PDF Format:

CCM03072017.pdfCCM03072017.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
March 7, 2017
7:00 P.M.

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 SandiferPublic Works Director Whitacre
Councilmember KenigIT Director Bunting
Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Planning Director Chaffee
Police Chief Moser
Fire Chief Mattox
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Major Larson
Major Tennis
Research and Analysis Manager Collins
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Captain Mendoza
Deputy Police Chief Orbin
Captain Brunner

(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:01 p.m.)


A. ROLL CALL

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

Before we begin our agenda I’d like to explain procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Committee at any of those times, please go to the podium. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record, and you may offer 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. After you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure that we have an accurate record of your name and address.

B. ITEMS

1. DISCUSS PROCUREMENT METHODS FOR FIRE STATION 74.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: The first item for discussion is Procurement Methods for Fire Station 74. The first item to discuss is to Discuss Procurement Methods for Fire Station 74. Fire Station 74 is included in the Capital Improvement Plan. The Fire Department and Development Services staff evaluated five project delivery methods and are recommending the Construction Manager at Risk method. Fire Chief Mattox will present additional information.

Welcome Chief Mattox.
Procurement Process

FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: Good evening. So, we’re to the point in the process we need to figure out how we’re going to design and build this thing. So, part of our staff, along with Development Services, we met and we discussed the -- there’s five basic delivery methods. Of those five, two are hybrids of these three. We discussed the sealed bid process, which is your typical design-bid-build. We designed the -- we discussed the design-build process, which you are all familiar with, and a construction manager at-risk, which was kind of a new concept to us, but one that you’ll see here over the next few minutes we really like.

[Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) slide]
So, Construction Manager at Risk is what we’re going to be recommending for this project and here is why.

[CMR Overview slide]
So, some of the advantages of the Construction Manager at Risk, it’s a lot like the design-build. It’s an integrative process between the construction side and the design side being the architect. The biggest difference between this and the design-build is there is a separate selection process for the most qualified architect, and then again the most qualified contractor.

We found out through our research and through some -- making some phone calls, this is the more traditional role for an architect. This is what they like to do. They actually then have the contract with the owner and work for the owner as opposed to in the design-build process they’re contract is with a contractor and they, in turn, are working for that contractor.

So, we found out it’s becoming widely used, both local and in the county. And I have a list here somewhere, I think it was in the memo, of some of the projects here in the county that are using this design -- construction manager at risk process.

[Architect Selection slide]
So, a little bit how this will work, or how we see it would work. First would be the architect selection. We would put out a Request for Qualifications. They in turn, those architects then would turn back, submit their qualification statements. We would evaluate those, short list that to three architects, and then conduct an interview process of those architects based solely on their qualifications. And you see up here there is -- some of the selection criteria that we would use in evaluating that, our recommendation for an architect for the project. Based on that then, that would come back to the Governing Body for approval for that contract that we would negotiate the best contract with that architect to start the design of the fire station.

[Construction Manager Selection slide]
The construction manager at risk process, it is a little different than the architect. It’s based -- it would be 85 percent qualifications, 15 percent on pricing. Pricing is basically what is that construction manager, what is his percentage of the job for running this. Where it follows like the architect, put out for Request for Qualifications, go through a process, narrow it down to three, bring those people in for the interview. And then use that selection criteria, you know, identify, you know, the experience of their key personnel, compare some quality of their similar work, what their capabilities are and what their overall responsibilities -- that we’re both on the same page of what their responsibilities are. Determine who the best construction manager for the process would be and then bring that to the Governing Body for approval and then negotiate that contract then as well.

So, some of the considerations, or as I put on here some of the advantages we saw to construction manager, this process will at one point will guarantee us a guaranteed maximum price once the design is done. That construction manager basically will guarantee us what this can be built for. And in this process you see that work packages are competitively bid and managed by the construction manager. Once the design is in place, that construction manager then puts those packages out for bid, you know, the dirt work, the flat work, the plumbing, all that. He puts that out. And the cool part we thought of this is then he brings that back to us, our team, we have some say in who that subcontractor then is. We had this discussion. A lot of most all of your construction companies now don’t provide every trade. They sub out some. They have some in-house, but very few are a hundred percent they’re going to do it all. So, this construction manager then would make that recommendation. We would sit down and visit, we would decide. That would give us some input as opposed to design-build. They have total control over who those contractors are coming in.

Another big plus in this is, and I’ll show you a flow chart here in a little bit of where this construction manager comes in, is during the design phase he becomes part of the team and he then works for us, with us, with the architect to make sure all the bases are covered, everything is thought of, every, you know, he adds those technical things hopefully that an architect would know about. But if he has a question, this has someone with expertise sitting at the table during the design.

Some other things, there can be savings in this. And by savings in a construction manager at risk there is a contingency set aside as part of the project that construction manager can use. So, if we get a guaranteed maximum price, and I hate to use the word change order, but if something comes up and there’s a change, he has the authority to use that contingency for that. We kind of look at it as kind of save some of that towards the end and hopefully it becomes a needs and wants type thing. The biggest plus there at the end is that that contingency if not used comes back to the owner or to the City.

Some of the others, these subcontractors, and I mentioned this, are jointly prequalified by all of us together. The only negative part, I use negative very lightly, I’ve been reassured that this is not a problem. But the one thing in a construction manager at risk is the City would bear the responsibility for errors and omissions in the design. Through some of the discussions I’ve had with architects and construction companies that’s why you have that construction manager at risk. You have someone else there looking at these and errors and omissions don’t happen. I used the example in our meeting was so they put in a bathroom and in the drawings there’s no plumbing. You know, someone left it out. Well, that would be on us. Well, having that extra set of eyes that is actually building these buildings, it’s not, you know, it won’t happen. So, that was the only negative -- what’s that?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic] stuff like that, I would think he would be smart enough where he wouldn’t have errors and omissions, otherwise, why would I hire this guy.

FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: Right. Right. But I mean it’s in the literature. It’s in the research that, you know, that’s just -- that is a product of this process. However, from what I understand it is very, very rare because you have the architect and you have the guy building it in on the design.

[Construction Manager at Risk Flow Chart slide]
So, here is the flow chart I talked about. So, it starts out with the architect. You do the RFQ. You review, do your interviews. You decide the contract. You get to the design portion, now is when you bring in that construction manager. You do that process and then that’s where they start running parallel. So, the architect part will run out ahead of it, then you bring in the construction manager and then they’re parallel because that last box on architect kind of goes all along with that construction manager once they’ve been determined.

So, the last thing we have is we would like the recommendation to pursue the construction manager at risk delivery method for Fire Station 74. Questions?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you, Chief. Questions from the Council? Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a comment. When the architect is working up the plans and drawings for this project I would like to own those unlike other projects we had some issues with where we didn’t even own the stuff and it was proprietary to the person that did the design. That really was ridiculous. Because who knows, we get down the road with this architect and say there’s some kind of difference of opinion or we get at loggerheads with this guy for some reason, or gal, whoever, and we decide, no, we’re done, we’re going to get somebody else. We want to own that product that’s been developed up to that point I would think.

FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: I believe so. I think that’s probably something that has to be in the contract.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’m just suggesting that we make sure that’s in the contract on this one.

FIRE CHIEF MATTOX: Absolutely. Yeah. Any other questions?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. If there’s no other questions from the Council, is there anybody from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All those opposed.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We need to ask what the motion was.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Oh, yes. I’m sorry. Jim, can you go ahead and clarify the motion.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It was I move that we forward to the Council the construction manager form of --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And I seconded it.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: -- manager at risk for Station 74.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And I seconded it.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All those opposed. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to forward to the Council the Construction Manager at Risk delivery method for Fire Station 74. The motion passed 8-0.]

2. DISCUSS PROCUREMENT METHODS FLINT STREET, JOHNSON DRIVE TO 62nd TERRACE.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: The second item on tonight’s agenda is Discussing Procurement Methods for Flint Street, Johnson Drive to 62nd Terrace. This project is included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Because this project has several unique elements, Development Services staff is recommending the Design-Build delivery method. Director of Development Services/City Engineer Wesselschmidt will present additional information.

Welcome Doug.
Flint Street Procurement Process

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Thank you. Good evening. I’m Director of Development Services, City Engineer for the sake of those that are listening on the web tonight. I’ll be presenting information on the recommended procurement method for Flint Street. This will be Flint Street from Johnson Drive to 62nd Terrace. Flint Street is the -- what’s going to be the last phase of the number of Nieman Now! projects that we have going on, which include the Nieman rebuild, the three drainage projects and then we generally finish it up with the Flint project other than CDBG projects in that same area. So, excited about getting started on the Flint project.

[Procurement Methods slide]
Basically the same procurement methods that Chief Mattox just talked about, the five versions of the three methods are available for street projects as well as just the more common ones are the sealed bid process, which is the design-bid-build. And then what a number of cities, counties, even DOTs are using more for its benefits is the design-build-delivery process.

