue Valley Investment Group has changed their name to Clear Creek Partners. So, this shows the – there is three tracts, four, six and nine, that I believe that the Clear Creek Partners are still in the process of acquiring.

This is the breakdown of the assessments, so this gives all the information for each tract, the legal descriptions. The number that we’re here for this evening is the one in yellow is at the bottom and that’s the total of the maximum assessments that we would spread on those nine tracts. So that cost is $1,649,134.

So, as we talked about last time the assessments are calculated by spreading that over the square foot area for each tract, so that total cost of $1.6 million would be spread for each and that would be over 10 years. So the reason were here tonight is to establish that maximum of 1.649.

So, the action for this evening is to set the ordinance for levying and assessing the maximum special assessments of that 1.649, so. That’s my short presentation. Any questions?

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

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a couple comments, I didn’t make it at the last one, but I was thinking about it at the last one. I’m not crazy about roundabouts, they really drive me nuts. I don’t know why we’re building roundabouts instead of just having a normal intersection there. I think this was all discussed heavily before I got on the Council, so I know you guys have all been through that. But in my own personal experience I don’t like them very much. I find them to be kind of a nuisance and I was wondering if they even cost more because it’s quite a bit more construction work when you think to build that circle, and you talk about more right-of-ways and stuff like that. And I’m just not sure why would you put that in there. Maybe you could help me with that.

MR. LINDSTROM: I understand your question. A roundabout is in place typically of a signal.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right.

MR. LINDSTROM: We do plan on, not with this project, but there will be a leg that goes to the south on Gleason that will eventually be built through a development. And so at the time that we proposed to put this together we did feel that the traffic was going to be enough that there would have to be either, and so that would be a T-intersection. So we assume that with the traffic and the development, proposed apartments are going to be here for the future golf course area, that that would require at least a signal or a roundabout. And for a three-leg intersection a roundabout works more efficiently. So at that time that’s how we came up with a proposed roundabout. So, it is for the future. This will not be needed immediately obviously because we do not have that third leg, but we will be hashing that off, of course, so they won’t have access to the south. But this is going to be built for the future.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Well, I still don’t like roundabouts and I don’t know if that really explains it for me, but I heard what you said. I appreciate you answering the question. The other question I had --

MR. LINDSTROM: And for what it’s worth, it is a two-lane roundabout. I want to make sure that’s clear.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I figured. Most of them are that I’ve been on, so. The other question I had was at the last meeting where we discussed the subject a number of people came up and just talked about the traffic issues around the school and all that.

MR. LINDSTROM: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I was just wondering has anything been done as far as taking a look at that, any way to alleviate that? Is there any adjustments made to our planning here or anything like that?

MR. LINDSTROM: We would anticipate handling that when the development comes in. Right now we have not seen any new plan come through through this development area, so we have no way of dictating what kind of traffic is going to be in this area. So, we would handle that as we review it when the development comes in.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. But that kind of presents a problem because then you’ve already got the momentum of the project and at that point it’s kind of hard to I guess hold somebody’s feet to the fire to do something with the traffic issues when they’ve already got an approved plan to move forward, so it’s kind of like a chicken or the egg thing here which comes first. And I’m concerned that when we move forward we’d like to know, that’s a serious concern to the folks. They’re going to be back, I can guarantee that, and they’re still going to have those same concerns. I’d like to be able to address those. And I’d also like to know, you know, in that last meeting we had there was a lot of discussion about how the interchange, if there’s no interchange at K-7 and we can’t do anything about that and all this kind of stuff, but I would sure like to push on the state with that as much as possible. I don’t know if that’s going to make anything happen. I mean you can cry all you want that doesn’t mean you’re going to get anything, but I would certainly like to see if there’s another way to access in there that they could access this road and that might alleviate a lot of those problems that the people were concerned about. I just don’t know if it’s practical or possible to do so, but I’d sure like to pursue it to the extent practicable.

MR. LINDSTROM: As far as the K-7 interchange that is up to the state and they’ve already, I mean that’s the intent of doing the overpass because that will never be an interchange. That is why they built 55th. So there is in the overall plan, a K-7 corridor plan, that has been addressed already and that is their plan and I don’t see them budging from that plan.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm? Or did you want to --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I just might address Mr. Jenkins’ question a little bit more on the Belmont issue. Belmont has been a concern of the neighbors for a number of years and the police department currently has it on their watch list. They frequently monitor there, and especially during school hours which is the biggest concern of the neighbors. We’ve had a number of neighborhood meetings out there. And as the plans for this road are built -- designed, we will certainly have some neighborhood meetings to involve those folks in the design also. There are some other access points which the map that we’re looking at right now doesn’t show that will actually come out of that neighborhood to the east which our thought is that overall this will lessen the traffic load on Belmont and that’s our hope because we’ll have more access from different ways. But all those things can be discussed further as the design of the road actually happens.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Good. I look forward to seeing those.

