CITY OF SHAWNEE
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
April 5, 2016
|Councilmembers Present ||Staff Present|
|Councilmember Pflumm||City Manager Gonzales|
|Councilmember Neighbor||Deputy City Manager Charlesworth|
|Councilmember Jenkins||Assistant City Manager Killen|
|Councilmember Kemmling||City Clerk Powell|
|Councilmember Vaught||City Attorney Rainey|
|Councilmember Meyer||Finance Director Rogers|
|Councilmember Sandifer||Human Resources Director Barnard|
|Councilmember Kenig||IT Director Bunting|
|Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt|
|Fire Chief Mattox|
|Police Chief Moser|
|Parks and Recreation Director Holman|
|Public Works Director Whitacre|
|Assistant Public Works Director Gard|
|Deputy Police Chief Orbin|
|Police Major Tennis|
|Police Major Larson|
|Police Captain Hein|
|Management Analyst Schmitz|
|Human Resources Manager Dawald|
|Communications Manager Ferguson|
(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:02 p.m.)
A. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. 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: Councilmember Neighbor of Ward I; Dan Pflumm, Ward I; Eric Jenkins, Ward II; Mike Kemmling, Ward II; Jeff Vaught, Ward III; Mickey Sandifer, Ward IV; and Brandon Kenig, Ward IV.
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 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 Committee members to wait to be recognized and turn on the microphone when you would like to speak so we can get a clear and accurate record.
1. DISCUSS THE CITY’S PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: There are five items on tonight's agenda. The first item is to discuss the City's Procurement Process. During the 2015R/2016 budget process members of the Council requested more information on the City's procurement policies and process. Maureen Rogers, Finance Director, will present additional information.
MS. ROGERS: [Inaudible; talking off mic] and we won’t go into that. But anyway, we’ve got several topics. And then some of the topics of interest that were brought up during last year’s budget process was performance of surety bonds. Cooperative purchasing has come up since then. Professional service and technology selection and design-build.
Right out of the purchasing manual, the objectives that are stated there is that the process be fair and equitable. We get the most for our money. And especially here in Shawnee where we have a decentralized purchasing process, we don’t have someone who is in charge of purchasing or we -- finance is a resource, but it’s done within the different departments. So, documenting and standardizing is really important. Quality and integrity and fostering competition.
According to Policy Statement 66, the financial policy, and that refers to Charter Ordinance 39. The City Manager is responsible for procurement policies and procedures. We’ve had a number of policies over the years, but in 2009, Springsted was contracted to help out with -- develop the current manual. And then it’s updated as conditions change. And each year the auditors come and look at it and test things and make sure that transactions that have happened have followed the policy and they’ve always been very impressed with the thoroughness of our policy.
Expenditure authority. This is what approval levels are needed at different dollars. Up to $15,000 department directors or the Deputy City Manager can approve that purchase. 15 to 50, City Manager. And as you know over 50,000 is your approval. And it’s based not on necessarily individual expenditures, but if there is a project, we try our very best to -- sometimes it’s a little harder because it may go span out over a long time. But if there is maybe a technology project where there is going to be multiple purchases, if the individual ones are under 50, but as a total they’re going to be over 50, then we try to bring that to you so you know what’s coming.
Vendor selection. Up to 5,000 for either supplies or professional services. Departments can make the selection based on their own criteria. 5,000 for 50,000 for supplies. We get a minimum of three quotes or can go through cooperative agreements or sole source. And for professional services, it’s departmental selection based on the vendor’s past performance, the expertise of the vendor, and their ability to follow -- perform at the timeline of the project. Over 50,000 for supplies or services, invitation for bids, and then cooperative agreements or sole source. And then for professional services, an RFP or RFQ. And we’ll go into a little more detail about that a little bit later.
Price agreements, and sometimes you’ll hear them called blanket purchase orders. That’s an agreement like for something maybe like fuel where there’s a price -- a bid that’s done early in the year and purchases may be made off of that bid all throughout the year, so it’s multiple purchases at that same price on a not to exceed basis.
And we did make a few changes to the purchasing manual. As we kind of accumulate things we’ll make some changes. And one thing we clarified was that making sure that, even though those items like fuel are approved in the budget process that’s not necessarily the same as the vendor selection. So, those will definitely be coming to you if they’re over 50,000. We think we have more of those that are getting to that level at this point.
Sole source. If there is a purchase that the department feels that there is only one vendor that can satisfy what they need that is practical or reasonable, then they need to make that written determination and it’s approved by the City Manager. If it’s over 50,000, it’s going to go to you. Some of the criteria. If the parts and service we’re looking at are not -- they’re not available anywhere else because we’re trying to make it fit something we already have, it would cost more to change. It would require us to change vendors which would cost more than what the price difference would be if it was bid. If it’s completely unique like maybe our SCBA equipment that’s got -- it’s really just very unique the way it’s made, or a specific relevant experience. Something like our bond counsel or City attorney that has been with a long time and their experience adds value.
And you all know that change orders come to you at certain levels. Governing Body approval if the change order is because of the scope of the project being altered. And then there is the different levels that are there in that little table of the thresholds, or if it’s a final purchase order for a CIP project or if the unit costs have changed. And then if they’re below those thresholds, the City Manager can approve.
And for emergency situations or project delays, there would be a report or notification I guess by the City Manager to you in that situation.
Disposal of property. If the property is believed to be over 5,000, then we would get competitive bids. Some of the common methods that we use to dispose of property, like police vehicles get handed down, some of them, to other departments, Public Works, Development Services, and Parks. And we put a number of things out on Purple Wave or auction. We don’t often donate things. If they’re over 5,000, they would go to you all for approval. And when we sell an item, the proceeds from that sale go back to the fund that originally purchased the item.
As we’re negotiating contracts and managing contracts after the purchases have been made there’s some considerations. Sometimes it comes up about the contract term for professional services like our banking, our auditors, those are some of the ones I work with. Some of the things we look at are the length of time that the service is needed, will we be able to have available providers at the time in the future that the term is over, and how fast will fees be escalating, do we want to lock in a rate or is that not that big of an issue at that point. And every department, when they have a purchase with a contract, it needs to be reviewed by the City attorney. And the purchasing manual spells out some specific things that need to be looked at to protect the City’s interest, including bid and performance bonds.
And I’m just going to talk a couple slides about this because you’ll hear about this a little more later in the evening, P.S. 27 is on the agenda as well. So, Matthew Schmitz will be talking a little bit more about that.
A bond is an agreement with an insurance company or a bank to pay the City if a contractor fails to perform. And it is defined by P.S. 27. And it covers the type of work that you see on there, different public improvements, right-of-way, land disturbance, stormwater detention or other drainage work.
There is basically three broad types of bonds. Bid bonds are issued to ensure the winning bidder will undertake the contract. Performance and maintenance. A performance bond ensures the contract has performed according to its terms. And then maintenance, protecting against potential defects or workmanship. We’ve kind of had that come up with mill and overlay. That’s been brought up. Surety bonds help ensure that the subcontractors are paid for their work.
And then cooperative purchasing. That is when Shawnee would enter into maybe a shared purchasing. We don’t do this too often. Like say if we were doing a project with Lenexa and we decided to purchasing things together. That’s not too common. What more commonly we see is what they call piggy-backing onto the terms of another government contract. And I have a guess here in just a minute that will give you more details on that. And then I’ll come back and talk a little bit more about some Shawnee specific factors there.
Some of the things to consider in making the decision of whether it’s a City bid ourselves or to enter into a cooperative agreement is what is the supply of qualified vendors out on the market and what type of purchase are you making. Is it a commodity or a supply or is it a specialized item or a specialized service, what kind of economies of scale would we get. If we’re making a lot of purchases ourselves, we might have sufficient economies of scale to get a good price. Of if we don’t buy a whole lot, we might not. And to take a look at the specifications in a cooperative agreement and really dig into them and see whether they’re appropriate for us or not. And then the effect on vendor relationships. There’s some unintended consequences sometimes. If we were to maybe -- if vendors we were going out to bid with were competing against a cooperative bid. So, that might be something to consider.
So, we have Rita Parker who is the Program Coordinator for, here’s the alphabet soup, Mid-America Regional Council, MARC, KCRPC, Kansas City Regional Purchasing Cooperative.
MS. PARKER: Good evening and thank you for having me out this evening. Yes. I’m the program coordinator for the KCRPC. It’s a new, well, not a new program. Mid-America Regional Council started it in 2003, and they wanted someone dedicated specifically to promoting more regional bids going on in the metro.
So, when we started this we started from scratch. We worked with the local purchasing chapter. I don’t know if you’ve heard of them, Mid-America Council of Public Purchasing. And from that and then talking to other national cooperatives across the country, we kind of came up with a real good foundation for our program.
And the first thing that we started off with was office paper. You know, we had to bring it down to something real basic. We started out with office paper and collected the quantities from the different agencies. Let me see, I’m trying to think. Jackson County, Lee’s Summit, Raytown, Raymore, I think Bonner Springs was in on that. So, we collected all their quantities and put it out under one bid and then awarded the contract. And then we administer the contract. But anyway, they ended up saving money by doing that.
Our contracts, we do have to -- because our program is not part of MARC’s budget, we’re considered an enterprise fund, so we have to charge an administrative fee. But that is built into the contract pricing. And we have learned over the years that even with that fee built in the cities are still saving money, the cities and the counties. We’ve got a few core contracts, auction services, ammunition, water chemicals, road salt, storm sirens, petroleum products, surveillance cameras, emergency vehicle equipment.
When Maureen mentioned sole source purchasing, storm sirens is a real good example because a lot of the cities only use Federal Signal brand. But each city was issuing individual agreements which was taking up their time. And what we did is collectively put them under one and negotiated a new regional contract. But that was set up as a sole source.
We follow all the procurement guidelines. I guess I should say I’m a certified buyer. I’ve been in it for 23 years now doing contract administration and bidding out. And let’s see. We’ve got the local contracts that I mentioned. Another avenue that we have to help cities and counties is we partnered with another regional council out of Houston, Texas. And they have the big ticket items, your fire trucks, ambulances. Those are all pre-competed. And then I administer that partnership, so it’s a service. If Shawnee needed something, they could contact me with their requirements and then I would contact the appropriate company and get the quote and then they would have the opportunity to approve it and then bring it to Council. And then if everybody is happy, they issue a purchase order. I won’t go into a lot of detail on this because they did include this in your packets.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think we have --
MS. PARKER: A couple of things I just need to point --
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Rita.
MS. PARKER: I’m sorry.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Can we jump in with a question? Mickey.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I had a question. If we were to get into the purchasing cooperative and say, for example, a fire truck came in that we wanted to bid and we didn’t like the bids, are we still able to go out and get -- re-bid it into the way we’re used to doing it? Or is that a no-no then?
MS. PARKER: You can. Because the HEAC contracts is basically a piggy-back.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay. So, we would have to go off of what you would find for us? That’s our only alternative?
MS. PARKER: Well, those contracts have multiple manufacturers, so you would just determine, you know, which companies you wanted quotes from, a Pierce, a Smeal, Ferrara, and then your requirement would then be worked on by the dealer and then develop a written quote on each of those units, so that you would have something to compare. But if you don’t like the quotes, which you will, I guarantee it, you can go out for bid. You can do whatever you want, yeah. You’re not committed. You’re not committed. But agencies are definitely saving a lot of money on the fire trucks and ambulances. I think that’s only -- I don’t really know of anyone that’s really bidding out fire trucks anymore? They’re pretty much going through our cooperative for that.
But anyway, they -- HEAC, they also go through the same bid process. It’s very extensive. They have a lot of people that work on it. They have a staff of 30 where this cooperative is me. I do it and -- but I work with everybody on it. But HEAC, they have a very large staff, very technical. So, their contracts are very thorough and very cost effective, which is very important to I know the cities.
The one benefit on the HEAC, and I could talk forever on this, so if I’m getting too lengthy shut me up. The one benefit of the HEAC contracts is even though they’re awarded at a manufacturer’s level, we can bring the local dealer into the picture. There is a mechanism in place that -- right now we’ve got Key Equipment, Van Capital is just some of them that I can think of off the top of my head. There is a little bit of a paperwork process, but we can bring a local dealer into the picture with approval of HEAC, the manufacturer and the dealer agreeing to follow the same terms and conditions as that contract.
And I administer that partnership, so when we get a quote, I will review it. The agency reviews it, then they submit it to their council for approval. And then HEAC does a final contract compliance review to make sure that the dealer is quoting the right pricing. But I won’t get in more detail on that.
In the packet, I’ve put together a list of resources. We maintain on our website a contract database. And that includes our contracts and it includes like if another city, like if the City of Shawnee issues a contract, a yearly contract and it includes that piggy-back clause, we can put that into our database and that would share for other cities if they wanted to download it and use that contract. It just helps. You know, if everybody contributes, then that information can be distributed and it would help another small city. We’ve got in the MARC region I believe probably 75 percent of our members are small cities. And they don’t have a purchasing department, they don’t have a purchasing manager, so anything that we can do to help them, and I think that database definitely is a big help. The contract database on the HEAC, that’s in your packet. You can go in there. It’s password protected.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Rita, I think we have one question. Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Hi, Rita. I had a question for you. When you do the contracting, well, go out for bids, do you go out for bids kind of on an annual basis or something like that and then develop the schedule of items and the pricing for those items based upon those bids that were offered up to you? Or do you go out each time and bid the item?
MS. PARKER: What we do is first we get the idea, and then I put in our -- we have a newsletter saying that we are considering issuing a regional joint bid for this product. And then we solicit participation from other cities and counties. And then they in turn are involved in the entire bid process. They submit their specifications, their quantities, their requirements. If there is any specific legal requirements, we include that into the regional joint bid. And then they approve -- well, we call them the participants, the ones that have said that they’ll work on this bid. They have to review the final bid document and approve it and then we put the bid out. And then when it comes back in, they’re involved in the evaluation of that bid.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. But that’s not really getting at what I’m asking you. I guess I’m asking you, like just use the fire truck example. When you get ready for the 2016 year, obviously the bids aren’t going to hold forever, so you have to rebid those on a regular basis. Do you bid those once a year?