[Design-Build slide]
What staff is recommending tonight is that we use the design-build process for Flint Street and would want to know what -- while we’ve used that for the Justice Center, the Justice Center BMP project. We did the skateboard park with design-build. And we also did -- those are the ones that we’ve done by design-build. We have not done a street project, so I wanted to note that. So, after looking at the various methods we are recommending design-build.

[Design-Build overview slides]
And some of those reasons are the design engineer and the construction contractor form a team to become the design-builder. The engineer and the contractor work collaboratively during the design and construction phases. You’re receiving input by contractor during the design phase where they’re weighing in on how construction phasing can take place, traffic control, property access, as opposed to the design bid-build where you’re designing the project and you’re getting the contractor on board, but they haven’t had any opportunity to provide insight during that design phase. Also the contractor can work more closely with the property owners during the design phase since the contractor would already be under contract with the designer and the -- as a design-build team. As the designer is designing the project the contractor is out talking with property owners, seeing what some of their needs are as far as access to their properties and vice versa, what some of the contractors’ needs are with respect to easements. So, as they’re working closer with the property owner during the design phase, hopefully that would pre-empt a number of the problems that we see during the construction phase. And it also allows the City to select the most qualified engineer and contractor team. And then additionally provides over -- this process provides oversight for the project, more oversight with the design-build team, so therefore, we can have a little bit of less staff time on the project. And as noted, staff time is stretched pretty thin with all the other Nieman Now! projects we have going on with the addition of Clear Creek Parkway and Fire Station Number 74. So, as the design-build team, which again includes the engineer and the contractor, as they’re working together as a team, then the City is not needing to be the go between on those as you would see in a traditional design-bid build process.

[Design-Build Team Selection slide]
Similar to some of the items that -- the process that Chief Mattox set out on construction manager at risk, it’s a lot of the same selection process where the design-build team would be selected. And on a scoring system that would reflect 85 percent on qualifications, 15 percent on pricing. So, the design-build team would submit or send out a Request for Proposals, or more specifically a Request for Qualifications to design engineers and general contractors. After those are received, the staff selection team would review those qualifications, reduce them down, or shortlist those down to generally what we’re looking at is three, and then conduct interviews with those three. And again during the -- both review processes of the -- reviewing the Statement of Qualifications as well as the interviews, the selection criteria would be looking at these main items as well as many others. But that would be the experience of the personnel for both the engineer and the contractor, have they done similar type work that -- as our Flint project, how are they set up on a management standpoint as far as being able to oversee the project themselves, and then just overall responsiveness to City staff, the City itself as well as the property owners and the traveling public on that street project. And then as we go through that process and as we’ve negotiated the contract, the Governing Body would approve that contract with the design-build team.

[Contract Negotiation slide]
More specifically on the contract negotiation, as I stated, the staff selection team would score the interviews and then the best scoring team would then -- we would negotiate a preliminary design contract. So, that preliminary design contract would come before the Council for approval. After that’s in place, then the design-build team is going to start in on the design. We’ll have some neighborhood meetings, get input from the property owners and then they would then proceed with completing the preliminary plans. At that point when we know the true scope of what the project is, then that is when we get the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) from the design-build team. So, we’d let them know what our budget is and then they would submit that guaranteed maximum price. And one of the benefits of that is as the engineer is working with the contractor on this team, they can take a look at different construction methods, different design parameters. To certainly pull that project within a budget, but hopefully bring it in below budget as well as provide additional amenities that we might not see on a different type of a procurement process.

[Recommendation slide]
So, therefore, staff is recommending that we use the design-build delivery method for Flint Street from Johnson Drive south to the T-intersection with 62nd Terrace. And that concludes my presentation.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you, Doug. Councilman Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Doug, on the design-build for a street, I’ve talked to some other councilmembers in some other cities and they’ve had the same discussions. From my understanding is when you’re using this on a street that it ends up costing more than what you normally would spend. Now, is that correct or do you know?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Based on the conversations I have had with staff members that have run these projects these generally come in below budget. You know, basically you’re given a budget.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: And you’re telling the design-build team this is my budget. You’re not going to exceed that, so how can you design and go through construction phases and keep that project within budget. And again, they’re giving you --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, they have to cut to do that then?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Well, not necessarily. The one example I was given was, for example, our typical section for a collector street is ten inches of asphalt on rock. So, if the design-build team is wanting to lower that cost, one of the things that they could look at would be eight inches of asphalt over a geo-textile fabric over rock. So again, that would just be one example of when you bring -- when the builder, or in this case the -- yeah, the builder or the contractor is working with the designer as a team to come up with ways to bring that project in below budget.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: So, I -- and again, it’s relatively new, and when I say new, it’s been used for the past five years, at least in this metro area on street projects. And everybody I’ve talked to, which I’ve listed in the packet, they’ve all had good results with it.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And the benefit to the City is less man hours of the City staff?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: That is just one of the benefits. But then again with bringing in the contractor early, they’re able to work with some of those property owners during the design phase. And if the property owner says, well, you know, can you do this additional work. Okay. You need to get into my front yard to remove these trees, can you do this additional work on my driveway.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But they’ve always done that before on any street project.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Well, but it’s toward the end. This case it would be --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Up front.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: -- as part of the design.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: So, those things are known up front.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Any other questions for members of the Council? Doug, I had just one question.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yes, sir.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, looking at -- I know the prior item we were looking at construction manager at risk as the process, and so for this one it’s design-build. And so comparing the two, I know prior item is a public asset, it’s a building. This is a transportation infrastructure project. And I think you already alluded to this. But one of the main advantages with this process for this project is being able to select both the architect and the contractor up front together rather than have that kind of an extended out process. Is that an advantage to that as well since this is a CIP project?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Let me kind of answer your question another way. The reason that we’re recommending a design-build versus a, let’s say a construction manager at risk is, while both options are available, the street contractors, the design engineers are generally more familiar with the process of design-build. When you’re talking about vertical projects, buildings, the architects and the general contractors there, while they’re familiar with all those processes they’re a little bit more familiar with the construction manager form. Now, in this case I’m really wanting the engineer and the contractor to be under the same contract, be on the same team so that, you know, we’re not looking at change orders down the line. If there’s some -- a contractor has some issue with the design that’s, you know, part of their contract. They work that out themselves. And again, that’s the -- kind of that plus on the staff standpoint is that, you know, we’re not having to work something out between the engineer and the contractor. As see on traditional design bid build, it’s all the same contractor, all the same team. They work that thing out.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. So, it’s appropriateness of the project and design-build has obviously been around for several more years, so.

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Yes. Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Are you saying we’re going to build a street without a change order?

MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: That would be the goal, yes. Yes. Yeah. I mean it’s just -- it’s what you see in design-build is the engineer and the contractor are on the same team. You know, so if there is something that’s been overlooked between either one party or the other, they work that out themselves. Now, the only additional would be, you know, when you get toward the end of the project and the City says, well, you know, concrete sidewalks are fine, but let’s do paver bricks on this street. So, we’ve made a change at the end. So, then you would have a change order for something like that. But otherwise, yeah, that’s what we’re looking for.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. Thank you, Doug. Are there any members of the public that wish to comment on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d move for acceptance of the staff’s recommendation for the Council Committee to forward the design-build delivery method for Flint Street, Johnson Drive to 62nd Terrace to the Governing Body for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All those opposed. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to forward to the City Council the design-build delivery method for Flint Street, Johnson Drive to 62nd Terrace. The motion passed 8-0.]

3. PRIORITIZE UNMET NEEDS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW JOHNSON COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX REVENUE.

The final item for tonight is to Prioritize Unmet Needs in the Context of the New Johnson County Public Safety Sales Tax Revenue. On November 8, 2016, Johnson County voters approved a new ten year one-quarter cent sales tax for a new courthouse and coroner's facility. The City is expected to receive 8.3% of the total tax generated, or $16.4 million over ten years. In order to assist in prioritizing needs, staff will facilitate a scoring process based on the Priority Based Budgeting Attributes and Results. City Manager Carol Gonzales will give a brief presentation, and then Assistant Public Works Director Caitlin Gard will lead us through the prioritization exercise.

Welcome, Carol.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Thanks.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Hey, Carol.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, we don’t get to do this very often. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Hey, Brandon, I was just going to tell you you’re a little close. You’re getting reverberation when you’re too close to your microphone. It’s like vibrating everybody on the Internet.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Sorry.
Shawnee Allocation
Johnson County Public Safety Sales Tax
(Courthouse and Coroner Facility)

[Agenda slide]
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: As Councilmember Kenig said we’re going to talk about the sales tax allocation, and I want to give you some background on that. But more importantly, we’re going to talk about projects and prioritization. And just to skip to the end, we’re not going to end up with a list tonight, then we’re going to go this is what we’re going to spend the money on. Tonight is about prioritization and discussion, conversation and using our PBB model. But it’s the first step of getting there and to have that conversation and to get any more guidance from you all and anything else you want to look at also.

