City Council AGENDA

Transcription

City Council AGENDA

City Council
AGENDA
Monday, July 11, 2016
7:30 PM
A. ROLL CALL
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & MOMENT OF SILENCE
C. CONSENT AGENDA
1.
APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2016.
2.
APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2016.
3.
REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 2016.
4.
CONSIDER EXTENSION OF SUP-03-95-05, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED TO SHELLY HOOG FOR THE OPERATION OF SHELLY’S HAIR SALON , A
ONE-CHAIR IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON LOCATED AT 22110 WEST 64TH PLACE.
At their June 20, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to recommend that the
Governing Body approve extension of the special use permit subject to the conditions listed
in the staff report. A memo and staff report are included.
Consider approving the extension of SUP-03-95-05. PAGES 1 - 4
5.
CONSIDER EXTENSION OF SUP-06-89-05, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED TO FAMILY TREE NURSERY FOR ACCESSORY RETAIL SALES AT 7036
NIEMAN ROAD.
At their June 20, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to recommend that the
Governing Body approve extension of the special use permit subject to the conditions listed
in the staff report. A memo and staff report are included.
Page 2
City Council
07/11/2016
Consider approving the extension of SUP-06-89-05. PAGES 5 - 8
D. MAYOR'S ITEMS
1.
THE MAYOR MAY PRESENT ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION.
E. APPOINTMENTS
1.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Distler is recommending the appointment of John Smith to the
Planning Commission with a term ending on June 30, 2019. A memo, letter
of interest and resume are included. PAGES 9 - 14
ACTION:
Consider appointing John Smith to the Planning Commission with a term
ending on June 30, 2019.
COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
2.
CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP.
DISCUSSION: The Shawnee Downtown Partnership is recommending the reappointment of
Jeff Vaught with a term expiring July 8, 2019. A memo is included. PAGES
15 - 16
ACTION:
Consider reappointing Jeff Vaught to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership
with a term expiring July 8, 2019.
COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
F. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Page 3
City Council
a)
07/11/2016
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
b)
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
G. PUBLIC ITEMS
1.
CONSIDER A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH OAK MEADOWS, LLC FOR
RENOVATION OF THE B&B SHAWNEE 18 THEATRES AND ADDITIONAL
RESTAURANT/RETAIL SPACE AT WESTGLEN CENTER.
DISCUSSION: The WestGlen Center at Renner Road and Midland Drive was developed in
the 1990s. It includes an 18 screen theater, various restaurants and a hotel.
Oak Meadows, LLC and B&B Theaters are planning major renovations and
are requesting City assistance. Renovations include interior and exterior
theater upgrades, parking lot improvements, and 6,000 square feet of new
restaurant/retail pad site development along Midland Drive. The estimated
cost for the Theater Project is $6.4 million, with $4.9 million in private
investment and proposed $1.5 million in public assistance. The cost of the
new restaurant/retail pad site development is unknown at this time, with a
proposed $300,000 in City assistance. A memo and information from the
City's financial advisor is included. PAGES 17 - 32
ACTION:
Consider approving the Development Agreement with Oak Meadows, LLC
for renovation of the B&B Shawnee 18 Theatres and additional
restaurant/retail space at WestGlen Center.
COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
2.
CONSIDER ESTABLISHING BUDGET LIMIT AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR
THE 2016 AMENDED BUDGET AND THE 2017 BUDGET.
DISCUSSION: Kansas Statutes require the City to set a public hearing for the 2016
Amended Budget and the 2017 Budget. Included are the notices setting the
Page 4
City Council
07/11/2016
time and date for the public hearing for July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. A memo
and other related information is also included. PAGES 33 - 48
ACTION:
a) Consider approving the Notice of Public Hearing amending the 2016
Budget for July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m, and
b) Consider approving the Notice of Public Hearing for the 2017 Budget for
July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m.
COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
H. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
1.
RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR JULY 11, 2016 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,073,567.19.
COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
2.
MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.
COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
I. ADJOURNMENT
Journal 75, Volume 12-2016, Page 1
SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
June 27, 2016
CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
June 27, 2016
7:30 P.M.
Michelle Distler - Mayor
Councilmembers Present
Councilmember Pflumm
Councilmember Neighbor
Councilmember Jenkins
Councilmember Kemmling
Councilmember Vaught
Councilmember Meyer
Councilmember Sandifer
Staff Present
City Manager Gonzales
Assistant City Manager Sunderman
City Clerk Powell
City Attorney Rainey
Finance Director Rogers
Police Chief Moser
Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Planning Director Chaffee
Information Technology Director Bunting
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Stormwater Manager Gregory
Management Analyst Schmitz
Sr. Project Engineer Schnettgoecke
Sr. Project Engineer Moeller-Krass
Deputy Fire Chief Scarpa
Police Captain Tennis
Police Captain Hein
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Senior Accountant Oldham
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)
A.
ROLL CALL
MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Shawnee
City Council. I would ask that you please silence your electronic devices at this time.
I am Mayor Michelle Distler and I will be chairing this meeting. I will do a roll call at this
time. Councilmember Neighbor.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Present.
MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Present.
MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Jenkins.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Present.
MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Present.
June 27, 2016
MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Present.
MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Present.
MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Present.
MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Present.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
B.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
MAYOR DISTLER: Please stand and join us in the Pledge followed by a moment of
silence.
(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Before we begin our agenda, I'd like to explain our
procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public
input. If you would like to speak to the Council at any of those times, please come
forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record
and then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear
your comments, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy,
comments are limited to five minutes and no person may speak more than twice to any
one agenda item. After you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure
we have an accurate record of your name and address.
I would also like to remind Councilmembers to wait to be recognized before speaking.
And when you are recognized, be sure to turn on your microphone. Please turn the
microphone off when you are done speaking.
In addition, while we won't do a roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers'
names who vote in minority so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate
record of the vote.
I also want to state that we do not need to have an Executive Session tonight as shown
on the agenda.
C.
CONSENT AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2016.
APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2016.
REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2016.
CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE JOHNSON DRIVE AND
WOODLAND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, P.N. 3399.
June 27, 2016
5. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE K-7 CORRIDOR PROJECT AT
75th STREET AND 43rd STREET, P.N. 3369.
6. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SHAWNEE MISSION SCHOOL DISTRICT TO
PROVIDE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS FOR THE 2016-17 SCHOOL YEAR.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the Agenda is the Consent Agenda. Does the
Council have any items they would like to remove? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in
favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by
Councilmember Pflumm to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 8-0.]
D.
MAYOR'S ITEMS
PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH PROCLAMATION
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Mayor's Items. Tonight, I will
proclaim the month of July as "Parks and Recreation Month.” So, I'd like to ask Neil
Holman and any Parks Board members who are here tonight, and any staff from the
Parks and Recreation Department to join me up front.
From the Office of the Mayor, a Proclamation in recognition of Parks and Recreation
Month. Whereas, the public parks and recreation systems are dedicated to enhancing
the quality of life for residents and communities around the country through recreation
programming, leisure activities and conservation efforts. Public parks embody the
American tradition of preserving public lands for the benefit of all citizens; and
Whereas, parks and recreation and leisure experiences provide opportunities for young
people to live, grow and develop into contributing members of society, create lifelines
and continuous life experiences for older members of the community, generate
opportunities for people to come together and experience a sense of community and
pay dividends to communities by attracting businesses, jobs and increasing housing
value; and
Whereas, we recognize the important contributions of our City's Parks and Recreation
staff, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the many recreation-related civic
groups and non-profit organizations in our community. This dedicated core of citizens
help make our public parks clean, safe and attractive, provide diverse recreation
opportunities for residents and visitors to our community and lend essential support to
projects throughout the year; and
Whereas, we join with the National Recreation and Parks Association to call upon all
Parks and Recreation supporters to join us in recognizing the importance of our local
June 27, 2016
parks and to learn more about how to support the green spaces that bring our
community a higher quality of life, safer places to play and healthy alternatives through
recreational programming for citizens of all ages.
Therefore, I, Michelle Distler, Mayor of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, do hereby
proclaim the month of July 2016 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of
Shawnee, and encourage all citizens to enjoy what our community has to offer by
attending special events and visiting our parks and pools during the summer.
(Applause)
E.
APPOINTMENTS
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Appointments.
1.
CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 1 is to Consider Reappointments to the Planning
Commission. I am recommending the reappointment of Augie Bogina with a term
expiring on June 30, 2017, and Steven Wise with a term expiring on June 30, 2019.
a) Consider reappointing Augie Bogina to the Planning Commission with a
term expiring June 30, 2019.
Two actions are required. The first is to consider reappointing Augie Bogina to the
Planning Commission with a term expiring on June 30, 2017. Is there any discussion
from the Council? Does anyone from the audience want to -- oh, Mr. Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a point of clarification. So, Augie has made it
clear that he would like to be appointed to an unfilled portion of a departing Planning
Commissioner’s term, which is then going to leave us vacancy, right, for a full term?
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: To be represented at another date?
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay.
MAYOR DISTLER: Anyone from the audience that would want to comment on this
item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.
favor say aye.
June 27, 2016
[Therefore, Councilmember Vaught moved and Councilmember Meyer seconded to
approve the reappointment of Augie Bogina to the Planning Commission with a term
expiring on June 30, 2017. The motion passed 8-0.]
b) Consider reappointing Steven Wise to the Planning Commission with a
term expiring on June 30, 2019.
MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider reappointing Steven Wise to the
Planning Commission with a term expiring on June 30, 2019. Is there any discussion
from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to comment on this item?
Seeing none, I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.
favor say aye.
[Therefore, Councilmember Kenig moved and Councilmember Vaught seconded to
approve the reappointment of Steven Wise to the Planning Commission with a term
expiring June 30, 2019. The motion passes 8-0.]
2.
CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item 2 is to Consider Reappointments to the Board of Zoning
Appeals. I am recommending the reappointment of Robert Prosser, Matt Zimmerman
and Nate Baldwin to the Board of Zoning Appeals with terms expiring on June 30, 2019.
a) Consider reappointing Robert Prosser to the Board of Zoning Appeals
with a term expiring on June 30, 2019.
MAYOR DISTLER: Three actions are required. The first is to consider reappointing
Robert Prosser to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a term expiring on June 30, 2019.
Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience want to comment
on this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.
favor say aye.
June 27, 2016
[Therefore, Councilmember Sandifer moved and Councilmember Neighbor seconded to
approve the reappointment of Robert Prosser to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a
term expiring on June 30, 2019. The motion passed 8-0.]
b) Consider reappointing Matt Zimmerman to the Board of Zoning Appeals
MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider reappointing Matt Zimmerman to
the Board of Zoning Appeals with a term expiring on June 30, 2019. Is there any
discussion from the Council? Does anyone from the audience want to comment on this
item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Move for approval.
favor say aye.
[Therefore, Councilmember Neighbor moved and Councilmember Meyer seconded the
reappointment of Matt Zimmerman to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a term expiring
on June 30, 2019.]
c) Consider reappointing Nate Baldwin to the Board of Zoning Appeals
MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is to consider reappointing Nate Baldwin to the
Board of Zoning Appeals with a term expiring on June 30, 2019. Is there any discussion
from the Council? Anyone from the audience want to comment on this item? Seeing
none, I will accept a motion.
favor say aye.
June 27, 2016
[Therefore, Councilmember Sandifer moved and Councilmember Vaught seconded to
approve the reappointment of Nate Baldwin to the Board of Zoning appeals with a term
expiring June 30, 2019. The motion passed 8-0.]
F.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the Agenda is Business from the Floor. Is there
anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none.
G.
PUBLIC ITEMS
1.
PRESENTATION OF 2015 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL
REPORT (CAFR).
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the Agenda is Public Items. Item Number 1 is a
Presentation of the 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The City's financial
statements and operations for 2015 were audited by Mize Houser & Company, P.A. A
representative of the firm will make a short presentation about their findings.
Does anyone on the Council have any questions before they present? Okay. Please
come forward. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’ll wait and drill them afterwards.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.
MR. NIBARGER: Good evening. I’m Jonathan Nibarger with Mize House & Company.
And I was the auditor in charge of the 2015 audit and I’m here to briefly go over the
financial report and then answer any questions you may have. I was going to start in
the salmon-colored financial statement, or if you have an electronic copy to kind of go
through.
The first three pages in the financial statement are the Auditor’s Report. And the
Auditor’s Report includes standards that we use for the audit, and most importantly, the
opinion that we issued. We issued an unmodified opinion, which is the best opinion the
City can receive. And I feel like that speaks very highly on the financial management of
the City.
The next section of the financial statements is the Management Discussion Analysis.
The Management Discussion Analysis covers significant financial changes for the City
during the year. This is followed by the financial statements, which contain information
on the City’s major and non-major funds. For each budgeted fund there is a separate
page that show the GAP basis of accounting and adjustments to get to the budgetary
basis of accounting, the budgeted amounts and a comparison between the two.
Also included are the notes to the financial statements. The notes include information
over the City’s accounting policies, employee benefits, long-term debt and capital
assets. The most significant change to the notes this year was the City’s
implementation of GASB 69, which accounts for the KPERS and KP&F net pension
liability for the City.
June 27, 2016
Then after the notes to the financial statements is the Statistical section. And the
Statistical section includes various tables for the City data over the past ten years.
Starting on page 103 is the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Because the
City expended more than $750,000 in federal awards during 2015, you’re required to
receive a special audit over those expenditures. And we audited the Highway Planning
and the Construction Grant cluster. And for this grant we issued an unmodified opinion,
which again is the best opinion that we’re able to issue.
Outside of the financial statements we provided a couple letters. And one of these
letters we had auditor’s comments to management. And we identified a couple issues
where we felt the City could strengthen internal controls. But I wanted to stress that we
do not consider these deficiencies with the City.
In closing, I would like to say that we greatly appreciated the assistance and
cooperation of all of the City staff this year. They were extremely helpful during the
audit and I think they do a great job for the City. So, thank you for your time and I’m
available for any questions you may have.
MAYOR DISTLER: Does Council have any questions? Mr. Jenkins.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic.] Just in that first [inaudible]
kind of reviewing the areas of emphasis and so on, you look at that part with other
matters required supplementary information. And just your final statement there, “We
do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the
limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to [inaudible] opinion or
provide any assurance.” So, we really don’t get much back on that. What is it you need
in order to do that?
MR. NIBARGER: Let me -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
MR. NIBARGER: Which section are you referring to?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Page 2 of the hard copy where you talk about -MR. NIBARGER: The other matters required supplementary information?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes.
MR. NIBARGER: In that, that’s really just standard that we don’t issue an opinion on
any supplemental information because it’s not a required part of the financial statement.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, the statement seems to be misleading then
because it says we do not provide [inaudible] with sufficient evidence, so that kind of
threw me off I guess. You could say you don’t do it customarily?
MR. NIBARGER: Correct. Yeah. I think that that’s more just standard language that
we’re required to use.
June 27, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You might want to look at that standard language
because it sounds like we’re not giving you the stuff you need to make that
determination by [inaudible]. So, FYI. And then you talk about -- you talked about
these -- do we need a copy of that other -- that letter on the internal?
MR. NIBARGER: There should be two letters outside of the financial statement.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is it in this report? I haven’t completely gotten through
the whole report yet, but is it in here somewhere?
MR. NIBARGER: No. It’s separate from the financial statement. There were probably
electronic copies provided to you.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s something I brought up last year. I was really
interested in the internal controls thing and so I would like to see that. And there’s
other questions I have, but it’s not for you. It would be more for Maureen as I get
through this thing. It’s quite a process going page by page through this. And so it’s a
very good document. It’s worthwhile to look at.
MAYOR DISTLER: Any other comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience
that would like to comment on this item? Seeing none, this item is for informational
purposes only, so no action is required. Thank you so much.
MR. NIBARGER: Thank you.
2.
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO REDEVELOPMENT AND EXCISE TAX
ABATEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH SHAWNEE ASSOCIATES, LLC
REGARDING PRAIRIE PINES TOWNHOME PROJECT.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Item Number 2 is to Consider Amendments to
Redevelopment and Excise Tax Abatement Agreements with Shawnee Associates, LLC
Regarding Prairie Pines Townhome Project.
On August 12, 2013, the Governing Body approved a Redevelopment Agreement and
an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement on May 12, 2014, with Shawnee Associates, LLC
for the Prairie Pines Townhome Project. On June 22, 2015, the Governing Body
approved the First Amendment and a one year extension. Shawnee Associates, LLC
has requested a second one-year extension to complete the Project Plan due to delays
caused by the weather and other factors. An ordinance is required to authorize an
amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement. An addendum is required to amend the
Excise Tax Agreement.
a) Consider approving an Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to
the Prairie Pines Redevelopment Agreement. If approved, an Ordinance
number will be assigned.
Two actions are required. The first recommended action is to consider approving an
Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to the Prairie Pines Redevelopment
Agreement.
Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that
would like to speak to this item? Mr. Neighbor?
June 27, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I believe it’s -- the addendum is for a period of six
months, is that correct?
CITY ATTORNEY RAINEY: Yes, that’s correct. On the excise tax abatement
agreements you’re correct.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The provisions of the excise tax abatement tie with the
residential property and so that is a six-month. It corresponds with the six months in the
amendment to the agreement also.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: If there’s no other comments I will accept a motion.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say
aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Aye.
[Therefore, Councilmember Vaught moved and Councilmember Pflumm seconded to
approve an Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to the Prairie Pines
Redevelopment Agreement. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Ordinance Number 3160 was assigned)
b) Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the 2016
Addendum to the Prairie Pines Excise Tax Agreement.
MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider approving and
authorizing the Mayor to sign the 2016 Addendum to the Prairie Pines Excise Tax
Agreement.
Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience want to
speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.
aye.
June 27, 2016
authorize the Mayor to sign the 2016 Addendum to the Prairie Pines Excise Tax
Agreement. The motion passed 8-0.]
3.
CONSIDER ACCEPTING 2017 JOHNSON COUNTY STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL (SMAC) FUNDING FOR THREE
NIEMAN ROAD PROJECTS.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider Accepting 2017 Johnson County
Stormwater Management Advisory Council (SMAC) Funding for Three Nieman Road
Projects.
At the June 21, 2016 Council Committee meeting, the Committee discussed accepting
2017 SMAC funding for the following three flood remediation projects: Nieman Road
Corridor North: West of Flint to West of Barton Road: 6200 Block of Nieman Culverts;
and Nieman Road Corridor Middle: East of Barton Road to East of Nieman Road. In
order to accept the funding, a Notice of Intent is required.
The Council Committee discussed this issue at the June 21 st meeting and the
recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign Notice
of Intent to accept 2017 Johnson County SMAC funding for the three flood remediation
projects.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded -COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mayor. Sorry.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes. Councilmember Meyer.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I just wanted to point out that you all should have gotten
an e-mail about this, that it includes a staff position that is a 0.09 mill levy increase that
was discussed last week. And I think I was not clear on it, so I apologize that it was not
communicated more clearly that when we approved this last week in Committee it
included a staff position with a 0.09 mill levy increase. So, I wanted to make sure that
everyone was aware of that before we voted.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I didn’t think that’s what we were voting on right now. I
thought we were voting on authorizing the Mayor to sign a Notice of Intent here.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s true.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right?
June 27, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I think just because it’s on the agenda right now,
so I just wanted to make sure that we had that conversation.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But I don’t think this considers that additional position
at this point. It certainly doesn’t say so. This is only talking about authorizing the Mayor
to sign a Notice of Intent with the Johnson County SMAC funding people.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, I -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: They can put us back on the agenda with that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I mean, my understanding would be that we need the
position to move forward with the project. So, if we’re not comfortable funding the
position it would be hard I would think to accept the SMAC funding. Does that make
sense?
MAYOR DISTLER: So, to your point -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that’s a different motion.
MAYOR DISTLER: -- I think, how could you intend to do the project if we don’t have
the position I think is what you’re saying.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s my point. Yeah. Yeah.
MAYOR DISTLER: So, how can we -- so, we kind of need to affirm that then.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear
before moving forward with the project that a part of that is this position that we need to
have in order to move forward. I just wanted it to be on everyone’s radar because I
don’t think it was clear in the Committee that it was a mill increase for that position. So,
just putting it out before we vote.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I mean I wouldn’t be in favor of, you know, an
additional individual. If we’re doing these three projects, we could subcontract those
services out. And so anyway, I definitely, regardless of whether we move forward with
these guys or not, we do not need to hire a person for three jobs and then have them for
the rest of our life. That doesn’t make sense.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think -- yeah. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree.
But the funding then for paying consultants would also need to be found somewhere.
So, we need about -- it’s 72,000 or whatever, whatever a consultant would cost. It’s not
budgeted right now for that staff position I guess is what I’m saying.
MAYOR DISTLER: Well, and the discussion was had, unfortunately you had to miss
that meeting. But the discussion was had that the need is already there for the staff
position and would continue to be there after this project was complete as well.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. So, if these things are SMAC funded and part of
that is his salary and part of that is a contract person, that all comes as part of the
June 27, 2016
project. Okay. So, that’s, you know, so if we’re, you know, whatever those dollars
exactly are they’re going to incorporate that individual that you want to hire. But I’m just
saying I don’t necessarily believe that we need that guy moving down the road.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And, Dan, I will say that was my initial understanding last
week during the conversation. I mistakenly assumed that the cost of whatever the staff
position would be through the SMAC projects was wrapped into the bond that we were
taking out. That was not -- that was my understanding as well. But not the case right
now.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I guess we’re in a complete disagreement here
on what’s going on because it doesn’t say in here that we’re authorizing that. This tells
me we’re authorizing the Mayor to move forward and tell the county that we would be in
a position where we might like to accept those SMAC funds. Also, if we were to hire
this person on a term appointment on a contracted position that could be rolled up as far
as the project cost. I don’t see why that would have to be a separately funded item
addressed by a mill levy increase. There’s no real connection there, guys. So, I think
we can move forward with this project and incorporate, if that position is needed on a
term or a contracted basis, that could be part of the overall project cost and can be part
of the bonded.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I don’t disagree with you. I’m simply putting it out there
because I think it would not be prudent for us to move forward with trying to get SMAC
funding when we have ambiguity on the I guess source of the staff funding. I just
wanted to make sure because it wasn’t clear that we effectively affirmed a 0.09 mill
increase without an actual vote last week. So, I wanted to make sure that was on
everybody’s radar and that we were being responsible and figuring out where we were
going to fund the staff that’s needed to get that done before we move forward with
accepting it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. And from the get-go, my understanding was that
person was going to be part of the project and that would be rolled up in -- and when we
float the bond on that that would be included as part of that cost. So, I never envisioned
us, even in the last meeting, that that position was going to be separate and distinct
from the other.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And that’s why I bring it up.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I know those things are after the fact and I understand
what you’re saying, yes, absolutely. But I would like to go back to the earlier premise
where this is part of the project. This person would represent part of the project.
MAYOR DISTLER: Well, and I would just -- to Councilmember Meyer’s point as well, I
also want to clarify that, I mean, the current unmet need and the ongoing unmet need
we currently have 49 stormwater issues that we have not been able to address. Some
of them have been on the wait list two to five years. I’ve copied you on some of the
residents’ e-mails that have reached out to me because they’ve been on the wait list so
long because their property is eroding with stormwater issues. And the answer for
years keeps having to be we don’t have the staff or the funding to help you with your
problem. And the majority of them are in Ward II. And like I said so now recently I’ve
June 27, 2016
been copying you on more of those e-mails, so that you can see the residents’ concerns
that are coming to me. Because once all those heavy rains hit, of course, they
increased. More so they were like, hey, we still have this problem. And then we had
several new ones come in. So, to say that there is not a need past this project is
unrealistic. And the fact that we’ve already got 49 needs currently waiting, and that’s
not going to stop with the condition that are stormwater is in at this time, which is why
we have the stormwater fee and stuff that we’re trying to fix these issues with. So, Mr.
Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m actually in agreement. Thank you first of all,
Stephanie, for letting us know that. And I did get your e-mail and I did read it, but,
whew, it went right over my head. But I’m in agreement with Eric as voting on this
tonight has nothing to do with the unmet needs at all. And you can’t say if you vote on
this, then, you know, you’re agreeing to a, you know, a whatever, an increase in the mill
levy. Because that is -- that’s not the way it works. I mean, if we’re going to vote on this
and obtain those dollars from the county, then we need to figure out maybe we, you
know, it’s not a huge amount of money. And to leverage that into a tax increase, it kind
of bothers me a little bit. So, we should be able to work our budget around to afford one
person if we absolutely, positively have to have that person. I’m under the opinion is
that we, especially when it comes to projects that we should be subcontracting those
guys out so that in the wintertime we don’t have a guy sitting around. You know, and I
know there’s a lot of other things to do, but, you know, if we need four guys in the
summer and we need nobody in the winter, then we contract four guys in the summer.
So, that’s all I was saying. But I’m in agreement Eric on this thing here. I don’t think
that his motion and my second is a tax increase.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mayor.
MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would agree. I don’t think it’s a tax increase either. I
just wanted to make sure because the way it is structured right now, it was the way that
it came through Committee and that was including a 0.09 mill levy increase. So, I didn’t
want anyone on the Council to be in the position of voting for something that included a
mill levy. And I agree with you. I don’t really think that staff should come from a mill
increase. I think there should be somewhere maybe in the -- I don’t know. I don’t think
it should come from a mill increase if it’s wrapped into the bond or if it’s from existing
resources. I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware. And I don’t, yeah, I
don’t think that moving forward with this tonight necessarily means you’re increasing the
mill levy or you’re hiring the staff. The fact of the matter is we need an additional staff
person in some capacity to make this project work. And I wanted to make sure we were
comfortable with the parameters that we had set before. Whether we want to -- I
assume we can address the funding of the staff person at a future date when we talk
about the budget as a whole.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s a budget item.
MAYOR DISTLER: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It is, yeah. But I just, I mean, do you understand why I
was bringing it up because of the last conversation?
June 27, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh, I really appreciated it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I think it was helpful to bring it up because it was
good discussion.
MAYOR DISTLER: Right. Because you’re asking me as the Mayor to sign a Notice of
Intent. And her point is if we cannot intend to do it without the additional staff person,
we should not be moving forward with this. And my only comment about the unmet
needs, no, it does not have to directly do with this. It’s because the comment was
made, we only need the person for this project, and that’s not true. So, that’s why I
brought up the 49 open cases that have been on a wait list for two to five years. So,
that’s not related to this, but it was because of the comment that was made.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Right. No, I understand.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m just going to reiterate what the Mayor said. She’s
right. I mean, when we look at our job here is to fulfill needs. And this isn’t a want item,
it’s a need item. And so we’ve got a lot of unmet stormwater needs. And since I’ve
gotten elected in 2010, I’ve seen, you know, in the last few years we’ve seen a lot of
issues with our stormwater pipes. We’re getting there. We’re getting to where it’s going
to be a continuous problem. So, if we don’t staff that department, then I don’t think
we’re going to be able to keep up. You know, it’s a pretty skinny department as it is.
So, I think the idea that we’re just going to hire somebody in even contract labor, which
on certain situations I think it makes sense. You’re going to pay twice as much for
contract labor on a job like this. And if you had somebody with the idea that when the
project is over we’re not going to need them anymore, I don’t think that’s going to be the
case. Because if we’ve got a whole lot of other stormwater needs out there beyond just
what we’re going to be doing down here on Nieman Road. And as we know our metal
pipes are aging. So, it’s just going to get progressively worse. This isn’t going to get
any better. Because we’re going to have more and more problems. So, every time one
caves in that’s more staff, more engineers, more people we’ve got to put out there and
solve it and deal with it. And that’s, you know, something we really need to think about
whether -- I mean, I think the position I think it’s justified. And obviously how we pay for
it is going to be talked about. But I think when you have some clarity on, and we’re
talking about need here, and very big one.
MAYOR DISTLER: And surprisingly as well at the last meeting that I had,
Councilmember Vaught, Councilmember Kenig, Mr. Erlichman, Mr. Frizzel were at the
residence. They were adamant that they don’t want us getting behind on storm issues.
They’re tired of it. They’re tired of waiting. They are like a couple dollars a month is not
an issue to get this problem fixed. And I mean, it became the topic of discussion for
quite a while that night during the last meeting. So, just putting it out there.
So, we had a motion and a second. So, a motion has been and seconded. All those in
favor say aye.
June 27, 2016
[Therefore, Councilmember Jenkins moved and Councilmember Pflumm seconded to
authorize the Mayor to sign a Notice of Intent to accept 2017 Johnson County SMAC
funding for the Nieman Road Corridor North: West of Flint to West of Barton Road
Project (TC-21-074); the 6200 Block of Nieman Culverts Project (TC-21-070); and the
Nieman Road Corridor Middle: East of Barton Road to East of Nieman Rd Project (TC021-0730). The motion passed 8-0.]
4.
CONSIDER SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT TERMS WITH B.B.T. ZARDA,
LLC RELATED TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE SILVERHEEL
SOUTH BENEFIT DISTRICT.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider Summary of Agreement Terms with
B.B.T. Zarda, LLC Related to Purchase of Property in the Silverheel South Benefit
District.
The Silverheel South Improvement District was approved by the Governing Body on
November 13, 2007, and includes three parcels. One parcel has been delinquent on
property taxes for the last six years. The owner of the other two parcels has expressed
interest in purchasing the property and paying the back taxes due provided a portion
can be rebated. An agreement with B.B.T. Zarda, LLC is required.
The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the
Summary of Agreement Terms with B.B.T. Zarda, LLC Related to Purchase of Property
in the Silverheel South Benefit District.
Mr. Zarda is in the audience tonight and wanted to make a few comments. So, if Mr.
Zarda would like to come forward.
MR. ZARDA: Yes. My name is Thomas Zarda and I live at (Address Omitted)
Shawnee, Kansas 66226. And I come here before you -- the first thing I’d like to do is
thank the staff for the time and effort that they put into reviewing this whole project.
They’ve done a tremendous job. And the one thing I’ve always noticed with them and
their comments is that they always made sure that the City came first. And I
congratulate you on that. These two properties need to have one owner. If you’ve
looked at these properties the complexity of the development of these properties is such
that unless they’re combined I don’t know that they’ll ever be developed. There’s issues
with stormwater. There’s issues with cut and fill. The stormwater issue is one of
extreme amount of cost. There’s a 60-inch storm pipe that goes under Silverheel that
needs to be extended all the way to the east property. It does no benefit whatsoever for
these properties at all, but yet it needs to be built. It not only is going -- the cost of that,
but also it’s the loss of the ground that is encompassing that stormwater. You got the
other side of Silverheel, there’s another area over there. There’s two storm pipes that
go into that area. You’re going to lose another three or four acres of ground there. If
you go up around the corner on the southwest corner of this property, the sanitary
sewer line goes up and then it cuts diagonal across and you lose another two to three
acres of ground up there. So, the developable ground, the useable ground, if you will,
the return on your investment is cut down by probably six to seven, eight acres. So, of
the total 30 acres, if you put it all together, you’re only going to have about 22 acres.
Now, if you take and put the properties together, then you can take cut and fill, you can
get onto the west side of Silverheel, clean that all up, find out what you’ve got over there
as far as fill. You can cut quite a bit off of the east side and move that over to the west
side and reclaim some of that ground. And unless that happens, it’s a combination of all
June 27, 2016
three of these, whether it’s two different owners of these properties. That’s why it’s
necessary. Whoever the owner might be, it really needs to be one owner for that to
happen. There are a couple of things that are happening right now and in the report
that you have in front of you it shows that the county says somewhere in the five or six
month area it’ll probably go to the courthouse steps and be auctioned off. That’s
probably true. But I think it’s going to be quite a bit longer than that from what I’ve
heard. So, it may go on for another year or two. We have three potential users for this
property right now. They aren’t willing to pay the high price, but a reasonable price for
pieces of ground on this property. And if we wait six months, we wait a year from now,
I’m sure that those three potential users are going to go away. It takes cooperation I
think between all of us. The other property owner that owns the nine acres on the east
side of this has substantially, substantially reduced their selling price to make this
happen. So, we are willing -- we are willing to put substantial dollars into the
development of this and we’re asking the City for their cooperation, also to make this
happen. There is just a lot of things that go into this. We think the cooperation of all of
us together making this development happen will be a benefit in the long-term for the
City of Shawnee.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
MR. ZARDA: Any questions?
MAYOR DISTLER: Does Council have any questions or comments for Mr. Zarda?
MR. ZARDA: I’ll be available for questions if you have some.
MAYOR DISTLER: Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item?
Mr. Erlichman?
Public Comments:
MR. ERLICHMAN: Ray Erlichman, (Address Omitted). Yeah. That was quite a
meeting the other night on that stormwater thing.
MAYOR DISTLER: People want them fixed.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Beg your pardon?
MAYOR DISTLER: They don’t want us getting behind on getting them fixed.
MR. ERLICHMAN: No. I just have a question about this because I read the supporting
documents online and I just wanted to make sure I understood everything. So, possibly
I can just get clarification. If I read it and I’m just talking about simple, basic numbers,
not this was done here, this was done there and whatever. The City was out $937,000
because of this project originally. And as a result of what is going to be transpiring here,
we will net back $687,000 of that. Is that a correct calculation?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If you took 250 off the first number, then, yes, that’s a
calculation.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Right. Right. I just want to make sure I read it correctly because
sometimes some of these wherefore, who to, how to, where that’s --
June 27, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Correct.
MR. ERLICHMAN: -- get a little confusing to this guy from Brooklyn, New York.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And we’ll receive the future property taxes.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Right. So, we are netting back. We’re getting back what we had
lost, 937,000. Basically we’re getting back $687,000 of that loss. Okay. Nice.
MAYOR DISTLER: But I want to clarify the loss wasn’t because of a bad investment or
something -MR. ERLICHMAN: No, no, no. It was -MAYOR DISTLER: It was delinquent taxes of the property owner.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Right. Right. I understand that.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah.
MR. ERLICHMAN: But we’re recouping.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Again, sometimes some words have different meanings to different
people. But basically there was not $937,000 out the door and we did not -MAYOR DISTLER: Of delinquent taxes.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Of delinquent taxes of which now we are able to recoup 687,000 of
them -MAYOR DISTLER: Yes, sir.
MR. ERLICHMAN: -- with an abatement going forward to Mr. Zarda for the 250,000.
But we’re getting back 687,000 that would have been lost.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes, sir. Absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Could I just address Mr.
Erlichman? Yeah. I mean, so really what’s going on is the new owners are willing to
pay those back taxes right now. Okay. We’re not -- when that property -- if and when it
ever sells or gets foreclosed on, you will get that money, that full amount from the
county if the value of the property sells for the full amount. So, chances are you might
not get the full amount. But in this case we hopefully get some development.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. And we get our tax dollars that was owed to us.
June 27, 2016
MR. ERLICHMAN: So, basically, like I said I just wanted -- I like to, you know, use the
KISS theory right. You know, a kid from Brooklyn, what can I tell you. Basically, if all
goes according to plan, you know, without getting into a semantics war here, we will be
recouping 687,000 out of 937,000, which was basically lost one way or another.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s like having a bird in the hand instead of two in the
bush it sounds to me.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We could wait it out, see if it sells for a higher amount
and recoup more, or we could sell it. We could go for this deal right now and get
basically two-thirds of it back and then have it move forward and maybe get some
development out there and that kind of thing. So, there is definitely two sides to it you
have to weigh it out. Which one sounds like the way to go. To me it sounds like the
way to go.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Right. I just want to make sure I read it correctly. And personally I
like that idea. It sounds good to me to get back that much money.
MAYOR DISTLER: We’d actually be taking more of a risk to let the property foreclosed
upon.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Risk factor.
MR. ERLICHMAN: So, just like I said, I just wanted to make sure I understood what
was in these supporting documents. Hey, yeah, it sounds like a good deal to me.
Okay. Thank you very much for clarifying that. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay. If there’s no other comments from the
audience, I’ll accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.
aye.
[Therefore, Councilmember Meyer moved and Councilmember Kenig seconded to
authorize the Mayor to sign the Summary of Agreement Terms with B.B.T. Zarda, LLC
Related to Purchase of Property in the Silverheel South Benefit District. The motion
passed 8-0.]
H.
STAFF ITEMS
1.
June 27, 2016
CONSIDER A CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR MI
PUBLETO LOCATED AT 7425 QUIVIRA ROAD.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the Agenda is Staff Items. Item Number 1 is to
Consider a Cereal Malt Beverage License for Mi Publeto Located at 7425 Quivira Road.
Mi Publeto has submitted an application for the sale of cereal malt beverages in original
and unopened containers and not for consumption on the premises at 7425 Quivira
Road. The recommended action is to consider approving the license through
December 31, 2016.
Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience? I will
accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Motion to approve.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Second.
aye.
[Therefore, Councilmember Jenkins moved and Councilmember Kemmling seconded to
approve a license for the sale of cereal malt beverages in original and unopened
containers and not for consumption on the licensed premises for Mi Publeto, 7425
Quivira Road, through December 31, 2016. The motion passed 8-0.]
2.
CONSIDER APPROVING FINAL PLANS, ACCEPTING EASEMENTS,
AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS THE
CONNECT SHAWNEE PROJECT, P.N. 3412.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Approving Final Plans, Accepting
Easements, and Authorizing Staff to Advertise for Bids for the Connect Shawnee
Project, P.N. 3412.
Final plans are complete and the estimated total cost of the project is $658,500.
Funding sources include 2015 Kansas Transportation Alternatives (TAP) funds and
Parks and Pipes. The next step is to approve final plans, accept easements, and
authorize staff to proceed with bidding the project.
a) Consider approving the final plans.
There are three recommended actions. The first is to consider approving the final plans.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Second.
June 27, 2016
aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
[Therefore, Councilmember Neighbor moved and Councilmember Kenig seconded
approval of the final plans for the Connect Shawnee Project, P.N. 3412. The motion
passed 8-0.]
b) Consider accepting permanent public recreation tract and construction
easement.
MAYOR DISTLER: The second recommended action is to consider accepting the
permanent public recreation tract and construction easement.
would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.
aye.
[Therefore, Councilmember Vaught moved and Councilmember Sandifer seconded to
accept the permanent public recreation tract and construction easement. The motion
passed 8-0.]
c) Consider authorizing staff to advertise the project for bids.
MAYOR DISTLER: The final recommended action is to consider authorizing staff to
advertise the project for bids.
aye.
June 27, 2016
[Therefore, Councilmember Vaught moved and Councilmember Kenig seconded to
authorize staff to advertise the project for bids. The motion passed 8-0.]
3.
CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYED EASEMENTS OF LAND
FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND CONSIDER BIDS AND AWARD
CONTRACT FOR THE NIEMAN ROAD CORRIDOR SOUTH STORM
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, P.N. 3400, SMAC TC-21-072.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item 3 is to Consider Acceptance of Conveyed Easements of Land
for Public Purposes, and Consider Bids and Award Contract for the Nieman Road
Corridor South Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3400, SMAC TC-21-072.
This project is on the City's Capital Improvement Plan for construction in 2016. All but
two easements have been negotiated and they must be accepted by the Governing
Body. Bids were received from six contractors on June 15, 2016. Staff recommends
awarding the bid to Leath & Sons, Inc., Raytown, Missouri, in the amount of
$3,952,182.98 and including Change Order No. 1, which is a reduction in quantities and
materials totaling a decrease of $145,327.90.
a) Consider accepting the conveyance of land, or an interest therein for
public purposes, contained in five easements listed as a “Right-of-Way”
Expenditure on the Project Summary Table. Easements are listed on the
Easements Acquisition Summary, dated June 21, 2016 for the Nieman
Road Corridor South Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3400, and
authorize staff to record these permanent easements with the Johnson
County Register of Deeds.
Two actions are required. The first is to consider accepting the conveyance of land, or
an interest therein for public purposes, contained in five easements listed as a "Right-ofWay" Expenditure on the Project Summary Table and authorize staff to record these
permanent easements with the Johnson County Register of Deeds.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.
aye.
June 27, 2016
[Therefore, Councilmember Neighbor moved and Councilmember Vaught seconded to
accept the conveyance of land, or an interest therein for public purposes, contained in
five easements listed as a "Right-of-Way" Expenditure on the Project Summary Table.
Easements are listed on the Easements Acquisition Summary, dated June 21, 2016 for
the Nieman Road Corridor South Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3400, and
authorize staff to record these permanent easements with the Johnson County Register
of Deeds. The motion passed 8-0.]
b) Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with
Leath & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $3,952,182.98 including Change
Order No. 1.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next recommended action is to consider approving and
authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with Leath & Sons, Inc. in the amount of
$3,952,182.98 including Change Order No. 1.
Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would
like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Move for approval.
aye.
authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Leath & Sons, Inc. in the amount of
$3,952,182.98 including Change Order No. 1. The motion passed 8-0.]
4.
CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYED EASEMENTS OF LAND
FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND CONSIDER BIDS AND AWARD
CONTRACT FOR THE 52nd CIRCLE AND 53rd STREET, EAST OF
NIEMAN ROAD, STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, P.N.
3402, SMAC TC-021-071.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider Acceptance of Conveyed Easements
of Land for Public Purposes, and Consider Bids and Award Contract for the 52 nd Circle
and 53rd Street, East of Nieman Road, Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N.
3402, SMAC TC-021-071.
This project is on the City's Capital Improvement Plan for construction in 2016. The last
easement has been obtained and must be accepted by the Governing Body. Bids were
received from five contractors on June 17, 2016. Staff recommends awarding the bid to
Amino Brothers Company, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas, in the amount of $501,567.97.
June 27, 2016
a) Consider accepting the conveyance of land, or an interest therein for
public purposes, contained in a single easement listed as a “Right-of-Way”
Expenditure on the Project Summary Table, dated June 21, 2016 for the
52nd Circle and 53rd Street, East of Nieman Rd. Storm Drainage
Improvements, P.N. 3402, and authorize staff to record this permanent
easement with the Johnson County Register of Deeds.
Two actions are required. The first is to consider accepting the conveyance of land, or
an interest therein for public purposes, contained in a single easement listed as a
"Right-of-Way" Expenditure on the Project Summary Table, dated June 21, 2016, for
the 52nd Circle and 53rd Street, East of Nieman Rd. Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N.
3402, and authorize staff to record this permanent easement with the Johnson County
Register of Deeds.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.
aye.
[Therefore Councilmember Pflumm moved and Councilmember Neighbor seconded to
accept the conveyance of land, or an interest therein for public purposes, contained in a
single easement listed as a "Right-of-Way" Expenditure on the Project Summary Table,
dated June 21, 2016, for the 52 nd Circle and 53rd Street, East of Nieman Rd. Storm
Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3402, and authorize staff to record this permanent
easement with the Johnson County Register of Deeds. The motion passed 8-0.]
b) Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with
Amino Brothers Co., Inc. in the amount of $501,567.97.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next recommended action is to consider approving and
authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with Amino Brothers Correct., Inc. in the
amount of $501,567.97.
Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience who
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.
aye.
June 27, 2016
[Therefore, Councilmember Pflumm moved and Councilmember Neighbor seconded to
authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Amino Brothers Correct., Inc. in the
amount of $501,567.97. Motion passed 8-0.]
5.
CONSIDER BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2016 CHIP SEAL
PROGRAM.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item 5 is to Consider Bids and Award Contract for 2016 Chip Seal
Program.
Bids were received on June 17, 2016, from two contractors. Staff is recommending
Harbour Construction, Inc. in the amount of $162,360. The budget for this work is
$150,000, but due to cost savings from other budgeted projects, there are sufficient
dollars in the Special Highway Fund to cover the $12,360 difference.
The recommended action is to consider approving the bid and authorizing the Mayor to
sign the contract.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.
