PDF Format:


February 22, 2016
6:00 P.M.

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember JenkinsDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember KemmlingAssistant City Manager Killen
Councilmember VaughtCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember Meyer Finance Director Rogers
Councilmember SandiferDevelopment Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Councilmember Kenig Planning Director Chaffee
Public Works Director Whitacre
Councilmembers AbsentPolice Chief Moser
Councilmember NeighborManager – Operations and Systems Fulk
Assistant City Attorney Dehon
Management Analyst Schmitz
Communications Manager Ferguson
Sr. Project Engineer Moeller-Krass
(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 6:15 p.m.)


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Good evening. Welcome to tonight's Council Committee meeting. My name is Stephanie Meyer. I am the Councilmember from Ward III and the Chair of this Committee. Besides myself, the Committee members here tonight are Dan Pflumm of Ward I; Eric Jenkins, Ward II; Mike Kemmling, Ward II; Jeff Vaught, Ward III; Mickey Sandifer, Ward IV; and Brandon Kenig, Ward IV. Councilmember Neighbor is absent.

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. I will ask that you state your name and address for the record, then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear you, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes. After you have 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 Committee members to wait to be recognized and turn on your microphone when you would like to speak so we can get a clear and accurate record.



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The only item on tonight's agenda is to Discuss the Channel Alignment and Profile Options for the Nieman Road Corridor South Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3400, SMAC TC-21-072.

The 2016 Capital Improvement Plan includes the Nieman Road Corridor South Storm Drainage Improvements project. Several corridor studies, redevelopment concepts, trail connection projects and multi-modal transportation initiatives have been and are currently being worked through with the goal of pursuing a highest and best use option for land in the entryway and downtown area. Doug Wesselschmidt, Development Services Director, will present background information and describe an option that would maximize the future development potential of the area.

Staff is seeking direction from the Committee on this item. If there is support from the Council Committee to change the scope of work, staff will develop preliminary plans based on the proposed Option 2 realignment of the Turkey Creek Tributary between Shawnee Mission Parkway and Nieman Road along a new northeast alignment with vertical channel walls. Final plans will be brought to a future Council meeting.

Welcome, Doug.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Thank you, Chairwoman. Doug Wesselschmidt, Director of Development Services and City Engineer. I wanted to thank everybody on the Council for coming in a little bit earlier this evening to talk about this important item tonight. These channels of this size we don’t rebuild them very often, so what we’re talking about tonight is something that will have an impact, hopefully a positive impact. Well, it will be a positive impact, but it will be something here that’ll be here for decades, so thought it would be very important to come to the Council at this special committee meeting as we’re at a fork in the road as far as proceeding with the design.

A little background on the project. We are talking about the Nieman South Drainage Improvement Project. We’ve had quite a bit of development on Shawnee Mission Parkway east of Goddard with the various bank buildings, with our park project on the south side and we’re seeing new development and redevelopment take place on Shawnee Mission Parkway west of Nieman. But this section between -- on Shawnee Mission Parkway, particularly on the north side between Goddard and Nieman is in need of redevelopment and a development has been stifled in that area primarily because of the location of the two drainage channels in that area and the conditions of those drainage channels. This also has quite a bit of impact as far as wanting to see and needing to see development on Nieman Road north of Shawnee Mission Parkway all the way from the Byram property just south of the Old Shawnee Pizza, the Russell Florist area right next to that. We’ve got the post office that is ready for redevelopment and then the Valero station which has been vacant for a little while. So again, the drainage that we’re talking about is going to have an impact on how that area can redevelop.

A number of years ago between engineers and planners we’ve taken a different look at how we treat our drainage ways. They were always considered a detriment to a piece of property because of flooding and whatever reasons. We’ve tried to put these channels out of sight out of mind. In many cases in box culverts, in drainage pipes, get it underneath the ground. But again, there’s been some more recent approaches to our drainage ways and how they can be an asset to a piece of property as opposed to a detriment. So, certainly one of the glowing examples is the River Walk in San Antonio, about how it’s basically a vertical walled concrete lined channel that has a nice development on each of that. But even more locally you can take a look at Brush Creek on the south side of the Plaza, how that has been reworked and tried to make an asset out of that drainage way. And then closer to home the Mill Creek Streamway system where now we’re seeing, you know, we’ve got this drainage way. We want to preserve it. We want to put trails along it. We want to bring people to it. And then particularly just within our city the Clear Creek Trail. So again, we’re wanting our drainage ways to be assets to various pieces of property and to our city and to our citizens.

Interesting note on this picture of the San Antonio River Walk. About once a year they completely drain it so they can clean it out and fish out anything that may have fallen in. So again, kind of a unique picture. Most people don’t see this view of the River Walk. I would say if you’re going down to the River Walk you would want to avoid it at this particular time of the year.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: (Inaudible; speaking off mic.)

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: And I’m sure it’s scheduled well in advance so you can plan your vacations around that.

We’ve talked about a number of the studies that have been taken place in our downtown area on Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor and our Nieman Corridor, but some of those in more detail is the creating sustainable places, a joint project with the City of Shawnee and the City of Merriam doing a visioning study, and that was conducted in 2012-2013. But it was a preference study for the design and redevelopment around Shawnee Mission Parkway and Nieman Road. There was a number of surveys. And those survey responses included support for redevelopment of the key parcels along the corridor. The survey responses revealed support for a great mixture of land uses along Shawnee Mission Parkway including more retail and more office. Eighty percent of the respondents supported the use of the streamways around Nieman and Shawnee Mission Parkway to try to improve the viability and the assets of those properties. And a total of 86 percent of the respondents favored redevelopment or revitalization of the area around Nieman Road and Shawnee Mission Parkway.