MS. PARKER: It depends on the contract. Generally it’s one initial year with four one-year renewal options on the local contracts.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. So, that would bid a year and you may have additional options like they have in professional sports and so on, I can exercise the option on next year or whatever.
MS. PARKER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Gotcha. Where I’m really coming from on this is, it would seem to me that it would be okay if the community wanted to go out and bid these things knowing what the -- okay. Right now the current rate for a new fire truck is $1 million or whatever. Let’s go bid it and see what happens. We bid it and somebody comes in and says, hey, I can get you that fire truck for $870,000, and I know it would be a million if I go to MARC. So, in that particular instance it might be a better deal to bid it out as a city. I don’t think it’s going to happen a lot because I think, yeah, you have a lot going for you as far as you’ve got the economies of scale and all that stuff going for you. But also as you go through a year, if you got something that was set up for you, say in April, and now we’re into next November and, you know, new products hit the market. There’s new options to some of this stuff. You may no longer have the best deal because you may be out of date. You may have become not necessarily obsolete, but there may be a product that’s come out that would do that same job for -- with the same quality and performance objectives and so on as the other product you’ve already bidded. And perhaps the City may come out ahead. So, I’m just kind of looking at it from a standpoint -- I’m not poo-pooing at all what you guys do.
MS. PARKER: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m trying to say, you know, we always want the best deal. We want it every time.
MS. PARKER: Everybody does.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, if we -- I’m not sure I want to give up the idea of going out and bidding these things and, hey, we’ll see what the bids come in. In fact, I wouldn’t even know if it would possible to even offer right up front here is what the schedule says, can you beat this? I don’t know if you could even do that. Maybe that’s improper or something like, I really don’t know. I’d have to get your information from you on that. But, you know, if I go out and say I can buy this fire truck all day through Mid-America Regional Council for a million bucks, can you guys beat that, I don’t know, can you play that game? Can we play that game I guess is what I’m saying?
MS. PARKER: In my opinion, that would not be ethical.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s not ethical.
MS. PARKER: In my opinion. And the fact that --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d be interested in getting some thoughts on that how that’s -- why you consider that unethical.
MS. PARKER: Because --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because I don’t think it’s unethical if I can save my taxpayers $150,000 that I would do that. That would be unethical for me to not do that.
MS. PARKER: Because the contract pricings are published. So, if you take our pricing to a local dealer and say can you beat that price, I mean, it happens. I can’t say you can’t do it. But it’s -- you’re not comparing because the contracts -- they had to jump through so many hoops. They had to put up bonds. They had to go to the expense of the bidding process. So, it’s not really a fair comparison.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. PARKER: Okay. Let’s see. And then a couple of things I wanted to point out, too. What we do is working with the local purchasing chapter, we do recommend and try and promote education. Procurement training for staff members. We’re a member of NIGP and then we’re a member of MACPP. But I would, you know, that’s just something that we recommend is if you have -- if you don’t have a central purchasing department, anybody working on a bid I think they need education, some kind of formal education. And then -- do we have time for a couple of the savings?
MS. ROGERS: Well, maybe one.
MS. PARKER: Okay. Real quick. Talk about cost savings. We did a bid for medical waste disposal. And a lot of cities were paying like $500 a month for -- to pick up the medical waste. And when we put it out for bid we got at -- I think it came in at $35 a pickup, per pickup per container. So, the cities ended up saving, I think altogether, a little over 52,000 just in the first year by participating on our bid. But anyway, do we have any other questions? That’s all I’ve really got.
MS. ROGERS: Well, this is just a table that kind of talks about some of the same things that we talked about. And we added some clarifying language in the purchasing manual. It doesn’t say we shall do this one way or the other, it’s some things to think about each time a bid comes up, when it would be possibly more advantageous for the City to bid or do a cooperative bid. And then this vendor relationship is kind of like what Rita was talking a little bit about, the level playing field or the perceived level playing field that you can get into with trying to go both ways.
We pulled up some of the large bids that came to you, I think this is pretty much all of them, during 2015. There were eight of them. And most of them were cooperative bids. The Police Department vehicles, some of these type of things like the -- most of the cities go out and buy their police vehicles at the first of the year so a lot of them are buying at the same time. Same thing with the ice control salt that Overland Park is the bidding entity. Everybody is buying at once, so you’re getting this big economy of scale. Public Works fleet vehicles is somewhat the same thing. With Fire you get into more specialized equipment. It’s not the same as buying Ford F350s or 150s, it’s of course very specialized. Some of the ones that the City bid, some of the Public Works because some of them are a little bit more generic than Fire. Bunker gear, police uniforms, those are a little more like a commodity. And then earlier this year we had the ammunition which was a commodity. So, this kind of follows kind of those thought processes that are in the table of maybe which way to at least start looking at on those.
Professional Services. We mentioned this a little bit. If it’s over $50,000 over the course of the project or the relationship, then we do an RFP. These are evaluated by selection teams that are made of staff. And the department head will usually decide who that is with input from the City Manager. And then an RFP, since it is professional services, cost is a factor, but it’s not the primary factor. A criteria would include more like I mentioned earlier their expertise or past performance and ability to perform.
One area that we added some language to the purchasing manual as well. And you’re hearing about them and you’ll be seeing them in the upcoming budget process, increasing larger software projects. And that’s happening just as we’re making some upgrades. We’re migrating from Lotus Notes. We’re having more projects kind of like the CityWorks that we’ve kind of phased in and we started out as a beta tester, then we like that so we moved on. And so they’re kind of long projects. And we need to ensure that IT has the capacity to be able to support these projects and everybody is not off doing their thing and it has to be very coordinated in order for it to work.
So, we’ve kind of spelled out a process for departments to go through on software is to start out with a written project definition. It’s not the RFP, but it’s kind of the beginnings. You take the information out of it and you can make an RFP. And we look at the big picture first, what goals -- not just maybe -- now other places I’ve been I’ve seen, oh, I like this software, this is what I want. Well, let’s back up and say what goals are we trying to achieve, what problems are we trying to solve, what new service are we trying to preform, or how to better perform the services we already do. And once we’ve defined that, then we collect the department or the business, shall we say, sets out their requirements. And then with IT there’s technical specifications. I’m working on the financial software and there’s a whole page of technical preferences and specifications. And then the way we tried to define that is what do we need done for our business that we have now cannot perform for whatever reason and get all that down. Then the project definition would include the selection team and an estimated project timeline.
The selection team needs to have a management team sponsor. That would be the department head generally of the department that is the business. And then subject matter experts as needed. And then each project needs to have IT lead so that IT is involved in all phases of it. And then it’s good, especially if it’s large, to include staff members outside the department that have a stake in it. Then you can use, like I said, the project definition to help develop the scope of work and really get it into a formal for an RFP. Then the selection team would review the proposals when they come back, do interviews, demonstrations, go take tours. You know, if we get to that point we’ll, for instance on a financial software, we’ll be going to places and seeing demos of it in the real world and then make a recommendation to the Governing Body.
And Doug Wesselschmidt is going to talk a little bit more about professional service from Development Services’ point of view in projects.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Thank you, Maureen. Again, Doug Wesselschmidt, Director of Development Services/City Engineer. As the Director of Development Services Department we’re kind of the contracting department within the City, so we’re involved with the largest number of construction projects, so therefore, the largest number of hiring designers, consulting engineers, and architects to design those projects. So, the process that we go through is what follows nationally what’s considered a qualification base selection process, or also known as QBS as shown on the screen.
So, the QBS process ensures that projects are designed in a manner that is safe, innovative, environmentally sound and cost effective over the project’s life cycle. The QBS selection process allows life cycle costs such as construction, operations, and maintenance to be factored into the project design.
So, how this process works is we will seek either a statement of qualifications and then a proposal from firms, then evaluate those firms and determine what firm is the best firm that we feel that would be able to design the project within the scope of services as well as the time frame for the project. And once we have made that determination, then we would then negotiate with that firm to come up with a dollar amount for those services that we think is appropriate.
Going into a little more detail on that. Don’t intend for you to be able to read that, but that’s an example of an RFP that we would send out. So, we’re defining the project, the time frames we’re expecting, what kind of design criteria that would be used for that, whether it’s a national design, APWA, other types of design criteria. And then that’s what we would send out to get responses for.
If it’s somewhat of a unique project, we would likely go to a request for qualifications step first. How that would work. Let’s say, for example, we’re going to build a bridge over Mill Creek and that also goes over Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks. It involves the flood plain. We want the bridge to have some aesthetics associated with it. Again, it’s not a project that we do very frequently, so what we would do, we would advertise that we’re seeking qualifications from area engineering firms that would like to submit on such a project. So, what they would do as part of the reply to the request for qualifications would list what engineers that they have on staff that are -- have experience in railroad, flood plain, bridge design, aesthetics, public input, things like that. And after we received those, so let’s say again using this example out of the number of engineering firms in the metropolitan area, ten of them respond with their statement of qualifications. We would have a selection committee within our staff that would then narrow that down to probably five firms. And then those five firms would send us more detailed requests for proposal where we’re asking those five firms to respond to that proposal by going in, giving us what they feel is a scope of work. For example, how would they go about the design, how would they go about getting the public input, how would they handle quality assurance-quality control.
And then how those -- an example of those on one project. So, their proposals are fairly detailed, well, actually highly detailed. A listing of who would be involved in the project, how they would go about the project, their ideas regarding the project. So, it’s not necessarily the thickest one, too. Many times we indicate to the responders that we’d like for them to limit it to a certain size, otherwise it kind of cuts out a lot of the boilerplate and it’s a waste of times of theirs and ours.
So, this being a typical size of a proposal. So, in this particular case there was four respondents for this particular project. And then we would then again have this selection committee that would use a form very similar to this, or actually this exact form. And on the left side we would have various criteria that we would evaluate the firm on, how responsive they were to the proposal, what their ideas are regarding quality control-quality assurance, what information they may have, suggestions on public input. So, those are our criteria on the left side. And then we would also have a weighting of those. So, some criteria would be higher than others.
And then across the top in this particular one there was four respondents. So, then each of the team members of the selection committee would individually rate those. We would come together as a group, have a discussion and add everything up across and down and then mathematically to determine who we feel is the, based on those ratings, what is the most qualified firm.
From that point then, then we would contact that firm and say, well, congratulations. We feel that you’d be the most qualified firm to design this project for us. We need to sit down and talk about your proposed scope of services. Maybe they’re proposing more steps than what we feel is necessary. Maybe we want them to add a few more steps into their scope of services. And then the bottom line, come up with what their cost for that is. If we feel it’s too high, we may take out some cost of services. And on a very rare occasion, if we just can’t come to what we feel is an amount that we want to spend on that project, we would then move to the number two firm that we have evaluated. So, that’s the process that we go through on selecting firms based on the qualification base selection process.
So, next we have Brian Johanning. Brian is --
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. Just a quick before you go, Doug. It’s going to be useful to me when you guys get all done with your contractor selection process and everything you opted for a certain contractor or vendor, whatever it is, that if you would, especially if it will only, in a case where it’s not the lowest bid, because that would have to be argued one way or the other. If it’s the lowest bid and everybody is great, then obviously that’s a done deal. But if it’s not the lowest bid, say it’s the number three lowest bid, and we selected that guy because we because the contractor selection process indicated this is going to be such a better job that it’s worth the extra money or whatever, but the point that I’m coming from is that it would be nice if you could provide that to us, kind of an executive summary of we know this is number three, but this is the criteria that went into that selection and we really feel these were over-arching and there were serious considerations to the point that it was worth the extra money. And that way the Council would have that just available to them. I think it would be helpful and useful.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Okay. Well, what we would do after we’ve gone through this process and we’ve negotiated a contract with the particular, let’s say engineering firm, when we write up the memo, because we’ll then we’ll take that contract to the Council. So, we’ll write up in the memo that we had, again, using the example I had is on this bridge project we received ten statements of qualifications. The selection committee narrowed that down to five firms. These are the five firms that we received proposals from. This is the one that we felt was the best. This is the dollar amount. Because I’m not going to have dollar amount on any of the other ones because we’re not looking at dollar amounts. We’re picking the most qualified in our opinion --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: designer and then getting a dollar amount. So, if your question is, is if you want to see the dollar amounts from the other four --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: I don’t have those.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No, that wasn’t the point.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Okay. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The point was, like we are often provided in our packets where these are the bids came in and here is what they were basically for the guys that were under consideration, but we chose number three here because we thought they’d do the best job. But it would be nice to see since you guys were there, you actually were the ones doing the review. It would be nice to share that with us what your primary reasons were for making the selection you made.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. Yeah. I get your point.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think like a cover memo or something like that with the packet or whatever.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. We could go into a bit more detail on that memo that we picked this particular firm because of this, or this particular firm stood out above the other three because of that. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Something along those lines where we’d have some kind of tangible thing we could hang onto and say, yeah, we’re spending more of the taxpayer dollars, but we’re doing it for a good reason because we’re going to get a much more quality product back.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. And going back to my example, let’s say if out of those five firms there was only one of those firms that had experience with a bridge over a railroad and with federal funds and some aesthetics, then we’d say, well, out of those five firms this is why we went with this firm because
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Sure.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Okay. Yeah. We can do that.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I have a question here. How many times a year do you think we do this thing right here?