aye.
authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. The motion passed 8-0.]
6.
CONSIDER BIDS AN APPROVE PURCHASE OF AN AERIAL BUCKET
FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 6 is to Consider Bids an Approve Purchase of an
Aerial Bucket for the Public Works Department.
The Public Works Department is requesting to replace the lift platform on their traffic
vehicle with an aerial bucket. Bids were received on June 10, 2016, and staff is
recommending Kranz of KC in the amount of $55,767.
The recommended action is to consider approving the purchase. Does anyone on the
Council have any questions? Mr. Pflumm.
June 27, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Could we get just an explanation of, you know,
why we need to change it?
MS. GARD: Caitlin Horner-Gard, Public Works. Haven’t done that in a while. The
current platform on our truck, which is included in your packet, a picture of it, it currently
-- it works for the department, but it doesn’t do a lot of things that a bucket could do.
Included in the packet, those items are: work on any street with more than a fivedegree incline; any light feature that’s over 30-feet in height; when there’s any
surrounding growth to the bucket or lift; and then also if the lift is near any overhead
power lines. So, this bucket would be able to do that. It’s an insulated bucket.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Have we had any issues doing any particular place
right now and do we have another bucket in the City, in the Parks Department or -MS. GARD: We do have a current bucket truck. You know, we purchased one last
year, a used bucket truck. We currently have that bucket and we also can contract out
a bunch of our -- not a bunch, that was too strong of a word. A few areas, like I said, on
streets that have over an incline of so much or anything that has any power lines
associated with it. So, we contract out a couple jobs that we could be doing in-house.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just don’t know that I’m in favor of swapping that, so.
MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from Council? Mr. Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I would note that it says there is $80,000 in the
reserve fund [inaudible; talking off mic].
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ve got one more question, but I don’t know that you
answered that. Do we have another one in the City not in Public Works?
MS. GARD: No, we do not have any bucket trucks other than the one that we
purchased used last year in the Public Works Department or in the City in general.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But that bucket truck will do 90 percent or 99 or 100
percent of what we want to do?
MS. GARD: It does the majority of the work. But like I said, when you contract out a
couple jobs, we just approved our streetlight and traffic signal maintenance contract.
But we could be doing some of that in-house if we had this additional bucket. So, rather
than purchasing a whole new vehicle, we’re just requesting to replace the lift which is a
significant cost savings because the cab and chassis are still good.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I really understand that. I mean, that’s good.
You know, if you really, really, really got to have it, so.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just help me out with -- about what does it run
us every year for just the contracting out part of it?
MS. GARD: Well, the entire traffic signal and street light maintenance contract is I
believe $145,000 is what the Governing Body approved.
June 27, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But we’re not going to do all that with this bucket truck,
right?
MS. GARD: Correct.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, about how much is this going to save us if we
could do it in-house now? Do you we have any idea of what the offsetting costs are?
MS. GARD: I don’t know. I couldn’t give you that number right now. We could -CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And it would vary from year to year depending on the
needs -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, I’m sure it does.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- depending on the needs, the outages, the banners
are one of the issues we have.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, we should have some track record. We’ve been
doing it by contracting.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Sure. But the contract is $145,000, and we think that’s
about what we’ll use each year with the contract. But it just depends again on the
outages, how many we have to repair. We don’t -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, by that it’s going to pay for itself is what you’re
saying?
MS. GARD: We believe so.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, no, no, no. She just said we’re still going to pay
the same amount, right? And our contract is $145,000 a year.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s what we’ve averaged and so that’s what we did
it to was based. They would only pay for what we use on that.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, if we had less repairs and we did some of them inhouse, then we would pay less.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, for me are we going to reduce the 145,000 before I
vote on something perfectly fine that we have, spending 55,000 on it?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I can’t guarantee that. It just depends again on how
many outages, how much damage we have to repair, things that come up during the
year.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We could spend more.
June 27, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: True.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No. I mean, so that’s -- are we going to utilize our
bucket truck to try and alleviate additional expenses in that contract?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: As Caitlin said, some of the things we’re doing now, the
five percent inclines that we are contracting out because we don’t have a truck that will
work with those. Now, we would use this truck to do those if we can. If we have the
staff available, if the -- it depends on what else is going on in terms of work orders.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But we could also do some of the ones that are not five
percent inclines that we currently have contracted out and only contract out those five
percent inclines are tough, difficult, you know, whatever applications.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’m sure our folks are going to do anything they can inhouse before we would tap the contract. It’s just a matter of running out of staff
because there’s too many things broken that need to be fixed.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.
MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Mr. Kenig.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. So, from an efficiency standpoint having this
additional bucket truck would allow a lot of multiple projects to be done simultaneously,
too, in the event that is needed?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. And also to the fact that we’re limited by the fact
that the current truck can’t operate near power lines which probably limits us, so
additional contracting.
MS. GARD: That’s a significant portion of our work along with the hills. That’s the
additional issue.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. But being able to handle multiple projects
simultaneously is probably a pretty beneficial need I would think.
MS. GARD: Yep.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay.
MAYOR DISTLER: And we have a lot of hills in Shawnee. Mr. Vaught.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, if I hear you right, with one bucket truck, if that
truck breaks and is in the shop, and we have a problem where we need a truck
insulated around power lines, then not only do we have to contract that, but we pay a
premium because we have an issue and we need it now versus having two trucks that
can do the same thing. If one is done, we still have another truck.
June 27, 2016
MS. GARD: Yeah. We would either contract it or rent a bucket truck is what would
happen.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Which isn’t cheap.
MS. GARD: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I’m going to go along with you this time. I don’t
agree a hundred percent, but I hope that we alleviate some of that contract that we have
currently.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Yeah. That’s something I still need to do with the Public
Works Department. That hasn’t made my list yet.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Be sure it’s a windy day. Oh, it’s fun in a windy bucket.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak on this
item? I’ll accept a motion.
aye.
[Therefore, Councilmember Vaught moved and Councilmember Kenig seconded to
approve the purchase of an aerial bucket from Kranz of KC in the amount of $55,767.
The motion passed 8-0.]
7.
CONSIDER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR FY 2016 LOCAL
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG)
FUNDS.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item 7 is to Consider Cooperative Agreement for FY 2016 Local
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Funds.
Shawnee, Overland Park, Olathe are applying jointly for this grant and Olathe will be the
lead agency. The Police Department expects to be awarded $10,335 and intends to
use the grant to purchase a Thermo Scientific Refrigerator for evidence storage.
The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the
Cooperative Agreement involving the application and expenditure of the 2016 JAG
funds.
June 27, 2016
Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Is there anyone from the audience
that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.
aye.
[Therefore, Councilmember Sandifer mover and Councilmember Neighbor seconded to
authorize the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Olathe,
Overland Park and Shawnee, Kansas involving the application and expenditure of the
2016 JAG funds. The motion passed 8-0.]
I.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
1.
RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR JUNE 27, 2016 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,447,512.10.
MAYOR DISTLER: And the next item is I. Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to
Ratify Semi-Monthly Claim for June 27, 2016, in the Amount of $2,447,512.10.
aye.
approve the Semi-Monthly Claim. The motion passes 8-0.]
2.
MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.
MAYOR DISTLER: Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have
an item that they would like to discuss?
I just quickly want to recognize Mr. Paul Rutherford, my high school algebra teacher that
was finally able to make it here tonight to visit a City Council meeting and likes to credit
June 27, 2016
for me sitting here. But I told him my second grade teacher has already tried to take
that credit, so.
MR. RUTHERFORD: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What kind of grades did she get? That’s what we want
to know. Aced it, B, C?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Did she have to take her shoes to count [inaudible]?
MAYOR DISTLER: He’s actually been recognized by the President of the United
States because he’s like a genius with what he does with engineering and all these
things. So, I’m pretty proud to say I was a student of his. So, thank you for visiting us
today.
MR. RUTHERFORD: [Inaudible] and stormwater, that’s near and dear to my heart.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes. That’s his thing.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Mayor.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Vaught.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Just real quick. Can we get this speaker replaced up
here? It’s blown and it keeps buzzing. It’s something that’s kind of -- the deeper the
voice that worse it is and it crackles and so. I meant to say something last week. I’m
sorry. I meant to say something last week.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It doesn’t bother us over here.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. It doesn’t bother you. Don’t worry about it then.
If it doesn’t bother them, don’t spend the hundred bucks. Leave it alone.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Maybe that’ll slow you down a little bit. I do have a
comment.
MAYOR DISTLER: Well, it’s actually been an issue for a long time. Because when I
used to sit down there is cracked, so I mean, it’s been forever.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I thought we got new stuff.
MAYOR DISTLER: It’s been forever. I don’t think that was replaced.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, there’s a lot of hot air over here.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s true. It’s probably affecting that.
[Inaudible; talking over one another]
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.
June 27, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I really want to thank everybody here. I had a
million phone calls and flowers and thank you for the flowers. And we had a death in
our family and it was -- it rocks your world and it makes you think. But we have an
awesome community we live in and there is so much good here. So, thanks.
MAYOR DISTLER: Any other comments?
3.
CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISCUSSING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.
No executive session was conducted.
J.
ADJOURNMENT
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. If there’s no other items, I will accept a motion to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move to adjourn.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All those in
favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Oppose nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank you.
adjourn. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 8:25 p.m.)
June 27, 2016
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound
recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
/das
July 6, 2016
Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
_______________________
Stephen Powell, City Clerk
Page 1
SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
June 21, 2016
CITY OF SHAWNEE
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
June 21, 2016
7:00 P.M.
Councilmembers Present
Councilmember Neighbor
Councilmember Jenkins
Councilmember Vaught
Councilmember Meyer
Councilmember Sandifer
Councilmember Kenig
Councilmembers Absent
Councilmember Pflumm
Staff Present
City Manager Gonzales
Deputy City Manager Charlesworth
City Clerk Powell
City Attorney Rainey
Finance Director Rogers
IT Director Bunting
Deputy Planning Director Allmon
Fire Chief Mattox
Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Police Captain Mendoza
Public Works Director Whitacre
Human Resources Director Barnard
Deputy Police Chief Orbin
Police Major Tennis
Police Captain Larson
Police Captain Brunner
Planning and Research Manager Collins
Senior Accountant Oldham
Management Analyst Schmitz
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
Sr. Project Engineer Moeller-Krass
Kevin Fern, Visit Shawnee
Linda Leeper, Shawnee Chamber
(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:01 p.m.)
A.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Good evening. Welcome to tonight's Council Committee
meeting. My name is Stephanie Meyer. I am the Councilmember from Ward III and the
Chair of this Committee.
Besides myself, the Committee members here tonight are Councilmember Neighbor of
Ward I; Eric Jenkins, Ward II; Mike Kemmling, Ward II; Jeff Vaught, Ward III; Mickey
Sandifer, Ward IV; and Brandon Kenig of Ward IV.
Before we begin our agenda, I'd like to explain our procedures for public input. During
the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the
Committee at any of those times, please go to the podium. I will ask that you state your
name and address for the record an then you may offer your comments. So that
members of the audience can hear you, I would ask that you speak directly into the
microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes. And after you are
finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of
your name and address.
Page 2
June 21, 2016
I would also like to remind Committee members to wait to be recognized and to turn on
your microphone when you would like to speak so we can get a clear and accurate
record.
B.
ITEMS
1.
JOHNSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PRESENTATION
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: There are two items on tonight's agenda. The first item
is a Presentation on the Johnson County Courthouse. On May 26, 2016, the Board of
County Commissioners approved a Resolution calling for a special election to allow
voters to decide on an additional ¼ cent retailers' sales tax to fund a new County
Courthouse and other public safety projects. The election is scheduled for November 8,
2016. Chairman Eilert and District Attorney Howe from Johnson County are here and
will give a presentation and answer questions. This item is for informational purposes
only.
Welcome, Chairman Eilert.
CHAIRMAN EILERT: Well, thank you very much. And thank you to Councilmembers
and the Mayor for allowing us to make some comments and a brief presentation this
evening. My name is Ed Eilert, Chairman of the Board of Johnson County
Commissioners. And I have with me this evening District Steve Howe, who will
participate with me in this presentation. I also want to recognize, everybody knows Jim
Allen, who is the District 2 Commissioner. Glad you’re here this evening, Jim. And
County Manager Hannes Zacharias.
This is a question that will be on the November ballot. It will be a question involving a ¼
cent sales tax, which will be -- if passed, would be in place for ten years. We are using
authority that was given to us by the state legislature about six years ago. And this ¼
sales tax has to be sunsetted in ten years. A ¼ cent sales tax will raise about $30
million in Johnson County. And I’ll get into that a little more just a little later. But I’ve
always felt that if you’re asking taxpayers for a little more money you should be in a
position to explain the budget where we’re at and why this is necessary. So, let me
proceed with that.
Public Safety Capital Projects:
New Courthouse
[Breakdown of FY 2016 Published Budget slide]
This is our 2016 budget for Johnson County. Pie chart. I’ll draw your attention to the
right-hand side of the pie chart. There’s a number there of 328 million. That is the
county’s operating budget. All of the activities that we are mandated to carry out by the
state legislature, appraiser’s office, Department of Motor Vehicles, Treasurer’s Office,
Records and Administration, Public Health, all of those activities are included in the 328
million. Our total published budget for 2016 was $924 million. That’s a big number.
But much of that is not supported by local tax dollars, either sales or property.
If you drop down to the lower left-hand corner of that pie chart, there is a number there,
$151 million. That’s for Johnson County Wastewater. Johnson County Wastewater
receives no sales or property tax to run their operation. It is a utility based like your
water system, like your light system, what have you. But they receive no taxpayer direct
Page 3
June 21, 2016
funding from sales or property tax. If you go up the left side of that pie chart you’ll see
Libraries, a little over $30 million. And you’ll see Parks and Rec at about $30 million.
Those two departments are separate taxing districts. They have their own mill levy.
And those levies, the money generated by those levies stay with those two
departments. Go up a little further you’ll see an Enterprise Fund for parks, that’s about
$20 million. That’s all the fees that come in for the activities, kids’ camps, summer
activities, senior activities, all the activities that they charge a fee for. That’s the
enterprise fund and there’s no tax dollars in that Enterprise Fund. Go a little higher
you’ll see the airport, New Century and Johnson County Executive. They receive no tax
dollars for their activities. They are supported by economic development activities,
leases that exist at New Century as well as general operations of the airport. You go a
little further you’ll see a $60 million number which is from Grants of all kinds. Some
from the state, some from the federal and other types of grants. Go around a little bit on
the right side, you’ll see about a $10 million number. The county, general county
activities also charges fees for various activities. And that’s about a $10 million number.
So, if you take Wastewater, the Enterprise funds, the fee-based activities, that’s about
$250 million or $260 million of our budget, which receives no tax support. Drop down to
the very bottom. This is another interesting number. There is an $80 million number
there. It’s called double accounting. I taught high school accounting for four years and
thought I knew a little bit about accounting until I came across this exercise. And the
best way to explain it is like this. If I have $100 in my savings account and $100 in my
checking account, according to the government accounting standard boards I have a
budget of $200. If I move $100 from my savings to my checking, that’s one accounting
transaction. And when I spend that $100 out of my checking that’s another transaction.
So, even though I don’t have more money my budget just doubled from $200 to $400
because of that accounting anomaly. It doesn’t represent money. It represents
transfers within the budget that have to be accounted for that manner. The other
number is $185 million. And that’s for the reserve fund. And that also is a big number,
but you need to understand how that number is generated.
[Breakdown of Project FY 2016 Reserves]
This is a breakdown of that $185 million number. And if you look at the top line you’ll
see there’s a number there of $62 million. That’s the county’s reserve for the operating
budget, the $328 million. Not 185, it’s 62 million. That represents 21 percent of our
operating fund. Our policy on our General Fund reserve is 20 to 25 percent. This puts
us at 21 percent. Then you’re second category will be agencies like mental health and
Johnson County Development Supports would be another one. These are agencies
that depend upon reimbursements from the state, federal government, insurance or
private pay for those activities. So, we do maintain reserves in those two areas.
Also Public Works, we maintain about a $2 million reserve there. Fortunately this year
we didn’t have heavy snows to pay overtime. We didn’t have heavy rains, which
washed out roads and bridges. But that’s what that reserve fund is for.
Then if you’ll drop down to the lower section there’s Restricted Funds. I think most of
you are familiar with our stormwater fund that is a county-wide tax that’s earmarked and
stays with stormwater projects, money that’s used by cities to attack those stormwater
issues. We do not move any of that money to the county’s General Fund. It stays with
stormwater.
Another interesting one is the 911 Fund. We have about $5.5 million in reserves in that
fund. By state statute, we cannot spend that money for anything but 911 services. So,
Page 4
June 21, 2016
those are a couple of examples of restricted funds. And then we have Parks and
Libraries, they also have their own reserve funds, about 16 million. And again, we do
not mix those spatial taxing district funds with our general operating budget or our
general reserves.
And then lastly, Wastewater at $77 million. That’s the biggest portion of our reserves.
And we try to maintain about 2½ months of operating reserves in case I and everybody
else don’t pay their bills, we got no money coming in. So, in order to protect our
operating status we do maintain about 2½ months of reserves. And then about $57
million is in our Capital Reserve Account whether we have to do work on an emergency
basis to repair lines. The other issue that we’re trying to address, we’re coming up on a
decision about the Tomahawk Creek Sewer plant at Mission Road and 435. And we’re
probably going to have to double the size of that plant and get away from paying
Kansas City, Missouri all the money we’re paying to treat about 60 percent of the flow
that goes through that plant onto Kansas City, Missouri. So, that $57 million reserve
fund will help mitigate any rate increases. So, that’s the story on the reserve.
And I get asked many times, Chairman, why don’t you just spend that money. Well, I
can’t because it’s in special accounts. I can spend the $62 million, but that means we
lose our AAA bond rating. I mentioned we’re at 21 percent. Because of the tax lid
passed by the legislature, Moody’s is indicating that they would like to see us at 30
percent. So, that number is probably going to go up. Hopefully we won’t have to go to
30 percent.
[Courts are the foundation of democracy slide]
On to the Courthouse. About 400,000 people each year pass through Johnson County
Courthouse, which is in downtown Olathe. Most of those folks are like you and I who
get called for jury duty. And that’s where most of the -- any Johnson County resident
who is a registered voter is subject to being called for jury duty.
[Building History slide]
This is a brief history of the current courthouse facility. The first part was built in 1952,
so it’s a little over 60 years old. We’ve had three renovations, the last one in 1975, 40
years old. Some of you will recall that. I think it was on the fourth or fifth floor of this
existing courthouse was the jail for many, many years. And in ‘75, the jail was moved
out. What happened was they did not remove the infrastructure, i.e. sewer pipes that
supported the jail activity. And a couple of years ago those pipes are getting old
enough and we had, believe it or not, sewer flies in some of the courtrooms. So, we
had to go in and immediately fix that problem. Some problems like that continue to
exist.
[Problems with current courthouse: Public safety and security slide]
The main problem is public safety. The current courthouse is configured on rectangular
basis. Our public -- we have one public hallway on each floor. And the criminals who
appear in court have to be moved through the public hallways. They do mix with the
public, you and I, who might be there serving on a jury notice. And then secondly, some
of our courtrooms are not configured, don’t have the space to configure them. And the
District Attorney tells me on some of the jury trials a juror at the end of the jury box can
almost reach out and touch the criminal that he’s hearing evidence about or against.
So, the public safety issue is a real issue.
[Problems with current courthouse: Aging building slide]
Page 5
June 21, 2016
The other issue is a decaying and deteriorating infrastructure. You’ve got a facility
that’s 60 years old. You’re going to have significant maintenance problems. And this is
just some examples. We have been on a maintenance mode for the last two or three
years based upon getting a decision on a new courthouse. If we don’t have a new
courthouse, we’re going to have to spend a lot more money on the existing courthouse
and I’ll mention that.
[Current courthouse layout slide]
Here is the existing -- here is the layout, floor layout of the existing courthouse. The
yellow is the public hallway. And again, the public and the prisoners move in the same
hallway. The pink part are the courtrooms.
[Site plan]
The plan is, Area Number 2 is where the current courthouse would be. The current
courthouse would be torn down. That would become public space. And Area Number 1
is where the new courthouse would be built immediately north across Santa Fe. And
Number 3 is the Olathe City Hall. So, it would be immediately west of the Olathe City
Hall, the proposal.
[Proposal: Construct New Courthouse slide]
The new courthouse would cost $182 million. It would take about four years to build.
We would eliminate the concern about public safety, moving prisoners, and the public in
the hallways. We would be able to address significantly and completely ADA
requirements.
[Cost breakdown slide]
Here is a further breakdown of what we estimate the cost to be, the actual construction
cost about 178 million. And we’ve included tear-down cost as well as improvement to
the public space to bring it up to 182 million.
[New courthouse layout slide]
Here is a potential configuration of the new courthouse. It would be nine stories high.
Six stories would be used for courtrooms. We currently have 23 courtrooms in the
existing facility. We need to build for 28 courtrooms, five additional courtrooms. And
the reason I say that, if any of you saw the Wichita State University population study for
Kansas issued about three months ago, Johnson County’s population is about 580,000
now. In 50 years, it is expected to be over 1.2 million. Our population will double during
that time period. Fifty years is a long time. But that means we would have to average
10,000 new residents a year. Every six years, we would have 60,000 new residents in
Johnson County. That number is equivalent to the current population of Manhattan,
Kansas. So, think about it, every six years, we would have a population gain equal to
Manhattan, Kansas. The pink is where the courtrooms would be. The yellow would be
the public hallways. And you’ll notice between the pink areas there’s a green area.
That’s where the secure elevators would be to move prisoners from level to level in the
courthouse. And there would also be secure holding areas for the prisoners. They
would never come in touch with the public, but they would securely move between the
courtrooms and up and down the elevators and never be in the public hallways.
[Courthouse planning for future growth slide]
This just gives you an idea of the additional courts that we would plan for and the
dockets that would have an additional court.
Page 6
June 21, 2016
[Street view slide]
This is an artist’s concept of what a new courthouse might look like. It’s probably going
to look nothing like this. It will be nine stories, but it kind of puts in perspective for the
building.
And I’m going to turn it over to Steve Howe to give us a comment on the Coroner’s
Facility.
Coroner Facility
MR. HOWE: First of all, it’s a pleasure to be here in my hometown and see all the
Council on this important issue. The Coroner Facility, we don’t think about this, but
what do they really do. Well, the coroner look to determine causes of death on a
potential suicide situation, overdoses, criminal conduct, or just in a simple explanation if
there’s a traffic accident and they’re having to determine why someone died. And
sometimes civil suits are greatly impacted by the findings of the coroner.
So, the coroner has a role, not only in public safety, but also for the community at large.
And the last component that no one talks about is the public health side, determining if
there are diseases out there that puts the community at risk. So, those are all the
coroner works on.
[Current coroner facility: contracted lab in KCK slide]
This is where we do our autopsies. So, when the Shawnee Police, the latest homicide
in Shawnee, they went to the autopsy. They went to this facility in KCK. It’s a metal
building. It’s basically an outbuilding that many of us who grew up in the country would
recognize, and that’s where we conduct our autopsies. And it is owned by a private
company. So, the Johnson County Government and the cities have no control over who
does the autopsies and in what order. So, basically they decide when they’re going to
do the autopsies. And sometimes that can delay findings weeks, sometimes up to a
month, which has a great impact.
[The public safety need for a coroner facility slide 1]
And we talk about the impact of this type of facility. It’s not accredited. We’re lucky.
The Johnson County Crime Lab is an accredited facility that, quite frankly, it’s probably
one of the top five in the country and does great work and helps us solve a lot of crimes.
Well, the coroner is a part of that process. And it’s not accredited and it’s not set up to
handle today’s technology. A good example, if I touch this podium with my finger and
the Crime Lab came back and swabbed it, they would probably get my DNA. It’s that
sensitive now. And the sensitivity levels of DNA and other trace evidence is to the point
where you have to be concerned about cross-contamination in a facility like this
because it’s just open air. And in some instances there’s more than one body that’s
going to be examined in that facility. So, that puts things at risk as far as -- and takes
into question the coroner’s findings.
[The public safety need for a coroner facility slide 2]
It also doesn’t have an ability to do toxicology. And you may say, well, what’s the big
deal about that. Currently what we do is we send out toxicology groups to a private
facility out of town and wait weeks, sometimes up to a month for a result on the
toxicology results. That can impact public health. A good example is just recently I
talked about a new synthetic drug out there, U-47700 that can be purchased. It’s eight
times more powerful than morphine. And so we’ve had three deaths related to this new
Page 7
June 21, 2016
synthetic drug. Well, we had to send off to a private group to find out what the cause of
death, what was the drug, whereas, if you had a new facility you would be able to do it
timely, which gives law enforcement and public health a heads up that we have a
problem. Another example is, if you remember, Olathe Northwest had a child that had
tuberculosis. And the public health people had to go out and do -- get samples to find
out if any other students were at risk. Well, again, this facility could be set up to do
immediately the testing that is needed to determine the scope of any problems for the
public’s health. And the other thing is, when your police department goes out to the
autopsies with my staff, we’re right there in close proximity to the body. That can put
those individuals at risk as well. Current facilities are set up in viewing rooms where
you’re set away from where the coroner is and you have cameras positioned so you can
see the autopsy and have questions and talk to the coroner without putting those
individuals at risk. And so those are some of the things that we cannot do with this
current facility whatsoever. The other thing is we have had on many of occasions
delays in the bodies being released because of our lack of capacity in this building. And
that has been frustrating for people who have lost their loved ones, who want the body
released so they can have a funeral. And that is a bit of a problem for us. The other
thing is we had an expert come in and see how many autopsies we’re doing. And what
he indicated is we’re not doing enough autopsies in Johnson County in order to really
serve the people and the interest for public safety and public health. And what they said
is, you know, a good example is, we know from our population base that we do not do
enough autopsies on unattended deaths involving senior cities. And sometimes you will
miss elder abuse cases as a result of that. And those are good examples of situations
where if you had a facility with greater capacity and being able to control the work that
we do that we’ll be able to provide greater capabilities to the public.
And the last thing is, you saw that building. It’s really not set up to have a
compassionate type setting where the family members can come in and identify the
bodies. And so for many reasons this facility doesn’t meet our current needs. And as
we move forward in the future, clearly will not meet the needs of Johnson County.
MR. EILERT: Well, Steve, thank you very much. You should have mentioned that
state statute requires the county to have a coroner and to provide coroner facilities as
well as a courthouse.
[Proposed Johnson County coroner facility slide]
This proposed facility would be immediately south of the Crime Lab in the area of 119 th
and Ridgeview. The county already owns the property, so there would be no acquisition
cost. And this would be a $19 million facility.
Financing
[Public safety capital projects slide]
Just to move through the financing proposal. The courthouse $182 million, a coroner’s
facility at $19 million. We’ve looked at a property tax. It would take about two mills of
property tax over 20 years to finance both of these facilities. And your interest cost
would be somewhere around $85 million.
[Public safety financing: ¼ cent sales tax slide]
We focused on the sales tax, a quarter cent sales tax, which for the county would
generate about $20 million a year, and our interest costs would be about $40 million.
So, by using the sales tax over ten years, we can cut our interests costs in our half.
Page 8
June 21, 2016
[Public safety sales tax: impact on JoCo residents slide]
Another advantage of the sales tax, it’s about 22 percent of our sales tax is generated
by visitors who come to Johnson County. If we used a property tax, only Johnson
County property owners would pay that tax. You know, our sales tax rates vary from
city to city. And my notes indicate that the basic sales tax rate in Shawnee is 9.35.
Another quarter percent would put it at 9.6. I have not included any special taxing
districts in that number, just the base rate. So, for $100, it’s an extra -- that quarter cent
represents an extra $.25. $1,000, another $2.50. We recognize that always those
merchants who sell large ticket items always have concerns, rightfully so. A $20,000
automobile with another quarter cent would be $50. A $30,000 automobile with another
quarter cent would be $75. So, I think if you keep it in perspective, those numbers are
understandable.
[Additional revenue to cities from ¼ cent public safety sales tax]
I mentioned that the state requires that the county share its sales tax with cities. And
we have to share about one-third of that 30 million with cities. So, that’s about $10
million a year that would be shared with all of the cities. The formula the state lays out
is assessed valuation and population. Those are the two calculations. And in the case
of Shawnee, you would receive about 16, if I’m looking at that right, about $16 million
over the ten-year period of time. So, each year you would have about, 164 million a
year would be -- 1.6 million a year. Excuse me. I’m trying to get some of that back.
Yeah. 1.6 million a year over that ten-year period of time.
[Existing courthouse continued use slide]
Now, the other question is, why not use the existing courthouse, you know. Well, here
is the situation. Our estimate is that we would have to spend about $200 million in order
to bring that courthouse up to standards that might be -- still would be short of a new
courthouse. We have accessibility problems. We have infrastructure problems. The
layout, we could spend $200 million renovating this existing courthouse and we still
haven’t solved the problems of the prisoners and public mixing in the hallways. You
can’t change the public hallway layout. And it would take, as I said, close to two mills
over 20 years and your interest cost goes from about $40 million to $80 million. The
other thing that happens with a new facility, you’ve got new construction standards.
HVAC equipment are going to be much, much more efficient and effective.
[Cost comparisons over 20-year horizon (2018–2037)]
And so we looked at what it would -- the difference between the operations of a new
courthouse and continuing to remodel the existing courthouse. And the number is
about $7 million a year more for utilities and operational costs of the older courthouse.
[Tour the existing courthouse]
We have set up tours for the existing courthouse. If anyone is interested in that, we
have dates and times set up. And there’s a number there that you can call and reserve.
I would suggest if you haven’t been in the courthouse since you’ve got that marriage
certificate, you should come out and take one of the tours.
[Contact us or learn more:]
Another issue we -- on our website, jocopublicsafety.org, the information we presented
this evening, as well as the video, which we’ll show immediately, is also on that website
for viewing.
So, with that, Stephen, if we can power up the video. We need to back it up a little.
Page 9
June 21, 2016
(Videotape Played to the Councilmembers and audience)
One question I get frequently is what is Plan B if the sales tax does not pass. There is
no Plan B. We either build a new courthouse or we continue to invest significantly
higher and higher sums of money in the existing courthouse. If we build new, we can
use the sales tax. If we have to invest more and more money in the existing facility,
then we have to use the property tax. You know, in renovating this structure, we can’t
close the courthouse down for a year. You can’t do that. Most of the renovations would
have to occur at night. And contractors tell me you could expect a cost increase of
something 20, maybe even 25 percent to the cost of renovation just simply because
you’ll have to do the remodel at night.
So, the information we presented this evening is information. It’s educational. That’s
what we’re required to do with a county publication. I’m not a county publication. I don’t
live under that same requirement. And I would encourage you to examine the
information and to vote yes in November. We will have a private advocacy group put
together to support this measure. If you would like to become involved in that effort,
please let me know. Or all you have to do is set up some of these links on your
Facebook or whatever social media you have and you can link right into this
presentation as well as the video and share that with friends and neighbors. So, thank
you very much. If there’s questions, I’ll be glad to respond. But do appreciate your
time.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Thank you, Chairman Eilert and District Attorney
Howe. Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes, Chairman Eilert, I had just a couple questions.
MR. EILERT: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: If this takes four years to building where is everybody
going to go? What’s the plan for the folks that do the work and services now for that
four-year period?
MR. EILERT: Well, they would have to be -- continue in the existing courthouse.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I thought you were going to raze it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s not on the same site.
MR. EILERT: After the new one is constructed.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. That answers that question. Okay. Then as far
as parking, once you get the big new facility built, where are you going to put all these
folks coming out there to Johnson County Courthouse.
MR. EILERT: That’s a good question. Initially, you know, we would not need a large
number of new parking spaces. But across Kansas Avenue at the location of the new
courthouse, proposed courthouse, is a large city lot. And that lot would be available.
So, in the case of the current parking structure by the admin building there on Cherry
Street, obviously you would have to walk about another half a block. But for the time
Page 10
June 21, 2016
being and probably for the foreseeable future, that lot immediately west across Kansas
Avenue would suffice.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes. First of all, I would like to thank you, Jim, for
coming tonight. It’s very interesting information. Just would throw out a little thing here.
Last year, last time we had an initiative in Shawnee was our Parks, Pipes and
Pavement. It was at the bottom of four pages. But going back and looking at that,
when -- courtesy of staff and everybody and the Council promoting it to the citizens of
Shawnee and educating them why it was so important to us, the voter turnout actually
was 11 percent more votes cast than were cast for you, sir, in that election.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Ouch.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So, my point being is that I feel that our citizenry,
you know, the education you suggested is very important. But I think if we make a good
case for the citizens in Shawnee, and I understand the significance of this and why it’s
needed, I would hope that they would support it. Thank you again.
MR. EILERT: Well, yes, I would, too. And that’s a good comment. And I’ll give you an
exact number. I think the last time I counted the chair’s position is at the bottom of the
ballot and there were 22,000 fewer votes cast for that position than there was for the top
of the ballot. And so that’s an issue that we have to deal with. But getting the message
out, we hope it will make a difference. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other questions?
MR. EILERT: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you for taking the time. All right. I guess I will
say before we officially close on this, is there anyone from the audience who would like
to speak to this item? Sir, yeah. Come on up. If you’ll state your name and address for
the record.
MR. BRUNING: Thank you. Hi. I’m Ken Bruning, (Address Omitted) in Shawnee.
Thank you for giving me a moment. I’m not trying to rain on the parade here, but I’ve
been a resident of Johnson County for 11 years now and a taxpayer. And this proposal,
wow, it looks absolutely fantastic. I can really say I didn’t come here to address this
tonight, but I was impressed with what I saw. But as a taxpayer, I also have one really
big concern that I’ve been noticing of late, and I don’t know why just of late, but I’m
concerned that we seem to have public buildings financed by the taxpayers that are
falling into disrepair on a regular basis. I recall not too very long ago the need to
replace a school that was only 20 years old. We have a courthouse that granted is
much older than that. But my concern is these buildings are not being properly
maintained. And if they’re not being properly maintained, I can’t help but feel that
they’re not being properly inspected. I come from a transportation background
originally, specifically in aviation. And you all probably well know that we have jetliners
out there that are 30 and 40 years old and by most people’s standards you wouldn’t
think you wouldn’t want to get on those airplanes. But coming from that background, I
Page 11
June 21, 2016
also was heavily involved in understanding completely that aircraft are routinely
inspected and routinely maintained. Public transportation is routinely inspected and
routinely maintained and repaired. And I just have a little bit of concern as to why this
isn’t happening with our public buildings, whether they be city buildings or county
building. I would feel very good about supporting this additional expenditure that I know
I’ll be helping to pay for if I were assured that we could start putting into place routine
inspections of these buildings to keep them safe, keep them dry and keep them
maintained, and in some cases work towards upgrading the facility so we don’t
suddenly have a fire drill that this building is falling down on us and we have absolutely
no choice, but to replace it. I think it’s a responsibility for all of us, particularly those on
the Council, whether it be the county or the city, to ensure that these facilities are, in
fact, under some sort of routine schedule where they’re going to be properly maintained
so the taxpayers don’t get kind of sidelined or sideswiped with a sudden, oh, we need a
whole new building. That’s my comment. Thank you. I appreciate your letting me
speak.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Thank you, sir. And if you’ll sign the form on the
podium, please. Thank you. Oh, I guess it’s right here. Thank you. Is there anyone
else from the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none, we
will move on. Thank you.
2.
BUDGET PRESENTATION - 2016R/2017 BUDGET: WRAP-UP AND
DISCUSSION
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The second item this evening is a Budget Presentation
on the 2016R/2017 Budget, Including Wrap Up and Discussion. Public presentations
and discussions for the 2016 Revised and 2017 Budgets began in March. Carol
Gonzales, City Manager, will make a brief presentation and the remainder of the time
will be available for discussion of the budget. And we will welcome Carol momentarily.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Good evening. I’m going to start with a little overview
of the Nieman Road Corridor concept, which was a concept that was brought up during
the budget process and during our SMAC allocations. And Councilmember Jenkins
suggested perhaps we could expedite things and debt finance projects as opposed to
cash-funding them and spreading them over the next ten years. So, we have actually
spent quite a bit of staff time just looking at the concept because I think it’s real doable,
is what I hoped the memo conveyed and what I’ll talk about. So, I’m going to run
through that and then a few budget wrap-up things and then we’ll discuss and answer
questions.
So, just as a reminder, we have several Nieman Road, Nieman Corridor projects in play
right now. So, there’s three stormwater, actually I guess three future ones plus the one
we’re doing now, Nieman South, which is already underway. And then two future street
projects are currently in the forecasts, the Nieman Road and then Flint Street is shown
in the Special Highway Forecast in 2018 as a SIP project. If you’ll remember it was one
of the higher priority curb and gutter projects. So, we looked at possible debt funding
for these SMAC stormwater projects, the ones going forward. We’ve updated some of
the costs since you’ve seen them last now that we’re into the Nieman South project and
we’ve converted to the vertical walls. There was a few updates continuing those vertical
walls on up, so that impacted some of the costs for some of the future projects.
Page 12
June 21, 2016
So, the chart in your packet showed -- I isolated out this. The stormwater projects first.
So, the 6200 block Nieman Middle, Nieman North is kind of what we call them by -- or
Nieman North and Nieman Middle. And currently they’re in the forecast, cash funded
through 2024. Total cost of these projects is about $19 million. The really cool cost
about them is that 62 percent of these are scheduled and eligible for SMAC funding. Of
which we think we still have access to for the next few weeks. We’re kind of waiting to
hear after this meeting and the budget to let us know that if we let them know we’d like
to move ahead with all these projects, then they have indicated they think that’s
possible. And like I said, the updated costs include the vertical walls. So, these are the
projects. This is the easier picture for me. The green is the project that’s underway
currently Nieman South. And then the yellow is the 6200, blue is the middle and red is
the north project.
The street projects which are underway or in the forecast include Nieman Road and
then Flint. And so this just sets out the funding structure right now as we currently have
for those projects. The Nieman Road is eligible and approved for CARS funding, which
is really a great 50-50 cost. It helps us cover that. And then the Flint is scheduled, as I
said, in 2018, with the accumulated. We’ve been the accumulating the SIP, that portion
of that SIP sales tax, and think by ‘18 we would have enough funding to do the Flint
project. So, we want to look at all these projects kind of comprehensively because they,
as was pointed out, they overlap. And we don’t want to be building something and
tearing it up two years later.
So, the expedited timeline, and so you’ve got two great big sheets in front of you. And I
apologize for the viewers because they were just too big to put in the PowerPoint and
the font is so small they’re even difficult at this size. But you’ve got timelines. One that
shows the current timeline that’s got all the little dashed marks kind of across it. And
that shows that it’s going to be -- we’re going to do them as we accumulate cash with
them concluding in 2024. The one that has the longer lines shows kind of what our
thoughts are on how these projects might overlap, work together. We talked about
Nieman Road and the middle, Nieman middle project, perhaps even bidding those
together, same contractor, or partnering contracting to do them simultaneously which
would make a whole lot of sense and be a really good option. We think we would get
some really good bids if we moved this fast and expedite the timeline because of the
economies of scale. We do believe we’d need one more engineering tech. There’s just
a lot of personal property owner relationships that we have to work with on easements
and keeping everybody informed of the projects, sending out a lot of notices and
acquisition of those easements. So, it probably would take one more tech position to
make all this happen. So, then we look at the forecasts and just kind of how these fit in
the forecast.
So, this is the full funding picture looking out for the three different projects, just again to
the SMAC projects. And you can see where the -- if we were going to debt finance
them that we’ve kind of allocated costs across not just Parks and Pipes. There’s wasn’t
kind enough to do them in Parks and Pipes, but there was a little bit of room in debt
service as we’ve talked about. We’re freeing up a little bit of space there. And some
additional allocations, that we look at the Economic Development Fund to fill that gap.
So, that’s the funding structure that we would recommend at this point. And again,
continue to look at it if we choose to move forward.
Ten-year bonds. $7.45 million including issuance costs. And again, the beauty of this
is the Parks and Pipes is paying 75 percent of the cost of the projects.
Page 13
June 21, 2016
So, pros of moving ahead. We can leverage $15 million in SMAC and CARS funding
right away. We have the opportunity to integrate some projects, maybe get some
economies of scale. And truly the end of ‘18, have transformed downtown pretty
significantly with these four creek projects, Nieman Road improvement. And if we get
Flint done also it would be a really huge impact in a relatively short period of time.
Cons. There’s issuance costs. Obviously when you debt finance instead of cash fund,
again, we don’t know what kinds of cost savings we might get on the other side by
bidding things together. And we do need additional, one additional staff person to make
this happen. We have, as you all know, you all have, we’ve done a good job with our
debt over the last few years. Really haven’t introduced many new debt funded projects.
And hopes of bringing that down, we’ve been reallocating some mills as they become
available and putting them in places that we needed for operation costs and paying
some big projects off. So, that really is one of the reasons that it gives that little gap of
funding to help make this happen also.
Then these would be the forecasts updated since you first saw them, I think May 17 th,
showing these projects plugged in. So, if you look down at the bottom the highlights in
blue show that those payments as were on the previous slide from the Parks and Pipe
fund. And you can see it retains a balance. These forecasts are ten years. They don’t
go out as far as this project would go, as the debt payments would go on this project.
But the balance of the funding ending 2026 would be adequate to pay the bond
payments.
Economic Development Fund, similarly, just shows that debt payments.
And the Debt Service Fund shows those smaller payments.
And I guess one of the things we also could have included on the cons, may or may not
be a con, you know, we are committing our SMAC funding for the next ten years.
Doesn’t mean we might not get more SMAC funding through the process, but we would
have -- we would be receiving quite a bit of SMAC funding at one time and that might
play into some future allocations in the next years. It might not. They’re looking,
currently looking at the structure of that and I think going to come forward soon with
some recommendations to allow that SMAC funding to be used for maintenance in
addition to flooding, which is what the restriction has been in the past.
But it really seems like doable. Like a good way to use or leverage that SMAC funding,
maximize it. Get a lot of stuff done soon. It’s pretty ambitious, but we’re kind of excited
and think we could take it on. But there’s a debt funding versus cash funding. I know
that’s a consideration also. I’m a cash girl. I like to pay cash for things. But I also get
excited when I think about really making some transforming improvements to downtown
in a really short period of time. So, a decision for you all to think about.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Carol, real quick. We ballpark SMAC a lot of times
at 3 to 1 match and this is saying 62 percent. What goes into factoring the match
percentage?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s a 75-25.
Page 14
June 21, 2016
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: Road maintenance is not eligible in the driveway property
acquisition.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, there’s portions of the entire project that aren’t
eligible for that 75-25.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. So, delaying -- delaying the SMAC funds
wouldn’t get us any different percentage. This 62 percent is regardless of when we do
it?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And again, it’s an estimate -COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: -- based on what that easement acquisition that we
think we will have on these particular projects.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Carol, what was the bottom line on how much SMAC
funding we would be actually putting into this that we obtain for the county? Because
we’re putting out, what, $8.8 million, something like that? How much do we anticipate
we’ll be getting in money from the county? Sixty-percent, whatever that it. I was just
curious what the number was. What is it, 10, 11?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Do I have a slide that says?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The total project cost is 19.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Oh, the total. Yeah.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Twelve million.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And we’re putting out 8, so that means it’s about 11 I
guess. Okay. We’re what, 8.8? Yeah. 8.8.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’re at 8.8.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I think the project is 19. So, we’d be leveraging
about 10.2 million from the county by doing this?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Sorry. I’m going back one at a time, 11.7.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: To be exact, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mickey.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s a good buy on your money when you can pick
up almost $12 million.
Page 15
June 21, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Sure is.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And with the price of money right now on bonds, it’s
just about free money, darn near. It’s as close as you’re going to get in our lifetime.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right now didn’t you say that there were other cities
that refused to some of it at this time because they couldn’t qualify for the matching
funds and so there’s an extra amount available that we’re able to get into?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I don’t know the reasons why other cities have turned
down funds specifically, but they have.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And so we can get more this year.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And so there is more money available right now. And