So, going to give you a little background on the sales tax, talk about these possible projects and then as Brandon said, Caitlin is going to lead you through the prioritization.

[Financial Summary slide]
So, just a reminder as we all know this is a ten-year sunset on the sales tax. And that means that we look at one-time projects not ongoing costs or staffing, things that are going to be in the budget essentially on a long-term basis. Because of the statute, the way the structure for the sales tax is, is that sales tax, part of any county-wide sales tax is allocated back to the cites based on a formula that’s based on our mill levy and our population and what calculation ends up is that we get about 8.3 percent of the total county sales tax that’s generated. The County’s estimate was that $16.4 million would be our estimate. Just based on our sales tax history at this time, which is actually pretty flat the last year or two or three, we’re kind of rounding down to 15 million. We think that’s a good number to think about over the whole ten-year period. We talked through with the auditors and the state and the -- it is required by them that we put the revenue directly into the General Fund. So, we had talked about whether we should set up some special separate fund for it, but actually required to put in the General Fund. But of course that doesn’t mean that we can’t keep track of it as we would any revenue stream or as we can any revenue stream. So, we can at the end of the ten years, or at any moment in time just like we do with Parks and Pipes, be able to tell the voters exactly what we’ve used that revenue stream for. But it will just be a revenue stream to the General Fund.

Remember when the grant came forward for the police officers? We recommended at that time, and you all agreed that half a million out of the first three years of this sales tax would be just put into the General Fund to help offset the depletion, if that’s a word, of reserves as those new officers came on board. And then we begin have to absorb them fully in that fourth year.

Staff is recommending that we consider, and this isn’t a decision you have to make tonight or even this year or next year, but after that three-year period, we believe that it would be wise to go ahead and continue to allocate a half a million dollars towards our reserves. As you all know, our reserves that long-term forecast goes town and I’ll show you that in just a minute.

[County Public Safety Sales Tax slide]
So, this is kind of a five-year forecast of the sales tax as if it were a separate fund which kind of helps out. All of us I think see it with the estimated revenue, total -- we’ll get partial in ‘17 and then more fully in ‘18 and ongoing. With the grant the first three years, the 500,000 and the moving that down to 2020, the annual amount we’ll get a little over 900,000, close to a million dollars a year if we choose in ‘20 and ‘21 to continue that half a million.

So, over the first three years if we think about it, if we want to think in shorter, a little shorter windows that total those first ‘17, ‘18, ‘19, is about 2.4 million.

[2017 Reserves Forecast slide]
I’ll talk just a minute about reserves. You know, this is that very bottom line of the General Fund forecast that we show you every year at the budget. And as we all know that number we have very, very healthy reserves in the General Fund. But it does have a pretty declining, quickly declining line over time, which always worries those of us that worry about that, which is all of us.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: What would that percentage put it at?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, the bottom line, that continued 500,000, every half a million is about one percent. So, it’s not a big -- it doesn’t move the needle a lot, but it’s something we’re thinking about as we move forward into the future. And things can change. Obviously things do change.

[General Fund History slide]
This is kind of a history going back of our budget, actual expenditures and how much we have left over at the end of the year, which I think we’ve done a really good job of 4 percent room there is I think a darn good budget. That has kept our reserves. And if we continue that pattern, then perhaps that decline won’t happen. But again, I just think it’s something that’s important to keep in mind as we move forward.

[Unmet Needs slide]
So, we developed the list of Unmet Needs in the packet, that information that you got in your packet. We started with a list from last budget year. We took out all the staffing things, anything that was an ongoing cost. We added a few things that were timely, things that we had been working on. I won’t tell you that this is everything, every unmet need we have. But we felt like these were highest priorities in this moment and time. Again, this list will change every year going on.

Streetlight purchase, we’ve talked about that in the past. Those of you that have been around long enough remember that I think in 2009 maybe we looked -- ’11, it’s in the packet. We’ve looked at purchasing our streetlights and our signal lights. And at that time it was cost effective to buy the signal lights, not the streetlights. Most cities now in Johnson County have purchased their streetlights. Over time it saves money. So, hopefully you had time to read that in the packet. It’s a good project. Not one we have explored a lot yet, other than talking to other cities. It’s one that we could just initially do a study on and that might be something that’ll be.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Let us know how much it costs and the time it would take to pay them off.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Right. Right. It would show us that whole cost benefit analysis. And if we can fund that out of this revenue stream that study, that would be good. Maybe something we want to put in the budget for ‘18 anyway.

Then the utility relocation. As we know putting the wires underground has been more expensive than we thought. And not just the wires. I think this encompasses -- there’s some -- you’re working on an old street. There’s not much right-of-way and there’s lots of old utilities. And so we’ve encountered those additional costs. And you notice on that one and the streetlight and the next one also, we’ve included the annual amount if we were to include that additional cost in the bond issue for the Nieman corridor project, what that annual amount would be. Bond payments are appropriate out of a revenue stream like this that we -- obviously it’s going to be a ten year forecast. And it would take 230,000 every year for ten years. But that’s a good cost effective way to do it.

6200 Nieman enhancements, and we’ve talked in the last two or three weeks about some of the challenges on that project, still working through those. But again, something that might -- it’s very timely. It might be a good use of these funds.

The 62nd, Ballentine Street to Goddard Street. If you remember when we talked about the Trail Springs Trail and the question came up of we had taken that sidewalk now from across the bridge and over to Ballentine, but not onto Goddard on that south side of 62nd Street. It’s a really good idea to continue it. I’m sure everybody would like to do that. Again, we have lots of sidewalks that need to be built. But we thought that that was something that had come up recently that was a good idea to include on this list.

Then the other kind of new one, but again a project we’ve talk about a number of times, at the very bottom, Johnson Drive and 435. Obviously that came up and became kind of a priority as we talked about the Midland Bridge issue. And if that project is going to happen in 2020, we’ve talked about maybe we need to move that up on our radar screen in terms of trying to get that project done ahead of that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Why would it cost $2 million [inaudible]

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There will have to be some exit ramp rebuilding, redesign. It’s not just putting signals up where they exist. We’d want to build it for the long-term. We’d want to do a study of how the Hodgkin property is going to develop, how the property on the east side is going to develop, where the access points would need to be and then put the signals where they would be long-term. That was our thought.

So, those are the Unmet Needs list. Again, it’s not -- it doesn’t mean we can’t add things later. Those are just the ones that are on the list tonight that we thought were most timely and most important for this moment for you all to prioritize.

[Prioritization Results from January 10th Exercise slide]
This is the prioritization that you did last time, which Caitlin led you through. And I’m just going -- hopefully you got your sheets. If you scored ahead of them, that’s great. If not, she can lead you through that, these 14 projects that are on that list. And again, this is just a starting point. Once we do the scoring, then we’ll plug it into the model. We’ll get the points for it similar to these and that just becomes a decision, a factor in your decision-making as we move into the budget.

So, any questions for me?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I have some concerns.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Jenkins and then Councilmember Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just a couple concerns. This money that’s going to be coming in from the county sales tax, I really have some pretty strong feelings that that money should be directed towards what the taxpayers approved the sales tax on and that was public safety. And we all know we got lots of public safety costs for this community. If we direct those funds in that direction, I think that would be very, very appropriate as well as helping us out, too. We retire some of the bond issued debt that we picked up with this new fire station we’re trying to put in and some of that stuff. If that money was put toward those, obviously it would help our bond rating situation and it would probably free us up to perhaps bond some other issue that we did want to do as well. But I would really like to see those monies focused on public safety. We have more than enough cost in public safety to even absorb all those funds. So, this -- I don’t know about this exercise here.

