City Council AAAGGGEEENNNDDDAAA Monday, January 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 DECEMBER 14, 2015.
2. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 2015.
3. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2015.
4. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 2015.
5. CONSIDER REQUEST FROM THE SHAWNEE GROUP OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS TO WAIVE THE RENTAL FEE FOR SHAWNEE TOWN HALL.
On Sunday, September 11, 2016, the Shawnee Group of Alcoholics Anonymous will celebrate its 48th anniversary of service to the community. They are requesting the Governing Body waive the rental fee for the use of Shawnee Town Hall for that evening. A memo from staff and a copy of their request are included for review.
Consider waiving the rental fee for Town Hall for the Shawnee Group of Alcoholics Anonymous for September 11, 2016. PAGES 1 - 4
6. CONSIDER AGREEMENT WITH LENEXA FOR MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS TO GLEASON ROAD. Page 2 City Council 01/11/2016
Gleason Road from 79th Street to the southern city limit is shared with the City of Lenexa. The street is scheduled for the 2016 Mill and Overlay program. Shawnee will administer the project and the agreement provides for reimbursement from Lenexa. A memo and the agreement are included.
Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement between the City of Shawnee and the City of Lenexa to share costs for mill and overlay of Gleason Road from 79th Street to the south city limit. PAGES 5 - 12
7. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE 60TH TERRACE & EARNSHAW STREET STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT, P.N. 3407, SMAC TC-21-06 .
In July 2015, the contract was awarded to Blue Nile, Inc. in the amount of $764.009. Change Order No. 1 and Final reflects changes in final quantity extensions and reductions. A memo and a copy of the change order are included.
Consider approving Change Order No. 1 and Final for the 60th Terrace & Earnshaw Street Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3407, SMAC TC-21-067, for a decrease of $42,838.10. PAGES 13 - 18
8. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 AND FINAL FOR THE JOHNSON DRIVE AND HALSEY STREET STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, P.N. 3394, SMAC TC-021-065.
In March 2015, the contract was awarded to Amino Brothers Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,088,764.30 . All change orders on this project represented a total increase of 11.95%. Change Order No. 7 and Final accounts for final quantity extensions and reductions. A memo and a copy of the change order are included.
Consider approving Change Order No. 7 and Final for the Johnson Drive and Halsey Street Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3394, SMAC TC-021-065, for a decrease of $26,184.70. PAGES 19 - 26
9. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO.1 AND FINAL FOR THE 2015 CRACK SEAL CONTRACT.
On August 24, 2015, the contract was awarded to Pavement Management, LLC in the amount of $160,838.86. Change Order No. 1 and Final reflects a decrease in material quantity, due to the difference between estimated and actual field quantities needed to complete the project. A memo and a copy of the change order are included. Page 3 City Council 01/11/2016
Consider approving Change Order No. 1 and Final for the 2015 Crack Seal Project for a decrease of $3,590.86. PAGES 27 - 30
D. MAYOR'S ITEMS
1. THE MAYOR MAY PRESENT ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION.
E. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
a) ______
______
b) ______
______
F. PUBLIC ITEMS
1. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE LEVYING AND ASSESSING MAXIMUM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CLEAR CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
DISCUSSION: At the December 14, 2015 City Council meeting the Governing Body adopted Resolution 1767 setting a public hearing for the time to consider assessments and any objections for the Clear Creek Improvement District. In order to levy the assessments, the Governing Body is required to conduct a public hearing and to pass an Ordinance levying the assessments in the manner set forth in the Petition and Resolution creating the Improvement District. A memo and supporting documents are included. PAGES 31 - 42
ACTION: a) Conduct a Public Hearing;
b) Conclude the Public Hearing;
c) Consider passing an Ordinance levying and assessing maximum special assessments for the Clear Creek Improvement District. If approved, an Ordinance Number will be assigned.
COMMENTS: ______Page 4 City Council 01/11/2016
______
______
2. CONSIDER A SHAWNEE ENTREPRENEURIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SEED) AGREEMENT WITH TALLGRASS FREIGHT COMPANY, LLC.
DISCUSSION: Policy Statement PS-65, Economic Development Fund, established the SEED Program. TallGrass Freight Company, LLC, a Kansas-based logistics services and freight brokerage company, has formally requested consideration for the Forgivable Loan Program through the SEED Program. A memo from staff and draft agreement are included. PAGES 43 - 56
ACTION: Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development Agreement with TallGrass Freight Company in the amount of $12,000.
COMMENTS: ______
______
______
G. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2015
1. CONSIDER Z-04-15-12, A REZONING FROM TOWNSQUARE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10910 W. 60TH TERRACE.
DISCUSSION: On December 7, 2015 , the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body approve Z-04-15-12. An ordinance is required. A memo and draft ordinance are included. PAGES 57 - 64
ACTION: Consider passing an Ordinance rezoning from TSQ (Townsquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District for a 0.67 acre parcel of land located at 10910 West 60th Street, subject to the condition listed in the staff report. If approved, an Ordinance number will be assigned.
COMMENTS: ______
______Page 5 City Council 01/11/2016
______
H. ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 2015 CHAIRED BY COUNCILMEMBER MEYER
1. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A COMMUNICATIONS POLICY STATEMENT.
DISCUSSION: The Council Committee recommended 8-0 to forward to the Governing Body for consideration a Communications Policy Statement with suggested changes. A memo and draft Policy Statement are included. PAGES 65 - 70
ACTION: Consider approving Policy Statement PS-70, City Communications Policy.
COMMENTS: ______
______
______
2. CONSIDER REVISIONS TO POLICY STATEMENT PS-65, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND.
DISCUSSION: The Council Committee recommended 7-1 to forward to the Governing Body for consideration proposed revisions to PS-65 regarding the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) Program. A memo and draft Policy Statement are included. PAGES 71 - 84
ACTION: Consider approving revisions to Policy Statement PS-65, Economic Development Fund.
COMMENTS: ______
______
______
I. STAFF ITEMS
1. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH BNSF RAILWAY CORPORATION FOR THE PERMANENT CLOSURE OF THE 59TH STREET CROSSING. Page 6 City Council 01/11/2016
DISCUSSION: The City will conduct a public hearing for the vacation of 59th Street on January 25, 2016. It is the intent of the City to close 59th Street from Woodland east to the railroad tracks and to eliminate the public railroad crossing at this location. To permanently close this crossing, the City must enter into an agreement with BNSF which will require the placement of permanent barricades. A memo and the agreement are included. PAGES 85 - 90
ACTION: a) Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement with BNSF Railway Corporation for the permanent closure of the 59th Street crossing, DOT No. 006131Y.
b) Consider permanently closing 59th Street from Woodland Road east to the railroad tracks.
COMMENTS: ______
______
______
2. CONSIDER BIDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2016 FLEET VEHICLE PURCHASE.
DISCUSSION: Bids were taken by the Mid America Council of Public Purchasing (MACPP) for the 2016 vehicle bid. A separate sealed bid process was used for required equipment to include the bed, hydraulics and spreader controller. The 2016 Budget incudes $370,000 for Public Works Department vehicle replacements. A memo and tabulation of bids are included. PAGES 91 - 96
ACTION: Consider approving the purchase of two dump trucks from Summit truck Group and two F-550 trucks from Shawnee Mission Ford and corresponding equipment from Viking-Cives and American Equipment in the total amount of $349,160.
COMMENTS: ______
______
______Page 7 City Council 01/11/2016
3. CONSIDER BIDS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT 2016 FLEET VEHICLE PURCHASE.
DISCUSSION: Bids were taken by the Mid America Council of Public Purchasing (MACPP) for the 2016 vehicle bid. The 2015 Budget includes $292,484 for Police Department vehicle replacements. A memo and tabulation of bids are included. PAGES 97 - 104
ACTION: Consider approving the purchase of ten Police Department replacement vehicles from Shawnee Mission Ford in the amount of $285,548
COMMENTS: ______
______
______
4. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC. FOR PURCHASE OF A FIRE TRUCK, AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY NOTES, SERIES 2016A.
DISCUSSION: The 2016 Budget provides for the replacement of a 1987 E-One Fire Truck budgeted in the Public Safety Equipment fund. The Fire Department has obtained pricing on a 2016 Pierce Aerial Quint. Staff has determined a general obligation temporary note would be the most efficient and cost-effective means of financing. In addition, the 1987 E-One has little value and the Fire Department would like to donate the apparatus to the Kansas City Kansas Community College Fire Science Program. A memo from staff, agreements for the purchase of the truck and a Resolution are included. PAGES 105 - 138
ACTION: a) Consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the purchase agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., for a 2016 Pierce Aerial Quint Fire Truck with a purchase price of $978,477.03.
b) Consider adopting a Resolution approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of general obligation temporary notes, Series 2016A. If approved, a Resolution number will be assigned.
c) Consider authorizing donation of the 1987 E-One to the Kansas City Page 8 City Council 01/11/2016
Kansas Community College Fire Science Program.
COMMENTS: ______
______
______
5. CONSIDER FINAL PLANS FOR THE 2016 BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECTS.
DISCUSSION: Final plans are complete for bridge repairs for the Lackman Road bridge over Shawnee Mission Parkway and for the Wilder Road Bridge over Mill Creek. The total project budget is $300,000. A memo from staff is included. PAGES 139 - 142
ACTION: Consider approving final plans for 2016 Bridge Repairs and authorize staff to proceed with bidding the project.
COMMENTS: ______
______
______
J. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR JANUARY 11, 2016 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,916,283.07.
COMMENTS: ______
______
______
2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.
COMMENTS: ______
______Page 9 City Council 01/11/2016
______
K. ADJOURNMENT
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 1 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
CITY OF SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 14, 2015 7:30 P.M.
Michelle Distler - Mayor
Councilmembers Present Staff Present Councilmember Neighbor City Manager Gonzales Councilmember Jenkins Deputy City Manager Charlesworth Councilmember Kemmling Assistant City Manager Killen Councilmember Vaught City Clerk Powell Councilmember Meyer Assistant City Attorney Dehon Councilmember Sandifer Finance Director Rogers Councilmember Kenig Communications Manager Ferguson Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom Parks and Recreation Director Holman Deputy Parks and Rec. Director Lecuru Fire Marshal Sands Police Chief Moser Asst. Public Works Director Gard Dev. Services Director Wesselschmidt Fire Chief Maddox Planning Director Chaffee Public Works Director Whitacre
(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.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 2 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
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 join us in the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a Moment of Silence.
(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)
Thank you.
Before we begin our agenda, I'd like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Council at any of those times, please come forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record, then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear your comments, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes and no person may speak more than twice to any one agenda item. After you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address.
I would also like to remind Councilmembers to wait to be recognized before speaking. This new audio system will broadcast our meetings online and archive a copy for the minutes. It will also amplify the sound in the room. When you are recognized, press the button and the red light around the mouthpiece will come on. Please turn the microphone off when you are done speaking.
In addition, while we won’t do a roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers’ names who vote in minority so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.
C. CONSENT AGENDA
1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 23, 2015. 2. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2015.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 3 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
3. CONSIDER LICENSE RENEWALS FOR THE SALE OF CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION. 5. CONSIDER LICENSE RENEWALS FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. 6. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE SHAWNEE MISSION PARKWAY REHABILITATION PROJECT, P.N. 3385. 7. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A STRUCTURE MOVING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MCGILTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO MOVE A 290' MONOPOLE EQUIPMENT SHELTER BUILDING ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS. 8. CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS RELATED TO STREET AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, 59TH TERRACE - FLINT STREET TO KING STREET, P.N. 3392 (SMAC TC-21-069). 9. CONSIDER EXTENSION OF SUP-12-10-11; REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, TO ALLOW A CHILD CARE FACILITY WITH UP TO 46 CHILDREN IN THE COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 21320 MIDLAND DRIVE. 10. CONSIDER EXTENSION OF SUP-12-06-11; REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO BRENDALYN BLAKE FOR CHILD'S PLAY DAYCARE, TO ALLOW UP TO TEN CHILDREN AS A HOME DAYCARE IN THE PLANNED SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 5166 ROUNDTREE. 11. CONSIDER WITHDRAWAL OF SUP-06-14-11; SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO ANGELA FERBER FOR 9ROUND FITNESS, AN ATHLETIC CLUB IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 13217 SHAWNEE MISSION PARKWAY. DUE TO RECENT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS, THIS BUSINESS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda? Does the Council have any items they would like to remove? Mr. Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Part of Item Number 4 can be removed, Dodge City Beef, 11101 Johnson Drive.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, we will remove Item Number 4 for Dodge City Beef. Okay. So, do I have a motion to approve all but Item Number 4?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to approve.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: 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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve items 1-3 and 5-11 on the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 8-0.]
4. CONSIDER LICENSE RENEWALS FOR THE SALE OF CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE FOR ON-PREMISES CONSUMPTION.
MAYOR DISTLER: So, then we will vote separately on Item Number 4 for Dodge City Beef. Do I have a motion?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 4 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MAYOR DISTLER: I have a motion and a second for Item Number Four for Dodge City Beef. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, JENKINS, KEMMLING, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I abstain.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to approve items 4 on the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Councilmember Pflumm abstaining.]
D. MAYOR'S ITEMS
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is D, Mayor’s Items and I do not have anything this evening.
E. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
MAYOR DISTLER: And then the next item is E. Business from the Floor. Is there anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight’s agenda? Okay, seeing none.
F. PUBLIC ITEMS
1. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CREATION OF THE CLEAR CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 11, 2016 TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS, DESIGNATING CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY FROM K- 7 HIGHWAY TO GLEASON ROAD AS A MAIN TRAFFICWAY AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO PAY THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is F, Public Items. Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider the Creation of Clear Creek Improvement District, Setting a Public Hearing for January 11, 2016, to Establish Maximum Assessments, Designating Clear Creek Parkway from K-7 Highway to Gleason Road as a Main Traffic Way and Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds to Pay the Cost of Improvements.
On November 23rd, the Governing Body approved a resolution to hold a Public Hearing regarding the creation of the Clear Creek Improvement District.
a) Conduct a public hearing.
There are four actions required for this item. The first is to conduct a public hearing. I will accept a motion.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 5 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: 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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to conduct a public hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]
We are now in a public hearing. This is a formal public hearing required by law. The public hearing will begin with a presentation by Paul Lindstrom, Senior Project Engineer. After Mr. Lindstrom’s presentation, I will ask Councilmembers if they have any questions specifically related to the presentation. I will then ask if there are any comments from the public.
If anyone from the audience would like to speak during the public hearing, please raise your hand and I will recognize you to come forward. Following public comments, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Once the public hearing is closed, we will have Council discussion, followed by a motion.
Mr. Lindstrom, please go ahead.
MR. LINDSTROM: Thank you. Paul Lindstrom Development Services. Just briefly I’d like to go through a few slides just to explain the project. This is Clear Creek Parkway. This road does not exist today so it would be a new street. I’m trying with my pointer here. This is the entire stretch all the way from Clare Road on the west and K-7 on the East. We have made some improvements across K-7 up to Hedge Lane Terrace so those improvements are already done today. So this entire project would include the black line here.
The one we’re talking about today for the district is from Clare Road to future Gleason. This shows a future roundabout, so it would be up to that area. So the improvement district actually is hash-marked on this map, a little dark, but those would be all of the tracks that would be included into this district. This a list of those nine tracks as stated as on the map.
It is my understanding that Blue Valley is in the process of acquiring the tracts that are not listed as Blue Valley. So, I don’t know what the exact status of that is but I understand that’s getting pretty close to the finality.
[Improvement District Components slide]
Just a little bit about the road that we’ll be building. It will be a new collector which is a typically 44 foot back to back, back to back, back to curb, back to curb, within a 70-foot
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 6 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
right-of-way. This particular segment is 4/10th of a mile. The entire roadway is one mile. And of course, this is a brand new street so it would be new curb, sidewalks, pavements, street lighting, and storm sewer, everything that we would put into a new collector street.
As far as the details of the assessment itself, the method of assessment is through square foot, so we would take our total project cost of that portion of the project in the improvement district and divide that into the square foot areas of those nine tracks. So as you can see just a quick rundown of the numbers, the entire improvement for that portion is over $3 million. There’s an excise tax that was calculated for those nine tracts, it’s approximately 1.5 million. Through our tax abatement ordinance, those would be reduced by -- that was $1.6 million. So, overall, excuse me the 1.5. So, the overall improvement district would be approximately $1.6 million and that’s what the portion would be for those nine tracks.
The project would be funded by the entirety through debt payments to the City. At this time I think it’s purposed to do it through the Economic Development Fund. I mean that’s up to you, the City Council whether you want to do that though the Economic Development Fund or through Debt Service Fund.
I will say as part of this project, as we go back to the map, the intent is then to also build the City’s share or the City’s portion which would be from the segment of Gleason to the east to Hedge Lane Terrace.
With that, there’s two things that need to be done tonight to move forward with this. One was to approve the resolution to create the district. And then second, the ordinance to establish the east segment into a main traffic way. So, that’s all I have. I’ll open it up for questions.