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: We do it, well, I just ran was looking at some numbers today. Over the past five years, we’ve done about 28 different contracts, so a little over five times a year.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And if we’re looking to do substantially more stormwater stuff, I mean, every project is going to be fairly similar. I would think that we’d want to do this maybe once, you know, and then you’ve got companies out there that are definitely qualified and then, you know, you may determine how you’re going to select them on different projects or something like that. But to do that every single time with five different companies going out to them, going out to you, I mean, you’ve got time.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Everybody has got a lot of time and we’re doing similar projects all the way around. And you know at least several of those companies have done, not maybe one over a railroad, but maybe like a million, you know what I mean?
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. As a matter of fact, this example I was showing, this was a proposal actually for three different projects. So, this was the 6200 block of Nieman drainage, the Nieman Corridor Watershed Study and the 52nd/53rd, so we actually had them, you know, if you wanted to propose -- they were submitting a proposal on three different ones. And I’m pretty sure I think we ended up with going with one firm on one, another firm on another. So, you know, we went through one process to pick three contracts. And then we did a little bit of that just recently with, I think it was our Clear Creek Parkway project. We solicited proposals for Clear Creek Parkway west of K-7. We did this process with, I believe it was three firms. We ended up, while they were contracts less than $50,000, we ended up taking the second best firm and had them do our Johnson Drive from Quivira to Pflumm. So, yeah, I know exactly what you’re talking about. We’re trying to streamline our process as well as their time as well to get the number of contracts. So, we do a little bit of that what you’re talking about.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But I would just jump in and say, I don’t know that I would be in favor of that being on the other side of being in a group that puts together RFPs and RFQs, and I think it’s great that you guys are grouping it together with like items and that makes sense. But oftentimes, they are so limited in an RFQ or an RFP response, you might not be getting a full picture of their experience, you know what I’m saying? So, they’re tailoring that to specifically whatever these projects are. So, if it’s slightly different or they have an experience doing bridges versus stormwater or whatever, it varies somewhat by project. So, you might not be getting a fullest, kind of account of their experience.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. But
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think I understand that a hundred percent. And there’s a lot of companies around here that have done all of those several times.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. But I don’t think it would be responsible for us just to go through the process once and say, oh, you guys are good, this is who we’re going to use for the rest of the year. That doesn’t seem like good government to me.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: So, if there’s no further questions on that, I am going to again, introduce Brian Johanning. He is representing the Design-Build Institute of America, the local chapter of that. Brian is with Shafer, Kline & Warren, one of our design firms that we use frequently. Prior to that he was with a construction company called Emery Sapp, so he certainly has the experience on the construction side as well as the design side. And I think represents the design-build number of companies real well. So, I’m going to turn it over to Brian.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Real quick, Brian. We’re going to interrupt your introduction again.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Hold on just one second. Doug, how many years of experience do you have as a City Engineer?
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: I’ve been here 30, so
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, you’ve been doing this awhile?
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Thanks.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: He came in as a teenager.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah. I was about 12 years old when I started.
MR. JOHANNING: Thanks, Doug. And thank you all for having me. I also want to introduce John Mitchell. John is the Director of Alternative Project Delivery at Burns & McDonnell Corporation, and specifically he’s over the Water Services Group. So, Burns & McDonnell is a great steward of the Design-Build Institute. We have over 4,000 members nationally. We represent the Mid-American region here in Kansas City. I’m the immediate past president of our board. We have about 400 members, but 2,000-3,000 people in e-blast that goes out to many different people that are involved at different times throughout the year. One of the key initiatives that we wanted to undertake as a board this year was just to try to be more outward facing, more engaging with public owners just like yourselves that do, you know, purchasing and procurement, and just try to talk a little bit about design-build, what it is, why it brings value to you as taxpayers. I mean, one of the first things that I say whenever I start things like this is design-build is not for every project. So, I’m not up here suggesting that it’s the one and only way to buy things. But it’s very, very good for certain projects and we wanted to talk just briefly about it tonight. We’ll try to keep it moving along.
MR. MITCHELL: Thanks, Brian. Again, I’m John Mitchell. I’ve been in the design-build arena focusing on water and wastewater treatment for a little over 20 years, and have delivered over 30 water and wastewater treatment plants here in Kansas on a design-build basis here with Brian representing DBIA. And I serve DBIA as vice-chair of the Water/Wastewater National Committee.
So, I think it’s appropriate to start with some comparison and contrast between design-build and traditional design bid build. And so what you see on the screen in front of you is really the contractual structure of design-bid-build. And that’s where you as an owner maintain separate contracts with a design professional and with a builder. And in that structure there is no contractual relationship or contractual obligation between the designer and builder, just between the designer and builder and the owner. And in that context it places you as an owner kind of squarely in the middle of resolving any ambiguity or any conflict or any issue that might arise between the designer and the builder during the delivery of the project. I call that a layered risk allocation because you have two contracts to manage and you have responsibilities and liabilities associated with each of those contracts. And a lot of times in a traditional project delivery there can be a little bit of finger pointing and sometimes a lot of finger pointing between the designer and the builder as to who may be responsible or who may have an obligation if an issue arises.
In the design-build context that contractual obligation is streamlined. You as an owner have one contract to manage with the design builder. And that design builder then manages all of the responsibilities associated with the design and all of the responsibilities associated with the delivery of construction. And if an issue does arise between the designer and the construction partner, then the design-build entity works that out and you’re really separated from that conflict and have just one contract to manage and really one pathway for responsibility and liability in that context.
So, a streamlined or consolidated risk allocation through the contractual model.
MR. JOHANNING: So, any questions on those first two? Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: So, here is how they the two systems differ in the project delivery cycle. And on the bottom you’ll see the conventional design-bid-build approach. And that’s one that we’re all pretty familiar with. Design professional develops a preliminary design, advances that preliminary design to construction or bid documents, and then advances that to a bid. And on the day that you open bids is really the first time that you have true cost certainty and what it’s going to cost to deliver that project. A lot of times what happens in that context is that bid price may not align with your budget constraints. And so what do you do at that point? You know, a lot of times an owner will go back to the beginning of the process and restart the design process and go through the whole process again. And that can be kind of time consuming and it can be costly.
In the design-build system you as an owner select your design-build partner, designer and builder, primarily based on their qualifications and ability and previous track record. And that design builder, along with the end user, the owner, engineer, contractor and the end user of the project collaborate and coordinate with one another to develop a preliminary design and carry that preliminary design to a point where the design builder can tender a guaranteed price for the project. And that guaranteed price is prepared by the design builder by competitively procuring proposals from the marketplace for commodities, for major subcontractors, for major pieces of equipment. And then as a design-build team and as an end user, we sit down in a team environment and evaluate each of those competitive proposals. And the idea in this process is not necessarily to look for the lowest possible price, but to look for the best possible value.
Because I’m in the water business I like to use the example of pumps. As a design builder we may need a pump for a certain application in a project and we’ll go to the marketplace and get competitive quotes on three or four different pump types or pump manufacturers. And in an open book environment, evaluate each of those proposals along with you the owner, and pick the one that’s the best value. And in that process there may be a pump that has a higher value to you. I like to think of it as some owners that have 50 of a particular type of pump in their system and their operators are trained on how to operate it. They have a spare parts inventory. They have an emergency response plan if something goes wrong with the pump. And so you can assign a certain value to that, and then evaluate that value in the context of the price and make a best value decision.
And so in establishing that guaranteed maximum price, we go through each important element of the project and do exactly that. Look for the best value. Not necessarily the lowest price, but the best value. And at the end of that process of establishing the guaranteed maximum price, if you believe that that process has been fair, competitive, open and transparent, then you have a choice to move the project into final design and construction and the design-build team delivers that project at or below that guaranteed price. In the event you have any misgivings about it there’s an off-ramp at that point. So, you can take the off-ramp and not proceed with the project. So, there is a very low risk to you as an owner in going through that process. Any questions about that piece?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: There’s an initial contract for that, or do you want until it’s a complete design-build? So, is there an initial design phase, you know, pre-bid and
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. Typically, there is an initial agreement to go through the preliminary design and establish that.
MR. JOHANNING: A lot of times that includes public involvement and interaction with the constituents.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Again, very kind of low risk in that. Because if you decide to take the off-ramp, all of the material that’s developed at that point, the preliminary design, the estimating, all of that becomes work product that transfers to you. And you can use that to continue the project in any format that you want.
Some of the advantages of design-build, and as Brian said, you know, design-build isn’t appropriate for every single project. But projects that are time sensitive, projects that are highly complex are certainly good candidates for a design-build. Some of the benefits are that consolidated risk allocation through that single point of responsibility is the design builder. You now have just one contract to manage. Brian will talk about the results of a study done by Penn State, but it’s proven to be the fastest delivery vehicle, which can be very, very helpful for projects that are schedule sensitive. It delivers the highest quality. And it does that through the collaboration of designer and builder very early in the project in collaboration with the end user of the project. It also does that through that best value open book selection of all the parts and pieces that go into a project so that as a team you can drive the best value. Brian will talk about this, too, but it has the least incidents of construction-related claims. And that’s because of the integration of the designer and builder. It eliminates the possibility for that conflict, or at least eliminates the possibility of that conflict escalating to an owner. And it allows for the clearest definition of project objectives and which party is responsible for managing which risks. So, Brian will talk about a few examples.
MR. JOHANNING: Yeah. John, thanks. You did a great I think of hitting the highlights there.
Again, this can be a little bit complex, so our greatest task as an organization is educating folks like yourself and other owners so don’t want again want to dive too far into the details. He did a great job of hitting the high points. The entity can take many different firms, definitely responsible for designing and constructing the projects to meet performance standards set by you the owner. There are cost efficiencies as I’ll show you in the graph in a minute. The biggest thing that I think we want to leave you with today is that this is really all about risk. And we’re all business people in the room and we’re talking about transferring risk from you as an owner for errors and omissions and other things that you guarantee in a bid-build fashion over to a design builder. To take all of the risk associated with any problem that happens during a project and not get to a point where you’re talking about those two bad words, change orders. We’re trying to eliminate change orders with this entire thing.
So, here is the Penn State study results. Really the key takeaway is 33.5 percent faster on delivery speed, and certainly less cost growth and less schedule growth. The other thing I wanted to leave you with tonight is that we are little bit behind here in the Midwest. And we’ll get to some national graphs in a minute. But as you can see here the trend for design-bid and build across the United States is definitely decreasing while the trend for design-build and other alternative forms of procurement are on the increase to what is now over 40 percent of projects. This schematic is a little bit hard to read, but most design-build teams are led by contractors with designers like Burns & McDonnell leading 28 percent of the time.
So quickly, state procurement laws, 1993. You can see just a couple of states. A few states we’re adopting. Oops, 2003. Still sort of a hole in the middle of the country. 2015, they’re getting a lot better. I think hopefully we’re going to see Missouri turn green with some legislation we’re pushing down in Jefferson City. So, this one is a little bit hard to read, too. But there is 14 bills in the Mid-American region right now. And actually that’s kind of going up. Nebraska has a bill, but it’s a very hot topic across the United States.
Award winners besides Swarner Park, besides this facility we’re in right now, besides the Shawnee Justice facility that have been done in this particular town. Here is a few award winners from our region. You probably drive by -- I was involved in the 79th Street project between Pflumm and Lackman, is that right? Antioch, maybe? I can’t remember. 79th Street. It’s right by the school and the maintenance facility in Lenexa. A few pretty pictures. A freight quote was done by Van Trust. So, it’s definitely done on both the private and public side. Brookview Gardens was in Liberty. That was a $1.3 million project. It’s not necessarily for a $300 million KDOT gateway projects that can be done at a $1 million level as well.
So, with that I think we will conclude. Thank you. Any questions?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: A pretty simple one. I think this looks pretty good. I was pretty impressed by it. I was just curious though what might be the disadvantages. We always get to see all the advantages. Everybody like to sell them. But I’m just curious. You’ve had some experience all kinds of things. What kind of things could we possibly look as pitfalls or whatever so we can dance over those easily?
MR. JOHANNING: You know, I think the biggest thing is just to become educated. There are design-build projects that go bad. Trying to keep the owner integrated throughout the entire process. This isn’t something where the owner has to just give up all control to a design-builder, but that can happen occasionally. You know, they just want to wash their hands and walk away. And there are times when that can, you know, be troublesome. You know, this does not allow for necessarily a rip and read. You know who’s low type of a procurement model. That’s not what this is for. It’s slightly more complex than that.
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. I think one of the big disadvantages is that at the very beginning of the project you really have to think through what the appropriate risk allocation for each party is. And one of the things that I see a lot, I’ve done a lot of these, is an inappropriate risk allocation. And what you want to do I think when you’re setting the project up is assign the risk to the party who is best able to control it and best able to control it to maintain budget and maintain schedule. I think a great example with that, and kind of going back to the water business, is permitting. As a design builder I can help you get the permits across the finish line, but at the end of the day you’ve got to have responsibility for the permit because you’re the permit holder. I can’t hold it for you. So, that’s a prime example of risk allocation. I think another is easement acquisition. As a design builder we can certainly help identify the best corridors, negotiate with property owners. But at the end of the day a design builder doesn’t have rights of eminent domain, so we can’t absorb, you know, schedule or cost risk for acquiring property. So, those types of risk allocations are the most important thing that you as an owner have to think through as you go into a design-build project. And assigning those to the party that can control them actually reduces your cost and it reduces your scheduled exposure as well.
MR. JOHANNING: Another negative, as a practitioner, and I’m sure Stephanie and others can attest to this, the cost of pursuit is very high. So, you know, really owners need to set them up to encourage small business participation, minority business participation. It’s something to definitely be cognizant of. Qualifications, you know, to get to a short list, the cost to pursue is pretty high for practitioners depending on how it’s set up.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Real quick, just some clarification. John, I think when you were up here you said if we exercise the off-ramp option on design-build, then we would get the designs that were paid for up to that point or not?