And I had another concern about the one drainage project because that seemed like that would be one that would qualify under SMAC funds.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It is.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And so I would want to --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s a SMAC project.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, I would want to -- instead of us putting out $550,000, I’d rather put out $130,000 or something and get it on our SMAC approval for next year.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’ve already been capped on that project. So, we’ve already accepted a certain amount for that project. You had asked that question the other night and it was a good question. And then as we looked into it, they won’t reimburse above what was accepted.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, it couldn’t be considered as a new project?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. It would be part of this project we’re already approved for.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It has to be part of the income thing of this other project we’ve already --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. That was a good point. But once we looked into it, we realized it had been capped.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Jim and then Mikey.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And certainly on the -- I’m sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Oh, no problem.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: On the public safety issues, if there’s more issues than projects, like I said, this is a starting point. And then as we move through the budget process, if Council wants to look at other things to use that revenue for we certainly could. One thing to keep in mind is that the public safety is an exemption from the tax lid. And so as we figure, try to figure out, will figure how that’s going to impact our budget going into ‘18. The increase in assessed value can more likely be used for public safety things than other things, some listed as some of these, so.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. Jim and then Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I understand as we go through and score this, this is just scoring on these needs and it does not take into consideration timing and things as far as like it -- to me it seems like there are a number of issues here that talk about Nieman, which are appropriate to do, you know, in more or less move them up in the short-term to get them done so we don’t have to redo and get it done in a timely manner. So, I just --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Absolutely a good point. And these are just scores based on those values. The results that are PBB results doesn’t take into account time. Doesn’t also -- also doesn’t necessarily take into account leveraging of other funds. 435 and Johnson Drive could become a CARS project at some point if we wanted to push it up in our CARS priority. So, that also doesn’t take into account necessarily as you’re scoring them, it doesn’t take into account whether you would want to debt finance them or pay cash for them. So, when you’re thinking about the projects tonight and the prioritization it’s really just about the project itself and the value of it based on our results. So, good point.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, what’s your opinion on this Johnson Drive and 435 signalization also? Because from what we just went -- had our big round and round about with KDOT, you know, if we were -- tried to get ahead of the game a little bit if they come back on Midland here in another year down the road or two, if we could get ahead of the game to where we’re at least ready if they try to do something. And we can say, hey, you know, we’ve got signalization here. You can move the crossovers back. We’re all good.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I think it’s an important project. I think the first step of it would be to do some kind of a study to look at those properties and see what we’re -- how we think they’re going to develop as a best access points and then we can come back with an even better cost. But I think it’s an important question.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So be ahead of the game.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It was an important project before that issue.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right. Yeah. Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Pflumm.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: [Inaudible; talking off mic] like, you know, buy-back program, whatever you want to call them. Not buy back, but I mean purchase those streetlights, were you indicating you wanted to do a study, or do we have -- I mean that’s kind of a no-brainer on that one.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Do we have somebody on staff that can do an ROI and give us exactly what that breaking point is?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We might have to contract with Springsted or a financial company to help us a little bit on the cost benefit. But, yeah, Kevin Manning absolutely could lead that study and would be the lead on that study.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, what’s the cost associated with that?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: What did we say that?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Is that something you’re looking at throwing in the budget or is it --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Around 40,000 is what we thought for the study.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Forty thousand.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Any other questions from members of the Council? I just wanted to add something else maybe to consider, I’m interested in everybody’s feedback on. I know that Overland Park’s plan was sent out. Was that a five-year?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Five-year.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Five-year plan. It might be worthwhile first to look at a two-year, maybe a three-year plan, but something that we can revise annually and be able to put that out to the public so that they’re kind of aware of what we prioritize and be able to revisit that and make sure we tell that story to the public. But just curious what everybody’s thoughts on that are. It would be good to -- Dan.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Another question on the Johnson Drive at 435 signalization. I mean are we going to look at, you know, maybe redesigning that and making that, you know, I guess we’re calling they --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I call it like reverse Polish where you go on the left side.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It could be. It could be. I think we would want somebody to really look at it and look at how it’s going to tie into both those big properties and make those properties to the south developable.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Councilmember Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I would just say, you know, when we talk about, I like what Mr. Jenkins said about public safety and it’s a valid point. But I do think we need to be conscious of some foreseen projects that we’re going to have to get on the CIP in the near future. You know, there’s a project coming our way that was referred to the Planning Commission last night. There’s a lot of discussion on Clare Road and improvements to Clare, possible improvement to Hedge and just creating better access and connectability out there. And we know that north-south arterial west of K-7 has got to have. We’re starting to have population. We’re starting to see some development and houses being built. So, that’s not currently on the CIP and that’s going to be expensive and it’s not going to be something that we can ignore. I mean just like our other streets and other development areas, once that thing gets going and those houses start getting built and traffic increases, it’s something that we’re going to have to address. So, I do think we need to be conscious just to move forward as having dollars available to address those projects as they come. And it’s obviously not a tomorrow project, but it’s on its way over the next several years and we need to be looking at it.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. We had a meeting today about CARS projects which will be coming forward to you all in the next few weeks. And we came up with a five or seven-ish projects that we’re hearing a lot about that aren’t on the list anywhere. So, there’s plenty. The capital projects that are on this list again evaluate them based on what they are. They came out of the prioritization that you all did probably now a year ago. So again, things change. So, ready?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you, Carol.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Caitlin, you’re on.

[Prioritization Exercise slide]
MS. GARD: All right. In front of you there is a worksheet and we will be doing the prioritization very similar, exactly the same way that we did it in January. If you remember we score each project based on four different basic program attributes. And those if they’re mandated, the reliance on the City to provide the program, cost recovery of the program, and portion of the community served by the program, and then also from our community results, which the Governing Body defined back in 2013, I believe.
(Community Strategic Planning Scoring)

So, I guess let’s go ahead and get started. The first project is Community Strategic Planning. Are we mandated to provide the program on a scale from 0 to 4? Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Jim. So, zero, one, or hearing zero?

(Off Record Talking)

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I think more zeros. Okay.

MS. GARD: More zeros. Zeros. Reliance on the City to provide a strategic plan for the community. Are we the only ones that’ll do it? Will someone else do it? Lots of other people can do it?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I would say a two. I don’t know what everybody else thinks. Two? Okay.

(Off Record Talking)

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Are we going across the top.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: We’re going across the top.

MS. GARD: Across the top.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Well, we’re the only -- to me the City is the only one that’s going to do it.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Hearing mostly two. Okay. Two.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery. This is cost based on fees of programs.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s a difficult one to answer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That would be tough on that one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s like a one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: What are we going to get back?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: That’s a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’d say one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

(Councilmembers Discussing Amongst themselves)

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, there may be some cost recovery by having good planning, so.

MS. GARD: So, it’s fees for programs. Are we going to have a fee for our plan?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No.

MS. GARD: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Zero.

MS. GARD: Zero. Portion of the community served, entire, partial, substantial, none.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, it would seem like it would be the entire community.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Substantial I would say, three.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Everybody benefits.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Wouldn’t that do a substantial part?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I would say, I mean if you’re doing the –

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: To the entire community.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Community strategic planning or -- served by I think everybody. Most everybody is served by it.

MS. GARD: Three? Four? Three?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m on a three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: All right. We’ll go three.

MS. GARD: Three. All right. Now, onto the results. Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community for Strategic Plan. Is it essential, strong influence, regular influence, small influence, no influence?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Let’s see. It’s probably two, it would have influence.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two. Two.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t know. You think?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. I think two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. All right.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Two would work.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I think it would work too.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Two.

MS. GARD: Two. Economic Growth and Vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Hard to really assess that.

MS. GARD: Essential, strong influence, influence, some influence, no influence?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Influence.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Some.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Maybe a one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is that a one?

MS. GARD: One?

COUNCILMEMBERS: Yes.

MS. GARD: One. Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d give it a one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Maybe a one again. I assume it would be part of the Strategic Plan.

MS. GARD: Possibly.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: But it does influence the result because if you don’t have a Strategic Plan --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s a one to a two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’d say two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That’ll work. Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Mostly two. Two.

MS. GARD: Okay. Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that fits right into planning.

MS. GARD: Three?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

MS. GARD: Three. Quality, cultural and recreational opportunities? Two?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, maybe one.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d go with two.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I like one. How many twos and ones?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I like two.

MS. GARD: I’m hearing two. Two. Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three. You’ve got to have a plan.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You have to have a plan [inaudible] for safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Have a plan, work the plan, the plan will work.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t think it does that all. It may have some influence on the result of a safe community, but it’s not –

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m going to go with two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d give it a one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That doesn’t directly input into safe community.

MS. GARD: One?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One or two?

MS. GARD: One.
(ETC Business Survey Scoring)

MS. GARD: All right. Moving on to the next project, the ETC Business Survey. Starting with attributes, are we mandated?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No mandate.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

MS. GARD: No mandate. Reliance on the City to provide the business survey.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That could be almost anybody.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Two.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I can buy two.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery, fees for project.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Portion of community served, business survey.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Some portion of the community, probably a one.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One or a two?

MS. GARD: One?

COUNCILMEMBERS: Yeah. One.

MS. GARD: All right. Onto the results, attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No, not much influence on that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Not much.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

MS. GARD: Zero? One?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, it’s zero.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll go zero.

MS. GARD: Zero. Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, you may have something there.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Three maybe.

MS. GARD: There’s head shaking. Three. Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

MS. GARD: Zero. Yep?

COUNCILMEMBERS: Uh-huh.

MS. GARD: Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Zero.

MS. GARD: Zero. Quality cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Probably zero.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Zero.

MS. GARD: Zero. Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

MS. GARD: Zero.
(Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor Beautification Scoring)
MS. GARD: The next one is an item that you scored back in January. These are the scores that you gave to that program, the Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor Beautification.
(Street Light Purchase Scoring)

MS. GARD: The next project is KCP&L street Light purchase. Are we mandated to do this program?

