PDF Format:

CC09262016.pdfCC09262016.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
September 26, 2016
7:30 P.M.

Michelle Distler - Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Sunderman
Councilmember KemmlingCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember VaughtCity Attorney Rainey
Councilmember MeyerFinance Director Rogers
Councilmember SandiferPlanning Director Chaffee
Councilmember KenigPublic Works Director Whitacre
Guest Councilmember DoyleParks and Recreation Director Holman
IT Director Bunting
Fire Chief Mattox
Police Chief Moser
Senior Project Engineer Lindstrom
Battalion Chief Hoelting
Assistant City Attorney Dehon
Business Liaison Holtwick
Communications Manager Breithaupt
Economic Dvlpmnt. Council, Elli Bowen
Chamber of Commerce, Linda Leeper
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Shawnee City Council. I would ask that you please silence your electronic devices at this time.

I am Mayor Michelle Distler and I will be chairing this meeting. Tonight we have a special guest with us. Her name is Ryann Doyle. And tonight she will serve as a guest Councilmember for Ward III. She has read the packet and will join in the discussion and will cast an honorary vote on each item. Well, actually she said Councilmember Vaught did not get her the packet to read tonight.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I didn’t know I was supposed to.

MAYOR DISTLER: We’ll be going off the cuff.

I will do a roll call at this time. Councilmember Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Guest Councilmember Doyle?

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER DOYLE: Here.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

MAYOR DISTLER: I know we have some 4-H kids in the audience. So, if you would like to come forward and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence.

(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Before we begin our agenda, I'd like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Council at any of those times, please come forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record, then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear your comments, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes and no person may speak more than twice to any one agenda item. After you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address. I would also like to remind Councilmembers to wait to be recognized before speaking. When you are recognized, be sure to turn on your microphone. Please turn the microphone off when you are done speaking.

In addition, while we won't do a roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers' names who vote in minority so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.

C. CONSENT AGENDA


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

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 8-0.]

D. MAYOR’S ITEMS

1. NATIONAL 4-H WEEK PROCLAMATION

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Mayor's Items. I have two proclamations tonight. The first is for National 4-H Week. So, if the members of the Oxford Hustler's 4-H club would join me up front?

A Proclamation in recognition of National 4-H Week

Whereas, the Oxford Hustlers 4-H Club of Shawnee is part of the national youth organization, and an active and growing local club; and

Whereas, 4-H is a commitment by parents to become involved in their children's lives during a critical time of growth in understanding themselves and the world they live in; and

Whereas, 4-H is a commitment by youth to become involved in assisting their own growth and understanding of themselves, their families and their work; and

Whereas, 4-H is a commitment by the community, through the extension system, to assist parents and youth while they grow individually and together in understanding themselves and their world.

Now therefore, I, Michelle Distler, Mayor of the City of Shawnee, Kansas do hereby proclaim October 2-8, 2016, as "National 4-H Week" and commend these young people of the Oxford Hustlers 4-H Club of Shawnee for setting such a good example in the community.

(Applause)

2. FIRE PREVENTION WEEK PROCLAMATION

MAYOR DISTLER: Next, I have a proclamation for Fire Prevention Week, so if Chief Mattox and the members of the Shawnee Fire department could join me at the podium.

So, from the Office of the Mayor, A Proclamation in recognition of Fire Prevention Week. Whereas, the City of Shawnee, along with Shawnee firefighters are committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our city through prevention and protection education; and

Whereas, fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are the locations where people are at greatest risk from fire. And according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) home fires killed more than 2,745 people in the United States; and fire departments in the United States and responded to 369,500 home fires in 2014; and

Whereas, working smoke alarms cut the risk of dying in reported home fires in half and in one-fifth of all homes with smoke alarms, none were working, resulting in three out of five of home fire deaths in properties without working smoke alarms because batteries were missing, disconnected, or dead; and

Whereas, all smoke alarms should be replaced at least once every ten years, and the age of a smoke alarm can be determined by the date of its manufacture, which is marked on the back of the smoke alarm; and

Whereas, the 2016 Fire Prevention Week theme, “Hear the Beep Where You Sleep, Every Bedroom Needs a Working Smoke Alarm!” effectively serves to educate the public of the vital importance of replacing the smoke alarms in their homes; and

Whereas, Shawnee residents are responsive to public education measures and are more prepared and better able to take personal steps to increase their safety from fire, especially in their homes by checking batteries and/or replacing older smoke alarms.

Now, therefore, I, Michelle Distler, Mayor of the City of Shawnee, Kansas do hereby proclaim October 9-15, 2015, as "Fire Prevention Week" in the City of Shawnee and I urge all the people of Shawnee to find out how old the smoke alarms in their homes are, to replace them if they’re more than ten years old and to support the many public safety activities and efforts of the City of Shawnee Fire Department and other emergency services during Fire Prevention Week 2016.

(Applause)

E. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

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

F. PUBLIC ITEMS

1. CONSIDER A SHAWNEE ENTREPRENEURIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SEED) AGREEMENT WITH VISION CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the Agenda is Public Items. Item No. 1 is to consider a Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) Agreement with Vision Care Associates, LLC.

Policy Statement (PS-65), Economic Development Fund, established the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development Program. Vision Care Associates, LLC, a locally owned and operated optometry office, has formally requested consideration for the Loan Fee Repayment Program through the SEED Program.

The recommended action is to consider approving the Loan Fee Repayment Program Application for Vision Care Associates, LLC, and authorizing payment of a sum not to exceed $24,796 of qualifying loan fees upon final receipt of verification of program qualifications by the Finance Director.

Elli Bowen from the Shawnee Economic Development Council is here, along with representatives of Vision Care, Dr. Andrew Franken, Dr. Chris Arnold, and Brandon Prestia of Landmark National Bank.

Does the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. Councilmember Kemmling voting in dissent. Dr. Franken and Dr. Arnold, thank you for being here tonight and for constructing a new building and expanding your business here in Shawnee.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve the Loan Fee Repayment Program Application for Vision Care Associates, LLC, and authorizing payment of a sum not to exceed $24,796 of qualifying loan fees upon final receipt of verification of program qualifications by the Finance Director. The motion passed 7-1, with Councilmember Kemmling voting no.]

2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE 2017-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 2 is to Consider Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Plan.

The City reviews and updates the Capital Improvement Plan each year. Since this was discussed at the committee meeting, the Planning Commission has reviewed it and recommended adding 71st Street from Hedge Lane Terrace to Mize Road. Matthew Schmitz will make a brief presentation.

The recommended action is to consider approving the 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Plan.

MR. SCHMITZ: Good evening. Matthew Schmitz, Management Analyst with Development Services. So, we’ve got just a real quick presentation for you to go through here of the six-year Capital Improvement Program.

[Background slide]
A little bit of background. We review the plan on an annual basis and it includes any projects that exceed $150,000 and encompasses streets, stormwater, parks, facilities and traffic control. The current plan was approved on September 28, 2015, by the Council and covered 2016 through 2021.

[Revisions to the CIP slide]
September 6 of 2016, we brought the revisions that we were looking at the to the Council Committee meeting. And the on the 7th of September, they were taking to the Planning Commission meeting who passed an amendment after they passed the CIP as it was laid out before them, they passed an amendment to add -- requesting that the Council add West 71st Street from Hedge Lane Terrace to Mize Road. There’s been quite a bit of public input about that, and quite a bit of discussion. And so we wanted to go over a couple more items with that.

[Options considered by Staff slide]
Options that we’ve looked at. West 71st Street from Hedge Lane Terrace to Clare Road including sidewalks would be a $7.25 million project. We don’t currently have the capacity within the Debt Service Fund to include that project. It’s possible that it could be included in 2023, which is just outside of this CIP that you -- that the Council is reviewing this evening. If financial projections, of course, were to become more favorable there is a chance it could be included before that. And then there is also another option that you could potential remove an existing project that’s on the CIP and replace it with West 71st Street.

[Other Considerations slide]
With the focus on West 71st there’s been some citizen inquiry about some other projects, too. Midland Drive from 435 to Shawnee Mission Parkway and Midland Drive from Pflumm to Blackfish Parkway. These are other projects that are unimproved ditch section roads that need to be improved just like West 71st Street does. And you can see the cost there before you for those two potential projects.
Whenever we look at doing sidewalks and trails it’s most efficient to do those as part of a comprehensive street project rather than as standalone items. It’s possible to do it as a standalone item, but it’s -- there’s a high potential that it can be a temporary fix basically because when we come in and do the road project there’s a potential that we would have to change grades on the road and, therefore, we would have to remove that sidewalk and replace it with whatever matches the road profile at that time.

[Other Considerations - Continued]
So, with that, without doing some design work it’s difficult to establish a cost for that section from just Gleason to Apache and an entrance to Erfurt Park. City staff has looked at it and we believe it will cost somewhere around in the neighborhood of $100,000.

There are several other collector streets in the area with missing connections to parks. West 51st Street from Rosehill to Quivira which is where KCP&L parks at, and West 63rd Street from Lackman to Maurer which is where Swarner Park is at are two examples of those.

[Recommendation slide]
The proposed CIP as it has been presented matches the 2016-Revised and 2017 budgets. And the recommendation by City staff is to approve the CIP as presented. Questions?

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, when you’re talking about, so I mean the recommendation is to obviously move forward on the CIP without doing 71st Street. And so what you’re saying is if we just do a sidewalk it’s $100,000. Which then if we do the road, a good chance when we do the road that sidewalk comes back out and we do it all over again, correct?

MR. SCHMITZ: Correct. But it’s unknown right now when we can do 71st Street. So, it’s not known whether you could spend the $100,000 and do the sidewalk now and it may be there for five years till we get ready to do the road. It may be there for two if, you know, the economy changes and we get really good projections. We don’t know.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Is there any other, I mean, so when we talk about a sidewalk we’re just talking about a standard sidewalk, standard width, something that would run normal distance from the road. I mean, have we looked at the options of more of a, you know, the activity trails and push it off the road. I mean, I don’t know how much right-of-way we have there. But if we came off the road a ways with an activity trail. It concerns me as we just built what is basically the premier park in Shawnee and we don’t have access to it, for someone to walk to it or get to it. I mean, if you get there on foot or on bike you’re out on 71st Street, which is not an extremely wide street and it’s not extremely safe. So, I’m struggling with spending, you know, five years here with access, limited access to a park. The whole idea of building a park is people go use it and children. And we’re basically saying, you know, put yourself in jeopardy to take your bike or walk down the street to go use the park. Was there any options? Go ahead.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER DOYLE: I have a photo if you guys want to see.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: A what? You have a photo? No, and I think we’ve seen it. We’ve seen that though.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER DOYLE: Also there is like over by Gleason, whenever it turns there, there is like a few feet of sidewalk already built and then it’s all this grassland. I mean, it makes no sense why they would just stop it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because it was started on the -- yeah. The sidewalk was started and they never completed it.
GUEST COUNCILMEMBER DOYLE: Yeah. And then it started on the other side because there was a sidewalk going like this.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor, then Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. When was 71st Street last done? It seems like that it looks like it’s been recently overlaid.