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. Yeah. Typically you set that initial contract up to give you rights to that material if you decide to take the off-ramp. And I think that’s just smart business. Then you can use that material to advance the project in any way you want. I think it’s appropriate to note that when you do that you take the material, you can use the material. You should absolve the design builder from anything that might happen with it from that point forward because a different team will pick up and move forward with it.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. Thank you. Carol, wasn’t the redesign of this design-build?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. We didn’t write the contract that way. And I believe it had to do it was a small enough project that we felt like the time commitment that the vendors were going to put into the teams that we didn’t write that. The Justice Center I believe was written that way because we knew that if we got these big proposals and somebody had a really cool idea and then we picked another team that we would really want to use that cool idea, so I think it was written that way.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But this room was not.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Because I came out of the remodel thinking design-build was not that great of an idea because we had spent money for designs and we had questions on cost. We were told we couldn’t go back because we didn’t own the designs. And so I thought was a downside. So, to hear that it’s not typically that way or that it’s not usually done that way just had brought up some questions in my mind. So, I personally think if we’re going to go forward with design-builds that we should make sure that we have that language so that we’re not held captive to a certain bid if we don’t like it.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. And we would certainly look at each project to weigh that out.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I think we ought to go along with what he said there as I mean not every project is a design-build project. And I’m, you know, kind of the belief that maybe this one probably wasn’t the best one for a design-build. I’m not saying it was bad or anything, I’m just saying, you know, I kind of had some questions especially when we go into it and, you know, you already talked about it in a public meeting, but I mean, you know, we had this list of things that we were going to get. And then when actually the design came back for the price that we had, you know, it wasn’t on the list. So, and it was a long way from it, so. But anyway.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. The list was a wish list, not a this is absolutely what we’re going to get.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We put a budget together based on a list.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, I’ll just say I’ve, you know, I’ve done several office projects myself. I’m in the middle of doing one right now in Wyandotte County, a build-out. And the contractor I use who typically builds, you know, $200,000 to $300,000 office build-outs, does a lot of dental offices, does a lot of chiropractor offices, even in the last few years he’s gone design-build. He actually partnered up with an architect and structured his company that way because and I can tell you from experience the one I did with him six years ago before doing that, it was a pain. We had an architect design something and then I’m responsible for the designs that I’m giving to him and he’s saying, looking at going it doesn’t we can’t do this or he doesn’t understand the city is not going to let us do this, or this doesn’t really work. And then we have to go to back to the architect and get changes on it. And it was a pain. And so the system is so streamlined now where you hire him and, you know, he sits together with his designer and they put together something, but he’s also involved in that design as the contractor who is the guy who is going to contract, subcontract, or contract to build it. It makes it a lot easier. I don’t, you know, there was a few people in the audience the night we voted on this. And one of them sat through this meeting who was here for something else, he’s a contractor. And he came up to somebody afterwards and he said I thought that was pretty reasonable for what you guys got. He thought what we did here for the price was very reasonable. In fact, he thought it was more than reasonable and that’s what he did for a living. And so, I mean, we could always pull any example we want. He said, she said, we could have done this. The truth is, you know, I believe -- I wasn’t on the Council, but I’m pretty sure that you voted for the design-build on the Justice Center as well as a few other people, or one other person on here, and it came in under budget. It was a design-build of how many millions? Twenty-three million, wasn’t it? Twenty million, whatever. But it came in under budget. So, it does work. It’s not that it’s, you know, design-build we’re always going to pay more. I do know the trend. And I can tell you the trend in commercial real estate about anything is design-build. You’re seeing more and more and more of it. And you’re seeing architects align themselves with contractors. And even that quasi, even it’s not a true design-build, it’s becoming this quasi-design-build where they’re working closer versus I just go out and get plans then I go and bid it and then have to go back to this architect ten times because I have contractors telling me that this isn’t going to work or whatever it is. So, I think it’s a good thing.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just a couple comments. I like the idea of the consolidation of the planning and building process because it really facilitates communication in the front end of this thing, the front end loading. And the other thing I really liked about it was the fact that you can compress your time factors down. And when you’re dealing with your business, which is storm sewer projects and things like that, that’s a big deal because you’ve got somebody’s street tore up and he’s not a happy business owner while he’s everybody is being directed away from him during the period of time down. So, anything you could do to compress that factor down I think is a real big plus. So, you know, I appreciate the presentation, I think it was very well presented.
MR. JOHANNING: Thank you. Have a great night.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you.
MS. ROGERS: Conclusion. So, basically this is just saying that as we kind of looked at these as we went along, some changes that we made to the purchasing manual as we went through this presentation and just for another one was just recently federal grant language that is required and we added that in there, too. And so we keep up with all of that. So, is there any other questions?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Not to wear everybody out, but just a comment more than a question. We’re talking about the sole source contracting and that’s something that’s easy to fall in the trap with because it is warm and fuzzy dealing with the person you dealt with the last time and you know how they like it and all this kind of stuff, so I’m going to go there. But when you get in the habit of doing sole source contracting extensively, you really you shut out other potential contractors. You don’t develop any other skill sets out there. So, if you’re the guy you’ve been working with goes away, dies, moves to Argentina, I don’t know, whatever, you don’t have that source anymore, you really don’t have much to fall back on. So, I think you could actually, as you’re going through the process of sole source contracting, if you think about the fact that we want to be developing some other capabilities out here as well. And maybe this one is really critical so we want to go with the guy we really know is going to do this one, but this one, it’s not quite so critical. I think we could let’s get John in here and let him try that sucker for a while and maybe we can develop some additional firms and some other capabilities in the community. Just a thought.
MS. ROGERS: We do have criteria for specific criteria and there’s a written determination that I guess it defines how we came to the decision of whether or not it’s sole source. But like with some of these software, some of the criteria have to do with incompatibility between what we have, and so that’s one of the things that we’re addressing as we look at these technology things is how can we be more interactive with what’s out there. So, that’s one way we’re addressing that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, I’d just like to say I kind of understand the purpose of the presentation and it’s nice to have this information. I think everybody’s goal on this Council is the same thing. Let’s do everything efficient. Let’s maximize our revenues. Let’s not waste taxpayer money. But, you know, I asked Doug the question of years of experience because it means something. He’s been doing this for 30 years, City Engineer. We have a City Manager that’s got a lot of years of experience. We have directors that have incredible experience and they all live in this City. So, they all pay taxes in this City. And they all fight the budget I think like anybody else does. I think they want to accomplish as much as they can with the revenues they have. And so I mean, it’s almost like I feel like we’re trying to direct the process and not the policy. And I don’t think it’s our job to direct the process. If at any point we feel like the process is broken, then that’s time to change leadership. But, you know, we’re a weak mayor, council, manager form of government. And our job is not to direct day-to-day operations, I don’t believe. I believe our job is policy. And I like the information. But when we start wigging off I think telling the professional staff who does this for a living, who follows best practices who speaks with their peers in other cities, they have plenty experience. Then I think we’re, I mean, I know myself, I know I do things a certain way in business, but does that mean it applies to city government and do I know more than this person who has been doing it 25 years. I guess I could question is that the best way to do it. But are we going to take this position of starting to direct process over and above what our City Manager and our leadership does? I truly believe they try and maximize the dollars to their fullest. I think any of us could pull an example, wow, you spent too much on this or this. But we never pull those -- yeah, but you saved a whole lot of money over here over there. At the end of the day I think it all averages out. If someone wants to produce some blatant mass of waste of money on a repetitive basis or a one-time big, oh, my god, look at what they dig, bring it forward. Because I think that’s kind of what this conversation is about is like someone is not doing something right. And without that evidence, then I almost feel like we’re questioning the process by which staff is doing it. And at this point I don’t think anybody has got anything that says that, well, this is just not being done right. We’re an efficient city and I don’t think anybody can argue with that. And I think we have a great professional staff that knows what they’re doing. And so, you know, short of some big bomb out there that I’m not aware of, I’m pretty satisfied with the process. And I think we need to keep doing what we’re doing because I think we’re doing it right.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yes. I have a question, Maureen. More of I think a question imbedded in a comment. Regarding software providers, and maybe you can attest to this. Just from my personal experience, sole sourcing has a lot of benefits. Personally I’ve signed software contracts upwards of $100,000-$150,000. And I know that not all software providers are created equal. And in many cases even trying to establish objective criteria can be difficult just because of variations in terms of server compatibility, in terms of timing, in terms of additional benefits that you derive from software over time depending on the provider. And I know that from personal experience, too, with long-term relationships with vendors you get cost savings and there is imbedded benefits based on loyalty that are built in over time if you were new, so that there are economies of scale and efficiencies created. So, have you tended to see that there is more of a benefit with sole sourcing, particularly software and IT than some other areas?
MS. ROGERS: Probably Mel would be able to speak to that. I don’t buy a lot of that stuff. I mean, you know, like our payroll, HR was a service rather than a software. Mel, do you want to -- he really gets into that more with some of this equipment and things that get into the sole source with licensing and
MR. BUNTING: Okay. Good evening. Mel Bunting, IT Director.
My response would probably be in three different areas. We have the hardware aspects. When we kind of talk about sole sourcing hardware, we have probably do more of a bid process when we talk about hardware because we kind of know, you know, here is a particular server we want. Here is the specifications of that server, so we can kind of bid that out.
When we talk about software, a perfect example, and I believe we’re going to be presenting some information regarding our software assurance with Microsoft. We have a particular sole source vendor who provides our software assurance and we have to buy that in three-year increments. And so that’s our contractual commitment to pay this licensing fee for three years. And it gives us upgrade rights and all these things that we inherit as part of that, the maintenance and things. So, in that particular situation that software is sole sourced. SHI is the company that we use and we have used it for pretty much the whole time I’ve been here, which is, you know, 17 years. We’ve always had SHI provide that sole source.
And then we have the third aspect, which is what I would call the professional services. And that’s where the economies of scale come into play. Because then we establish, you know, a lot of times when we talk about engaging consultants or those kind of professional services, you know, having that knowledge of our operations, what the objectives we were trying to accomplish with software or hardware, you know, just to pick different vendors to give us those skills, then it’s a whole new start-up, you know. Our language, our terminologies, our work flows and those kinds of things.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Because in those circumstances you can have an increase in billable hours if you start new with somebody who has to take the time to research the systems and infrastructure that we have in place now and familiarize themselves with that versus somebody who is already familiar and, you know, that’s cost savings as well in that aspect.
MR. BUNTING: That would be a true statement. And then the last piece is in their expertise in it. You know, there’s different vendors that come to the table and say I know, you know, we’ll use Lotus Notes. I know Lotus Notes. And then as you begin that endeavor with them you discover, you guys really don’t have that skill set we really are needing to do what we’re trying to accomplish. So then we’re like, okay, they’re not going to work for what we’re trying to accomplish here. So, we have to go back to the table so to speak and say, okay, who can help us.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Is that it from you, Maureen? All right. Great. Any other Council questions? Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none, as we mentioned earlier, it was for informational purposes only, so no action is required other than thank you, Maureen, to you and your team. I think this was helpful. I know we all have had a lot of questions as we go through the process, particularly some of the newer folks about procurement. So, I think this is helpful. So, thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I think it was great actually.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. All right.
2. DISCUSS HEALTH/DENTAL/VISION/LIFE INSURANCE FOR PLAN YEAR 2016/2017.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The second item on the agenda is to Discuss Health/Dental/Vision/Life Insurance for Plan Year 2016/2017.
The City's Plan year for Health, Dental, Vision and Life Insurance runs from July 1 to June 30. Staff has worked with the Hays Companies of Kansas City, the City's benefit consultant for the 2016/2017 Plan Year.
Reggie Brown from the Hays Company is here with more information. Welcome, Mr. Hays or Brown. Whatever. My script is calling you both things.
MR. BROWN: Thank you. Good evening. So, I’ll just dive right in. You know, as we go through the renewal process each year, really what we start to look at with an employer of your size, given that you have roughly 300 lives, or employee lives in the plan, the claims experience plays a really important role in determining what the cost of the premium will be for the following year. So, this plan is scheduled to renew July 1st of 2016. At the time of the renewal the claims experience was available through February of 2016. At that point in time, what we call the loss ratio, essentially the claims divided by the premium at that point was about 90 percent. If you’ll recall last year we made a move from United Healthcare to Cigna. And at that point Cigna came in with virtually a no change as far as the premium was concerned from the prior year. So, we felt like it was a very competitive offer. In fact, it was about three to four percent below the most competitive offer as it related to United and some of the other carriers in the marketplace.
This year, again, running at about 90 percent. That’s a little bit higher than what the desired loss ratio would be for Cigna. Not only are they paying claims with that premium dollar, but they also have administrative costs to cover as well as ACH fees and some other costs within that total premium dollar. Again, as I said, the target loss ratio is about 80 percent in any given year for a carrier at which point 89-90 percent is running what we say a little bit hot. As a result, the increase came in from Cigna. The initial increase came in for the current plan design that is offered today at about 18.5 percent over current.
We went through an underwriting process as your consultant. We agreed with that increase as far as, you know, doing just basic standard underwriting practices and looking at applying trends or inflationary factors for the following year and said, yes, this 18.5 is desired. We considered looking at alternatives within the marketplace, but as a result of going through our underwriting process, again, we didn’t feel like there was too much to be had or gained within the market. In addition, this was again the first renewal that we’ve gone through with Cigna. We feel like there’s some loyalty that needs to be gained and earned there. We felt that if we went out and marketed after just one year with Cigna, the market wouldn’t look at that as being favorable as well. The carriers certainly do tend to work with, similar to the conversation we were having earlier, they want to look at, you know, groups that are willing to have a long-term relationship. A partner, if you will, in which it’s beneficial to both not only you as the purchaser, but also the carrier over the long haul.