these projects, through their annual process they have bumped down to offer us these
projects. And right now they’re holding that offer open for a little bit longer.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Which would be a benefit for us at this moment.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think it fits in real well with a lot of the street
maintenance we’re doing, too. We’re going to get that done. We can get our streets on
some of that and we’re not tearing things back out and replacing them again and doing
all that kind of stuff. It’s just more money. It would cost more money. So, just bam, get
her done and move on.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, I agree. And, you know, I’ve said that from day
one that I don’t want to piecemeal this and stretch it out. And the nice thing is we’ve
already done all the legwork. We’ve already done all the steering committee. I mean,
it’s not like this landed in our lap and we’re starting from zero going, okay, let’s figure
out what we’re going to do. We’re done. And now what we’ve been figuring out is,
okay, we know what we want to do, so how are we going to pay for it. And now we
know. So, I mean, it’s kind of perfect timing. What really kind of drives this home for
me is I got a call from a dentist on Nieman Road the other day. Yeah. Different dentist.
Who has offices in the building on Nieman Road and he called me and asked what his
building worth. And it was interesting because he’s actually been looking on Shawnee
Mission Parkway. And I asked him why and he said, well, is anything going to happen
with Nieman Road. He said I’m not sure I want to stay on Nieman. It just doesn’t look
good and it’s not conducive to my business and I’m really thinking about moving, you
know, further down on Shawnee Mission Parkway. And so that was a big concern of
mine. I mean, that’s -- when we talk about dentist, that kind of office, that brings a lot of
people to a spot every day. I mean, how many people come to your office every day?
So, how many of those people, but how many of the people go to Hereford House or
might pop across the street and that’s what it is.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No. Their mouth hurts.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But, you know, I mean when you look at Nieman, and
our whole goal on Nieman is to bring people to the corridor. And when you have a
doctor or a dentist --
Page 16
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Go out by Walmart and buy some -COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- or anything like that that’s concerned with the look
and feel of the corridor and wants to leave, that’s the kind of business that the people
are going -- than be redirected somewhere else and that clientele is not going to end up
no Nieman. And so it was just a real interesting perspective. And we’ve been hearing
it. But with everything that’s happened and my conversation was, sit tight. Just give me
a few weeks here and we might have some information for you because I think we are
trying to make this happen. And I think it will keep him on Nieman hopefully. But that’s,
you know, that’s kind of what we’re faced with on this corridor is attracting people.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think Eric and then Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I just had another comment, too, about the -- you talk
about we need one staff position, the technician because of the considerable extra work
load and really working with the residents primarily and all the issues that come out of
that. I would really like to take a look at that in terms of probably a term appointment or
something like that if we could, unless we project over a -- we can honestly project over
a long period of time this position is going to be absolutely necessary in the out years as
well beyond this project.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, it is a position that we needed even without this
project. So, I can guarantee there’s plenty of work for that position to do.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because, yeah, I would just hate to hire him for a surge
and then -CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I know.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- we’ve got this extra staff position. And I don’t want
to let people go. Once we hire them, we kind of like -- they’ve got a career, they’re
working here and all that kind of stuff. So, I don’t want to just hire people and then no
more work for you, sorry, you’ve got to go kind of thing.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. And this would be a surge, but there is already
enough demand right now for that position that we’d put them on this project priority.
But then following that there would be plenty of other opportunities for work for them to
do.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I just would like to echo what I’ve heard up
here and you all have heard. I think since -- it looked like it’s doable. It’s an excellent
opportunity. I think it would show definite leadership of the Governing Body to step up
and say we need to do this. We need to get something going along Nieman and
everything else. And we’re going to do it and will kick start a lot of them. Just as Jeff
suggested I’m sure there will be a lot of telephone calls that will keep Ms. Ellie and
Andrew very busy with people who will be wanting -- seeing we’re willing to do
something and then they will be willing to come. You know, if you build it, they will
come, I hope. But, no, I think it’s a good idea.
Page 17
June 21, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I might just add also that in August we’ll be
planning on the August Committee meeting for a presentation on the Nieman Road
project, for the final report of that. So, ties in very well all this planning that we’ve been
doing really has come together really well.
Okay. I’m sensing a consensus. So, we will adapt the forecasts in the budget that way.
And so as we move forward that’s what you’ll see.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Great. Thank you.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Okay. Just a few things on budget wrap-up. This is
certainly not everything that’s in the budget, but just to hit some of the highlights, clarify
the things that are in. These all things you heard about at the last meeting or previous
meetings. I don’t think there’s any big surprise. I did want to mention I did have a
meeting today with Jo Gellar at the Park and Rec District. Told her we would be back in
touch with her, maybe with a letter from the Mayor. And she’s very open to
collaborating on a study. We kind of talked about whether we end up managing it or the
county ends up managing it wouldn’t it benefit all of us if we could maximize the
economic impact of that facility. So, she was very pleased that the City would help
participate. They might participate. So, that’s kind of a work in progress. And that will
come back to you again before we do more final work on it. But it was a good
discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Carol, just a comment on that ballfield thing. I’ve
talked to several of the folks on the City staff as well on this at one time or another. But
when you look at the City of Shawnee and why would you come to Shawnee. I mean, if
you’re living in Palo Alto, California, why would you want to come to Shawnee for
Christ’s sake, you know. But I’ve looked at that ballfield and we have some very, very
extensive sports venues in this community, much more than the average community.
And we already do draw some national tournaments in here and so on. And I am a
proponent of really building on that base and being a destination. Because I don’t think
-- Old Shawnee Town is great, but I don’t think there’s a whole lot of people going to
come here to go to Old Shawnee Town unless they live in the metro or they -- it’s a
drive-to kind of thing. But as far as, boy, getting folks coming in here for national
baseball tournaments, softball tournaments, volleyball tournaments, things like that.
We’re building those new hotels. Let’s fill those guys up. Let’s plus up what the
Hereford House is doing out there. Maybe some more restaurants to service that group
because that’s the one area I really see. And maybe I’m myopic in this, but that’s the
one area I’m seeing that actually could be something we could turn ourselves into a
destination spot with that.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I certainly think it has potential and we’ve finally got
hotel rooms to really support that kind of thing, so.
Just wanted to touch on a few things, make sure in the forecasts, because we didn’t
spend a lot of time on those. You had them in your notebook. Most of them were
similar to what we had talked about in years past, so we didn’t go through those a lot
this year with the kind of new format. But just to make sure you all had noticed a few
things that I think are important. So, in the debt service fund there is -- we’ve talked
about this. Doug has talked about the $8 million of stuff we know right now could break
Page 18
June 21, 2016
today. By 2019, we did plug an $8 million bond issue into the Debt Service Fund.
Obviously I’d rather cash fund that. Obviously I’d rather do it today, but that amount and
those bond payments are programmed in the forecast starting in 2019, which means we
could probably do those repairs in 2018. So, I wanted to make sure that you had
noticed that. Again, I think 2018 is too late, but it’s better than nothing. And the debt
funding is in there.
There is bond issues for Clear Creek Parkway we talked about. Nieman South, part of
the new alignment for the Nieman South project, which unfortunately keeps increasing
in cost. Our bids were not very low this week, so we’ve had to make a few more
accommodations. We’ll be bringing that on Monday night.
The Nieman Road improvements, 43rd Street, again, is out in ‘19. We’ll see how that
progresses if the need arises. Monticello South is a CARS project scheduled in 2020.
So, those things are out there in the future. Not anything you’re approving during this
budget process, but just thought it was important to know that they are out there.
The other thing that’s out there, and I don’t think we talked about really at all, but there
is $100,000 in the Land Use Fund for a new visioning. We did talk a little bit about the
old number is probably an old number and we have kept pushing that out. There is
actually a fund balance. We could do that in ‘17 if we wanted to. You know, there’s a
balance of how excited do we get about something whether or not we’re going to be
able to afford it or not. But there’s enough fund balance to do it in ‘17, but right now it’s
currently programmed in ‘18. So, if you did want to move that to ‘17, that would be
something we would want to include in a budget, some budget direction to us.
What’s not in the budget. I wanted to be clear. So, everything on the list that was on
that prioritization sheet, which is I think the next slide of the PowerPoint. None of that is
in there except for that $8 million bond issue that’s plugged out in ‘19. The other thing
that’s out, and I just want to be clear because we talked about it several times. But the
beautification for Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor, which I think is a great plan. But I
think we were clear, but I want to make sure you all knew that’s not included in the
budget anywhere at this time.
So, this is the prioritization worksheet that was distributed to you all with my
recommendations. Heard back from some folks, about seven out of the eight of you got
some response back of some kind. Four of the -- seven of you completed the actual
form. So, this is just a graph kind of showing where the support lies for the various
items. So, the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are just people across the top. So, for example,
there were three people that supported this Community Strategic Planning. Some
people supported things at a lower mill levy. You know, maybe not five police officers,
but one police officer. We didn’t get into that level of detail with this. We just thought
this was a good representation for you all to start a discussion about priorities and what
you would like to include.
And this is the slide from last time that I thought probably leave this slide up and then
maybe just begin some discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Great.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Staff is here with as many answers as we can come up
with. So, hopefully we can answer about anything you might have tonight.
Page 19
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sounds like a challenge.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And we’ll do our best.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, Carol. Well, I think, depending on
the Committee’s opinion on this, we can either start with digging into the Council
priorities. Maybe looking at some of these that got three or four votes on the survey, or,
Eric, if you would like to discuss the proposal that you sent out to everyone, or I sent out
on your behalf rather, last week. We can certainly start there as well.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’d be happy to start.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Go for it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I looked at all this information and presented a memo
to Carol that I had her share with the rest of the Council concerning how I saw the
budget for the -- the upcoming budget we’re looking at right now. And I made some
very definitive points such as in this sentence here, “First, the budget proposal exceeds
current revenue.” And I am opposed to spending more of the taxpayers’ money than we
were provided. And while I accept the need to use fund bonds to fund large capital
improvement projects, the annualized cost of these bond funds must fit within the
annual budget. And I also stated that I’m adamantly opposed to a tax increase of any
sort of right now. We’ve been through a number of tax increases. We just had another
tax increase presented to us tonight by the county. And the burden is just getting
progressively more difficult for our residents, well, county-wide, but I’m more interested
right now in Shawnee, of course. And I think it’s getting to the point where it’s pushback time. We have to live within our budgets. I think we’re not the only one having a
hard time trying to keep services going in the City. People are having trouble just
keeping their -- paying their rent and paying their car payments and taking care of their
kids. So, I think we all need to share the burden. I think it should be shared across the
board by the taxpayers as well as us here in the City. I still see in the budget proposal a
lot of bleed over from wants to needs. And that has always concerned. I know that it’s
sometime a fine line. What is really needed and what should we really be providing as
a City in terms of services and work as far as public safety, infrastructure repair, Parks
and Rec and all those things. But what part of those are needs and what part are
wants? Because my position that right now I feel like we are -- that we have not come
out of the economic downturn. I don’t think the information we’re being fed is really the
right information. If you look at the actual unemployment rates it’s not what they’re
saying it is. There’s a whole lot of people that have dropped out of the workforce
frankly. And those of us that follow that information fairly closely know that the numbers
are really pretty bogus. There’s a lot of people not working right now. And when they’re
not working they’re not spending money and they’re not paying sales taxes. And that’s
impacting on us significantly. Our sales taxes have been pretty static for some time
now with minor fluctuations up and down. But not meeting those kind of projections that
we had for our sales taxes. So, I kind of find ourselves in a situation where, you know,
it’s not happening for us. The income is not coming in like we’d like it to come in, so
there comes a time where you’ve got to show some responsibility, so I can’t spend what
I don’t have. And while some capital improvements may override that because they’re
capital improvements and that’s the only way you can get them done is to leverage
larger sums of money. Your operating costs, your day-to-day costs have to be treated
just like we treat them at home. You know, hey, kids, we can’t go to Disneyland this
year because the transmission broke on the car and we’ve got to fix that. And now I’m
Page 20
June 21, 2016
the big ogre, I’m the daddy that just told my kids we can’t go to Disneyland. But that’s
the reality. We don’t have the money, guys, so we can’t go this year. I think we are
going to get out of this mess. I think we will see daylight. I think it will come around.
But I would like to just keep our budget at last year’s level until we start seeing the
turnaround and we actually can say I can reach out and touch it. We will have
increased revenue. We are doing better. Hey, we can start loosening up and we can
start moving forward. But to -- I think we looked at that last year and kind of thought
that was going to happen this year and we kind of loosened our wallets a little bit last
year based on projections that the sales tax increase is going to be more robust than
they’ve been in the past. And things are turning around. We were turning the corner
and things are going to look good, so we did some things last year and that didn’t
happen. So, here we find ourselves, you know, looking at income doesn’t match outgo,
so we need to pull our horns in a little bit. And I think, well, like you said, in short, I
believe the budget breaks the bank. It doesn’t reflect accurately the budget limitations
that we must deal with. I think that if we raise taxes we are putting an unfair hardship
on the Shawnee families. Property taxes are rising rapidly with the reassessments
coming in annually with very large increases. And Carol showed me mine last meeting
and mine looks like a rocket taking off from a launching pad. And, yes, we’re still just
slightly below that previous level where we were at all-time highs. But, wow, based on
that trend I’m going to be paying a whole lot more taxes than I’ve paid before which is
within the next year and two years. So, there’s another obviously source of income for
the community, but it’s based upon those kind of projections. You know, I just don’t see
the trends changing real soon. And we’ve got to be dealing within our means. And we
have the largest commercial base we’ve ever had. And based on that, you have to
expect we’re going to get some increases. The economic development guy has been
doing some good things. We’ve got more businesses. It’s great to go to Johnny’s
Tavern. It’s great to have new hardware stores and all this stuff. And those are going
to produce for us. But right now they haven’t reached that yet. So, I think it requires a
little patience on our part. We have to just kind of be patient a little bit. I think we’re
going to get there. We’re going to be fine. But in the meantime, we’ve got to do what
we do at our households and that’s tighten the belt and hang in there until that time
does get there and that boss does give you the raise or whatever. You know, the City is
kind of an unusual position. Who else gets to go in and demand their boss give them a
raise? Somehow we got the idea in the City we can go demand that we be given a
raise to function with. And who told us we could do that? I mean, where did that right
come from? We work for the folks. And right now the folks that are talking to me, and
we all talk to different folks who are from different wards and stuff, but the ones that talk
to me say, kindly give us a break. We’re up against the wall. We need a break here, so
please don’t increase our taxes. We’ve just got to make do for a while and that’s who
I’m here to represent. I’m here to represent them. So, it is a representative form of
government. I told them I’d have their backs. And by gosh, I want to have their backs.
And so I can’t support a tax increase at this time. So, these budget numbers we’re
throwing out there and so on, I feel like they have to be able to fall within the
2016/2016R budget numbers. And if we can just hang on for a year or two, I think we’re
going to be okay. I didn’t put it up right up front that, you know, we do need to keep -- I
say in here I strongly opposed increasing staff levels in any other area other than public
safety and infrastructure. I mean, those are must do functions of the City. So, those
are in the need category when you’re talking about public safety and infrastructure. We
have to provide those services. They’re absolutely required. And so, therefore, I don’t
want to short those in any way. But in other areas, I know it’s painful in some of the
departments, wow, we’re making do with less and this kind of thing. But you know
Page 21
June 21, 2016
what, there’s times when you make do with less, and that’s pretty much my position on
it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. If you don’t mind, then after getting the overview
from you, we have printed copies. I kind of I guess sort of highlighted some of your
specifics. So, if we go through this. The first one is that the budget, as you mentioned,
not exceed last year’s budget. That’s kind of an -- I don’t know if you want to discuss
that as a Council separately. It probably will flush out as we get through these other
things, so maybe that’s more of an overarching. The second is not to increase staff
levels aside from public safety and infrastructure. I believe that is the case in the
current budget right now, aside from the position we all just sort of tentatively agreed to
with the Nieman Corridor project.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And some of that, of course, talks to things that are
already there, yes. But that’s kind of just restating the position on some of those things
where we’re already at.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. And I just wanted to make sure we have it all
covered. So, there are some positions that we will get to when we get into this graph up
here that specifically deals [inaudible].
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There is one IT position also in the budget. And then
that small conversion of a part-time to full-time in Public Works.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, then the third that I see in our list is, “I fully
believe that a ten percent cut can be made from current budget projections.” Do you
have a specific suggestion on where the ten percent comes from, or do you want to
flush that out at all?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, you had to get the whole budget sheet out.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because it’s all itemized. And there’s things like
professional services. There is supplies. I worked at the Government for 30 years and
we could take percent out of our budget and we could survive. I mean, any year I
worked there. And, of course, you want those things. They make your life easier as an
employee. It makes things a whole lot easier when you have all the resources you’d
like to have. But when you don’t have all the resources, guess what, life goes on and
you do your job, then we still work it. And as we come out of this thing those sorts of
things can be added back in as the revenues improve.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I see what you’re saying. I would just not, playing
devil’s advocate on behalf of I guess everyone to better understand it. It’s a little tricky
for us to say, okay, we want to cut ten percent when the suggestion of where hasn’t
been outlined.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Even things like trips, for example. I mean, how many
of you guys need to go to Washington, D.C. and things like that. I’ve had some real
hard feelings about that. Because I think when we send councilmen and people up on
these trips to these various meetings that we attend as a community, first of all, there is
no objectives established for that. Why are we going? I mean, what are we going to
Page 22
June 21, 2016
accomplish when we get there? And whether we accomplish this or not, at least there
should be some kind of brief back. I’ve never heard as a City Councilman any kind of
brief back on what we got out of that trip. We spend thousands of dollars to send folks
up there. Did we get anything? Is there any product from that? Or was that just a nice
vacation or whatever? I think oftentimes maybe one or two people could do that. The
Mayor, City Manager, perhaps the Council President. And we talk among these
Committee meetings about what we would like to accomplish while we’re there, what we
hope to get out of that. Whether it’s training or whether it’s lobbying or whatever it is
we’re trying to do. And then when the folks get back they literally brief the Council on,
hey, this is what -- we were successful, here is what we did. Or we weren’t successful,
it really stunk. We didn’t get anything out of the darn trip. But whatever. There’s some
kind of accountability there. It’s not just a -- it’s not just another trip. And once again, I
don’t like to look at these little bitty pieces like that, but I’m using that as an example
pretty much. And this goes throughout the budget. I mean, it’s just -- it’s just the
mechanics of working in a public service office to a certain extent.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. And again, I’m just trying to make sure that we
fully, you know, have the conversation about all the pieces of this. So, I was trying to
get some parameters on the ten percent. I think, Mickey, you have a question or
comment?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. On the Council travel. There has been various
items that have come back. One of them is our recycling plan that we had put together.
We have had several different, you know, items that we had brought in from the
conventions. You get to sit down and come up with new ideas from other cities all over
the country. There’s so many pluses in this. You get to also lobby to the federal
government of what the cities need and, you know, try to get them to back off of some
of what they’ve been taking like our CDBG money and different things that they’re trying
to take.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You know, that wasn’t the point though, Mickey, if you
were listening. The point was we’d go up with a plan. And we have forecast. This is
what we’re going for.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Well, I understand. Let me finish.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We have a reason to be going and this is what we’re
going for.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And when we come back, you’re telling me now at a
Council meeting what you got. I have never heard any of this before.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay. Well, you never go.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, there is no process. There’s no process for
feedback.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You don’t go, so.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There’s no process for managing it.
Page 23
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But let me finish now.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay. There’s classes on education. Some of us
didn’t know everything when we came in here. We have to go out and learn a little bit.
And they have different classes and things to help us understand budgeting, priority
budgeting, how to get along, how to work with constituents, how to see what you need
in the city. You wonder what these trips are. The City Council, part of these trips are
very minor from when you look into that category of trips, that also includes our City
employees and our police officer, our Fire Department, all the people that have to be
certified every year. And we have to keep them all certified. That all goes into that also
when you look at that category of trips and travel. So, you need to look deeper into it
before you start picking on it because some of it is a must and we have to do it in order
to stay certified and keep our guys educated and trained.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: You go first.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sorry. So, total budget for next $101 million. So, we’re
talking a ten percent cut would be $10 million from the budget just to be clear on that.
Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No, no, no.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: That’s my [inaudible]. You’re correct.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’m sorry, Jim. So, how is that incorrect? Yeah. Go
ahead. That’s what I’m just trying to clarify.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No. Obviously you can’t -- it’s not a ten percent direct
cut because there’s only certain thing that are not already fixed expenses. The payroll
is a fixed expense as it exists right now. Certainly any kind of contract or leases we
have are fixed expenses. Really you can’t come up with $10 million. It would be nice if
you could. I’d love that. That would be fantastic.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You’re only able to work with those parts of the budget
that are not fixed costs. Things like supplies and things like, like I’m talking about
professional services, those kind of things. Those aren’t really necessarily locked in
concrete. You can adjust those. So, yeah. You’re not able to take a ten percent of the
$101 million. It just wouldn’t be feasible.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I agree with you. Again, I’m just trying to put a fine point
on this because we can’t really pass sort of an addendum to the budget that says ten
percent should be cut, which was a part of the -- that was in your memo. I’m trying to
clarify what the ten percent parameter was. Whether it was $10 million which was the
total budget, or a specific part of it. So, it’s hard without drill down details. Jim.
Page 24
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Gee, whiz, where to start. I got priority based
budgeting here. I know where everything is and where we spend it. And I think an
arbitrary ten percent cut in service in, you know, where are you going to -- I think that
would be extremely difficult to do. We have worked on priority based budgeting for over
five years. We’ve talked about it. We go to classes when we go to NLC. It is working.
The state of Kansas even is finally going to take it. Probably a little -- never mind. So,
what I am saying is that, you know, we’ve got it here. I think we have a very -- certainly
there might be some things, but, you know, the City of Shawnee has not raised the mill
levy in the last ten years. In the last ten years the CPI for the urban area has gone up
36 percent, and we still haven’t raised the mill levy. Maybe we should have, but there
have been other things involved in it. So, we have definite needs that we have to take
care of at this point in time to meet the services of our people. To say people are
hurting and things and sale tax, the problem is the state of Kansas is hurting. The state
of Kansas basically is in a recession. You look at every other city, excuse me, every
other state around the state of Kansas in the United States, Kansas is behind them, a
little behind Oklahoma. But the others have several percentage points more growth
than the state of Kansas. And I agree with you, yes, we’re going to come out of it. But I
don’t believe we can pretend to be an ostrich and just say, well, we’re not going to do
anything for another two years. We did that in 2010 and 2011 when we had the
economic downturn and we are just now getting caught back up. And to pull our horns
in I think would further slow things down. So, that’s enough for now.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, I read Councilman Jenkins’ suggestions,
and just based on what you just said, I think I just have to kind of object to a few things
you said. Number one, you talk about we’ve had a lot of tax increases lately. And really
the biggest tax increase we’ve seen was the 3/8th cent road tax, which I supported
aggressively. And we didn’t impose that, we put it on a ballot. And by 70-some percent
it passed. And so what it tells me is, well, there’s 30 percent of people out there saying
I don’t want a new tax. Seventy percent plus said, no, I do, and I want a better city.
And that’s what we’re giving them with it. And I sat in a meeting -- we were both in a
meeting at the Mayor’s coffee the other day, and I think the first three people that spoke
just out of the blue praised how much new asphalt they’re seeing and how thankful they
were that we’re paving roads in Shawnee because we gave them an opportunity. We
gave them a choice and said this is the direction we can go and vote for this, or we
continue to do nothing. You brought up some businesses, you know, we have seen
some economic development, but we had to give a lot up to get it. So, when we talk
about Johnny’s and Nuts and Bolts, you mentioned we’re not going to see any major
revenue off that for years. That was TIF’d. And as much as it’s, you know,
heartbreaking to do that or to do that, if we wouldn’t have TIF’d it, we’d still be looking at
a shell of a strip center and, you know, we wouldn’t have those new businesses. So,
we are getting the specials off of them and we’re bringing people to the area. And until
that -- and, you know, when we do those projects, yeah, that’s just part of it. I mean,
we’re -- the overflow is what you get is you get people coming in and hopefully are
spending money elsewhere or buying services elsewhere. So, it’s -- and that gets the
ball rolling. You know, we get into the needs versus wants argument. That’s a tough
one because where do you stop with that. Pools are definitely not a need. I mean, we
could shut down the pools. We could bulldoze the parks and turn them into residential
communities because you don’t need a park. But you do that and people stop moving
to your city. I mean, if Neal Sawyer was sitting here, he’d have a heart attack if I said
we could stop sweeping the streets because the reality is we could. You don’t need to
Page 25
June 21, 2016
sweep the streets. It’ll just pile up and wash down the drain eventually. You do it
because it creates a more attractive city. And so a lot of things, I mean, I get to sit here,
and when you said that I’m just kind of looking down what we do. And you go, well, how
much do we really to do and whose decision is that that we need to do that or we don’t
need to do that. You know, obviously I do have a different perspective, and even the
Mayor talked about campaigning in western Shawnee. When I used to say that I’m not
hearing that from my constituents or I’m not hearing that complaining, she actually
remembers campaigning out there where people are saying, yeah, raise my mill levy
and give me services. That’s why I bought a $400,000 house out here and that’s what I
want. Build a community center. You know, we need a fire station, whatever. I mean,
they want services. They want parks. They want amenities. That’s why they invested
in their house. And if they’re not going to get it here, well, then they’re going to move to
Lenexa or move to another city that’s providing it. You know, I’m going to go back to
what I’ve always said. We look at the city and people say, well, we need to treat -- we
need to run a city like a business. So, what’s the kiss of death in a business? When
there’s a recession, businesses that stop advertising in a recession die. Everybody
knows it. In a recession, a lot of businesses they will cut some places, but they
increase spending on advertising. They increase spending on marketing and on
exposure because there’s less dollars to go around and they have to make themselves
look better to capture them. And so a lot of things that we’re talking about here that
we’re saying, oh, we should cut this or this, these are the things that put a face on
Shawnee that’s going to attract people and businesses. And we’re not attracting them.
We’ve got a couple projects going. But Stephanie knows as well as anybody with your
current job, go sit in a planning commission meeting in Olathe or Overland Park or
Lenexa, they’ll have 15-20 projects going on at once. And not just like, you know, half a
million dollar projects, huge projects. And we’ve got nothing in the pipeline right now.
We’ve got some things happening, but we have none of those projects underway. And
why? I mean, look at us. We’re the third largest city. We’re closest to downtown of a
major city, which gives us great positioning. We’re flanked by two highways. You
know, we’re closer to the airport. Everything about us makes sense. Everything about
it makes sense that we should be this incredibly fast-growing and we should have -- and
they’re not coming. And why is that? Because for years and years and years Shawnee
has been, oh, we just want to be this bedroom residential community and that has
stuck. And it is -- we don’t want to pay any more in taxes. We just want cheap, cheap,
cheap. Let’s just get by. And for years that’s all we’ve done is we’ve got by. And here
we are today with our Nieman Corridor in shambles. Half of over -- you look at
Tubbesing finally stepping up to the plate and doing something there off of Goddard.
Look at that piece of -- look at that stretch of road. I mean, when you think about in
between Nieman and Goddard on both sides on Shawnee Mission Parkway, it is the
second -- isn’t it the second busiest street in Johnson County? I think it was behind
Metcalf, yeah, or probably behind Santa Fe, maybe third. But one of the busiest streets,
corridors in Johnson County to look the way it does. I mean, does anybody really ask
themselves, yeah, why is that? I mean, nowhere else in the city do you see that. And
so you brought up property values and so we look at, yeah, my appraisals have gone up
out west, but not dramatically. And after I bought my house in 2004, they dropped.
Mary Pilcher-Cook who accused of us, you know, massive tax increases, she’s paying
less in property tax now in Shawnee tax than she was ten years ago. She’s paying
less. For ten years we had a decline in values. We had a massive hit in values and
now they’re starting to inch up, and we’re a little bit ahead of the game. But we’ve seen
the graphs for ten years. Those same ten years we had one year of negative inflation.
We had one year of deflation and that was in 2009. Every other year we had inflation.
So, every year except one, inflation was going up. Cost was going up. Yet, we were
Page 26
June 21, 2016
receiving less and less money and we were surviving and we did cut. We cut way back.
And if you look at all these graphs we’ve already been through, which everybody just
wants to ignore, once again, you know, our expenditures per capita or expenditures,
you know, our expenditures even when we compare our local cities, when we look at
our national cities, when we look at everything, our employees, everything about it,
we’re doing more with less. We’re already at the bottom. So, I mean, how much more
do we cut? I much further to the bottom of the barrel do we want to get and look at our
people and say, we don’t really want to be a first class city, we just want to be bottom of
the barrel and that’s good enough for us. That’s not good enough for me. That’s not
why I moved here. That’s not why I invested in this community. And I’m just going to
go back to the ten percent. When you talk about the federal government, I agree. I
don’t care what department it is in the federal government I guarantee you can cut ten
percent. Because when you have a 14 billion -- what was it, what was FEMA’s budget?
I don’t know how many billions of dollars. It was huge. So, when you look at any
department, FEMA, yeah, I’m sure it was pretty bloated in a lot of areas. I mean, that’s
a transparent budget. I mean, we don’t have $300 hammers or toilet seats or we don’t
have -- just it’s right there in front of us, line item by line item this is what we’re
spending. We come in at the end of the year and many of these departments are
coming in with excess budget. Just this idea that, well, you’re going to get whatever you
spend, how many other cities do we have departments that come in at the end of the
year and say we’re rolling it back into the budget because we’ve got money left over.
You know, every city is accused of, well, if you get that money, you’re going to spend it.
Except Shawnee we don’t because we have a department that comes in and says here
is the unspent budget. And we don’t praise them for that. It’s almost like, well, you
need to cut more. Well, when you start dong that no more will you see unspent revenue
because then they’ll say, well, I’ll spend everything you’ve got because next year we
might have less. I don’t think what we’re doing is crazy. These are so many unmet
needs. You know, I mean, I’ve been on the Council since, what, 2010? Mickey was
here before me. I came on in, you know, in 2009, I think was the worst year in the
recession. I came on the year after that. And it was, you know, we saw the effects of
what happens when you cut, cut, cut. What did you guys decide to cut prior to me?
Roads. You quit maintaining roads. And it was controversial, but the money simply
wasn’t there. To continue the maintenance of roads like they were you would have had
to have raised taxes. They said let’s not do it. Most recessions are three years. This
one lasted for several. So, by the time things started happening again roads were so
far gone that it was like, what are we going to do. And so it took a tax increase to solve
the problem. It truly did because there was no other way to do it. We’re there. If we’re
going to run like a business, then let’s be a business. You know, there’s the president
of the business. We’re the board of directors. The Mayor is the CEO. We’re not here
to nitpick and micromanage every little thing that the City does. What we’re saying is
grow this City. And the president is saying this is how we grow this City. This is what
we have to do. We have a lot of support, a lot of buy-in. And my job is to look at it and
say, do I think this will grow the City. And based on what I’ve seen and my experience
in life, I think this is how we grow the City. I think this is how we do it. Not everybody is
going like it, I get that. And if I -- if we raise taxes I’m going to hear from a whole lot of
people that are going to be upset about it. But I know that, you know, my kids are
involved in baseball, soccer, and I’ve been talking to parent after parent after parent at
practices and games and have not had one yet tell me don’t raise my taxes. What I’m
telling them is we need to do this. We need a fire station. We need to do this and this
and this. We’re going to improve our downtown and they’re saying, that’s fine, do it.
We want a nice city. Nobody is beating me up over it. Nobody is telling me not to do it.
Page 27
June 21, 2016
So, I got to go for the kind of city I want to live in. And, you know, we’ve got to do
better.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Going back to maybe some of the comments that
Mickey made a little bit earlier about continuing education, and I know it was just a
suggestion, so this isn’t probably going to be our hot topic of the night. But I know for
my dental license to practice I have to by law do continuing education. My dental
hygienist does as well. As a dental -- I’ve worked as an associate in probably one of the
four places I’ve worked has ever paid for my continuing education even though it was
required for me to have it to practice. I don’t pay for all the continuing education of my
hygienist either even though it’s required for law for her to have that education in order
for her to stay licensed. So, I would just put forward, I’m not making a suggestion. I will
just put forward that just because education is required doesn’t necessarily guarantee
the employer is going to pay for it. So, I’ll just put that out there. The other thing is if I
am going to pay for the continuing education of one of my employees, I do expect
something back. And I’m not saying that if a police officer goes to something I want that
report on it per se, but I think it would be good. I know when I went to the Seattle
League of Cities, I had a bunch of notes. And I kind of felt there might be an opportunity
for me to present it and there wasn’t and I probably should have taken more initiative on
sharing with you guys some of that stuff. But I think it would be good if our
Councilmembers go someplace, to present it, or maybe e-mail us something on some of
the cliff notes on what they learned on these places because it’s good information, good
knowledge. I think we should share it. And I know that when I’m paying for education in
my business there are some strings attached to that. So, I don’t think it’s too far-fetched
to say that if we’re going to cut back or if we’re going to send people that they should
give us some feedback on that. As far as the budget goes you guys I think got a copy
of my e-mail that I sent to Carol which was I don’t really support a mill levy increase
either. What Councilmember Jenkins did here was far more impressive than my e-mail
and the fact that he actually proposed some ideas and put them out there. I don’t -- it’s
funny. Jeff just said now that we’re not here to nit-pick or micromanage. And yet when
Eric says I want staff to cut ten percent, we ask him, well, how do you nit-pick and
micromanage that, where is the ten percent. And I feel like we get this double standard
a lot where sometimes we’re told on the Council that we’re big picture and sometimes
we’re asked for details. And so I don’t want to put words in his mouth. But the way I
understood his memo when he was talking about the ten percent, he was instructing
staff to come back with alternative budgets that cuts ten percent and let’s see what they
propose and how that works out. I think they probably know the details of their budget
more. I know there are some items that we’ve discussed here at Council meetings.
We’ve had hot topics along the year as far as anywhere from we talked about
healthcare costs. We talked about co-locating fiber. And there have been a lot of
things that the Council has discussed which could be big ticket items. I don’t know if
that would make up the full amount. I think having staff come back and give what -- if
they had to cut ten, what would it be. Where would their percentage be since they’re
more of the experts on it. I feel like that would still stay within our range of not nitpicking and not micromanaging. So, I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. I will
say to some degree the analogy on marketing in a recession, I’ve heard that time and
time again usually from people selling marketing to me. I personally about three years
ago stopped marketing my practice and really didn’t notice a difference, but I know that
there’s always exceptions to the rule, so that doesn’t mean anything per se. But I think
the problem with that analogy is in the private sector. If I market typically that’s what
Page 28
June 21, 2016
solves my problem, which is lack of production or lack of revenue. I’m not so sure that
government spending is what’s going to get us out of a recession, especially if we’re
seeing this recession as bigger than just a Shawnee area. So, yes, it would be nice to
build things like community centers and so forth. I’m not sure that’s going to actually get
us out of the recession the same way advertising help a business. I’m not sure
government spending is going to be the one to get us out of this. We saw the bailout by
Obama not really do much of anything. And we spent a lot of money on that. So, I
don’t know if I agree with that principle behind it. So, to kind of restate my position. As
a whole, I like what Eric proposed. I think it would be -- I think it would be worth
following up some of these and I just -- I personally don’t support a mill levy increase.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We’re out of a recession. We’re not in a recession.
You can’t say that. Now, I’m going to agree with what Jim said. In Kansas, we might be
having not near as fast a recovery as other places. And that’s not because of a
recession, that’s because of certain people in Topeka that think they no better -whatever. That’s all another conversation. But we’re out of a recession. I mean, my
god, we’re back up to 300 home permits I think. What did we do last year in home
permits?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: One eighty, two hundred, I think.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One eighty. But I mean, projection that we’re pushing,
aren’t we this year -CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Close to that, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I mean, I know that. I saw the report from
KREC that showed that we’re on pace to get to our higher levels, highest levels of home
builds. So, I mean, you know, there is projects. You’ve got big projects being, you
know, approved out west. You’ve got, you know, homes are being built right and left.
And then as far as commercial projects, yeah, it doesn’t look like they’re happening in
our back yard, they’re not. But in the rest of Johnson County, in the rest of the cities
there’s a lot of massive projects happening and going. So, we’re out of the recession.
It’s time that we get in the gain. Well, let’s see. Where was I going with this? When
you talk about ten percent, when you talk about telling the staff or, you know, go back
and bring us back a new budget with ten percent cuts, maybe I’m wrong. I don’t see our
operating the way -- I don’t see our budget operating the way -- that way. So, based on
what staff has done is they’re directed with providing us with a budget that they feel
keeps us a healthy vibrant city. They provide us with a budget that’s saying this is what
we think we need to do to move forward and succeed. And we either approve it or we
don’t. So, if you don’t want to approve, don’t approve it. And they’re going to have to
bring us back another budget. But to tell staff bring us back another budget with ten
percent less, if I was staff I would say, but that’s not going to achieve our goals. I can’t
present that budget in a clear conscience and say this will achieve our goals. And I
think that’s what they’re saying. These are our goals. This is what we want to achieve.
We do resident want feedback. We have people saying we want stronger code
enforcement. We want, you know, this. We want that. We want. And so we take these
things and we say to pay for this, this is what it’s going to take. And so staff has
presented us with a budget based on feedback, based on their expertise in the industry,
based on their communication with other city managers and they’re analyzing other
cities. They’re saying if we’re going to move forward and we’re going to succeed as a
Page 29
June 21, 2016
city and we’re going to take care of our needs, this is how much money we need. So, to
tell them bring us back another budget of ten percent less, well, vote down the budget
and then they’re going to have to. I mean, that’s really -- I wouldn’t feel comfortable with
staff bringing me a budget with ten percent less because we said, well, we think we just
need to cut ten percent, but tell us we’re still going to be able to do the same thing and
meet our needs with it. Because they’re going to be presenting us with a budget that
doesn’t meet our needs. If you don’t like the budget, vote it down and then we’ll force
staff to bring us back another budget with ten percent less an then the public is going to
know that that budget does not meet our needs because we voted down the one that
did. And I think that’s really how I perceive this. We’re not the federal government. We
don’t put the budget together ourselves. We have professional government that puts it
together. Here’s all the reports. It’s an up or down vote. And I said if we turn it down,
then they’ll be forced to do it. But they’ve presented us with a budget that they feel
meets our needs. Obviously there’s a few levels of needs in there. We can do -- meet
every need. We can meet some of the needs and that’s why we have this priorities
worksheet that everybody chose to do. So, really, you know, we’ve only heard from five
of us out of eight on what our -- what’s most important to you. And so I know I
answered it. And so, I mean, I think we go off of that and say these are the needs that
are most important to the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, a couple of comments. I guess one thing I
disagree with is I don’t think it’s realistic to expect no increase at all in the budget just
based on growth, our growth as a city as well as residential patterns, development
patterns. There is expectations by our residents in terms of being able to provide core
services and grow our infrastructure, something that I’ve been hearing more frequently
as I go to HOA meetings with increasing impatience by many residents. So, it’s a
matter of being able to balance that with reasonable increases. So, to me I think there
is a reasonable discussion to be had on what a reasonable rate of increase is and being
able to hold to that year in and year as we go forward, especially years in advance, five,
ten years down the road. So, that’s where the discussion lies for me. I do think that the
discussion around cost saving when it comes to supplies, and those are interesting and
I think there’s value in that. And that’s something that we should examine on an annual
basis. But I think that’s a peripheral issue because I feel like that still doesn’t get at the
heart of -- we have major, major priorities in front of us in determining where we want to
go as a city. We’re not going to be able to do everything. That’s obvious. And we’re
not going to be able to do half of this in probably the amount of time that all of us would
like. So, the question is what do we do now and at what rate do we do that. And a brief
note because I don’t want to focus on the office budgets. I think there’s a place for that,
but I feel like that still doesn’t get at the heart of the mill levy increase. And I don’t know
that that’s going to offset enough the budget gap that we have in terms of being able to
provide for some of these large infrastructure projects. But I will say one thing, it’s an
increasing trend that you see many large companies provide for training and education
and certification for employees. I see it in the technology sector. Since I started work
out of college, I haven’t worked for a company that hasn’t provided that to some degree.
Part of that is investing in your employees. When you have happy employees you
retain them for much longer, so that drives down cost for the business in terms of
turnover. And then you also have greater productivity because you have half your
employees. But you also have employees that are not only invested in their work, but
also have a higher level of expertise. And so that becomes critical when you talk about
firefighters and police officers, you know, being able to keep up with trends around the
Page 30
June 21, 2016
nation and being able to respond more quickly when incidents happen in our
community. And you can’t negate the value of being able to share best practices with
like-minded people around the country. So, there is that aspect of it. There’s other
issues along the side that could be looked at definitely, but, you know, I would caution
against getting caught up in, you know, trying to reduce certification programs,
especially as we’re leading the way in many of these programs and many different
departments are now setting a model for the rest of the county and other cities in the
county. But there is no question that we have to look at costs going forward, the rate of
increase, what that should be, how much, how little and how willing our community is,
you know, willing to invest in that. There is no doubt that we’re under a lot of pressure
with increase, tax increases by the county in recent years, by the state. I mean, we’re
being hit from all sides. But when it comes to business growth as well and what type of
development we want to see in our community, you know, I don’t -- it’s clear that the
recession has lingering effects. I don’t think we’re in it at the point that we were eight
years ago. Without a doubt we’ve seen growth and development pick up. But at the
same time it’s a balancing act. If you’re not willing to invest in your community, invest in
core infrastructure you’re not going to see that business growth. So, assuming that we
see a major upturn in the economy and we start to see this just groundswell of
development, you know, likely we could see that take place around us and not here.
Because if we have, you know, critical needs and stormwater and in other areas, if
we’re not able to provide in terms of public safety, that’s not going to be very appealing
to a business that may want to relocate in our community. So, that’s something to
consider. Sales tax revenues are down. There’s many factors that play into that. And
one of the major factors is the fact that the shift to online purchases, so consumer
buying habits have been shifting the last five to seven years. And so you have a large
increase, some people that are purchasing products online, particular retail, that’s going
to hamper our ability to attract retail businesses. So, the question is what fills the void?
If we’re not able to attract retail businesses because of the shift to online spending, we
need to look at some non-traditional businesses, destination-based businesses. And
then the question goes to do we have the infrastructure to support that, number one,
that’s appealing, but also do we have the environment in terms of an appealing
downtown that would bring those businesses in. And I would say right now we don’t.
And that’s where that becomes extremely critical. I have a friend of mine who I have
grown up with who lives in Lenexa. And I was talking to him about downtown Shawnee
because I’m excited to talk about the redevelopment there to every person I have a
chance to, you know, he asked me point blank, having grown up two blocks from the
Shawnee City line, where is downtown Shawnee? I don’t even know where that is. I’ve
explained it to him. But the fact is we don’t have a very, you know, well defined
downtown corridor, which I think is what we’re trying to do with this, one of the many
things we’re trying to do. So, yeah, I would just say in closing, I think it really comes
down to a balance. I mean, you have to be able to invest, you know, beyond a
minimum level and infrastructure and public safety to attract those types of businesses
you want to bring in. Because I talk to start-ups every day and they want to go to
communities that are investing, you know, in their core infrastructure that are able to be
nimble. That’s appealing to them. But at the same time you have to do it in a way that’s
not excessive and that’s responsible. And so I think that’s where we’re at. We’re at a
crossroads. No question. A lot of development is happening around us. We will be left
behind if we’re not able to respond. But the question gets to what degree and to what
rate I think. I don’t think we can be stagnant. And there’s no question that, I mean, we
have real needs in terms of being able to provide, especially residents out west. And
that’s the dichotomy that I’m seeing on a regular basis in terms of talking to residents
out east versus out west because many of the residents out west want to see road
Page 31
June 21, 2016
improvements take place faster than they are. They want to see a fire station out west.
And so the question is what do we tell them? Do we tell them, wait, you know, those
needs are, you know, a priority right now we have to wait a certain number of years.