MR. SCHMITZ: When was it last surfaced? It was surfaced this year.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay.

MR. SCHMITZ: This year we did a -- if you want me to elaborate on it I can go a little further as far as what treatment we did.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Nope. That’s all I wanted.

MR. SCHMITZ: Okay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I was going to ask you if you could back up and show us what that cost to do that whole street.

MR. SCHMITZ: Yeah. You’re looking for the entire cost for 71st?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. So, I think when we talked about the sidewalk before, I mean 100,000 is not, you know, a great portion of the 7.25 million. So, I think we should go ahead and do the sidewalk now because we have no idea when we’re going to be able to do that project there.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay.

The recommended action is to consider approving the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Plan. So, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Plan. The motion passed 8-0.]

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Can we talk about getting, I mean, obviously we could put it on the CIP, but do we want to get into a -- I mean, I don’t know if we can approve the sidewalk now or do we talk about it another meeting?

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, I would remind the Council too that for over a decade now, before even I got on the Council that there was request for sidewalk on Midland. There’s a park there as well. The request for the sidewalk was there long before the gentleman was killed walking down that street. So, there are several other needs that have kind of been on the list for significantly longer. So, I would think that the Council would want to discuss this as a Committee before just moving forward with this sidewalk and not taking into consideration all of the other needs that have been -- similar needs that have been requested for decades before that we haven’t been able to fund to do.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I would agree. And I think that it goes into, you know, we could get the discussion back that we had during budget. I mean, this is where the frustration sets in. I mean, we’re presented with a list of needs. And not only did we not meet the needs that the City was asking for, but we didn’t even consider the fact that we have all these needs that we have to fund. And, you know, and this goes right to the point. I mean, we have a little girl here that actually went out and had -- how many names did you get? How many on your position?

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER DOYLE: It’s either 53 or 54.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, 53 neighbors that said we want a sidewalk here. These are people that want this and they’re willing to pay for it. And so we go through a budget cycle. And I’ll say this. What really frustrates me and, you know, I mean, hats off to Eric. Eric sat there and he didn’t disagree that these weren’t needs. I mean he’d believe there was money in the budget. Everybody else sat up here and looked at him and said, no, there’s no money in that budget, but they don’t want to approve the needs. So, then what are we saying? That those aren’t real needs and then these aren’t real needs and we’re just going to ignore this until it goes away or -- sooner or later we’ve got to have this conversation on how we’re going to get some of these things done in this City and give the residents what they want. Because I do think that there is a certain amount of people in this community that are willing to pay for things if they’re presented properly. And, you know, whether it’s sidewalks, I mean, these are your sisters sitting here? So, you know, these little girls they want to walk to a park and they can’t. I mean, you don’t have a sidewalk to get -- you have this beautiful park and you don’t have a way to walk there. And we’re just going to go, well, we’ll do it in five years. So, you know, in three years when somebody gets hit by a car kind of like on Midland, and I agree. I’ve been saying we should do Midland. Every cyclist in the City would like us to do something with Midland and people that live in Red Oak Hills, they like to run up, you know, they don’t have a sidewalk. So, I don’t know. When do we have this conversation and actually stop with the mantra of, you know, we can’t spend any money, we can’t do anything and start giving the people what they want and that’s amenities like sidewalks and curbs and gutters. I mean, at some point we’re going to have to address this or we’re going to just keep having this conversation.

MAYOR DISTLER: I agree. And that’s why though I was suggesting the committee meeting because we have several of these same, exact same situations that have been unfunded for decades. And so I believe, you know, there’s an equal amount of residents that would have the same arguments for the parks in their areas that are missing the sidewalk as well. So, I think it all needs to be taken into consideration. Allow all the public to be able to have that input and let the Council discuss and prioritize and figure out a way that, you know, they’re going to fund it. But we can’t just completely disregard all of the other needs that have been before us before this park, long before this park was ever even built. We have to consider all of it. Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, long before this one as we said, I agree with the Mayor. We had, I believe it was between 50 and 60 people come out in favor of sidewalks on Midland Drive after the individual was killed. A lot of them had wanted it prior to. And they really came out in droves afterwards. And we couldn’t, you know, we put up a plan that was going to be an eight-foot, a five-foot. We wanted three-foot, we didn’t have the money. And to this day we haven’t been able to satisfy that. And I believe that he was killed somewhere around, what, 12 years ago? Or ten years ago?

MAYOR DISTLER: It was less than that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And we still haven’t been able to address that. Now, granted we have several needs in the City of sidewalks that we need to do. We’ve got curbed streets. We got a number of things we need to do. I think this needs to go in front of a committee meeting and I think we need to address if we’re going to do one out there for a park, we also need to address one that people get killed on. So, you know, I think we need to look at more than just one at one time.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. I think it needs a full discussion before a committee like I said to give the Council the opportunity to prioritize and to figure out how to fund and to do these things to meet these needs. Are there any questions or comments from the Council? Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Then I would say bring it back to a committee. You know, if that’s the idea, then why don’t we, you know, I know years ago when Jeff Meyers was a Councilman, I think him and wasn’t it Councilman Snell, Dan Snell? Didn’t they have a proposal that they come up with. And it got on the ballot, a sales tax that would have curbed and guttered the entire city. And at the time unfortunately it failed. But I don’t think that would happen today. And so, you know, do we go back and look at this and, you know, whether it’s, you know, I don’t know if we go into every neighborhood and do it, or do we look at our main streets like Midland, like 71st with a park on it. Identify some of the main corridor streets that need improvements that basically, you know, it’s something for everyone. And put a dollar amount to it and figure out ways to fund it. Whether it’s, you know, you put it to a vote or whatever. I don’t know. I mean, I’d like to explore the options. Because what we see here in the budget, what we talk about constantly is there’s no money to do that. There’s no money to do that. There’s no money to do that. And there’s no light at the end of the tunnel that there’s going to be. I mean, we, like I said we didn’t even pass enough in our last budget to meet the needs that the City was asking for let alone take on any additional projects. So, do we look at bonding capacity down the road? Do we wait ten years? Because who knows? In ten years our expenses go up on other things. We’re repairing more cave-ins on stormwater. We have buildings we’ve got to deal with. I mean, I just -- we’ve got to address this. I mean we have got to move forward and start taking care of some of these things and moving forward as a community.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council?

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER DOYLE: And in five years I’m going to be already driving, so I mean.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Congratulations.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER DOYLE: I want the sidewalk now, so instead of five years I’m going to want to drive my car up to the park. Right now if you put in the sidewalk now, instead of driving I would want to walk to the park in five years instead of drive.

MAYOR DISTLER: And that’s the struggle that we all have to face because there were little girls that wanted to walk to the park on Midland that have now graduated college. So, yeah, there are a lot of little girls in the city that feel the same way that you do. And it’s unfortunate. And that’s kind of the reality of the position that we’re in. So, you get to see first-hand what it’s like to be a councilmember trying to balance the needs of all the residents of an entire city. And it’s not an easy job to do. I wish -- we all wish that we could, you know, have everything we want, you know, like Disney World, we just make a wish upon a star and we have our sidewalks everywhere and lots of fire trucks and lots of police. But unfortunately it’s a balance and we have to figure out how to manage that balance.

3. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROJECTS FOR THE 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ANNUAL PLAN.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, the next item, Item Number 3 is to conduct a Public Hearing to consider Projects for the 2017 Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan. This is the second of two required public hearings to consider proposed projects for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in an estimated amount of $233,632. There are three actions required.

(a) Conduct a Public Hearing

MAYOR DISTLER: The first action is to conduct a public hearing. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to open the Public Hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]

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

Mr. Chaffee, please go ahead.

MR. CHAFFEE: The City is required to hold public hearings on the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds. This is the second public hearing. The first public hearing was held on August 22nd. This year the City will submit an annual plan for the use of CDBG funds. The amount to be awarded will be calculated by HUD in March/April 2017. The City expects to receive approximately $233,632, based on the 2016 allocation.

The Governing Body conducted a public hearing on the proposed use of 2017 CDBG funds on August 22nd. The Governing Body chose to include the following activities into the 2016 Community Development Block Grant request:

59th Street Improvements – King to Barton $ 173,592
Minor Home Repair Program $25,000
Salvation Army $7,360
YMCA of Greater Kansas City $12,265
Johnson County Parks and Recreation $10,860
Catholic Charities of Johnson County $4,555

If funding exceeds the $233,632 estimate, the additional funding will be used for the 59th Terrace Street improvements. And that concludes staff’s presentation.

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

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The question is not really related to this. We’ve looked at this at the Council Committee meeting, and I think everybody is on board with that. I just had a question more about process here, the procedure. Because this has happened several times and it just strikes me kind of odd that we have to make a motion to have a public hearing when we’re having clearing a public hearing. This Council meeting is a public hearing. This is a validated agenda item at a public hearing. I don’t understand why we’ve got to do a public hearing within the public hearing. I think that’s kind of odd. And I just would like some information from somebody why we’ve got to do that because it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

MR. RAINEY: The statutory difference is at a public hearing, the public is entitled to comment.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The public is entitled to comment on any of our agenda items.

MR. RAINEY: Not by statute or case precedent. Unless it’s a statutorily required public hearing.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Seems a little [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The Mayor doesn’t have to take comments.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because the Mayor technically doesn’t have to take comments we have to have it separate. Okay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Right.

MR. RAINEY: And like the City Manager pointed out, the other obvious -- we give notice of all of our Council meetings. But sometimes when we have a public hearing requirement there’s a different type of notice that’s required for a specified date and time.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Did a different type of notice go out on this?