So, as a result we went back to Cigna and worked with them on a couple of items. Really from a negotiation standpoint we felt like, you know, look, number one, this is the first year renewal and 18 percent if we are as the City of Shawnee wanting to develop a long-term relationship, it simply isn’t something that starts us down the path of a positive relationship. When average market increases are generally around eight to ten percent, an 18 percent increase obviously is something that we just felt like again in the first year wasn’t something that would get us off on the right foot. So, we used that to our advantage when we were working with Cigna and negotiating, you know, a more competitive package.
In addition, we also felt like there are some opportunities to start to introduce some consumerism within the plan as it’s offered today. Last year, I think we were fortunate in that we got a plan with Cigna that was virtually a zero percent rate increase and we were able to keep the same exact plan design in place for the employees, for staff, which is a real benefit for them ultimately. This year, faced with the increase, and then the trend that’s going on in the market just really around the country with more consumer-directed type health plans.
And really I say that in two ways. Number one, the PPO plan that’s offered today. Once the deductible is met, everything really, except for co-pays, so for office visits and things like that, is covered at a hundred percent. So, that’s a great benefit. And it’s very ultimately at this point in the game, again, when we talk about from a marketplace standpoint, almost unheard of today.
Secondly, we feel like with the trend, not only locally, regionally, but also around the country going toward truly a high deductible, qualified high deductible plans, we felt like it was important to start to introduce that to the staff as well. Really to just, again, going back to that idea of introducing consumerism, having staff understand what is the real cost of healthcare within the marketplace.
Maybe, you know, again, with a traditional plan today, particularly one where there is a hundred percent coverage after the deductible is met or where there’s really low co-pays in place, staff has really sort of I think protected in terms of what the actual cost of healthcare is. And so we feel like by introducing a high deductible health plan it also allows not only for consumerism to take hold and to help level, if you will, increases going forward, but also we feel like it’s an opportunity for the staff to take advantage of the triple tax savings that is offered through a qualified high deductible plan and it’s in conjunction with an HSA or a health savings account. That account, it’s an opportunity essentially for the City to make a contribution to that account with not tax implications. That account, the employee can also make contributions to that account on a tax-free basis. That account can grow tax free through interest. And then also as long as the money is used toward that deductible, let’s say, or toward qualified expenses, that account, there’s no taxable dollars when they use those savings there. So, truly the triple tax advantage with a health savings account.
In addition, so at the end of the day with the recommended plan design changes, so we’re really giving two options for the employees to pick and choose from. One, the traditional what we call PPO plan with a $250 deductible, but 90 percent co-insurance once the deductible is met. So, no longer would it be the hundred percent, it would be 90 percent coverage, which means the employee or the member ultimately would have to pick up ten percent of the cost after the deductible is met up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $1,500. For like even still at the 90 percent co-insurance it’s a very competitive plan, one that ultimately with the $1,500 out-of-pocket maximum, the liability, if you will for that employee and for their family is still very, very market competitive. In addition to that though, they would have the option to choose the high deductible plan if they so choose. If they went down that path, we’re recommending that the City contribute toward that HSA account to really get that off the ground for the employee and really help them should they be faced with expenses. With a high deductible plan it has to have the deductible there is no first dollar coverage. So, the deductible has to be met before coverage kicks in. In this instance, the plan that we’re recommending would be a $2,600 deductible for an individual or for someone electing individual coverage. It would be $5,200 for a family.
So, as a result, to begin growing that account, to begin really building that consumerism, we’re recommending an $800 annual contribution for single coverage, $1,800 contribution from the City for single-plus one coverage, and a $2,600 family contribution toward the HSA account for, again for family coverage. At the end of the day the recommended, or the estimated increase is just under ten percent after all that’s taken into consideration with this dual package option, if you will, as far as what we’re -- as we compare that back to the single plan that’s offered today.
This is just an example. Let me back up. That 9.7 percent, that assumes about 7½ percent participation toward the HSA, so roughly 7½ percent of the staff would elect the HSA plan or the qualified high deductible plan and the remaining 93 -- 92 percent or so would elect the traditional PPO offering. The more folks that go into the HSA, the slightly lower the increase might be, just given again the way the premiums are aligned. The HSA premiums are slightly lower than the PPO premiums.
As a result, if we model out the roughly 9.7 percent increase, you can see this slide just indicates what the projected costs are for 2016 and then how that compares to the projected or the budget for 2016.
The next couple of slides just gives some examples as to how the plan design changes that we’re talking about might impact a member or an employee. I won’t spend too much time here. But ultimately moving and the traditional PPO plan, that is a change. And so moving from that hundred percent co-insurance to the 90 percent co-insurance there would be the potential, particularly in a case of, say, a surgery, you know, any kind of really an out-patient visit, in-patient visit, those kinds of things where the employer, the member would be faced with a little bit more out-of-pocket cost.
The HSA plan, again, this is just an example. Everything goes toward the deductible. That $2,600 deductible has to be met before coverage kicks in. A really great example of that, and again, just talking about the difference in the mind set, if you will, you know, today if an employee goes in and say they’re taking three or four medications per month, they pay a fixed dollar co-pay for that. Now, under the if they were to elect a qualified high deductible plan, they’re going to pay the full cost of that medication until their deductible is met. So, it could be a substantial difference. Again, that’s where the consumerism idea comes into play. Maybe it’s an opportunity for that employee or member to choose a generic medication, a lower costing medication as a result of something where they were, again, they weren’t really aware of what that cost might have been before. That’s just an example of how over time as some of those behaviors change, you know, it could help level out the cost increases for the City.
The dental and vision plan. Delta Dental has been a partner of the City of Shawnee for several years now. It’s continued to run well in terms of premium versus claims. For this year the initial renewal was a no-rate change meaning that the premiums were going to stay exactly the same. One response, however, though we’ve heard from a recent survey we did with the staff was that implants, for example, were not currently covered under the plan. That’s a situation where maybe there needs to be a crown. I guess, Dr. Kemmling, you’d know a little bit more about that probably in terms of what that might involve, but it can be rather expensive ultimately at the end of the day. And in some instances it’s common for it not to be covered; however, there is a trend for those types of services to begin to be covered. We felt with the fact that this was a zero percent increase why not try to enhance this benefit some because if that particular service is not covered, it could be that the member could be left with quite a bit of out-of-pocket exposure there. So, to have that service covered under the plan, it would be about a two percent increase to the premium. We felt that was fairly negligible. And as a result, the recommendation was to move forward, include implants on a go-forward basis.
Surency Vision. The initial increase here was about a five percent increase. We were able to negotiate with them at a no change. And so no benefit changes here, no premium increases ultimately. We felt that was a ultimately when we packaged that with the Delta Dental, vision and dental offering we felt that’s a competitive package for the staff.
So, at the end of the day the next two slides really just are an overview of the recommendations recommending on the PPO, leaving the PPO plan in place, but moving to 100 percent co-insurance with a $1,500 out-of-pocket maximum, implementing an HDHP plan, so giving some employees the options there.
One note I wanted to discuss though here, when it comes to the contributions or what the employees would pay on a monthly or payroll basis we’re recommending that the cost for both plans be the same. So, for example, after maybe they complete some wellness activities, if they elect employee-only coverage that cost would be $16 a month whether they are enrolled in HDHP plan or the PPO plan. The reason that is, we really want to let the plan designs themselves be the key factor in someone determining which plan they want to go into. We don’t want cost to be that driving factor and then someone decides, okay, we’ve gone into this HSA plan because simply, you know, it was $20 cheaper per month. And now they find out maybe a generic medication or even a brand medication that they taking, the cost has gone up significantly and they’re in this HSA plan because of initial monthly budgeting premium being lower and now they’re sort of caught in this. We want it to be a wise decision from truly a consumeristic standpoint.
Again, staff recommending the Surency Vision plan as well as the Delta Dental plan and adding the implants. Also continuing the relationship with Cigna for the basic life and AD&D policy.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, Reggie. Dr. Kemmling.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Every time you’re up here I tell you how much I love the health savings accounts. I’ve been a consumer of one for about eight years I bought privately, and I personally love them from a consumer standpoint. Real quick, what are the federal limits on a high deductible plan? What’s the minimum deductible?
MR. BROWN: The minimum deductible is right about $1,300 for 2016.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: For an individual.
MR. BROWN: Correct.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And then what’s the family?
MR. BROWN: The family is $2,600, right around $2,600.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Somewhere around there. And then what’s the high?
MR. BROWN: The highest you can have, $6,600.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Sixty-six. The reason I bring that up is when I went shopping for mine I would go to like Blue Cross and I would type it in and they would give me all my options depending upon which deductible I chose. And obviously the higher the deductible the lower the premium. But in the presentation here we only have one option. Personally, I’m curious what the other options are. And not necessarily from a savings standpoint from the City, but just from the ability to contribute to the health savings account itself. Because as it is right now, if the City contributes for an individual $66, that’s roughly 800 a year.
MR. BROWN: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, if a City employee takes the HSA and consumes less than $800 in medicine this year, then they have money in that savings account and they come out ahead. In my personal life I choose the risk of the highest deductible I can get so that I can bank the most money and I’ll get the individual max of like 6,500 or whatever I can put in the health savings account itself every year. And I think it’s a great way to go about it. And so I’m kind of curious why are we offering them one option on the high deductible as opposed to multiples.
MR. BROWN: First of all, the more options you offer there’s more risk from an anti-selection standpoint that comes into play from the carrier again covering roughly 300 employees, roughly 600 total members on this plan. And so we didn’t want to go out and rule out three, four, five different options because that’s just going to add to the overall cost to account for that additional risk associated with anti-selection. So, for example, you as an individual know you have low claims, I’m going to enroll in this -- you may enroll in the $6,600 deductible plan and as a result the plan loses because you’re paying less premium whereas maybe I know I’m going to have a lot of claims, I’m going to go enroll in the lower deductible plan, I’m going to pay that premium. But as that risk shifts down the carrier can’t price for that appropriately. Does that answer your question?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. It does. It does. Yeah. I get where you’re coming from.
MR. BROWN: So, it’s a bit of a process I think, too. And part of it is too we’re introducing this first HSA plan this year and I think we’ll continue to monitor that over time and see how it performs quite honestly and also how the employees sort of take to that from a consumerism standpoint.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. Well, it’s great. From a consumer standpoint you’re much more aware of what you get done. I mean, I know personally I got a generic at Walmart that was $100 and I called Costco and it was like $7.50. It was unbelievable. It paid for my Costco membership in one trip. And so the more you spend your money with your card and the money you’ve set aside you’re a lot more aware of what you’re having done. And at the same time, like I’ve said, I’ve come out ahead every year and I’ve had a lot of work done on my HSAs and
MR. BROWN: And I think that’s sort of the point with the contribution as well. You know, that $800 is, I mean, I think once you get that in your account, it’s just innate for an employee, they’re going to be really protective of that. And so that’s again that’s another add or sort of maybe element of that consumeristic behavior.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other discussion from the Council? Questions for Reggie? Okay. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Great.
Staff is recommending that it be forwarded to the Governing Body for consideration of the fully-insured medical plan with 90 percent co-insurance, the high deductible health plan insurance proposals from Cigna and the dental proposal from Delta Dental of Kansas. If the Committee wishes, they could include make a motion to include, to treat rather, elected officials as employees for medical, dental premiums and vision contributions. Additionally, staff recommends continuing the agreement with Cigna for life and AD&D insurance coverage and continuing to engage in a relationship with Surency Vision and with UNUM for voluntary benefits.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It’s going to be a mouthful. I would move that staff I would move that we, the Committee, forward to the Governing Body for approval the fully insured medical plan with 90 percent co-insurance, the high deductible health plan insurance proposals from Cigna and the dental proposal from Delta setting the as per the graph there. And also recommend the continued engagement in the relationship with Cigna for life and AD&D insurance, with Surency Vision and with UNUM for voluntary benefits.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Do I have a second? Mickey? I suppose that’s a second then and not a question? All right. I have a motion yeah. Mike.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Sorry. We already had the motion and the second, but the more I look at this, I mean, this is a huge part of our budget. And I hate to be the jerk up here, but I just wonder if having such a large increase, if this is really a sustainable pace for us as a city. Whether we’re going to have this rate of contribution, at least on single individuals for our employees going forward. The Affordable Healthcare Act, of course, is a joke and doesn’t bring the cost of medicine down as we’ve seen with the premiums going up. And at some point, I mean, we’re looking at $3.7 million. That’s a good chunk of our budget overall. At some point I feel like we maybe need to have the discussion about whether an employee contribution of $16 towards a $526 policy is the right proportion of that or not. That’s a pretty low percentage. And I’m not sure I’m just not sure if this is a sustainable pace for us. If healthcare costs continue to go up, which I would imagine they would, whether we can continue to pass along basically the same co-pays but with much higher increases in the premiums. So, I’ll put that out there.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Dan.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I know this has been brought up several times before in the past and it’s all in the percentage of the increase. I mean, I think that staff needs to come back with a realistic percentage. And then when we get an increase that that increase is equally shared and that whatever that percentage is. Because I don’t know that it actually came out I think the percentage actually went down as far as the employee contribution, at least from some of the numbers I was looking at beforehand. So, I mean, explain that one.
MR. BROWN: And I apologize I didn’t mention that in the initial discussion. You know, the discussion that we’ve had around this, and again, the recommendation was that the plan design changes that are being proposed are fairly significant from a potential out-of-pocket standpoint. And so the idea was, let’s share in a little bit more of the increase this year, see where the changes, how the changes that are being made within the plan design, the 90 percent co-insurance, the high deductible plan, see how that takes effect and then address the potential overall sharing from a premium standpoint in the future years.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, that kind of goes back to what Dr. Kemmling mentioned earlier about the options, you know.