Another study was the Community Connections, which was done in 2013-2014. And that was a corridor study of Nieman Road that recommended among other things, a catalyst for the redevelopment plan in the 6100 and 6200 blocks on the east side of Nieman Road. And then there was the TAP grant, which is a study that’s currently taking place. It’s the reallocation of the Nieman Road right-of-way. A right-of-way study that includes a combination of bike lanes, pedestrian uses, streetscape and landscape enhancements, options for removing overhead utilities, linkages of the corridor to surrounding neighborhoods and potential reconfiguration of traffic lanes and access points. Also there was the Linking Historic Shawnee, which is the multi-modal trail plan through the Trail Springs neighborhood aimed at connecting downtown Shawnee with the Turkey Creek Trail in Merriam. And in addition to those, as just the drainage studies that we’ve submitted through the SMAC program, three of the Nieman Road studies in the 6200 Nieman Road drainage culvert study, those have all become eligible for SMAC funding. And then for a number of years we’ve had ongoing neighborhood focus groups with the Trail Springs neighborhoods.

I alluded to the four SMAC drainage projects that we have in this area. We connected preliminary drainage studies on the two major drainage ways that cross Nieman Road between Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway for consideration of county SMAC funding. This has resulted in four eligible projects. One is 62nd and Nieman. That’s shown in the light blue. What we call the Nieman North, which is the red segment; Nieman Middle, the dark blue segment, and Nieman South, the green segment. And it’s this Nieman South, the green segment that we’re discussing tonight.

This view shows as it exists today through the drainage studies the limits of the hundred-year flood plain that’s shown in the light blue area. Currently this drainage channel consists of the upper half of the project, is an existing concrete lined trapezoidal channel, which means it’s got a flat bottom, sloping sides, lined with concrete. The lower half of the project is an unimproved, natural, vegetated creek. And again, the light blue reflects the area of the modeled 100-year storm limits and the orange boxes are structures, nine homes, one commercial building that have flooded or within the existing flood limits.

In 2006, the county conducted what they called the Northeast Johnson County Watershed Study that was looking at the northeast area of Johnson County which included the eastern portion of Shawnee on where drainage problems are throughout this portion of the county. That included updating the FEMA flood plain maps and identifying properties that flood as well as streets that overtop.

So, based on that information we submitted a preliminary engineering study on December 2014. What the preliminary engineering study does is we study options on fixing a particular section. And in this case the Nieman South project. And that was submitted to the county. What the county requires is that we look at multiple options including one of those options is if you just strictly bought out properties that flooded. And when you submit those to the county, if they get approved, what the county does is they’ll fund 75 percent of the least expensive option on that.

In April 2015, the county offered funding to us for the Nieman South project. And in September of last year we included that in our capital improvement program and a design contract was approved in November of 2015. When we looked at the options, again in this particular case the least expensive option was to just buy out the ten structures. We felt that through some reconstruction of the channel there we could get a drainage channel improvement which would cut down some of our ongoing maintenance in that channel. And then it would reduce the number of buyouts on that. So, even though that option was more expensive, again, what the counts sets their funding level is at the 75 percent of the least expensive option. This just summarizes, you know, what I just spoke about is that the county funding 75 percent of the least expensive option. The option that we chose to proceed with which was reflected in our capital improvement program which was the concrete trapezoidal channel. And then as we’re going to be discussing later on tonight --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Doug, could we ask a question for point of clarification?


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, they’re looking at the lowest cost option.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And they would be willing to fund 75 percent of that?


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Therefore, if we decide to go with a more expensive option that number they generated from the lowest cost option -- let’s use a simple number like it’s a million dollars so they’re willing to pay 750,000.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, if we went and had a project that was going to cost two million, they would still be willing to only pay 750,000.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, then we’d be making up 1.25 million instead of making up 250,000.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just want to make sure we’re straight on that --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- that I’m straight on that. Thank you.


So again the options we’re talking about tonight is this fork in our road and our design --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan, did you have a --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Real quick on -- you kind of threw up that one slide that had the -- you said ten houses. I thought there was only nine houses.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: There’s nine houses and one commercial building.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Can you bring that back up so we can see that?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: This is the commercial building next to Nieman Road, and these are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine homes that’s either --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s the old Herd[ph] home that’s just north of, you know, the building, whatever you want to call it, it’s a house.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s a stone house, right. And I thought when we talked about that, you know, let’s say a year ago, there’s part of that property that’s in the flood zone, but that building itself is not in the flood zone.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: It’s got a tuck-under garage, Doug.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Right. There’s a garage that goes down below. And what this reflects is water is coming up and getting into that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. I understand what you’re saying. I didn’t understand that from a year ago.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. And then through our studies I mean we can make the channel as deep and as wide as we can, but that water is still getting down in the bottom of that building.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. So, I’m glad we have this slide back up there because I had a question on it, but I was going to wait and put it up a little later, but since you’ve got it back up there the timing is good. I have some concerns about whether this is an accurate depiction of the flood plain at this point because we have been doing a lot of drainage improvements throughout the community. And I think I’ve talked to Cynthia once or twice about that. But I don’t know if that’s having an impact on the rapidity of getting flows downstream. If we’re moving water more efficiently upstream, it’s still going to go downstream. And have we -- is this flood plain depiction now current? Is this really -- I know that’s why we like to have a restudy of things as well. I’m sure FEMA would be -- if get FEMA to do a restudy that would be helpful, but I do have some concerns over whether, you know, are there more houses in the actual flooding area now than we’re showing here, or is it still stabilized and we’ve had trade-offs on the way we’ve done the projects where we’ve compensated for the -- well, it’s a time distance factor on some of this stuff, getting cubic feet of water downstream if we’re pumping it down there faster because we’ve got improved channels all through our drainage system, is this picture the same? I guess that’s a fair question.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Well, what this reflects is the Northeast Johnson County Drainage Study which was then submitted to FEMA. So, this would be the official flood plain [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. I understand that. But I’m wondering about -- and official is great, but reality and official don’t always necessarily coincide.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: I don’t believe -- well --


MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: We haven’t done anything that would have reduced the limits of that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. I don’t think we’ve done any reduced limits. I’m more concerned that we might have increased the limits of it.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Well, possibly. As you know, the FEMA flood plain maps are kind of a snapshot in time.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. And water has got to go somewhere. I mean, if we’re speeding it out there and clearing it out of the areas upstream faster obviously it’s going to get down there quicker and it can only handle X-amount of water at any given time, so what’s the deal? Is it spreading out more? Do we have a larger flood plain down here? Is this trying to evacuate itself down to Turkey Creek or --


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- you know, I don’t know.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Now, as we go and do drainage improvements we look at a fully developed watershed.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Long time in between.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: So, even though this watershed is primarily developed upstream, and even with a little bit more development, we would take that into account so that the improvements that we would do in the future takes into account additional development upstream.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. I don’t think we’ve had huge changes in the hydrology, but we’ve had some pretty significant changes in the hydraulics the way -- with the improvements we’ve made. That would be where my concern would come, the time distance factor and so on. What was the date on this study do you know, the one that we’re using as our baseline?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: That was 2006.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: About ten years old. And we’ve done a lot of stuff in the last seven or eight years. So, I don’t know. It’s something that bothers me a little bit that we want to make sure it’s all going to come out the way we want it to in the end and --

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: I mean, there has been changes downstream where, you know, if we were looking downstream the flood plain is wider. But since those times some of those bank buildings, Panera for example, they came in and elevated their site to make sure that their site is out, but then that would have all been taken into account when they developed that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. And with flood plain regulations the way they are they could have exacerbated flood heights by up to one foot and still been legal. So, I don’t know if we have a little more problem than we used to have or not. And I think it’s important in the long-term planning considerations is where I’m coming from. You know, I kind of like some of the ideas that are being kicked around here, but I’m just concerned that we don’t build something that’s insufficient actually because it doesn’t handle the increases which have been precipitated by some of the improvement projects we’ve done upstream.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: That’s exactly what we’d be looking at, yes.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I remember that we did discuss that one house. And if anybody does anything at that particular property they’re going to raise the level of that ground and that’s commercial property right there. So, I just don’t know right now that that piece should be part of, you know, I mean, we might be able to save a little dollars by not purchasing that piece of property. Just throwing it out there.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Well, this house is within the scope of our improvement. To get the 75 percent funding from the county they’re going -- we’re going to have to address it at this time. So, I mean --


MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: We’re going to have to address this building at this time since it’s within the scope of our project.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I don’t understand then. If we do that drainage back in the back --

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: You know, yeah. I mean, we’re not going to be able to tell the county that at some point that property owner is going to take down that building so it won’t be a problem in the future. We’re just going to have to address it today with this project because it’s part of the scope of the Nieman South project. What he said is at the end of the Nieman scope -- at the end of the Nieman South project between here and down here there will no longer be any flooding structures. So, that’s within the scope.

Again, the two alternatives that we’re talking about tonight is the trapezoidal concrete lined channel or a vertical walled channel which is going to have a narrower footprint. This is a picture of the existing trapezoidal channel. To do the -- to continue with a concrete lined trapezoidal channel to solve the flooding and the drainage problems would be a wider version of this one here. So, in order to -- and that’s the direction that we were going with the original design before the project as presented to the county.

What this reflects now is if we put in the wider trapezoidal channel which is reflected in the dashed yellow line it now shrinks down the width of the flood plain. So, as you get in here it’s pulled it away because we’re putting more water into the channel, so it’s pulling it away from some of those structures. Now, there is still, even with this option, are three structures that would still need to be acquired, so this is kind of a bit of a hybrid option. But by putting in a bigger channel and then acquiring three structures it solves the drainage improvements or solves the drainage problems.

On this particular option the advantage of this is one, it reduces the flood plain limits. It’s got a lower cost than the one we’re going to talk about here in just a minute. The disadvantages of this one is it has a larger channel, larger width than this next option that we’re talking about. As you saw in that picture, you know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t think there is too many that would find beauty in just a plain concrete lined channel. It does have a larger footprint on the flood plain itself which therefore would have less developable land than this other option that we’re going to talk about. Total project cost for this is 3.28 million, which is reflected in our capital improvement plan.

Option 2. This is a photo of what the channel could look like. This would be a vertical walled channel. It would have a concrete bottom. The sides could be -- a couple of options on that. It could be a concrete form liner that would give the look of a stacked stone wall or there is a couple of products out there. Big Block, Redi-Rock, which stacked up gives the resemblance of a stacked stone wall. Put some railing on top of that and that will make it decorative. And again, this is -- by having vertical walls instead of laid back walls you’ve got a narrower footprint on the channel and then also a narrower flood plain, therefore, more ground is able to be used for development.

And then what this then reflects is -- the dash line would reflect the vertical walled channel. What I’d also like to point out is if we’re going to line the channel this reflects moving this channel further north in this direction here, pushing this -- all the drainage away from Shawnee Mission Parkway, which would then make this piece of ground more developable as opposed to the ground that would be further away from Shawnee Mission Parkway. Again, what this reflects is pulling practically all of the flood plain limits with the limits of the vertical walls.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: On moving this, will that take it out of the previous owner’s property and put it into the City right-of-way property that’s purchased by buying the houses?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: I didn’t follow you on that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right now the waterway is running through the Hoelting property?


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Now, when it’s moved will it move it out of the Hoelting property into the property where the houses would be purchased?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: All of this is within Hoelting ownership, so it --




MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: And then with this particular option it would require acquisition of these two homes. It’s our good knowledge that --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But the City would own them, own the properties?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: The City would acquire them and it’s our understanding that we would have willing sellers on that. So, it’s not like we would be having difficulty in acquiring those.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But my point is, is the waterway going to be on that property now?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yes. What this would reflect --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It will not be on the developable property anymore.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Correct. What this, you know, right now let’s say you’ve got this piece of ground, this channel runs right in the middle of it.


MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: So, there’s only so much that can be done with it. Basically you really couldn’t -- if you tore down those existing buildings there is not much more that you could do with what’s out there now.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I understand that. I was just --

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. So, if you move this channel further away it makes a larger piece of ground that is -- that you can get better development on. Same thing, you know, up in this area here. We would be locating that channel as far east as we can on these ownerships, but then narrowing that footprint too so that, you know, these pieces of ground would be a larger piece of ground.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Doug, now I’m looking at this particular slide here. It implies that we’re going to put the entire flood flows, the hundred-year flood flows within the vertical walls of this channel we’re going to put out there, is that correct?


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, therefore, why would we buy these houses they’re not in the flood plain anymore at that point, right?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Well, what this would reflect is that channel would be right next to those homes which would be, I mean, our own standards would be that any structure be at least 30 feet away from a hundred-year storm -- yeah, from the hundred-year storm. So, yeah, a habitable structure needs to --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because that would sure wipe out a whole bunch of them that you have to buy [Inaudible; talking off mic]. But that’s also, to emphasize the thing I was talking about a little bit earlier. If we’ve increased or speeded up the flow of water down to this point by some of the improvements and projects we’ve done upstream, then is this even going to have the capacity past the flood plain? So, I’m concerned about that. I’d like to know because I’m [inaudible] the project, so I’m not banging the project. Let’s be on the right [inaudible] here. I’m just trying to look ahead and make sure we don’t lock ourselves into something down the road like we should have made it a little bigger while we’re at it because of what we’ve done upstream in the last ten years, now this supposedly really isn’t adequate to handle the real situation on the ground as of today or maybe as of two years from now when we get the [inaudible] improvements done as well.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. Well, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I don’t want to come back ten years from now and say, wow, we should have made this bigger [inaudible].

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: And I don’t want to come back 30 years from now and do it. Yeah. Just like I -- I was here when the first one was done. So, no, we’ve got a good engineer on board. They’re very well-versed in flood plain studies, the design of this. So, yeah, we would basically -- it would sized to contain that hundred-year event within that channel.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic] take a look at what we’ve done to make sure it hasn’t exacerbated [inaudible]


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And that those numbers are still valid [inaudible]

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. And I mean the only exception to that would be 10 or 20 years from now if they changed the design criteria where, you know, this used to be a hundred year storm, now this is a hundred year storm.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that’s generally what I’m talking about, you know?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: And there’s a little bit of what we call a factor of safety that’s built into it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I know we do factor of safety on [inaudible]


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic]


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking of mic] so many studies are ten years old, it hasn’t [inaudible]


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking of mic] all work together. I’m just looking down the road and I want to make sure that we’ve incorporated what we’ve been doing lately into what – some of these studies are ten years old and it hasn’t affected those. We need to [inaudible] into consideration.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Right. Yeah. The tools we have certainly are better than what we’ve had in the past.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Doug, I assume, just to jump in, that the engineering firm has done channels like these before, has a history of doing this and that is a part of their, I would assume, regular calculations as they’re designing one of these is to consider.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; taking off mic]


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic] flood plain study, don’t assume [inaudible] that is a dangerous assumption.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, is that happening in this case then we’ll say?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: We’ve got a pretty good one on it, so.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Great. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: [Inaudible; talking off mic] anticipated in bringing in that south [inaudible].

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Okay. So, what this would -- so we have the other one that we call the 62nd and Nieman which will have a drainage project coming up in just a few years down the line which improves from here over into here. Included in this project would be taking, and it’s not reflected here, but taking this channel to bring it up to there.


MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: And I do have one slide that kind of shows that. We’ve got kind of a concept of this piece of ground and it shows that relocated channel.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, if we could get some assurances, Doug, from our consultants and everything that this is going to be able to contain the hundred year that is going to open up some great options. That’s an area where there’s some potential for some good things to happen. So, that’s a big plus. That’s one of the reasons for considering a vertical walled culvert, or not a culvert, but a drainage system I guess you could say. So, I just wanted to make sure we got our bases covered. That’s all.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: When we bring this back to a later Council Committee meeting, part of that, and our report will put together the design criteria that we’re using, the factors of safety, things like that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. And, Doug, do you have some preliminary numbers on the difference in cost?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think he’s probably getting to that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You’re going to get --


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Real quick back to this channel there. Is that going to be -- is the plan right now on that going to be an open channel or can we box culvert that all the way so we can -- and then push it as far north as we can so that we can maximize the depth on any other redevelopment?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Let’s see. On the answer to the first question, previously we looked at what it would take to enclose this channel and it was determined that it could not be enclosed just because of -- in order to get the surface water into it. And besides that, even if you could the cost got to be pretty exorbitant.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: How about even moving it? I mean, if I’m not -- well, I’m seeing the storage buildings there, so it looks like we’re already, yeah, I don’t really see it.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible; talking off mic] other culvert [inaudible]