CITY CLERK POWELL: Yes.

MR. RAINEY: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. All right. Thanks. I just wondered why we do that.

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

(b) Conclude the Public Hearing

MAYOR DISTLER: The next action is to close the public hearing.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

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

(c) Consider approving projects and authorize the Mayor to sign the 2017 CDBG application to include 59th Terrace Improvements - King Street to Barton Street, Minor Home Repair Program, Salvation Army, YMCA of Greater Kansas City, Johnson County Parks and Recreation, and Catholic Charities of Johnson County.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final recommended action is to consider approving projects and authorize the Mayor to sign the 2017 CDBG application to include 59th Terrace Improvements - King Street to Barton Street, Minor Home Repair Program, Salvation Army, YMCA of Greater Kansas City, Johnson County Parks and Recreation, and Catholic Charities of Johnson County.

Is there any discussion from the Council?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Hearing none, I move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: I have a motion and a second. Everyone in favor signify by saying aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve projects and authorize the Mayor to sign the 2017 CDBG application to include 59th Terrace Improvements - King Street to Barton Street, Minor Home Repair Program, Salvation Army, YMCA of Greater Kansas City, Johnson County Parks and Recreation, and Catholic Charities of Johnson County. The motion passed 8-0.]

4. CONSIDER EXTENSION OF SUP-13-08-10, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO DEFFENBAUGH GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SW CORNER OF INTERSTATE 435 AND HOLLIDAY DRIVE. INDUSTRIES TO ALLOW LAND FILLING OPERATIONS IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 4 is to Consider Extension of SUP-13-08-10, a Special Use Permit Previously Issued to Deffenbaugh Industries to Allow Land Filling Operations in the Planned Industrial Zoning District Generally Located on the Southwest Corner of Interstate 435 and Holliday Drive.

On June 13, 2016, the Governing Body voted to table the consideration of the Special Use Permit to allow for the preparation of an odor study. Blackstone Environmental has completed the first phase. Based on the findings, the odor study team recommends that additional study be undertaken to include more field investigation and scientific investigation of odors.

Planning Director, Paul Chaffee is going to make a brief presentation and then Lindsay James from Blackstone Environmental is here to provide the results of their Phase 1 study and talk about next steps in the odor study.

MR. CHAFFEE: This is a scheduled review of a modified special use permit previously issued to Deffenbaugh Industries in 2008, to operate a sanitary landfill located at the southwest corner of Holliday Drive and I-435. The special use permit was last reviewed by the Planning Commission in May 2016. The Planning Commission made a series of recommendations to modify several of the conditions of approval. The Planning Commission’s recommendation was forwarded to the Governing Body for consideration at the June 13, 2016 meeting. The Governing Body voted at that meeting to table consideration of the special use permit to allow for the implementation of an odor study.

[Background slide]
So, a brief review. Again, Planning Commission reviewed the SUP in May 2016. Tabled by the Governing Body in 2016 to conduct an odor study. We contracted with Blackstone Environmental in late June for the first phase of the odor study and established an odor team to work with Blackstone in their review. Members included members of the City staff, two members from Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, representatives from Waste Management and Deffenbaugh. As you recall, Deffenbaugh is now a subsidiary of Waste Management. And Blackstone Environment.

So, to proceed we’ll have Lindsay James go through the presentation by Blackstone.

MS. JAMES: Hi everybody. I first want to tell you a little bit about Blackstone. We’re a consulting firm comprised of engineers, hydrogeologists, and scientists specializing in environmental and engineering services, including solid waste and landfill services.
Our senior staff have worked in the Kansas City market in the solid waste industry for over 25 years. And 20 percent of our staff actually live in the City of Shawnee, including our project engineer and atmospheric scientist for this project. So, we understand the community concerns and objectives related to this study.

Our internal odor study project team consists of Mike Kukuk, who is our Blackstone Principal in Charge and a Licensed Professional Geologist. And he’s here tonight. Myself. I’m a Project Manager and Licensed Professional Geologist. Austin Quick, who is our Project Engineer and Atmospheric Scientist, also here tonight. And Kyle Kukuk, who is our Project Engineer and Licensed Professional Engineer.

[Objectives slide]
So, the objectives for the Phase 1 portion of the Odor Study included a review of likely sources on and off-site within a 5-mile radius of the Johnson County Landfill; a review of odor complaint history as provided by the City of Shawnee; a comprehensive meteorological analysis; site inspection of Johnson County Landfill. And I want to point out this was not a regulatory or a compliance audit. Preliminary review of Johnson County Landfill facility operations as related to potential odor sources; and to provide Phase II recommendations.

So, it’s really important to note here that these are the results of our Phase I Odor Study, which is preliminary and was primarily a desktop study. So, we did not do any constituent specific sampling, in-depth source evaluation, or resident interviews as part of this process.

[Source Review - 5-mile radius slide]
So, let’s first focus on the first and second objectives, the review of odor sources and complaint data. So, we reviewed potential odor sources on site and off site within a five-mile radius of the Johnson County Landfill. The bulleted list on the slide shows those that warranted further consideration. They’re also shaded in red on that figure. Of the off-site sources reviewed the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant and KCK Plant No. 20 were identified as potentially significant contributors in the area.

The on-site sources reviewed included the gas control collection system, the leachate management system, the active face, which plays into the next one, which is odorous loads such as sludge and restaurant wastes, and compost operations. Of those potential on-site sources the leachate management system, as it is enclosed, was not anticipated to be a significant source of odor at this time.

[Odor Complaints to City of Shawnee, 1/1/2006 - 9/15/2016 slide]
Okay. Our next up was to look at the complaint history data from January 2006 through January 2016, within a five-mile radius from the JCL. So, data was compiled from the City of Shawnee Odor Hotline and SeeClickFix mobile application. And we processed the data to remove any duplicates and complaints with no description. So, just to put this in perspective, this process only removed about 1 percent of our total complaints. That left us with 728 total complaints as shown by year on the figure as colored dots. So, that complaint data includes not only landfill-related complaints, but wastewater treatment plant, sewer, gas line breaches. This is especially important because we were able to attribute an area of complaints as shown in blue on that attached figure to wastewater treatment plant activities using meteorological assessment and other information. So, it’s important to note that even those these complaints were obviously wastewater treatment plant based on our analysis as we’ll discuss a little bit more later, the actual complaint still stated landfill. So, there’s an obvious misunderstanding as to the character of the odor that people are smelling. And this is further complicated because the landfill accepts sludges from identified off-site sources like the wastewater treatment plant.

So, you have the sludge odor at the wastewater treatment plant source, the sludge odor as it’s hauled from the source to the landfill and then the odor as it’s disposed of the active face at the landfill.

So, as you can see from the figure the highest density of complaints is received south of the Johnson County Landfill along Shawnee Mission Parkway and to the west between Johnson Drive and West 47th Street. So, of the 728 complaints, 170, about 23 percent were from roads directly adjacent to the Johnson County Landfill.

So, we then took our complaint data and processed it by month and year as shown on the bar graph figure. As you move backwards in the figure you’re getting closer and closer to current. The complaints have increased by a factor of four from 2014 to 2015 and by a factor of six from 2014 to August of 2016. There was a considerable increase in complaints starting in December of 2015. We attribute this to a number of factors including the popularity of the SeeClickFix mobile application and other social media tools such as NextDoor. Also the meteorological data as it relates to the gas control and collection system, compost and the active face are anticipated contributors to the observed increase in complaints.

So, prior to September 9th, SeeClickFix recorded the user’s location at the time of complaint, which was not necessarily the location of the actual odor. So, if someone was out walking their dog and when they got home they clicked the app, it would record the location of their house not necessarily where the odor was located. So, that makes the data a little bit less useful for us. The application was modified on September 9th to require the user to enter location information for where the odor was detected. So, this is going to help us going forward in analyzing and determining the odor source using meteorological and other information. We’ve also recommended that the application be modified to include an odor descriptor rather than just landfill. So, we want to know are you smelling rotten eggs, organics, ammonia, septic smell. All of these different things suggest different sources.

So, as I mentioned earlier there are several complaints identified at the landfill that were actually wastewater treatment plant. And this is going to help us to better pinpoint those sources.

[Three Mechanisms of Transport slide]
So, we can use this complaint data knowing that we have accurate location information and odor descriptions along with meteorological information to gain a better understanding of what conditions can lead to odors and from which sources. So, these figures are called wind roses, break down the frequency at which speed and direction occurs for any given point.

So, the figure on the left is for every hour from 2006 to 2016. And the figure on the right is for the same time period, but during the time of complaint only. So, we can see looking at the figure on the right that a large percentage of the complaints occur when the winds are out of the north which makes sense considering a bulk of the complaints are from the residential area south of the landfill. Most of the complaints that have been logged are downwind of the sources. That makes sense. Advection by the prevailing wind direction is the most common transport mechanism for odors and pollutants in the atmosphere. However, we can also see that winds were out of the south about ten percent of the time during complaints. And there are no residential areas or concentrated areas of complaints north of the potential odor sources to speak of.

So, odor plumes can also be affected by two other mechanisms, turbulent eddies and temperature inversions. So, turbulent eddies are created from air flowing over and interacting with the earth’s surface. This hills, buildings, solar heating. All of these things take part in creating the turbulence. They evolve equally in all directions and can carry with them enough energy to transport odors upwind from the source.

A temperature inversion is when the air temperature is increasing with height instead of decreasing as one would expect when moving away from the ground. When this happens the air near the surface is trapped because the air above it is warmer and less dense, creating almost a stagnant layer in the atmosphere. So, any odor that was being emitted from a source in this layer would accumulate as that inversion is still intact. So, that leads to high concentrations in areas around and not necessarily downwind of the source. This occurs often in the mornings and leads to an increase in morning odor complaints as I’ll discuss a little bit later.

[2015-2016 Monthly Complaints and Precipitation Totals slide]
Okay. So, let’s go back to the other factors contributing to the December 2015 spike in complaints. And also we’ll look at a May-June 2016 spike. So, this figure shows precipitation by month in red, average climatological rainfall in blue and complaint history in green. And then at the bottom you’ll see a timeline of some significant events.
So, this December 2015 spike can also in part be attributed to sludge clean out and land application by Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, which August-December of 2015. As we’ve already talked about meteorological information, along with location of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the land application area has allowed us to tie several complaints to this activity. In addition to the Wastewater Treatment Plant being a potential contributor to the December 2015 spike, it is also believed that increased production of landfill gas in the active cell may have been a contributing factor. The shape and topographic position of the current cell and active face is significant in that there is greater potential for rainwater to infiltrate and remain in that area. And this is exacerbated by the uncharacteristically high rainfall that you can see on this graph during 2015 and 2016. In fact, cumulatively --

MAYOR DISTLER: I have a question.