MR. LINDSTROM: Yeah. And I want to make it clear that we are not building Belmont with this project, it is strictly just Clear Creek Parkway.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: This is the question I was going to bring up last time. You kind of can’t tell, but on the west side of 7 Highway there where Clear Creek Parkway, where this part of the project ends, I think I got the impression that there is no way that that’s going to go south. Is that -- and hook up --

MR. LINDSTROM: Through the golf course, no.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- to the golf course, right.

MR. LINDSTROM: No, it would not.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I didn’t think so. And there’s no room, there’s no--

MR. LINDSTROM: No. There would not be a frontage road. Actually what this project is intended is to carry the trail that goes underneath K-7, we would be carrying that to the north and tying it into the new 10-foot trail that were doing on Clear Creek, so that would be within that area.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions of the Council? Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I don’t want to sidetrack the conversation too much, but I agree with Mr. Jenkins, I can’t stand roundabouts. I typically plan my trips around them to avoid them. So, from a personal preference I’m not a fan of them either.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I don’t want to be argumentative, just real quick because they talked about cost. I know they’re more expensive to build, but then long-term we have -- there minimal maintenance, is that correct, versus a stoplight intersection where you have electricity and we have stoplight maintenance. My understanding is a roundabout, while you spend a little bit more building it, over the long term it saves us money, is that correct?

MR. LINDSTROM: Actually we’ve just recently, when we did a study for the Johnson and Woodland project, the roundabout was almost equivalent to putting a new signal in, so there isn’t a huge cost differential between the two. Most of it is purchasing right-of-way. And in this case the right-of-way would be given to the City as part of the project.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So then ongoing maintenance costs, what is in that range?

MR. LINDSTROM: A roundabout, our plan would be to put low maintenance plants in the middle of it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What I’m saying though is I remember when we looked at, when we did the comparison of what Woodland and Johnson, if I remember correctly, we kind of showed the long-term cost of everything, if I’m not mistaken the roundabout over the long-term would save us money because there is very little maintenance. If we didn’t have to pay for electricity, and we would have to maintain a stoplight, is that --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: You know, I don’t recall exactly, but certainly as we go through the design process we can look at alternatives and we can look at cost issues and traffic flow issues make a final decision as you all see final plans.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, when they started coming out with the roundabouts I kind of had issues with them, then I went over to Europe and they have them everywhere. And I came back and just kind of made them a challenge and they actually work out well. You don’t have to stop to wait at lights, I mean I like them. I think they work great.

MAYOR DISTLER: Anyone else from the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item?

b) Conclude the Public Hearing

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to close the Public Hearing, so I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to close the Public Hearing.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0) The public hearing is now closed.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to conclude the public heraing. The motion passed 8-0.]

c) Consider passing an Ordinance levying and assessing maximum special assessments for the Clear Creek Improvement District.

MAYOR DISTLER: The third action is to consider passing an Ordinance levying and assessing maximum special assessments for the Clear Creek Improvement District. Is there any discussion from the Council? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a second?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to pass an Ordinance levying and assessing maximum special assessments for the Clear Creek Improvement District. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3145 was assigned.]

2. CONSIDER A SHAWNEE ENTREPRENEURIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SEED) AGREEMENT WITH TALLGRASS FREIGHT COMPANY, LLC.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider a Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) Agreement with TallGrass Freight Company, LLC.
Policy Statement PS-65, Economic Development Fund, established the SEED Program. TallGrass Freight Company, LLC, a Kansas-based logistics services and freight brokerage company, has formally requested consideration for the Forgivable Loan Program through the SEED Program. The recommended action is to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the SEED Agreement.

Andrew Nave, Executive Director of the Shawnee Economic Development Council is here to share a little bit about this company with us. So, Mr. Nave, if you want to go ahead.

MR. NAVE: Thank you, Mayor, members of the Governing Body and the Council. We’re starting a new year and so what better way to start a new year than welcome a new company to Shawnee.

So, joining me tonight is David Barnes. David is the Chief Operating Officer of TallGrass Freight. TallGrass Freight is a logistics and freight services company that’s moving into western Shawnee, roughly in the 83rd and K-7 area. So, a new company, growing company, certainly in a fast growth and ever-changing industry. We’ve had a number of companies at the Westlink development and all across Shawnee expand in this sector in this industry, so excited about what they’re going to be bringing to the community.