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: One factor that doesn’t show up is how it did get located here. There is a sanitary sewer line that runs right through here, so --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I might just note the little strip center there if you walked out the back door and weren’t pay attention you’d get wet because it is literally on the edge of that hill there.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. That’s some more consideration that we’ll do.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Just kidding, they’ll fall down the hill, then get wet as long as it was raining.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan, did you have a question?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, Jeff, did you mean that culvert on the south end? You know what I mean, right that butts up next to the buildings on Shawnee Mission Parkway enclosing the back?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It comes behind the bank and comes behind the little strip center.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. So, that’s -- I do agree with you on that. We should look at that when we get there, box it in possibly over to where it meets this channel.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. With that 6200 Nieman project --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And let me just finish because -- and my thoughts are, you know, one of the challenges we have in Shawnee is real estate, revenue generating real estate. And everybody know what mean, as far as between, you know, our density area, our traffic there between Pflumm and east of the City limits there’s just not a lot of opportunity. So, I think when we’re doing this anywhere we can maximize real estate. I know it’s going to cost a little bit up front but, you know, I think we probably get the greatest return. This is such a high traffic, high visible area that that probably would end up being some of the more attractive desirable real estate if we can actually turn it into something you can do something with. Because lately there’s not a lot of opportunities. We see redevelopment, but I mean there’s just not a lot of open field that’s flat and you can do something with.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Going off what Jeff is saying here. Behind the bank and the building next to the bank where you’re talking about bringing that other waterway in. Yes. Into lining up with this one. Is it possible -- well, none of this is included in this bid, is it?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Correct. This is a project a little further on down the road.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay. Because what I’m wondering about some type of a, you know, we talk about our great walls. We could put a wall up on the back of that and include more property over to that which could be parking and still put a different building on that site. Because they could park over that part of it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, the problem you got is our setbacks, Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, we might have to make a little difference on some of that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve recommended that.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: On this vertical walled channel, the advantage of this is it further reduces the flood plain limits versus the trapezoidal channel. More attractive just because you can use some type of form liner, a stone-like surface on a vertical wall where you just -- we’ve seen no example of how that can be done a sloped channel. It has a smaller channel footprint and, therefore, with the smaller channel footprint and the smaller flood plain limits it leaves more ground that can be redeveloped and get a higher level of development. Just the one disadvantage of this option versus the other one is it is more expensive. So, in answer to the question it’s 4.78 is the total project cost estimate on this.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah, Doug, while we’re on the subject of this thing. There’s been some talk about how this would tie in well with the Linking Historic Shawnee Trails project that’s going on also on the -- if we chose the southern route path that’s been proposed, could you kind of talk to that a little bit and how that is advantageous?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Well, part of that study is to find a pedestrian-bicycle route that we can get Nieman cyclists and pedestrians -- from Nieman over to the trail access point on the Turkey Creek Trail, just kind of a little bit northeast of the skate center over there. So, trying to come up with an alignment through there. One possible alignment is to have as much of that trail adjacent to this drainage way as we talked about.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: At some point you have to have a bridge or something across it I guess, too, right?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. There is one option that’s kind of -- it goes down to the cul-de-sac at the end of the post office and the storage area there and crossing at that point. And as we start off saying can we bring recreational uses down to our channels, our drainage ways to make them an amenity and an attraction and something that can co-exist.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And if I’m trying to figure out we can make a little extra bang for the buck we’re paying more, but it’s good because we could do this and we can do that. And we’ve talked about some of the things we can do. And some of the things we can do is we’ll get some additional developable land which will be valuable real estate potentially. But I was wondering, there was supposedly some pretty good benefits by the fact we could kind of pair that up and work it with the Linking Historic Shawnee project as well and get more bang for the buck out of that as well.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: So, speaking about bang for the buck. What I’ve done here, Maureen is going to talk about where the bucks can come from. And then also we’re also going to have Andrew Nave, our Economic Development Director, talk about just, you know, theoretically or some cases where how much more development you can get with this smaller flood plain footprint.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Carol, did you have something you wanted to --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I was just going to say we do have several more slides to get through and talk about the money and the space and the developable land, so we might want to keep moving a little bit and then certainly have as much conversation as you all want.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Keeping moving is now Maureen to talk about financing.

MS. ROGERS: Maureen Rogers, Finance Director. Well, this is an update on the status of the Economic Development fund. The third column over here is an un-audited pretty much final 2015 actual. The fund balance actually grew by about 150,000 from last year. So, $3.2 million in this fund at this point. And you’ve seen this little spreadsheet before. What I’ve done here is taken for the next three years the revenue forecast and then some placeholders that range from items that we have already committed to, to items that there aren’t even really any definite plans for right now. And this number here for the revenue does not include the 3.2 million that’s already sitting there. So, you can see that there are more placeholders here than what will fit in the three-year revenue, but there is also the 3.2 million. So, and I also did add a placeholder for the train horn project and that’s not in ‘15, that will be in ‘16. And then the Clear Creek project, that would be debt-funded, so it would show up with its first payment in 2018, or possibly a little bit in ‘17.

And the cost for the two options, as we talked about the SMAC portion of the two projects is the same, and Parks and Pipes is the same, and that’s already forecasted out in the forecast that you saw during the last budget process. And part of that is in the ‘16 budget and part of it would need to be added in with 16R because of timing pushed up. So, that leaves about a 1.5 million in additional costs for Option 2, which could be Economic Development Fund cash or depending on what other choices are made with that fund, it could -- if the timing with Clear Creek it could coincide, then it would be something -- it would not be difficult to add this project on as a debt funding to the Clear Creek debt. And there could also be a portion of it that could be a benefit district possibly.

MR. NAVE: Good evening. Andrew Nave with the Economic Development Council. I was asked to speak to just a few of the points about the potential economic impact which is considerable for the vertical wall channel or the more development option as we’ve been discussing a little bit tonight. So, I took some calculations which are kind of industry standard, both for economic development and for commercial development and bounced this off even a commercial developer to make sure I was in the ballpark. But using accepted FAR ratios, Florida Area Ratios, density calculations for various types of development and then also applied it against the same approach we use to do cost benefit analysis for the tax abatement tool that we use, the input-output model that we use for tax abatement. We again just did kind of a theoretical estimate of what could happen along this channel, along this creek if there is more developable land.

And I see this as a real opportunity right now for us in Shawnee in that we have, as Doug alluded to, there are several sites being up and down the corridor, both Shawnee Mission Parkway in the Goddard area, but then around the corner, some of the sites we’ve talked about right at the south channel. The Valero gas station as many of you know is on the market and listed right now. I was in a meeting just today with a developer asking me questions about the post office, which isn’t technically on market and listed and available, but has been in the past. So, people asking about that even today, and then what we call the Byram piece for the north. So, a lot of opportunity right now as we sit in the community for redevelopment and I think we can go one of two ways. We’ve seen a little bit of redevelopment already over the last weeks and months and years for retail development in downtown Shawnee and up Nieman for some of the retail projects that we’ve seen. We have the McAlister’s Deli that you’re familiar with. The QuikTrip is coming along nicely, so there’s a lot of retail development that’s happened. But we really haven’t struck fire yet with that higher use and that office development use that I think is so crucial for all economic development.