MAYOR DISTLER: Does anyone from the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak of this item? Please come forward.
Public Comment:
MR. BORESOW: Do you want me to sign in first or?
MAYOR DISTLER: After you speak would be fine, thanks.
MR. BORESOW: Am I supposed to hit something you said?
MAYOR DISTLER: I’m sorry?
MR. BORESOW: Am I supposed to hit a red button?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No.
MR. BORESOW: Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: You’re good.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 7 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MR. BORESOW: My name is Jerry Boresow. Just had a couple quick questions I guess for you. The thoroughfare in Clear Creek going from all the way to Clare Road, are there any intentions for Clare Road then? Are you guys planning on -- you’ve got a real nice road coming into -- Clare Road is a pretty small road. Are you guys planning on widening that or doing any kind of improvements to that road?
MR. LINDSTROM: This would definitely trigger some more discussions to improve Clare Road as development occurs out west. As a matter of fact we had discussions in January as a Council to look at some of those improvements in the future.
MR. BORESOW: The main reason why I ask is on both sides of that road, the road isn’t that wide in the first place but there are houses on both sides that are probably less than 25 feet from the road. And I just wasn’t sure if you would be taking property from that in widening that to three lanes or a good two lane. That’s why I was just curious if there was anything you were going to do.
MR. LINDSTROM: Yeah. We would make the necessary improvements at Clare Road and tie this in correctly. Yes, that’s correct.
MR. BORESOW: Okay. Actually one of the reasons why we came here, I came here tonight was more so from what I read in the Dispatch, but I don’t see that much on the agenda about the -- with Prebe and the tax abatement and things like that. Is that not on the agenda? Or it still is on the agenda?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s this issue.
MR. BORESOW: Or it still on the table or is it this issue? Is it this issue that we’re talking about right now?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The issue tonight, the Clear Creek Parkway Improvement District --
MR. BORESOW: Yeah. With the tax abatement.
MAYOR DISTLER: -- that Prebe Homes is the developer on that project.
MR. BORESOW: Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes, that’s this issue.
MR. BORESOW: Well, actually that was the first question I had for now, thank you.
MR. LINDSTROM: Sir, can you sign in?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We need your address too.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else in the audience that would speak to this item? Please come forward.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 8 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MR. OSTERHOLM: All right. My name is Mike Osterholm. I am a resident on Belmont, (Address Omitted). I don’t know how many questions I can ask but we got several people from the street down here. We didn’t get a chance to see the slides so I’m kind of going off the map that was in the paperwork here. And you know if we go back many years before Belmont Elementary was built, there was the idea that this property was going to be developed. The original developer was turned down access off K-7. And at that time the only access to the properties would have been off Clare because Belmont Elementary wasn’t built. And that is one concern right now or one question that as you extend Belmont Elementary or Belmont Drive, I can only see a small line here, so I don’t know what the plan is to continue to continue Belmont Drive to tie into Clear Creek Parkway. But our concern is the major amount of traffic that is going to go down Belmont because without access off 7, it’s like the path of least resistance is to go right through the roundabouts, right down Johnson Drive to Belmont into those properties. So has that issue been addressed about access off K-7?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: This would connect to the bridge that goes across K-7, so that the construction of this road would run all the way from Clare to K-7.
MR. OSTERHOLM: But would you be able to access Clear Creek Parkway off of Clare at K-7?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. It would be over the bridge or take Hedge Lane Terrace, the frontage road up to K-7.
MR. OSTERHOLM: So with the majority of properties being the zones around the school, which I see are, you know, one, two, three, and five, those major properties, the people that would be, or whatever is developed in those areas, and I’m assuming that’s going to be the single family homes. I know there’s mention of villas which is another question, but most of those people that would live in that area, is there going to be a road from Gleason from 63rd, the corner of 63rd, which is the yellow line I believe. It’s the yellow line it would be from West 63rd and Gleason, the corner over to the roundabout in the center of Clear Creek Parkway there. The black roundabout, is that going to be extended through? Is there going to be a road there?
MR. LINDSTROM: I think you’re referring to this segment here?
MR. OSTERHOLM: Correct.
MR. LINDSTROM: Yeah. That is a future project.
MR. OSTERHOLM: Okay. And since you’re, where your mouse is, I see I can use this.
MR. LINDSTROM: Yeah. Go ahead.
MR. OSTERHOLM: Okay. So I think the question is, all the development around this area, around the school so if you were going to have a home in this area and you were going to access this area until this is completed, you’re going to exit off Johnson Drive and 55th and you’re going to be coming through this roundabout. You have an alternative of either going through the roundabout and taking Hedge Lane Terrace down this way and up or coming all the way to Clare and coming back in the properties here
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 9 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
or right up to Belmont Drive and into the properties here. So the concern is that most of the traffic is going to come right down Belmont Drive. All the families here who have young children that are going to attend Belmont Elementary, which is the other half of the population of the school, is going to access their properties on Belmont because it’s going to be easier to just go down here and drop your kids off and Belmont becomes the major in and out flow just like it is now for Belmont Elementary. And so I think that’s a major concern because it’s already a speedway through there with the parents dropping off traffic. There’s a lot of heavy flow on Belmont Elementary and then when you add the new townhomes down on the corner on 55th and K-7, that’s going got add more population to the school, more traffic. And I guess a question is when you extend Belmont Drive, the yellow line here, wherever the mouse is, when you extend Belmont Drive, as this area is developed are there going to be access roads, residential roads tying into Belmont Drive?
MAYOR DISTLER: Unfortunately tonight we’ve got to stick pretty strict to the five- minute rule because we have so many people that want to speak because otherwise I usually try to be flexible with it.
MR. OSTERHOLM: Sure.
MAYOR DISTLER: But we have so many that we really have to stick tight with the five-minute rule tonight.
MR. OSTERHOLM: Okay.
MAYOR DISTLER: So.
MR. LINDSTROM: To quickly answer your question though that would be based on a development that comes in. We would review that as a City-wide, and so at this time we couldn’t answer that because we don’t have a development that has come in with any kind of plan.
MR. OSTERHOLM: Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But when that development would come in there would opportunities for public input and review at the planning level.
MR. OSTERHOLM: Again in the future.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes.
MR. OSTERHOLM: Okay. Because that is -- I think that’s the major concern is the heavy traffic down Belmont Drive and that, you know. All right. That’s all I got I guess. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please come forward. And please state your name and address for the record.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 10 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MR. COYLE: Mike Coyle. (Address Omitted). I’ve got two questions. One is if there is there is improvement to Clare Road who pays for that? Is it the land owners that are on it, or --
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: As Mr. Lindstrom said it isn’t currently on our CIP, but certainly as development -- we have more development out there, it would increase in prioritization. Normally those larger -- is that a collector, Paul, a major collector our City- at-large? But again as development moves forward that would be something to discuss in the future. MR. COYLE: And so when you say a collector does that mean the property owner pays for it or --
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No.
MR. COYLE: Or it’s state funded or --
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No, the City-at-large.
MR. COYLE: City-funded. Okay. Great.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Generally. But again, as development moved forward that would be something that we would discuss at a future meeting.
MR. COYLE: Right. My other question is about the duplexes that you’re talking about putting in. Is it zoned for duplexes? I think when we moved in there over ten years ago it was single resident –
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: This property is zoned AG currently, or I’m sorry, Paul.
MR. CHAFFEE: Residential Suburban.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Residential Suburban and R-1. But at this time that was a prior development that didn’t go through.
MR. COYLE: Right.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So at the time that Mr. Prebe brings his development in then that would be all reconsidered through the Planning Commission, a brand new plan, so it would be --
MR. COYLE: So, it would have to be rezoned to multi-family housing correct?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: If the changes warranted that correct.
MR. COYLE: Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Right.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 11 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MR. COYLE: Because that’s what the first news release in the Dispatch was that they were going to come with duplexes and single family homes. So, we were curious again as to whether it’s even zoned correctly for that.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Not at this time. And like I said, that plan hasn’t come in yet from Mr. Prebe. It’s just conceptual at this point so we’ll be working forward.
MR. COYLE: And so if that in case is what happens, then will landowners then be notified?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Notified? Absolutely.
MR. COYLE: How far in advance?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Notified within 200 feet, 20 days in advance.
MR. COYLE: Twenty days? Okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But there will be other coverage. Pay attention to our web page and look and as that moves forward you’ll probably see other things about it also.
MR. COYLE: Okay. Good. Super. Any idea what those duplexes, what the value is?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No, not at this time.
MR. COYLE: Prebe hasn’t -- okay.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It’s very preliminary.
MR. COYLE: Okay. Great. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please come forward.
MR. BRADY: My name is Chris Brady. I live on Belmont Street as well, (Address Omitted). Several years ago I was part of a group of residents and we met with some of you regarding the building of the Belmont Elementary and some traffic concerns that we had back then on road usage, especially, I think its Woodlawn on the other side and why we could not use that to alleviate traffic. I won’t go into all that but we did hear a lot of let’s look in the future and let’s see what happens. I’m hearing some of that now and it’s a little concerning. I’m not going to rehash everything Mark talked about because he spoke about most of our concerns, but my first concern I guess would be I’m not for duplexes of any kind. You can pitch it how you want. They’re going to start out being 1400, $1500 a month villas, but in reality ten years from now they’re not single-family homes and they go down, they degrade. I’ve lived in a lot of different places, I’ve heard the same thing, so I’m against it in any way, shape or form.
Belmont Drive, I have, just real quickly. That is the only street that I see right now. I would have the same concerns why nothing else is coming off Clare. Belmont Drive
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 12 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
already is the main artery through there. It’s two feet wider than the next street over and that’s why they won’t open up that street. We went through this several years ago. I see nothing but trouble with more and more traffic, I understand we need to grow, I understand these family and single family homes are going to be nice homes, I don’t have an issue with that. What I have an issue with is I still have not seen anything in five years done to alleviate the issues we have on Belmont Drive and the street is getting more and more use. I haven’t seen anything proposed to repave our street or anything. And I’d just like to see something down the road and I know this is in the future, but I’d like to see it addressed sooner. That’s all I have.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this item? Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you.
MR. JONES: My name is Jeff Jones. I live at (Address Omitted). I’m one of the neighbors on the street again. Yeah. I was outside, so I didn’t get to see a lot but I’m kind of going to give you my feelings. My wife and I own our own business, we keep our City licenses, we pay our taxes. And it’s a daycare business and my wife is very good at what she does. I actually see some of her former customers here in the audience. But the traffic issue with Belmont, the speed with which cars go up and down Belmont Street and the volume of traffic that goes up and down Belmont Street has hit the point where right now I think the numbers are about 1200-1300 passes by a day in front of my house. What I have witnessed for my wife’s customers is the inability to get out of my driveway for up to ten minutes in the mornings and afternoons at high drive times for pickup, drop off at the school. I personally have waited almost that long. I have, with children at my side to cross the street, have had to stand and keep them back in order to get traffic to stop to cross over to my neighbor’s driveway just so the children can get down the street to school. The speeds with which the people come up and down the street, our speed limit is completely ignored on the street. We as neighbors do, I’ll be honest with you, friendly reminders out loud to people as they drive by too fast to please slow down. I don’t want a kid to get hit. There’s a bunch of kids going up and down that street every day. So as a resident there, as a business owner, if -- I’m all for change, and I’m all for progress. It’s a field. It’s Johnson County. It’s going to develop. I understand that. But I sure would ask the Council to consider the safety of the kids and the volume of traffic on that street as we look at everything. And if you’re going got build a bunch of homes there and not do anything to alleviate the traffic, I’m fearful of the children that walk up and down the street and we’re only going to increase that number. I don’t have any questions I just want to voice my concern, not as a resident only but as a business owner that I see these things and that I’ve experienced it and I watch my wife’s clients experience this on a regular basis, thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Please state your name and address for the record.
MR. ZAMORA: Good evening. I’m Mike Zamora. I live at (Address Omitted), which is the property directly adjacent to the open field right across from Belmont Elementary. So as many have already spoken about the traffic concerns and traffic control, I wanted to ask a couple of fairly direct questions as it relates to this plan that’s being proposed. And first what considerations to construction traffic throughout this project have been considered that would potentially congest the roundabouts coming in or the bridge area
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 13 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
around where Clear Creek crosses K-7, so just general speaking points on the construction traffic plan as it relates to this proposal that’s being considered.
MR. LINDSTROM: Specifics I cannot give tonight. It would be hard to come up with a plan when we haven’t even hired an engineer to do the design yet. So we do take those considerations when we do a project to not go through residential areas even if we have to create temporary entrances off of a major street. So at this time we do not have any kind of plan though.
MR. ZAMORA: And next question is around kind of the future state of development also along the lines of traffic, but what considerations have been made towards emergency services, fire, EMS, police response with Belmont Drive being the only way to get into that development absent of as we’ve talked about crossing over K-7 or coming in from Clare. So what considerations have been given to that emergency services angle?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Clear Creek Parkway is a major road, major connector between K-7 as we’ve said. The plan for the development is very conceptual and all those things will be part of what our staff team will work with a developer on as we move through developing a more specific plan to -- that will surround that area up at Clear Creek Parkway.
MR. ZAMORA: Okay. And finally just to finish the point of just traffic control and development, I think you’ve heard from all of us up and down the street and as we are the last house across from the elementary school I see every morning and every afternoon that we’re the only cross walk for all those kids coming through. So as that continues to be the plan until there is another one, I just ask that we consider and involve the school and Principal Hargove or the staff there about the safety and traffic control. Because if our voice to get the plan changed goes unheard, hopefully our voice to make the best of this plan is heard so that we protect these kids. I think we can all agree to that. Thanks.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. And before I ask for any more public comments on this item, I want to make sure that we’re specific, that we’re only talking about Clear Creek Parkway tonight. We’re not talking about the development. We’re not talking about any of the other roads at this time. So that will be great input and we will need that for the future discussions but what I will ask for is if there is anyone else from the audience that wants to speak on this particular agenda item, specifically Clear Creek Parkway. Please come forward.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, that affect this. Belmont Drive is the only road from Clear Creek Parkway, so I think it’s very important to talk about that this evening.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Thank you.
MS. JONES: Hello. I’m Jennifer Jones, (Address Omitted). My husband just spoke previously. I am specifically here for the Clear Creek Parkway extension. There is only one access point for all of those homes, north-south of Johnson Drive, period, from K-7 corridor. For emergency, if anything that would occur on 55th, Johnson Drive, whatever you want to refer to it as, it’s going to take longer to go around through the corridor off of
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 14 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Shawnee Mission Parkway to get around. There needs to be consideration of accessing K-7 with that beautiful bridge. There, I mean that’s absolute for the safety of your patrons of the City, not just children, your adults. Everyone on that side of K-7 you’re looking at Johnson Drive, 55th as the access point for all of those homes, the existing and the potential new homes. Again, I can’t stress it enough, that has to be considered. This beautiful bridge was built, you took the access away. There has to be some consideration of some exits on off of K-7 with that beautiful bridge at Clear Creek Parkway. That has to be considered.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, the second action is to close the public hearing. I will accept a -- oh, I’m sorry Mr. Sandifer.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I would like to make a comment on the construction of this. We will never shut off a road to the point that we cannot get our emergency vehicles to somebody’s house to help them out. So if that’s a concern to people they need to probably get past that one because we won’t do that.
MAYOR DISTLER: Any other? Mr. Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just wanted to -- is it possible, staff has probably already looked at the traffic along Belmont, but if we could relook at that as far as the speed limit as far as controlling the traffic, I don’t know if we have any crossings on there. Have we thought about using those flags that we have on Johnson Drive right by Broken Arrow School? But if you could just look into some of those things that would kind of cover some of their concerns it would be great.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I sat through the meeting with the last one we had with the Belmont residents and the school and I just think everybody needs some background. Number one you got to understand that when kind of everything came together with that school and those residents, and those neighborhoods building out a lot and we were in a pretty hot real estate market, so as things develop you have an expectation that over a short period of time, roads are going to be completed and done. And then, of course, as we know the bottom fell out. We’re not able to control where school districts build schools, I mean you know if somebody decided they wanted to build a school and they did and unfortunately everybody needs to understand when that happens, we as a City are kind of put in a position where you know we can’t afford to spend millions of dollars to build roads to access the school that they decide to build. But it’s there and I know that we’re trying to do what we can to try to alleviate the problem. And when I sat in the meeting with you guys, it was an issue. And since then, I mean any opportunity that I’ve seen that we could try to figure out how to get these roads connected, I support it and I think this is a step in the right direction. Obviously the money’s not there to go and build all these roads at once. If it was, I’d vote for it in a heartbeat. It’s just not possible but I think there is a plan in place that we’re going to get there. I don’t know, I mean I know myself I’ve driven that enough I would probably come off of come down Hedge Lane and shoot up Clear Creek before I’d go down Belmont if I was going to access into what’s going to be the new development but we don’t see how that lays out yet. But doing nothing doesn’t get us there. As far as the
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 15 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
access through Clear Creek off of K-7 that’s not even, I mean that’s not even, I mean that’s a state issue I believe, isn’t it? That would be KDOT. And I think KDOT in their master plan they’ve pretty much said there’s no dice. We’re not going to get an exit off of Clear Creek and I don’t think anything we did is going to convince them otherwise. They kind of look at distance from intersection to intersection. It’s just too close to Johnson Drive if I’m not mistaken. So that’s not us, that’s KDOT and we can’t fight that fight. But we are, we’re trying to do what we can to alleviate that and you know I said there’s probably going to be some issues in between where there’s going to be some periods where it’s not where everybody wants it but this definitely a step in the right direction. And the goal is to get that connection from Clear Creek all the way to Clare so at least we have that, and then when Belmont connects through, it creates some other avenues other than one way into that school and one way out. And from what I understand, that’s always been an issue, so I’m not really sure how else we solve that problem other than getting these roads connected and built. So, I mean I think we’re headed in the right direction.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
b) Close public hearing.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. The second action is to close the public hearing. I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. The public hearing is now closed.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to close the public hearing. The motion passed 8-0.]
c) Consider approving a resolution creating the Clear Creek Improvement District and authorizing a public hearing on January 11, 2016 to establish maximum assessments.