That’s a dilemma. And there’s no easy answer for that, but I think there’s no question
that we have to be willing to move on some of these items. The question is how quickly.
But a stagnant budget, you know, won’t do it. The question is, you know, how much
harder we go and being able to keep that reasonable. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. So, circling back to the rest of Councilmember
Jenkins’ recommendations, the next talks about staff and it’s limiting hires, which I think
we have somewhat addressed. I’ll make sure. Okay. And a part of that was our -- the
level that we cover for benefits. So, I know we’ve previously had that conversation. I
think we’ve probably passed our ability to have an impact on that this year. So, perhaps
-- I remember when we had the conversation a month ago, two months ago, we
discussed maybe revisiting that a bit in advance next year. So, if we could just have a
marker that maybe we could review that moving forward when appropriate. So, got that
-COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That was not meant to be implemented now because I
know we’ve already passed the benchmark. But that’s included in this analysis because
it is affecting -COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- the rest of it. I mean, obviously you put money here,
you don’t have money here. I mean, just the facts of life.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. No. That make sense. I just want to make sure
we’re covering it. Let’s see, reduce the rush on capital improvements. So, you included
Nieman Corridor in that. I assume with the changes in the SMAC funding and all that
that you are supportive of that, or that is no longer an issue.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I thought that was -- somebody addressed that, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Okay. Fire
station, I think we will get to in later conversation. And then the last I have here is
reducing overall operating costs, which I think falls into a little bit of the conversation we
had had already.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. That was looking at that -- that’s where the ten
percent comes from, the operating cost stuff.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Okay. So, I guess at this point we -- I could take
anyone who would like to move forward on any sort of a vote on any of Councilmember
Jenkins’ suggestions to incorporate into the budget. We can do that.
So, we can either start on this now, go through some general conversation about these
Council priorities, not take any votes and then open it up to the public and then come
back and make our final choices. Does that sound great to everyone? Okay. All right.
Page 32
June 21, 2016
So, Council Priorities. Just moving through these. And again, not voting on it now, but
just having general conversation maybe about some of these that are a little more
supported than others.
Under Projects. It looks like community strategic plan was supported by three
Councilmembers. Anyone have any thoughts or opinions on that? Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. It’s a $75,000 guess. I think strategic
planning is very important. It would be another opportunity to just get more input. I
believe this next year we’re going to have another one of the citizen surveys. This is,
again, just along the same vein to try and get as much information from the people as
possible. But even though I like the idea, if we don’t do it that would be fine with me as
long as keep up the other. The Mayor has done a very good job of going out and
talking to people with third Thursdays and her quarterly meeting and things. And I think
we are getting a lot more feedback than we have in the past. I just would like to see
that maintained and even go another step further, so we get people involved. Example
would be out west when we start talking about the civic center. Or what would the civic
center need to be. I mean, I’m sorry. Okay. Community center. But, you know, just
what purpose do you want and more of a definition of what it is. And it probably won’t
be that much, but, you know, that’s just a sample of something to be revisited.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I kind of side with Him on that one. If you’re not
strategic planning in a community, I think it’s just hard to go anywhere because there’s
no direction. I used to live in the river market years ago and it was -- when Mel Mallin
had two buildings down there, and I think there’s one other occupied, and the rest of it
was a ghost town. That would have been probably the late 80s. And I was down there
and I know some people that owned a restaurant down there really well. And I was
down eating Cascone’s the other day and I’m looking out the window and it just amazes
me. I mean, I was in there in the late 80s. And we look at visioning. I mean, that city,
Kansas City, Missouri had a vision for the river. You know, it used to be the River
Quay as we know, and they changed the name because of the bad connotation and the
bombing and so they call it the River Market. And that started years ago. And their
vision was exactly what it is today. And it was -- that vision lasted. They came up with
a vision for that area and now you -- and even the vision for street cars. And I mean
these are visions that evolved over a long time because they kind of had this vision of
where are we now, where do we want to be. What kind of city do we want to become.
And so one of the things I hear about also from a lot of people who live out in my neck
of the woods is, man, that Lenexa City Center, I mean, that’s just crazy. What a cool
development and just, you know, everybody think it’s awesome. I mean, that didn’t
happen by accident. You talk about visioning. I mean, Carol could probably talk to that.
How many years ago did Lenexa start on that visioning process for City Center?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: 1996.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. And here we are. It’s just now becoming a
reality ten years later.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Twenty years.
Page 33
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Or 20 years. I just lost ten years of my life. Twenty
years later it’s just now becoming a reality. I mean, 20 years. And so when you look at
Shawnee, you know, I remember years ago, or, you know, as soon as I got elected I
started looking at visioning and we don’t have any. I mean, we’ve never really gone
through this visioning process in Shawnee. We’ve done little ones. We’ve never gone
through the really big visioning process of what, you know, and kind of we did it on the
Nieman Road Corridor. We went through the steering process. But the city-wide
visioning process, what do we want to be as a city? You know, do we want to be
bottom of the barrel, or do we want to be top of the barrel? I want to be top of the
barrel. And it takes an investment of time and revenue to do that. But it’s -- strategic
planning is huge. You’ve got to know where you’re going. You’ve got to know how
you’re going to get there. Otherwise, you’re just kind of fumbling and bumbling year to
year and I don’t think that works. I mean, you’ve got to have a clear, concise path and
follow that path.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I would jump in and say I don’t disagree with you
that I think strategic planning is very important. For me though, as I was going through
this list of priorities, just to be clear for everyone in the audience as well, none of these
are included in our current budget. So, we’re talking about a mill levy increase to fund
any of these things. So, I was looking at it through that lens and asking myself can I
justify raising someone’s property taxes to do a strategic plan, and I guess I can’t, so.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would just say if the community center is part of that
strategic plan, then we’re getting because you and both agree that something that’s
very well requested in western Shawnee and by a lot of residents. So, part of that
strategic plan to me is community center. The other things that we want in this
community, our corridors are our look and feel of the city.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, I would agree if this was just, you know, all talk and
we’re not going to get anywhere. But if this strategic plan evolves into or equates to we
want a community center and these are the steps we’ve got to take to get it and we
have buy-in from the community and then we can go out and do it, then I support it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I don’t disagree. I would I guess just say, we
have, as Carol talked about earlier, we have money allocated in 2018 for the visioning
process for the community center. So, I think we’re kind of covering that base there
already. Mike.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I pretty much have the same thought process as you
there, Stephanie. I’m not anti-strategic planning. Obviously it makes sense to do, but
not at a mill levy increase.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Okay. Anyone else on -- oh, Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I was just going to say in response to the community and
strategic planning aspect. I think that’s one of those cases where there is a lot that
could be done in terms of soft touchpoints before that probably don’t cost us anything.
In terms of community listening sessions, you know, being able to do kind of informal
meetings with residents throughout the city, ensure that it’s geographically represented
to get feedback. So, you know, I think that’s something too that as we determine
Page 34
June 21, 2016
exactly what components are contained within, then we can be able to price and itemize
that. But, you know, I see probably starting that out there’s a lot of soft touchpoints that
we could do to get started on that without having to have that as part of the mill levy
increase as well. So, I do agree that it’s something we need to start one way or
another. Whether that’s led by the City or that’s led by, you know, a group organization
outside the city of residents that are just very passionate and want to ensure that our
community gets started, it needs to happen. But not -- I don’t think it’s necessary that
we, you know, have it as part of a mill levy increase right away, so.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, moving onto workload staffing. I’m getting a
little feedback there. Sorry. It looks like we have the greatest level of support at three
folks for increased street inspectors and police officers. Any thoughts on that? Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I am interested very much in the police officers
because I think Rob made it pretty clear to us at the last meeting that it takes five years
till we put these people in -- not five years, a year when we put them into the pipeline to
get through all the police training to really -- so you have to front-end load this a little bit,
and we’d be losing people during the interim period as well. So, that one is kind of a
self-correcting thing in a way. It’s kind of a fluid process. And if you want to keep any
kind of staffing levels at all, you pretty much got to be doing -- hiring people on a regular
consistent basis to keep it up to speed. The street inspector position. The thing I like
about the street inspector position is I think we’ve had some really poor success with
some of our road repairs. Jeez, David Morris has driven me about nuts a number of
times taking me out and showing me all the street issues. But some of them he had a
very good point on. When you have stretch marks that you can stick your hand into
where they laid the asphalt and it’s brand new, wow, that’s a problem, you know. Why
aren’t we inspecting that and getting back to the contractor and saying this needs to be
done, redone. So, I think that one might be a money maker rather than a one that costs
us if we can do a much better job of supervising the -- especially since we’re spending
all this money, we’ve got a lot more roads going in, a lot more repairs going in. It might
be worth some money to have somebody out there on top of this and making sure the
work is done properly.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. Also back on the street inspector, well, it’s a
little bit more. But just like we approved the other night, we subcontracted that out for
some of this other we’re doing and for, I don’t remember, was the contract 72,000 or
something like that?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: $68,000.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: $68,000. So, for ‘22, this person will be permanent
on staff for, you know, as we talked about earlier would be getting something. We’d
have his ability there, so again, I think that’s a good idea.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anyone else on workload? All right. Programs with
Staffing. Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I just would throw out. Okay. The street
inspector and police officers?
Page 35
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes, sir.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Three people like those the best. If you did that, that
is 6/10th of a mill off the worksheet.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Reducing cost somewhat in the [inaudible]
departments and picking that cost up.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, that was the cost they had them, right?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I’m talking about -- we talked about it in my
budget, a proposal actually trimming some costs from some of the departments on
some of the operating costs and hopefully you can pick up these guys with that. I
mean, it’s not that you have to have another more mill levies to balance that.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I’m just merely stating that based on the worksheet COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: -- that was what they were -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Based on the worksheet.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: That was what they -- wherever it comes from that’s
what it was going to take.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s the cost. Yep. Okay. Programs with Staffing. It
looks like we had quite a bit. Four folks supporting the Stormwater increased funding
and three, four municipal court security. Comment? Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. On the municipal court security, I think when
that came up earlier I mentioned something on that previously that I would like that to be
self-supporting in the budget. I would think that the reason we need a municipal court is
because we’ve got people breaking the laws and having to go in there and pay fines
and see the judge and so on. I would like them to pay the cost for this. I think the fines
could be adjusted accordingly to pick up this cost.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I agree with you there. I don’t know what the process of
doing that would be.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, the judge legally sets the fines and I can just tell
you through my ten years here we’ve had that conversation about every single expense
that comes up in court. When we did the software we were like, well, let’s increase the
fines and let’s create a fund to do that when we were doing some building remodels.
Oh, let’s increase the fines and let’s do that. My concern was increasing fines for a
specific purpose is that it’s General Fund. It’s operations costs. The judge sets the
fines over here. That money goes into the General Fund. That money funds operation
Page 36
June 21, 2016
costs. We can ask the judge about that. Ultimately it would be his call. But I know in
the past he’s been a little leery about doing that just because there will continue to be
needs and where do you stop setting up these fees. So, that’s just my input.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s okay passing the cost to the taxpayers but not to
the perpetrators?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: This is going to be hard for me to say this without
sounding kind of weak. But, you know, when you look at funds I have a 20 year old that
pays a -- has paid a few dollars in court costs just simply for crazy driving and
everything else. And some of the fines really kind of amaze me, whereas certain cities
out there I can tell you that he’s had to pay fines in, it’s revenue generation for them and
it’s kind of sad. Not everybody in our court is a criminal. Some people are just the
nicest people in the world and they, for whatever happens, they get a ticket for this or
for that. But, I mean, you’ve got to look at someone. This goes back to the
conversation. You look at what, you know, how stretched thin people are becoming.
And typically the people in our court system are the people that can least afford it. And
just hammering that burden on them. It’s not like they’re not paying anything. It’s not
freedom by no means and we’re not subsidizing it to the point where, you know, she
shouldn’t have to pay a fine. But I mean you get somebody out there making eight
bucks an hour that’s living paycheck to paycheck and, you know, things happen. You
make an illegal turn or you’re not paying attention and you’re speeding, or whatever it is.
You know, I know with my boy it’s just, you know, he’s come to me and said I can’t
afford it. I can’t pay it. I don’t have the money. I mean, it’s a tough one. And so what
happens is they kind of get in the system. I mean, they extend and they extend and
they, you know, do whatever they can. And so it’s a tough one because usually what
they’re doing is, you know, most people they’re going to plead that down to a nonmoving so now you’re going to double the fine, and plus they’re going to have other
costs on top of that, otherwise they won’t be able to insure themselves because that’s
already crazy. It’s kind of a vicious cycle. I mean, I don’t disagree with having fees and
fines that are comparable to other cities. I just -- I don’t want to get kind of like Carol
said. I don’t like the idea of saying, well, we have this need. Let’s increase his fees
over here. I just, you know, I don’t want to really get in that position of making that call.
I’d rather -- I like the idea of the judge kind of, you know, coming up with these fees as
long as we’re comparable with other cities. But that’s a runaway train I think if you just
start imposing that on everybody.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I don’t share your sympathy of lawbreakers. And
as someone who works downtown I’ve paid my fair share of parking tickets that are
something like $50 a ticket. So, I imagine we’re fairly reasonable compared to Kansas
City.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, okay. Well, then they shouldn’t break the law.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I agree on that one.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Oh, yes, Mike.
Page 37
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Just a real simple point. I mean, someone has to
pay for the security. It’s either the people in court or the taxpayers. So, I guess it’s our
decision who should be paying for that security when they’re getting -- the ones that
broke the law or the person that hasn’t.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Stormwater. Anyone care to comment? It
looks like it has four supporters. Yeah. Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think we need to turn back around and look at the
stormwater fee. So, if we look at stormwater we’re saying, you know, we’re looking at
mill levy increase for it. But stormwater, I mean, I think half the pipes, if I asked for the
information, I think half the metal pipes are west of 435. So, our issues are coming,
they’re just not here yet. But stormwater is one. We look at a mill levy. Of course, the
more expensive you pay, the more you pay. But typically the more expensive house
you have the less chance you’re going to have of having a stormwater issue because
you’re in a new subdivision less chance of erosion of pipes. I don’t want to get in a
position and say I don’t want to pay any of it because we’re all in this together. But
stormwater fee, we all pay the same. If it’s a house, it’s a house. That’s 36 bucks right
now. And so we’re all paying the same amount of money. I’d rather take this out of the,
you know, take this away from the mills, free up mills for other programs that I think are
needed and kind of go back at the stormwater and say, hey, you know, let’s increase
that fee. You know, aren’t we one of the lowest in, yeah, we’re in the lowest. Why are
we the lowest? I mean, if we’re looking at doing a mill levy increase for stormwater and
we’re the lowest in Johnson County, or one of the lowest, then let’s increase the
stormwater fee and not -- because there’s obviously support for it. Everybody is saying
we have a stormwater issue. But is it right that the more expensive house, I mean,
there’s houses way out in, I mean, I could show you right now there’s houses, you
know, along the Bluffs out there, $1.5-$2 million house, well, they don’t have a
stormwater pipe anywhere near their house. They’re a quarter mile off the road with a
big long driveway and there’s no stormwater out there and they’re going to pay
substantially more than anybody else who is probably going to receive the most benefit
from it. So, I think everybody -- I think the fair way when we look at stormwater, I think
the -- I don’t want to say fair, but I think the logical way to do that is lean it on the fee.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That fee charges it in the -- do you know what
PowerPoint it’s in?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If you own a house you’re not that poor.
[Inaudible; talking amongst themselves.]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Carol, maybe while you’re pulling that up, Brandon, did
you have a comment?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I just wanted to echo Jeff on that. I feel like when
it comes to stormwater improvements, the stormwater fee as I understand it hasn’t been
increased since it was implemented.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Uh-huh. Correct.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So, you know, over ten years now, is that right?
Page 38
June 21, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: 2005, I believe is when it went into effect.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: 2005. You know, and I think that that’s very
understandable among the general public. It’s a stormwater fee that those funds go
directly back into stormwater repair. And that’s also costs that’s shared, that burden is
shared by everybody in the City. So, you know, even non-profits that own businesses,
churches, everybody pays that so it’s not, you know, just the property owner. And I
think that is also appealing about it as well because everybody is paying into it. And
when it comes to stormwater improvements, that’s something I think everybody in the
City should share the cost of that as well. And again, there’s a direct tie-in. In talking
property tax mills to residents, it’s very nebulous, you know, because again, you know,
they don’t often equate or see the direct value for their dollar and where those -- tying it
to those improvements. And with the stormwater fee you can do that. And I believe
most residents of our city understand the stormwater issue being able to ties that to a
fee increase there I think is logical.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Just showing that chart we are the lowest in Johnson
County except for Overland Park. And then Overland Park has some other sources of
revenue. Several cities have other sources of revenue in addition to their stormwater
utility. But ours is at $3 a month at $36. So, Lenexa is at $9. Mission has a large -they do a lot more fee-based stuff, $28 a month. $9.25 for Prairie Village. $5.60,
Olathe and $4 for Lawrence.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: When you say those others, they have other revenue
sources like Overland Park, other taxpayer funded obviously. I mean, it comes from
taxpayers.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Right, they do. Let’s see, a General Fund transfer,
some ad valorem mill levy and I think a part of a sales tax, too.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, at the end of the day taxpayers all pay for it.
MR. WESSELSCHMIDT: The other thing to point out is doing 12 miles of corrugated
metal pipe, pavement, concrete from the very beginning.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, Overland Park has much less corrugated metal
pipe than we do.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Anything else on stormwater for now? Oh,
Brandon? No. Just kidding.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, yeah, sure. Go ahead. Yeah. We’re still in
Programs with Staffing.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. So, actually just a question for my fellow
Councilmembers. I thought it was interesting that enhanced codes enforcement and
rental registration didn’t get a lot of votes. I know I hear about that from a lot of
members of the community pretty frequently. So, just curious as to reactions and
thinking among others on that, so.
Page 39
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, and I’m with you. Codes Enforcement, I’ve been
argument with them for years. It’s, you know, it goes back to what kind of community do
you want to have. And if you don’t want to enforce codes, then go drive through areas
of Kansas City, Kansas and that’s what you’re going to look like. Because codes
enforcement in KCK is pretty minimal if it exists at all, even if you make a complaint.
So, it’s, you know, nobody wants to be the bad guy. But when we have this idea that
our codes enforcement is complaint-driven, then that’s where you really spend a whole
lot of time on an education process. Nobody knows that. And I’ve told plenty of people
that. Well, they’re like my neighbor -- and I’ll say, have you complained, well, no. Our
codes are complaint driven. We don’t proactive go out and patrol and so they’re like,
well, I didn’t know that. Nobody knows that. So, they just, you know, the perception is
that we’re lazy as a city. The perception is that we don’t care. We’re going to let
anybody do anything they want because nothing is getting done and it’s sad because
that’s not the case. Our policy is it’s got to be complaint unless it’s blatant I guess. At
some point I’m sure we’ll proactively do something. You know, I’m amazed at how
many yards on main thoroughfares that don’t get mowed. Two foot tall grass and it’s
not mowed on the thoroughfare. Or, you know, I know when I was campaigning for
mayor and going around to some of the neighborhoods down here where I really got on
some of the back streets and the side, it was like, wow, how can this be allowed. I
mean, and so, you know, a lot of people say, well, I just don’t think we should pick on
people that much. You have that opinion until the neighbor moves in next to you who
runs their house into the ground and doesn’t paint it and parks their car on their grass
and, you know, the porch is falling off. And now your property that was worth 180,000 is
worth 140,000 and nobody is wanting to buy it because they’re saying I don’t want to
live next to that. Well, now all of a sudden you kind of have a different perspective on
codes enforcement. I think to get our city where we want to go and move us forward
we’ve got to proactively enforce codes and we did in our citizen surveys. A lot of
feedback we’ve gotten, people are saying I want to see codes enforcement. We have
got to clean this up.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess the comment I would add on why I didn’t take
this one. For me, as again, it just feels like a really high bar for me if we’re talking about
raising someone’s property taxes and this doesn’t feel like a critical enough of a need
for me to justify that.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I think if we look at it as it could potentially raise
property values, then while it’s a mill increase, the effect of it overall eventually raises
property values. If you code enforcement our neighborhoods, and now especially the
worsts ones, little by little that neighborhood is going to go up. So, they’re paying more
in taxes, but their house, you know, their net worth is going to go up.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Of course, and then they’ll pay more in taxes.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The value of their house is going to go up because
we’re cleaning it up and we’re doing what we’re supposed to do as a city. And codes
enforcement does decrease crime. And I think -- I don’t know if the Police Department
has got any statistics on it. I know I’ve read them. Just based on a, you know, I mean, I
know I can go down here to the apartment complex down the street and there’s a truck
backed in with a flat tire. It hasn’t moved in months. I guarantee if we walk around to
the back of that truck it’s on expired tags. That’s code enforcement. That truck should
Page 40
June 21, 2016
not be allowed to sit there, but nobody has complained about it. And if we’re proactive,
also drive by the [inaudible] that’s abandoned. Now, we have that on the books, but
we’re not proactive and going and doing it. And do police have time? Not necessarily.
So, maybe the codes enforcement officer gets out of his truck, walks behind the vehicle,
expired tags, makes a report, boom, car gets towed. Little by little crimes rates go
down. Abandoned vehicles go away. I mean, I can show you neighborhoods here
where people have -- it looks like they’re running a repair shop in their front yard. I
knocked on some of those doors. I mean, literally cars with the wheels off and the axles
out of them on their front yard. And it’s been that way. Some tires are stacked up with
weeds growing through them because they’ve been there for years. And that’s not fair
to the neighbor next door. He doesn’t want to look at that. But he doesn’t want to
complain on his neighbor. It’s our job to do that. We’re the, you know, the City is the -they’re the governing body, we’re the governing body. The City is the, I don’t know
what you want call it, what’s the word for it, but it’s their job. I mean, it’s our job to make
these neighborhoods nice and do what we can to, you know, for security and
appearance and quality of life and that’s part of it.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: On this one, I think Overland Park, as far as their
rental registration and they are adding -- they’re sort of to me in the county
spearheading it. But I think they were going to have three inspectors and there is some
sort of fee.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: They’re charging for it, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. But my point is that if you’re going -- I think
this could eventually be -- I think it needs to happen. I think I agree with what Jeff said
with the codes. But if you combine this with the rental property registration it could be
self-funding.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I agree. Okay. Anything else on Programs with
Staffing? All right. Moving to Facilities and Staffing. We have Fire Station 74. And I’ll
self-report this was the one item that I said I would support. I live in northwest Shawnee
and I’ve seen the number -- response time number, seven, eight, nine, ten minutes and
beyond, and I think this is a critical need for west Shawnee and I can’t imagine the
position of telling one of my neighbors your house is going to be burnt to the ground or
child is going to die inside that house because we don’t feel that’s a need. So, I
supported it. Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. In fact, I’m -- it upsets me a great deal when I
see public safety being on a list like this. These are -- public safety is our number one
responsibility literally. If you prioritize the purpose and functions of any level of
government, number one is public safety. For the federal government, it’s to have a
force that protects our borders and protect Americans from outside threats. At the state
level we have a National Guard and we have state police and so on. And at the local
level it gets down personal where we have to -- we protect individual lives from
perpetrators of crime and we have fire, the dangers of fires. These things need to be on
-- not even on this page. They need to be on the basic budget side as it’s a necessary
expense. So, I always get kind of frustrated. I see this all the time. Like in Kansas City,
Missouri they’ll starve the fire people and the police departments and they’ll say, oh, we
need to pass the taxes to pay for these guys. Well, no, these’ guys come first, all this
Page 41
June 21, 2016
other stuff comes second. So, these guys need to be on page 1. That other stuff needs
to be on page 2 where we’re looking at right now. So, yeah, I think this needs to be
moved right into the basic budget for this community. We take care of fire. We take
care of our public safety equipment down there and fund stabilization as well. It doesn’t
belong on this page and it doesn’t -- it should not be part of a mill levy. I’m afraid that’s
often something that’s manipulated quite a bit to say, oh, man, we’ve got to have police
and fire, so we need to raise the mill levy. No, it comes first. We may need to raise the
mill levy for something else, but we don’t need to raise the mill levy for this.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, I agree with you that public safety comes first and
that’s why I supported it. The practical reality is it’s $3.5 million for a new facility and $1
million a year to staff. And I don’t know precisely where that comes from the in the
budget. And I do think there is a tendency and maybe in some other communities to
use that as an excuse perhaps to increase the mill levy. And with that in mind maybe
something to think about for us if we are going through to the step of looking at a mill
levy increase for the fire station that we make it specifically a public safety mill levy
increase and the money is always tied to that, so that encompasses perhaps the new
police officers, fire station, what not. Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: New, yeah. And I support it too obviously. I’m out
there and it’s something that needs to happen. I’d just go back to kind of what you’re
saying before is if you’re going to say that it should be priority or you shouldn’t be on
this page, okay. So, find $3.6 million and $1 million a year to run it. I mean,
unfortunately when cities grow that’s part of it. Just to give some perspective on this as,
you know, we’ve talked about it before, and I love to compare to Lenexa because we’re
both west side cities. They’re what, 15 less square miles. There are 15-20,000 less
people or something like that and they’ve got five fire stations and we have three. I
mean, it’s, you know, and unfortunately I’ve heard comments from people that, you
know, the negative side of it that, you know, why aren’t we serviced, you know, served
as well as Lenexa or why aren’t we, I mean, it’s a tough one, man. It has to happen.
And this goes back to kind of where we are, you know, budget-wise, and even
commercial. I mean, yeah, we’ve got commercial growth, but it’s only at 22 percent.
You know, healthy cities at 33, 35. I mean, our goal is the low 30s. Ten percent
increase in commercial revenue. If we had that, if we weren’t, you know, if we didn’t
have this idea of let’s be a bedroom community years ago and let’s not support and
grow and attract commercial development, and we’re a little bit further ahead of the
game and didn’t lose some of the things we lost and got this far behind the eight ball,
we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. I think our budget would be in a
totally different position. You know, the reason all of a sudden everybody changed their
minds on, unt-oh, we need commercial development was, well, we can’t afford this.
You can’t put that much burden on a residential taxpayer and make it work because
you’ve still got to provide services. I’m going to say something real quick, and I’ve
thought a lot about this. Public safety is very important. But where do you draw the
line? What is public safety? A streetlight is public safety. A stop light is public safety.
A road with no pot holes is public safety because somebody could hit a pothole and get
injured and then that public safety still has to be supported by city government. It takes,
you know, someone to write their paychecks. It takes someone to deal with their
benefits plan that, you know, I mean, all of that works together. So, to say we’re just
going to keep adding people to public safety, but we’re not going to hire anybody to
maintain and manage public safety, you know, unless everybody just falls under public
safety, which I guess that’s direction. If everybody just say, well, we’ll just -- so public
safety should be an automatic. Okay. Well, then you’re going to have a city that’s
Page 42
June 21, 2016
going to say everything is public safety. Everything is going to fall under public safety.
And every time they hire somebody it’s going to fall under public safety because you’ve
still got to manage it. You could hire ten people at public safety, well, someone has got
to deal with their benefits. Somebody has got to manage a program. It still takes other
personnel to do that. You’ve got to have roads to drive on. You’ve got to have street
lights. You’ve got to have stop lights. You’ve got to have technology to keep all these
departments connected and the phones answered, or the phones ring when someone
calls, I mean, that’s -- it all ties together. So, yeah. I mean, I think you can get off in the
weeds on some programs that probably have nothing to do with it. But a lot of what
we’re talking about here I think ties, you know, at the end of the day, can you easily tie it
back to public safety.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Anyone else on Facilities and Staffing? It’s really
just the fire station. Okay. Let’s see. The next one is Street Projects. Carol, would you
mind putting that priorities back up? Thank you. Street Projects. So, this was the
Midland Drive, Shawnee Mission Parkway to 435, one vote. Any comment on that?
Hearing none?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, hearing one. Too fast.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. The only reason I bring this up is I’ve heard this
for years and it’s, you know, is it an absolute priority, no. I just want to get it in the
conversation. This is our true real link between east and west. And we’re talking about
bicycles and we’re talking about corridors for cycling. Anybody that cycles knows that
getting from east to west on a bike and they’re spending, you know, $6.2 million for a
cyclist is tough. But we also know that woman almost got killed on Midland Drive
walking several years ago because there’s no place to walk. There’s not even a
shoulder on that road. And so it’s dangerous road. And if you drive a lot, which I do, it’s
a very dangerous road because there’s some blind curves. There’s no shoulder. It just
kind of limits do we need to run out and do it this year? No. But I think it’s something
we really need to start looking at and then figuring out with the county, with the golf
course. Can we leverage them? Can we get some stuff done? Are we going to see
development that might do some of it or how do we leverage some stuff on it. But it’s a
tough one because when we’re talking about cycling and even connections, and, you
know, bicycle connections over the lake. The whole idea I think as trends grow is, you
know, walkable. You know, the walkable, car-free societies is linking major things for
people to move around. It’s a big expense, but I’m not going to say cycling is the only
reason for it, it’s just -- it’s one of those roads. It’s one of our corridors that I think we
need to see something in the years to come. It’s, you know, it’s not going to on this
years and I know it. I just want to put it on there so we talked about it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’ve got a question for Carol. What’s our
percentage, I don’t have the numbers in front of me right now because they’re in my
office, but the percentage of our reserve fund that’s projected, percentage of budget?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: On the forecast?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah.
Page 43
June 21, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I know we ended ‘15 at 51 percent.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, the reason I’m even bringing it up is because to me
that would be something I would consider. A fire station would be something I would
consider out of reserve fund.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’d love to cash fund a fire station from reserve, yeah, for
each.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because we have more than adequate reserves.
We’re doing well. And we get something. It’s not just gone. You know, it’s out there
and just, poof, it’s all gone. We can’t even tell where it went. We’ve got a capital
improvement that’s going to be there for years and years and years and serving the
people in western Shawnee. Pay cash on the barrel head and we’re done with that.
And I think it’s something we’ve been kicking around for a long time. And I do not like
spending, frivolously spending any of our cash reserves because that’s very valuable
and very important to us in our bond rating and all that kind of stuff. But if you can walk
away with a real product, wow, we’ve got something very tangible out of that as a
permanent fix kind of thing, as a permanent structure. I think we walk away with value
added on something like that.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I agree reserves should only be spent on one-time
things. The concern we would have looking at this forecast is that, yeah, we’re
budgeting to 32 percent in ‘17, and we know we end up higher than what we budget to.
We know that. But as you pointed out, we budget to spend more than we bring in each
year. And so as you look at this forecast going forward, which is also what Moody’s is
going to look at, our bond rating agency, this forecast is based on very, very
conservative growth and expenditures. And it diminishes very quickly. So, I wouldn’t at
all advise an expenditure of reserves for a fire station.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: And I would go back to what Commissioner Eilert
said because their reserves are about 22 percent. And he indicated that they would
need to really look at that to push their reserves up towards -- back towards 30 percent
as far as maintaining their bond rating.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. You know, and honestly if that forecast showed
that we’re going to maintain 40 percent over the next ten years, man, I’d love to pay
cash for it. But unfortunately it doesn’t and honestly it’s because, you know, that’s the
whole idea of this forecast is, you know, do we do that or not. And if we did, you know,
I’m going to go ahead and talk about the 300-pound gorilla in the corner of the room.
We’re talking about a tax lid. So, let’s say we cash fund it and this trend continues on
and all of a sudden Moody’s comes back and says you’re going to lose your bond
rating, what do you do? You know, do you just hack, hack, hack. Do you then go out in
front of the voters trying to explain to them that while we cash-funded this, but, you
know, our forecast has got us down to where in our bond rating we’re going to lose our
bond rating which is going to cost another x-amount of millions dollars of year and now
we need to do this tax increase, but then we’ve got to go to the vote. I mean, it’s, you
know, I guess my attitude is, which I have, was meant to say earlier is, you know, tax --
Page 44
June 21, 2016
or mill increases they can be decreases easier than be increase. So, if we look our
needs right now let’s say the economy does take off and let’s say, you know, retail
expenditures go up. Let’s say the feds pass, finally pass a bill that says internet sales
are taxable. Well, then it’s easy for us to come back and say, well, we have more
revenue now let’s lower mill levy. But, you know, I don’t want to get in a position -- and I
said I do love the idea of cash funding. Look at the forecast. I just don’t think it’s a
responsible way to do it because I think we’re going to be stuck in a few years going,
okay, what do we do now if this trend continues. And I think what we need is additional
revenue to make sure that we don’t get into that position.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I agree with you there. I had in my mind was we had
talked about it previously that it was closer to 40 percent. So, I agree. And then
another thing to point out is we still have the ongoing $1 million staff cost that would
have to come from somewhere to fund the building. I think Jim and then Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I’m just going to again, going back to the
presentation earlier. And again it’s a what-if and it’s pie in the sky and things. But over
ten years if the courthouse thing would pass that’s $16 million to us over a period of ten
years. And that would go a long ways toward taking care of all of this fire stuff. But that
doesn’t solve the problem today, but it’s something in the back of my mind.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I would just urge caution when it comes to reducing
the reserve. That doesn’t mean we don’t do it. But I know having talked with
colleagues and other surrounding cities, typically one thing that Moody’s will always ask
city officials is does your Council have the will to raise taxes, i.e. raise revenue if
necessary to maintain a healthy reserve balance. So, that does come up and it has a
direct impact. And typically that becomes a pertinent question when that reserve
balance is dwindling. But there is a direct correlation there. So, I just wanted to add
that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Anything else on, I guess on any of the other two? All
right. Last one is Fund Stabilization and it looks like we had three supporters there. So,
any comments on Public Safety Equipment Fund? Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Again, I’d like to sort of just -- simply because if you
got it there and stabilized it’s predictable going forward. And you’re going to have to do
it sometime perhaps. And I think it’s a good idea. I don’t know if it fits and depends
where the other mills and these things work out, how it’s going to fit in there, but it
certainly needs to be a consideration.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Well, that concludes the initial Council discussion
no Council priorities. So, at that point before we get to voting on individual pieces, I
would ask if there is anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this item. You
look like you want to. Come on up. And if you want to just state your name and
address again for the record. Thank you.
MR. BRUNING: Actually I’m kind of glad that I had a chance to cool off a little bit
because I find some of the discussion this evening got me awfully annoyed. I’m sorry,
Mr. Vaught. I think you can spend every penny I have in my bank account on this town
and I don’t much appreciate it. You suggested that the mill levy, to we’re out of
Page 45
June 21, 2016
recession. Well, the first thing I’d point out is we may be out of recession, but in my
business, to remain competitive, I’ve not been able to increase the fees for my services
for six years. My supplies cost more. So, what I’ve learned to do is I’ve learned to do
more with less. And I would point that out to everybody here, more with less. I think
Colonel Jenkins has some valuable opinions and ideas. I’m not sure that a ten percent
cut is necessary. But I was disappointed about the bantering about the continuing
education. I don’t think anybody in this room would say continuing education for our
personnel is a bad thing. I think we missed the point. I think the point the colonel was
trying to make is we need to look closely at our budget and where these expenditures
are going. With no disrespect to our City Manager, we have Mr. Vaught again. I’m
sorry, sir, I’m going to pick on you for a few minutes, who said we couldn’t
micromanage. Well, then he goes ahead and used the interesting comment that our
budget is based on what our department heads want. And he said want, not need. And
there’s a significant difference there. So, frankly, after his comments I sat over here and
I started to steam up to the point that with his attitude I would urge everybody on this
board not to vote for the budget because I think every budget can do better. I have to
live within my budget. All of you have to live within your budget. And I have a hunch a
bunch of you do a heck of a lot better than I do income-wise. And the reason I’m pretty
passionate about this, I talk about the fact that I haven’t been increase the fees for the
work that I provide to my clients and that’s to remain competitive. So, I have to do more
with less. My taxes, my property tax has gone up 23 percent in three years. And if
anybody here thinks that is insignificant, then you must be doing a heck of a lot better
than I am. That 23 percent on that property tax increases everybody’s coffers, including
this City. And to have people sit up here and talk about spend, spend, spend, spend is
very upsetting for me as a taxpayer. Now, I think when we start looking at not wanting
to micromanage, we have to remember as managers I learned a long time ago to
inspect what you expect. That’s a necessity. Now, we have a City Manager who is
responsible for doing that. But at the same time we have members of the Council who
think that we shouldn’t inspect the City Manager. And, please, believe me, I’m not
saying that you have to be inspected or micromanaged. But I want to make sure that
my money is being spent properly. And this gets me to the point where I was going to
micromanage a little bit myself this evening, and I know I’m running out of time very
quickly; however, something that’s been annoying the dickens out of me when I see
stuff like the stormwater that needs to be address, I’m driving through Shawnee again
this spring for the third or fourth year in a row and I’m seeing miles and miles of curbing
torn up and replaced. And I know that’s not cheap. I in my own neighborhood two
years ago watched sections of curbing pulled up and replaced and there was nothing
wrong with it. Now, that’s not spending my money wisely or anybody else’s money
wisely. What I was going to suggest tonight is that we look at these budgets closely
enough and ask our City Manager to look at these budgets closely enough to make sure
that we’re not doing work that isn’t necessary because in my opinion, instead of
replacing miles and miles and miles of curbing, we should be taking that money and
putting it into stormwater repairs. That’s all I as a taxpayer ask and beg is that you
responsibly spend my money. Make a strong focus on it. Don’t just assume because a
department head says they want it that they should get it. That’s not a part of the doing
more with less. It’s not cutting back either. It’s just maintaining the status quo. Thank
you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure. Thank you, sir. And I would point out, I appreciate
your comments that this is a little bit further into the budget process. So, we did have a
by department review where we delved into that a little bit more, so I’m not sure if you
Page 46
June 21, 2016
were able to attend. But just as an FYI, this isn’t the only meeting. So, there’s been a
little further of a dive on all that stuff. So, thank you. Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’d just like to respond, and normally we don’t get into
these matches, but -- and you obviously weren’t here for this presentation as well. We
do do more with less. We’ve been doing more with less for years. Employees per
square mile. Shawnee 7.6, Leawood 20. Twenty employees per square mile. We’re
the lowest. We compare to the five top cities in Johnson County, Shawnee Leawood,
Lenexa, Olathe, Overland Park. We have the least employees per square mile of any
city. Employees per thousand population 4.9, the least of the five cities. The next one
is Olathe with 5.2. And Olathe, that excludes our solid waste management service
because they actually handle that themselves. Employees per thousand population 4.9
in Shawnee. The next lowest is -- and these are -- we started comparing to what I
asked staff years ago is just don’t look at the five local, let’s look at comparable cities
across the Midwest. Shawnee, Johnson City, Tennessee, West Des Moines, Iowa, St.
Charles, Missouri. Similar in size, similar in population. Employees per thousand
population 4.9. The next lowest is West Des Moines, Iowa. Beautiful, beautiful city.
They’re six. Expenditure per square mile across our five local ones, $2.40 per square
mile expenditures. Lenexa the next lowest, $3.91. $2.40 to $3.91. That’s why when
you drive through Lenexa it looks different because they’re spending more money. Not
because they want to blow it, because they want their city to look good. Expenditures
per square, the three other cities across the country, $2.40. The next cheapest is
Johnson City, Tennessee at $3.32, West Des Moines, Iowa at $3.52. Which I’d
compared West Des Moines probably to Lenexa in look and feel. I mean, it’s -- we do
more with less. We have been. So, to come up and here and say that we can’t do
anything, we need to keep doing more with less, it’s not working. Look at Nieman Road
Corridor. Look at the vacancy we’ve talked about on Shawnee Mission Parkway.
That’s what happens when you continuously do more with less is people don’t want to
move their business here. I just told you I’ve got a dentist on Nieman that wants to
leave the Nieman Corridor. He might stay in Shawnee. A dentist can’t go very far, he’s
going to lose his people. But if he abandons the Nieman Corridor that’s one more shot
that you take with an empty building on Nieman Corridor because we’ve got to do more
with less. If we can’t do that corridor, we should just let it continue to erode and decay
until what? Until it’s empty? It is a responsibility of government to intervene, whether
everybody agrees with it or not, to improve the City, to improve these areas, to
incentivize these areas and make sure that doesn’t happen. And that’s what we’re
doing. I don’t want to raise taxes. I don’t like paying taxes. I live in an expensive
house. It costs me a lot. But I also like to take my kids to the park and I don’t like it
when things are broken. I like it to be intact. I like to walk into a clean bathroom when
they want to relieve themselves in the middle of the day and I don’t have to drive them
home. I like it when the fields are mowed when they play soccer. You know, I like it
what we can go up to Splash Cove and they can go swim in a really cool pool because
that attracts people. I like to drive down the road and not hit pot holes. As far as the
curbs go, I think you said you’re in the airline industry or something like that or -- I listen
to the engineers. I listen to our engineers that go out and inspect our curbs and say,
they might not look bad now, but it’s probably going to look bad next year or we’re on
the verge of decay. They don’t just go out and erroneously replace curbs. When you
do a main corridor sometimes they will because it’s easier just to do a long run. But
they know when the lifespan is hit. And unfortunately what we’re doing with this
concrete is years ago, several years or however it was, we had kind of a bad calcium
issue in concrete. And there’s some curbs that are accelerating on their decay.
Unfortunately we’re paying for it, but it’s happening. And that’s happening all over the
Page 47
June 21, 2016
City, that’s not just us. That was a little change in the formula and, you know, there you
go. But to say that you look at a curb and, well, I didn’t think it needed to be replaced, I
don’t know that. But I’m going to trust that our engineers and our inspectors, they’re not
trying to spend money. They’re not trying to blow money. Why would they? Most of
these people live here, too. And I’ve said this before. All of our senior staff they have to
live in Shawnee. They pay taxes. They don’t want their tax money squandered,
nobody else does. So, why would they just allow things to get spent erroneously
because, well, you’re not paying attention? Well, sure they’re paying attention. The
City is tight. It’s very tight. It’s one of the tightest cities I’ve ever seen when it comes to
money. They don’t want to spend money. I mean, that’s why we sit here and argue
over this. Lenexa a couple years ago passed a five mill increase. Five mills. Wasn’t it
five? They went from 24 to 31. Five mill increase. No opposition. Unanimous vote, no
opposition. Five mills. I don’t think anybody even showed up to the meeting. And the
people in Lenexa are as happy as can be. They think it’s awesome because they got
City Center. They’ve got all these beautiful parks. They’ve got five fire stations. Now,
am I trying to do that? No.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, you are.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, I’m not. I’m trying to at least get us competitive.
I’m trying to at least get us someplace where, hey, look at Shawnee, they’re doing it.
They’re finally taking it serious and they’re finally moving us forward. Because for five
years on this Council I’ve seen over and over and over we can’t do that, we can’t pay for
that, we can’t do it, we can’t pay for that. And for five years I’ve wanted Nieman
Corridor, nothing happened. I’m watching decay on Shawnee Mission Parkway. I’m
watching projects not get off the ground. We can’t grow a city that way. And that’s not
the kind of city I want to live in. And my assumption is the majority of the people think
like me and I’m going to base my decision on that assumption that the majority of the
people think the way I do. And if they don’t, vote me out of office. But I’m voting my
conscience. I’m voting the way I think the City needs to go. And if I lose an election
over it so be it, but I think it’s the right thing to do.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Is there anyone else from the audience who
would like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none, we will move back to Council
discussion. I will start with Councilmember Jenkins’ suggestions. I think we have
discussed a fair number of them, but I would be open for any motions to amend the
budget we have seen with any of those proposals. First up, Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m just going to reiterate the fact that I still adamantly
oppose the tax increase and, therefore, it’s going to be tough to deal with the budget
that’s presented because that calls for a tax increase. So, that causes a problem, so.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Can you elaborate on that a little bit? So, the budget
that we have right now does not call for a tax increase. The priorities we’re discussing
would all be a mill, a tax increase.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. And I’m against doing those.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, you could -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m not against doing all those, but I mean, like I said,
the fire station thing shouldn’t even be on this sheet, it should be in the budget. And
Page 48
June 21, 2016
something on the budget should be in here. I mean, there should be some adjustments
made.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I don’t disagree that it’s a priority, but we need I guess