So, we’ve modeled a couple of estimates of what could be mixed used, what could be office, what could be retail with some of these sites. Just kind of playing what-if on a couple of these sites. So, we projected for not just any one particular property, but a couple different sites along the corridor, kind of that northern site, the Byram property and then around Goddard. But you could conservatively add 30 to 40,000 square feet of new construction. Now, that would obviously be multiple stories, two and three-story buildings potentially. And then again at standard ratios that would be 150-plus jobs of good paying office jobs. And office development, if you were to look at one or two office sites you could add, depending on whether it’s standalone restaurant or it’s small in-line retail, you could add anywhere from 8 to 10 to 15,000 square feet of retail that would have requisite part-time jobs. Again, we did the calculation that we used. Same calculation we use for you guys when we do cost benefit analysis to do the spin-off impact which you can see there as well.

The broader point to this is I think the opportunity is keen because we have a huge need for office space in our community right now. There is four office buildings within -- office availability I’ll say. There’s many office buildings, but only four office buildings with available office space right now in Shawnee with over 2,000 square within 435. We have several more out in the western part of the community. But then eastern Shawnee we don’t have that many vacancies. The largest is as you can see 6,000 square feet at the BMO Harris roughly there at Midland and 435.
But even the newer buildings that we have in the downtown area, First State Bank, that was built 11-12 years ago, only has 3,000 square feet available and it’s kind of chopped up, a couple different office space. So, we don’t have a lot of office product right now. Late last year we lost a company. You all made a partnership with the DeviceShop. We’re working with a company that was in the DeviceShop that ended up relocating to the South Creek Office Park in Overland Park solely because they looked at the available office options we had in the nearby area. They wanted to stay in that I-35 corridor eastern portion of Shawnee area and they couldn’t find new trendy -- trendy, cool options. And so I think we have a real need and a real opportunity. Again, and there’s not a lot of competition. I won’t go through all the stats of northern Johnson County, but you stop and think. There’s only one building on the horizon at the Mission Gateway Mall project of new projected new office development of any size and there’s only two buildings in all of northern Johnson County, and those are very close to the Plaza on Shawnee Mission Parkway that have office space of any size. So, there’s a competitive advantage we have right now that if we can create some new office space I’m very confident that we can fill it.

Talking about a couple of these sites just to kind of give you a visual picture of what that could be. This is what we kind of call the Byram site. This is from the Community Connections study. This is kind of laid over on its side. You can see Nieman there to the south, so obviously this is more of a mixed-use layout, but this -- and it doesn’t completely depict the vertical wall channel here. Obviously this is more of a natural streamway. But you can see that certainly there is development potential the closer we get to that creek. It provides more developable ground. So, this is certainly one option on kind of the northern end. This is again, kind of just a rendering or a 3-D rendering of what new investment could look like in the Nieman corridor.

And then this is the site plan for along Shawnee Mission Parkway. This kind of channel here on the left side of the rendering is what Doug was referring to is I think we call it that south channel that would then, you know, theoretically connect them to the main channel. But this is an office building on the left and then a projected retail building. This was in the paper this last week. This is just but one site. It’s not the only, but this is one site that could add significant new office space in the main part of our community.

And I’ll highlight with this. It’s the front door of our community. I mean, the other reason, and I think when we’re looking for reasons and justifications to communicate to the public, this is the front door to Shawnee. We have to get our front door right. This is what 40,000 cars a day, people are coming into our community. This is a corridor and this is a strip they see. So, I pinged a local real estate expert that just so happens to live in Shawnee, Block Real Estate Services, one of the largest -- is the largest real estate company in Kansas City, and Aaron said it better than I could that Shawnee Mission Parkway serves as the gateway to Shawnee and shapes the perception of our City. And effort -- any effort to improve the properties along the Parkway would be of benefit to the City. I whole heartedly agree with that and I think Aaron has a good perspective. So, with that, I’m happy to answer other questions.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: I don’t have anything more other than, you know, Councilman Jenkins referred to making sure we get this right. Andrew just talked about making sure that we get this right. Staff feels that the right thing to do is what’s going to be best for creating good quality development here and that would be going with the narrower vertical walled channel. And so what we’re looking for tonight is not any particular formal action, but if there is, as we’re approaching this fork in the road in our design, if we have Council concurrence tonight to proceed toward the vertical wall option, we would proceed with preliminary plans on that. Then our next step after that would be we would have a neighborhood meeting with all the property owners in that area to talk about what we’re drawing up, and then we’d bring those preliminary plans to the full Council for Council’s concurrence to then proceed toward final plans. So, that’s what we’re looking for tonight.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Thank you, Doug and Maureen and Andrew. I think that was a helpful presentation. I’ll jump in here and just say that personally I’m very supportive of this project. I think Andrew hit on it. It is kind of the entryway to the City and it’s an area that, frankly, has been blighted for a while and isn’t maybe the best image of the entrance to Shawnee. So, I support the vertical wall channel and efforts to make that a more attractive and valuable property certainly. So, with that, any other discussion from the Council? Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just wanted to throw it out that I support the vertical wall channels and have in the past and I think it would be a great project. I definitely have some ideas on, you know, how do we fund it and, you know, what other things can we do down there, so good job.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible] paint fish [inaudible]

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other discussion from the Council?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Glass-bottom boat.


COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. My initial -- actually this picture up here is probably the most telling of all. And my initial reaction is that the vertical solves the problem much better than the other option. So, initially that’s the one that I think looks like it accomplishes best what we need to accomplish which is to try to reduce that flood plain and to make sure those residents there don’t have to continue to deal with some of the issues they have with the current conditions.