The third action is to consider approving a resolution creating the Clear Creek Improvement District and authorizing a public hearing on January 11, 2016, to establish maximum assessments. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 16 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
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 Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to adopt a resolution creating the Clear Creek Improvement District and authorizing a public hearing on January 11, 2016 to establish maximum assessments. The motion passed 8-0. Resolution No. 1767 was assigned.]
d) Consider adopting an ordinance designating the portion of Clear Creek Parkway from K-7 Highway to Gleason Road as a main trafficway, and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay the cost of improvements. If approved, an Ordinance Number will be assigned.
The last action is to consider adopting an ordinance designating the portion of Clear Creek Parkway from K-7 Highway to Gleason Road as a main trafficway, and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay the cost of improvements. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So moved.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: 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 Pflumm and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass an Ordinance designating the portion of Clear Creek Parkway from K-7 Highway to Gleason Road as a main trafficway, and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay the cost of improvements. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3139 was assigned.]
2. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND OTHER ACTIONS RELATED TO THE VACATION OF PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR KAHLE ROAD (59TH STREET), BETWEEN WOODLAND DRIVE AND BARKER ROAD.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Authorizing Notice of Public Hearing and Other Actions Related to the Vacation of the Public Street Right-of-Way for Kahle Road (59th Street), between Woodland Drive and Barker Road.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 17 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Kansas statutes provide that a governing body may vacate a right-of-way. 59th Street, between Woodland Drive and Barker Road is public right-of-way. Vacating the right-of- way is a step toward being able to close the public railroad crossing at this location. Notice and a public hearing is required. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Monition to approve.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: 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 Vaught to authorize staff to schedule a time and place for the Governing Body to conduct a public hearing and to give proper notice on the proposed vacation of Kahle Road The motion passed 8-0.]
3. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ISSUE FEDERALLY TAXABLE PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BONDS FOR WESTLINK, (AIRTEX, BUILDING 2 PROJECT) IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider an Ordinance Authorizing the City to Issue Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds for WestLink, (Airtex, Building 2 Project) in the principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000.
Resolution No. 1753, adopted by the Governing Body on February 9, 2015, expressed the intent of the City to issue federally taxable private activity revenue bonds to finance the cost of acquiring and constructing one or more commercial facilities in the WestLink Business Center located at 43rd Street and Powell Drive. Property acquired with the proceeds will be exempted from ad valorem taxes for ten years; however, the Company will enter into a Payment in Lieu of Tax Agreement providing for payment in years seven through ten. The Ordinance authorizes the issuance of bonds and authorizes and approves the execution by the City of certain documents related to the issuance of the bonds.
The recommended action is to consider passing the ordinance. Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 18 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to pass an Ordinance authorizing the City to issue Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Westlink, (Airtex, Building 2 Project) in the principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3140 was assigned.]
G. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
1. CONSIDER Z-03-15-11, A REZONING FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A 3.77 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, LOCATED IN THE 23600 BLOCK OF WEST 69TH TERRACE FOR MEADOWS OF CHAPEL CREEK.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is G, Items from the Planning Commission. Item Number 1 is to Consider Z-03-15-11, a Rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for a 3.77 Acre Parcel of Land, Located in the 23600 Block of West 69th Terrace for Meadows of Chapel Creek.
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2015, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 10-0, recommended the Governing Body approve Z-03-15-11, rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for a 3.77 acre parcel of land, located in the 23600 block of West 69th Terrace, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. An ordinance is required.
Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: 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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to pass an Ordinance rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for a 3.77 acre parcel of land, located in the 23600 block of West 69th Terrace, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed 8-0. Ordinance No. 3141 was assigned.]
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 19 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
2. CONSIDER PUD-01-15-11, A REZONING FROM PUDMR (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED RESIDENTIAL) AND PUDMX (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE) TO PUDMR (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED RESIDENTIAL) AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR VANTAGE AT SHAWNEE, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 6100 BLOCK OF PFLUMM ROAD. [THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE NOVEMBER 23, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.]
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider PUD-01-15-11, a Rezoning from PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and Preliminary Development Plan Approval for Vantage at Shawnee, Generally Located in the 6100 Block of Pflumm Road. This Item Was Tabled at the November 23, City Council Meeting. At the November 2nd Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended 8-2 that the Governing Body approve PUD-01-15- 11, a rezoning from PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and preliminary development plan approval for Vantage at Shawnee, generally located in the 6100 block of Pflumm Road.
The recommended action is to consider passing an ordinance rezoning PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and preliminary development plan approval for Vantage at Shawnee, generally located in the 6100 block of Pflumm Road subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, including Condition #33 regarding the installation of fencing along the west property line north of the fire access gate.
There will be two presentations tonight. First, Planning Director Chaffee will make a staff presentation. And after Mr. Chaffee's presentation Curt Peterson will make a presentation representing the developer. Following those presentations I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this item. The Council has had the benefit of reading the Planning Commission Public Hearing meetings and is familiar with the issues. I would ask speakers to focus on any new information that was not part of the previous public hearing during the Planning Commission meeting. So, Mr. Chaffee.
MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director.
The applicant requests approval of PUD-01-15-11, rezoning from PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential), and preliminary development plan approval for Vantage at Shawnee, an apartment complex, located approximately in the 6100 Block of Pflumm Road.
The Planning Commission considered this rezoning request and the preliminary development plan for Vantage at Shawnee at their November 2, 2015 meeting. The
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 20 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
applicant requests rezoning and preliminary development plan approval for a 312 unit multi-family residential development.
The property is currently unplatted land. The property is generally located west of Pflumm Road and north of 62nd Street. Rezoning to the PUDMR zoning district was requested to allow construction of a multi-family residential development. A previously approved plan for Cobblestone Village that included patio homes, a senior living facility, apartments and office/retail space is no longer being pursued by the owner of the property. A rezoning is necessary to abandon the previously approved plan and approve a new preliminary development plan. The preliminary development plan proposes construction of 312 market rate multi-family residential units in 14 buildings.
The majority of the surrounding property in all directions is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential and DU - Duplex). Property to the north is zoned R-1 and was developed as the City's Civic Centre Campus that includes Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park, the Civic Centre, Soetaert Aquatic Center, and the Veterans' Tribute and Johnson County Library. All of these were developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Properties between Pflumm Road and the proposed development are zoned PUDMX and contain duplexes and a single family home, while properties east of Pflumm Road are developed with residential duplexes on property zoned DU. Property to the southeast is zoned R-1 and developed with a church and the AT&T transmission facility. 62nd Street is adjacent to the south, with properties south of 62nd Street zoned R-1 and DU and developed with single family homes and residential duplexes. A Hy-Vee grocery constructed in 1995 is located south of 62nd Street beyond the AT&T facility. With the exception of a single 1.1 acre parcel that is zoned AG, property to the west is zoned R-1 and contains homes in the Widmer Woods subdivision, two single family homes, a vacant tract of land and right-of-way for Widmer Road. Further to the southeast is Mill Creek Shopping Center which was developed in 1987.
The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as appropriate for a combination of medium density residential (MDR) uses and office/commercial uses to reflect the previously approved Cobblestone plan. Approximately 26.02 acres of the site are designated for medium density residential, while the remaining 2.64 acres are shown for office/commercial. Analyzing the density further, and based on the submitted plan layout, 264 units of the development are within the medium density residential area. This yields a net density of slightly above ten (10.1) dwelling units per acre in the medium density area. While this results in a density above the 10 dwelling unit per acre threshold suggested within the comprehensive plan, the comp plan does indicate that "apartments and condominiums will likely appear in conjunction with large scale mixed residential planned unit developments." The remaining 48 dwelling units are proposed to be located within the office/commercial area, and are at a density that would be expected given the anticipated intensity of an office/commercial development. In both the areas anticipated for medium density residential development and office/service development, the density is 10.89 dwelling units per acre. The comprehensive plan further suggests that the number of units per acre is a density range and should not be construed to represent a maximum allowable density.
Public access to the development will be from one gated entrance off Pflumm Road and one gated entrance off 62nd Street. The applicant will be responsible for improving the north half of 62nd Street adjacent to the site. The applicant and City staff have had
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 21 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
discussions concerning the creation of a benefit district for the construction of both sides of 62nd Street between Pflumm Road and Widmer Road where ditch section remains, with the developer paying their share of the costs and the remainder coming from the Economic Development Fund and potential participation from AT&T. A fire access lane is provided at the northwest corner of the site exclusively for emergency access, as was the case with the previously approved Cobblestone Village plan. Fire access to Widmer Woods, as required with the previously approved plan, will be provided through a gated, private fire lane that will be maintained by the development. This maintenance will include snow and ice removal from the fire lane.
A traffic study of the Cobblestone development was prepared by a professional engineer. The study indicated that traffic did not warrant a signal at Pflumm Road. City staff requested the applicant's engineer review the Cobblestone study and analyze the new proposal in terms of trips generated to and from the site based on the residential density depicted on the plan. This analysis indicated that less trips to and from the site will be generated from the proposed apartment development, including peak travel times. Thus a traffic signal is not warranted or proposed on Pflumm Road as a result of the proposed development plan. Pflumm Road is designated and was constructed as a four lane collector road in the early 1990s. Access is adequate for circulation and public safety purposes.
The project has gated, restricted access and the residential units are surrounded by a decorative metal fence. Because of detention requirements, approximately 6 acres in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Widmer Woods will be devoid of structures. The PUDMR zoning district also requires a peripheral boundary building setback of at least 30 feet from all property lines. Landscaping shown on the preliminary development plan provides a significant tree buffer along the west and south property lines in this peripheral setback area.
As was the case with previous plans approved for the site, Widmer Road will continue to terminate in a cul-de-sac at Widmer Woods subdivision. Limits of no access are provided along Pflumm Road and 62nd Street, except at the locations of the driveways.
Staff had been requested to review rezoning submittals over the past 10-12 years to see if any hearings had been held on this property. Staff found the only request that had a rezoning hearing was the Cobblestone Village request in 2014.
Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the health and welfare of the community. This development proposal does not utilize Tax Increment Finance incentives, and provides a market-rate apartment housing option for new and existing residents of Shawnee on an infill piece of ground. Upon completion, the project will include Class A units and other improvements that will immediately be placed on the property tax roll. Also, the proposed development is compatible with the adjacent recreational uses that are within walking distance to the north including the City's Civic Centre, aquatic center and park land, and the public library.
The apartment buildings will be privately owned and leased to the tenants. Buildings are three story in design, and include a mixture of one, two and three bedroom units. To provide architectural variety within the development, four different types of buildings have been developed. Each apartment unit includes a reinforced interior closet so that
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 22 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
residents will have shelter from severe weather. The apartments do not provide elevators, and are not required by code. Handicapped accessible units are to be provided on the first floor. There are three apartment complexes that do have elevators in the City of Shawnee. These are complexes that cater to an elderly population. And those are Bluejacket Lodge, Wyndham Place, and Shawnee Hills.
All buildings will be constructed of durable building materials, including stone veneer cement lap siding, and cementous plaster stucco. Building materials exceed the Multi- Family Design Standards by placing significant amounts of masonry on all four sides of every structure (rather than simply on the front wall as mandated by policy). The apartments will use the stone veneer on thirty to fifty percent of all walls. The applicant has provided four separate building styles with differing floor plates, roof gables and balcony configurations. To further enhance the variety, two color schemes have also been developed. This allows for a greater variety of architecture throughout the development and the two color schemes are proposed to add additional variety: one in earth-tone colors and the other in tan earth colors.
The amenity package provided includes a gated secure entrance, a clubhouse/recreation facility that will include an exercise room, a swimming pool, a connecting walking trail, a small and large breed dog park, picnic and barbecue areas located at various places within the development, and concierge trash pick up to a central compacting facility on site. Also included are a combination of open air, carport and garage parking areas.
The applicant is proposing the use of an existing on-site pond as the main source of stormwater treatment. The pond will be retrofitted as needed to meet the requirements of a wet detention basin as required by the APWA BMP Manual. In addition to the pond, native grasses will be planted and/or restored, and a large proprietary unit will be installed to pre-treat the run-off before it enters the pond. The applicant will be allowed to receive stormwater treatment credit for creating an off-site runoff that will be routed through the pond. The off-site runoff will be generated by the Shawnee Civic Campus.
The applicant will also use the on-site pond for stormwater detention purposes. The channel located downstream of the proposed detention basin appears to be undersized based on the field survey information obtained by the engineer of record. As part of the final design, the applicant will be required to address these downstream inadequacies. The applicant is proposing the installation of an enclosed system to adequately route the controlled released runoff from the detention basin. This will involve off-site improvements at the rear of five lots located downstream. The proposed system is sufficient for the review of these preliminary plans; however, as part of the final plan preparation revisions might be required.
Numerous persons spoke at the public hearing. Topics of discussion focused on the increased traffic this development would create along both Pflumm Road and 62nd Street, the density of development, the potential of Section 8 housing, and individuals that currently walk across the property to get to the Civic Centre, library and the pool.
In response to the concerns expressed that persons who did not reside in the development would cross the property in the area of the detention pond, the Planning Commission added Condition Number 33 to state that the metal fencing used for the
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 23 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
development would extend from the north gate of the fire lane along the west property line to the north property line of the site.
The applicant provided additional pictures of interior and exterior units which are attached.
A valid protest petition was received. The owners of 26.6% of the property within the 200 foot buffer area, excluding the right-of-way, signed the petitions. Twenty percent is required to require a super-majority vote for acceptance of the Planning Commission's recommendation. As a result, the Governing Body may choose one of the following actions: The Governing Body may accept the recommendation with seven of nine votes, the Mayor may, but is not obligated to vote; The Governing Body may override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning with six of nine votes, and the Mayor may, but is not obligated to vote; or The Governing Body may remand the rezoning request to the Planning Commission with specific items to review with five of nine votes. Again, the Mayor does not vote unless the vote is one less than is needed.
Terms from the Recommendation. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8-2, recommended the Governing Body approve PUD-01-15-11, rezoning from PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) Zoning District and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) Zoning District to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) zoning district and preliminary development plan approval for Vantage at Shawnee generally located in the 6000-6100 Block of Pflumm Road, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report including Condition Number 33 regarding the installation of fencing along the west property line north of the fire access gate.
That concludes staff's presentation.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Peterson.
MR. PETERSON: Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. Curt Peterson, (Address Omitted), Overland Park, Kansas, here on behalf of the applicant, America First Real Estate Group. With me is a vice president of America First, Dominic Vaccaro. And while I don't typically do this, because the specific issues tonight are so important and the deliberation that will take place by this Council on the screen before you we've really lined out in listening, reading online, trying to pull together all of the comments from the public that have really been put forth about this project. We tried to come up with an exhaustive list of the items that really are relevant and to be spoken to tonight. So, again, nobody likes somebody to stand up before them and have no idea when they're going to end and what they're going to talk about. So, hopefully the other purpose this serves is that you know when this will be over when we get through the nine points.
So with that, let's go the first which is Quality. It's first for a reason. Because quality is really just arguably one of the most important items about this project and about what we've heard comments from the public pertain to. And when I think quality the thing I start with with the building is the outside. And I will say some of the items that I'll go
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 24 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
over today will be duplicative of what staff brought up, and Mr. Chaffee did a great job of doing that, but it's for a purpose. Because much of it will be elaborating further into the details and some of it will be for emphasis because of how important the facts are in this particular zoning matter. So with that, as I speak about the outside you can see an engineer rendering of two of the buildings that will be near our pool area and clubhouse up on the screen.