MR. BROWN: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You know, because I’m just a small company and we provide insurance and our carrier provides a couple of different options and it’s up to that individual. When there is an increase coming that particular individual can determine what’s the best for that individual, right, and that family or whatever might be. So, that’s what I’m saying is, and it’s not to you, okay, it’s really to staff to come up with that percentage that next year, you know, maybe we it’s not it doesn’t have anything to do with the employees, it has to do with you, right. And maybe we want you to come back and give our employees more options. And if it goes up, you know, a hundred bucks and their percentage is, whatever that x-percentage is, you know, it should be the same every year. So, the citizens bear the brunt it seems of the increase, you know, in this particular case, yes. And so if we do a certain percentage, whatever the percentage is, I don’t know what’s fair, but it seems like that’s floating around it’s not the same. It needs to whatever that percentage is, it needs to be the percentage the next year and the year after, you know, and that way, you know, the citizens are basically at the same percentage they were and also the employees.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I would say in years past we have kept that percent consistent. Employees and the City have shared equally if it’s a last year ended not being as much. But if it’s a six percent, the City’s amount went up six percent and employees went up six percent, so that level contribution has proportionately stayed the same. So, this is the first year for the reasons that Reggie said that we the City is absorbing a little bit more of that percentage increase.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mickey and then Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I believe that we need to keep an eye on the employees. You know, we don’t always pay the best, so we have to try to give them some good health insurance and try to take care of them. I don’t want to get into their pockets. So, if the City has to absorb just a little bit more, they’re not paying them as well as what they can go get paid in other cases, in a lot of cases. So, you know, they’ve got our backs, we need to have theirs.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: When we start talking about rate increases then it affects I think a few people on this Council. So, I would say that in full disclosure anybody who pays for an insurance policy through the City ought to probably disclose that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anyone interested in doing that.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You’re not getting it for free, you’re paying for it. But I would just think if you’re paying for a policy through the City and you’re going to sit there and we’re going to have a conversation about rate increases and whether you want to do it or not, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I would just I would think that you would disclose that you participate in the policy, you participate in the insurance. We don’t get we don’t pay the match. We’re paying the whole if we want it, we’re paying the entire premium. Everybody knows that. But I would think that we would probably want that disclosure out there saying that, yes, I participate in it because you’re spending money. So, this vote could affect the amount of money you spend on it, but it’s up to you guys. I would think that you would want to disclose that.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ll go ahead and tell you I pay a hundred percent of the premium for myself and my family if that makes you happy. And that has nothing to do with the conversation because I pay the hundred percent of the increase.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, I understand that.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One hundred percent.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I’m not saying I just I think it would be good to disclose that.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s all right. I did what you said. That’s fine. I disclosed it.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. And that’s all. That would make sense that because you did say that you have insurance through your company.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I have insurance for my employees for my company.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. I would, you know, as Carol said, in the past we have shared, as this goes forward. But as Reggie made the comment, says the idea is to try and perhaps shift, starting to shift this. And if we take a little more of the chunk this year to try and do it, I would think that we don’t know until we try it. Next year we will know. It appears to be within the budgeted amount or somewhere in there. So, I would think it would be a good idea with the idea caveat that we need to this is going to be better perhaps for the employees that there’s an education process that goes along with them to make them aware of what the different plans are rather than maintaining the status quo.
MR. BROWN: Absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I was just going to say based on what we’ve learned from you and kind of the addition of the high deductible plans and the HSA, I would say that this coming year, I guess 2016/2017 will be the base year kind of going forward because it will give us an opportunity to see how many people take to those plans, whether or not we have any overall savings. And then I think based on that going forward we can see the rate of percentage if we keep it the same in terms of what the City provides versus the employee or whether that allocation, that ratio needs to shift. But I would say that the additions this year, you know, make for a base year of comparison going forward.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just have a question. Am I the only council person that takes
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’ve gotten into it, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: that uses that? Beings the guy that was staring at me that obviously he was indicating that I might be the guy that does it. So, am I the only guy here that pays a hundred percent of his premium through the City of Shawnee?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: How about, Carol, can you disclose perhaps how many members of the Council pay their premium?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I believe we have three, Councilmember Pflumm, Councilmember Sandifer and Mayor Distler.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I don’t know. Maybe stand up. I don’t know. All right. Yeah. Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I have comments about Councilman Kenig just said we may be able determine what kind of cost savings. But I’m sitting here looking at these two plans. And if everybody migrated from the PPO plan to the plan that has the HSA, the savings would be pretty minimal if you look at the total premium per year. I mean, we’re going over here for single guy, it’s 542 and over here it’s 517. For employee plus one, it’s 1,139 to 1,096. And 1,573 to 1,526. I mean, it’s not like we’re going to -- if everybody migrated it wouldn’t be a huge savings. There would be some savings, yes. I like the new -- I like the HDHP plan. I think that’s a great addition. I definitely concur with some of Dr. Kemmling’s comments about I would love to see if there were a few more options there, but I guess we’re stuck with what we’ve got for this year. But I tell you, I looked at this thing, and I’ve been working on it all day, looking at these numbers, and our city employees pay 14.5 percent of the premiums in the year 2015 to current. And under this proposal would be paying 14.1 percent. And I’ve got some constituents calling me and saying, my god, that’s a helluva plan, people paying 14 percent of their medical insurance. That’s a pretty good deal. Most of our taxpayers that are paying for these plans don’t have that good a deal. And they’re questioning that. They’re questioning me on that and why I’m approving this kind of thing. And I have to take those kind of questions and accept those. They’re real questions and they’re ones that have to be dealt with. And that’s why when Councilman Pflumm looked at Carol and said maybe we need to take a look at our percentage, I think we do. I think we need to establish a baseline percentage. And I don’t know if somebody paying $16 on their $542 premium is really getting -- that’s a helluva deal. That person is really getting over for being single. Maybe we should only hire single people here to work at Shawnee then we’d all be in good shape. But, you know, that’s what it leads to when you start thinking about those kinds of terms. And that may be getting ridiculous to some extent, but I mean, the point is well made. You know, I remember being in the Army. And if you were a private or a PFC, you had to come ask your commander if you had the right if you could get married back in the day. So, I
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I don’t want to make those decisions.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: What do you mean?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But that may be off the wall. But I mean, I’m just kind of getting tongue in cheek on some of this stuff there, but the bottom line is, is 14.5 percent a fair share? I don’t know. And I think that’s something we need to examine more closely before I’d be willing to move ahead with this. I think Carol and the gang could get together, and I know you got self-interest involved in there because, you know, you’re paying those premiums. But it seems like it’s a pretty good deal right now and I don’t know if we could keep passing the cost onto the taxpayer? How much can we pass on? The rates keep going up astronomically and the taxpayer just keeps forking out more and more and we’re talking tax increases, mill levy increases and some people are getting tired of hearing about that and they’re pushing back. So, I’m sharing that with you that is being pushed back against. It isn’t all crimson and clover out there. And I would like to take a good hard look at this and say what is a reasonable fair share. I know I worked for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 30 years and I paid 33 percent of my health insurance premium. In fact, I still have insurance with my federal insurance and by gosh I’m paying more than the City employees are paying for their insurance and I dropped it to a low option, so it is a really good deal, guys. It is really, really a good deal what our employees. And I love our employees and the idea is not to ride the backs of the employees for a balanced budget and all that, but there’s got to be some kind of an adjustment here as things get more and more expensive who is going to pay the cost of this. And there’s needs to be a little maybe some sharing going on. We need to share a little bit on that. So, those are my thoughts on that and I hope we can come up with a something that’s really fair and equitable for everybody and doesn’t break the budget, doesn’t break the City’s break.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff and then Dan and then Mickey.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t have the number in front of me. What’s the percentage on the family plan? Thirty?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: 14.5 percent.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, on the family. It’s how much?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s what I just said. I just gave you the numbers.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I thought it was the individual.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Of increase, Jeff, or the percent that it --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, no, no. The percentage, what’s the match?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, they’re paying 14.5 on the family.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. On the family.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It is the employee’s contribution. And then [inaudible; talking off mic]. Those numbers are for the PPO plan.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I would and I thought for some reason I thought the family was higher than that.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just get your calculator out. It’s real easy.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I understand. You know, I guess the question is, and I’m not going to argue with you. I do think moving forward it’s going to be a continual challenge. Unfortunately healthcare isn’t something we control very much. This kind of goes back to what we said before as attracting employees though. And where I want to be careful is do we put in ourselves in a competitive disadvantage in attracting talent. And you hate saying it because you almost feel like you’re setting yourself up to spend more money than you want to. But at the same time we’ve got a whole lot of other cities out there that have really attractive plans. They’re doing basically the same thing we are. And so if we every time we whittle away, that’s one more reason that officer we put through training and get them on and a year later he leaves to another city because he’s going I can get a little bit better plan and make a few more dollars over here. And so we become a training ground and our talent leaves us. And so I understand what you’re saying, I’m not disagreeing, but I think we also we need to be really concerned with that because it has been a challenge and we’ve lost some incredible talent and we continue to. And, you know, unfortunately we have some cities that their revenue far exceeds ours and their ability to spend it and so they just, you know, very attractive plans and very attractive salaries and we deal with. But, you know, we have a really good culture and I think that means a lot. But it’s we do need to be careful in that because what you don’t want to do is open up the door and sweep them all away.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Did you want to address that comment or his
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I was going to address that, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Go ahead.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But I’m saying we still need to remain viable as a community. And with these costs going the way they are we have to have some help. And we just can’t, unfortunately can’t do every bit of it. And I know that we’ve been looking, and we just got the City Manager’s notes from Carol recently about what’s going on with these sales taxes. They’re flat. That’s not growing. Our income sources aren’t growing much and we continue to see new development coming into the community, but those developments are being given a number of incentives so we’re not increasing our revenue from that. We’re just not increasing our revenue much at all. But our expenses continue to escalate. We’re not just talking health insurance, we’re talking everything across the board. Everything is getting more and more expensive and we’re not doing much as far as increasing our income. So, that’s not a very good situation to be in. And it puts you in an unfortunate pickle where you’ve got to do some things that probably aren’t popular. And I don’t think there’s anybody sitting up here that cares about these City employees more than I do. I care deeply about every one of them. I think they’re highly professional and they’re great people as well. And your comment about the culture is right on. We have a great culture as a community. And I don’t have any desire to shake that up or rock it in any kind of way. But also we’ve got to balance the checkbook. That’s one of the unfortunate things of sitting in one of these high paid seats up here is that we’ve got to balance the checkbook, guys, and how can we do that. And I’d like to see what the City can come up with. I would ask Carol to get together with the staff and try to bang around this thing a little bit and see if we could come up with a better idea.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I know I still have Dan and Mickey, but I would say that the staff has gotten together. Not against your point, but the staff has gotten together and made a recommendation which has made a motion and a second on the floor. So, before we move forward with any plans, we need to vote for the motion that’s on the floor. That being said, Dan and Mickey, and then we’ll vote.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, being an agent of the City for healthcare normally you have to divulge that, you know, like the company my agent that does it for my company, they have to divulge what their percentage is, and that’s part of it. I don’t know that we bid that out. And, you know, tonight we’re talking about bidding all of our projects and design-build and it’s not necessarily like a design-build type of concept. But I believe the citizens probably need to know that. Because when we get a hefty increase, if yours is a straight percentage, you get a hefty increase, too.
MR. BROWN: Right. That would be we do not take commissions on these. We work on a consulting fee basis.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Consulting fee basis.
MR. BROWN: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, all right. Based on time or
MR. BROWN: It’s an annual fee agreed upon, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right.
MR. BROWN: Do I need to disclose what that is?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ll just ask that we get that so that we know what consulting fee is. So, if you could do that, we’d appreciate it. With this being a very large portion of our budget, you know, we’re looking at pennies and dollars and everything so.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mickey.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I agree with Jeff with what he said about our employees. You know, I’ve heard that this is such a it’s a lot of money, but that it’s such a big chunk of our budget. We have a $75 million budget and this is 3.6. You know, it’s a matter of taking care of the employees. And as Jeff said, retraining them, trying to the new hires, turnover, that’s going to cost a percentage difference that you’re going to pay anyway. If you want to start charging the employees more money, you need to start paying them more money. That’s all I have to say about it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, I thought the end. Mike and then Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Reggie, this projected 3.7, that’s assuming the current mixture of singles and families, correct?
MR. BROWN: Correct.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, in the hypothetical, if everyone had a family the amount would be more?
MR. BROWN: That is correct.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. So, what’s the max? What’s the maximum we’re on the hook for for insurance?
MR. BROWN: If everyone went into the family?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Uh-huh. If everyone went into the family.
MR. BROWN: I would have to do the math on that.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s $5,189,000.
MR. BROWN: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.
MR. BROWN: Now, I would just note that your mix, demographic mix has been very consistent over the last several years.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. And so that’s a realistic I mean, it is tough. I agree with Jeff. We don’t want to be a competitive disadvantage. And I agree with Eric, we’ve got to viable at the same time. And it’s not a fun decision to make. If you look at the numbers here, $16 I did the math wrong. They’re currently paying City employees currently pay if they’re an individual three percent of their premiums. And it would be a lower percentage going forward because the premium increased about $50. So, I don’t know if that, I mean, so, we’re talking at anywhere between a 3 to 14 percent employee portion on insurance. And I don’t know, I only run my business. I have three employees, so I’m not sure what an average or a normal employee percentage pay is. But I mean Eric just said that he pays what percentage? Federal? He said 30 percent, something like that. So, I’m not sure if that’s a good thing to go by, but it’s a question, like I said, we’ve got to ask ourselves from the beginning, what amount are we willing to go, at what point do we cease to be viable because of cost of insurance or just our other expenses.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And just real quick. I think we need to also look at, because we’re looking at conceivably a, what is it, 9.7 percent I think increase, or let’s say 10, which [inaudible], right? So, realistically over two years we have a five percent. Let’s say five percent annual. And I think that’s the way we need to look at it. So, my question would be if we have a five percent annual increase what’s the, and we don’t need to answer this now. I think the question I ask myself though is what’s the because I think healthcare costs have been going up dramatically and I think we’ve been seeing much higher than five percent increases in a lot of areas. So, you know, inflation was still over the last couple years, what, three or what did we run in inflation, 2-3 percent? I don’t know. I know inflation kicked up pretty strong. So, you know, that increase is definitely above inflation, but I think if we look at the average in healthcare cost increase and if we take this if we analyze it over the last couple years, then I think we’re probably pretty competitive compared to what the market is. I could be wrong. You’re the expert, I don’t know, but I think we’ve seen some big increases.