I do agree with Eric to some degree. It’s not a knock on the engineers presenting this, but I do want to make sure -- if we build it, I really want to make sure it’s right because I would hate to come back later and find out that we under-engineered it. So, I just really want to make sure that we cross our T’s and dot our I’s on that, and so.


COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I just want to comment, I’m reinforcing what’s already been said, but I support the vertical wall channel as well. I think it’s a win-win and that it not only reduces the flood plain, but it opens up more developable property as well. And touching upon what Andrew said with the need for more office, DeviceShop is a perfect example on Shawnee Mission Parkway. At any given time they have a dozen tenants within their incubator space. And many of those tenants outgrown that space and then are looking for other office space. So, it would be great if timing to be able to redevelop that area and then be able to provide them other office space that they could move into literally just within a few blocks away. So, I’m very supportive of this.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Mickey and then Jeff.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I also am supportive of it. Our family business, we’ve done this. We’ve moved waterways and as I’ve heard from Eric and Mike, I would agree that we need to cross the T’s and dot the I’s and make sure that everything is done. You know, we had one of our projects that cost us about $600,000 over and above, you know, because apparently one of the T’s weren’t crossed. So, you know --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: There goes their retirement.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. But just, I agree. I like the project. We need to do it. Dress up the entrance of the City and I think this would be the best one, the vertical wall project.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: All right. Obviously in agreement. I’m pretty confident. We have a good engineer on this. You know, I agree we need to take a look at it. But I think we’ve got some good people on it and we’re going to do the right thing and I think this definitely improves that whole area.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just last comment. I’m pretty happy anytime we can leverage some additional funds from outside to come help us do something we want for us. So anytime we can get a desirable outcome which is above beyond just fixing the flooding problem, but maybe coming out with some real big positives as well, so I’m just tickled pink anytime we get some help on that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Great. All right. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak? If you want to come on up, state your name and address for the record.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We don’t need that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I know. You know, formality.

Public Comment:

MR. MORSE: David Morse (Address Omitted). Doug, can you do me a favor and go to this slide? And I don’t know how to point to things. So, a couple questions I have is, and I’m sure this is just a rendering and not particularly accurate, but it appears like this area is still going outside of the channel, is that correct? And it appears like -- so, let me back up. If we do the vertical channel we’re still going to buy out the houses.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: Not necessarily the ones you are looking at.

MR. MORSE: Not the ones in orange?

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: The duplex does not have to go.

MR. MORSE: Okay. But, okay. But we still have some space in there –


MR. MORSE: -- that seems like --

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: It’s lowland and the water is going to come out. There’s also going to be a little bit on the south section there coming out eight feet or so.

MR. MORSE: Okay. So, there’s no way to keep that area within. Okay. So, it appears like the channel narrows in here. Does it deepen or is that just a --

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: Just steeper. Steeper so it flows better so it can be a narrower channel.

MR. MORSE: Okay. Okay. And then so these houses are coming out, yes? Sorry.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: I probably need to come up there so he can hear me.

MR. MORSE: Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. And actually, you know, I don’t know that we’re going to know all those detailed answers tonight.

MR. MORSE: Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And it might be more appropriate at the neighborhood meeting as we get the engineer there. Certainly just general comments about the concept, but I don’t know that Cynthia can answer real deep engineering questions tonight.

MR. MORSE: I understand. But my question was I think this is still a rental house right here. And if these all get bought out there’s only one house left from an aesthetic point of view that’s a little weird. Just a comment. And so we’re -- so, from about here back is going to get done --

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: The northern strip there.

MR. MORSE: We’ll fill this in I guess. So, this will remain unimproved?

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: And we’ve got a limit there with the two buildings to the north. So, that has to be evaluated in the future.

MR. MORSE: Is it considered for the future?

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: It currently was not what was being recommended.

MR. MORSE: Okay. All right. And then again, it’s probably too early to know or whatever, but this appears like it’s going to go sort of go back up north?


MR. MORSE: And is it --

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: Still downhill -- downstream. It’s still downhill, but it looks like it’s going up north, yes.

MR. MORSE: Okay. I was just wondering.


MR. MORSE: And right now the water goes this way. And when that channel comes in what’s stopping it from backing back up into here?

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: It’ll be an elevation change. The channel to the south is higher up than the -- as it continues north.

MR. MORSE: But with hydraulic force it’ll flood.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: I understand. That will have to be one of those considerations, correct.

MR. MORSE: Okay.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: At ease currents that we’re going to have in that area was the flow comes in.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: That’s part of the dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: Yes, exactly.

MR. MORSE: Okay. All right.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: And I wrote it down to make sure we get that done before the next meeting.

MR. MORSE: And one last question. So, is there a reason that this sort of takes this long curve down here and not sort of straighten this out?

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: We’re following property lines and there’s a sanitary sewer in there on the west side.

MR. MORSE: On this side?

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: Yeah. And then there is some sanitary on the east side, too, that we’re working around. There’s power poles and stuff there. And at this point one of the considerations that isn’t clearly obvious is some of these properties are less than 30-feet from the open channel.

MR. MORSE: Right.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: That’s our policy. So, this one is still continuing to be plenty far enough away so we don’t have to worry about it. And we already have drainage easements on some of these other properties. You know, we have drainage easements on some of these properties. But a sanitary sewer limits where we can go.

MR. MORSE: I was just thinking from a development point of view that if that was straightened out a little bit further more development, more parking, those kinds of things could happen. I just wondered if that was -- as chairperson of the Trail Springs Neighborhood Association very supportive of the channel as it is. Again, I agree that we need to make sure because the Earnshaw projects, the other drainage that we’ve really concreted in and sped up, just make sure that that’s correct. But to have development in here in 2000, the Trail Springs recommended sort of office buildings in that area and had drawings drawn up for that, so it’s -- we’ve already talked about that years and years ago and glad to see that that’s going forward, so. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone? Yeah. Ma’am, if you want to come on up and then state your name and address for the record. Thank you.