more specifics. My point is that the budget that we have, that if we move forward
without any changes is not a budget that includes a tax increase at present. The budget
that we have on the table is not a tax increase. So, anything that we’re adding tonight
would be. But just to clarify, the current budget that we were all presented does not
include that at present.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But there is a disconnect here because some of the
things that are in here belong in the budget. And some of the things in the budget
belong on here. That’s my point. Okay. Five police officers belong in the budget.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But, okay.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The fire station belongs in the budget without a tax
increase. Some of the stuff that’s in the budget now needs to be taken out of the
budget and to be put on this list, so there needs to be a tit for tat here. There needs to
be some exchange of items in the budget.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I promise you that I am not trying to be argumentative.
My confusion I guess is that I have heard from you tonight we should not increase staff
at any level in our budget. And then I have now just heard that police officer staff
increase of five officers should be in the budget.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No, I think I said that earlier in this memo about no cuts
to -- that we fund -COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, you’re fine with increasing our staff.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That we fund the public safety infrastructure. I said I
am strongly opposing increasing staff levels in any area other than public safety and
infrastructure. That’s what I said.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, I guess -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And so those things, they need to be in the budget.
And there needs to be a reconciliation, a budget with this list. Some of the things on
this list belong in the budget and some of -- and I don’t want to tell them what to take out
of the budget and put on this list because I want them to make those choices because
the City staff is closer -- up close and personal with those issues and they would do the
best job of making that adjustment.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I would counter that. I believe that it is the role of
the Governing Body to set the priorities that are within the budget. And I think that
includes staffing levels. I think that includes a fire station, what have you. And I think if
we’re talking about we’ll say the fire station, so a $4.5 million expenditure. I think if I
want that put into the budget, then the onus is on me to find a way to fund that within the
budget because I think the budget that has been presented is a needs based budget.
So, I’m curious what need it is you would like to remove to compensate for what you -- I
mean, it’s easy for me to say I think all of these should be top priorities as well. Gosh, I
Page 49
June 21, 2016
think, you know, a unicorn should be a priority as well, move it into the budget. But how
are we going to do that? I mean, it just seems like a lot of rhetoric to me right now.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s not just rhetoric. I think we could absorb into the
budget the public safety people. I don’t think that it would be easy to absorb the fire
station in the budget. But I already talked about how I would not terribly upset about
paying for a fire station out of our reserve fund or even possibly a bond issue when we
got the really low interest rates that we have right now to address that. But I do not
want to increase the mill levy. So, that’s the only way I could see of accommodating
that. But in that case, I would say that the City staff, Carol and her finance director,
need to come up with $353,000 to cover the five police officers out of the budget and
make adjustments in the budget accordingly.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have a difference of opinion. Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I just would say when we get the -- when we had the
presentation from all of the department heads and things, you know, they said that five
police officers is, you know, that’s what he needed and the budget reflects what they
have right now. So, this is an increased need. And I respectfully disagree with Eric on
this. I agree on the police officers and the staffing, but I don’t believe -- I don’t believe at
on the 23rd of June, with all the work that I know has gone into this and priority based
budgeting and everything that staff has done, I don’t -- and when does this have to be
filed. What is the timeline going up before our meeting the last Monday night in July?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Tonight if we got a motion from the Committee to direct
staff to, I believe the way we worded it, to prepare the notice of publication for the July
11th meeting with a tax levy number and/or a base budget in these additional items, or
the base budget to prepare that notice. The notice then is published, is approved by
you all at July 11th. So, that is again an opportunity to have any more discussion modify
the number. Once you publish that number, then that’s the number that the public
hearing is held on on the July 25th meeting. That number can be reduced, but it can’t be
raised after what’s passed on July 11th.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I guess one more comment I would just say. Eric,
I am with you. I don’t want a property tax increase any more than you do. I just think
that it’s a false premise to be able to say I support all these things. If they were in the
regular budget I would support all of those things because it’s just -- it’s not the reality.
And we are here to make the hard decisions -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No, Stephanie. That’s not what I’m saying.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: -- and this is a decision of the reality of it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m saying we’re still mis-connecting here.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: $355,000 for the police officers. I believe these guys
should be in the proposed budget without the tax increase. There’s items, I talked
about cutting some costs as a budget as presented. That would compensate for these
Page 50
June 21, 2016
353. So, there should be no growth. It should be a quick exact rate out there. The fire
station, I’m with you on the fact that that’s kind of -- where do you come up with $4.6
million out of the budget. That’s going to be a little more difficult and that’s why I’ve
offered up a couple other ideas for that as a way to address that. But if we can’t -- if we
can’t trip $355,000 out of a $72 million budget, then something is wrong. I think we can.
I think we can find that kind of cost savings and take care of the police officers.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess I would say that I wish that you would have found
that as a part of your presentation.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I get beat up every time I micromanage. So,
that’s micromanagement. I’m getting down to the line item and saying save $35 here
and go over here and save $125. I mean, that’s not where I’m coming from. I think
Carol and her staff are in a lot better position to say, okay, where could we actually trim
a few bucks here and a few bucks there to come up with $355,000? And I think that’s
the appropriate way for it to happen. It’s not for me to sit here and say, Carol, you need
to cut this and you need to cut that. Now, that is micromanaging. They can do that.
That’s something well within their purview. And I think a revised budget that would
accommodate hiring of these police officers could be done.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I just think that the conversation tonight has been a lot of
very broad. We should just cut ten percent. We should just find 350,000. We should
just do this, we should just do that. It hasn’t been done. It hasn’t been done, Eric. And
I would love to find that in the budget as much as you would. But we have a tight
budget. We’ve been having this conversation all year about what a tight budget is and
this is why we have the opportunity. This is why we change the style in which we’ve
presented a budget. Maureen did a great job of -- and everyone from the departments
of outlining exactly what was in every budget so that the Council was empowered to
come in and say this $355,000 is a priority of mine and I value that more than this, so
cut that.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. I’ll be very direct. Take it out of Professional
Services. Because if you look at every department budget in this City there’s millions of
dollars in professional services in there. If we can’t trim $353,000 out of Professional
Services, then I just won’t believe that. It’s just impossible to believe that we can’t do
that. And so I think we’re having an argument over something that really doesn’t need
to be argued. I really think there’s areas in that budget that are soft areas that can be
addressed and can be trimmed. And did you have to give up a little something to do
that, yes. Do you have to give up five police officers if you don’t? Yes. I’d rather have
the five police officers.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What are Professional Services? What does that
entail?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It entails a whole host of things. Those specific line
items. And so every department has professional services line items. Those are -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Millions.
MS. CHARLESWORTH: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
Page 51
June 21, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Oh, yes, you do. In your budget book you have a list of
exactly what those are. Would it have been that very first May 17 th meeting tab?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We do.
(Off Record Talking)
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It might be in the back tab, the Miscellaneous. Here it
is. I’m sorry. So, it was one I e-mailed to you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, we can cut pending litigation.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I like that one.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That gets us halfway there.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, these are just very specifically a variety of the
things that I guess if you wanted to hit. The bigger dollars are our City Attorney’s
contract comes out of that. Litigation comes out of that.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: CityRide, that’s what, 10-10?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s the 10-10 taxi program.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, that serves your ward, so I don’t know. Go ahead
and propose that.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mowing, Operation Green Light, physical and drug and
alcohol testing for recruitment. There are many smaller $10,000-$20,000.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you for putting this up there. I guess my point
isn’t to say, you know, Eric, find -- go through this list and find these things. But I mean
all of these budgets, each of these are individual programs, so I’m trying to figure out
where, you know, within this or within the general budget, I’m just trying to -- I would
love to find $350,000 to hire them from the budget. I’m just -- I want to deal with reality
and not just the verbiage about it. Like, okay, well, do we find it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There’s other areas to. There’s a big budget item,
$300,000 for education. We’ve got uniforms and I love my public safety guys. But you
know what, I spent 34 years in the military and never once did I get my uniforms paid
for. I bought them. They gave me a $300 initial issue and that was it. And while I
would support it for the junior officers and things like that when they’re coming on board
to make sure they’re taken care of and got their uniforms, I mean, officers, my gosh,
we’re paying our officers very well. But these are small items.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: These are like nickel and dime things obviously.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right.
Page 52
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I don’t want to get wrapped around the asphalt.
But that’s what it would take. You’d have to go through and you’d have to take, okay,
we save a thousand here. There’s 500. There’s 1,200. Yeah. I mean, do you want me
to do that? I mean, I guess I could do that. I could go over to Maureen’s office and sit
down with her and we can go through every one of these lines and I could sit here and
give my opinion and she can give me her opinion and Carol can sit in and we can all do
opinions together and that would be just great. But that’s why I’m putting the
requirement on them saying, hey, you know, research that. See if we can come up with
some money out of that because that’s really one of the few places to go. I mean,
you’re not going to cut salaries. Are we going to cut salaries? No, we’re not going to do
that. So, something has got to give. Something has got to give.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike and then Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I hear Jeff’s suggestion earlier which was that this
was the budget staff brought us. Either vote it up or vote it down. If we vote it up then
this discussion right now is pretty much academic. If we vote it down, then I think that’s
when we can decide or we can make recommendations to instruct staff to come back
with a different budget. But I feel like right now we’re arguing about budget 2.0 and we
haven’t voted on the one that’s been presented and recommended in the packet here.
Unless I understood you wrong, Jeff, that’s what I thought you were recommending.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I want to be clear, there is no recommended
budget. We presented a budget with no mill levy increase, but that was not my
recommendation.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. I’m reading the memo here where it says
staff recommends that the Committee, and it goes on to say a mill rate of 30.536 and a
six mill increase. So, that’s a staff recommendation, right?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That is, yes.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The base budget had no mill increase.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And then in our memo staff recommended that plus
this?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: True.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, you know, we look at Professional Services. And
you discount that real quick because you realize, well, wait a second, a lot of those you
probably can’t do away with. And then you say uniforms. So, the one thing you’ve got
to understand about uniforms is if you want to see an expensive police and fire
department, go find one where there’s a union. And I think the pretty big reason we
Page 53
June 21, 2016
don’t have a union in Shawnee is because we take care of our officers with things like
uniforms and things that other cities with unions probably don’t pay for. But if you want
to see your police and fire costs go up, go and start taking things away from them and
let them unionize and then we’ll really see what happens. I mean, it’s not all black and
white. And I know that you’re passionate about this. I’ve been up here since 2010.
Mickey has been longer. You’re brand new. And that’s not saying you don’t know what
you’re talking about, but there are some things in here that there’s reasons they
happen. Ask that question. Ask about uniforms. We had these presentations. That
was the time to say, well, why do we pay for uniforms. Well, the alternative is let’s let
the unions. Let’s let them unionize. I don’t want that. I mean, my dad was a
commissioner for Unified Government. If you want to see an expensive fire department,
it’s one of the most expensive in the country. It’s totally controlled by the union. I mean,
it’s, you know, there is reasons we do things. There’s reasons things happen. On the
surface it looks like, oh, my god, that’s a giveaway. Oh, I can’t believe you’re doing that.
The Professional Services, I guess what really irks me about that conversation is these
assumption is, yeah, most of those are just BS. That’s some stuff that just wanted
some gimme project and we’re giving this person 10 grand for nothing. And I don’t
know. I mean, I go back to -- I’m going to back to what I just said about these numbers
and we all saw them. When we look at how much more efficient we are than these
other cities, how much less we spend per capita, per square mile and to say that there’s
always money in that budget, well, just maybe there’s not. Maybe there’s really not.
Maybe we are just that efficient, which I think we are. Because over five years we’ve
been struggling to do this. We’ve been struggling to get things. Our streets were about
to fall apart if not for a three-cent sales tax increase because there was no money to fix
them. It just wasn’t there. So, I guess we could have -- if we wouldn’t have passed the
sales tax, can you imagine the argument we would be having right now? Can you
imagine this conversation we’d be having right now if we didn’t pass -- if that sales tax
didn’t pass? We’d be screwed. I mean, we’d be nothing. Our streets would be in total
decay. And over the next years because we got everybody up here saying, oh, I’m not
paying, I’m not increasing taxes. And we would have watched our streets fall apart and
everything would have been, nope, it’s public safety or nothing. I mean, this is not -what staff has asked for is not unreasonable. When we look at other cities, we’re the -what is it, the fourth lowest mill levy in Johnson County. We’re not -- it’s not like we’re
the top of the list, we’re at the bottom of the list. And so it’s great to say, if something is
great to be proud of that, look at how low our mill levy is, but if your city is suffering
because of it, then it’s not something to be proud of. I mean, Lenexa can be proud of
their 12-mill mill levy, well, 12-plus, then fire whatever else adds to it. But Lenexa can
be proud of that and they are. But, my god, their revenue is off the charts. I mean,
you’ve got 130 -- you’ve got just this massive tax base. We don’t have that. And we’ve
got to get there. We’re the third largest city in Johnson County. We’re the seventh
largest city in the state and we kind of approach this like we’re some third world nation
that just, well, we’re just -- we’re good enough. It’s not, you know, I mean, it’s not Good
Starts Here with a lot of us, it seems to be Good Enough Starts Here. I don’t want to be
Good Enough Starts Here. I want to be Good Starts Here. I mean, come on. I’m not -I do not like the idea of raising taxes. But I like the idea of improving our city and given
staff members what they need and the tools they need and the revenue they need to
get the job done. They’re not being unreasonable. I mean, unreasonable was Lenexa
raising five mills with the revenue they have. I don’t know what they’re spending it on,
but they’re spending it. And people are moving there in droves.
Page 54
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, based on all this discussion then I would
recommend if you want to look at a tax increase it should go before our voters. And our
voters if they think they want a tax increase, then they can -- and they want to vote for it,
I would be happy to abide by their decision because that’s their money. It’s not money.
I don’t take their money to spend. If they wish to offer up their money because they
want additional goods and services, then I think they certainly have the right to do that
in this community. But I don’t feel, after the promises I’ve made to them, the
commitments I’ve made, that I have the right to take any of their money away and
redistribute it in another way. So, I would suggest if we think we need a mill levy
increase that we put it before the people in this community and see if they agree with
you.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Eric, that is really not reasonable because we have
to have this done. If we put an election in front of the people it takes five months to
make it happen. It is going to cost us $60,000 to do it. We have to have this done by
August -- end of August by state statute. I will point out another example of what
happened last year. The state of Kansas didn’t have the money to do what they needed
to do. They made the largest tax increase in Kansas history by raising taxes. They
needed the revenue. We need the revenue to provide the services.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, I’m just going to go back to what I always
love people campaign on is being a Regan Republican and endorsing or embracing the
principles of Ronald Regan and Ronald Regan raised taxes nine times. Ronald Regan
was faced with a major deficit in the United States, major problems and he said we’ve
got to raise taxes. We’ve got to raise revenue. He even understood that to function as
a government it takes revenue. You know, and you do take the taxpayers’ money.
That’s what we do. As Councilmembers, we’re sitting up here and we direct where
taxpayer money goes. If you don’t want to be a part of it, then resign because we’re
going to have the mill levy in place. We’re already doing it. The question is do we raise
it. But we’re already doing it. And if you’re not comfortable doing and redistributing it,
then you’re in the wrong position because this isn’t anything new. It’s not like, okay,
we’re going to start a program of taxes that we’ve never had. No, we’re doing. And
we’re in the middle of it. But it’s, you know, for some reason we’ve gotten into this
mantra that if you’re a conservative all taxes are bad, all government is bad. We’re not
the federal government. I mean, I just listen to you talk about this and it really amazes
me because your history with FEMA, I mean, I’ve done a lot of research on FEMA and,
wow, that organization can spend some money. A lot of it. You know, mismanagement
of the -- total mismanagement of the flood insurance program. There’s all kinds of
specials on TV about right now, massive articles, total fraud. And you’re going to sit
here on a, you know, that’s a multi-billion dollar program and budget. And here we’re
on our City budget, 100 million. You line item, you can see everything.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And this attitude that it’s just -- it’s just insane that we
can’t do this, we can’t spend this money. I mean, it’s crazy.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Call to order, please.
Page 55
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I would say we maybe avoid that and make it
clear that your allegations about FEMA are not directed towards Councilmember
Jenkins and that maybe we move the ball down the road.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible; talking off mic]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I appreciate that. I would say that is common, that
conversation. So, for what it’s worth, on all sides. That being said, I would repeat,
anyone who wants to move forward any of Councilmember Jenkins’ suggestions from
his memo and we can take those to a vote. Mike.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I guess I don’t know if it’s quite that simple. The way
I read his memo is at the end he instructs them to come back with a budget that
includes the things he’d outlined such as the inclusion of the public safety, but to do so,
include those things with a budget that doesn’t have a tax increase. So, I guess I’m not
quite sure. I guess he’s not presented an actual budget. His letter here requests that
staff present an alternative budget. Is that the motion you’re asking for?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I should be clearer then I guess. I would say if
someone wants to make a motion to move forward with the requests made by
Councilmember Jenkins in his memo in its whole.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. I’ll make that request.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I don’t think we need a second for it. So, I think
we can go ahead and vote on that. I might just do a roll call through all these to make a
simple. So, I will start with Councilmember Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Meyer? Me as a no. Councilmember
Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kenig?
Page 56
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I have 5 to 2. The motion fails.
[Therefore, Councilmember Kemmling requested to move forward with Councilmember
Jenkins’ proposal. The motion failed 2-5 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Vaught,
Meyer, Sandifer and Kenig voting nay.]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Moving on to the Council priority list, I would accept a
motion to include, and this would be a mill levy increase, and we can go through the
specific amount. Jeff, you have a start.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. I think we before we do it I’m just going to go
back to what I said on the stormwater. I’d rather propose, I think doubling the
stormwater is feasible. When I think that takes, what, a couple mills load off of what we
-- doubling would be about 1.7?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The current revenue at $36 per ERU generates about
$1.7. So, doubling that would be $3.4.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, we would go from $3 to $6?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes, if you doubled it.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And then that takes, so it relieve how mill pressure?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, a mill is about 820,000, so two mills is 1.64. So,
close to two mills, just over two mills.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, if we double the stormwater, take the two mills out
of the -- take the stormwater, two mills of stormwater out of it -COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Direct it towards stormwater.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- and then look at our next highest priorities and go
from there.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. That is the motion on the floor. So, I will do
another roll call.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Can I get the motion exactly? I’m confused.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes. So, the motion on the floor would be to double in
lieu of a mill levy increase for stormwater, it would be to double the stormwater fee from
$3 to $6 and apply that equivalent, which would be approximately two mills towards the
stormwater backlog that we’ve outlined here.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, it doesn’t address any of this other stuff?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Stormwater.
Page 57
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, this is stormwater only. What about the rest of this
stuff I thought we were voting about?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, we’re not going to vote on it in a block as I have said.
We’re going to vote on each piece of it because each piece of this is, if someone has
interest is a specific part of the mill. I don’t think that there’s anyone here who wants us
to vote on this as a whole. Does that make sense?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, you can kind of craft what you want your priority -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I know what you’re doing. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I just want people to be able to put their vote where their
priority is. Yeah. I think Jim and then Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Stephanie, are we talking this two mills would go to
the stormwater annual pipe repair needs, Alternate 2, is that what we’re referring to? Or
is it all of the stormwater needs?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I think what we would ask -- Doug has presented
several different alternatives with different numbers just to give you all framework. And
so what we would ask is if that is the intent to double the stormwater fee that we’d come
back here is how we feel like we could best use that revenue. Whether some of that
might be staffing, some of it might be to pipe repairs. But we’d want to come back
afterward with a version of those alternatives that matched up to the revenue.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I didn’t quite understand the motion.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, the motion on the floor is to increase the stormwater
fee from $3 to $6, so double the stormwater fee. And apply that funding, which would
be equivalent to two mills, towards the stormwater backlog that is outlined in the budget
prioritization list here.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And so -COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Carol said two mills was equivalent to what was it
going to come out against this 4.5 million?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: One mill is 820.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, it would be -CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, 1.64.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It would still leave a shortfall about 2.9 million against
that 4.5 million?
Page 58
June 21, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Oh, absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It doesn’t meet all the needs by any stretch, but it’s a
start.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Is everyone clear on the motion? Great. All right.
I will move forward. Councilmember Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Meyer is a no. Councilmember Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Four to three, motion passes. So, we will
amend that to the budget, Item 1.
[Therefore, Councilmember Vaught requested to increase the Stormwater Utility Fee
from $3 to $6 and apply that funding to the stormwater backlog. The motion passed 4-3
with Councilmembers Jenkins, Kemmling and Meyer voting no.]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Moving on, I will accept other motions for any of the
other mill levy increases outlined here. Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would make a motion to move forward with the Fire
Station Number 4.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. And would that be just a general increase of, let
me find the total here.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t know what the mills attached to it are.
Page 59
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I’m going to find it for you. Maybe I’m going to
find it for you. So, it looks like 1.77 all in for the building cost and the $1 million in
staffing.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Do you want that specifically dedicated to public safety
or you just want the increase to equal that amount?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I don’t think we can actually dedicate, and we talked
about this because we can’t -- when you say dedicated like just -COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Like a public safety.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I don’t think when we vote on mills like, I mean, I
think we can do it this year, but we can’t -- what’s the word I’m looking for. Future
budgets we can’t -CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Any issue a Council passes is always subject to future
Council.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Exactly.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But certainly for this budget purpose it could be, I
mean, if that’s the direction, that’s where the funding will go.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. That’s the intent to use it for.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But I don’t think we can actually set it up as a dedicated
-- can we actually set it up as a dedicated fund, or I’m not sure we can?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. It would be kind of strange. The mill for the
building itself, you know, we’d probably fund the building out of Debt Service Fund. So,
we’d put part of that mill to pay for the -COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, I mean, ultimately that’s what that mill is -COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s for the debt service.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s being used for is, yeah. I’m saying let’s increase
that to be used for Fire Station 4.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And staffing costs are estimates, so a little bit harder to
tie back to. But obviously they would be in the General Fund and we could always
make that reconciliation whenever we needed to.
Page 60
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor to fund Fire
Station 74, construction and ongoing staffing costs at approximately 1.77 mills. Is
everyone clear on the motion? Jim, did you have a question?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. And, you know, not to -- I understand the
need and what has been said about it and I appreciate it; however, I will say that if that
is approved that pretty much shoots for me as I do my list and what I’ve got in my head
about mills and things that takes up an awful lot of my bank account. And there’s
something things that, you know, the -- what I’m struggling with is there’s some other
things on here I think are important. Particularly, I go back to the five police officers as
well. I think, you know, and again, it’s all public safety and stuff. But I’m struggling with
it, so.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yep. I understand that. And I would just say that this
was the one item again that I supported because I don’t -- I can’t think of a greater
priority than saving someone’s life. And I think that we have an unmet need in the
northwest part of our city and I would hate to see something happen out there that I
think we would regret by not being covered. And I understand all of public safety is
important and an additional police officer certainly is important. But we have coverage
now and we are really lacking in coverage in the fire department in northwest Shawnee.
So, that’s my two cents. Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: May I throw a caveat in here?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: That if the courthouse thing would pass and those
funds would become available that we would strongly consider dedicating those to
taking care of the Fire Department needs and freeing up those mills for other uses.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It would certainly be up this Council.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I guess my hesitation about that is we’re approving it not
knowing whether the courthouse is going to pass or not.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Oh, yes, I understand that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, that was my pause.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I understand that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, that would make me hesitant. But by that same
token if it did pass this would be the only mill increase I would support. So, I would hate
to see it pass and then not paid for. That gives me pause. Mickey.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: In out of all of our priorities the only one that I’ve had
any constituents in my ward talk to me about was the fire station in western Shawnee.
So, I have to support that.
Page 61
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I think I made myself clear on the way I’d like to
see the fire station funded and I think there’s other alternatives to it and I don’t want to
see it in a mill levy increase. And it’s not that I’m not a supporter. I’m a very strong
supporter of a new fire station, but I’m going to have to vote no on a mill increase.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Is everyone clear on the motion? All right.
Councilmember Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Meyer is a yes. Councilmember
Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Four to three. Fire station motion passes.
[Therefore, Councilmember Vaught requested to move forward with construction of a
new Fire Station 74 and staffing at approximately 1.77 million. The motion passes 4-3
with Councilmembers Jenkins, Kemmling and Kenig voting no.]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any other additions to the budget? All right. That being
said, Jim, yes.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Where are we now as far as how much mills?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, 1.77 was just approved for the fire station and the
doubling of stormwater.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. So, we aren’t there. Okay. So, my motion
would be -- I move that we, yes, the police. Five police officers.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. At $353,000, which is 0.1. Where was it at?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes, 0.1.
Page 62
June 21, 2016
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And not to jump in part of the discussion, but I do want
to remind you that Chief Moser did mention we were applying for a grant that may, as
soon as I can get done what I need to get done, we’re going to submit that tomorrow.
That may fund some officers in the future, so that would be helpful. And I think Chief
Moser also mentioned that we don’t have to hire five all at once, but certainly that’s up
to this Council to weigh five officers with a street inspector or other positions that might
be important also.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: But basically what we’re doing now, we are setting it
-- this is as of tonight. And if something comes back on the grant and changes before
we get to the finalization process that –
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yeah. We won’t know before that.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But we’d come back to you then, you know, we got the
grant, wahoo. And I don’t want to set expectations too high because a lot of those grant
go to bigger urban cities.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Because that’s money that could be transferred to
other departments.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It could be. That would be a discussion we could have
at that time.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. And so actually the five police officers would be
0.49 of a mill to fully fund. But the 0.01 you’re seeing is the City Manager
recommendation.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. 0.49.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, does everyone understand the motion on the
floor, the 0.49 increase for police officers?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Do you need a second?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You’re welcome.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I appreciate that. All right. We will start the roll call.
Councilmember Neighbor?
Page 63
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Same position as with the fire station, no.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That’s a no. Okay. Councilmember Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Meyer is a no. Councilmember Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Three-four. That motion fails.
[Therefore, Councilmember Neighbor requested to move forward to fund the five police
officers at approximately 0.49 mills. The motion failed 3-4, with Councilmembers
Jenkins, Kemmling, Meyer and Kenig voting no.]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any others? Okay. So, that leaves us with an increase,
I guess a doubling of the stormwater fee and an increase of 1.77 for the construction
and ongoing staff of a new fire station in addition to the base budget. So, any other
discussion on that? Okay. If not, I would accept a motion to direct staff to include a
Notice of Public Hearing to be considered by the Council at the July 11th Council
meeting using the base budget as presented on May 17 th, and including a doubling of
the stormwater fee and an increase of 1.77 mills to be directed towards a new fire
station and ongoing staffing. Does that sound okay?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s fine.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Do I have a motion?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Do I have a second?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. A motion and a second on the floor. All those
in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.
COUNCILMEMBERS JENKINS, KEMMLING: Nay.
Page 64
June 21, 2016
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. And the two nays are Councilmember Jenkins
and Councilmember Kemmling. That motion is approved.
[Therefore, Councilmember Vaught moved and Councilmember Neighbor seconded to
direct staff to include a Notice of Public Hearing to be considered by the Council at the
July 11th Council meeting using the base budget as presented on May 17 th, and
including a doubling of the stormwater fee and an increase of 1.77 mills to be directed
towards a new fire station and ongoing staffing. The motion passed 5-2 with
Councilmembers Jenkins and Kemmling voting no.]
C.
ADJOURNMENT
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. That concludes our agenda for this evening. I
will accept a motion to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have a motion and second on this item. All those in
favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oppose nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank
you.
adjourn. The motion passes 7-0.]
(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Adjourned at 10:22 p.m.)
Page 65
June 21, 2016
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound
recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
/das
July 6, 2016
Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
_______________________
Page 1
APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2016
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
June 20, 2016
7:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Augie Bogina
Deputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Randy Braley
Planner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Dennis Busby
Administrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Kathy Peterson
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Sara Somsky
Commissioner Henry Specht
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff
Commissioner Doug Hill
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Good evening and welcome to the June 20, 2016 meeting of the
Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.
A. ROLL CALL
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Somsky.
COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: Present.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.
COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff is absent.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.
COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Here.
Page 2
JUNE 20, 2016
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht.
COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Here.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Smith.
COMMISSIONER SMITH: Here.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill is absent.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If you’d please rise and join us in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. CONSENT ITEMS:
1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE
6, 2016.
2. SUP-03-95-05; REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ISSUED TO SHELLY
HOOG FOR THE OPERATION OF SHELLY’S HAIR SALON, A ONE-CHAIR INHOME BEAUTY SALON, LOCATED AT 22110 WEST 64TH PLACE.
3. SUP-06-89-05; REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ISSUED TO FAMILY
TREE NURSERY FOR ACCESSORY RETAIL SALES AT 7036 NIEMAN ROAD..
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Items 1 thru 3 are listed under the Consent Items Agenda.
Unless there is a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, the items will be
approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda? If
not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, per staff’s
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Specht.
COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I’ll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve Items 1 thru 3 of the Consent
Agenda, all in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.
(Motion passes 9-0; Commissioners Bienhoff and Hill Absent)
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to:
D. OTHER BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug.
Deputy Planning Director Allmon updated the Commission on two items.
Page 3
JUNE 20, 2016
1. The Governing Body’s vote to table the extension of SUP-13-08-10; the Special Use
Permit previously issued to Deffenbaugh Industries to allow land filling operations in the
Planned Industrial zoning district generally located on the SW corner of Interstate 435
and Holliday Drive for up to 120 days until an odor study by a third party is completed
due to the number of complaints filed with the City.
2. Planning staff has met with and is working on a resolution with both Complete
Construction, LLC and the building owners regarding SP-16-16-06; the Revised Site
Plan approval for exterior façade revisions at the Scout Financial building located at
12304 Johnson Drive. No final plans have been submitted at this date.
Commissioner Braley informed staff that Nachbar Automotive (SUP-01-14-02; consider renewal
of a special use permit for Nachbar Automotive, to operate a used motor vehicle sales lot at
6801 Hedge Lane Terrace) has not/is not following condition of approval #1:
1. For-sale inventory outside the building shall be limited to 39 cars. At no time shall
customers or vehicle inventory be allowed to park on Hedge Lane Terrace;
Deputy Planning Director Allmon stated he would follow-up with Nachbar Automotive.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the Commission have any other questions or business for the
staff? Angie, July 4th is on Monday and so we would be on July 6th, is that correct?
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT LIND: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. And, as this is Commissioner Somsky’s last meeting…
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT LIND: And Commissioner Specht.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And Commissioner Specht’s too? What are we going to do? We wish
them both well and hope that everything works out in the future for them. With that,
Commissioner Specht would you like to make a motion to adjourn?
F.
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn tonight’s meeting.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Somsky.
COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to adjourn, all in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.
(Motion passes 9-0; Commissioners Bienhoff and Hill Absent)
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO:
Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM:
Paul Chaffee, Planning Director
DATE:
July 5, 2016
SUBJECT:
SUP-03-95-05, Special Use Permit Review; Shelly’s Hair Salon, 22110 West 64th
Place
BACKGROUND
This is the scheduled review of a special use permit previously issued to Shelly Hoog, to operate a onechair beauty salon as a home occupation in the PSF (Planned Single Family) zoning district, located at
22110 West 64th Place.
DISCUSSION
This item was on the June 20, 2016, Planning Commission Consent Agenda and there was no discussion
about the permit by the members. Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 9-0 to recommend that the Governing Body extend SUP-03-95-05, a
special use permit previously issued to Shelly Hoog, to operate a one-chair beauty salon as a home
occupation in the PSF (Planned Single Family) zoning district, located at 22110 West 64th Place, subject
to the conditions as listed in the staff report.
1
2
City of Shawnee
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 20, 2016
PLANNING STAFF
SUP-03-95-05; SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
SHELLY’S HAIR SALON
22110 WEST 64th PLACE
IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON
SHELLY HOOG
This is a consent item.
This is the scheduled review of a special use permit issued to Shelly Hoog to operate a one
chair in-home beauty salon at 22110 West 64th Place.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
The special use permit was originally issued in June 1995, and was last reviewed in June,
2012. Staff and public safety officials have received no complaints regarding the facility.
The applicant has a valid Occupational License with the City, and has submitted a copy of
her most recent State license.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends extension of SUP-03-95-05, a special use permit issued to Shelly Hoog for
the operation of Shelly’s Hair Salon, a one-chair in-home beauty salon at 22110 West 64th
Place, for four (4) years, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The shop shall be limited to one chair and no outside persons shall be employed;
2.
All parking related to the beauty shop shall be off-street on the driveway;
3.
Submission of a copy of the beauticians license from the State Board of
Cosmetology;
4.
No signage be allowed; and
5.
Review of the Special Use Permit in four (4) years.
3
4
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
July 5, 2016
SUBJECT:
SUP-06-89-05, Special Use Permit Review; Family Tree Nursery, 7036 Nieman
Road
BACKGROUND
This is the scheduled review of a special use permit previously issued to Family Tree Nursery, to allow
accessory retail sales in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district, located at 7036 Nieman
Road.
DISCUSSION
This item was on the June 20, 2016, Planning Commission Consent Agenda and there was no discussion
about the permit by the members. Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 9-0 to recommend that the Governing Body extend SUP-06-89-05, a
special use permit previously issued to Family Tree Nursery, allow accessory retail sales in the R-1
(Single Family Residential) zoning district, located at 7036 Nieman Road, subject to the conditions as
listed in the staff report.
5
6
City of Shawnee
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 20, 2016
PLANNING STAFF
SUP-06-89-05; SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
FAMILY TREE NURSERY
7036 NIEMAN ROAD
ACCESSORY RETAIL USES
This is a consent item.
This is the scheduled review of a special use permit issued to Family Tree Nursery to allow
accessory retail sales at 7036 Nieman Road.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
The special use permit was originally issued in May 1989, and was last reviewed in June,
2012. The special use permit is to allow the outdoor display for materials for sale in an area
north of the parking lot. Staff and public safety officials have received no complaints
regarding the facility.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends extension of SUP-06-89-05, a special use permit issued to Family Tree
Nursery for accessory retail sales at 7036 Nieman Road, for four (4) years, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Outside display materials shall be contained in the approved area north of the parking
lot; and
2.
Review of the Special Use Permit in four (4) years.
7
8
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
July 5, 2016
SUBJECT:
Appointment to the Planning Commission
BACKGROUND
Chapter 2.36 of the Shawnee Municipal Code establishes the Planning Commission in compliance with
Kansas Statutes. The Planning Commission helps with the development of the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
hears requests for zoning changes and approves development plans for new business sites and subdivisions,
making sure that plans comply with City ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission consists of 11 residents who are appointed by the Mayor, with the consent of the City
Council. The term of office is three years, unless an appointment is for an unexpired term.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission has a vacancy due to expiration of Henry Specht’s term, and his request to not
be reappointed to the Planning Commission. This appointment will be for a three year term expiring on
June 30, 2019.
John Smith expressed an interest to the Mayor in being appointed to the Planning Commission. A copy of
his resume is provided.
RECOMMENDATION
Mayor Distler recommends the appointment of John Smith to the Planning Commission with a term
ending on June 30, 2019.
9
10
John P. Smith
23321 West 45th Terrace
Shawnee, Kansas 66226
(913) 322 6571
jandcsmith@everestkc.net
July 7, 2016
The Honorable Michelle Distler
Mayor’s Office - Shawnee City Hall
11110 Johnson Drive
Shawnee, KS 66203
Dear Mayor Distler:
I am writing to volunteer my service as a member of several committees to the City of Shawnee.
Enclosed is my resume. Previously I served as a member of the Street Improvement Task Force and
was one of the stake holders for the recent Fire Department Strategic Planning. Currently I am
President of the Greenview Ridge Home Owners' Association.
Groups I am interested in serving on are listed below.
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Code Board of Appeals
Planning Commission
Sincerely,
/s/
John P. Smith
Enclosure:
cc:
JPS Resume
Councilmember Stephanie Meyer
Councilmember Jeff Vaught
11
PERSONAL RESUME
John P. Smith
23321 West 45th Terrace
Shawnee, Kansas 66226
Home: (913) 322 6571
Cell: (573) 619 3764
E-mail: jandcsmith@everestkc.net
Employment history
2006 – 2014
1999 - 2005
1993 – 1998
 Administrator, Kansas Department of Credit Unions
 Director, Missouri Division of Credit Unions
 Administrator, Kansas Department of Credit Unions
Other work experience
1966 - 1993
1970 - 1993
1976 - 1989
 Manager, Microbiology Laboratory, Wesley Medical Center,
Wichita, Kansas
 Adjunct Clinical Professor, Wichita State University College of
Health Professions
 Consultant and Panel Member, U. S. Food and Drug
Administration
Military service
1955 – 1993
 United States Navy and Naval Reserve
 Retired holding rank of Commander, Medical Service Corp
Professional organizations
1994 – 2009
 National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors
Secretary/Treasurer 1995 – 1997
Chair-elect 1997 – 1998 and 2004 – 2005
Chair, Professional Standards Committee 2004 – 2005
Chair, Government Relations Committee 2007 - 2009
Member, Professional Standards Committee 2010 - 2013
1970 – 1993
 Board of Directors, Wesley Medical Credit Union, Wichita,
Kansas
1971 – 1978
 American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
Board of Directors, 1971 – 1978
President, 1974 -- 1975
Past-President, 1976 - 1978
1986 – 1990
 Southwest Association of Clinical Microbiologists
Founding organizer, charter member and President
Education
12
AB, Biology and Chemistry, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS
MS, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Continuing education courses in Credit Union Examination,
Finance, Lending, Investments, Compliance and Economics
1
Volunteer Positions
2010 - 2013
2015
2015 - Present
2016
 Tobacco Free Kansas, Inc.
Board of Directors
Treasurer
Chairman, Administration and Finance Committee
City of Shawnee, Street Improvement Task Force
 Board of Directors, Greenview Ridge Home Owners' Assoc.
 President, Board of Directors, Greenview Ridge Home Owners'
Assoc.
Personal hobbies/activities
Family, Bicycling, Public Service, and Farming
2
13
14
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
July 7, 2016
SUBJECT:
Reappointment to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership
BACKGROUND
Chapter 2.46 of the Shawnee Municipal Code establishes the Shawnee Downtown Partnership. The
Downtown Partnership acts in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council in promoting, aiding,
and encouraging the enhancement of downtown Shawnee.
The Partnership currently consists of 14 members, including seven standing positions and seven at-large
positions. Councilman Vaught currently serves in an at-large position on the Partnership. At-large
positions shall include individuals representing downtown interests including, business owners,
commercial property owners, neighborhood groups, and downtown churches. At-large positions shall
be recommended by the Shawnee Downtown Partnership and appointed by the Mayor with consent of
the City Council. Term of membership is three years.
DISCUSSION
Jeff Vaught currently serves on the Shawnee Downtown Partnership. He was first appointed on July 8,
2013. Councilman Vaught has expressed an interest in continuing to serve on the Downtown
Partnership.
RECOMMENDATION
The Shawnee Downtown Partnership voted at their June 30, 2016 to recommend that the Mayor
reappoint Jeff Vaught to the Shawnee Downtown Partnership with a term expiring July 8, 2019.
15
16
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO:
Members of the Governing Body
FROM:
DATE:
July 7, 2016
SUBJECT: Consider Development Agreement with Oak Meadows, LLC for Renovation of the B&B
Shawnee 18 Theatre and Additional Restaurant/Retail Space at WestGlen Center
BACKGROUND
The WestGlen Center at Renner Road and Midland Drive, just east of I-435, was developed in the mid1990s by Jack Waters, the original and current property owner. It is the third largest shopping center in
Shawnee. WestGlen Center is anchored by an 18 screen theatre that opened for Dickinson Theatres in
1995 as one of the premier facilities in the Kansas City metro area. The restaurants and hotel within the
center have also remained very successful for many years. B&B Theatres acquired Dickinson in
October 2014 and took over operation of the WestGlen 18, renaming it Shawnee 18 and retaining it as
a first-run theatre. Shawnee 18 is one of nine theatres that B&B operates in the Kansas City area. B&B
Theatres has agreed to a long-term lease on the building, and intends to restore the Shawnee 18 to its
original status as one of the marquee theatres in the metro area with a major exterior and interior
renovation project. Mr. Waters (Oak Meadows, LLC) as the owner of the center would coordinate with
B&B Theatres on the theatre renovation and site improvements, as well as develop the pad sites along
Midland Drive between the theatre and the Paulo & Bill restaurant site.
B&B Theatres is a well-established and successful theatre operator:
 Ninth largest theatre chain in U.S. with over 400 screens across 50 locations in 9 states
from Arizona to Florida
 B&B stands for Bills and Bagby, two families that founded the chain in 1980
 Over 1,400 employees across the country, with approximately 35 in Shawnee (planning
to add 10 – 15 more with increased business)
 Brock Bagby and sisters Brittanie and Bobbie make the fourth generation to work for the
company
 Recognized in 1999 by National Association of Theatre Owners as one of the oldest
family-owned theatre chains.
DISCUSSION
Theatre renovation (the Theatre Project) would include a new exterior entrance, new front entrance
and box office, renovated lobby with new carpet and fixtures, new signage and digital displays,
17
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
July 7, 2016
Consider Development Agreement with Oak Meadows LLC - WestGlen Center
2
plush leather recliners in all theatres, and a new concessions area with additional menu options.
Redevelopment will happen generally in three phases:



Fall 2016 - lobby and six southernmost screens
Spring 2017 - six central screens
Fall 2017 - final six northernmost screens
Theatre renovation will be the largest redevelopment component, which will also include exterior
improvements to the parking lot for the theatre and development of one to two new restaurant/retail
pad sites along Midland Drive, west of the theatre and east of the Paulo & Bill restaurant.
Additional investment outside of the agreement will be made to the Hampton Inn hotel, WestGlen
retail center and other properties. Pad site development (the Additional Project) consists of an
estimated 6,000 square feet of restaurant or retail space, a conservative estimate for a new full-service
restaurant or two fast-casual or quick-service restaurants.
Oak Meadows, LLC is requesting public assistance with the Theatre Project and pad site development
(Additional Project). The estimated cost for the Theatre Project is $6.4 million, with $4.9 million in
private investment and proposed $1.5 million in public assistance. The cost of the Additional Project is
unknown at this time, with a proposed $300,000 in public assistance.
Representatives from Oak Meadows, LLC and B&B Theatres will give a brief presentation at the City
Council meeting.
FINANCIAL
The attached Development Agreement uses the theory behind Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to
evaluate the public benefit of making this investment using the City’s Economic Development Fund.
Given the size, scale, and nature of this development, staff recommended applying the concepts of TIF
to an agreement while avoiding the legal expense, statutory requirements and timeline, and additional
staff and council time that a TIF requires. Shawnee Economic Development Council (SEDC) and City
staff worked with the City’s financial advisor, Springsted, to estimate the incremental increase in
property and sales taxes that would be generated by the renovated theatre and new pad sites, as well as
the smaller incremental increase in sales tax to adjacent business in the WestGlen Center.
Springsted found the staff financial projections to be appropriate, and the report of their analysis is
attached. The estimated new property and sales tax revenue over 20 years is $1.87 million, based on
the City’s 1% regular sales tax. The new special sales tax dollars generated by the improvements are
not part of the calculation.
The proposed Development Agreement uses the estimated incremental revenue to determine an
appropriate level of public assistance. The Governing Body would be making the determination that
reimbursement of the project costs is in the public interest and a proper public purpose. This agreement
is not a TIF Redevelopment Agreement, and thus requires no determination of blight or other statutory
18
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
July 7, 2016
Consider Development Agreement with Oak Meadows LLC - WestGlen Center
3
process, nor does it involve any other taxing jurisdictions. In addition, the City has the ability to set the
term of the agreement. Staff recommends paying the annual increments over a ten year term. The total
reimbursement for both projects is $1.8 million, ($1.5 million for the Theatre Project and $300,000 for
the Additional Project) to be paid annually over the ten year term. Reimbursements for the Theatre
Project would begin upon completion of the project and certification of expenditures by City staff.
Reimbursements for the Additional Project would begin upon the completion of each building, and
would be made on a pro rata basis over the remaining disbursement period for the Theatre Project. The
agreement is on a pay-as-you-go basis, and the City has the right to terminate if the Theatre Project is
not completed within three years and the Additional Project within six years.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Development Agreement with Oak Meadows, LLC.
19
20
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR WESTGLEN SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT AREA
This Development Agreement dated _______________, 2016 (the “Agreement”),
is entered into by the City of Shawnee, Kansas (the “City”), and Oak Meadows, L.L.C., a
Kansas limited liability company (the “Owner”), in connection with the redevelopment of
a proposed project area in the eastern portion of the WestGlen Shopping Center located
at approximately the southeast corner of Midland Drive and Renner Road in the City
(the “Project Area”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner is the original developer of the property located within the
Project Area and desires to redevelop the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, redevelopment of the Project Area is critical for the retention of
existing businesses, the attraction of new businesses and the growth of new businesses
in the community in order to assure future economic stability and to provide Shawnee
residents and visitors with desirable local amenities and products; and
WHEREAS, the proposed redevelopment of the Project Area includes the
Theatre Project (as described below) and the Additional Project (as described below);
and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the Theatre Project (as defined herein) is estimated
to be $6,400,000 of which the private investment amount is estimated to be $4,900,000;
and
WHEREAS, the costs of the redevelopment of the Additional Project are not
known at this time, however, additional private investment will be required to complete
the Additional Project; and
WHEREAS, based on projected incremental increase in City property tax and
City general sales tax due to the redevelopment of the Project Area, the City projects
that it will receive in additional tax dollars of approximately $1,800,000 over the next
20 years; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to reimburse the Owner for costs relating to the
redevelopment of the Project Area and determines that this reimbursement is in the
public interest and a proper public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the redevelopment of the Project Area, including the theatre located
therein, is a key destination and recreation venue for the community; and
WHEREAS, the Owner intends to enter into a long-term lease with B&B
Shawnee 18 Theatre, a commercial viable theatre operator; and
WHEREAS, improvements to Project Area will have a beneficial economic
impact on the City;
21
4812-9734-3785.3
NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Owner agree as follows:
1.
Owner agrees to renovate, design, construct and complete specific tenant
improvements to the B&B Shawnee 18 Theatre, including improvements to the parking
lot within the Project Area (the “Theatre Project”).
2.
Owner agrees to create an estimated 6,000 square feet of additional
restaurant/retail space within the Project Area along Midland Drive (the “Additional
Project”).
3.
The City agrees to disburse to the Owner the following amounts from the
City’s Economic Development Fund, subject to the further provisions herein:
a. up to $1,500,000 to reimburse the Owner for costs of redevelopment of
the Theatre Project; and
b. up to $150,000 to reimburse the Owner for development costs of the
Additional Project upon the development of the first restaurant/retail
space within the Additional Project that is not less than 3,000 square
feet; and
c. up to $150,000 to reimburse the Owner for costs of development of the
Additional Project upon the development of an additional
restaurant/retail space within the Additional Project that is not less than
2,000 square feet, such additional space may be added to the first
restaurant/retail space provided in paragraph (b) above or may be a
separate building.
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the City’s obligations to
reimburse the Owner under this Agreement are subject to annual appropriation in
accordance with the cash basis laws of the State of Kansas. It is the intent of the City to
annually appropriate sufficient funds to make all payments included in this Agreement.
4.
Owner agrees to complete the Theatre Project within three (3) years of the
effective date of the Agreement, and the Owner agrees to complete the Additional
Space within six (6) years of the effective date of the Agreement.
5.
If, prior to the expiration of 10 years from the completion of the Theatre
Project the theatre operator ceases to do business for a period more than 3 consecutive
months for any reason, the Owner shall repay the City any amounts the Owner has
received as reimbursement of costs for the redevelopment of the Theatre Project. If the
theatre operator ceases to do business at the project location for more than
3 consecutive months as a result of an event outside the reasonable control and
through no fault of the theatre operator, such as closures due to natural disasters, fires,
terrorist activities and similar acts but excluding conditions or events relating to the
economic resources of the theatre operator, the City, in its sole discretion, may permit
an extension of the period for which the theatre may be non-operational without penalty
to the Owner.
22
2
4812-9734-3785.3
6.
City agrees to make disbursements to the Owner for redevelopment costs
provided herein, subject to the following conditions:
a. The Owner shall submit certifications relating to such costs in a form
approved by the City with sufficient information to substantiate such
costs.
b. Disbursements, if applicable, will be made by the City to the Owner
within 15 business days following completion of the Theatre Project
and annually thereafter, unless this Agreement is terminated prior to
such date. No disbursements shall occur after the termination of this
Agreement.
c. Disbursements for reimbursement of Theatre Project costs shall be
made on a pro rata basis over a 10-year period. Disbursements for
reimbursement of Additional Project shall be made on a pro rata basis
over the remaining disbursement period for the Theatre Project costs.
7.
The City shall have the right to terminate the Agreement if (a) the Theatre
Project is not completed within three (3) years of the effective date of the Agreement; or
(b) the Additional Project is not completed within six (6) years of the effective date of the
Agreement; or (c) the Owner or any successor or assignee of the Owner fails to pay real
property taxes, when due, for the Project Area; or (d) the theatre operator ceases to do
business as provided in Section 5 above; or (e) the Owner or any successor or
assignee of the Owner fails to comply with applicable law with respect to the
construction and operation of the Project; provided, however, that with respect to
item (c) of this Section, the City will not terminate the Agreement without providing the
Owner with at least 60 days’ notice of any such failure and an opportunity for the Owner
to cure such failure within the 60-day period.
8.
The Owner agrees to provide the City with reasonable information to
determine retail sales tax revenue from the Project Area and the City shall, in
accordance with State of Kansas law, maintain the confidentiality of such information.
9.
The Owner may not assign, pledge or convey its rights to receive the
disbursement under the Agreement without the prior written approval of the City.
10.
All liabilities under this Agreement on the part of the City are solely
corporate liabilities of the City, and, no officer, employee, or agent of the City shall have
any personal or individual liability under this Agreement for anything done or omitted to
be done by the City hereunder.
11.
This Agreement shall be governed by, interpreted and enforced pursuant
to the laws of the laws of the State of Kansas.
3
4812-9734-3785.3
23
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed as the date set forth above.
CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS
By:
Michelle Distler, Mayor
{Seal}
ATTEST:
By:
OAK MEADOWS LLC,
a Kansas limited liability company
By: __________________________________
Title: _________________________________
24
4
4812-9734-3785.3
Springsted Incorporated
9229 Ward Parkway Suite 104
Kansas City, MO 64114
Tel: 816-333-6843
Fax: 816-333-6899
www.springsted.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Maureen Rogers, Finance Director
FROM:
Tom Denaway, Assistant Vice-President
DATE:
May 27, 2016
SUBJECT:
West Glen Redevelopment TIF Revenue Projections
At the request of the City we have prepared a preliminary analysis of the potential TIF revenue generated by the
potential redevelopment of the West Glen Shopping Center; if the redevelopment were to occur within a TIF District.
Our analysis was prepared based on the potential redevelopment of the existing 18-screen screen movie theatre,
and the addition of approximately 6,000 square feet of additional restaurant/retail space. For the purposes of our
analysis we have assumed the redevelopment of the site will occur in 2016, and the increased market value will be
online and assessed as of January 1, 2017.
Post-Development Assumptions
In order to prepare post development assumptions for anticipated market value and taxable sales we have utilized a
mix of historical records, information provided to the City by the Developer, and our professional experience. If a TIF
District were to be created for the site, TIF revenue would be generated based on the incremental increase in
property valuation and taxable sales over the baseline amounts from 2016. Included within the redevelopment area
on which these projections are the existing movie theatre, the West Glen shopping center building, the Paulo & Bill
restaurant, and the Hampton Inn hotel.
Appraised Market Value Growth:
Our analysis is based on a mix of assumptions as it relates to post-redevelopment appraised market value growth.
For the redeveloped theatre we have assumed a 5% increase in the 2015 appraised market value amount as a result
of the redevelopment, based on information provided by the City. We have also assumed a 5% increase in the 2015
appraised market value of the hotel property, as well. For the remainder of the existing buildings we have not
25
May 16, 2016
Page 2
assumed any increase in appraised market value over the amount set by the January 1, 2016 appraised value by the
County.
As it relates to the two proposed restaurant/retail spaces of approximately 3,000 square feet individually, we have
assumed these spaces will be developed as fast-casual oriented restaurants. We have assumed a postdevelopment appraised value for these sites of $750,000 per site; based on an assumed per square foot value of
$250. This baseline assumption of $250 per square foot is based on a review of comparable property within the City,
and our professional experience.
No future market value inflation assumption was assumed for the term of the potential TIF District.
Post-Redevelopment Taxable Sales Growth:
Our assumptions for post-development taxable sales are based on a mix of historical information, assumptions
provided by the Developer to the City, and our professional experience. For the redeveloped theatre the postredevelopment level of sales is based on an assumption provided to the City by the Developer, and reduced by
approximately 20%. An increase in taxable sales is also projected for the existing Hampton Inn based on a 3%
increase in the current level of taxable sales. For the existing shopping center and the Paulo & Bill restaurant, an
increase in taxable sales is projected at 2% over the current level of taxable sales.
As it relates to the two proposed restaurant/retail spaces, which we have assumed will be developed as fast-casual
oriented restaurants, we have assumed a sales per square foot assumption of approximately $350. This assumption
is consistent with what we have used for projects of a similar nature within the greater metropolitan area.
No future increase in taxable sales was assumed for the term of the potential TIF District.
Conclusions
Based on the revenue assumptions outlined above, and the other assumptions detailed in the following TIF projection
pages, we have determined the project will generate approximately $1,866,430 over the term of the potential District
based on 20-years of full collections. Additionally, we have prepared projections illustrating the potential increase in
non-TIF captured sales tax revenue, as it relates to the City’s special sales tax collections, which total approximately
$279,334.
26
City of Shawnee, Kansas
Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District
West Glen Redevelopment TIF Projections
Base Revenue Projections
Original Assessed Value (1/1/16)*
2015/16 Mill Rates
State of Kansas
Johnson County
Jo Co Library
Jo Co Park & Recreation
Jo Co Community College
City of Shawnee
512 Shawnee Mission S/D
512 Shawnee Mission S/D-Gen
Total
4,943,433
Total
1.500
19.582
3.912
3.101
9.469
24.536
34.059
20.000
116.159
TIF
Applicable
0.000
19.582
3.912
3.101
9.469
24.536
34.059
0.000
94.659
Assume fixed rate
Property TIF Inflation Rate:
Sales Tax Inflation Rate:
0.00%
0.00%
*1/1/16 Assumption pending appeals
27
City of Shawnee, Kansas
Address
16301 Midland
16555 Midland
16501 Midland
16605 Midland
-
Parcel ID
QP85700000-0001
QP85700000-0013
QP85700000-0T0A2
QP85700000-0010
QP85700000-0T0A1
QP85700000-0004
QP85700000-0002
QP85700000-0003
QP85700000-0012
QP85700000-0009
Estimated Assessed Values
(Base Year of Redevelopment TIF District)
28
Appraised
Total
d
4,571,640
598,050
7,897,000
1,305,000
4,714,000
543,080
48,400
96,550
19,773,720
Assessed
Total
1,142,910
149,513
1,974,250
326,251
1,178,500
135,771
12,100
24,138
4,943,433
Appraisal
Class Year Used
C
2015
C
2015
V
C
2015
V
C
2016
C
2016
C
2016
C
2016
C
2016
Property Tax Increment
Base and Current Values
Base - Assess January 1, 2015*
Assessment Rate:
Project Components
Total Appraised Value 1)
Total Assessed Value
New Development Appraised
January 1, 2016
January 1, 2017
January 1, 2018
Appraised
$19,773,720
Assessed
$4,943,433
25.00%
11.50%
Commercial Buildings Residential Buildings
$21,927,055
$5,481,764
2)
$0
$0
90%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
Estimated Appraised Value
January 1, 2016
January 1, 2017
January 1, 2018
$0
$0
$0
$19,773,720
$21,927,055
$21,927,055
Estimated Assessed Value
January 1, 2016
January 1, 2017
January 1, 2018
Total Assessed Value
Tax Increment
Assess 2015/Distrib 2016
$19,773,720
$21,927,055
$21,927,055
$4,943,433
$5,481,764
$5,481,764
Total
Assessed
$4,943,433
$4,943,433
$5,481,764
$0
$0
$0
Original
Assessed
$4,943,433
$4,943,433
$4,943,433
Total Appraised Value
$4,943,433
$5,481,764
$5,481,764
Captured
Assessed
$0
$0
$538,331
NOTES:
1) We have used a mix of historical values, developer projections, and professional experience to
determine estimated post development value.
2) We have assumed construction will occur in 2016, and no future inflationary
market value growth.
*Base value pending appeals
29
Sales Tax Assumptions for Sales Tax Increment
Base Information
Existing Project Sales Taxes:
City Sales Tax Rates
General
Park s and Pipes
Public Safety
Pavement
Total Sales Tax Rates
$78,175
TIF Taxable
Project Information
Commercial Buildings
Estimated Sales 1)
Base Existing Sales
$12,053,850
2)
1.00%
$7,817,500
Estimated Incremental Taxable Sales:
Estimated TIF Sales Tax Rate:
TIF Eligible Sales Tax
1.000%
0.125%
0.125%
0.375%
1.625%
$4,236,350
3)
1.00%
Estimated Annual TIF Sales Tax Collections:
$42,364
(at stabilized occupancy and sales)
Sales Tax Collections:
Taxes
Taxes
Taxes
Taxes
collected in 2015
collected in 2016 4)
collected in 2017
collected in 2018 5)
Estimated %
of Total
0.00%
44.11%
100.00%
100.00%
Estimated
Taxable Sales
$0
$5,317,500
$12,053,850
$12,053,850
TIF
Sales Tax
$0
$0
$42,364
$42,364
NOTES:
1) We have used a mix of historical sales, developer projections, and professional experience to determine estimated sales.
2) The base existing sales only apply to the TIF Sales Tax.
3) 100% of the City's 1% General Tax Rate is proposed to be captured as TIF.
4) We have assumed the sales revenue will come online over a 2-year period, with a net decrease in 2016 due to construction.
5) We are assuming no inflationary growth in taxable sales.
30
Totals
(4) - (5)
0
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
538,331
Incremental
Assessed
Value
(6)
Gross Proceeds
Assess &
Original TIF
Tax Levy Tax Distrib.
Total
Base Assessed
Year
Year
Assessed (a)
Value
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
2016
2017
4,943,433
4,943,433
2017
2018
5,481,764
4,943,433
2018
2019
5,481,764
4,943,433
2019
2020
5,481,764
4,943,433
2020
2021
5,481,764
4,943,433
2021
2022
5,481,764
4,943,433
2022
2023
5,481,764
4,943,433
2023
2024
5,481,764
4,943,433
2024
2025
5,481,764
4,943,433
2025
2026
5,481,764
4,943,433
2026
2027
5,481,764
4,943,433
2027
2028
5,481,764
4,943,433
2028
2029
5,481,764
4,943,433
2029
2030
5,481,764
4,943,433
2030
2031
5,481,764
4,943,433
2031
2032
5,481,764
4,943,433
2032
2033
5,481,764
4,943,433
2033
2034
5,481,764
4,943,433
2034
2035
5,481,764
4,943,433
2035
2036
5,481,764
4,943,433
2036
2037
5,481,764
4,943,433
Projected Property and Sales Tax Increment
(d) Assumes 20-years of full sales tax revenue collections.
(c) Assumes sales come online in 2017, and no annual taxable sales inflation is assumed.
(b) Assumes 100% collection of TIF eligible property taxes, and 20-years of full revenue collection.
(a) Assumes a 2016 construction cycle, and no future inflationary market value growth.
TIF
Year
(1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
31
$1,019,160
Projected
Property Tax
Increment (b)
(7)
0
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
50,958
0
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
Projected
Taxable
Sales (c)
(8)
$847,270
Projected
Sales Tax
Increment (d)
(10)
0
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
42,364
$1,866,430
0
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,322
93,321
93,321
Projected
Total
Increment
(11)
32
Year
(2)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Year
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
$0
$0
Gross Total
5.5 % NPV Total
0.00%
(4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Projected
Net-Taxable
(A)
Sales
(3)
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
4,236,350
$131,062
$92,618
0.375%
(5)
15,886
15,886
15,886
15,886
15,886
15,886
15,886
15,886
3,972
Pavement
Special
(C)
Sales Taxes
$47,659
$33,076
0.125%
(6)
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
Parks &
Pipes
Special
(D)
Sales Taxes
(E)
$105,909
$56,856
0.125%
(7)
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
Public
Safety
Special
Sales Taxes
$279,334
$179,200
As Increment
(8)
26,477
26,477
26,477
26,477
26,477
26,477
26,477
26,477
14,562
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
5,295
Not Captured
Total
New
Revenue
(E) Revenue generated by the new taxable sales attributable to the Public Safety sales tax, which does not have a sunset.
(D) The Parks and Pipes sales tax is set to sunset at the end of 2025.
(C) The sales taxes attributable to the Pavement special tax rate will not be captured as TIF, the special sales tax rate is approved from 4/1/2015 - 3/31/2025
(B) Portion of general 1% sales tax rate which is not captured as TIF.
(A) Assumes sales come online starting in 2017, and no annual inflation assumption.
Tax Levy
Assess &
TIF
General
Sales Tax
(B)
Not Captured
Projected City Benefit - Non-Captured Sales Tax Revenue
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
July 7, 2016
SUBJECT: Notice of Budget Hearing for 2016 Revised Budget and 2017 Budget
BACKGROUND
Since May 2016, we have had four public presentations and discussions on the 2016 Revised and 2017
Budget. The ultimate goal of each annual budget is to support Shawnee’s strategic goals:







Attractive, Healthy and Well-Maintained Community
Economic Growth and Vitality
Effective Mobility and Reliable Infrastructure
Environmentally Sustainable and Well-Planned Community
Quality Cultural and Recreational Opportunities
Safe Community
Good Governance
The theme of this year’s budget process has been “at a crossroads: what kind of City do we want to be?”
The 2017 Budget as presented on May 17th did not include a mill levy rate increase. It was not a staff
recommended budget because of the magnitude of long-standing needs that were unable to be
addressed. The packet memo for the June 21, 2016 Council Committee meeting summarized the
proposed 2016R/2017 budgets, and is included in this packet for reference.
At the June 7th Committee meeting, staff presented unmet needs throughout the City with background
information and estimated costs in dollars and mills for each item. Before the June 21st Committee
meeting, councilmembers completed a prioritization exercise to identify what they believe to be the
most pressing needs and the extent, if any, that they were willing to support a revenue increase to fund
their choices. The June 21st meeting was primarily a Council discussion of the feedback from this
exercise, and resulted in the recommendations detailed in the next section of this memo.
This packet includes the City Manager’s recommendations as presented at the June 7, 2016 Committee
meeting and the summary of councilmember survey recommendations as discussed at the June 21st
meeting, updated to reflect the Council’s group recommendations. The attached updated Functional
Budget Summary includes the revenue and expenditure changes recommended by the Council
Committee. Notices of Budget Hearings are also included to amend the 2016 Budget to allow budget
authority for the proposed 2016 Revised Budget, and for the 2017 Budget.
33
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
July 7, 2016
Notice of Budget Hearing for 2016 Revised Budget and 2017 Budget
2
DISCUSSION
Based on a polling system, the Council Committee recommended at the June 21st Committee meeting
revenue increases for two areas of need:


Building, equipping and staffing a fourth fire station in the underserved northwest part of the
City, where response times are consistently higher than in other areas.
Addressing needs in the City’s stormwater pipe system by accelerating pipe maintenance and
repairs, and providing a funding source for emergency pipe repairs in the short term.
The table below summarizes the effect of these recommendations on the 2017 Budget:
Service
Fire Station 74 (northwest):
Land, facility and apparatus - annual
Staffing
Stormwater Maintenance
Total
Annual
Dollars
$ 450,000
1,000,000
1,747,500
$3,197,500
Current
24.536
Mill rate
Increase
0.55
1.22
1.77
Projected
Stormwater Utility Fee
from $36 to $72 per year
26.306
The Council Committee also directed staff to modify the 2017 Budget and ten year forecasts to
implement a scenario that would combine and accelerate three stormwater flood mitigation projects
along the Nieman Road corridor. The combined project would leverage Johnson County Stormwater
Management Advisory Council (SMAC) funding for the entire project at approximately 62% of total
project costs. The three individual projects were originally forecast for cash funding over the next eight
years. Under the combined and accelerated scenario, the project could be completed in late 2018. The
City would issue general obligation bonds, using the Parks & Pipes, Economic Development and Debt
Service Funds as the funding sources for debt payments. The 2017 Budget includes a $635,000
reduction to the Economic Development Fund expenditures due to adjusting the timing of debt
payments for future projects. The accelerated project will require an additional Engineering
Tech/Inspector position to support easement acquisition and customer contact (ongoing cost
$72,000/year, or 0.09 mills). This position is not currently included in the 2017 Budget.
The City received its preliminary assessed valuation from Johnson County the last week of June. Total
valuation is $826,153,729. Primarily due to appeals, the valuation is less than the Appraiser’s
preliminary estimate, as expected, and slightly above the City staff estimate of $820,000,000. There are
likely to be more appeals processed before the final valuation in late October, changing the valuation
again, which in turn will create a small adjustment in the final mill levy.
The Notices of Budget Hearings provide for public hearings at the July 25, 2016 City Council meeting.
The Notice for the 2017 Budget reflects the preliminary assessed valuation provided in late June by the
Johnson County Appraiser. Approval of the 2017 Notice as presented in this packet will set the
maximum budget authority for 2017 expenditures at the dollar amounts shown. Per K.S.A. 79-2930,
the expenditures amount published in these Notices can be lowered following the Public Hearing, but
cannot be increased.
34
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
July 7, 2016
3
The City is required to publish the Notices of Budget Hearing in the City’s official newspaper no later
than 10 days before the proposed hearing, in accordance with state statute. Due to publication time
constraints with the Shawnee Dispatch, the notices will be published in both the Dispatch and the Kansas
City Star to ensure that citizens are informed and to meet the 10 day requirement.
FINANCIAL
Fund
General
Public Safety
Equipment
Replacement
Special
Narcotics
Special
Highway
Special Park
and Recreation
Special
Alcohol Abuse
Special Parks
and Recreation
Land Use
$ 31,208,425
9,872,100
1,955,400
388,600
3,603,600
23,500
$544,330
101,000
122,000
293,628
8,423
34,400
2016 Revised
Personal Services
Contractual Services
Commodities
Capital Outlay
Transfers
Refunds
Current Fire Lease
Fire Vehicles
Fire Equipment
Police Vehicles
Police Operations Equip
Police In-Car Video
Replacement Equipment
$25,500 Operations Equipment
$3,700,704 Mill & Overlay
351,845 SIP- Chip Seal Upgrade
2,814,757 Dedicated Street
Maintenance
$300,000 Shawnee Town Phase IV
50,000 Debt Payment for Stump
98,100 Park Debt Payment for
Pioneer Crossing
$196,730 Match of School
Resource Officer
33,150 Legal Assistant
9,500 Training and
Education/After Prom
Event Donations
83,000 Allocation to Drug &
Alcohol Agencies
$80,500
Grading West
Community Center Site
$33,829,325
9,622,400
2,351,100
97,900
3,953,600
23,500
$554,214
80,000
116,000
310,671
8,760
208,000
2017 Budget
Personal Services
Commodities
Capital Outlay
Transfers
Refunds
Current Fire Lease
Fire Vehicles
Fire Equipment
Police Vehicles
Police Operations Equip
Police In-Car Video
Replacement Equipment
$6,000 Operations Equipment
$3,493,865 Mill & Overlay
351,104 SIP – Chip Seal Upgrade
3,305,222 Dedicated Street
Maintenance
$97,500 Park Debt Payment for
Pioneer Crossing
$203,054 Match of School
Resource Officer
35,350 Legal Assistant
9,500 Training and
Education/After Prom
Event Donations
83,000 Allocation to Drug &
Alcohol Agencies
No Expenditures Planned This Year
35
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
July 7, 2016
4
Fund
Transient Guest
Tax
Parks and Pipes
Sales Tax
(Park
Improvements)
Parks and Pipes
Sales Tax
(Stormwater
Projects)
Cemetery
Stormwater
Utility
Public Safety
Sales Tax
Neighborhood
Revitalization
Equipment and
Facility
Reserve
36
2016 Revised
$178,000 Contract with Visit
Shawnee
35,000 Old Shawnee Days
10,000 Wonderscope
208,600 Transfer to General Fund
to support Shawnee Town
40,000 Mid-America Complex
Study
$185,000 Transportation
Alternative Projects
60,000 Playgrounds (Rubber
Mulch Grant)
200,000 Trail, Bike Lanes Nieman
to Turkey Creek
$115,000
320,000
1,579,100
60th & Barton
52nd Circle & 53rd Street
Nieman Road South
$10,000
15,000
$1,100,042
660,100
97,000
833,700
Service Charges
Maintenance
Personal Services
Commodities
Capital Outlay
$1,436,880 Debt Service on Justice
Center/FS#72
$15,000 Downtown Expenditures
55,000 Downtown Grants
205,771 Refunds – Area A
$500,000 Public Works
Replacement Vehicles
32,000 Parks Vehicles
20,000 Parks Operations
Equipment
269,000 Public Works Operations
Equipment
550,000 IT Operations Equipment
258,958 Roof Improvements
49,772 Office Improvements
105,265 Parking Lot
Improvements
2017 Budget
$182,000 Contract with Visit
Shawnee
35,000 Old Shawnee Days
10,000 Wonderscope
254,000 Transfer to General Fund to
support Shawnee Town
$60,000 Playgrounds (Rubber
Mulch Grant)
200,000 Trail, Bike Lanes Turkey
Creek Trail Northern
No Expenditures Planned This Year
$10,000
15,000
$1,137,124
656,000
93,600
592,000
1,747,500
Service Charges
Maintenance
Personal Services
Commodities
Capital Outlay
New – to be allocated
$1,429,680 Debt Service on Justice
Center/FS#72
$15,000
55,000
117,235
135,900
Downtown Expenditures
Downtown Grants
Refunds – Area A
Refunds – Area B
$408,000 Park Replacement Vehicle
& Equipment
30,512 Parks Operations
Equipment
310,000 Public Works Operations
Equipment
500,000 IT Operations Equipment
252,654 Roof Improvements
108,121 Office Improvements
198,000 Parking Lot Improvements
59,218 HVAC Improvements
473,424 Other Improvements
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
July 7, 2016
5
Fund
Economic
Development
Fund
2016 Revised
186,150 HVAC Improvements
75,316 Other Improvements
$2,207,000 Economic Development
Programming
0 Economic Development
Product Development
50,000 Economic Development
Design/Marketing
Contract with SEDC
$156,000
Transfer to Debt Service
(Silverheel South 20102014)
$663,752
Reimbursement to
Developers
Transfer to Debt Service
(Shawnee Plaza)
Transfer to General Fund
(Admin Fee)
Debt Service Prior GO
Bonds
Bond 2014 Shawnee Plaza
Economic
Development
Fund
CID/TIF/TDD
141,950
3,048
$8,846,027
Debt Service
191,950
2017 Budget
$350,000 Economic Development
Programming
1,100,000 Economic Development
Product Development
Design/Marketing
Contract with SEDC
$156,000 Transfer to Debt Service
(Silverheel South 2015)
(This item will be
reclassified in the proposed
2017R Budget based on
recovery of back taxes.)
$678,509 Reimbursement to
Developers
299,400 Transfer to Debt Service
(Shawnee Plaza)
2,566 Transfer to General Fund
(Admin Fee)
$7,850,299 Debt Service Prior GO
Bonds
349,400 Bonds 2014 Shawnee Plaza
120,200 2017 Bonds
RECOMMENDATION
The attached notices set Public Hearings for the 2016 Revised Budget (amended) and 2017 Budget for
July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. The Notices include recommended expenditures. As mentioned above, per
K.S.A. 79-2930, the expenditures amount published in these Notices can be lowered following the
Public Hearing, but cannot be increased.
a) Staff recommends the Governing Body approve the Notice of Public Hearing amending the
2016 Budget for Monday, July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m.; and
b) Staff recommends the Governing Body approve a Notice of Public Hearing for the 2017 Budget
for Monday, July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m.
37
38
CITY OF SHAWNEE
Council Committee
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
June 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
2016R/2017 Budget: Wrap Up and Discussion
BACKGROUND
Discussions of the 2016R/2017 Budget have been held at 4 Committee meetings:
On April 5th, the Council review the Priority Based Budgeting Results, and tweaked several definitions
in order to better reflect priorities of the time. On May 3rd budget background and revenue projections
were reviewed. At the May 17th meeting, a Citywide Budget Summary by Function was presented, the
CVB and SEDC Budgets were reviewed, all fund forecasts were provided and highlights discussed.
Additionally, the Citywide Work Plan was discussed along with some comparisons with other cities.
More information on stormwater funding and needs was also presented at this meeting. On June 7th,
departments presented their functional budgets, including equipment and facility expenditures. They
also outlined current unmet needs. Councilmembers were provided a prioritization worksheet, listing
unmet needs that are not included in the initial no-mill-increase budget. City Manager
recommendations were included on the prioritization worksheet. Councilmembers were asked to
return those worksheets by June 13th.
DISCUSSION
At the June 21st Committee meeting, staff will briefly present an alternative forecast related to the
projects at Nieman Road that was suggested by Councilmember Jenkins and requested by the
Committee. This forecast shows that if the City were to accept the SMAC (Stormwater Management
Area Council) funding for all three future drainage projects, a timeline could be enacted that integrates
the projects with Nieman Road construction and could be completed by the end of 2018. Based on
very preliminary cost estimates for these three future projects as well as the evolving costs for the
Nieman South project, the annual Pipes sales tax revenue over the next ten years could support around
75% of the bond payments for the drainage projects, with the remainder funded by the Economic
Development and Debt Service Funds. If these projects were to be expedited, staff would analyze and
recommend the most efficient and cost effective scenario of engineering/contractor combinations. It is
likely that bid specifications would include one or two of the drainage projects and the Nieman Road
street improvement project [if the Council decides to move forward with it]. Most of the additional
work could be accomplished with contracted engineering firm(s), but at least one additional
Engineering Tech/Inspector position would be required to support easement acquisition and customer
contact (ongoing cost $72,000/year). If the projects are not expedited and continue on the regular
schedule, the Nieman Road plans would take into account the “6200 Block of Nieman Culverts” and
39
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
June 15, 2016
SUBJECT: 2016R/2017 Budget: Wrap up and Discussion
PAGE:
2
the ‘Nieman Middle” drainage needs and accommodate for them in the project. Capital Improvement
sheets and two alternative timelines are included in the packet.
Other than this brief presentation, the Committee time will be devoted to council member discussion.
Several councilmembers requested information on consumer price index (CPI) history. Included in the
packet is a chart showing the history of both the Urban CPI and the Kansas City Metro CPI. Also
included is a chart and summary based on a model created by the Johnson County Budget Office and
adapted to reflect Shawnee data. The model compares CPI and population growth to the property tax
levy dollars from 2007 – 2016.
As I stated at the outset of this budget process, I truly believe this budget year Shawnee is at a
crossroads. Current resources, both financial and human, are squeezed too tightly already and we are
not keeping up in the way the citizens deserve and expect. If we do not add resources, we will continue
to go backward in some very critical ways, especially stormwater and public safety response. There are
many other needs that are important also. The issues of traffic congestion and additional codes
enforcement were identified in the citizen survey as service areas people were less satisfied with. There
are only very limited resources allocated in the budget toward addressing those issues right now.
Answering the ultimate question of what kind of community do we want to be is the responsibility of
the elected officials. As we watch other communities around us upgrade their streets and stormwater
systems, add public safety resources and revitalize their downtowns, it is becoming more and more
apparent that we are not keeping up. If we want to remain a quality community in Johnson County, we
can’t wait until we can afford it with current resources, because that day will not come. Costs for
failing stormwater pipes and calls for emergency services among other things, are increasing at a faster
pace than we can address them, and we were falling behind to begin with. In order to maintain quality
core services, be good stewards of our infrastructure and assets, and continue to provide an excellent
quality of life, more resources are needed.
FINANCIAL
The no-mill-increase 2016R/2017 budget for all funds as presented included $72,256,934 in
expenditures (without transfers), a 2.8% decrease compared to the 2016 Budget.
40
At the June 7th meeting, I presented a prioritization worksheet requesting councilmember input on
what and whether to address any of the unmet needs with a property tax increase. Not all of those
sheets have been received back at the time of this memo. The worksheet included City Manager
recommendations for priorities up to a 6 mill increase There are existing needs that far exceed what 6
mills could accomplish but staff certainly understands the sensitivity of increasing property tax.
Because this is a very critical time, I feel compelled to recommend that the Council pass a budget that
includes a 5 or 6 mill increase, which would increase the budget around $4M to $4.9M. This would
allow us to make noticeable progress on the issues most significant to Shawnee’s future. I
recommend these resources be allocated based on Council priorities, including addressing stormwater
needs, fire and emergency medical response times, public safety equipment and staffing, security
concerns and other operations and maintenance staffing needs. A 6 mill increase would increase the
amount of City property taxes on the average house in Shawnee by $13.72 per month.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
June 15, 2016
2016R/2017 Budget: Wrap up and Discussion
3
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Committee direct staff to prepare a Notice of Public Hearing for the July 11,
2016 City Council meeting based on the July 1 preliminary assessed valuation from the County and a
mill rate of 30.536, a 6 mill increase over the 2015 mill rate of 24.536.
41
$
$
$
90,450
$
403,173
$ 4,500,000
$ 8,000,000
Programs with Staffing
Municipal Court Security
Enhanced Codes Enforcement and Rental Registration
Stormwater Engineering Tech
Stormwater Maintenance Workers (5)
Stormwater Annual Pipe Repair Needs (Alternate 2)
Stormwater - Immediate Repairs*
72,575
81,500
79,000
74,000
84,400
86,100
105,750
90,450
692,321
403,000
64,400
183,600
54,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Workload Staffing
Recruitment Specialist
Communications Assistant
Finance/Human Resources Position
Building Inspector
Engineering Inspector/Tech
Street Inspector
Field Operations Maintenance Workers (8)
Police Officers (5)
Property Control Specialist
EMS Chief
Parks Technician
75,000
14,200
150,000
135,500
Total Cost
$
$
$
$
BUDGET PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET
Projects
Community Strategic Planning
ETC Business Survey
Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor Landscape
Complete Stump Park Trail Streambank Stabilization
42
$
720,000
72,575
46,000
77,500
72,000
82,800
86,100
72,000
90,000
498,314
353,000
64,400
127,600
54,000
5,000
$
90,000
$
306,186
$ 4,500,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Costs
Debt
Operations
0.11
0.49
5.49
0.88
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.84
0.49
0.08
0.22
0.07
Value of One
Mill
$
820,000
Number of
Mills
0.09
0.02
0.18
0.17
0.13
2.00
0.11
0.13
2.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.49
2.00
0.10
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.17
0.09
City Manager
Recommended
2
4
6
Councilmember
Recommended
$ 7,250,000
$ 1,760,000
$ 6,200,000
$
Street Projects
71st Street - Hedge Lane Terrace to Mize Road
Ballentine Road - Johnson Drive to 62nd Street
Midland Drive - Shawnee Mission Parkway to I-435
Fund Stabilization
Public Safety Equipment Fund
*placeholder in Debt Service Fund for this debt beginning 2019
Total Mills
$ 35,200,000
$ 1,400,000
Western Community Center
Western Community Center - staffing w/ fee offset
820,000
$ 3,975,000
$
630,000
$
684,000
Station #71 Renovation
Squad House Renovation
Squad - Staffing
Total Cost
$ 3,625,000
$ 1,000,000
Facilities and Staffing
Fire Station #74 (including apparatus)
Fire Station #74 - Staffing
43
500,000
85,000
450,000
$
$
$
880,000
225,000
770,000
$ 2,500,000
$
$
$
684,000
$
820,000
$ 1,400,000
$
$ 1,000,000
Annual Costs
Debt
Operations
21.31
1.00
1.07
0.27
0.94
3.05
1.71
0.61
0.10
0.83
0.55
1.22
Value of One
Mill
$
820,000
2.13
4.32
0.55
1.22
6.01
1.00
0.55
1.22
City Manager
Recommended
2
4
6
-
Councilmember
Recommended
$
$
90,450
$
403,173
$ 4,500,000
$ 8,000,000
$ 3,625,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 6,200,000
$
Enhanced Codes Enforcement and Rental Registration
Stormwater Engineering Tech
Stormwater Maintenance Workers (5)
Stormwater Annual Pipe Repair Needs (Alternate 2)
Stormwater - Immediate Repairs*
Facilities and Staffing
Fire Station #74 (including apparatus)
Fire Station #74 - Staffing
Street Projects
Midland Drive - Shawnee Mission Parkway to I-435
Fund Stabilization
Public Safety Equipment Fund
*placeholder in Debt Service Fund for this debt beginning 2019
$
Programs with Staffing
Municipal Court Security
820,000
72,575
81,500
74,000
86,100
90,450
403,000
54,000
$
$
$
$
$
Workload Staffing
Communications Assistant
Building Inspector
Street Inspector
Police Officers (5)
Parks Technician
75,000
135,500
Total Cost
$
$
Projects
Community Strategic Planning
Complete Stump Park Trail Streambank Stabilization
44
$
$
$
770,000
450,000
720,000
72,575
46,000
72,000
86,100
90,000
353,000
54,000
1
2
3
4
$
820,000
$ 1,000,000
$
90,000
$
306,186
$ 4,500,000 $1,747,500 - double the stormwater fee
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Costs
Debt
Operations
5
6
7
45
99,473,945
TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND FUND BALANCE $
FUND BALANCE ENDING
33,329,997
8,313,389
(4,652,540)
3,660,849
$
$
66,143,949
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
Without Transfers
Transfers Out
Total Revenue over Expenditures
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (including transfers)
22,177,903
(1,614,705)
(4,914,716)
(6,529,421)
79,262,774
$ 101,440,682
$
$
4,914,716
6,223,355
4,992,153
6,806,941
74,348,057
$
4,734,984
8% $
2,177,742
4%
6,004,749 10%
61,491,409 100% $
$
16,329,781
8,946,701
776,845
26,053,327
918,900
5,327,548
1,076,300
498,065
4,816,547
72,733,352
27,711,900
21,018,033
11,366,058
60,095,991
28,707,327
7,922,840
8,595,927
3,668,590
10,084,924
30,272,281
39%
40%
$
$
$
$
$
BUDGET
2016
$
3,576,584
9,058,050
3,440,835
8,149,271
24,224,740
4,652,540
$
$
$
$
15,200,597
8,312,655
835,942
24,349,194
920,278
5,156,743
1,273,912
893,974
4,781,610
69,804,798
25,639,155
20,078,409
11,060,717
56,778,281
29,669,148
Transfers Out
Parks and Recreation
Community & Economic Development
General Government
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (without transfers)
Public Works
Street Maintenance Program
Debt Payments
Stormwater Maintenance/Repairs
Public Works/Development Services
Total Public Works
$
$
$
Licenses & Permits
Service Charges
Fines
Miscellaneous
Transfers In
TOTAL REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
Public Safety
Police
Fire
Municipal Court
Total Public Safety
$
$
$
REVENUE
Sales Taxes
Property Taxes
Other Taxes
Total Taxes
FUND BALANCE BEGINNING
ACTUAL
2015
COMBINED BUDGETS BY FUNCTION
ALL FUNDS
8%
7%
9%
100%
41%
35%
27,109,906
(1,958,791)
(4,261,298)
(6,220,092)
77,918,780
4,261,298
6,158,700
5,753,930
7,218,029
73,657,482
6,867,306
8,252,412
4,704,942
8,521,656
28,346,316
16,523,874
8,787,738
868,895
26,180,507
951,600
5,200,544
1,305,400
765,985
4,163,129
71,698,691
27,047,032
21,190,566
11,074,435
59,312,033
33,329,998
$ 105,028,693
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
REVISED
2016R
8%
8%
10%
100%
38%
36%
25,585,076
3,238,239
(4,763,066)
(1,524,827)
79,132,500
4,763,066
5,819,522
4,477,437
7,273,059
74,369,434
7,150,191
8,223,549
4,226,224
8,725,875
28,325,839
17,366,212
10,239,600
867,765
28,473,577
924,500
5,213,384
1,311,900
646,755
4,664,740
77,607,673
27,600,300
24,078,250
13,167,843
64,846,393
27,109,905
$ 104,717,581
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
BUDGET
2017
8%
6%
10%
100%
38%
38%
State of Kansas
Amendment
2016
Notice of Budget Hearing for Amending the
2016 Budget
The governing body of
Shawnee
will meet on the day of July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. at Shawnee City Hall for the
purpose of hearing and answering objections of taxpayers relating to the proposed amended use of funds.
Detailed budget information is available at 11110 Johnson Drive, Shawnee, KS 66203
and will be available at this hearing.
Summary of Amendments
Fund
Parks & Pipes
Stormwater Utility
Actual
Tax Rate
Stephen Powell
Official Title: City Clerk
Page No. 3
46
2016
Adopted Budget
Amount of Tax
that was Levied
Expenditures
2,228,590
2,503,626
0
0
0
0
2016
Proposed Amended
Expenditures
2,459,100
2,690,841
0
0
0
0
State of Kansas
City
NOTICE OF BUDGET HEARING
2017
The governing body of
Shawnee
will meet on July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 11110 Johnson Drive, Shawnee, KS 66203 for the purpose of hearing and
answering objections of taxpayers relating to the proposed use of all funds and the amount of ad valorem tax.
Detailed budget information is available at City Hall and will be available at this hearing.
BUDGET SUMMARY
Proposed Budget 2017 Expenditures and Amount of 2016 Ad Valorem Tax establish the maximum limits of the 2017 budget.
Estimated Tax Rate is subject to change depending on the final assessed valuation.
Prior Year Actual for 2015
Current Year Estimate for 2016
Actual
FUND
General
Debt Service
Public Safety Equipment
Expenditures
42,172,873
9,846,959
1,116,334
Special Highway
Special Parks & Rec
Special Alcohol
Parks & Rec Land Use
Transient Guest Tax
Parks & Pipes
Cemetery
Stormwater Utility
Public Safety Sales Tax
Neighborhood Revitalization
Equip & Facilities Reserve
Economic Development
CID/TIF/TDD
Special Narcotics
Totals
Less: Transfers
Net Expenditure
Total Tax Levied
Assessed
Valuation
Outstanding Indebtedness,
January 1,
G.O. Bonds
Revenue Bonds
Other
Tax Rate *
15.531
8.400
0.589
3,576,584
163,500
285,994
Expenditures
47,051,625
9,037,976
1,113,781
Tax Rate *
16.331
7.605
0.600
6,867,306
448,100
322,380
80,500
471,600
2,459,100
25,000
2,690,841
1,436,880
275,771
2,046,461
2,757,209
808,750
25,500
315,800
1,289,815
20,080
2,375,253
1,528,385
232,992
1,280,770
1,608,389
298,567
31,654
66,143,949
4,652,540
61,491,409
17,614,376
Actual
24.520
77,918,780
4,261,298
73,657,482
18,269,554
Proposed Budget Year for 2017
Budget Authority Amount of 2016
for Expenditures Ad Valorem Tax
64,409,982
15,040,564
8,829,600
6,072,110
1,296,993
619,639
11,991,806
349,330
621,123
321,925
684,832
1,592,740
191,765
4,281,479
1,737,810
398,402
2,628,734
3,985,938
1,381,859
13,263
24.536
104,717,581
4,763,066
99,954,515
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
718,520,033
767,873,433
826,153,729
2014
69,075,000
0
96,151
2015
64,815,000
0
0
2016
52,545,000
0
0
Lease Purchase Principal
Total
Estimate
Tax Rate *
18.206
7.350
0.750
2,084,041
1,711,521
1,711,521
71,255,192
66,526,521
54,256,521
21,732,313
26.306
*Tax rates are expressed in mills
Stephen Powell
City Official Title: City Clerk
Page No.
47
48

City Council AGENDA

Transcription

Similar documents

Untitled - City of Fife

City Council Minutes 08-26-13

1 POULSBO CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2013

November - West Loch Fairways

Consent 6a - West Jordan

March - West Loch Fairways

Minutes - City of Pasadena

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016