One, you look at the outside of these buildings and you see, as Mr. Chaffee said, that they exceed what the City requires. From the get-go the developer came in and said I want to build this beyond expectations by City code. And so you have four-sided architecture, which all of you know means you don't make one prettier side and then make the others less pretty. You treat them all the same. And specifically, as Mr. Chaffee said, each of the sides has between 30 and 50 percent, a combination of stone and stucco, which again is a sign of a quality project. Also sticking with the exterior we have four different building types which vary both color, size and architecture which are done for a reason, so you don't get a monolithic or a monotonous looking project, but you get one that's interesting that is broken up with the eye and doesn't look like a large project, but looks broken down. So, all of that goes into a sharp project which hopefully no one can disagree with on the screen there that's a sharp project.
And the next place you move after exterior obviously is you walk in the door and you make sure that you have a nice project inside. Now, it's interesting, and having the privilege of being a part of many developers' projects, whether it be multi-family or commercial or what have you, we rarely in a zoning matter talk about inside the walls. And we're not afraid to do that. Actually we're excited to have the excuse to do it. But I'll just tell you, this is going to our desire to emphasize that these are quality Class A apartments that we're excited and that this City will be proud of. So, that's why we're going inside the walls. So, here we go. You'll see some shots. These are photographs from this exact product built in other locations. Interior, this is not an exhaustive list, but some of the highlights. Nine-foot ceilings in these units. Walk-in closets. The walk-in closets also serve, as you heard Mr. Chaffee say, as a protective areas for storms which is important for those seeking apartments in this area, in this region. Also full- sized washers and dryers in every unit. Custom cabinets. Not your pick-em-up at the big box store, but custom-made by cabinetry makers for this project in this area with brushed nickel pulls. Glass tile backsplash to pop in the kitchen.
You move outside to the community amenities. This is a fully gated community, as you heard, with a decorative metal fencing. There's an Internet café and coffee bar within the clubhouse. There's a business center that importantly in this day and age offers Mac and PC. The idea is quality here. A pool with a cabana, outdoor fireplace and a grilling area, dog park, storage areas that are available, garages with individual clickers and openers are available, and a nice fitness center. So with that, you look at the outside, inside the walls and at the common amenities. And I would look at you all directly and say there is no one that can say that this project, as built elsewhere, as we've shown in photographs or in the renderings for the specific outsides of these buildings at this project that it's not a Class A multi-family project that people can be proud of.
Now, many of you probably saw this, and I only hold this up. It's duplicative in the way of pictures, but most of you probably saw the Dispatch on Wednesday, hopefully and
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 25 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
saw this full page. I will tell you again doing, having the privilege of working with developers for a living, I have never been a part of taking out a full page, it's not really an ad, but you know what I mean, a publicity notice in a newspaper. And the reason it was done, and this is why I bring it up, is because from the beginning, at least in my involvement with this project, something became very clear to me. For whatever reason, and we can speculate at what those reasons are, early on in this project all of these quality items that I just laid out, and that you heard Mr. Chaffee emphasize, somehow got missed. And I think there were many people in the public that unintentionally were going with facts that simply weren't true. So, our intent in spending the money to put that in the Dispatch was to try to get out there the objective facts, photographs from this exact project built elsewhere, renderings and a list, not even exhaustive, but at least a lot of the amenities inside, outside, et cetera. So, hopefully you saw that and you hopefully you saw our sincere desire to get the facts out to the community so people can at least form their opinions about the quality of this project based on the facts.
There's one other item still within quality that we in the development community, and I think you intuitively probably look to, what does it cost to rent these, right? I mean, generally there's a relationship with the quality of a project, whether it be multi-family or what have you, a commercial space, and what it costs to rent the project. So, first of all I'd say it's good to know the context that it's approximately a $35 million project. And now working backwards as to the rents that come back you have four unit types in the project. You have a smaller one bedroom and a larger one bedroom, then you have two and three bedrooms. So, four different types. And speaking of rents I want to start and then go back and end on the smaller one bedroom because there's a great dynamic and story behind why those are specifically included. So, the larger one bedroom, the anticipated rent, and as you know this is a starting, it can go up from there if it's a corner unit, what have you. Starting rent would be $965. And those make up -- these one bedrooms, of all the one bedrooms make up about 58 percent, 60 percent of the one bedroom units. Then you have your two bedrooms at 1100 and your three bedrooms at approximately 1275. So, those three price points for those units as you go across and you can look at, and I don't want to spend too much time. Our intent isn't to focus on any other given project in Shawnee. But whether you take Tuckaway or Hampton Woods or the Greens over at K-7, or projects of that sort of quality you will find that all of these rents are above the rents at those projects, at the average rents of those projects.
So, now let's go to the smaller one bedroom because there was some attention paid to that I believe at the neighborhood meeting and different feedback that we were hearing. It's so important that everybody understand why these are in the project. They make up about, as you can see here, this column is the percentage of that unit type of overall units. So, about 23 percent of the overall units, or about 40 percent of our one bedrooms, are these smaller 600 square foot units that rent for about 775. I'll talk about it a little more. I won't repeat myself again and again about young professionals, but I will introduce the concept now and bring it up again because they're -- again, quality is big, but young professionals may be the other biggest item in this whole discussion, the biggest fact, the biggest intent, the biggest motivator by this particular developer. So, in short, many of you that read ULI articles or follow the demographics and the demands in the multi-fam industry know that the young professionals, which right now are made of largely Generation Y, also known as the millennials, the 20 to, it depends who you look at -- 38 year olds, are oftentimes, not always, which is why it's only part of our -- 23
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 26 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
percent of our units, but oftentimes are looking for the minimalist approach. They want nice, but they don't need a big expansive area. And we have found, again from industry experience, from lots of experience that this is a very important product to have in your tool kit if you're trying to attract young professionals. So, very intentional there. A piece of the bigger pie here of this quality project. So, with that, moving on from quality, hopefully again from the architecture to the amenities to the pricing, there is really cannot be a debate even on this particular issue. This is a class A, quality, multi-family project.
The second of our topics is Density, and it's also strategically located here in the presentation. And Mr. Chaffee, I'm glad he went into detail in going through the staff report because this is another area that if I could humbly submit has been misunderstood in the community. Based on what I have read, because I've tried to read all the social media feedback and all that.
So, the first thing to focus on, and there wasn't a visual, I don't think that was as clear as this, but Mr. Chaffee said it with his words, and here is what he was saying. So, the sight -- you can obviously tell the contours of the site here. And of the whole site the medium -- the master plan medium density, medium density meaning ten units per acre, is the entire site, except for this several acre spot right here which is commercial office/retail. And ten units per acre, when you layer in you can see our site plan underneath here. When you put all the units together that are in that area and you divide it by the acreage in the medium density area you come out to 10.1 units per acre. Now, also as Mr. Chaffee said this is one of those repetitive but worth mentioning on the next slide is straight from the Land Use Guide. And it says when talking about this very issue the number of units per acre prescribed is a density range and should not be construed to represent a maximum allowable density. And so then you come back and say, okay, first of all how much above is that 10.1. If we're doing our math, I used my calculator, don't worry. It's one percent above something that already is not meant to be a maximum. So, again, respectfully I would say when we're showing 10.1 units per acre on a master plan medium density, ten units per acre area we got it. That's what the City had in mind when they gave the indication to property owners what's a valid use, what's the proper use, the desirable use and density on the site. We nailed it.
With respect to -- going back a slide. With respect to this area, this area was meant to be much more intense. This is actually -- you could, not really. I guess you could almost call it a down zone if you will because before it was even more intense than it is now because it was commercial office/retail and we're taking it down to effectively the same thing, medium density. And again, a point of confusion if I can at least be clear, when you add the units here to all of the units and do the full 28 acres that comes out to, you've heard this number talked about, 10.8 units per acre, but not to be confused one more time breaking down in two sentences. This is medium-density. We're at one percent above something that was not even supposed to be a maximum, so we nailed it and we've actually brought the density down in this area significantly.
But second on density because this has been talked about so much. Going to the next slide. We, really what I just said can stand on its own because that's how you tell property owners what they can do with their land. You indicate that with a comp plan and that's exactly what this property owner, this contract property owner is trying to do. But just to show -- try to round out, to get everything on the table, let's look at other
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 27 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
apartment projects in the City and see what kind of density they have. What you'll see is, and I've picked what I, a little arbitrarily, apartment projects that I've heard around town that people speak well of, intentionally gone to those. This being in Lenexa by the way, don't be confused at the end. But these four. That would be the one that's proposed today. And as you can see, and I use the overall density, right, as we just talked about, not to be confusing, the overall site, and compare it to Hampton Woods. And it's above Hampton Woods. But Tuckaway, it's below, and it's well below Greens at Shawnee. And then this was only thrown in there just as a reference point. That a Lenexa project on 435 is significantly higher units per acre. Again, just for food for thought and a reference. All going back to, again this is reasonable, fits within the master plan and certainly fits within what we've seen with some of our better apartment projects in the City of Shawnee.
Lastly, going to the site plan, still on density, when you talk about density you’re really -- it’s not in a vacuum, right? It's density because you're talking about it vis-a-vis things around it. So here it's important to recognize maybe three points on the site plan above and beyond what we just talked about. One is this very, very large open area that happens to abut Widmer Woods here that provides a wonderful natural setback. This has your BMPs, your expanded -- it really becomes a water feature and provides a very nice buffer to the project let alone all the natural trees you can see great out here that aren't going anywhere. Also you have the 30-foot setback required by the Code on top of that everywhere. And finally, you have extensive perimeter landscaping, all this landscaping you can see here, and all the landscaping you can see here and around the perimeter is in addition to the existing growth of trees that you have now. So with all that together I hope the density issue is clear. This is what the City called for. This is what the City indicated to the market and the property owners that they could do with their property. We've nailed it. We hope we've been very sensitive in doing all of our setbacks and landscaping and we’re very similar, in fact, even better density-wise than other apartment projects in town.
Moving beyond density, we moved to Traffic. And this doesn't take too long to talk about. Certainly we can dig deeper if anyone on the Council would want to. But the reason it doesn't, as Mr. Chaffee introduced the concept, that there was an extensive traffic study done as is required for new developments for the mixed-use project that came through approximately two years ago, year and a half ago, the Cobblestone project. And GBA, a well-respected traffic analyst, came through, and through that thick, extensive report which was reviewed by the City's engineers in 2014 showed that there was no signal needed and that that project, that mixed-use project would work, that we've already talked about was much more intense. It had office and it had retail in addition to other residential uses. So by definition it doesn't take -- it just takes me, it doesn't take an expert to know that was much more intense, traffic standpoint, but then we go to the experts. And if you look at Cobblestone here you know how traffic analysts do it, they look mainly at the worst case scenario. So they look at a.m. peak and they look at p.m. peak. And the best thing to do, do an apples to apples is to compare this project with the project that was approved before. The project before, Cobblestone, showed an a.m. peak of 213 trips. This particular project would be a 20 percent reduction of that. Again, you don't have the office, you don't have the retail. On p.m. peak, you had 365 trips. With this particular project you're looking at 202 for a 55 percent reduction. So the reason I said that this is a relatively easy and brief topic to talk about is not because it's not important, not because I'm giving it short shrift, but
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 28 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
because people a lot smarter than me and the City's experts and outside third-party experts, namely GBA, have looked at this and it's again not really debatable. It's the experts on both the City and a third-party agree that this is a much, much improvement on traffic which is something we can all be pleased about compared to the last plan.
The fourth topic is Stormwater. And this is one that can easily be glossed over. It doesn't take long to talk about it, but it's key because it shows not only -- we've talked about the quality of the project, but this goes to the quality of the developer. So, one, this particular detention pond, as Mr. Chaffee pointed out, is undersized now, so it will be increased and significantly enhanced to be able to take -- really act as regional detention and it will take the Civic Centre property's water, a lot of it at least, and run it through, have the proper BMPs, the water quality standards and that's a huge benefit for the City.
But back to the character of the developer. There's a problem, I think most of you have been exposed to this. Downstream, which here is upstream, downstream goes into the neighborhood as the pond drains. There's a flooding issue right now with five existing homes downstream. This issue was brought to the attention of the previous developer a year and half ago and this isn't a criticism of that developer, it's a reality, over an extensive discussion and negotiation that all of you were a part of, they couldn't find a way to make their proforma work and take care of that and some other issues. And they had to negotiate around doing anything with the downstream. This developer came in, and even though, let me be clear, the downstream problems are happening right now. There's flooding problems in people's homes with the existing conditions with no development on this site. But this developer has stepped up and has made a promise through the planning process that that they will do off-site improvements, namely six digits of improvements dollars-wise to fix, that is, enclose the stream next to the five homes so they won't have any more flooding problems. Their yards will be extended so they touch with their neighbor. They can play soccer across there, there's not a ditch any longer, and those flooding problems will be solved. So again, a quick one to hit, but something to show that's the kind of developer you have here that wants to come in and invest in the City.
The fifth is the school district. This is one that we talk about always with multi-family projects, whether it's the many incentivized public-private partnerships in the last few years in Lenexa and other cities around where they've incentivized multi-family projects or just projects that come in and don't ask for any incentives like this project. We're always talking about the school district. Why? Because the schools are so important to our neighborhoods. Nobody will disagree with that, especially in Johnson County. The three major -- a lot of the districts have such a great reputation and so we focused on this. And so let's break it down numerically so that you can see how we came to the conclusion that we will do nothing but enhance the schools here and do nothing to add to capacity problems or anything like that. So the example I want to use because it's the one that's come up the most in conversation would be the elementary school that the site would feed, which is Broken Arrow Elementary School. The elementary school, depending on which metrics you look at, and this is a longer discussion that we can have if you would like, but this is both talking to the school district and looking at third- party publications. But has somewhere right now capacity in the range of, based on square footage, 100 to 178 spaces. Or in talking to the school district as recent as today, how specifically -- where would they really -- regardless of what the square
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 29 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
footage says how many kids are they going to have, where is their sweet spot. What would they like to have as their maximum. And as we talked to them today even that would be somewhere in the range of 50. So, if you follow my numbers their sweet spot they'd like to keep it no more than 50 or so more kids. And then from a pure building square footage, if you look at again some online metrics and things like this, it could conceivably take a hundred plus students. But the good news is we can just deal with the smaller number because in both running our own analyses and what amount of kids in this type of project with this rent schedule, with this mix of smaller, larger one bedroom, two bedrooms and three bedrooms, it's really an art to figure out exactly how many kids you'll have. But in talking with the school district we think a very safe number is -- we always set at the very maximum so that we can always be saying what the very maximum. We were somewhere more in the 40 or 50. But as recently as today we're looking at somewhere in the 20 to 35 in talking to the school district. So, that was a lot of words to explain that. And specifically, let me be clear about something so that we're only dealing with the facts here so that I can't be misinterpreted. What I just am talking about Broken Arrow. And when you run the numbers, the 20 to 35, that's half the expected kids, 40 to 70, because half of them would be going to, you know, the upper grades. So, I was specifically dealing with Broken Arrow. And that's again in talking to the school district as recent as today.
So with that, I will note too on school district, this is true for many of the projects we have now with these Class A multi-family projects with higher rents. First of all, clear point, again, I think this is intuitive for all of you, but you will not find families with children in the one-bedroom units. It just, I mean, anything can happen, but it's not what happens. So, we have two and three bedroom units. And what we find is with these higher rent Class A projects is that many of these folks are renters by choice, really almost all of them are renters by choice and they end up staying longer if they have kids in the facility. If they don't stay in the project longer though what they do do, and this happens again and again and again, is they move themselves eventually over to the single family and within the several mile radius, often not wanting to move out of their feeder school system. So, with that again you find that it is key that these Class A projects sometimes have a different dynamic, if you will, with respect to school children. But this is again and again what we found. And overall, no capacity problem, will do nothing to hurt and really we believe enhance Broken Arrow and the rest of the school district.
What's next? Go to Financial Impact. And Financial Impact, when I say that I mean broadly. So, the City, the taxing jurisdictions, everybody. How is everybody going to be affected by this project? Let's start with direct positive impact for the City. One, this is a gated community. This has a decorative metal fence around the whole community with a secure entrance. And so the streets inside, as you look at the whole plan, typically you're the last people I need to say this to. But typically, if we were to score a multi- family project like this of $35 million, we the city, the taxpayers that is, would be footing the bill for any public streets and even sometimes public detention and things like that. Here because it's a gated community, all of the stormwater, all of that it is privately maintained. All of the streets are privately maintained. The light fixtures, everything, even the fire drive that you know about here going into Widmer Woods for emergency purposes, all of that is maintained privately, so nothing on the public rolls. Also for a project like this there is an impact fee for open space which goes directly to the City. And as Mr. Chaffee mentioned, importantly, you know, were almost there, a good
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 30 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
portion of 62nd as projects have come in have improved the curb, gutter and lights et cetera. We will do all the curb, gutter and lights and sidewalk on our portion. And again, we've been very open to the City's dialogue on the overall improvement district that would finish off those last few pieces beyond our property line. Again, I would suggest to you this is how this developer operates. They are not coming in here just to make a buck. They certainly are because that's what capitalism is, but they're here to be a part of this community. That's just another example.