In your packet -- I’m happy to answer questions. There’s 12 new jobs that they’re committing in the first three years and even more than that beyond with strong wages and a company that’s excited to be coming to Shawnee. So, with that I’m happy to answer any questions.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are there any questions from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m not anti-TallGrass Freight Company. Just for the record, I’m just not a fan of the SEED programs.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, NEIGHBOR, JENKINS, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes with Mr. Kemmling voting in dissent. And we just want to thank you again for bringing your business to Shawnee. (Motion passes 7-1)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development Agreement with TallGrass Freight Company in the amount of $12,000. The motion passed 7-1 with Councilmember Kemmling voting nay.]

G. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7, 2015.

1. CONSIDER Z-04-15-12, A REZONING FROM TOWNSQUARE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10910 W. 60TH TERRACE.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is G, Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 7, 2015. Item Number 1 is to Consider Z-04-15-12, a Rezoning from Townsquare to Single Family Residential for Property Located at 10910 W. 60th Terrace. On December 7, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body approve Z-04-15-12, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. An ordinance is required.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I have just one quick.

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And it’s just something I’d ask Paul just because it kind of seems odd because the Governor’s Mansion there, what was the Governor’s Mansion, now are going to make it back into a residential and they’re not going to have a business and all that stuff, got it. But they’ve still got parking lots and all that stuff there, I guess that just goes with the deal, right?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. This property will have a large driveway so to speak. They’ll have a circle drive and then a large driveway on the side.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And there’s no remediation or anything required onto this?

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s correct. Someone could pave their whole front yard theoretically within the zoning regulations if they wanted.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I probably shouldn’t have said that, but --

MAYOR DISTLER: That’s good to know.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thanks, Paul.

MAYOR DISTLER: I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to pass an Ordinance rezoning from TSQ (Townsquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District for a 0.67 acre parcel of land located at 10910 West 60th Street, subject to the condition listed in the staff report. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3146 was assigned.]

H. ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 8, 2015, CHAIRED BY COUNCILMEMBER MEYER.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item, H, Items from the Council Committee meeting of December 8, 2015, Chaired by Councilmember Meyer.

1. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A COMMUNICATIONS POLICY STATEMENT.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. We have two items tonight. The first is to Consider Approval of a Communications Policy Statement. The Council Committee recommended 8-0 to forward to the Governing Body for consideration a communications policy statement with the suggested changes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just one comment. Dan, I think you did a really nice job incorporating those ideas we threw out at you. It seemed like they were built into it rather nicely and it all turned out real good. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to approve Policy Statement PS-70, City Communications Policy. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. CONSIDER REVISIONS TO POLICY STATEMENT PS-65, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. The second is to consider revisions to Policy Statement PS-65, the Economic Development Fund. The Council Committee recommended 7-1 to forward to the Governing Body for consideration proposed revisions to PS-65 regarding the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) Program.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this? Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Once again I’m becoming a broken record but I just wanted to comment on this. First of all, I want to thank you for putting in the changes that we recommended. I think they were -- I think after all of those, and it looks like they’re all in here. But I just want to state that I really couldn’t -- could not support this SEED program before it coming out of the Economic Development Fund because it was coming out of the General Fund. I feel like that’s using specific taxpayers’ money to encourage, to go out and bring business into the community and I’m not so sure I can speak for all the taxpayers whether they all want to support that program. Becoming out of the Economic Development Fund, it’s the money we were already getting from the impact fee and that’s worth saying that. And that’s the purpose and design of that fund, and it seems to make some sense to me, so I will support it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Any other discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to comment on this item? I will accept a motion

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to approve revisions to Policy Statement PS-65, Economic Development Fund. The motion passed 8-0.]

I. STAFF ITEMS

1. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH BNSF RAILWAY CORPORATION FOR THE PERMANENT CLOSURE OF THE 59TH STREET CROSSING.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is I, Staff Items. Item Number 1 is to Consider an Agreement with BNSF Railway Corporation for the Permanent Closure of the 59th Street Crossing. The City will conduct a public hearing for the vacation of 59th Street on January 25, 2016. It is the intent of the City to close 59th Street from Woodland east to the railroad tracks and to eliminate the public railroad crossing at this location. To permanently close this crossing the City must enter into an agreement with BNSF which will require the placement of permanent barricades. There are two recommended actions on this item.

a) Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement with BNSF Railway Corporation for the permanent closure of the 59th Street crossing, DOT No. 006131Y.

The first is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement with BNSF Railway Corporation for the permanent closure of the 59th Street crossing, DOT 006131Y. Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I was just curious if we were going to re-grade the approach.

MS. GARD: Caitlin Gard, Public Works. BNSF is not requiring us to regrade the approach since we’re going to be vacating the right-of-way.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s good.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I would think we would have to. I mean I think it would be safer to regrade the approach as opposed to just putting up barricades. That’s my opinion.