COUNCILMEMBERS: No.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the City to provide this program?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, does that mean zero?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yep.

MS. GARD: No, sorry, zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, here. This one is just about by the numbers. I mean this is really not a -- this is -- we already have streetlights. This is whether we own them or whether we rent them.

MS. GARD: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, this really shouldn’t be on the list here.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, was that an unmet need?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Just go with the flow.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh, whatever. Zero on the first one. Let’s go.
MS. GARD: Reliance on the City to own the street lights.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: A three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery. Are we going to have fees for our street lights?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No idea.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We’re wanting to know about that. That’s one of the question we asked.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s what the study is. There could be some --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, eventually it would be a four.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Question mark.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Any way you look at it, it would be a four.

MS. GARD: Four? Yes?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It doesn’t matter what you put because we don’t have the study yet, so we don’t know.

MS. GARD: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Four.

MS. GARD: Portion of community served by the program. How much of our community has street lights?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Pretty the much whole community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yep.

MS. GARD: Four? Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. It helps that.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Four.

MS. GARD: Four. Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I wouldn’t say zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One maybe.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d give it a one.

MS. GARD: One. Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: There’s no change because this is only a monetary judgment here, so.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And you’re already there.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m going to go with zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean us buying them doesn’t have any effect. They’re there already.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: [Inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s possible.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s not -- that’s not effective mobility and reliable infrastructure. So, it looks like a zero for that.

MS. GARD: Zero?

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll give it a two.

MS. GARD: Two, two, three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ll buy two.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’ll have two.

MS. GARD: Two. Quality cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d give it about a two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yep.

MS. GARD: Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One or a zero.

MS. GARD: Oh, are we going back?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Maybe three. That contributes --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That contributes to safety though having lights.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I mean it’s already there. It’s not like we’re adding it. That’s what I don’t get.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s the question. It’s like whether we’re going to have street lights or not.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. Right. If we’re going to have them or not, yeah, it’s a three or four. It’s huge. But they’re already there. It’s just whether we own them or not.

(Parallel conversation)

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Well, I just – that’s fine.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s fine. It just seemed high for street lights.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I was trying to figure out how to –

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I was – yeah. It seems high for street lights.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- what does this have to do with cultural and recreational.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Street lights have to influence the safety.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s not park lights. I mean I would say zero on that one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would say – yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’d say zero or one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would say zero or one, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s a zero. That’s a zero.

MS. GARD: I think we’re back on quality, cultural and recreational. What?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s a zero.

MS. GARD: Cultural, and recreational opportunities are a zero?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I mean I’d say zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I’d say zero.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Street lights.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I mean it’s a street light.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I got a zero down and I put a one down for safe community because we’ve already got them.

MS. GARD: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Zero? Okay. Quality, cultural and recreational, zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero and then a one.

MS. GARD: Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It has to have something to do with the safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But we already got them.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We already got them.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We gave it a one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, we’re just talking about owning them.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, I know. But it’s still a –

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s the difference -- it’s the amount of time to replace a dead bulb.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But whoever owns it won’t have any –

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Whether we own them or don’t own them, it doesn’t make any difference as far as the safety factor.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: They’re still lit up. You’re right.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: When you turn them off is it going to be safe?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, we’re not going to turn them off in either situation.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Nobody is going to turn them off unless you stop paying the bills.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We’re not saying that. We’re talking about we already own the –

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go. Let’s go to the next one.

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The street lights are already there.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Give it a one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’re going to fight over street lights.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One. Let’s go with one.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move on. Streetlights are a one.
(Complete Stump Park Trail Streambank Stabilization Scoring)

MS. GARD: Complete Stump Park Trail Streambank Stabilization. Are we mandated to provide this program?

COUNCILMEMBERS: No.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No, but it’s a good practice because otherwise it’s going to fall in the creek.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Details.

MS. GARD: Do we agree with that one?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Zero.

MS. GARD: One? Zero?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I can accept one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

COUNCILMEMBERS: One.

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Go with a one.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the City to provide this program.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, who else is going to do it?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: If we don’t do it, who is going to do it?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Four.

MS. GARD: Four. Cost recovery. Any fees?

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Portion of the community served.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: A small piece.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: A small piece.

COUNCILMEMBERS: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Zero.

MS. GARD: Attract –

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I mean [inaudible] would have a lot of people, but not that many.

MS. GARD: Hold on we’re backing up.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One. One is fine.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s probably one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One. Okay, Stephanie.

MS. GARD: Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

MS. GARD: Two?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Really?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Give it a two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community. It’s a trail and we’re going –

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We don’t want our trail to cave in.

MS. GARD: Two?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two works.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well-maintained. We’re going to fix a trail that’s caving in.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That would make it maintained.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And then so well-maintained it would give it a two. That one really confuses me. I mean we’re fixing a trail that’s caving in to well-maintained community, that would be a three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’d say a three.

MS. GARD: Three? Two?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve got a two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve got a two. Two, two, two, two. You’ve guys have --

MS. GARD: Three, two, two, two.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three.

MS. GARD: Three, three – well, you’re the deciding vote.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

MS. GARD: Two it is. Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: If you’re on that trial.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m just trying to get the trail some attention, man.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I know.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because you’re killing me.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think it’s a four, too.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Environmentally sustainable --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You’ve got a biased opinion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Effective mobility.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Effective mobility.

MS. GARD: We don’t know. That’s what we’re talking about.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You can’t be mobile on a broken -- on a trail that’s caving in. I mean it’s got to be ironed out.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: How about a two?

MS. GARD: Two?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Where are we at now?

MS. GARD: One?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Where you at?

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I had a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I got zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ll move to a one if it’s a big deal.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Wait a second. Has anybody here been on that trail?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes. All of us.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, I know you have. But anybody else been on that trail? So, we talk about effective mobility. So, if you’re like --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And it is not --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Let’s say you’re in a wheelchair.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s a park.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And there’s big splits and it’s caving in.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You have to go to Ward III to [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That has a negative effect on mobility, right?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Who goes to Ward III? Think about it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: A guy on that trial and you could be -- if the trail were gone it would affect City mobility.

MS. GARD: Councilmember Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Effective mobility, yeah. Moving around, I mean --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I’ll go out --

MS. GARD: Two. Councilmember Pflumm?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One at the most. I had zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I had zero too.

MS. GARD: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three.

MS. GARD: Two. Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t know what it has to do with a well-planned community, nothing. I think it’s a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ll go with a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I’d go zero too.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Because it doesn’t --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Streambank stabilization.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Environmentally sustainable. Streambanks I agree. I mean --

MS. GARD: One, two, zero?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero, Zero, what have you got?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s four zeros.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But you guys really don’t like trails do you? You guys get a lot exercise?

MS. GARD: Quality, cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think maybe a two on that because it’s cultural.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Cultural and recreational.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Two.

MS. GARD: Two. Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I don’t know by Vaught’s house.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Why would it be bringing a safe community. It’s not going to make a safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. It’s by Vaught’s house. Zero.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Zero? One?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Wait a second. I want to back -- I want to back up one. How do we say quality, cultural and recreational opportunities? You have a trail that’s caving in off into the streambank and we’re going to give it a two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Where are you headed?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What else is it? A trail is a recreational opportunity.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We’re already past that.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’re not past it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, we’re not.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. Can we have a roll call?

MS. GARD: Roll call. Councilmember Neighbor. We’re talking about quality, cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We already did that one.

MS. GARD: We backed up.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, no, no we didn’t. There’s no backing it up. There was three threes, three zeros and two twos.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That was a different one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We are not going back.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That was not the same one.

MS. GARD: I think that was the one before it.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We compromised and went to twos.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No.

MS. GARD: All right.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I’m [inaudible] recreation community center [inaudible] as one of the definition is, “develops and maintains its parks and open spaces, bike paths and walking trails and public facilities to serve the needs of the entire community.”

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know what, wait. Read the darn chart up here. Program influences the result, program has some influence on the result. Now, we’re talking about this little micro piece of the community. Now, come on, this ain’t really just fixing everything for the community. Let’s get real. We’re talking about a fairly small operation here. It has some impact, yes. But I’m not giving this thing a four or a three or something that’s ridiculous.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two. We comprised to two.

MS. GARD: We decided two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two is done.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And three.

MS. GARD: Two. All right. Two as got it. Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: There’s nothing safe about a good trail. If you fall into the creek that’s not [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Don’t fall in.

MS. GARD: One? Zero?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One at least. The trail was caving in.

MS. GARD: The ones have it. One.
(Nieman Now! Utility Relocation Underground Scoring)

MS. GARD: Next project. Nieman Now! Utility Relocation Underground.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Across the board zeros.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: A zero on mandate.

MS. GARD: Are we mandated?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Four.

MS. GARD: Are we mandated? No.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I want to be a Jeff Vaught. Four.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the City.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s in my neighborhood, four.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Number one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s in your neighborhood, too.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s what you all are doing.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It’s a one.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the City to relocate utilities underground.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m going to say it’s a one. It’s a best practice.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That would be a four.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Four. Who else is going to do it.