MS. MUSICK: I’m Kayla Musick and my address is (Address Omitted). I live across the street from those orange houses. My question is, and I thought I heard somebody up here say that these deep channels which look good would narrow the flood plain. That seems to me there would be no reason to get rid of the houses on 62nd Street. But is that your intention? Narrow the flood plain and get rid of the houses on 62nd Street on this south side?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Not necessarily. Cynthia, if you want to come back up.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: I’m Cynthia Moeller-Krass, Storm Drainage Engineer for the City of Shawnee. Currently the highlighted houses were the ones under discussion. They’re not being removed in every option. So, actually as we are looking with this vertical wall option we do not need to take any houses on 62nd Street. However, due to proximity to the channel here, we need to take -- need to look at these two houses. The two down on Ballentine. And this one continues to be quite concerning to us.


MS. MOELLER-KRASS: And vertical, and I think one of the Councilmen had asked the question. Vertical separation is also a concern and the county is going to require that we look at this one and that one due to vertical separation.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak on this item? Sir, come on up. And if you’ll state your name and address for the record.

MR. CURTH: Yeah. I’m Bill Curth, (Address Omitted). I was there in the 500-year flood. I was there with the 200-year flood. And he’s brought it up. You’ve got a funnel. You can make the funnel as big as you want, but the hole will only take so much water. It passes through the Hoelting property. It covered up the Great Western Bank with four feet of water. So, how are you going to -- if you’re going to develop this, how are you going to get more water to go through the -- underneath Shawnee Mission Parkway, because it come over the top of Shawnee Mission Parkway and it flooded all the lots and the bank parking lot and everything.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Cynthia, if you could -- sure, sure.

MR. CURTH: So, I mean what’s the answer down the stream? I mean that’s -- whatever you’re talking about here is not going to go underneath Shawnee Mission Parkway. It was everywhere. Water was, I mean, I own the building right there. The water was up to my building. Okay.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Again, what we’re looking for tonight from the Council is which direction we would take the designs. So, if the Council is supportive of going with a vertical wall design, we’re going to be pulling more information together, presenting that more detailed information to a neighborhood meeting. And we’ll get your name and address and certainly you would be invited to that.

MR. CURTH: Well, I should be because it’s going to flood my property is what it’s going to do --

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: So, we would have --

MR. CURTH: -- whatever you do here.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: We have more work to do on an engineering standpoint that we would present at that evening.

MR. CURTH: Okay. This all looks good for development on Shawnee Mission Parkway. I’m just saying it’s not going to go underneath Shawnee Mission Parkway. In your drawings you show a hundred year flood. Where’s the 500-year flood? Because there was a 500-year flood in October of ‘98.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: We don’t have that modeled here.

MR. CURTH: Okay. That probably ought to come up.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: We’re required to provide 500-year flood protection for emergency service areas such as fire stations, police stations and hospitals.

MR. CURTH: So, if it just floods the whole area right on Goddard right there, everything goes under water that’s --

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: The requirement is that we provide protection for the hundred year storm.

MR. CURTH: Okay. So, you probably need to figure on buying more houses and more buildings down the road because it’s not going to go through there. And the only way it’s going to go through there is across the street. You’ve got buildings over there and you’ve got it down on Merriam Lane that won’t -- you’ve got to fix the problem before -- this is just fixing for development. That’s all this is. You’re not fixing the drainage problem here. I can just tell you that.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: We are including some inlet control issues at this southern end that will improve it some, but --

MR. CURTH: It won’t make it wider unless you plan on opening up the ditch.


MR. CURTH: Okay. I just want to know. I mean, when this happens and flooding happens on other properties what do you do then?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, as they said this is not the final plan that we’re presenting tonight, so it’s going to go through a lot more planning and community involvement. And certainly you are going to be invited to those. So, yeah, thank you.

MR. CURTH: Okay. Thank you.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I do have a question in reference to what he’s just mentioned there. What kind of pipes do we have going underneath Shawnee Mission Parkway currently? Are those corrugated or are those concrete culvert?


MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: It’s concrete box culverts. Seven, what we call a seven cell box. So, there are seven box culverts in there and they’re what, a 12 by 12? An 8 by 8?

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: I think they’re 8 by 8.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, how many 8 by 8's do we have?


MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Seven of them.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, it doesn’t look like it’s big enough for seven there.

MS. MOELLER-KRASS: It’s a small scale. There’s seven of them.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Seven box culverts.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. Seven of them. They go underneath Shawnee Mission Parkway and then they turn east and go underneath Goddard and then they open up just upstream of Nigro’s. Interestingly enough, they go east and then they go back underneath Shawnee Mission Parkway to the north.


MR. CURTH: Which isn’t big enough down there. It’s big on the other end, but the open -- it tried to beat out rock and stuff, but the water will go through. So, I mean, you’ve got to -- I was there when it happened, all three of them, and seen what happened. And water was everywhere.


MR. CURTH: I mean when it goes into overflow is on the corner it goes through that lot on the corner. That’s your relief. That’s the only way it can get out of there.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And that will certainly be part of the ongoing conversation. Yeah. Thank you for bringing that to our attention, sure. Yeah.

MR. CURTH: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this tonight? All right. Seeing none, I would ask if the staff, do you have the direction you need?



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. That concludes our agenda for this evening. The City Council meeting will begin at 7:30, so a few minutes there. I will accept --


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: There’s been a motion -- all right. A motion has been seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oppose nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned. (Motion passes 7-0)

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to adjourn. The motion passed 7-0.]

(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Adjourned at 7:22 p.m.)


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

/das February 27, 2016

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary



Stephen Powell, City Clerk

File Attachment Icon