So, those are just several direct, positive, immediate impacts for the City. An impact for the City that also extends to the rest of the taxing jurisdictions is a project like this, and we don't know for sure because we don't know Mr. Welcome and his staff will put this on the books for, but we can safely say this is well over $400,000 a year tax bill for this project. It could be higher as long as I'm not -- Mr. Welcome is not listening. But the point is it's significant. We’ll argue the other end. I'm joking. I'm joking. The point is this is a $35 million project. This will have a significant tax bill immediately, a large portion of which goes to the City, the largest portion of which goes to the school system which is great, and then to the other taxing jurisdictions. So, that's not to be glossed over especially on a project like this. Unlike many other in the Metro right now of comparable quality they get public incentives and divert tax dollars, this doesn't at all.
Indirect benefits, but powerful. Indirect not meaning weak, not meaning speculative, indirect meaning not direct. Impacts to the City. One is this developer does not bring us, even though I think you know this, America First is based in Omaha. America First brings zero subs to the market. First of all, and we can go, and I have all sorts of details that we can go into now or later, but where they will make sure that the notices are put out to all the local contractors and they will bring no subs from out of the area, so that's a lot of jobs, you know, dollars for contractors in the area who then turn around and spend money. You know how it goes, it's great for the local economy. So, that's the first point. The second point on indirect, but powerful benefits to the City, is something that I have, I both believe in and have been witness to listening to this Council over the last 3½ or 4 years again and again and it's great, which is density brings rooftops. And when we get the rooftops we get the restaurants and retailers that the residents and taxpayers are calling for. Without it, this one is not an art. I talked about an art before, this one really is a science and those in the industry know this. The restaurants and retailers, the reason they stay around, especially the really good ones is because they know when to go in, and they go in when there's rooftops and there's density. So, it's exciting that sure this is one project, but this is a big one, and it's in-fill, and it's close to downtown, and it's exciting because it starts to get towards that goal that I've heard again and again and again of density and rooftops help commercial.
But another indirect impact to the City is what I said I'd speak a little bit more about which is young professionals. Young professionals, that is specifically Generation Y, who make up 80 million people right now, and Generation Next, I have to always remind myself of the lingo because I think it changes every few years but Generation Next, who are the ones coming after them, right, the ones that are graduating from high school and coming through, they’re even bigger. And the trends are these folks want apartments. I talked about that, always offering that smaller unit for some of those young professionals, well, they're coming and they need to go somewhere and this developer wants them to go in this City, and they want them to go at this in-fill site close to the core. And importantly, and again you know this, it’s those -- I almost said kids, I mean,
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 31 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
it’s not, it’s these 20 and 30 year olds are going to come here, and statistics bear out again and again and again that they will oftentimes choose when they buy their house, they will choose to do it within a few miles, that's what they do. I think that's what we want.
Baby boomers are the other indirect, but powerful impact to the City because we need baby boomers to stay. Do you know what baby boomers do when they realize they either don't want to or can't be in their home anymore? If they don't find the product they want in this City, they go to one of the other cities that has thousands of units that are available right now and are coming online with more units. I don't think we want that. One reason why is because we like them, but second of all because the baby boomers have money. Not all of them, I'm speaking in generalities right now. A lot of times they're at the place in their life with a have expendable time they have expendable income and that's what helps our commercial. So it's interesting. You have the cycle, have this Generation Y and the Generation Next who want to bring in, who eventually go out and occupy the homes that the baby boomers vacate and they come in and they stay in our city and they go into this nice Class A maintenance provided facilities and it provides this beautiful cycle that so many cities are after that keep you vibrant and rejuvenating and that's what we’re after. One of the powerful indirect impacts of this project.
Let's go next to property values. There is not a single multi-family, I would almost say zoning project, almost, it's probably an exception, that I have ever been a part of where with good intentions, and I'm glad people, I really am, I'm glad the discussion happens. Property owners adjacent to a site don't bring up, at least the question and some of the argument, right, will this or this will hurt my property value, my home value. It has to come up, right? We all do that with the property. It has to be part of the public dialogue, so we don't shy away from that at all. But when you ask that question it can't just be about, this is humble opinion, right, it can't just be about product type. You can't just say there is a certain use and just stay at a high level we can’t have that use, that's going to hurt my property value. It doesn't work that way. What we have to look at is, how is it done. And interestingly, and I went in this order on purpose, if you look back at our list of quality, density, traffic, impact on schools and then other miscellaneous things like if stormwater is being dealt with appropriately, you look at all those things. And if those are done right, you may hurt property value. But notice how I didn't say in a multi- family project or in a Target that backs up to a neighborhood or fill in the blank, right, it's about how all those issues play out and how you do the development. And so when I started off by saying here is my list of nine things and it’s so important that we look at these nine items and focus on them and really dig into the facts and not go high level, it's because it comes down that. If we stay high level and just say we’re not open to a use, I don't think were being intellectually honest with ourselves and really analyzing the project. So it's about how you do it, it's not about Class A apartments. And I think I'll bring up one example, I could bring up a lot, but I think I'll bring up Tuckaway because it seems like one that a lot of us know about have a good feeling about. That's clearly next to a lot of residential. There was discussion at the time as I read back in the record and talk to people at the City of will this hurt residential property values especially to the east. It hasn't happened. And it's not surprising because Tuckaway is a great project. And again, without being too competitive and comparing, this also is a great project and will have the same impact. It simply won't have any tangible deleterious effect on the neighboring property values. It won't. Not when you look at the specific facts about the
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 32 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
project. Now it's interesting, I'll note, this argument about someone being concerned that a rezoning, a new project is going to hurt their property values often comes up in the most heated way in the most emphasized when a city is also changing the master plan. Why? Because often people will say, hah, I had no idea that could go, why is the city changing their mind, the city just told the world, including the property owner and potential developers that this is an appropriate, we’ve studied this, it's in our master plan, this is an appropriate density and use for this area. And when cities switch that, and it happens by the way sometimes, sometimes master plans are outdated what have you, but here we don't have that. And as we talked about on the density slide we're absolutely fitting exactly into what the City expected and invited for this site. Again here property values is just not something that were going to say negatively affected. And again ending on this I'd say, and time will tell, right, if this project is approved and $35 million is invested with local subs and all of that into this gated community. Time will tell, but I'll tell you it's the vibrancy of having more rooftops and density, good density, correctly laid out that leads to retail and commercial and all that, that is what's going to lead to a vibrant neighborhood and that is what maintains and increases your property values. That's what we'll have here.
The second to last item that I'd like to speak to you about is about the developer. Because this might be the one where there's the most perhaps misinformation that was circulated. Again, I don't think necessarily by fault of anybody, I think people are doing Google searches and in good faith coming to conclusions about who this is that's asking you to have the right to develop the land in this way. So, I do want to spend a few minutes on who is America First that's here before you.
So, I break down, America First is a very, very large company. They have different silos, like a lot of big companies do, of what they do. And there's three primary silos of what they do. One is they develop. And when I use the word develop, and I'll use it several times, I mean they get raw land like this and build something and that's what we're doing here. But also, I mean they may buy an existing multi-family project and put money into it and operate it. So to me that's developed. They have about 6000 units that they developed. That silo number one. And very importantly, that's the only silo that Dominic has anything to do with and that I represent. That's the only silo that we have anything to do with. We're talking about development here. That's this project, that's this part of the company.
There's a second part of the company that I'd call the finance silo. And the finance silo really makes loans. They act as a lender to multi-family projects and they make passive investments, meaning no control, you know, they just put equity into a deal to get a return to then give a return to their investors. There's about 8000 units in this bucket.
And the final one is management. And there's about 1000 units that they simply for a fee manage multi-family projects, operate them. So that adds up to about 15,000 units.
Here is where I want to pause. I was very clear we’re only here to talk about the development bucket. That literally we’re not part of the rest of the company, that's what's going on here. But Mr. Vaccaro made a comment at one of the public meetings before either Planning Commission or the neighborhood meeting that, again, I'm not saying anybody had bad intentions, but it was misconstrued and misunderstood. He said that approximately 50 percent of the portfolio, something to that effect, had to do
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 33 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
with affordable housing. So, let me explain exactly what he meant. Now you have the background to hear what he was trying to say. So remember, 15,000 units, three silos, the middle one, the finance silo that makes passive investments, that makes loans, they deal with, you know, 80/20 bonds before they got rid of those. They have some low income. They deal with nonprofits that build affordable housing, lots of it. And so when you take all of that in the finance bucket and the very little I’m going to tell you about it a minute it adds up to 50 percent. But let's talk about the development bucket because again that's why we're here. Very, very importantly, there are only two projects in the 6000 units in the development bucket. Two projects which they have ever had anything to do with affordable housing. And because it's worth it I'm going to spend 20 seconds on each one of them. The first was a project that was an existing project they purchased that was occupied by renters that were all considered low income, but the project needed a lot of work. And when they bought the project they used the federal Program Low Income Housing Tax Credits to be able to put a lot of money back in the project. One of the reasons they decided to do that and do that whole deal is because it allowed all of those people, if they wanted to, to stay there. Otherwise, if they take it to market rate all those people get kicked out. So, for them that was a very successful project and it was the right thing to do for that particular project. That was instance one ever of two in the development silo. The second one is probably my favorite because it was very, very unique. They went and found the hospital that was abandoned, and the hospital, and working with the Veterans Administration and the nearby university, they transformed it using a Low Income Housing Tax Credit program that the feds provided to provide a place for formerly homeless veterans. And it exists today and it's operating great and it's the only other time ever that they've been involved in affordable housing in their development arm. Exceptions, very minimal of the whole 6000 units they own, really important to understand about this company.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Where is that located at?
MR. PETERSON: But the other thing to understand is there has been allegations that there's been flipping going on. That the developer builds projects and flips them to somebody else. So again, I couldn't emphasize this point any more. Of the 6000 units of the silo of the company that's here before you today that have been developed, ground- up starting 15 years ago, that's when they started doing ground-up, ground-up development 15 years ago, they've never sold a project, ever. They've never built a project from the ground up and sold it. Why? You're thinking why in this market why haven't they been flipping them. Because I mean it gets beyond necessarily what we have to go into in detail, but in terms of how they finance and they have investors and they try to get a return. The stable return is what those investors are looking for. They're not looking for big pops by flipping projects. So again, stated on the record, they've never built something ground-up and sold it. They are not flippers. Clearly the building up here and they're not flippers.
One other fact I wanted to call to your attention that really helps you understand the silo of the company, while they've only had those two very much exceptions where they dealt with any sort of affordable housing there has been six instances where they purchased projects, remember the development silo, and they brought them from affordable when they bought them, affordable housing, to market rate. That's just -- that's what they do. And it's an important thing to understand about this company. So, with all that, to be super clear, this is a market rate project. And even if we don't take it,
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 34 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
it's a cliché but I believe it, when I evaluate things in my personal and professional life, look at the past to predict the future. We just went through the past and I think it's very predictive of the future. But even if that wasn't compelling to you, or it wasn't at least completely satisfying or sufficient, I would say, and today's not going to be -- I don't need to tell you all, I know most of you know about affordable housing and the various components and vouchers in Section 8, LIHTC and all that, so I'm not going to do a full presentation on that, but I know you all know as we went through the rents that this project will demand, and the fact that it's a $35 million project this absolutely does not fit the mold, systematically can't fit the mold of affordable housing. So I only say that to round out that whole discussion. They are not going to do it because they've never done it, it's not their business plan. And it just can't be done with this high quality, high cost, higher rent project. So that's who we’re dealing with.
Here is how I end. Why here? Because some of you may ask that. I think we're all, you know, obviously proud of the City and proud of the site. But we've got to say why is this developer coming to this site and coming to this city. And the answer is because they are specifically attracted to the site, specifically attracted the site. And they are attracted to the demographics within the City.
Let's start with market demand in Shawnee. So I was reading, and I honestly did, I went fast but I tried to really soak in so we understood as a development team what the community was saying. So I tried to go through in the social media all the different comments that were posted. And one of the comments really struck me, and I absolutely disagree with it, but it's great because it's a free country and you can say that, it's great. But somebody said, paraphrasing, why don't they just go to another city. And that struck me. And I got to thinking, wow, why don’t we just go to another city. You all know we’re going through the biggest multi-family, Class A, at least in Johnson County, Class A multi-family boon in history. Somebody may point to like 1944, but at least in recent history, right? It's been a boon. And over the last five years alone, and just tried to pick some cities right around us, Lenexa, Olathe, Overland Park and Kansas City, Kansas, so four cities. We added up from 2010 to 2014, by the way '15 has been as strong as ever but people don't have their data out, so were even taking, nibbling on the back of the recession, up to 2014, a five-year period. The total number of apartment units built during that time by those four cities combined 4,714 units, most of which, almost all of which at least, I can't speak to every unit, but I've been -- we have been a part of tons of them, have been Class A. For Shawnee, during that period from 2010 to 2014, we've had zero. But what's more troublesome from my perspective, you all will deliberate and figure out if you agree, is that if you go back for Shawnee to the last approximately 15 years it's the same answer, zero. Then we look at me say, well, how are we doing this is city in terms of apartment units as a percentage of overall housing stock in Shawnee. And the number is approximately 24 percent. Twenty-four percent of our housing stock in the City is multi-family units, rental units. The national average, and then I also called over just because it's a bigger city that I know would have straight average, I called Overland Park's Planning Department and asked what the percentage is there, and I compared it to the national average, and it was very similar, 38 percent. And it was explained to me, although I knew it, but I wanted to hear it again from somebody independent, that that is part of the health and vibrancy of a city. You can't lock out apartments or that loop I was waving my arms around about the boomers coming back and bringing the young people in, the young professionals, and they go into apartments and then they go into the housing and then the boomers come
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 35 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
out and spend money and, you know, that is a very, very, very important cycle and cities know that. And again, just calling to the attention it's not only that we haven't had any projects in approximately 15 years, but we’re well below at least the target for a lot of cities in the national average.
Then in terms of why we're here again. I mentioned it again, but I can't say it enough times, which is millennials and Generation Y and the boomers. It's absolutely why this - - they're here for this City and they're here for the site. One, in terms of the site specifically for the young professionals. If you read not only the marketing studies, not only of America First, but other clients I have, and you read online with ULI, Urban Land Institute, you'll find that a lot of these young professionals want an environment where they have some level of walkability. They like in-fill. They want to be in where things are. They don't want to be out in the green fill development. And they may want to be able to get to highways pretty quickly, they don't necessarily in general want to be on the highway, they don't want to be looking at highway. And you know this site, it fits all those things. This is a great site to put up our flag for the Cerner employees, the young professionals and the other businesses that are growing in our community especially in the corridor up and down 435 to bring them to Shawnee. This site specifically. Baby boomers, they often want two and three bedrooms. That's probably intuitive to you too. They don't have the kids, but they want the space. They've earned it, right? A lot of them they want a den and they just want a little more space. They want their grandkids to be able to come over and have a play room. We find that in these projects that your boomers that's often what they do. And the other item is the boomers want, and maybe, you know, you have parents or whatever that identify with this, they don't want to graduate from single-family houses to 14 miles or 18 miles or 35 miles down the road. They want to stay in their community, that's where their friends are. That's where the community center is. That's where the restaurants are they like to go to. That's where they want to be. And so that's key that this project is now not out, and we’ll come back with more projects someday when the developers are telling us they are ready for the west. But right now this is where the boomers can be had because this is the housing stock that will support the boomers moving into this complex. So again, can't over emphasize young professionals and boomers the same.
So finally, it comes down to this though. And reading comments again online and just listening to the community, I've heard a lot of people, especially in recent days say, well, it's all pretty interesting, hmm, I've got to think about that, maybe, oh, but not this site. Not this site. We can't have that on this particular site. And so then you rehash again, so important the facts here, not the knee-jerk overall we don't like apartments. What density did the City say to property owners out there, including this property owner? That's appropriate for this site. Ten. Where are we? Ten. Quality. Is there anything anybody can say about the project? I don't think so. If someone is looking for something to pick on, I'm sure there is some little facet. This is a Class A project that we can all be proud of. There's really no real honest debate about that.
It helps bring density and expendable income to downtown and in-fill Shawnee. Many sites clamor for this. You've heard this, right? Many sites, even our area, that have room to grow out are saying, please, stop infrastructure and all that, we keep going. We have sites that haven't been filled in. Cities clamor for that. They're giving public incentives for projects like this. These folks are not asking for public incentives. They want to come to this in-fill site and again, be in the middle of Shawnee.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 36 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
I would just hope that we don't miss this opportunity because it is an opportunity. There is not that many sites like this for the boomers and for the Generation Y. They just don’t come around that often. A lot of times for in-fill you have to spend even more money and get public incentives to be able to knock things down to get an in-fill site like this. The site has been challenged. I think the staff report said there hadn’t been a rezoning other than Cobblestone in the last approximately 15 years. This site needed the right fit and we found it. We found somebody with the resources that will immediately build it and it's right for the City. I just hope we don't miss this opportunity because I don't know what comes next, especially without public incentives.