MS. GARD: If we don’t do it, will anybody else do it?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Oh, that’s a four.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s a four.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No, that’s a four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: What did we end up with on the first one there?

MS. GARD: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I wrote a one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Zero, four --

MS. GARD: Cost recovery. Are we going to have fees for our relocating of utilities?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No, it’s just going to cost us out the wazoo. We get nothing back on it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s a zero.

MS. GARD: Portion of the community served.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Not a very big piece. It serves Nieman corridor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Actually it’s pretty --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Substantial.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s a pretty substantial part of the community.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Come on, Dan. Shut up. [Inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. But it’s just utilities.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, because it’s on Nieman?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s like the road. It’s not like street lights --

MS. GARD: Two? One?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m pulling a you two, two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Bring it on. One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I could go with a two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s just some portion of the community.

MS. GARD: Two. I hear twos.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Attractive, healthy, well-maintained community that’s a four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible] inflation going on here.

MS. GARD: Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’ll go four. Good job, Jim. Way to get my thinking up there.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Attractive, healthy and well-maintained --

MS. GARD: Four.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Wait a minute. What in the hell has it got to do with that?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s four?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s right. It has everything to do with a well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If we’re golfing you’d all be ducking.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Really, why?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Attractive. The first word is attractive.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It helps the attractiveness.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s a very small part of the community, so I don’t think it can be a four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s not healthy and well-maintained.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: How is it a small portion?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s just Nieman road. It’s not the whole community.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s our downtown.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Why is it a four?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: This is the core of our city.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: This is -- this is Ward III people.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: This is our identity.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s not the whole city.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, he actually -- he said it was a four, so I’m with him.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, that’s just because he’s trying to make money off his property.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Oh, Jesus.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh, it all comes out now.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three. The Sandifers have never done any of that, have they, Mickey.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: What did we wind up with on the other one?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You got a four for that?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You want to compare notes?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You got a four for that?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: For moving it underground?

MS. GARD: What? Are we backing up again?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We gave that a four for attractive and healthy and all that?

MS. GARD: We’re backing up again? Four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I never heard the score, so I’m just trying to confirm.

MS. GARD: Four, yes.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m four. The next one is a three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That is not a four.

MS. GARD: All right. Let’s take about --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Man, that is no four.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Let’s do a three.

MS. GARD: We’re voting.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m kidding, Jeff.

MS. GARD: Attractive and healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Mickey?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It doesn’t matter what you vote it’s a three. Everybody it’s a compromise.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’re compromising on two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We had more twos I think.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: What? There were more twos.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, we didn’t.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, there wasn’t.

[Inaudible; talking over one another.]

MS. GARD: We had some fours. We’re compromising on three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That is not a compromise.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. The twos had it I tell you.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: How is the fact whether they’re above ground or below ground is a factor?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I know. I know. I agree with you.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Just give us your score so we can keep going.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One maybe.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’ll say one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I will say that if you ARE -- when we talk about economic growth, I mean if you’re trying to attract quality businesses and development to Nieman corridor, having buried utilities is going to be huge for economic growth. That’s a game changer. Certain retailers aren’t even going to look at it if you have -- or developers aren’t going to look at it with power poles all the way down Nieman, so.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll agree with that.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’ll compromise it at two.

MS. GARD: Three?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’ll give it a --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No, look. Look at how it affects us city-wide. I mean that’s what this chart says.

MS. GARD: Yep, that’s right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. We’re talking Nieman Road. How does that affect the whole city?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Tax base.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It does have an impact. It does contribute toward our goal, yes. But I couldn’t see more than a two for contributing to the city.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, but any economic development anyway contributes city-wide, doesn’t it?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Tax base it does.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: When you have economic development it creates a tax base which has an economic impact on the entire city.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: He’s got a point.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But the impact --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s not a residential street either.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The impact is localized.

MS. GARD: Two?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: That shouldn’t --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, it’s every person in the city.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, the taxes are --

[Inaudible; talking over one another.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The tax revenue is spread across the city.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They’re not going to go out and start building on Quivira because we did this on Nieman and we put the utilities underground on Nieman. Come on, let’s get a grip, guys.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The tax revenue is spread --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That ain’t going to happen.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The tax revenue gain is spread across the city.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. Let’s --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We can’t use the money to fix his trail.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If you increase the mill levy it increases city-wide.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Let’s stay on task and go ahead and vote. So, what do we have on this one?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM, NEIGHBOR, VAUGHT, SANDIFER, KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS, KEMMLING, MEYER: One.

MS. GARD: Three. I heard threes. Two. Or can we compromise at two?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Had a lot of ones, too.

MS. GARD: Compromising at two. Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM, NEIGHBOR: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s definitely reliable infrastructure because it reduces storm damage and trees and --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ll buy two.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Two.

MS. GARD: Two. Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two maybe.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Two.

MS. GARD: Two? Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Next.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well-planned.

MS. GARD: Quality cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: You guys see how you agreed so quickly?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Safety community, zero.

MS. GARD: Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s actually a two because it does --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: It’s safer underground.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s safer underground.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Not near as many cars go up the poles.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, however you do it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Especially if you walk around with a ladder or if you --

MS. GARD: One?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, it is safer. No, I would say one or two. It is safer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll give it a one.

COUNCILMEMBERS: One.

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You could do whatever you want. I’m just --
(Enhancements to 6200 Nieman Drainage Project Scoring)

MS. GARD: Next project, 6200 Nieman Drainage Project. Are we mandated to provide this project?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No, but it’s a best practice. It’s one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean to a lot of you all if it continues to, I mean, if you have flooding issues are you not mandated to cure?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Probably get to one just because we’re doing all that other work and it ties into other work, so therefore it becomes part of the [inaudible].

MS. GARD: One. Reliance on the city to provide the project.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Four. It’s totally up to us.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Unless Brandon is willing to pay for it.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery. Are we going to have any fees for this stormwater project?

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Portion of the community served.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Pretty small.

COUNCILMEMBERS: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero or one. It’s only a small portion.

MS. GARD: One?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Some portion is one.

MS. GARD: One. Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d give it a two.

MS. GARD: I hear two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: What was the number you put in there for attractive, healthy and well-maintained community?

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

MS. GARD: Zero?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One. I agree.

COUNCILMEMBERS: One.

MS. GARD: One. Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s environmental. That’s pretty good.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Maybe a two.

MS. GARD: Okay. Two. Quality cultural and recreational opportunities?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, what about streambank fixing. That’s cultural.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero, zero.

MS. GARD: Community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is it going to actually stop flooding of somebody?
(62nd Ballentine Street to Goddard Street Stormwater Improvements & Sidewalk Scoring)

MS. GARD: Next project. The sidewalk on 62nd and Ballentine.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: What did you put in there? Hold on.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Or gigging, right?

MS. GARD: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero, zero?

MS. GARD: Yeah. Both zeros.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m trying to keep up with my -- these on here.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Gigging. What if you go gigging for frogs?

MS. GARD: Oh, zero, zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s cultural. That’s recreational.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: What have you got on this?

MS. GARD: Next project, 62nd, the sidewalk on 62nd, Ballentine to Goddard on the south side. Are we mandated to provide this?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t think we are.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the city.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Four.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Toll fee for our sidewalk?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s a good idea.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Put a toll, put little toll bridges on the sidewalk.

MS. GARD: Portion of the community served.

COUNCILMEMBERS: One.

MS. GARD: Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Two.

MS. GARD: This is getting easier. Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, NEIGHBOR, JENKINS: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Effective mobility, you’ve got to give that a two, man.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: They didn’t give our trails a two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Oh, sorry. They didn’t give our trails --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I’m going to change to two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One. One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Vote two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: All right. One. Yeah. You know, that’s right.

MS. GARD: Twos were about to have it until you gave in.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Oh, it’s a one. It’s a one. It’s a one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean it’s a half a mile stretch of the city.

MS. GARD: Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

MS. GARD: Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You guys all want one.

MS. GARD: Some people want two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One. Go to the next one it’s a three.

MS. GARD: Quality and cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Safe community is a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Quality cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s not a one or a three. That’s a --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It’s a one.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Some influence, but minimal.

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Sidewalk use is a one. Cultural I guess. People could see each other as you [inaudible] out walking.

MS. GARD: One? Two?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: On what, quality cultural?

MS. GARD: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m hearing one.

MS. GARD: Hearing ones.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Safety community.

MS. GARD: All right. Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Could be one or zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’ll give it one.

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I got one.
(Renovation of Fire Station #71 Scoring)

MS. GARD: Next one, renovation of Fire Station 71. Are we mandated to provide this?

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the city to renovate.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It would be the best practice.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Best practice.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Four.

MS. GARD: You want to back up?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I think best practice.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I don’t even know how that’s a best practice. Not to the value that’s on the sheet here.