MS. GARD: After meeting with the adjacent property owners at 59th Street, we all came to the conclusion that it would satisfy BNSF to put up permanent barricades so concrete barriers, Jersey barriers, if you’re familiar with those, along with end of road barricades, which are just reflective barricades. And also the property owners that will be taking over the right-of-way will be installing their own gate up more closer to Woodland.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with BNSF Railway Corporation for the permanent closure of the 59th Street crossing, DOT No. 006131Y. The motion passed 8-0.]

b) Consider permanently closing 59th Street from Woodland Road east to the railroad tracks.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider permanently closing 59th Street from Woodland Road east to the railroad tracks. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve permanently closing 59th Street from Woodland Road east to the railroad tracks. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. CONSIDER BIDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2016 FLEET VEHICLE PURCHASE.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Bids for Public Works Department 2016 Fleet Vehicle Purchase. Bids were taken by the Mid America Council of Public Purchasing for the 2016 vehicle bid. A separate sealed bid process was used for required equipment to include the bed, hydraulics, and spreader controller. The 2016 budget includes $370,000 for Public Works Department vehicle replacements. The recommended action is to consider approving the purchase of two dump trucks from Summit Truck Group and to F-550 trucks from Shawnee Mission Ford and corresponding equipment from Viking-Cives and American Equipment in the total amount of $349,160.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve the purchase of two dump trucks from Summit truck Group and two F-550 trucks from Shawnee Mission Ford and corresponding equipment from Viking-Cives and American Equipment in the total amount of $349,160. The motion passed 8-0.]

3. CONSIDER BIDS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT 2016 FLEET VEHICLE PURCHASE.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider Bids for Police Department 2016 Fleet Vehicle Purchase. Bids were taken by the Mid America Council of Public Purchasing (MACPP) for the 2016 vehicle bid. The 2015 Budget includes $292,484 for Police Department vehicle replacements. The recommended action is to consider approving the purchase of ten Police Department replacement vehicles from Shawnee Mission Ford in the amount of $285,548.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I have a question.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I was just going to ask what the use of the two Ford Taurus sedans is, just for my information.

CAPTAIN BRUNNER: Jason Brunner from the Police Department. Those are staff vehicles, so they start out with the staff as their vehicles and then they get rotated down to detectives for their vehicles.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I was making an assumption they were more the administrative type vehicles for administrative staff, but I figured it would be easier just to ask the question and be assured of that and that’s what it is.

CAPTAIN BRUNNER: Yep, that’s it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: All right. Thank you.

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

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved. Oh, second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve the purchase of ten Police Department replacement vehicles from Shawnee Mission Ford in the amount of $285,548. The motion passed 8-0.]

4. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC. FOR PURCHASE OF A FIRE TRUCK, AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY NOTES, SERIES 2016A.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider an Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for Purchase of a Fire Truck, and Approval of a Resolution to Issue General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A. The 2016 Budget provides for the replacement of a 1987 E-One Fire Truck budgeted in the Public Safety Equipment fund. The Fire Department has obtained pricing on a 2016 Pierce Aerial Quint. Staff has determined a general obligation temporary note would be the most efficient and cost-effective means of financing. In addition, the 1987 E-One has little value and the Fire Department would like to donate the apparatus to the Kansas City, Kansas Community College Fire Science Program.

a) Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the purchase agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., for a 2016 Pierce Aerial Quint Fire Truck with a purchase price of $978,477.03.

There are three recommended actions on this item. The first is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the purchase agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for a 2016 Pierce Aerial Quint Fire Truck with a purchase price of $978,477.03.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mayor, before you ask for comments Mrs. Rogers may want to give the numbers to you, we just got the bids back today.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. And they couldn’t cut off the three cents and just give it an even --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Got to do the three cents.

MS. ROGERS: Maureen Rogers, Finance Director. We had a very successful bid letting on the temporary notes. We actually solicited I think to eight different local banks who are active in the municipal bond market and then also to PNC Equipment Finance which works with Pierce in their financing. And we actually got out of those eight bank entities we got seven bids. And Country Club Bank was the best bid with 1.62 percent. And the –

MAYOR DISTLER: Wow.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That’s awesome.

MS. ROGERS: Yeah. I was amazed. It was a pretty competitive bid as well. And as the memo talks about the budget structure was to have a five-year lease or financing. And at one point, or at the time we did the budget the Fire Department thought the truck might cost more like 1.3 million. And so now that it’s under a million that’s a large part of the explanation why it’s less. But we had the five payments of around $296,000. So, the fifth one will be completely eliminated and the other four will be about 42,000 less than what we had budgeted.