So the last key question is, if the master plan is clear, this is what we were calling for as a city and we told the property owner that, and that we have it clearly identified, this is your job, I have my opinion, right, but I've laid out the facts, if we can't identify clear, negative, true, negative impacts on surrounding property owners based on this project, not platitudes about we don't like the people that rent projects and things like that. So, master plan, no clear negative detriment based on the facts, if we agree about the young professionals and boomers and density and rooftops and bringing retail and commercial, if we still believe in all of that, then there's one question left. Respectfully, but it's true, it’s no beating around the bush. Do we allow adjacent property owners, when all of those facts are present get to tell a property owner next-door, well, we just don't like apartments? Do we get to do that?
(People in audience commenting, "Yes.")
MR. PETERSON: Both a legal question.
(People in audience, "Yeah, we do." Applause. "Absolutely." Mayor bangs gavel.)
MR. PETERSON: It's both, Mayor, it's both a legal question and it's a policy question. I think I know the answer to both. I think the answer is no. We look at the facts and all the factors and everything that goes into this site, we just don't want property owners pick and tell what an adjacent property owner that's meeting the City's expectations from a master plan from quality, from the City's vision, all of that, there's not a veto right. So, with that, this is the right site. It's the right project, it's the right developer. It's right for growth. It fits the vision of the City. So respectfully and humbly we submit this to you tonight and ask for your support and bring this $35 million project to the site. Thank you, Mayor.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Okay. So, this is a public meeting. It is designed to hear from all the different opinions. The Councilmembers and I respect every person who comes forward to speak. And I would ask those in the audience to do the same. Please no applause, no shouting, no cussing as I've heard earlier, or other noises that are not conducive to an orderly meeting and which might preclude the Council from fully hearing the speaker speaking. With that being said, are there any Councilmembers who want to make any comments before I open it up to public input? Mr. Pflumm, I know you were interested in commenting.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was just wondering why we changed up the procedures. If we're going to do it the other way, I don't need to comment right now.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 37 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, okay. Thank you. So, is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item, something to provide new, different information than what was already presented at the public hearing? Please come forward.
MR. CHALK: Good evening. I'm Roger Chalk. My wife and I, Janet, live at (Address Omitted). Mayor, I represent, or I'm with a group of six different individuals that wish to speak, and we would like to request if we could follow each other.
MAYOR DISTLER: That would be fine as long as it's new information that hasn't already been presented.
MR. CHALK: We understand.
MAYOR DISTLER: And we have to keep it at the five-minute limit.
MR. CHALK: I hear you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CHALK: After another 45 minutes I heard you. We are happy to see so many people here tonight to witness government in action. By the way, by a show of hands how many of you are here opposed to the project? Thank you. Let's hope it happens. The number one concern of the task group opposed to this project is that it is a residential community and apartments of any kind do not fit right. At the bottom of page 1 of the packet that you received it even states, "The majority of the surrounding property in all directions is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential and DU-Duplex)." Another member of our group will address this in more detail. At the November 2 Planning Commission -- at a November 2 Planning Commission, a vice president of a 2.5 billion conglomerate corporation in answering questions presented by the commissioners made the following statements as recorded in the minutes of that meeting. "When evaluating something that is a market rate; another term that we use a lot is institutional grade apartment community...types of amenities that we're providing that are important to us for owning something in our portfolio for long-term value." "Our unit sizes tend to be a little bit smaller than perhaps some other communities' product...we’re slightly under a lot of our competition." "Of the total properties in our portfolio, I would say roughly, probably half of our units are some form of Section 8." "A one bedroom unit we would be renting in the neighborhood of $750 for smallest to $900 for largest…we'd be $200 to $300 per unit less than what we are targeting for this project."
I don't quite understand that comment. These comments brought on immediate concerns expressed by many residents. There were nearly 80 people at that meeting. And because of those expressed concerns it now appears that the developers needed time to repair the damage and were allowed to table the Council's vote on this proposal until tonight. In the meantime, the developer chose to have their local attorney communicate with you in an effort to persuade you to a different version of the story. Our question is how do we know which one is telling the truth? The vice president of a large successful conglomerate or the paid attorney to do their talking in his place. How can we believe anything being told to us about the future of this project? Their track
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 38 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
record, as will be shown to you later, is not compatible with the residential community in which these apartments are proposed to be placed.
A very brief comment about government housing subsidies. In a phone conversation with Jerome Franks, Program Supervisor at the Johnson County Housing Services, he stated that any owner of property can accept subsidies just by following the guidelines. There are no restrictions prohibiting them from accepting subsidized housing vouchers. We've examined the resident reviews of apartment units --
MAYOR DISTLER: Your five minutes are up, so if we can have the next person ready to comment.
MR. CHALK: Boy, that's a fast five minutes.
MR. HATCH: My name is Craig Hatch. My five minutes I give to Mr. Chalk.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. We're not going to do that.
MR. HATCH: I'm giving my time to Mr. Chalk. That's my option.
MAYOR DISTLER: Well, as the chair of this meeting, I am not going to allow that.
MR. HATCH: You're against free speech?
MAYOR DISTLER: No, sir, I am not.
MR. HATCH: I am giving my time to Mr. Chalk. What's wrong with that, ma'am?
MAYOR DISTLER: It's not going to be allowed.
MR. HATCH: He's going to articulate what I was going to say, so it would be redundant so, Mr. Chalk, you can have my time.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next person that was going to speak, please come forward.
MR. CHALK: I sure hope our votes work.
MAYOR DISTLER: Please speak your name and address.
MS. NOTLEY: I'll talk fast. Okay.
MAYOR DISTLER: Name and address for the record, please.
MS. NOTLEY: Okay. Oh, it's not all showing. Okay. My name is Marianne Notley. I live at (Address Omitted) in Shawnee. I was asked to confine my comments to the notion of Vantage flipping their properties and I will try and be brief. Well, oh God, okay. The reason they can build these properties so quickly, they've done 19 in 10 years, is because they do the same plan over and over again which isn’t a bad thing. But the plan, I mean you probably notice from the pictures earlier this evening that you go, hey, it's the same place, it's the same place. Okay. Vantage of Shawnee, same place.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 39 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Okay. This plan came from American Opportunities for Housing which is a §501(c)(3), a nonprofit in San Antonio that builds workforce housing. And even Vantage's own builders refers to these places is workforce housing. This is an anything deluxe. Anyway, that's just something I found out today about American Opportunities for Housing. Let's see, okay. Well, the build and flip is fairly obvious. Everything built before 2014 has been sold. And the ones that are currently up they’re already trying to pack the apartments full. I've got some more on that. I'm running out of time I'm sure. Okay. The new owners, and some people go, well, so what if they flip them, you know, the new owners will be just fine. Okay. This is a post-Vantage sale. The new owners, it lists who bought these places and who their management companies are and how the Better Business Bureau rated these management companies. And you could tell just looking, you could tell when Vantage had sold the place because the complaints just went crazy. So we have, let's see, six F's and five, no, three C's. Okay. If your kid came home with six F's and three C's on their report card, you know, we've got a problem. We've got a big problem. Okay. I have a quote from a tenant of Vantage. As it came time when Vantage was trying to sell the place, I'm paraphrasing a little bit, all Vantage did was to let anyone in. The last couple months it was still Vantage they let in lots of trashy people, her words. Also from listening to people around the pool people weren’t paying their rent and hadn't paid their rent just so that when the buyers came it would look like a successful enterprise. I don't know. This is just hearsay. This is just what she had written. Okay. So, what's happening at the Vantage sites that are open now still under Vantage control? Okay. They're doing the one month free rent specials and their refer a friend for $500. They're doing it again. That's what they do. And it's not illegal, they're just doing business, but they do flip. And so I'm just left with a few questions may be off-topic. Okay. All 19 properties were built along this corridor between San Antonio and Austin, I mean what are they doing up here? What's changed? And this is not the kind of site that Vantage builds in. They're usually on open ground out in the country. And anybody saying that young professionals really want to come and live behind Shawnee because it's cool to be in town, it’s not cool back there. There's nothing cool about it. Let's see. So, who tipped them off about this property? What do they have to gain? When you follow the money where does it lead? Okay. A lawyer would, you know, you never ask a question you don't know the answer to, I don't know the answer and you don't either.
MAYOR DISTLER: Five minutes is up.
MS. NOTLEY: All right.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Since you won't allow Mr. Chalk to have my time, I'll finish up for Mr. Chalk. We examined it, and I do this personally, so I'm familiar with this. We went to several websites that rated these apartments. They started out very, very nice and over a period of time people couldn't recommend them low enough. I had called several of the police departments in and around this area, these areas, and I asked would you -- what's it like, and one lady I got to talk to said, well, I haven't lived here that long, I don't know. My next question to her was, would you live there, and her answer was not on this planet, no way. Okay. So, there's a good one for whoever the police department person answering the phone. The complaints for the management were incompetent, walls and floors allowed bugs, cockroaches, et cetera, overcrowding of
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 40 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
some apartment units, trash left all around, dog and cat manure not picked up, cars towed away, even proper stickers were never on the cars. Once again, cockroaches. Several reviews stated that -- that's a repeat. Here is the best one. One individual I did talk to said that there had been a couple shootings at the apartments that this conglomerate manages, but it's a high-end A+ place. So, also somebody lied to us, either the gentleman who is trying to put the thing together or the engineer that thought so much of himself that he talked for 50 minutes and 11 seconds, they said that they didn't turn these over that they kept them all. If he's telling the truth, this gentleman is a liar. If this gentleman is the truth, he's a liar. One of them lied to us. I don't know which, I don't care. We wanted the truth, we're not getting it. It's supposed to be -- Mr. Sandifer made a comment about he would not allow access being denied to people. If they want to go up 67th Street at Widmer Woods with a gate across it, unless I'm missing something that's restricting entrance. You've got two entrances to this of this place, one off of Pflumm, the other off of 62nd and maybe off of Widmer. That doesn't work in the winter. So much for the -- and I'll give myself a goodbye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
MR. HIRT: Hi. My name is Phil Hirt. I live at (Address Omitted). First of all, I want to apologize to everyone for so many citizens showing up to protest this that the City actually had to turn people away from participating. Okay. Then the point I want to make. We are not in the neighborhood, I live right on the property line. We are not opposed to change. We are not opposed to new development. That's not a new theme, but that topic keeps coming back. We want something that the neighborhoods and all of Shawnee can be proud of. Apartment projects like this are best suited for and are almost always put onto main arteries, thoroughfares, highways, 435. If you look at all the cities and all the projects that's most of the time where they go. They don't belong in the middle of a neighborhood residential development. That's what it's all around, except for the park and the city pool and all that, it's a residential neighborhood. This project doesn't fit. They have admitted that its 28.6, it's actually 28.66 acres is what this project is. That comes out to, I'm not very good at new math, but that comes out to 287 units rounded up, 312 makes it 25 units over. That's probably good enough. Okay. I'll read from line, if you care to read that, please. This is, apartments were proposed on this property years ago and were denied by the City of Shawnee citing the same concerns. Please review these quotes taken directly from the minutes of the May 20th, 1985 Shawnee Planning Commission meeting. "Staff recommended that the portion of the plan north of 62nd be denied as being incompatible and inappropriate for the area. The provisions of the apartments north of 62nd would appear to be an intrusion of multi- family use and what effect the potential for single-family or lower density development of the R-10 vacant land immediately to the west. C), the north tract would appear more suitable for single-family or lower density development. Intense multi-family development of this area appears inappropriate and would alter the general character of the area is a lower density residential area." The north part is what we're talking about here. The south part was where Hy-Vee is now. So, the part that was denied and the reason the whole thing got thrown out was because of that. This area was not appropriate. "D), the plan for the north tract by proposing multi-family use is not an effective treatment of the site. A more effective and appropriate design would incorporate predominantly single-family, detached or a lower density design. E), the plan for the north tract would appear to have an adverse impact by thrusting significant multi-family use into a vacant area zoned and suitable for single-family development.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 41 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
The developer withdrew this proposal because of City staff recommendations and opposition from area residents." The only thing that has changed since that Planning Commission decision is single-family residential neighborhoods did develop and flourish to the West and to the north because of this attention and vision for looking out for what is best for Shawnee in the long term and not grabbing a smaller development, which is going to generate less tax. The other development that was going to go in was about $64-$68 million, and there are other developers wanting to use this for the same purpose if given the chance, and ignoring the consequences to the neighborhood. Other cities are in the news frequently for denying projects in order to protect their neighborhood residential owners. Why can't Shawnee? The neighborhood and all of Shawnee deserve better. Thirteen hundred Shawnee residents have spoken and petitions. We are opposed to this apartment project. How can you completely ignore the citizens that you were elected to protect? Are you going to listen to a sales presentation or the citizens who elected you? Please do not sell us out. One last comment. Widmer Road fence is not a Widmer Road fence, it's a Widmer western boundary. If you go back and look at the minutes of the Planning Commission it is misstated the way you're voting on it or however you put it in here. It's not to run from the north gate to the north property line. The Planning Commission minutes are more clear than that even though they are a little foggy as to where it starts and ends, it says nothing about gate north. It’s the Widmer perimeter that they voted to put a six foot fence on. Then the last comment, the hundred foot, I'm sorry, the 30 foot right-of-way that the City is requiring this builder and developer to give to the City is a right-of-way for anything future, even though it's not now planned, it's not needed, it's not wanted, it's a problem, it's going to be a problem, it goes to nowhere. You cannot just connect two streets and put more traffic onto Johnson Drive. There's no reason for that right-of-way. What we would like, for you to take that back out of the plans. Don't demand that they give you the 30 foot right-of-way.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you, Mr. Hirt.
(Applause)
MR. HIRT: I had to quickly. I'm sorry.
MR. DAVIDSON: Yeah. I apologize for interrupting this. I just have a quick thing here. Brenden Davidson from (Address Omitted). I'm not here with a statistical plan. I'm not here with a tax argument here, I'm here with a moral argument on this. And the fact is you were all elected to represent the citizens of Shawnee. Mr. Pflumm, Mr. Neighbor, you were elected from my ward. You represent me. You represent my family. You represent my neighbors. Many of my neighbors are out in the hall right now sitting there saying don't vote yes on this. Are you going to stand with them or are you going to stand here with a corporate lawyer. I don't know about you, but if I were in your seat I would stand with the people you were elected to represent. And as for the rest of -- as for those of you who I am not as acquainted with, the same goes. I am sure there are people all out here who are from all of your wards. And, Mayor Distler, we all took a part in that election that elected you. And we are here to say that, no, we do not want this. Well, I have disagreements within many of these for is, especially those involving, I believe it's Title 8, I'm not entirely certain on that. This is not the case here because there are many problems wrong with this. He claims it's going to be a gated community. Now, let's assume he's being truthful there, which we're not entirely sure. Gated
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 42 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
communities are not something Shawnee needs. Shawnee is for one an open city here. We do not want gated communities. We do not need gated communities. They are not a part of what Shawnee wants or needs. In addition, they're also inherently racist. We are not going to turn this into a -- turn to the Jim Crow south. We are going to stay an open and tolerant city that we have always been. Don't sell out this city to this corporate lawyer who does not represent our interests, who does not represent any of the citizens here, who doesn't even live in this town. He does not serve any of us. He does not care about our interests and his company does not care about our interests. Do not sell us out on this. Represent your voters. Represent your constituents who do not want this plan. I cannot see any reason why you should vote for it based solely on that reason that democracy exists so that people can have a say. And the people are saying, no. They are saying no to this destructive, to this awful complex that they -- this company wants to build. And as they have put on the board back there, he may represent America First, but America First puts Shawnee last. So, who are you going to put first?