MS. GARD: So, what do you think? Zeros? One?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That was $4 million.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There’s no mandate.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would say the 500,000, then it might be a best practice seriously.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Well, I mean having a building that’s maintained.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If it takes four million to renovate a building it takes four million.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’re building a brand new one for four million. We’re going to renovate that one for four million.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: We’re doing that 3.6.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, building is a little bit different than what we’re renovating.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We’re doing that for 3.6 including a fire truck.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Paint and carpet and moving some walls. I mean –

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think it’s more than that.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- 500,000 is a lot. It’s huge.

MS. GARD: Zero? One?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’d say one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I got a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I got a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One.

MS. GARD: Okay. I hear one. And then we had four for reliance on the City.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Yes.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Portion of the community served.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: None of us -- is this substantial? It’s between two and three. Significant part of the community.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, it’s the busiest fire station in the in the city.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: In the whole county.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll say three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Let’s go three.

MS. GARD: Three. Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think zero on that. It doesn’t do anything for that.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: All right.

MS. GARD: Zero? Yeah. Zero. Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One I think.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One.

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: How is it a one?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: How is the economic -- how is a fire station renovation economic growth?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Economic growth because you’ve got the construction.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Contributes to our vitality.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If you go back to attractive for a minute. Because one of the definitions on attractive, healthy, well-maintained communities, invests and maintains public facilities and infrastructure that are attractive, functional long-lasting and safe.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I should probably read this. That would be a two.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, you may want --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I really am. I’m just -- just cut me out of this exercise here.

MS. GARD: Are we back on attractive, healthy and well-maintained community?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. That’s got to be a two then if that’s the -- I always think of it as --

MS. GARD: One, two, one, two, one, one, one –

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Two.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One and a half.

MS. GARD: All right. Twos have it. Economic growth and vitality we had one. Are we okay with that?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: How is that a two? That’s four to four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Where did she take her math?

MS. GARD: What? Two, two, two, two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Did you have a two, Mickey?

MS. GARD: Two. Oh, you didn’t?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You had a one, right?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: On the last one, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: On what attractive, healthy?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No. On economic growth and --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, no. We’re -- no.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We’re talking about attractive.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Oh, attractive, I was a two.

MS. GARD: He’s a two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. He’s a two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So, he went to two, so he just --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: All right.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Stop trying to confuse the issue.

MS. GARD: Okay. And we’re okay with one on economic growth and vitality?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Just a second, guys. I’m just going to suggest, to make this a little bit easier for Caitlin, when you say your answers you maybe hold up fingers, too.

MS. GARD: That would be super. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, for one which do I finger do I hold up?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Why don’t we just fill these out?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Which one do you want?

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure, that would be considered infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s considered a part of our infrastructure I would think.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: That’s infrastructure, so that’s --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It is infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It is infrastructure.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Manages, operates and continually invests in public infrastructure and facilities. So, that’s --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean that gets up there. Maybe a three or something, wouldn’t it?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Maybe a two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll give it a two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We’re not talking about building one, we’re talking about renovating.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Two.

MS. GARD: Okay. Two. Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t see anything for that. Not a renovation. Maybe if you’re doing new construction. Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. It’s already been planned.

MS. GARD: That looks like a three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m zero.

MS. GARD: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Hey, his is a three because he went like that.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Let’s just go.

MS. GARD: Quality cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: A tipsy “O.”

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Zero.

MS. GARD: Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. It’s not providing fire service, it’s renovating a building that provides fire service.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And then remember one of the reasons for the renovation is to build the base for the future to do those -- perhaps that squad structure in the future.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d say maybe a two for contributing to public safety.

MS. GARD: Two? Three?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It already is providing public safety.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Two.

MS. GARD: Two it is.
(West Community Center Scoring)

MS. GARD: Next project, the West Community Center. Are we mandated to provide this?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We should be.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Zero.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the City to provide a community center?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, who else is going to provide it?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You getting money from somebody else?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, wait, wait, wait.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: We possibly could.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s really a fair point because, you know, we’ve got like fitness centers and everything all over town. There’s a lot of people providing those kinds of services.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, none of --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, a fitness center is different than a community center.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It is.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: A community center is --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It’s different than community centers, but they’re --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But a community center is not just a gymnasium.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But that’s a portion of the community center with the gymnasiums and all the, you know, swimming pools and all that stuff. That’s part of it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But there’s a lot more to -- there’s a lot more to a community center than that. I mean it’s just not a gymnasium.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: But there are private -- public-private options.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But the private won’t do it on their own.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But I think it’s still -- the city would be involved in this though.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It could be the city. The city might be the --

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, it would still be on the city to [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If the city doesn’t initiate it, it doesn’t happen.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: All right. Very fair point, Jim.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I’d say I’m changed, so.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Negative.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You do have fees.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would charge fees.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Program fees.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s a negative. It doesn’t even pay for the people that work there.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We have a lot of programming fees. I would say a two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would say a two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d give it a two.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: The projection is already losing money.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We don’t have -- we don’t even pay for the guys on our current Civic Centre.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But if you look at the scale the scale is by percentage. So, I think that it would be safe to say 25, I mean, not nothing.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d be safe to say that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: [Inaudible; talking off mic] coming in from capital, but operating what I would think even more than a one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We don’t do that on pools right now.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: We have -- [inaudible] every year.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, we pay for the operating.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Every bit of operating we’ve had maintenance and all that, no way.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Not as much as the capital, but the operating costs --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Just the high schools and --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- the chlorine, the water, the lifeguards, the -- we pay for a lot of it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I agree we pay for a lot of it, but I’m still saying that that’s not positive cash flow.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s why we provide it. If it made money, then somebody else would do it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s a good idea. Let’s let somebody make money on it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But if we’re talking cost recovery and so I’m saying, hey, I mean in my book it’s a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’d give it a two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s not even cost recovery on the people.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Twos.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: A one.

MS. GARD: Twos get it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero for mine.

MS. GARD: Portion of the community served.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They don’t care about yours.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two. Significant part.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: A very small part out there.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m with Jim, two.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: A community center open to the entire community that’s got to be at least a --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: It’s going to serve at least half of the community. It will serve half of the --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It’ll serve at least half.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean the Civic Centre serves -- just about everybody in the community showed up to the Civic Centre at one point or another.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Substantial part of the community, I’d say a three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three. That’s a three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Significant or substantial, that’s the --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Do you really think it’s a substantial part because I disagree?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Absolutely.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: A community center.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Look at all the people. Look at all the --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If you have athletic, indoor athletic fields, if you have, you know --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Look at all the people that go to Sylvester Powell in Mission that would go here.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, like if you have a pool, if you have something like what Olathe has done, you’d have, yeah, absolutely would serve --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- a majority of the community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It depends on what you would build.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Your mom would go to it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It depends on what you build.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean I know some people east of 435 would have to get in their car and drive west of 435 and discover this life west of 435. And if it happens it’s going to be a really cool thing.

MS. GARD: Three?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. We want to keep this one three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t think it is, but that’s what I’m hearing.

MS. GARD: I think the threes have it. Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Healthy, two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Attractive, healthy and well-maintained -- three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

MS. GARD: You’re the deciding vote. Three?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’ll go with Jim’s three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Way to go, Jim.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Man, I’m getting -- this is a railroad job here.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’ll go three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: One. You’re going to go with a three?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Actually it does. It will attract -- it will attract -- done right it can attract a large amount of people to an area. So, that does promote economic growth.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Safety, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And one of the things that economic growth and vitality includes is a desirable environment to live, work, play and visit. And that contributes directly to that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: All right. Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I strongly disagree.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s absurd.

MS. GARD: Compromise on two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We’ll let you have one.

MS. GARD: Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t know what it’s got to do with that. Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well-planned.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well-planned.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah, it’s well-planned.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I give it one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: How do you know it’s well-planned?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Not the community center.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: They’ve been planning it for years, it ought to be well-planned.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: A well-planned -- having a community center is a -- provides for a well-planned community, doesn’t it?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’ll say three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We have a community center last time I checked.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: But it’s not --

MS. GARD: We’re going to compromise on a two. Quality cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s a four.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Four.

MS. GARD: Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’d give it at least a one or two because you’re providing opportunities for children, too.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Afterschool programs.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Programs after school.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Go with a one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Wow, we’ve got some loosey-goosey connections going on here, guys, you know.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: [inaudible].
(Ballentine Street – Johnson Drive to 62nd Street)

MS. GARD: All right. The next project is one that we scored in January. The next one, Ballentine Street, Johnson Drive to 62nd Street. Are we mandated to provide this?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery of the program project.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Would that be part of CARS?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, actually there’s some --

MS. GARD: Oh, I skipped one. I’m sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There actually is maybe some --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s not CARS eligible.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s not CARS eligible.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There may actually be some cost recovery on this because right now we’re having to mill and overlay those streets constantly because of the bad shoulders on those things where they don’t have the stability and they constantly keep crumbling and we have to keep going back in there and resurfacing these roads all the time. So, by improving that road and building it up properly we should really reduce the number of times we have to go back to the frequency of going back in and resurfacing those roads. So, there may be actually some recoverability there.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Councilmember Vaught has brought this up before too, the redevelopment that might happen if you improve the road would also -- might increase the values of the homes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I was looking at something more direct. But, yeah, I think there’s actually a direct return on if you’re having to go in there every two years or three years instead of every six or something that’s going to be -- you can recover some of those monies if you went and spent dollars to do it right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I could go with a one instead of zero.