MAYOR DISTLER: Wow, that’s great. Thank you so much. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., for a 2016 Pierce Aerial Quint Fire Truck with a purchase price of $978,477.03. The motion passed 8-0.]

b) Consider adopting a Resolution approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of general obligation temporary notes, Series 2016A.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider adopting a Resolution approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of general obligation temporary notes, Series 2016A.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of general obligation temporary notes, Series 2016A.
The motion passed 8-0. Resolution No. 1768 was assigned.]

c) Consider authorizing donation of the 1987 E-One to the Kansas City Kansas Community College Fire Science Program.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final recommended action is to consider authorizing donation of the 1987 E-One to the Kansas City, Kansas Community College Fire Science Program.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I understand this isn’t worth much. Can anybody tell me what not much is?

CHIEF MATTOX: John Mattox, Fire Chief. The last truck that we traded in they gave us $5,000 for. They weren’t even interested in offering us the trade-in value on this one. And then the one previous to that we had put on PurpleWave and that would have been back in 2010 I think or ‘11. And I think when all was said and done it was like 8 or 9,000, so.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And what do the folks out there do? What is the community college going to do with it?

CHIEF MATTOX: Well, they’re going to do -- they do, and it’s funny. A lot of the hose loads and pulling hose they’ve built a wooden rack. And we work with them. They bring their students out to our facility where they do the training in the maze in the basement, and then we also work with them on ladders and stuff while they’re out there. And the last time they were there they just asked if we could park a truck outside so they could really practice pulling hose off a truck as opposed to a wooden shelf. And so they spent the day loading and reloading hose. And through that discussion they said, well, what are you guys going to do next time you get a truck, and I said, well, I don’t know. And so I’ve been talking to the Fire Science program director out there. And they said can we buy it, can we buy it. And I said, well, I don’t know, I don’t know what it’s worth, and then this come up and, I mean, it’s probably not worth -- I say not worth the hassle, but it would be a huge hassle for that organization to in turn buy from us, so.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, the reason I raise the question is because when people review the minutes online they would have this information, they can -- they’ll know, you know, why we’re just giving it over to the community college.

CHIEF MATTOX: Right. Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I thought it was important to get it on the record.

CHIEF MATTOX: And we made it clear to them that that -- the pump in that truck will not pass pump test and we know that. We decided not to invest in rebuilding that pump. It also has a small antifreeze leak, so it’s really good this time of year, but come summer they’re going to have to fix that and we think it’s -- we’re pretty sure it’s a water pump, and they know that. But they said if they could just have it to park on their site, the community college is in the process of acquiring a building right out on State where the technical services is going to go and the Fire Science program is going to move out there, and they said they may just park it next to the building and never move it, but they could have equipment. They could load and unload, you know.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thanks, Chief. I appreciate it.

CHIEF MATTOX: You bet.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Move to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to authorize the donation of the 1987 E-One to the Kansas City Kansas Community College Fire Science Program. The motion passed 8-0.]

5. CONSIDER FINAL PLANS FOR THE 2016 BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECTS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 5 is to Consider Final Plans for the 2016 Bridge Repair Projects. Final plans are complete for bridge repairs for the Lackman Road Bridge over Shawnee Mission Parkway and for the Wilder Road Bridge over Mill Creek. The total project budget is $300,000. The recommended action is to consider approving the final plans and authorizing staff to proceed with bidding.

Is there any discussion from the Council? Mr. Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I just have one question. That Bridge Number 8 that goes over Mill Creek, is that bridge satisfactory as structurally it is now if 47th Street gets upgrades, i.e. curbs and gutters, that sort of thing, or will it have to be rebuilt?

MR. LINDSTROM: Every two years we go through an inspection process. And so the latest inspection, it does not -- it’s not loaded -- it doesn’t require signing for loading, so it is adequate, yes. The repairs we’re doing is more of just to seal the top of the bridge. It’s not a structural issue.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any further discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a second?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve the final plans for 2016 Bridge Repairs and authorize staff to proceed with bidding the project. The motion passed 8-0.]

J. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR JANUARY 11, 2016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,916,283.07.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next Item is J, Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to Ratify Semi-Monthly Claim for January 11, 2016, in the Amount of $2,916,283.07.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience like to comment on this item? I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It’s already been approved.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, I didn’t accept it at that point.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to ratify the semi-monthly claim for January 11, 2016 in the amount of $2,916,283.07. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have any item they would like to discuss? Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I just wanted to make a note. Very pleased with the vote to pass the extension to the SEED program for the Property Tax Assistance Program and the Property Lease Assistance Program. And wanted to make a comment. If you haven’t had a chance, there has already been very positive press about these two programs. There was an article in Startland News, which is an online news outlet that covers technology in Kansas City and the start-up scene, which was very positive. And then also an article in the Kansas City Business Journal last week I believe. And there’s article coming out in the Kansas City Star this week. So, already the program is receiving a lot of positive press and we’re getting questions on it from interested entrepreneurs, so very pleased to see that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are there any other Council items?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I got one.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. On 59th Street, I mean, we voted to close it, but we didn’t vacate it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The public hearing to vacate it will be at the 25th meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. I was wondering if that was coming because when she brought up they were going to be putting in their own gate, then that brought up that we should vacate it, so no problem.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just one thing I’d like to bring up. I think it would be good if we would consider it as a Council, it hasn’t been brought up yet, this is the first time I’m mentioning it, but I’d like to have somebody take a look at it and see if it’s viable or not. And that is when we have issues which are controversial where there is a large public interest, a very large outcry of public interest of either, I could say either for or against a project that if the project -- if the opposition is organized and they have a valid petition, an adequate petition under our acceptance requirements, I would think it would be appropriate if those people would have the same amount of time allowed to them to present their case or a rebuttal to the proposal as the proposed developer does. I mean, it just doesn’t seem right that the group there that’s done a lot of research and tried really hard to get their ideas across they only get five minutes and the other party gets an hour or however much time they want. That just doesn’t seem to me like it’s beneficial to anybody. We don’t get to hear what they have to say in any kind of comprehensive manner. It’s all pieces and parts of all these different people wanting to come up and say different things and stuff. It would be nice if you had a group that has a leader who they have recognized as the front person for their group. If that person could come up and they would be given adequate time to actually present their case in a formal way. And I think that would benefit all of us really to have something like that rather than having all this piecemeal opposition flying every which away. I’d like to see something like that. I’d like to see if there’s any way we can analyze the viability of that and whether that’s something we could do.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Agree a hundred percent.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Something for a future Committee meeting or, Ms. Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. We could talk about it at the Committee meeting. It sounds like, well, two questions. So, what if I’m a constituent who’s not a part of this organized group? Do I still get my five minutes or are you thinking --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The first five minutes [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: -- or an hour or however long the developer gets?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I think we would be able to shut off public comments, but they would be five minutes. If you’re not part of the actual recognized body --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, why is the --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- that’s come out in opposition --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I don’t understand the distinction between an organized body and me as an equally valid neighbor having a complaint. How do we limit one person to five minutes and tell the other person they get 45?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Could I --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Perhaps we should treat the developer like a citizen and give him five minutes as well. I mean, let’s don’t go there because that’s inappropriate.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That doesn’t make any sense, Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know what I’m talking about exactly. It’s a group of organized people who have selected a leader --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: You don’t have to get worked up about it. Yeah. Uh-huh.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- who said you are our leader and that leader is the person I’m talking about should be given some time to come up and present their case for all the people that they’re representing.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, perhaps what we should be looking at then is a tweak to PS-7 in terms of giving -- the ability for somebody to give up their five minutes of time rather than giving, you know, the citizens the same amount of time as the presenter and what not? Do you see what I’m saying? That became the issue last time.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I see what you’re saying, but I don’t know if that really addresses the issue adequately. I mean I guess it would if you would say they can arrange in advance the meeting for 20 people to cede their time to one individual or something on record and they’re in writing and they present that petition that way and then you would know in advance that, yeah, this person is going to get an opportunity to present their case in full.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would think that that would be the more appropriate way of going about it. Otherwise, you’re basically telling some -- you’re basically classifying some citizens as more important, frankly, if they get more time to speak than someone who is not a part of the organized group. That doesn’t seem equitable to me.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s strange. Because that’s not where we’re coming from on this. We’re talking about an organized group that has gone out --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I get what you’re saying.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- and passed out the petitions, gathered the petitions, done a bunch of research and stuff representing a group interest and they come as the recognized leader of that group, I’d say that person should have equal time to the person who had proposed the project in the first place to present their side of it. So, you get both sides and you get a fair and equitable presentation of the facts for the Council to consider.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s obvious what we’re talking about, and we’re referring to the last meeting where we discussed the apartment project because you keep talking about developer and organized groups. And the reality is if you look at the legal aspects, which I tried to allude to heavily in that meeting is our decisions are not supposed to be made on basically public, you know, I don’t want to say opinion or pubic dissent.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: The will of the public.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, while they’re valid arguments it’s already been -- when you look at development we’re not there to argue the merits of that project, we’re there to argue whether that project fits within the zoning which had already passed the Planning Commission. So, we know -- we’ve got to really be careful here because we’re going to start a meeting about something that’s not on the agenda, but that’s kind of where you’re going with this. And I would say if we’re going to do this it’s got to be relevant to what the discussion is because certain discussions, realistically they’re not -- if they want to sit and talk for 30 minutes, okay, great, but that’s not really part of the argument, that’s part of the Planning Commission argument. And that’s where that argument is made and that’s where it’s voted on. And so then we analyze it past that. But I’m kind of -- if we want to listen Stephanie and where my mind goes with that is, okay, what if I’m a party out there that’s not -- I’m not involved with them and maybe have a different opinion --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- but I don’t have an organized group, well, why do they --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That doesn’t make it so that person can’t come up and give their five minutes.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But they only get five minutes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They get five minutes, yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Why do they get -- why does the organization -- why do they get 30 and I get 5?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because one guy is representing a very large number of people and another person is representing [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Could we send this to a Committee meeting because really we’re trying to argue --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But hold on.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah, we should.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, what I think I would say is what constitutes to represent a large number? Do we have, I mean based on petitions? So, that guy has got to go out and get, what, 20 signatures to say that I want to get my, I mean if that’s what it is, then every time you just -- you go out on Facebook and you say, okay, I need 30 people to sign my petition so I can talk for 30 minutes at a council meeting. And like most people if you’ve got 500 Facebook friends it would take me about 3 minutes to get it, then I’m going to walk in with a list of people that says I’ve got 30 minutes. I mean I just think we’re opening up a can of worms. I think we’re going someplace we don’t want to go.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And I’m curious, too. What if we have another, in any situation, group of citizens who support, or are on the other side of whatever we’re deeming as the organized group, do they also get the same amount of time as whoever the initial presenter is, or is it --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I would think so if they want it. But we’re discussing things that should be discussed in a Council Committee meeting perhaps, but --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, fair enough. But I’m just curious because we already, according to PS-7, have the ability if somebody gets up and goes through their five minutes, you have the ability as a councilmember to make a motion to extend their time. So, doesn’t that rule kind of fix your problem?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, based on the last meeting where this occurred –