(Applause)
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you, Brenden. It's nice to see some passion among our young people in the city, so thank you very much. My name is Julie Robinson. I live at (Address Omitted) in the Widmer Woods division. And I'm here tonight to talk a little bit about the economic impact of this development. In my professional life I'm a marketing professional and I deal a lot in helping clients identify their target audience. So, some of the things that were talked about this evening with boomers and millennials, those are things that I do every day with my clients. And, you know, I attended the City Planning Commission November 2nd as well. And one of the things that one of the commissioners said is that he was in favor of this project because he believed it would bring new businesses to our community. And we heard some of that same discussion tonight about density and rooftops and that that would bring business to our community. In fact, research shows that the opposite is actually true. The American City Business Journals recently conducted a comprehensive study about what makes businesses locate in certain communities. And what they came up with was a measure that is called Overall Affluent Score. Now, this score is not just about household income. It's actually a 12-point formula that takes into account a number of different factors. Interestingly, density, like you get with apartments, is not on the list. It's not a factor. What is on the list are several things that make up our community that go along with single family residential developments. It's things like occupation. It's things like education level and notably it's about home ownership and home values. New businesses want to locate in communities that rank highly on this overall affluent scale. Unfortunately, this is an article from the November 20th Kansas City Business Journal. Currently the City of Shawnee does not even rank in the top ten of all the communities in the entire KC Metro area. But if you see the list our neighbors Overland Park and Lenexa are on that list. And is it possible to have this chart to be part of the public record this evening?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Absolutely.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you. An apartment project like Vantage may bring density, but it will not improve Shawnee's ranking on this overall affluent scale. In fact, it will in all likelihood push us further down on the list. I strongly urge all of you to reject the
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 43 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Vantage proposal so that this land can be available for a future project as has been mentioned that would be more appropriate to this neighborhood and would raise Shawnee's ranking. A no vote for Vantage is not a missed opportunity as has been said this evening. It will help us in the long run to attract higher quality new businesses like Overland Park and Lenexa. And that's what millennials and baby boomers want. They want entertainment. They want high quality retail. And they actually want granite countertops and stainless steel appliances because I do a lot of research on that as well. And I think actually we also could maybe hope that a quality developer who took out a full page ad in our Shawnee Dispatch could maybe not have typos. I don't think that's really quality. And if anybody goes back and looks at the word "concierge trash" in the ad, that's not spelled correctly. So, I have to wonder what is their real attention to detail. So, with that, Mayor Distler and City Councilmembers, I implore you to listen to the voters who are here tonight. I think we have spoken very clearly. The people who elect you have definitely given our opinion and we urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you very much for your time.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
(Applause)
MS. NACHBAR: My name is Melissa Nachbar, and I live at (Address Omitted). It's a fact that an apartment complex was proposed on this site and voted down by the City Council in 1985. There was then, as is now, a major opposition from the residents. Their voices were heard. I've been a resident of Shawnee my whole life. I care deeply about this community. I work in this community. I worship. I buy goods. I pay taxes and I vote in this community. I've lived at my current residence directly west of this project for 21 years. My husband Greg and I would not have built our home in the neighborhood if there had been an apartment complex there. I can assure you my neighbors feel the same way. The City may have invited this project, but the citizens have not. It's more important now that there are more residents living in this area that this remain a neighborhood with home ownership. As Julie stated, bringing affluence to our city has more to do with home ownership and values. Therefore, education is a key. As apartments have been added to our neighborhood, it has tipped the balance. They have significantly changed the community of Broken Arrow school. What was once a blue ribbon school has become a Title 1 school. It was never the capacity that was our issue. There is capacity because families are transferring out of this school. As an elementary teacher this is concerning. As a resident of Shawnee, this is unacceptable. Our property values are directly related to having a thriving school community in our neighborhood and our city. And when new families look to buy a home the ones that would be in apartments aren't going to come and stay around this neighborhood because they look at the city as a whole and they look at the critical factor in the school neighborhood. Deciding where to buy they won't live in the Broken Arrow neighborhood. The only way to keep our community and this school community from deteriorating further is to deny this project. I have 286 signed petitions and another 866 names from our online petition that we circulated. There were more names, but I marked off the names from outside Shawnee, which I appreciate that people were so concerned that they did want to sign our petition. I want to make this part of the public record. May I do so? We represent the people of Shawnee. Some of us went door to door to obtain those signatures. And just so you know, we will go door to door again come election time if this comes through. The people have spoken. We're not against
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 44 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
development of this property, we want a right fit. We are against apartments on this property. An area that already has over 1300 units within a three mile radius. Although the proposed apartments look nice now, they won't forever. I am a mother of a 27 year old, 25 year old and 22 year old professionals. They're not going to live in this part of Shawnee. The fact is the City cannot guarantee that these apartments will not in the future become subsidized housing. The first priority of the City Councilmembers is to support the residents who already live here, pay taxes and have elected you. If Good Starts Here, prove it. Mayor Distler and Councilmembers, I implore you, don't sell us out.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. BRUMMIT: Good evening, Commission. My name is Mark Brummit. I live at (Address Omitted) near the proposed site. Not to rehash old business, but our friends that took us on a trip to Disney World about the project here were saying regarding traffic. I have a 1985 traffic study that was produced by -- they said something about 2050 trips daily. It was approximately the same size apartments. Their numbers are drastically off on that as far as that is concerned. And I live on Pflumm Road so I see it first-hand. I will also show you another shot here if it'll project through. I'm not sure if it's going to project real well, but you can obviously see these are police cars here. Major accident across from the proposed entrance of this project. The road that runs there is 61st Street. It's an unregulated intersection. No turn signal, no crosswalk for people. I watch people have to run across that every day and it's dangerous out there. I know the City's position is that it's a four-lane road. Without a turn lane into this project, when you're pulling in, you're going to go down Shawnee Mission Parkway, you're going to go to Pflumm. You're going to turn left. You're going to be backing up traffic and the whole one lane. And you've got 312 units, it's pretty unrealistic to think that there's not during peak time there's going to be problems out on this road. I happened to go door to door. I spoke with all the residents along 61st. The problem with traffic was right now. This is a real problem. It's just going to get worse and worse and worse if a high density project like this goes in. Those of us who live along Pflumm Road supported the retirement project simply because it was a good quality project. A lot less traffic in and out, something very conducive to this site where as this, you know, this model that we saw looked all great and everything if it truly becomes what they say; however, it would be much better access out near 435 or Shawnee Mission Parkway. There's plenty of open land available out there. You can see it advertised for sale. It's a big enough tract for it to all fit on and you're not going to have this issue of public safety. You're not going to have an issue of people walking down the road here. Okay. And, you know, Widmer, people are going to cut through that subdivision. That's why there's so many people here from Widmer. We knocked on their doors. They're going to cut through the division. They're going to go any way they can to get access to Shawnee Mission Parkway. That's why Lenexa does what they do and they do it well. They build them out on 435, easy in and out. Hey, my friends live in apartments. I have nothing against apartments. You know, my age group, you know, I'm a little older than a millennial, but, you know, bottom line is they're going to live out there. They're not going to want to live in where there's really nothing for them to do. They want to go up to the Legends. You're going to get easy access to the Legends if you're out on 435. That's, you know, the bottom line on that. Addressing a couple other key points here.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 45 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Not to be, you know, I don't want to beat traffic to death. Do I just -- the question is when we sat through the zoning meeting their executive president presented four of them. And there is something about these facts getting confused. There was no confusion. We have the planning notes. You have the planning notes in your hands. Things were said and then we get a different, kind of a different version of that when their lawyer comes up. Why in the world would a lawyer speak instead of the executive vice president of a multi-billion dollar company that does this daily? He builds -- they build buildings. This is their business. They know that they're doing. Why would he not stand up here and talk to us and tell us about how great his projects are. Why do we have to hear it secondhand through their lawyer? That makes no sense to me. We do have big concerns about the developer because there's mixed information. That's not our fault. It's out there on the Internet. If you want to go check it out, everybody here is more than welcome to do it. This information is not, you know, it's not something we're making up. If we're looking at what do they do in Kansas, in the last meeting it was brought up about Woodland Park. It really wasn't addressed, but Woodland Park is one of their properties. Part of it is subsidized. It was not built, intended that way. People were promised a pool. I don't know if they were promised something that looked as pretty as a pool here, but that's looks fantastic. They never got a pool. Okay. So, what we're dealing with here is we're dealing with what-ifs. Okay. What if they can't get that rent? Okay. What if people choose, you know, hey, I got a thousand dollars, I can go into a house. I mean, there's plenty of houses out available in the market in Shawnee that you can either rent. If you get enough credit you can buy it. We didn't once hear anything about an application process or any vetting that they do of their residents. I'm really concerned about that because this is like in my backyard. In order to achieve the development numbers that they're showing us, all these numbers that they are -- they're a building machine. And you have understand that. They're like a big retailer. They're going to build it. And why did they come to Shawnee of all places? Because they like us so much? It's a template. They've got an open piece of property. They're in Omaha. They were near the developer. I ask the City, the Council, please support the residents. We went door to door. These are the people that vote for you. You know, you need to not sell us out and vote, you know, vote for the people here. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. And I will ask again as people come forward to try to not have repetitive comments and let's keep new information coming forward.
MS. WICKIZER: I am Dixie Wickizer. I live at (Address Omitted). Let me first start by saying that I purchased my home in Widmer Woods in June of 2015. I work for a multi- family property management company. I have been in the business for 16 years. I did my research to make sure that there were not going to be any apartments built where I was buying my home. Voila. Now, we have apartments. And I can honestly tell you that I would not have purchased my home knowing that there were apartments being built. It's the business that I'm in. I know it. I work it every day, I live it. But I also know people that are buying homes look for homes that are not surrounded by apartments, period. I live it every day. It's my job. So, that's the first thing I want to tell you. The second thing being in the business that I am in, I want to reference the Class A, which was said repeatedly, higher rents, which was said repeatedly, I have done five new construction developments for the company that I work for. I will tell you the high rents are a minimum of $200 below what the high rent apartments are going for. The interiors, we'll start with the interiors. The millennials that want the, you know, they want the simplistic life. They want granite. They want stainless. They want attached
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 46 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
garages. They want concierge. They want resident events. They want -- attached garages is huge by the way. Just FYI. The baby boomers, this -- the baby boomers and development is something that's huge right now and that's kind of coming on. There is a need for it, but these are planned communities. Baby boomers are not just renting apartments. They want to be surrounded by their peers. They want to live in a quiet neighborhood still. They do want to be around shops, but they don't want to have a 27-year-old single guy with all of his buddies over on Sunday drinking beer at his apartment. That's not what they want to live next to. So, is there a need for the baby boomers? Yes, there is. But again, they're planned communities with very high-end interiors, attached garages, events planned around those of that age. So, I'm not denying the need for those things, but what they're proposing I would not consider Class A luxury. These units within the next five years will be any other B property that you could find in Johnson County. Unfortunately those properties are about 20 to 25 years old and this one is going to be five years old. That's one of the biggest misconceptions that I can offer you and what I do every day is that we don't -- these are vinyl wood plank flooring. This is not even Pergo. Black appliances, did you see the rendering? It's a standard coil burner. It's not even a ceramic cooktop. These are things that are expected every day in rentals. And the high end and the events and the services that you provide, these are things that renters are looking for. So, can someone come in and buy this as they've sold many of their other properties that they've developed. They can come in, they can buy it, they can do whatever they want. They can accept government assistance for rent. They can keep it the way that it is. But a lot of people don't turn down government subsidies because it's guaranteed rent. Crime goes up. And with density comes crime. You do have traffic issues. I mean, there's a lot of things that are going to go into this that are going to affect the neighborhood surrounding it. Oh, real quick. Water Crest, the density that's at 23, which is like four or five floors with elevators, it's an urban development. They're still having problems filling up by the way. We live in the Midwest. People don't like these urban developments. They like all the perks, but they don't like the let's build it really tall like we're in a big city. It doesn't work. It's not working in Lenexa. But they did as one of the other residents pointed out. Lenexa has a plan. They are putting their apartment complexes on the 435 corridor. They are putting it to where they're not in the middle of their neighborhoods.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
MS. WICKIZER: Just my thoughts. Thank you very much.
MS. TROJNIAK: My name is April Trojniak and I am actually of the Y generation, so I feel like you might be a little attacked here to the gentleman that gave the PowerPoint. But, you know, like what you said about the Y generation, I honestly can agree with. When I go talk to my friends, what they're looking for, you know, is exactly right, there's convenience. There is, you know, they don't – aren’t looking for a lot of, but that's because they all live in downtown Kansas City or somewhere where they can walk to a lot of amenities. If I'm living there, I'm going to walk to Sonic and Hy-Vee. Friday's I think is over there. Like I'm, you know, my friends aren't going to go hang out there just FYI. I happen to live up the street, but I moved to Shawnee because I have two little kids and the school system is great. You know, when I moved into Shawnee just six months ago I found out that our schools are overcrowded and there is -- because, you know, there is so many -- 26 kids in my son's class to one teacher. I don't think that,
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 47 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
you know, what's being heard as far as like we don't want apartment, we don't want apartments. I think the ideal location there something can happen. I think the challenge for the developer and whoever owns that land is to find something. I happen to be a young professional who happens to be an architect. So, just a couple like holes in your presentation that I deal with code every day, and it's always up for interpretation. So, when you say, you know, you have this range of 5 to 10.0 percent or, you know, whatever it was square footage, and you're one percent over, you know, I grew up watching the Price is Right and one is still over, you don't win. Wahont, whaa. So, the next line exactly was high density is 10.01, so it's still high density. You can twist it however you want. 10.01 was still high density and you're at 10.1. You know, and it says, yes, it says not to be construed as a maximum, but that's because that guideline is given as a range because that's what we'd like to keep it as. The City would like to keep it anywhere between five to ten as a guideline. No, it's not a max, but that's the ideal location. And you've heard a lot of these people that have lived here for years and years and years that they came to Shawnee, they built their house in that subdivision because that was the range of medium density. So, I think the challenge for you and, you know, being an architect myself I've done a lot of development. I've deal with developers and there's some that are open to different ideas and there are some that are out to make a buck. You want to be a part of the community and you want to be a part of Shawnee, but you've built a privacy gate all the way around it and made your nice little oasis. You're not connected to anything. You didn't look at the context around you. There's houses to the west of you. You know, there is retail to the south of you. So, I don't think that -- I think there can be a better solution than what was proposed. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. And I think even the older people, sorry, the mature people here that are not Y generation, you know, said they're not down on a development happening. I think it's just that there can be a better opportunity. There's a better solution there and there's a lot of precedence for it. It doesn't have to be a cookie cutter apartment building. It's funny that there was not one plan shown on that whole presentation of what 753 square feet of a one bedroom actually looks like. You know, that's downtown high rise living in Kansas City where my friends can walk to the Power & Light and do that kind of thing. And when they're ready to move out of that, they still want convenience. They still want to get on the highway because they work downtown or they still want to be able to get on the highway because they work at Cerner or they work at College Boulevard, you know, at Corporate Woods. They're about convenience. We're about go, go, go and convenience. And, you know, then you slowly ease into it because that's what I'm doing, of ownership and owning something. So, maybe a townhome. And, yes, I want it all. I want a garage and I want stainless steel and I want granite because I'm entitled because I'm a Y generation. But, you know, we didn't believe in working for it anymore. But that's just my input. So I don't think -- I think what's being heard, there's a lot of this, we hate it, we hate it, but I think there's actually -- the simple solution is that there is a better alternative there. I think that's your challenge, not the apartments. So anyway, that's all I got.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: The Council has requested a quick five-minute break, and then we'll get right back to you.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 48 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
(Shawnee City Council Meeting in Recess from 10:01 p.m. to 10:07 p.m.)
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Let's reconvene the meeting, please. Whenever you're ready, ma'am. Thank you.
MS. LONGSTON: My name is Melissa Longston. I live at (Address Omitted). I just made sure this is correct. I believe this right here is 62nd Street. The flow right here and right here is where the traffic would be. There is a lady's house right here and I know Roger lives down there. There's a gentleman's house that's right here that kind of sits cattycorner, Gene, who just recently passed, and then I bought my property there as well. I purchased my property there because I wanted to live in Shawnee. They've got great entities. They've got great everything. I've heard nothing but great things about Shawnee. I had a choice to buy a house in Overland Park or Lenexa. I chose Shawnee. I just purchased this house January 2nd, and now I find out that it's going to be a retirement village. And I understand things go through. There's nothing you guys - -
(Members in the audience clarifying it's not a retirement village any longer, but apartments.)
MS. LONGSTON: Well, it was going to be retirement, now it's going to be apartments. And I understand things fall through and I get that, and that's business. But we bought that house so that could be the last place we lived before the kids have to go pack us someplace else. For my grandkids to be able to play. Right now I have people who walk through my yard. I don't have a privacy fence. I have people that walk in between the land of my neighbor's and myself. I have kids who get off the school bus, they walk through my land as well. Who is not to say, and I understand it's going to be gated and they're looking for the higher end, the millennials and all that stuff. But who is not to say there's going to be kids, or even adults, I don't care who, are going to be walking through my property? And then I asked about where the compactor was. Originally I thought it was planned to be right over by myself, but like I said I moved here for a reason. I think Shawnee is a great city and that's why I planned it here. And now I'm wondering if I should get out and get away quickly. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
MR. GRIMM: Okay. My name is Brandon Grimm and I live at (Address Omitted). I live directly adjacent to the property in question and I grew up in the house next door and I've lived on the land practically my entire life. As for someone mentioned, you know, about zoning changes over the last 15 years, well, as of '04, my great-grandfather still owned that so there wasn't any talk of zoning changes at that time. So, as per apartments bringing in business and things like that, I'd like to point out the intersection at 75th and Quivira. Specifically, if you can see -- I don't know if you can see it. This monstrosity over here. There are plenty of apartments in the area and I guarantee you those substandard apartments were not built as substandard when they were built. The property is almost entirely vacant. I counted out of 44 slots today, five tenants. Not looking good. Yeah. If you could turn those. Sorry about that. This is a picture, you can't see it very well. I'm showing it because it actually shows one of the people who was hurt in an accident on Pflumm Road. The man in question is lying next to his motorcycle, and I get to witness this, so I thought you should get to witness it as well. I
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 49 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
have heard -- I have seen three accidents and heard of five since the mid of October. So, don't tell me traffic is not a problem. I've lived there almost my entire life and this is the most amount of accidents I have ever seen. So, don't try to tell me that again. I had a few notes here I wanted to mention. The reason I live in Shawnee is precisely because it's not Overland Park, Lenexa, Kansas City, DeSoto, Olathe, you name it. I like Shawnee. But what I don't like are giant apartment buildings, especially what look to be possibly substandard. Let's see. All that talk about millennials. I'm a 29-year-old bank teller, violinist, aspiring to be a better community member. I don't want to live there. I am your demographic. Take a look at me. I don't want to live there. We heard everybody talk about the people they know, I'm standing here. I went to school with some of your kids. I went to school with one person on this board. You know, I'd like to also say we're talking about how people are harping on this. You know, harping, harping, harping, whatever. It's monotonous, the monotonous threat. Well, I'm sick and tired of the monotonous threat of people wanting this apartment complex. I don't like that threat. You know, am I to understand that that front page thing was paid for? If it is, it's called sponsored advertising, a sponsored content and that's advertising. And I for one am ashamed to live in a town that would allow that in their newspaper. You know, the traffic committees can be as smart as they want to, but it doesn't equate to actually living there. So, I'd like to say that practical experience I think proves greater than their traffic study does. Does the traffic study even take into account the extra traffic that will be coming from the retirement community that's being built on Johnson Drive between Pflumm and Rosehill? I'm not sure on that. Let's see. I think I had a couple of other things here. Oh, I'll tell you this. I'm not wasting your time, but I hope I'm not wasting mine. As for the outside being very important of this -- this complex, you know, they talk about the outside being very important. Well, my closing statement is you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.