MS. JAMES: Sure.

MAYOR DISTLER: Now, if I’m looking at this right the complaints were highest in December, January and February?

MS. JAMES: Yes.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The rain is not that high though during those months.

MS. JAMES: There’s a little bit of a lag usually. So, you’ll see high precipitation and then you’ll see the complaint data follow.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Yeah. Because we kept being told that it was the heavy rainfall during the summer months that was causing the odor. But it’s the winter months where there’s not much rain where we have all the odor complaints.

MS. JAMES: Well, and you still do have, I mean, if you’re looking at -- is it -- like November is still higher than average. December was still higher than climatological average. January and February was a little bit low. But --

MAYOR DISTLER: But compared to May.

MS. JAMES: Yes. And I think that what we’re looking at, too, is based on what we’ve looked at so far, which is not site specific analytical data, this spike that we’re seeing in December-January, I mean, one, I think it’s wastewater treatment plant clean out. A lot of those complaints were attributed to landfill that I don’t believe actually are.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, then that makes sense.

MS. JAMES: And also what you have going on is -- so the current position of their active cell is kind of like down in a bowl, like a cereal bowl. So, when you get precipitation on top of that you have waste decomposition happening faster which causes landfill gas production to happen faster. So, because of all of those things happening Waste Management proactively put in the gas collection and control system on the active face. Andy you can kind of see, so that flare went online I believe it was January 30th. So, you can see after January-February we have a major drop-off kind of looking January, February, March, April. And April is a very low complaint month. So, we’re thinking that that was possibly more related to both wastewater treatment and the landfill gas.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.

MS. JAMES: But in April and May, you can see we had another spike, an increase in odor complaints. And we’re thinking that the main offender here may be the compost. So, we didn’t necessarily see any issues when we visited the site, but information reviewed and provided by other suggested that there was a large stockpile that accumulated during the wet weather. Also I understand there were collection delays during that time. So, not to mention you probably have residents that are bagging up grass clippings before their collection day, so this kind of has a synergistic effect in that you have bags of yard waste sitting, which leads to the start of anaerobic decay. Given that you’re talking about the May-June timeline, the yard waste is primarily going to be grass clippings or greens as opposed to fall leaves, which are especially susceptible to putrefaction and odor. So, when the bags arrive at the landfill and are broken open the odors magnify due to the backlog and quantity and the early start or anaerobic decay before it even has gotten to the landfill.

So, next I want to talk a little bit about the active face. So, that higher than average precipitation also impacts the current cell and active face with wet waste material and the increase degradation causing odors as well as the increased landfill gas production that we just talked about. Also we observed multiple sludge loads from wastewater treatment plant operations were received at the active face during our site inspection. These sludge loads were observed to be highly odorous and persistent in the air. So, odors associated with the sludge loads could be detected from the active face and surrounding landfill areas. And according to Waste Management, sludge loads are mixed with municipal solid waste and covered as soon as practical.

The active face was observed to be well maintained. The area of waste placement was surrounded by berms to help with the precipitation, and was smaller than two acres in size as required by the facility’s permit. Although we did not observe this during our site inspection, cover has been reportedly also been applied at an increased frequency and over an increased area than required by the permit to help with odor mitigation.

So, just so you know, the approved practices for cover at this facility include six inches of soil shale, reusable tarp or compost, all of which are currently being used at Johnson County. Waste Management has also implemented the use of geotextile cover tarps which they started on July 25th for the evening hours and emergency situations such as wet weather to also help with that increased precipitation.

[Complaints by time of day 2006-2016 slide]
One other thing I want to talk about is because Johnson County operates 24 hours a day there is what I previously talked about, the atmospheric inversion to consider. So, from sunset until mid-morning the surface loses heat at a faster rate than the air above it. And cooler air gets trapped near the surface. When the air temperature increases with height in this manner the atmosphere is considered stable and vertical mixing no longer occurs. So, this inversion leads to higher odor concentrations near the surface along with an associated surge in odor complaints in the morning hours as you can see from this figure which shows complaint by time of day. And this is all complaints, not just landfill related complaints. This atmospheric condition coupled with the low topographic position that we talked about of the current cell and odorous loads that are received overnight, reportedly restaurant waste is one of the offenders there. And peel back of the active face in the morning may be contributing to the spike of morning odor complaints when you get the atmosphere moving again in the morning.

[Phase II Recommendations and Next Steps slide]
So, we’ve identified a number of on-site and off-site sources. Further evaluation including source specific sampling would allow us to determine which source or sources are contributing and to what extent and under what atmospheric conditions. We can also do compound specific analytical data from the various sources. And this compound specific information would allow us to identify the major odor offending compounds being produced as compared to their odor thresholds. So, if we know the specific compounds and their qualities we can better target these compounds for neutralization, deodorization or other best management practices. For example, how persistent in the environment is the compound, how far might it travel and what are the best ways to neutralize it.

So, Mike and I would be glad to answer any questions you might have.

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

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I just had one question on one of the earlier slides that was showing the distribution of complaints over a ten-year period. And it was all those dots.

MS. JAMES: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And it looked like there was three years that were significantly more than others. That was 2006, 2011 and 2016, and that’s not a scientific analysis. That’s just an eyeball calibration looking at your chart here. They seemed to be the years where you had the most dots of certain colors.

MS. JAMES: Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I just wonder if there was any kind of analysis done to determine if there was any correlation of certain causes in those specific years? Like were those all years of greater rainfall or they were, you know, is there any kind of information that came out of that would maybe point a finger at perhaps a cause or effect?

MS. JAMES: Well, one thing that we’ve had a little bit of difficult with is because 2016 data includes the SeeClickFix information, we do think that that is contributing. More people, it’s easier to -- certainly easier to lodge a complaint.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Sure.

MS. JAMES: That makes it really hard for us to compare that data to earlier data. And we’re thinking now that we have that update that was done in September to get site specific odor data. We’re thinking that that will help us kind of make a little bit better comparison between the data we have now and the older data.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And that’s great. I grant that. But I mean those three years do seem to stand out a little more than the others.

MS. JAMES: Definitely.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just wondering if you all might want to take a look like that and say, hmm, interesting. Why were these three years more significant because they didn’t have SeeClickFix in those earlier years.

MS. JAMES: Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And you’ve still got a lot more dots in the red and the green and the purple it seemed like.

MS. JAMES: Well, ‘15, ‘16, I would say definitely is precipitation based on our meteorological analysis. It’s far, far higher. Like I said, 2015, I think was the 18th highest year on record for precipitation. So, you know, if you mix that with the SeeClickFix and also the position of the current cell that the landfill is in, I think that accounts for a lot of it. I’m not sure about 2006. I’d have to go back and look at that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions from the Council? Mr. Vaught and then Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, when you talk about an increase in complaints because of things like SeeClickFix, so do we have a breakdown of where the complaints came from per year? So, in other words, obviously we have more complaints from other sources, but do we know how many complaints were called into staff which has always been available in those years versus other years? Did we do a comparison of how many complaints from this source, how many complaints from this source? And let’s take out the new ones because if the rising calls to staff are significantly higher, then obviously there’s an odor problem and it’s not just an easier way to complain, right?

MS. JAMES: Well, we certainly could take a look at that. I do think some people that previously would have called have downloaded the app and are now --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But I still think we had a dramatic increase in calls. I now that because I was talking to staff and they were getting inundated with calls. So, I think it’s only fair if we’re going to say that -- you know what troubles me on this a little bit is, I mean I think we ordered this report. I’m kind of going to go out on a limb because I think we ordered this report. And I feel like it’s being presented in a way to justify the odor from the landfill and almost point a finger at wastewater saying, well, that could very well be it, too. We really need to look at that. I’m going it could be, but you made a comment, and I key in on words you said and you said that the wastewater was doing a sludge removal during a period. And so there was odor there, there and there and then you talk about something at the landfill. Well, that may have also -- that may have been a contributing factor to odor as the landfill may have been during that time when we were getting inundated with calls. Not it was, but it may have been, which that choice of words tells me that, well, let’s push this blame off onto somebody else. You know, it wasn’t may have been. It was obviously the landfill smelled. We all know it. I’ve lived out there since 2004 and there’s people that have lived there a lot longer than me that have said that in the entire time they’ve ever been there they have never experienced a period where it’s that bad a landfill smell. And let’s face it, the wastewater clean-up was only a short period of time. The landfill odor dragged on for a while. So, I understand we’re trying to figure out where all these different odors come from. And I agree they can come from different sources. I know I can smell the difference between rancid trash and wastewater. And I know what the one in KCK smells like because it’s very sulfuric, which Johnson County isn’t. But it does carry an odor in itself. But when I would play volleyball and the smell would roll off the top of the hill. It wasn’t wastewater smell that smelled, it was trash at the time. I just want to make sure that we’re not pushing this in a direction to try and say that, well, you know, this is wastewater, this or this and this. And obviously Waste Management knew there was a problem because they spent, you know, however many millions of dollars putting in a gas collection system. And it seems to be working. The smells are way down. But I can tell you that I came, you know, I was traveling last weekend. It was a week ago Sunday and came home from the airport at ten o’clock and my wife has a very low threshold for smell. She just about puked in the car driving on Holliday Drive. It was that bad. I mean, it was literally -- you didn’t want to breathe. So, to say that it’s, you know, I agree those things are working. I know there’s inversions. But I can say that from the frequency of these events has increased and they still are and it’s better than what it was. But like I said, I’ve been here since 2004 and I haven’t dealt with this.

MS. JAMES: Well, and it is important to note that this was a desktop study. So, we really do need to do some field monitoring so we can see which sources are the most significant. We don’t know right now because what we’ve done so far is just the desktop review. It could be wastewater treatment plant compost, active face. We just know that all are potential issues at this point. And if we can determine the extent we can better target mitigation efforts and best management practices. But it’s very hard for me to say at this point without some site specific and analytical data which source is the worst even when you’re talking about on-site sources. I can’t tell you if it’s necessarily the active face being the largest contributor at this point or a compost. But I could if we do some site specific monitoring or could better.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. And as a follow-up to Councilmember Vaught. So, as I understood this, this is basically just an assessment of the landscape in terms of all the factors that may be contributing, so there is no causal relationship established yet because the in-fill work hasn’t been done, correct?