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, that’s at the discretion of --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- people being shut off right at five minutes and not a second more, so --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, that’s at the discretion of the chair.

MAYOR DISTLER: And nobody made a motion to extend their time at that point. But also the difference was that meeting was allowing for public input, but the public hearing had actually already been had at the Planning Commission meeting. So, there’s a difference between a public hearing and public input.

(No microphones on)

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t know what to say about that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, that’s quite an accusation to make, Eric.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right. Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No. It’s a pretty blank statement because --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- when you said it was just public input, it doesn’t matter. Well, if it doesn’t matter, then why do we even do it?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Nobody said -- nobody is saying it doesn’t matter.

MAYOR DISTLER: Nobody is saying it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We were there until one a.m. Nobody is saying that it doesn’t matter. I just don’t see the logic behind designating certain residents as more important or their opinion is more valid than the rest of the City.

MAYOR DISTLER: Because to Stephanie’s point we have it in the policy. And if you wanted anyone’s time extended, any member of this Council could have made that motion to extend any one of the resident’s time. So, are you saying that none of the members wanted to have public input? I mean, did you not want to extend their time?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I would have like to have heard the arguments that were being – well.

MAYOR DISTLER: You didn’t make the motion to extend their time.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Frankly, I didn’t know I could.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think we should talk about this off the record if you have a question for Eric.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, we’re just trying --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, he was making accusations.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I would have liked to have heard a legitimate, thought out, well researched presentation that had continuity to it. It wasn’t just a whole bunch of different people coming up and talking and we could kind of focus on what’s being said to get your head around it a little bit instead of all these bits and pieces. To me that makes a lot of sense to do something like that. If a recognized group does want to make a presentation, I don’t see why we wouldn’t want to do something like that. I think it puts Mayor Distler in a much better situation instead of having to sit here and time everybody to the second and stop them. It gives them an opportunity to go ahead and present an argument, a real argument.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: [Inaudible] thought out.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And then at the end of that we still have to reopen the floor to anybody who wants to add anything or any other citizen there at the meeting not a part of this organization who has something they want to say. Of course, you’ve got to still allow for that. But it seems to me that would be very appropriate to do something like that. And I would like to hear a presentation that’s consistent and makes sense instead of just everybody coming off the wall like that, you know.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, I understand. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, to me it seems like a plus.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m putting it out there as a plus. This isn’t to hit anybody in the head or to try to cause any troubles or anything like that. I just think it would be a much more valid way of hearing the concerns of people and getting it -- putting it to rest one way or the other.

MAYOR DISTLER: I understand the point you’re making. So, I mean, is that what you’re requesting for a future Committee meeting?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes, I would.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would say this though. Can I say something?