MR. BROWN: I would agree with that depending upon the publication you look at, again, whether it’s before changes or after changes, it’s going to range between 8 and 10 percent, generally speaking.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anyone else? Okay. Great. I was hoping that would be the answer. We have a motion yes, Carol.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’m sorry. Liz just let me know that our contract with Hays is $35,000 a year. And that’s not just for this process, that’s an annual contract. They provide services to us all year long. We have employees with claim concerns and issues and they provide all sorts of other services to us in addition to this.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. So, we have a motion on the floor, and as there has been a bit of back and forth about it, for clarity, I think I’ll do a roll call vote. So, I will start with Mr. Neighbor.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Mr. Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mr. Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Nay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mr. Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nope.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I am an aye. Mr. Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mr. Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And, Mr. Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Looks like 6 to 2. The motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to forward to the Governing Body for approval the fully-insured medical plan with 90 percent co-insurance, the high deductible health plan insurance proposals from Cigna and the dental proposal from Delta Dental of Kansas setting the City's monthly contribution rates as provided in the packet. Additionally, staff recommends continuing the agreement with Cigna for life and AD&D insurance coverage. Staff also recommends that we continue to engage in a relationship with Surency Vision and with UNUM for voluntary benefits. The motion passed 6-2, with Councilmembers Jenkins and Kemmling voting nay.]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you, Reggie.
MR. BROWN: Thank you.
3. DISCUSS REVISIONS TO POLICY STATEMENT PS-27, DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICE FEES.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The third item is to Discuss Revisions to Policy Statement PS-27, Development and Service Fees. PS-27 was last updated in April of 2014 and establishes the fees associated with development, construction, and work completed in the right-of-way, as well as reimbursable work performed by the Public Works Department. Staff has reviewed the fees for right-of-way permits and is recommending changes. Matthew Schmitz, Management Analyst in the Development Services Department, will provide more information.
MR. SCHMITZ: Thanks for the introduction. So, the Policy Statement 27, it’s referenced on page 13 of packet. It was originally established in ‘93. This policy was established to consolidate fees together and information together about development, things like that were in our Ordinances, Resolutions and Regulations. Try to bring them all together and make it easier for staff and the public to find these items and information about development as far as all that different things.
During the review process we discussed fee rates with neighboring cities. We looked at neighboring cities, what they were charging, what we were charging, things like that. We also looked at actual costs, what we’re incurring for staff time as well as for materials for what the Public Works guys are charging. Sorry. I should have advanced the slide. There’s the slide for you that goes over all those different things.
So, the sections modified. We went into the Development Services section, Field Operations, Traffic. There was a few modifications in maintenance bonds and insurance. And we’ll get into each of these things a little more as we go through the slides. It’s a fairly quick presentation so it won’t take too long.
Page 55 of the packet, we put together an outline of all the changes that we did because normally when we revise a policy statement we go through and do a redline document that shows what we’re changing. This particular document, because there were some fairly extensive changes, we thought an outline was a better way to portray that to the Council as far as what we were looking at revising.
As far as development fees and the right-of-way fees, the things that we wanted to change, the table shown here is the same thing as what’s in the packet on page 14. The original version of the information pertaining to right-of-way permits begins on page 20 of the packet and continues through page 23. The revisions start on page 40 and go through 43. One of the revisions we made was to add driveway approach work permits and to rename the existing permits from right-of-way permits to a utility work permit as well as to revise the street excavation permit to a roadway excavation permit. Because street excavation sort of implies within the pavement of only the driving lanes, but there is some other things that go into that. So, we thought roadway excavation was a better name for that.
The driveway approach work permit was added to encompass driveway approaches for both new and existing homes. The example that you see in front of you here, right now we currently charge $75 to do a driveway permit. We’re proposing to lower that to $40 because we spend very little staff time on those permits. It’s a, you know, we go out. Our inspector goes out and inspects it to ensure compliance with our standards. That’s generally about 10 minutes of time, maybe 15 minutes there, 15 minutes back. It’s really not we don’t spend a lot of time there. The majority of our time is spent on utility work, inspecting utilities, inspecting restoration, things like to make sure that the utilities are restored in the right-of-way to its former status. So, as part of that we wanted to revise the utility fees. Currently we charge $75 for 2,500 linear feet of conduit or facility to be installed in the right-of-way.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Matthew, can I interrupt you for a second?
MR. SCHMITZ: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mickey.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And you may be getting to this. On your $400 fee, does this also apply to residents in case they wanted to do their water lines?
MR. SCHMITZ: No.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.
MR. SCHMITZ: We’ll get to that. No. So, we wanted to revise the $400 example you see in front of you is a utility, for instance, that’s if they were installing a say a line down a residential street, there is ten homes on that property, a hundred foot of parcel width on each property, that utility would pay a $40 per parcel impacted fee. And basically what that does is it allows us to collect fees where we spend our time because we spend time talking to homeowners, making sure that the restoration is done, making sure that they’re happy with the restoration. As everyone on the Council is aware when Google fiber came through that created a lot of time for us as far as things that we needed to deal with and stuff like that. And this structure is one that one of our neighboring cities, Lenexa uses. It will allows us to put those fees where we spend the time, so. So anyway, what I was saying was instead of having the 2,500 linear feet, we’ll go to this example. Yeah.
So, some of our neighboring cities. Overland Park, for example, charges $50 for a driveway replacement fee. They charge 65 if they’re repairing utilities and they charge 85 if it’s for a new utility permit. They didn’t get into specifics as far as how much work they allow for each of those permits. They kind of have a more open it’s really up to the people who issue the permit as far as what they’re comfortable with issuing under one permit. So, it’s a little more open than what we have. And then Olathe, right-of-way permits, that particular city, they charge $50 for everything. It doesn’t matter if it’s utility, driveway, street excavation, whatever it is it’s 50 bucks.
Like I said, we, you know, Lenexa Monty Zimmerman, I don’t know how many of you guys have, I’m sorry, the Council has heard that or is aware of him. Monty sits on the CGA board, national CGA board. He’s very involved in right-of-way stuff and he’s a very good resource, has been a great deal of help to me as I’ve taken on these responsibilities with the City. And this model is one that he developed because, again, it squarely puts the fees where we spend the time.
So, the other fee one of the other fees that we increased, the street construction costs. When we do degradation fees that’s the fee difference that you see in the street excavation permit example. As it is right now we charge $21 per square yard of roadway that’s removed. That’s a degradation cost. It’s designed to pay us basically to for future repairs of that. Because whenever somebody does a street cut, inevitably in the future we’re going to have to in there and do some work at some point because it will degrade over time. We wanted to increase that to $28 because that really raises it more to in line with what current construction costs are.
Some of the other cities as far as degradation fees, let’s see. Lenexa charges $45 for that same fee. Overland Park charges $20. And then Olathe doesn’t charge a degradation fee. But we felt like $28 was right in there with where it should be to put us in line with where the other cities are at, kind of in the middle of the group so to speak.
So, on the service fee revisions the items in the packet that were revised or the policy statement that we revised, the original fees are show on page 26. They start on page 26 and they go through 28. The new fees are shown on page 47 and go through 48. These fees were rates that we charged for damages to City infrastructure that our crews respond and our crews handle. For instance, if a streetlight circuit is cut, damaged and our crews repair it rather than having our contractor repair it, these rates are the ones that would be utilized to calculate the cost that we would then bill to whoever damaged our infrastructure. We go after those whenever our street infrastructure is damaged, whether it’s stormwater lines, streetlights, whatever the case may be, we can identify who it was that damaged, we go after them to get reimbursed for those expenses that we incur to repair our facilities, same as any other utility provider does. We also revised the sign repair and installation fees to be more in line with actual costs. These fees are charged when we place new signs for subdivisions or if we have to repair a sign that’s been hit by motorists in an accident or something like that.
Performance maintenance bonds. Maureen talked about that a little bit earlier. I just wanted to get into that a little bit further. There is a couple of revisions that we’re doing that we want to do with this policy revision. Right now we currently have five different right-of-way bonds that we require or that we can use. We have a $5,000 annual, a $5,000 project, a $50,000 annual, a $50,000 project and then a $10,000 combined that is generally used for home builders that covers their driveway approach and sanitary sewer connections, that type of stuff in the right-of-way. As part of this revision we are looking to simply that and reduce basically eliminate the project bonds and make it so that everybody has annual bonds. So, when they come in and do work in the City, they get one bond. It’s good for an entire year. They don’t have to continually check to see if they have a bond. It’s easier for them. It’s easier for us to track. That type of stuff. So, those are the revisions that we’re doing. The original version of the bond information is on page 29 of the packet and continues through 32. And the revised starts on page 49 and goes through 52.
So, just a point of reference to the three cities that we compared to, Lenexa, Overland Park and Olathe all do require bonds for work in the right-of-way. It’s kind of a common thing when a contractor comes in they love to tell us that other cities don’t require bonds. We know they do.
So, as part of that, too, one of the things that we would revise right now, the utility contract work is generally done with a $50,000 bond. That allows them to work anywhere in the city, unlimited locations, unless we feel like they are going to damage more than they can restore under that bond. If that’s the case, then we do have with the way the policy statement is worded we have the ability to increase that bonding amount. With this revision we would allow utility companies or contractors working for utility companies to get a $5,000 bond, but they would be limited to no more than ten locations or ten permits at a time under that bond. And then the contractor work in the right-of-way it’s a $5,000 annual bond. These are the individuals who are doing driveway approaches for residents, things like that. It’s an unlimited location bond. That’s all I’ve got.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, Matthew. Any discussion from the Council?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Nope. Great job.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And my only, and you kind of answer it as far as other cities doing it, but without calling up every other city and looking at all these different fees, my only concern always is A, are we more restrictive or are we more costly than other cities. So, we always compare ourselves, obviously in Johnson County, the cities we need to be concerned about. Competitively most is Lenexa and Olathe, the westward expansion. And then, of course, you know, we throw Overland Park and Leawood into that. So, I guess the question would be you, in reviewing this, are we pretty much equally cost-wise, are we in line with our competitive cities?
MR. SCHMITZ: We are in line. I believe we are. The question would be the utility permits. We may be, you know, because we are matching Lenexa and it is a somewhat more aggressive model than what some of the other cities see. The biggest reason for that particular model and to match what Lenexa has been doing for several years now is to like I said, to ensure that we’re compensating for our staff time. That’s really the ultimate goal of the right-of-way program has always been whatever our fees are that should be compensating and covering what our costs are incurred to amount to manage and run that program. As we saw with Google fiber we spent a lot of time doing issues with that and, you know, I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I don’t believe that we covered what we expended as far as that cost. Now, there are other cities that are cheaper, especially for utilities. Overland Park is an example. Like I said in the presentation with their varying fee structure, they would be a little cheaper than we would be. We just felt that kind of following Lenexa’s lead was a good move on this because they have a model that has worked that the utilities are still building in that city and they’re working under it.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Mickey and then Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. Another thing, we’ve had, I’ve had anyway, and some of the years some constituents where we put new roads in. And the company coming in and doing the curbs and the roads, they’ll do some driveway approaches. And I know that the fee for the approaches have been waived at that period of time because the inspectors were already there inspecting the curbs and doing all of this. Are we still doing that?
MR. SCHMITZ: Yes. The way the right-of-way permit structure has always been, at least to my knowledge, has always been set up, whenever it’s a City project, we waive the fees. We still collect the permit as a matter of record so that we have those records of what was done within the right-of-way. But any fees that are, you know, any work that’s done in situations like that those fees are waived.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Because we already have the inspectors there, right?
MR. SCHMITZ: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I really like this. I think this is a great improvement of what we had before. I like the fact that the driveway permits are going down for individuals that are for the homeowner that’s great. And I think it’s time after seeing my yard looks like, I think those utility guys ought to be paying a little more. They just devastated me and it still hasn’t been fixed, so I kind of like that. So,
MR. SCHMITZ: We’re working on that actually.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, I think it’s important to bring ourselves in line with what our costs are. I mean, it’s great being nice guys but, you know, we’ve got to pay the bills, too, and I think is going to go long ways in that and I like the work that’s been done. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: You see the size of the Google box in my front yard. I’m telling you I understand. All right. Any other discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the Governing Body for consideration at the April 25, 2016 Council Meeting. Do I have a motion?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oppose nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to forward to the Governing Body for approval revisions to Policy Statement PS-27, Development and Service Fees. The motion passed 8-0.]
4. DISCUSS COUNCILMEMBER APPOINTMENT PROCESS.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The fourth item is to Discuss Councilmember Appointment Process, our favorite topic. The Council Committee has discussed this item at several meetings. At the December 8, 2015 meeting, there were still questions about the new election law and the Committee again tabled the item. Katie Killen, Assistant City Manager, will present additional information. Staff is seeking direction on this item and based on the discussion will bring a Charter Ordinance to the full Governing Body for consideration at the April 25, 2016 City Council Meeting.