MS. JAMES: Well, we’re able to do some based on meteorological evaluation. But we definitely need to do a little bit more.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Right. And is it your assessment that Phase II will also include like extent that all of these various facilities and factors may be contributing? Because I think that’s what’s really key for us to move forward is establish to what degree each of these is contributing?

MS. JAMES: Yes. Yes. It would. And especially when you have compound specific data you can answer that question. So, I’ll just give you an example. So, a lot of times hydrogen sulfide is associated with landfill gas whereas ammonia may be associated with compost. So, ammonia doesn’t last very long in the atmosphere. It’s not real persistent or pervasive. But it’s obviously very noticeable. Doesn’t travel very far. So, if we know that we’re detecting ammonia and we know that’s associated with the compost we can do something like balancing the pH of a compost pile to get the ammonia levels down. But we don’t know that unless we know that the compost pile is emitting ammonia. Whereas, hydrogen sulfide related to landfill gas, that’s the rotten egg kind of smell that you get, that is heavier, moves farther and tends to be a little more long-lasting. So, once we know what compounds we’re dealing with we can target how to deal with them by mitigation and best management practices.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. And will Phase II also encompass all four seasons as well?

MS. JAMES: Yes. Definitely. You do need the component of seasonality.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And will those findings also be normalized to account for deviations and anomalies that occur season to season? For example, this last winter was a relatively mild winter, past spring of 2015 was a very wet spring. This past summer was wetter than average. So, we’ve had, you know, just, I mean, year to year, season to season, you know, we’ve had some anomalies. So, I assume that’ll be taken into account so that we can have --

MS. JAMES: Yeah. Meteorological information will definitely be tied to all of this that we’re looking at.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just wanted to tell you I think you did a great job on this report and on your study so far. And I know you’re just getting started.

MS. JAMES: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, thank you guys.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll agree with Mr. Pflumm. I think this is a fantastic study. I think we’re off to a good start. I think it looks good.

MS. JAMES: Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I concur. I’m glad to get some data. And I don’t think there’s any kind of hidden agendas or motives going on here. I kind of found that objectionable to hear that. I didn’t like that at all. I think you are doing a good job. I look forward to seeing Phase II of this study. And as we progress here and get some information because information really facilitates good decision-making. So, thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you very much.

MS. JAMES: Thanks.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Chaffee.

MR. CHAFFEE: So, to continue on a little on the Special Use Permit Review by the Planning Commission. They began their review in February and then Waste Management was in the process of installing an additional gas collection system as approved by KDHE, so they tabled their discussion for three months to get it up and going before they considered any more modifications that they would recommend.

So, the Planning Commission recommended some modifications to the SUP regarding yard waste and debris and the composting piles not be worked on Saturdays and Sundays between March 1st and September 30th. And that was to help alleviate any odors that might go on down at the softball fields and the volleyball court knowing that composting had been a problem.

We had received last year quite a few litter control or litter complaints. So, Planning Commission recommended that we add a condition regarding a litter control plan where they record the complaints, investigations and how often their employees are out cleaning I-435 between Shawnee Mission Parkway and Holliday Drive and do want to let you know that those complaints have virtually gone away since they started doing that.

Also we had had several complaints regarding dust control measures along Holliday Drive at the entrance of the landfill. Since that time Deffenbaugh has increased their dust control measures and we just don’t get those types of complaints anymore. But as a condition of approval it’s good to be in there just to remind everybody over the next years that that is something that needs to get under control.

And then Planning Commission recommended implementation of the gas collection system wells and flares. And those are on and came on in late February after the Planning Commission held their first review. And then require an advance system installation and future cells. So, the potential for the issue that arose in the fall of 2015 may be diminished.

They also established a condition for an odor control plan, to monitor, investigate and respond to and document odor complaints, which Deffenbaugh has been doing. But I think the information that comes from Phase II and Phase III odor study certainly can enhance that odor plan. And then just put in writing that they’ll provide us advance notice of any activities that may temporarily increase odors. It’s sort of been a practice over the years, but now we have it written down. And it certainly helps us if we need to get something out on our website to let residents know that there is something a little more unusual going on at the landfill this week than normal, we can get that word out.

As a result of the Phase I study, there are some additional SUP modifications that staff recommends to the conditions of approval.

And the Planning Commission recommended a nine-month extension. And you’ll recall that was back in May that they made that recommendation. So, the nine months would have taken them to the February. But with the recommendation to do Phase II and Phase III, we recommend a review period of in one year.

There have been some actions that are taken that we think are significant. We wanted to let everyone know Waste Management has addressed the litter concerns and they’ve implemented sweeping for on-site roads and entrances. A new larger tub grinder has been leased to process the feed stock, which is yard waste, quicker and more efficiently. The yard waste is placed into windrows immediately. The active face at no time exceeds two acres permitted by KDHE. The active face is being reduced to one acre in the evening. The approved KDHE alternate cover such as tarps are placed over portions of the active area during the evening to reduce odors. Berms have been constructed above the active area of the landfill to limit stormwater run-on. The SeeClickFix application has been modified as Lindsay noted and we are asking more for descriptions. But it’s just interesting to note that descriptions are always landfill odor. Well, 99 percent of the time landfill odor. But it does enable us in some situations to know that it’s not coming from the landfill but another source. And we do get complaints sometimes on restaurant grease traps that are malfunctioning giving off an odor or septic systems that are failing that are giving off an odor. So, that helps in that respect.

Waste Management and Aria, who operates the methane gas plant have met regarding planned improvements in well field management. And discussions have been held by Deffenbaugh with wastewater treatment facility operators regarding the addition of additives or reducing moisture and sludge.

Other actions are the increased application of daily cover. Changes to the composting facility standard operation plan related to composting operations have been submitted to KDHE for their review. The SOP is being updated to reflect actual odor control activities and compost is being handled differently. And in that respect it’s being put into windrows at a quicker rate. Also, they’re relocating a portable odor neutralizing system to a location just south of the active area, with the goal of neutralizing odors when the wind is out of the NNE. And we understood that one of the portable systems was needing repair and so it is being -- that’s been taken care of at this point.

Phase II. Some items that will be undertaken will include the City contacting clients that bring sludge to the landfill to discuss requiring the use of additives at their site prior to placing the sludge just to give them a heads up that we’re looking at alternate means that can neutralize that odor at their site before it comes to landfill for disposal. A review of the effect of the removal of the tarps from the working face of the landfill at 7:00 a.m. related to temperature inversions. What effect does it have when the odors have been trapped under the tarp? And then all of a sudden at seven o’clock the tarp comes up and we have the temperature inversion, just what effect that may have. Explore alternate on-site or off-site location for the composting operation and possibly repealing the yard waste ban. And review and discuss on-site inspections by the City or others appointed by the City.

The recommendation of staff is to continue with Phase II and Phase III of the odor study. We’re still receiving complaints. One thing we have noticed is they tend to come in in groups. We may have six or seven complaints on a specific day and then nothing for a while. And in June, there were three or four days where we had significant complaints on those days, and then nothing for a while.

Today was not a good day out there. Had a number of complaints today. And take a look at the seasonal cycles of landfill odor.

And then extend the Special Use Permit for a period of a year subject to the revised conditions.

And the Governing Body can approve the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and the additional conditions that staff has recommended with six votes without having to send it back to the Planning Commission. That concludes my presentation.

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

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I just had a question in general. One of the big issues that I know that surfaced in one of the previous discussions on this topic was that we went to the Johnson County KDHE, the landfill operation did saying, hey, can we get some kind of relief from this requirement that we can’t put some of the yard waste into the landfill and it would actually facilitate, you know, the decomposition and so on in the landfill. And they were denied that by the Johnson County folks out here. Have we made any efforts whatsoever as a city to address that issue with Johnson County and say, hey, guys, why can’t we get on board with this or at least have some sort of perhaps waiver process for when you’re having unusual periods of meteorological difficulty or something like that? I mean, this cookie cutter approach they’re using on us, guess what, Johnson County, we live here. How about you guys kind of getting on board with us. We’re one of your communities, one of your larger communities. So, I’d like to see some of us pursue something in that direction.

MR. CHAFFEE: Staff has had those discussions in our meetings that we’ve had as a group. And I think some of the reason Johnson County has not recommended any modifications is there was concern as to how the compost was being ground and how it was being stored and that perhaps if it were being done in a correct manner that the odors coming from the compost were not as great or the compost that was being taken down as daily cover wasn’t as green as it was. The state, however, KDHE does allow the use of compost as some alternate daily covers. So, the state will permit it. And I think we’re working with the county. Or Deffenbaugh is working with the county to make it more feasible.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think that would not be -- that’s not a fix, but that might be something that goes toward a fix.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And if they’re still bureaucratically haggling around about that I’d like to put the heat on them to say, hey, guys, tell me what criteria you want to establish in order to accommodate this. You want to ground up in minuscule particles or what is it you guys think you’ve got to do in order to get us some relief from this because our folks are getting tired of smelling it and that would go a long ways toward helping out.

MR. CHAFFEE: And I think that Waste Management has had some of those discussions.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes, they have.

MR. CHAFFEE: And that’s one reason they bought the larger grinder that grinds it more finely and can get it run through the system a lot quicker than it was before so it doesn’t stockpile.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. But I’m trying to pin it down, Paul. I’m trying to pin that down and say, okay, guys, give us your criteria. You know, what is the sticking point here? Outline it for us. Lay it out on a sheet of paper here and tell us what do you want us to do or what do you want Waste Management to do in order to be able to facilitate this operation. And at least you have some target which you could work toward --

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- you know, instead of this nebulous, see, I don’t know, guys, I really don’t like it kind of thing. That’s hard to work with. And you sort of get your head around that. So, if we can get some kind of firm commitment on the part of the Johnson County folks saying, okay, we’ll work with you guys. Here is what we expect of you in order to meet our requirements. Give us some requirements there.

MR. CHAFFEE: And I think they’re moving toward that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that would be very helpful.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Just a question on your slide right there, Paul. You say six votes is required to approve it. Normally it would be five votes to approve it, six votes to overturn.