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Committee meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t, you know, if you’re proposing that, then I think that the things that need to be considered is what constitutes an organized group, how many people constitute an organized group. If you’re just limiting it to a protest petition, then really what you’re talking about isn’t development issues because I don’t think too many of the issues come up where we have a protest petition.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I would hope that we would --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, hold on. Let me finish though.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I would hope that we would establish those parameters collectively.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I would say that, put the onus on you, before that meeting I think you should put together some actual proposals instead of walking in and saying we should do this and leave it up to everybody else who maybe not support it, have to wade through this. So, put it on paper and say -- but my issue is going to be is where do you draw the line and what constitutes an organized group. And so to me you kind of opened up a can of worms because, I mean, if you’re going to say it has to be a protest petition, well, I might be really against this project over here or this issue here and I have an organized group, but there’s not a protest petition mechanism, so then what? Then is it, like I said, you go get a bunch of people to sign a petition or sign a piece of paper saying they want me to speak longer? I mean, I don’t know how this all comes into play and works.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that’s great. I will do that.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We come up with a policy statement and we follow it and it’s a good one and it’s worked for many years and we have one meeting where you don’t like the results of it or certain people weren’t -- and then we’re going to change the whole thing over that and I’m going, man, that’s, you know, that’s a little drastic, so.

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

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Again, I would just say I think that this is already addressed in PS-7 because any of us Councilmembers has the opportunity and the ability at the end of someone’s five-minute comment to make a motion to extend that. So, I don’t -- if there’s not a problem, what are we fixing?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, it is a problem because this whole Council has to vote in favor of that person getting extended time. It’s not granted --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s the majority.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s not something that they have the right to do, it’s the right -- they only have the right to come up here and hope that the Council will vote to allow them more time. And if the Council is predisposed on this issue they’re not really, man, we don’t want to mess with anymore or whatever we just cut the guy off and we’re done. And they don’t get a chance to present their case as it were. So, I don’t think it does address it. I don’t think it addresses it adequately at all. That’s why we’re bringing it up here. I mean, I read this and it says, “If a Councilmember would like to allow a speaker additional time, the Councilmember may make a motion. If the motion is seconded and agreed to by the majority present, the speaker’s time may be extended.” Well, that poor guy has got to depend on us up here to say, yeah, you get to talk or not talk. We can cut him off if we want to. And I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s really where we want to come from as a governing body, if we want to shut down public opinion or public concern. So, I guess I don’t favor that. So, I make that obvious and I don’t favor it and I would be happy to put together what Mr. Vaught said. I will put together a set of what I propose and then we can kick it around and flush it out and do whatever at a Council Committee meeting.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I believe that we have a majority of a Council to make the decisions that in the case that if there isn’t a majority to make that decision at that period of time that means the majority of the Council at that period of time doesn’t approve of it. To throw accusations out that I guess you don’t want public input from the public to try to, to me is like a bully in effect. And I think that that is very wrong in your wording that you can throw out here and get it in the minutes. You know, the point is, if the majority of the Council wants to allow people to speak, the majority of the Council will vote on it. What your point is you’re not -- you won’t be getting your way because if the majority of the Council isn’t on that side that you’re on at that period of time, you don’t get your way, so.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t think that’s a fair statement either because it’s whoever is out there gets the same rights.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Not the ones that are my side or not on my side.

MAYOR DISTLER: We’re going --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It works both ways, Mickey.

MAYOR DISTLER: We’re done with this one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, that’s inappropriate. That’s not true.

MAYOR DISTLER: Are there any other Miscellaneous Council Items?

MR. ERLICHMAN: Mayor, under the new provision of Policy Statement 7, may I please make a comment?

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes. It’s not on here. Any members from the audience that would like to speak to this item?

Public Comments:

MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you. Ray Erlichman, (Address Omitted). I’ll make this real quick. About 14 years ago I was asked from another city in another state to look at something that was very similar to this situation. And what was proposed, and this is just another alternative, it may not be the right way, but what was proposed was something that did come up in the last meeting where someone wanted to grant their minutes to another person. Right now there is nothing in PS-7 that says it can or cannot be done. And when I did the research way back when I found three basic concepts. One was that it could not be done. Some cities did allow Joe to give his five minutes to Bill with a maximum number of Joes, four, five or six, whatever. Some cities allowed Joe to only give three of his five minutes to Bill with again a maximum number of Joes. That might be another alternative to look at where you do not have to make the determination is Group A an organized group, what constitutes an organized group or any of that and just put something in PS-7 that allows possibly a restricted number of people to give up their speaking time so that one person can have the continuity of thought in their presentation to the Council. That might be another way to go. Just a thought.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay.

K. ADJOURNMENT

MAYOR DISTLER: If there are no other items, I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). We are adjourned.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to adjourn. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 8:24 p.m.)


CERTIFICATE

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

/das January 19, 2016

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk











File Attachment Icon
CC01112016.docx