Jim, did you have a question before Katie? You’re jumping out there.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I’d just with all due respect here for Katie here. We don’t have any more information than we had when we last talked about this. Even though there is no legislative direction right now the legislature is still in session. And until they rap the final gavel, they probably can do anything they want to. And this is some of their pet peeves if you will. This is an issue that is important to a lot of them up there. So, number one, we don’t really know where it’s going to go. We could go ahead and go through all of this and come up with something and then turn around and have to come and undo it here in another month. The second thing is, we have a new election commissioner and he is just getting up to speed. Again, we don’t know anything more about is he going to do anything different or how would that affect it. So, I would in the spirit of kicking the can down the road for another two months, I would move to table this until the July 19th meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. We have a motion and a second. Real quick before we vote, Eric, were you
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I thought we were still in the discussion phase.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We kind of went through that pretty quick.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I came back to you.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thank you. I appreciate that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: You’re welcome.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But, you know, maybe I don’t even need to make comments because I really pretty much concur with what Councilman Neighbor was saying. I have talked to several of our state representatives about this issue and told them it’s something we’re very interested in bringing to closure. To try to develop something now and then turn out to where we can’t even implement it because the way the state law reads, it just seems like a futile waste of time at the moment, I think is a topic that I’m very interested in. But I don’t see where we could really move forward with it at this time. And I don’t think July is going to be any better, frankly, but if it is, I mean, that’s great. So, I would like to table it until such time as we get clarification from the state legislature on this issue instead of setting some actual date.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It is kind of a [inaudible] clarification from the legislature. Brandon and then Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. And I would agree with Councilmember Neighbor on that because I think July may be too soon as well because I don’t know that we’ll have --
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: They’re going to still be in.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. But I would also add, too, it’s not clear, also with the new county administration, it’s not clear also reading the memorandum whether or not the county is able to deploy election resources if we were to have a special election within the first 60 days. And then just following the state statute, if we didn’t do that, and by statute, after the 60-day time frame expired and we did not take action, we have to have a special election within 45 days. And it’s still not clear whether or not the county can deploy the resources to enable us to do that. So, until we have really clarification on that we can’t move forward. So, that’s just a
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Just real quick. I’m reading the staff recommendation in the packet. What’s the problem with our time constraints here because it talks about
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Why not let Katie speak to that.
MS. KILLEN: The vacancy, there is a way that we can kind of put the vacancy on hold but still make some updates to the charter ordinance in terms of terms. Just kind of looking at the charter ordinance timeline, remember that does have two publications, a 60-day protest petition. And if there were a protest, then it would have to go to an election since you kind of start working down that line, you’re getting closer and closer to the end of the year going into 2017 where we still talk about having spring 2017 elections. So, certainly you could table it, but just know that that timeline is there. So, we can work through some of those and bring that forward and kind of separate vacancies and put that in a separate ordinance to talk about later, just kind of hold what we have, but put it another ordinance to talk about at another time.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, what we could
MS. KILLEN: Or we could
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m sorry.
MS. KILLEN: Go ahead.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No. So, we need to update our ordinance for at least the fall election part of it, correct?
MS. KILLEN: Correct.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, we need to get that done so that it gets published in that process and then so.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But we can’t what you’re saying and so what, as much I agree with Mr. Jenkins as far as, yeah, let’s just table it until the legislature does something, but we do need to accomplish the part that’s already done I believe is what I’m
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I would think so. Although I think to Mr. Neighbor’s point, and I think his point is that they could change the elections, too, so it’s a dilemma. But December 1st is usually when we open filings for the spring elections. So, it would be nice to be completed by that. So, like Katie said you start working back from December 1st. We’re getting May or June, we kind of need to start getting something done, so.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, we could move forward with a charter ordinance language that reflects whatever the current whim of the legislature is, the change in election dates and the change in terms, which is kind of non-negotiable I think with all of us. We can’t do anything about it anyway, and then table the vacancy portion.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Just like they do, yea. All right.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I think we almost have to. I don’t think we want to be chasing our tail on this one at the final hour, do we?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, you’re going to [inaudible; talking of mic].
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. I think we have a little more time, but not much. I mean
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, maybe you could amend
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Well, it’s 9:30, so I’m fine putting it off.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Lazy.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. We definitely don’t want to talk about it tonight.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I stand by my original thing. I do not, for a lot of reasons, I want to see them the final gavel [inaudible] and when they’re done, then we will know what we can do at that point in time. If we need to change some of this process to shorten it up, perhaps we can do it then. But I can see it just a huge exercise in frustration.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Assuming then they may be done by a June committee meeting we could have that conversation then. Yeah. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. We’ll make it June then. And that’ll be budget. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oppose nay. All right. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to table Councilmember Appointment Process discussion to the June 2016 Council Committee meeting. The motion passed 8-0.]
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Motion to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One more thing. One more thing, Dan.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No, no. There’s one more.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Dang.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Wishful thinking.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s budget, just tune out.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s going to be fascinating.
5. BUDGET PRESENTATION – PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. All right. All right. The final item is a Budget Presentation - Priority Based Budgeting and Key Performance Indicators. This budget discussion will review the results of the on-line survey taken by the Governing Body related to the six community results. Staff will also review a draft dashboard of Key Performance Indicators for each Result. Welcome, Carol.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Thank you. And truly, we will be pretty brief because the results really did affirm that your survey, we had seven of you completed it and everybody completed the entire thing, so that was great. And it really did affirm the results. And it affirmed also the value that you had placed on them when we did that, I think in ‘13, in terms of which results you felt were most important and weighed the most.
So, your options, if you remember, were does this definition not aid in achieving, moderately aid, or is critical to the success of. So, if you look at Safe Community, which has been the one that you all have rated highest. High agreement that all those definitions either moderately or highly, critically supported the and then the little chart is kind of interesting just to show where the actual votes fell on those. But not a lot of disagreement at all and much consensus.
The next one, again, Effective Mobility and Reliable Infrastructure. Pretty good, solid support for all of those. A little bit less maybe on the alternative public transportation, which I thought made sense to me that, you know, we don’t think of ourselves as a public transportation provider. We have our CityRide. We support the public bus system through the county, but that made sense to me. I don’t know that this result warrants a change to that unless you all would want to. So, you can just think about that.
Next one, Economic Growth and Vitality. Again, a very strong support. That these are good definitions. These describe how we want to do this to achieve economic growth and vitality within our community. Had a couple of comments which were real good about making sure we’re capturing the concept of streamlining, being very efficient and streamlined in our business processes and inviting to businesses and supportive of businesses. So, we’ll look at a little bit of the language. I think that very first definition where it talks about business-friendly processes. We do cover that, but we might look and see if we want to beef that up just a little bit. Appreciated that comment. I think that was a good one.
The next one, Attractive, Healthy and Well-Maintained Community. A little bit more over the board on that, but again, none of them had a majority in terms of that the definition was not supportive of the result. So, I had a comment on this one on the third down about well, the comments were about making sure we were capturing the comment of maintaining infrastructure and city-owned projects. And so I thought on the fourth one, I’m sorry, where we say, “Invests in public facilities and infrastructure,” that maybe we want to add the word “invests and maintains public facilities an infrastructure.” So, that was a good point that someone picked up as they went through the survey.
Quality Cultural and Recreational Opportunities. Good. Good support. Again, a little bit across the board. A comment on that one was making sure we’re including the concept of volunteerism. “Promotes community service and volunteerism through a variety of public recreation programs,” which again that has become kind of part of what’s a strong value for us. And so we’ll look at those definitions and might see where that could be included into one of those definitions.
Environmentally Sustainable and Well-Planned Community. Good results. Not a lot of variation. This is one that is less, I hate to say important because they’re all important. But in the scheme of how you all weighted them in the past, this was the one that fell at the lowest. So, it makes sense to me that they would be a little more across the board in the support of them. But again, I don’t think, unless anybody wants to change any of those, there weren’t any big red flags.
I did have a comment on that one and on I think the previous one. Someone didn’t care for how the result is worded, the big picture results. So, if anybody has suggestions on those, please give them to me because these are ours. We can tweak them as we want.
And then Good Governance. Very strong support for all those definitions. Had a comment about transparency, “Strives for transparency and responsiveness in communications with the public in responding to requests for information,” which I kind of felt like addressed in that fourth one down about responsive, accessible and courteous service. Maybe what maybe I’m reading into this, but what I kind of felt might be missing is that we have now, thanks to having a communications person, become much more proactive and that has become the expectation in our communications. And maybe that’s the concept that needs to get built into one of those definitions, so we may look at that, too, and bring that revision to you.
So, that is the results. Again, thank you to those of you that filled that survey out. We’ll tweak those a little bit. You’ll see them again and again as we move through the budget process.
So, I want to talk just a minute about performance measures. We’ve done performance measures for a long time. I think when I first got here we called them performance measures and they were really just counting stuff. And that trend has changed and people have become much more sophisticated about how they do performance measures. You know, performance measures, kind of definition, a quantifiable expression of cost amount, result that indicate how well you’re doing something. And that’s the whole goal of having performance measures. Also they provide accountability. You have better information decision-making. If you see a performance measure that you’ve defined as important to you and it’s declining, then you need to look at it and figure out what it is we need to do. We’ll talk about a little bit some of that in the budget process as we talk about declining response times in the northwest part of our city. And then always to continue to improve. We have performance measures because we want to keep getting better.
So, Vicki and some of her folks worked, well, just history. In the past, we’ve done, those of you that have been here awhile, remember our comparisons that we’ve done. And I don’t want those to go away because I still like those, of the per capita, sales tax per capita, employees per capital. So, we’ll still bring some of those to you because while they’re not really performance measures they do give you a sense of where you sit with other cities. But we’ve done those for years. In fact, I remember being in Lenexa working when Shawnee was doing those measures. And my boss then never liked them because Shawnee always looked very efficient. That was a long time ago though and we’re still that efficient.
And then we participated, the ICMA had a program for performance measures which we thought would be really good, and it was for a while because it’s a national-international organization and they would establish these and then we could benchmark with other cities across the country. It evolved over time, it’s still a good program, but it just got so complicated and they were measuring things, a lot of them that weren’t necessarily important to us and/or we found ourselves spending more time gathering data than really doing the work that we were measuring. And just weighing all that out decided to leave that program and kind of create our own system.
So, as I then started to say, Vicki and some of her folks have worked real hard on looking at then our big picture results, what we just talked about, and what our performance measures that then support those results. So, we’ve looked at given a lot of emphasis on customer satisfaction. Thank goodness for that survey. Isn’t that what we’re here for, to do what residents would like us to do. So, there is a number of those results that use that citizen survey. We’ve also used some measures established by the Governing Body. You’ll see in there the 30 percent assessed value in commercial base, tax base. That’s one you all established in a policy statement. So, we felt like that’s a really good measure that we want to keep measuring ourselves against.
Some of this data we report to external agencies. Crime data we have to report to the FBI. Things we’re already collecting anyway that are meaningful and illustrative of our community and the things that are important to us. And then we looked at data we get from other agencies, for example, bond ratings. That’s a really important measure of how well we’re doing things.
So, this big thing, so we printed it out for you so you can see it there is the 32 measures that we’ve designed at this time. You know with performance measures it’s good to pick them and have them for a while, so you can see trends. But that doesn’t by any means mean that we can’t change or add or delete as things, you know, every year or whenever we see the need for a change. So, this is our first stab at these. Since we’ve had a long night won’t ask for a lot of discussion, but glad for any feedback. But would like for you to look through them and see if they make sense to you. See if there are things that you want to measure that you think really support the results that we have. If there is something missing that you think of, let us know that. If there’s something on here that just doesn’t make sense, why are we measuring, that doesn’t seem that important, ask that. So, I’m real excited about it because it feeds one more thing right into our results and our goals for our city and it’s really it brings it all together which I think is really important for consistency sake. So, that’s all I have.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you, Carol. I’ll say I think this dashboard is pretty cool. I think that’s great idea.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Fun, isn’t it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you for doing that. Yeah. It’s neat. Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I just I found it interesting in our government affairs meeting from the chamber last week, so Representative Ryckman was there. And I think what he chairs the Ways
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Appropriations.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Appropriations. But one of the things they were talking about Kansas even looking at migrating to a performance-based budget. They call it performance-based. Basically the same thing, priority-based. And even he said they see the and what they’ve looked at they see in and can see the benefits. I mean, I think we’re a little bit ahead of the curve because I think a lot of other communities and the estates are starting to go it makes sense. Because one of the things they’ve looked at, efficiencies in the state was exactly what we talked about. You have two different departments that are involved in the same thing. And so when you start cutting departments, you know, it’s like, well, what about this and who is funding that. And so instead of looking at cutting the department they’re kind of thinking about migrating towards
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Programs.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: looking at the program itself and less worried about the department itself. Because it’s just every year he said you just have this constant four percent cut in department and not really looking at the programs it effects across the board. So, it’s kind of interesting. It was a real interesting presentation. But I mean they’re kind of hopefully it enlightens them on few things they’re doing, but it was good to hear because we feel like we’re definitely on the right track with what we’re doing.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none, Carol, do you have the direction that you needed on this?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes. We’re fine.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’re just moving on into budget.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you. That concludes the agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Before I accept a motion to adjourn, I'd like to take just a moment to publicly thank Dan Ferguson. Dan has been with the City just over a year, and unfortunately is leaving us.
As our first Communications Manager, Dan accomplished a lot in the time that he was here. He came just as we were beginning our efforts to educate the public on the Parks and Pipes and Pavement, and he was instrumental in coordinating that work. Additionally, we have dramatically increased our ability to provide good information to the public, made great progress in being able to answer and address media questions more promptly and have adopted a Communications Policy, and we now have a comprehensive communications plan. These are just a few of Dan’s accomplishments.
So, on behalf of the Council, I want to thank you for your work here and very obvious positive impact that you have had. Even though we’re disappointed you are leaving us, we wish you the best. I hope you miss us. I won’t put you on the spot.
MR. FERGUSON: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you. Best of luck. All right.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oppose nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to adjourn. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Adjourned at 9:46 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 April 8, 2016
Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary
Stephen Powell, City Clerk