MS. GARD: One. Okay. I’m sorry, I skipped one. Reliance on the city to provide this project.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Four.

MS. GARD: Portion of the community served.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One.

MS. GARD: One. Attractive healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Four.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Four?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s actually not essential to the --

MS. GARD: Guys, we’re almost done, you can do it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Where is that coming from, four? You’re getting a rise out of everybody. How about a -- how about a --

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s only a small portion of the community, but it does affect that portion. So, yeah, one.

MS. GARD: I see ones.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah, it’s a one.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: One.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Six.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s more into vitality than economic growth.

MS. GARD: One. One. One. One.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One. One is good.

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Two.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: All right. I’ll give you a two.

MS. GARD: Two. Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: One.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: One.

MS. GARD: One. Quality cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Unless you play in the street.

MS. GARD: Zero. Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Probably a zero.

MS. GARD: Zero for safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Safe community is a one. Well, you have to give it a one. I mean you’re talking about sidewalks and better roads.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It has to be at least a one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’d give at least a one. It’s going to provide some level of safety or you wouldn’t do it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I can live with one.
(Midland Drive – Shawnee Mission Parkway to I-435 (eligible for CARS) Scoring)

MS. GARD: One. All right, guys. We’ve got two left. Midland Drive, Shawnee Mission Parkway to I-435.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I thought we were done.

MS. GARD: Are we mandated?

COUNCILMEMBERS: No.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the city.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Four.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No, can’t that be --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Wait a minute.

MS. GARD: I’m sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Can’t that be CIP or CARS or something?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We might get some CARS money on that though, right?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes, we will.

MS. GARD: For cost recovery.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, that might be a three, right?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: It’s a three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Is it 50-50 on CARS?

MS. GARD: 50-50 on CARS?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: On that project.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: 50-50 on construction.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s right. Because in the list it was like 60-40.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, what are you going to say three?

MS. GARD: So, two?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Three or two?

MS. GARD: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two or three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Three.

MS. GARD: Three. Portion of community served.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s pretty big. That’s heavily used. We got --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: What about cost recovery?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Cost recovery, we skipped that?

MS. GARD: I thought we put three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: For cost recovery?

MS. GARD: Isn’t that what we were just talking about, CARS?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I thought we were talking about reliance on the city to provide the program because we were talking about CARS funding and stuff.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Start over.

MS. GARD: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Zero. A four.

MS. GARD: Four, three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: A three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Get my numbers straight here.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: A one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Of course I would say at least, yeah, probably a two. I mean that’s pretty heavily used. I’d give it a two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s a pretty bit connector.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’m going to say three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m a two.

MS. GARD: Two. Twos have it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Good job.

MS. GARD: Attractive healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Two.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That street is going to add a lot. That would be a big economic impact getting that street done. You’ve got some businesses there. That’s going --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: That’s part of the -- one of the biggest [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It really is. I mean as far as 435 goes that’s our most developable.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, not between 435 and Shawnee Mission Parkway.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean there is just --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You’ve got to focus that in on --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. But that creates -- that will create a heavier use, too.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: There’s a lot of -- there’s a lot of stuff.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’ll says two.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two works.

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s good stuff. It’s a two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two.

MS. GARD: Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One.

MS. GARD: One. Quality cultural and recreational opportunity.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, does this include --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, you’ve got to give something because cyclists -- cyclists have been complaining for years.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: This is one -- I agree with you and I’ve brought this up myself like ten times. So, that’s --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They’re talking about cycling trails and all that stuff. There is some [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think recreational is at least one.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One. It gets a one.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That gets a one.

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah.

MS. GARD: Safety community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, wait a minute.

MS. GARD: Okay. Back up.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Are we going with a one on that one? Are you serious?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Two then. Let’s do a two. Quality -- yeah, I’m fine with that. Recreational too.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s a key trail.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It really is.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And here is the deal. That trail links three other trails in the county.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I say three. Let’s do three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: [Inaudible]. Whoa.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, I’m dead serious. It links three other trails in the whole county.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It does. No, I’m not going -- I didn’t think this four was there, I mean --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And first of all, we had a guy that lost his life on that road.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And you have a woman that got hit by a car that was laying in the ditch or whatever.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Then let’s do three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s probably our most needed trail in the city and has been for a long time.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Let’s do it.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Then let’s do three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three.

MS. GARD: Three. Do we all agree?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: For cultural --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Dan, you are so influential.

MS. GARD: Wow. Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Hey, I’m just telling you the facts.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, if people are dying out there it probably would be good to have it fixed.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It was a friend of mine that got killed there.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know, maybe a two.
MS. GARD: Two. Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, you’re talking about the whole city-wide.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I mean I would -- two. Yeah. Get people off the street. Let’s give it a two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. It’s city-wide.

MS. GARD: Two.
(Johnson Drive and I-435 Signalization (may be eligible for outside funding) Scoring)

MS. GARD: All right, guys. Last project. Johnson Drive and I-435 signalization. Are we mandated?

COUNCILMEMBERS: No.

MS. GARD: Reliance on the city.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Four.

MS. GARD: Cost recovery.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No, we’re getting money -- we can --

MS. GARD: It could be CARS eligible.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Possibly.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Could be, so three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Three on what?

MS. GARD: We’re on cost recovery.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Three on cost recovery.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Kind of reliance on the city to do the programs for. The cost recovery would be a three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Portion of the community served.

MS. GARD: Zero, four, three. Portion of the community served.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s got to be pretty big. That’s pretty heavily

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s pretty big. That’s a big exit ramp coming into the city.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s big.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s a three.

MS. GARD: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Probably a three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That would be a three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three, okay.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. Johnson Drive.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: [Inaudible] want a signal there, so --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You don’t want --

MS. GARD: Attractive healthy and --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did everyone agree on three?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Everybody but Stephanie did.

MS. GARD: We’ve agreed multiple times. I’ve actually been keeping a tally.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: All except her.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The one who doesn’t want this.

MS. GARD: I’ve been keeping a tally.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’ll say three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just wanted to write this down on the calendar.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We all agreed on your three for the --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We better write two things down on the calendar.

MS. GARD: Okay. Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Attractive, healthy and -- attractive, healthy and --

MS. GARD: Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, it’s just a stoplight.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That doesn’t --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It doesn’t do much in that regard.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No, I’d say zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean it’s got a lot of value, but it’s not really much that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Zero or -- yeah, probably a zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t have a problem with zero even. I mean it’s --

MS. GARD: Zero.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That could contribute a little because you’re trying to get that --

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Maybe a one.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: If you do it the right way you do the reverse Polish thing and then I’m going to go with -- what did you say?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You mean the -- what do you call it? The reverse what?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s an engineering term.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah.

MS. GARD: One.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Don’t let my wife hear you say that.

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two on mobility.

MS. GARD: The engineers are laughing at you.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It affects mobility significantly.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Let’s try a two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah.

MS. GARD: Environmentally sustainability and well-planned community.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: One.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: One.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well-planned. Stoplights.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t know. I mean I guess if they’re not -- if the stoplights aren’t well-planned just shut them all off.

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Two.

MS. GARD: Quality cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Zero.

MS. GARD: Safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You’ve got to go higher than that. How many accidents -- there are a lot of -- isn’t there quite a bit of accidents on that?

MS. GARD: I don’t think there is.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m going to say -- I’m going to go with three on that one.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That’s almost a three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ll accept a three.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’ll say three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: A lot of accident on that one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’ve seen some bad ones.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Three.

MS. GARD: Three?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three.

MS. GARD: All right.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MS. GARD: Okay. We’re done. These scores will be compiled and they’ll be sent to you via e-mail, whenever you do that.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’ll see how we get them. We may send them out and then we’ll definitely bring them back during budget process to work on whether we want to do a two-year or a three-year plan.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: A three-year plan.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And we can kind of confirm that during the budget process.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Discuss. Okay. That’ll be our next steps. Thank you, Caitlin.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, that concludes our agenda. This item was for informational purposes only, so there is no action to take.

C. ADJOURNMENT

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I will accept a motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

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

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All those opposed. Motion passes. We’re adjourned.
[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 8:30 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 March 21, 2017

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk









File Attachment Icon
CCM03072017.docx