MR. CHAFFEE: Or six votes to amend the conditions of approval. Which the additional conditions presented by staff based on the odor study --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. So, that’s what you’re saying.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, if we add your comments, then it’s going to take six votes.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes. Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Obviously from the conversation here this evening we’ve got a problem. Everybody is aware of it. I believe everybody is doing -- making an honest effort to go and try and solve it as Eric suggested. You know, when we get more information, when you get good information, you make good decisions. So, this didn’t happen overnight. It’s not going to get fixed overnight, but it is getting better and we’re having some explanations. So, I appreciate what Deffenbaugh has done and the study. I’m sorry, Waste Management. And everybody and certainly staff in trying to sort this out. And I know the people out in Ward III and the south of the landfill appreciate it as well. So, let’s keep up the good work and get this solved.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Just a couple things I want to touch on. Something that Eric said and expand on it a little bit. And I’m frustrated with the county on this as well because I do think it’s causing a problem. You know, what I’d love to see is the county spend some money on how many units of energy do we use to prevent methane gas to come out of the landfill. You know, every week you run into another trash truck to pick up yard waste. Then you’ve got a bigger tub grinder to grind that up. I mean, all that’s burning energy. It’s pumping stuff into the atmosphere. All for the idea that, well, we don’t want methane gas, an increase in methane gas. And then, you know, these aren’t county roads they’re driving, they’re city roads. So, these trucks are tearing up our roads, more chance of things happening to pick up yard waste. And, while, you know, we’re doing it here, you know, on the other side of the river all their yard waste is coming into the landfill. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s crazy. And, you know, I’ve talked to commissioners about it. I mean, I think, you know, the landfill is in our city and it all comes to us, so maybe we start getting a little more vigilant about this saying, wait, what are we doing here because it is kind of crazy.

Additives added to the sludge, and I talked a little bit with Deffenbaugh representatives about this. And I would like to get some more information on that by the time this comes back around again. I’m not sure it’s something Deffenbaugh can require or wants to, but, you know, I sat there and put a lot of thought into that. And my attitude is from my understanding the reason we’re getting more sludge is because of clean air requirements of the current administration in Washington, now you can’t burn it as much. So, if you’re not able to burn as much sludge, therefore, you’ve got to put it into the ground, except that it all comes to our back door. So, if it’s going to come to our back door, then I think the City could also look at making a requirement that says any sludge that comes into our city has to have an odor additive required or added to it. And we just make it a city policy or whatever we call it and say, I’m sorry, but we’re not going to let it come through our city without an additive. Because it doesn’t just smell when it gets to the landfill, it smells on the truck all the way here. And the decimation plant in Shawnee. All trucks come to Shawnee. So, I think that’s something we can look at say this is the Shawnee requirement, they’ve got to do it. But that is why we’re getting more sludge in case everybody didn’t know that. It’s my understanding is they can’t burn as much, so now they’re bringing it here. But we’re the ones then that deal with the odor.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right. And that’s why under Phase II as one of our comments is that for us to start contacting those sludge providers to let them know that we’re concerned and this may be something we want to do. Also there is a newer technology that’s recently been developed that more or less dries the sludge more on site so it’s more of a powdery substance when it gets to the landfill and not as watery and odoriferous. And so we’ll be visiting with them on that, too. It’s relatively new and we’re trying to get a hold of what those costs really may be, so when we visit with the providers we have some information that we could provide to them on how much it may cost you to add these types of technologies at your location.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I just want to finish, too. I mean, it’s, you know, I don’t want to be confrontational with Waste Management, and that’s not my goal. Obviously we have, you know, we have a problem that’s escalated above what it has in years past. And it’s the goal of everybody here to work it out. The landfill is here to stay. We all know that. But, you know, at the same time we all need to play nice with each other. And, you know, most of the people around it they understand that, you know, I bought a home close to the landfill or I drive by a landfill. And we have those expectations. But what the concern is when those -- when the conditions dramatically change from what they bought into. And I’ve talked about that many times in the past, you know, with neighborhoods. If you buy into something, you expect it to at least maintain. You don’t want to buy into an idea or an environment and then have it deteriorate beyond your expectations because it kind of just doesn’t work out too well for you. So, that’s my big thing. You know, at the end of the day we don’t want the odor nor do I expect it to go away completely. But at the same time we have people out there that, you know, their homes are and their quality of life and their home values are affected by it and that’s what we need to be diligent about.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, please.

Public Comment:

MR. OLSON: Good evening. I’m Mike Olson. I’m the Mayor of Lake Quivira, Kansas. Really want to reach out and thank the Mayor’s office, the City Manager’s office and the Council of Shawnee of addressing this issue. I was here in June and raised some complaints. And also I want to reach out to Waste Management. They have been responsive. Were had a great dialogue, but we still have problems. I mean, we all know that. I’m a little frustrated with this because I thought we would get some answers. I already knew all this. Okay. I mean it smells. We know there are sources there. We’d like to see some answers. We’d like to see things move along. It was bad in June. It got better for a couple months. Last Saturday, as pointed out was awful. I got home on a ten o’clock flight. Drove back, turned my phone on. It was blowing up with text messages complaining about the odors. Today something was going on. It was horrible. What discussions have you all had with the wastewater plant or the waste treatment plants? Has there been -- do you have a line of communication with them? Because I can call Deffenbaugh and get a response. I don’t know who to contact with the wastewater plant. And if that’s an issue, you know, I want to go after who is causing the issue. And I don’t want to falsely accuse them if it’s somebody else. But we’ve had some -- just the last Saturday and today were just rough. And it’s been a while. So, I don’t know what’s going on, but we’d like to pursue that. And it’s been great to have your support. I think, you know, to your point, Councilman Vaught. I’ve lived here my whole life. I’ve lived at Lake Quivira my whole life. We never noticed the smell of the dump, I mean, or any significant odors. I mean they were rare, rare, rare occasions where it would flare up. In the last three or four years it’s been worse and worse and worse. And it is affecting our quality of life. And it’s something that has to stop. I’ve gently reached out to Johnson County as we discussed, Mayor, about the idea of commingling the waste. If that is a solution that’s something we need to look at. We don’t even have curbside recycling at Lake Quivira yet we smell everybody’s organic waste that gets dumped in there. If it’s a matter of commingling it, I understand every other county in the state of Kansas is allowed to commingle the yard waste, but we’re not in Johnson County. That seems like a pretty simple thing. Hey, we all want what’s best for the environment. We want what’s best for the community. But we live here. You know, everybody else’s trash from all over the region comes to this area. We know it’s there. It’s not going away. But we have to take a stand and really keep pushing on this thing and to get some resolutions. Whether it’s Waste Management, whether it’s the wastewater plant, we need the things figured out sooner rather than later. And I appreciate what went into this study. I would just like to see some answers and a plan of action sooner than a phase and a phase and a phase. I don’t have that long. So, thank you all for your hard work and thanks to Waste Management for listening to us.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Anyone else from the audience have any comments? Seeing none.

There are two recommended actions. The first is to consider approving the conditions approved by the Planning Commission as modified for SUP-13-08-10, a special use permit issued to Deffenbaugh Industries for a period of one year. I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to the approve the conditions approved by the Planning Commission as modified for SUP-13-08-10, a special use permit issued to Deffenbaugh Industries, for a period of one year. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider authorizing the City Manager to continue the engagement with Blackstone Environmental to allow for Task 2 and 3 of the odor study.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig authorizing the City Manager to continue the engagement with Blackstone Environmental to allow for Task 2 and 3 of the odor study. The motion passed 8-0.]

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I just wanted to comment that throughout the next year, I don’t want anyone to think we aren’t going to do anything more for a whole year but study it. Because absolutely as problems are identified or solutions are identified, Waste Management I know will act on those sooner. It is not going to require coming back to the Council to take further action. We’ve developed a very good team and open communication as Lake Quivira has. And we appreciate Waste Management’s cooperation. And I have no doubt that if we all of a sudden find the cause, which we all would hope for, I know they will act sooner than -- within, you know, a whole year from now. So, I want to be clear that we are not quitting this work. We are continuing on.

G. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016.

1. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SUP-05-16-09, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR YESSICA CONTRERAS TO OPERATE BIG SMILE DAY CARE, LLC, AN IN-HOME DAYCARE FOR UP TO 12 CHILDREN IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 11943 W. 66TH STREET.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is G. Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of September 7, 2016. Item No. 1 is to Consider Approval of SUP-05-16-09, a Special Use Permit for Yessica Contreras to Operate Big Smile Day Care, LLC, an In-Home Daycare for up to 12 Children in the Planned Development Zoning District Located at 11943 W. 66th Street.

The Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the Governing Body approve the permit subject to the condition in the staff report. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to approve SUP-05-16-09, a Special Use Permit for Yessica Contreras to Operate Big Smile Day Care, LLC, an In-Home Daycare for up to 12 Children in the Planned Development Zoning District Located at 11943 W. 66th Street. The motion passed 8-0.]

H. STAFF ITEMS

1. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AND A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE STORMWATER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND A NEW FIRE STATION.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Staff Items. Item No. 1 is to Consider Approval of Final Plans and a Resolution and an Ordinance for the Acquisition of Private Property Related to the Clear Creek Parkway Improvement Project, P.N. 3413.

This project is on the City's Capital Improvement Program to begin construction in 2016. Final plans are complete and staff has identified easements that are needed in order to construct the project. A Resolution and Ordinance are required to begin the condemnation process while continuing to work to obtain any outstanding easements. Staff is also requesting approval of the final plans and authorization to proceed with bidding the project.

The first recommended action is to consider approving final plans and authorizing staff to proceed with bidding. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve final plans and authorize staff to proceed with bidding the Clear Creek Parkway Improvement Project, P.N. 3413. The motion passed 8-0.]

MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to adopt a Resolution declaring it necessary to acquire private property for the use of the City for the Clear Creek Parkway Improvements.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to adopt a Resolution to approve certain public improvements. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Having passed, Resolution No. 1789 was assigned.)

MAYOR DISTLER: The final recommended action is to pass an Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of easements for the five tracts of private property identified in the Easement Acquisition Summary Table for the Clear Creek Parkway Improvements.

Does anyone the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass an Ordinance authorizing and approving certain public improvements. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Having passed, Ordinance No. 3166 was assigned.)

2. CONSIDER BIDS AN APPROVE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT FOR A SIGN TRUCK.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 2 is to Consider Bids and Approve Purchase of Equipment for a Sign Truck.

The Public Works Department has replaced a 2001 F-550 Sign Truck. Three bids were received for the equipment and staff is recommending American Equipment in the amount of $40,482. The total cost for the vehicle and the replacement equipment is $73,626.

The recommended action is to consider approving the purchase of the equipment. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the purchase of equipment from American Equipment in the amount of $73,626. The motion passed 8-0.]

3. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 12 OF THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL CODE, RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT, RELATED TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 3 is to consider an Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Title 12 of the Shawnee Municipal Code, Right-of-way Management, Related to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and Infrastructure Within the City.

The Legislature passed HB 2131 in 2016 that creates a statutory right for wireless carriers and infrastructure providers to place poles and towers in the right-of-way. Staff is proposing an Ordinance to revise various sections of Title 12 of the Shawnee Municipal Code to establish procedures for how these facilities will be regulated to best protect public, health, safety and welfare. An Ordinance is required.

Matthew Schmitz, Management Analyst is going to make a brief presentation.

MR. SCHMITZ: Should I introduce myself again? I will anyway. Matthew Schmitz, Management Analyst, Development Services. So, we have a quick presentation to go through here about these revisions and why we put these in place.
Shawnee Municipal Code 12.06
Proposed Amendments

[Background slide]
The background of the bill. The Mayor already talked about the legislature passed this. It becomes effective October 1st and modifies what authority we have over placement of wireless facilities, specifically within the right-of-way.

[Revisions slide]
So, the main points of the bill, it defines what a small cell facility is. Essentially a small cell facility is any facility that’s 120-feet or less used in the right-of-way for telecommunications providers. There is an actual definition in the bill. I don’t believe I have it in front of me at the moment. But I can get that for you if you’re interested in it.

It includes provisions that would prohibit interference with other public facilities as far as traffic signals and controllers. Those small cell facilities are subject to our technical specifications and design criteria.

Some of the other revisions that we’ve put in there. We’ve added one for requiring buried facilities when other utilities are required to relocate underground. So, this would be -- an example would be if a line is required to move underground and some of those facilities are owned by another provider other than that utility that we required to move underground. That provider would also be required to move. It’s essentially to try to make it so that -- and try to clean that up a little bit so that if one line has to be moved underground everything that’s on that stretch has to go underground with it.

And then the private developer is required to pay for relocation. That’s really the small cell facility. If a small cell facility has to be moved, as part of a private development that’s been placed in the right-of-way that developer would have to pay to have that moved the same as it is for other users of the right-of-way.

We’ve added permit requirements for small cells and we’ve added provisions to protect our infrastructure within the right-of-way.

[Major Impacts of the Legislation slide]
The major impacts of this legislation, it does create the potential for towers of up to 120 feet to be installed in the city right-of-way in any location in the city. That includes residential areas. The proposed revisions that we’ve put in place would limit the site to 60 --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Could I stop you right there?

MR. SCHMITZ: Go ahead.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, could you explain that a little bit more? So, they could be a 120-foot tower in without getting any approval from the City of Shawnee? Zero approval?

MR. SCHMITZ: There would be a permitting process for that, yes, and we would review it. But we could not deny it based solely on the location.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, your front yard.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We could look up and see [inaudible; talking off mic].

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, what do you mean your front yard? I mean, if I wanted to put one in my front yard, they’re not putting one --

MAYOR DISTLER: No. If they wanted to put one in your front yard we couldn’t deny it because of location?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Because it’s in the public right-of-way in my front yard, the easement, the utility easement?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s our legislature. Read about it. It’s been all over the news? They can go in your neighborhood, put a tower in your front yard in the right-of-way and you -- it didn’t specify right-of-way in open areas and -- anywhere. Anywhere there is right-of-way they could stick a tower.

MR. SCHMITZ: If I may I would clarify. This doesn’t affect utility easements. This only affects public right-of-way. Those are two separate things. But in front of your home basically the -- from the back of curb -- what we use as a rule of thumb is 11 feet from the back of the curb is right-of-way that’s owned by the City and that property is there for the public for utilities to utilize for services. So, within that 11 feet, yes, they could put a tower in there if that’s where they decided they wanted to put it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Would they be able to put electrical transmission lines in there?

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

MR. SCHMITZ: Electrical transmission lines would be allowed. Those would go through a different process. That’s not part of -- 2131 only addresses small cell facilities. It doesn’t address your high power electric lines and items like that.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because I was reading that information there in the proposed ordinance and it talked about high power transmission lines up to 120 feet, but we’re not going to let these go to 120 feet. I don’t know. It just --

MR. SCHMITZ: May I clarify?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just wonder about the topography we have here in Shawnee and the fact that sometimes maybe we would be in a situation where you would need 120 feet in order to get the necessary clearance to make it effective or whatever. Now, we don’t want it in people’s front yards obviously, but if they had to go in for the permit and they were in somebody’s front yard I think it would be pretty easy to say no.

MR. SCHMITZ: To the permit?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, yeah.

MR. SCHMITZ: By statutory -- the way statute is written --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They still need an SUP, don’t they?

MR. SCHMITZ: No.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, now we’re going to remove that requirement for these things. We’ve always had those.

MR. SCHMITZ: I’ll defer to Planning Director Chaffee on that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s confusing. It’s really confusing here. We should have discussed this, frankly, at a Council Committee meeting. That way we would have had a lot of this -- could have fleshed this out.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s correct. The state statute would override the zoning regulations. Currently you have a 60-foot tower like a ham radio operator tower and those are -- the FCC has their regulations that require it. So, right now in the city if you have a cell tower higher than 60 feet, then you need to get the special use permit. In this case, anything between 60 and 120 -- or not?

MR. SCHMITZ: I think our zoning authority is still -- our zoning authority still applies.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

MR. SCHMITZ: So, there would be some places where it’s not allowed. But there are some places in the city where a tower would be allowed on private property that it would also be allowed in the right-of-way.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that’s still a little vague. I can’t really pin that down and get my head wrapped around it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Can we get that information about where those places are?

MAYOR DISTLER: You want to know if it’s your address?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean I’m dead serious. I mean, here we are going to make a whole new ordinance and I mean we don’t even know what we’re talking about.

MR. SCHMITZ: Do you have those specific zoning? If I remember correctly, two zoning --

MR. CHAFFEE: RE and R-1.

MR. SCHMITZ: RE and R-1 are the two zoning districts that those apply to.

MR. CHAFFEE: That you can have a 60-foot tower [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, say that again.

MR. SCHMITZ: So, RE --

MR. CHAFFEE: Residential estates, residential suburban and R-1 single family residential.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You can have a 60-foot tower.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: They what? What about those?

MR. SCHMITZ: Those are the areas where you can have the 60-foot tower. Where a resident could have a 60-tower on their property.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But what this says is in that same zoning now some -- they could come along and put in a 120-foot tower?

MR. CHAFFEE: Basically. That’s a small cell.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: How is that? You mean an individual could do that?

MAYOR DISTLER: And that was Mr. Vaught speaking. And now Mr. Pflumm is speaking.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sorry.

MAYOR DISTLER: I just want -- just for the people that are listening trying to recognize --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right. Sorry.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.

MR. SCHMITZ: An individual would not. In order to use our right-of-way as we have set it up, they would have to have an agreement with the city in order to utilize our right-of-way. That’s part of the permit application process.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I’m trying to figure out from 11 feet off of the curb how do you get a 60-foot tower in there?

MR. SCHMITZ: So, a 120-foot tower has been explained to us. The 120-foot tower would require a base of approximately four feet in diameter. Now, the depth of that is roughly ten percent of the height of the tower plus two feet. So, roughly 14-feet deep. Four foot in diameter, four feet deep. If you’ve got 11-foot clear space there, there is definitely room that you could fit that in there.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Mr. Jenkins. Yeah. I just got a question.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And then the 100 --

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The other question would be don’t we still have fall zones and things like that? I mean there has to be some kind of safety zone around a tower like that?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean, that’s why we really should discuss this at a Council Committee meeting because [inaudible].

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We can certainly put it on the next committee if you’d like.

MR. SCHMITZ: We can certainly do that.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It would be really helpful.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We have got four items on that agenda already. So, we are just trying to best use your time.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Sure. And it would be helpful if we could flush it out and get the stuff together.

MR. SCHMITZ: And also part of the reason that we went ahead and put it on the meeting agenda for tonight is because this goes into effect the first of October.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah.

MR. SCHMITZ: What the state has done, the 2131 goes into effect the first of October. So, without these requirements in place, they could come in apply on the 3rd, which would be the first business day after the first of October and we could not deny it.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, if you’re wanting to limit them this is your opportunity to do so. Mr. Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: The question I have is you’re talking about a 120-foot tower in a -- you’re going to put it in a four-foot area. So, that tells me that it’s going to have to be a tower that’s going to come down into some type of a ballpoint and it’s going to be attached on cables.

MR. SCHMITZ: Not necessarily. This would be a monopole tower. So, it’s completely self-contained. It would have the concrete base is what would be four foot in diameter and it would extend into the ground roughly 14 feet. That part is what would actually be in the right-of-way. And then the tower, of course, would be bolted onto that and attached from there up.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, somebody could put in the right-of-way in your front yard?

MR. SCHMITZ: Theoretically as it’s written, yes.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And we can’t change that? What if we were to challenge the state? I mean, why not.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That worked real well on the tax lid.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Rainey.

MR. RAINEY: Can I? I just want to make sure we’re clear. This is only a modification to the right-of-way management provisions to limit these to a height of 60 feet. We’re not creating a new ordinance. We’re just modifying our right-of-way management provisions in order to address what we think is going to start happening. We know it’s going to start happening on October 1. And limit these to a height of 60 feet. The other thing that I don’t think has been very clear is that Lisa and Matthew have been working on this for -- how many months now?

MR. SCHMITZ: May.

MR. RAINEY: Since this legislation came about anyway. We knew it was coming. We knew this is where the legislature was heading. And they’ve been working with all of the metro area cities. We had a little committee group that was composed of a legal representative and a technical representative from all the area cities. These provisions mirror what everyone else is doing. It’s not going to be something unique.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Doesn’t the item that begs the question. Okay. We limit it to 60 feet. Then they could just put a 60-foot tower in my front yard. You know, I mean --

MR. SCHMITZ: We have, and that’s part of this slide.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know, the one sound good to me, so that’s the problem. You know, we’ve got to have some kind of management over what they stick in people front yards. You know, I mean that seems pretty basic.

MR. SCHMITZ: Yes. That’s part of this slide as well. We intend to bring provisions to our zoning ordinances that would limit the height of towers on arterial streets to 60 feet, collectors 40 and residentials to 20 feet.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t think anybody even wants a 20-foot tower in their front yard. I mean, so the whole thing sounds kind of crazy to me. That’s why we really need to go through this thing a little more carefully I think before we just --

MR. SCHMITZ: Unfortunately --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I understand we’re up -- but I really hate being put on a deadline like this, too. Like, oh, yeah, you’ve guys got to decide tonight because, wow, October is just around the corner here. Well, that’s unreasonable really. We should have had this information earlier and it should have been through a Council Committee meeting because this puts us in a real pickle here. Because I don’t like any kind of towers that can be placed anywhere if somebody wants to place them. That’s a real issue.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, what if we do want --

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.

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

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And then me.

MAYOR DISTLER: Then Mr. Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I agree with what Councilmember Jenkins said. I do think this is an issue, an example of legislative overreach. And, you know, we have limited room to maneuver. I think this is a pretty common sense modification. Obviously many other cities have already gone this route. And I would rather us be in control of this rather than the state be in control. These types of decisions are best made by cities and local communities. And also if there was an instance where we wanted or there was a good use case for a tower that was higher than 60 feet, we can make that exception when the time comes. But I would rather have that be the exception rather than be the norm. And here we’re setting the norm which I think is a prudent thing for us today.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Councilman Kenig, I can’t improve on that. That’s exactly right. It’s legislative overreach and this is a way for us to control our destiny. And obviously there are some other things to perhaps be considered going forward, but I think it’s important to do this now. And then perhaps at a committee meeting we can fine tune it as it fleshes itself out and we see what actually happens.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I agree with what Councilmember Kenig and Councilmember Neighbor have said. And I just wanted to clarify. If we were to look at this in a committee further down, we’re somewhat limited in how much we can object to this anyway, correct? We couldn’t outright ban this sort of the thing?

ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEHON: No. The bulk of the changes that are in the ordinance before you are to bring us in compliance with the state statute. There is very little that we could actually debate that you might want to change. So, it’s the city attempting to reach a balance between, yes, people want improved wireless and these are ways to do that, but also preserving as much zoning authority and control as we can take for ourselves within the right-of-way. So, this is an attempt to find that balance to put in the height restrictions in certain areas. But the bulk of what you see in the changes are not up for debate. We don’t have a choice. We just have that to bring us into compliance with the statute.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm and then Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean, Mr. Jenkins brought up a good point here in Shawnee. We have a lot of hills and we need taller towers. You know, so if we’re actually doing this for cell phones, then we need to have fewer towers that are taller. So, maybe we go to a special use permit or, you know, whatever we need to do. Just like we have today, you can’t put one up unless you get one now, right? Can’t put a 120-foot tower up right now unless you get a special use permit, is that correct?

MR. SCHMITZ: On private property that’s correct.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You can do a little research on the goal of this initiative because they don’t want taller towers. They want more shorter towers and they want them covered across neighborhoods. That’s the objective. And if you read about what the direction this is going is and that’s how this got passed. Wireless carries now and Internet and high speed wireless Internet, they want to pop towers up across neighborhoods so that everything goes wireless. And they don’t want to have to go to a city and get permission to do it. They just want to pop towers up other than getting the permit, but they don’t want to have to fight to get in the right-of-way. So, yeah, you could save a hundred -- they don’t want to put up 120-foot towers. They want to put up a whole lot of short towers so you can see them all over neighborhoods. My bigger concern on this is whether it’s valid or not, there is a certain percentage of population that honestly believes that electric magnetic waves are bad for your health. And whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. There’s studies that provide it is, studies that prove it isn’t. I always have to look at who is doing the study. And most of the ones that prove it isn’t you kind of wonder where the funding comes from. I would say then can we look at the ability to restrict anything based on electromagnetic output? Or can we make them -- why can’t we?

ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEHON: It’s no longer an issue that we can deny a permit for. That has been taken away from --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, they could pop out as much electromagnetic energy as possible.

ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEHON: Yes. That objection no longer holds weight in denying a permit.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Wow. And we’re the freest nation in the world. Really.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But you don’t want to challenge it.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I would just remind the body that we can always revisit this. But I think it’s incumbent to act now because this law goes into effect in five days. And again, any number of cases could come up that, you know, we would have no control over at that time. And I would also remind the Council that we operate on the timetable in many cases like this, according to the legislature, not a timetable we choose. It’s based on the laws they enact and when they enact those. And then also they’ve had a tendency as of late to enact laws that take place rather quickly with very little time to react or to prepare. So, that’s something that we’re dealing with as far as trying to fit this into some type of calendar. It makes it very difficult.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I would just also like to remind everybody that there’s an election coming up. And if this bothers you do the research on whether your representative or legislature voted for this and vote accordingly.

MAYOR DISTLER: Anyone in the audience that would like to speak -- oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I kind of agree with Eric. I think Mr. Rainey said you guys have been working on it since March or May and we’re just now getting it in late September. That’s --

MR. RAINEY: No. I want to make sure that I was clear on that. We knew that the legislation was coming. It did not get passed at that time.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MR. RAINEY: When that legislation was first introduced there were like two or three different bills going at the same time and the League had a committee. I sat through a couple of those phone calls that was monitoring. We had assigned groups to monitor the different legislative pieces. This one was the last one that was passed. And I think Overland Park just passed theirs.

MR. SCHMITZ: Yeah. Overland Park just passed their revisions last week I believe.

MR. RAINEY: So, this group of cities, Lenexa, Olathe, Overland Park, Merriam, Leawood, Olathe, we just finished our regulations. I said we. I wasn’t in the committee. These two were. We just finished the committee work, what --

MR. SCHMITZ: And part of the reason that it has taken as long as it has it because all of the cities have been looking at this together and we’re trying to make sure that when we implement something we’re implementing the same thing that other cities are doing as well. We’re trying to stand together on this. And that’s part of the reason it’s taken this long to get the revisions before you.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Well, this is a relatively new subject to me so I’m not sure if I fully understand. A majority of these changes are to become in compliance with the state law. The only area I can find where we’re differing is on the height of the towers. So, we’re not going to be able to prevent them from going in front yards, it’s just whether you’re going to get a -- what size one you’re going to get in your front yard. So, what I don’t get is Mr. Vaught saying they don’t want the tall ones. And we’re saying we’re going to bring in the tall ones, that’ll teach them. I don’t understand why we’re banning the tall ones if they don’t want the tall ones.

MR. SCHMITZ: There is a provider that has approached us who wants these tall towers in the right-of-way.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. That wants the 120-feet towers?

MR. SCHMITZ: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item?

MR. SCHMITZ: Do you want me to finish?

MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, yes. I’m sorry.

MR. SCHMITZ: I just want to clarify. Well, I can just sit down if you’d like. I do want to clarify that the exceptions that we put in there for the high voltage power lines and trunk line communication facilities and emergency situations, those are mirrors of an ordinance that we currently have on file from 1984 for poles within the right-of-way. These were things that we felt we should keep consistent with something that we’ve already got on the books. So, we copied that and made them consistent with this.

So, anyway, the zoning regulations, revisions to that will be necessary and will be -- we’re working, staff is working on those and we’ll be getting those to the Planning Commission soon for them to review and then eventually for the Council to review. And that’s it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Now, is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? See, you did such a great job I thought you were already done. You were so thorough.

MR. SCHMITZ: Probably could have been.

MAYOR DISTLER: I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

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

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

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, JENKINS, KEMMLING: No.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes with Mr. Pflumm, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Kemmling voting against.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to pass an Ordinance amending Title 12 of the Shawnee Municipal Code, Right-of-Way Management, related to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and Infrastructure within the City. The motion passed 5-3, with Councilmembers Pflumm, Jenkins and Kemmling voting no.]
(Having passed, Ordinance No. 3167 was assigned.)

I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR SEPTEMBER 26, 2016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,805,089.83.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Miscellaneous Items. Item No.1 is to Ratify Semi-Monthly Claim for September 26, 2016, in the Amount of $1,805,089.83.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to ratify the Semi-Monthly Claim for September 26, 2016, in the Amount of $1,805,089.83. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS

MAYOR DISTLER: Item No. 2 is Miscellaneous Council Items. I want to remind everyone that starting in October, our City Council meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 10, 2016, at 7:00 p.m.

Does anyone on the Council have an item they would like to discuss? Mr. Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: First of all, it sounds like they’re -- everybody had a real good time at the barbeque fest. And thank you for staff and Parks and Rec for putting that. I tried to find a parking place and it was virtually impossible. So, it seemed like it was well attended. Next Friday night Oktoberfest at the Civic Centre, 5:30 to 9:00, and then at 9:00 Saturday morning is Scarecrow Fest.

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

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I was going to say exactly what Mr. Neighbor said. I’d like to thank the Parks Department for the barbeque contest. They did an outstanding job and it was fantastic again. And as he says, come all to the Oktoberfest this Friday night. 5:30 it starts and it’s going to be blast. Isn’t it, Alan? All right.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Doyle.

GUEST COUNCILMEMBER DOYLE: I want to read a speech that I wrote. I know that many people in Shawnee have different concerns and things they want to see happen with the CIP program. My petition for my neighborhood sidewalk is also a concern and I’m glad that we all asking for our community to improve. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this process. And even though I’m only 11 thank you for hearing my concerns and taking me seriously.

MAYOR DISTLER: You’re absolutely taken seriously. Thank you for sharing your concerns. Like I said, I wish we had a magic wand that we could fix all of them. I did not get a magic wand with this position. I wish I had.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s got a club on the end of it.

MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. I’ve got a hammer. We could take care of a few things.

J. ADJOURNMENT

MAYOR DISTLER: Are there any other items? Okay. If there are none, I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank you.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to adjourn. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 9:22 p.m.)


CERTIFICATE

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

/das October 3, 2016

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk











File Attachment Icon
CC09262016.docx