MR. GRIMM: Thank you for your time.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Please come forward.
MR. BENNET: Thank you. I'm Tim Bennet. I live at (Address Omitted). I moved to Shawnee about a year and a half ago for an apartment very much like this one because the options aren't out there everywhere. Shawnee is a great place to live and I like living here and I've gotten involved in our city and our volunteer teams. And I would love to see more young professionals like myself as a millennial living here and I think this apartment complex is a great way of bringing them here. Thank you for your time.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Next, please.
MS. BUDENBENDER: Hello. I'm Grace Budenbender. I live at (Address Omitted). A couple of points. Some basically the same as what some of these people have said. I have a 29 year old, a 31 year old and a 33 year old and none of them want to live in this apartment complex. What we do have in Shawnee that seems to be the attraction of all of my kids' friends, the ones that have married that have children that are starting families, they absolutely love Shawnee. It's a great community that you can raise your
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 50 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
kids in. The second point that I have is that we actually have our house up for sale. And there is not one real estate person that is going to come tell me or has told me that this is a bonus to have this in my backyard because this is going to raise my property value. Okay. Nobody is telling me that. The other thing that I'm hearing from almost every real estate person is that Broken Arrow is such a problem. It is such a problem already. Do not add to this. We have got to figure out how to make a great school great again. When my kids attended that school you couldn't hardly get in there. There were kids that were loving that school. There were great teachers. It was a school of excellence. And now to hear about it, it is just deteriorating. I mean, you cannot add more problems to an area that is already struggling to get a school going and make it functional for the children attending it. Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.
MS. HORST: My name is Susan Horst. I'm at (Address Omitted). I'd just like to talk a bit about the City services. I read where this location will help draw residents because it's within walking distance of the pool, walking distance of the library, the Civic Centre and many other things. And those of us that try to find a chair at the pool already know it's overcrowded and the library is overcrowded. And the Civic Centre open gym times a lot of times is overcrowded. And you can't tell me that 315 more apartments full of people trying to ride bikes or drive cars or go to our pool, because this pool on a scale of the drawing that I saw looks more like a hot tub than a pool, tell me that those kids are not going to go to our wonderful Shawnee pool instead of their small pool, and our library. I mean, our services are wonderful, but they're going to be very overcrowded I believe from traffic to the library, to the Civic Centre, to all of it. And so I've very concerned about our City services for those of us that enjoy them today. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.
MR. SMITH: My name is Wallace Smith. I am at (Address Omitted), so very near this space. In fact, this would be my back yard. I do have to say one thing. I'm a parent of Broken Arrow students, a student and alumni and am active in the PTA. And I do say that while we have some challenges that have been growing we are an awesome school. And I would say that our math leads have been crushing Raymarsh and Benninghoven by the way. But I am concerned about this being in my back yard and being the first thing I would see as I drink my morning coffee. And I'm concerned about especially the traffic of the back door of this space off of 62nd Street, which is not completely developed and it does -- there's some development work perhaps to be done, but it's nowhere near what the Cobblestone development offered. One was an openness to the Civic Centre and the park and a connection for the City and an enhancement of accessible space. This is a gated community that closes off in addition to the park. It's an enhancement for only those who are inside the property if it's an enhancement at all. The key word I kept seeing on both exterior and interior was veneer. Veneer stone, veneer countertops, veneer whatever. Veneer means fake. I'm sorry. It's fake. And this is -- while the Cobblestone was actually an exciting project and had multiple creative opportunities including some retail space, this is just apartments. This is not good for Shawnee where something Good Starts Here. So, we are the people who vote and we don't want it and it's clear. So, thank you for hearing me.
MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 51 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MR. NICHOLS: Hi. My name is Justin Nichols. I live at (Address Omitted) in Shawnee and I'm probably not going to be the most popular guy in the room here because I'm going to speak in favor of the project. This is an appropriate use for this land. The master plan is what you guys approve every year. The land use guide is what you guys approve every year. And according to those documents this is supposed to be multi- family. This is an appropriate use for this land. This is not an area that's supposed to be development single family. The property owners here have a choice on how they want to develop the land. Your job is not to take away that choice from them. Your job is not to have other people tell you how someone is supposed to develop their land. If it fits the land use guide your job is to approve. That's why the Planning Commission voted 8-2 to approve it. Shawnee needs a development like this. We are the only major city in this area not doing a multi-family project right now. This is a major development for the City. It's a development that has no incentives attached to it. We talk repeatedly. I work in the development field as a lot of you know. We have problems all the time with people wanting to come up here and ask for incentives. And you all have struggled with incentives all the time. This is not an incentive project. This is a project that all of the money that's going to go on the tax rolls. We're talking about something that's going to put, by my rough math it's going to put about $200,000 into the school district. It's going to put about $60,000 into the City every year. That's real money. That's something that is tangible. That's different than the projects that you all look at that have economic development impacts. And it's a typical project because they're not asking for incentives. How you vote on this is going to set the tone for future developments in this City. And if you think that it won't, you're fooling yourselves. This is the kind of project where again it's not an incentives project. If you don't approve the projects that come to you that are going to benefit the City, it's going to make it harder for people that are developers to consider the City because they're going to think they're up against it before they even walk in the door. We don't want that in our City. We need more rooftops in this City to sustain retail, especially in this area. We've been putting money, public and private, into the Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor and into downtown trying to increase the retail, trying to improve that area. And it's worked. We've got some really great -- we've got some really great stuff going on on Shawnee Mission Parkway from 10 Quivira down towards 435, the Johnny's, the re-skin that happened at Price Chopper at 10 Quivira, all of that has been really good. We need more of that sort of project. And this is the kind of thing that will help sustain that retail. We need that. I know that people have kind of scoffed at the idea of young professionals and retirees. All you have to do is look at the professional literature on this stuff, the people that actually do studies on this and don't rely on anecdotes. You'll see that the young professionals and retirees are saying this is what they want. This is the kind of project that we need. And people can, like I said, people can say whatever they want, but if you actually do research you find out that that's the truth. The project has 312 units. By my math about 144 of them are going to have a rent payment that is going to be at least equal to if not higher than a lot of people's mortgage payments on a 30-year mortgage. That's a good project. That's the kind of thing that when people choose to live there you're going to have people that could make the choice to live in a home and they're choosing to live in your community in this apartment. That's a good thing. Those are the people that you want.
(Unidentified speaker talking out of turn)
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 52 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Nichols, just a second, please. I ask that everyone respect every speaker that is coming up to this microphone. They have all respected you. I ask that you sit and listen quietly and give every speaker the respect that they deserve. Everyone has an opinion. This is a public meeting and I'm not going to tolerate otherwise. Thank you. You can start his time again.
MR. NICHOLS: The rhetoric around this issue doesn't reflect who we are as a city. It doesn't reflect who we want to be as a City. The voting against this for any other reason than because of the merits of the application itself and whether or not it's an appropriate use for this property is wrong. And anyone that votes on any other reason than the merits of the project should be ashamed of themselves. The bottom line on this is that you're making a decision that sets a tone for the future of this City. You all know what you should do. The question is what you're going to do. I've been a long-time supporter of our business community as many of you know. I work with our Chamber of Commerce. I talk to the business owners in this City. We need higher densities. We need more rooftops. This is a good project. Do not vote against this project because of fear or misinformation or bias or stereotypes or rhetoric. Do not rely on innuendo, look at facts. This is a good project. The people that are opposing this are good people. I believe that with all my heart and I know that they have the best intentions. But I think that they've been somewhere along the way somehow they've gotten some bad information. And I don't know what else to say about it, but this is a project that betters our City. It impacts our City in a good way and I would very strongly encourage you to pass this project. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Next, please.
MS. HEATH: Hi. My name is Stephanie Heath. I live (Address Omitted). I had done daycare for 12 years in home. Took the kids to the Bichelmeyer-Pflumm Park. It's a quiet neighborhood. We saved up for ten years to live in a home in a quiet community without apartments and that we love. We may move on to our third home, I know this irrelevant, but we want to stay in Shawnee. But it's kind of on the line due to this apartment. The traffic behind there, it's already high. With adding 300 some units, 600 parking, that's not what we want. I've walked around our neighborhood and asked them what they want. I asked are you for or opposed it. And I have signatures that I have given to this lady over here, Michelle. Melissa, I'm sorry. We're just opposed and we want you guys to be with us and for us. We're electing you in office to help us, to help us run the City and we need your support because we are not in favor of them coming in. We have rooftops coming in. There's Regan Place, there's 17 triplexes. If you look over by Target, they've only completed four of them. They're triplexes. We have places that we're approving, but we don't approve of this in our neighborhood. Thank you.
MR. LOGAN: Good evening, Mayor and Council people. Thank you for allowing me to take a few minutes of your time. I'm Leon Logan, (Address Omitted) in Shawnee. I'm here tonight, I'm the Chairman of the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce and I'm here to speak on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Shawnee Chamber. The Shawnee Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Council promote job creation, business expansion as well as real estate development in Shawnee. The Shawnee Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors supports the proposed Vantage of Shawnee housing development. While additional site and zoning details must be deliberated by the City Council, this proposal still brings density and contemporaneous housing options
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 53 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
to Shawnee. The proposed 312-unit Class A apartment development at 62nd Street and Pflumm will create the best of market living spaces for approximately 500 residents as it is currently proposed. As Shawnee makes substantial public and private commercial investments along Shawnee Mission Parkway and in downtown Shawnee, an influx of new consumers is needed to grow these Shawnee businesses, restaurants and other services that come with it. Business leaders have repeatedly identified the correlation between residential housing density and expanding retail shopping and sales as being an important factor in future growth. Vantage provides the needed density and the new patrons necessary for continued business growth. In addition, the Chamber recognizes the importance of attracting and retaining a skilled, educated and increasingly mobile workforce in our City. Surveys from recent years consistently show a preference among both young professionals and baby boomers looking to downsize for high quality mixed- use apartment options. Options to satisfy this preference have become the norm in communities throughout the metro area, but Shawnee lacks a new apartment option. The most current comparable apartment developments in Shawnee, that was built over 15 years ago. And it's vital that our community has the diverse vibrant housing options that our employers need and that their employees desire. The Chamber similarly supports expansion of our existing tax base where it's appropriate. This project is proposed without using the TIF district approved for this site. Development will create substantial additional revenues for the City, for the county, for the school district, and expand our existing tax base when it's complete. The Vantage at Shawnee development proposes to include high-end amenities in its walk-in closets, resort-style pool, cabanas, dog park, et cetera. That will help attract the young professionals and the retirees alike. Partnering with business leaders in City government, the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce shares the vision of a growing and vibrant community today and into the future. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.
MR. BINGHAM: Hi. Bing Bingham, (Address Omitted). I moved here from Lenexa back in August. I moved from Parkhurst development. My back yard was Renner. They built a five-story apartment complex similar to this one only it was called urban density for a reason. It had five stories. It had garages. It had granite. It had tile and hardwood floors. It was first class. From the pictures I've seen here that is not first class. The house I live in apparently is one of the five in a flood plain which I didn't know about and it rained really hard this last few days and three inches of rain, and I had a nice stream in my back yard, but I did not have a flood. And my neighbors who have been there several years have never seen a flood. So, I'm in a little doubt because I used to be in the insurance business and you had to be in a flood plain in order to be considered for certain insurance. It's not in the flood plain so I don't know where this notion that we have to do something downstream from a flood. Now we might when they put the roofs in for the apartment complex and they put all the asphalt down, that's going to cause a water runoff and that's probably the reason they've had to enlarge the little pond that's back there so that they would have an overflow. And then I might be in a flood plain because it's caused from their roofs. I am a baby boomer. I have many, many friends who are the same age I am. None of them want to live in an apartment, even the ones that were built over by me that are first rate and they have elevators. We want one floor where we can get around where we can walk. We want to be able to visit our grandkids. We want to be able to travel. I don't want to live in an apartment, as has been mentioned earlier, where there's a 27 year old having a beer
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 54 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
party next door. That's not what people of my generation want. We grew up with single-family homes. We grew up with mom at home. We grew up going to our neighborhood schools. That's what I see in Shawnee. That's why I moved to this neighborhood. I was in people's houses the first week I lived here. I've met all my neighbors up and down the street. I've walked with their dogs. That's why I lived over here in Shawnee. This is a very nice area to live in. It's a community. I think when apartments go in in an area that's residential all the way around it, it's a mistake. And I know that we need development and I can understand that that's a nice piece of land. But I just wish that in respect to this whole project, has anyone looked at any of the Vantage properties? Do we know what they look like now? Has anybody been down to Texas? Has anybody looked at what they really have? I don't think you should make a decision till you know what their things look like now, what they've developed. I think you should not decide on this till you know what the outcome is. You're saying it looks great, it's on paper, what's my promise. You've got us saying one thing to the residents, you've got a developer saying another thing. And it may be that everything they've said is absolutely great, but what if it's not. What if it's what the research from other people what they've done. I have been at city council meetings in other cities. They would table or not take the vote till they had the hard evidence of what the projects looked like from these developers. Don't go to Omaha. Go to Texas and see what they built and what it looks like. He's got a diagram up here that says Vantage of Olathe. Is that the next place they're going to build this thing? He doesn't even have Shawnee on his model. You know, they misspelled words in their ads. It's just cookie cutter and throw it in here. Don't put it here in Shawnee. At least take a harder look at it. Thank you.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Next, please.
MR. BUDENBENDER: My name is Joe Budenbender. I live at (Address Omitted). My property backs up to this development. I've heard everybody, you know, speak their pieces and, you know, I'll give everybody, you know, A's for some of these things and they're talking about who's lying to who and what's going on. But I want to just point out one thing. The obvious is if you're going to have 312 units of millennials, whoever, everybody on the planet I know that is of driving age has a car. So, you're talking about 624 cars. And they're going to be making two trips a day, one to work and one home and maybe another one. So, that 200 and some trips is sugarcoating that. You know, you're looking at 600-plus trips a day out of there for your traffic. My wife said the things about the school and that's -- a lot of the feedback we're getting, we put our house up for sale right after this began and that's a huge issue. It's been a huge issue. My realtor is here. You guys can ask him. I know some of the people here. I went to school and got a degree in 2010 in public administration. I took a number of courses that address urban development and these urban areas where people can walk to school or work, whatever. That works fine on the east coast, the high density living areas on the west coast where there are subways, busses, all kinds of transportation. The Midwest is spread out. People want area and they don't want to be on top of each other. That's why I built my house in 1995 where I did. I have a large lot. I back right up to this thing here. I'm not in favor of a lot in there, but the last project was going to put 67 patio homes in there that were going to be owned by people. And I'm going to finish this off by saying that when I took a course on the impact of local and social resource management and urban policy and administration, the major input for getting
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 55 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
jobs and for businesses in the city are commercial and professional and manufacturing facilities. We can get those, we have some, but there's some out there. The economy has made it hard I'll admit, and I'm going to give credit to the staff. I mean, you guys worked on this, I understand. But this is not a good fit in this area. Warehousing, the people want entertainment. They want theaters and they want -- the last thing they put out are residential homes with ownership. The people own these homes. They take care of them. They mow their yards. They keep the paint up. They do it because they own it and they have investment in it. I have investment in my home. Our area is quite frankly people are having to take far less money for their homes, and a lot of it has to do with this. I have a couple of people that have shown interest in my house, but they're waiting to see what happens here tonight. Anyway, I'm going to just leave you with the fact that our ward is against this. And we have elected you guys to give us -- to take care of our needs and our votes. And like I say, the rest of you all, there's a lot of people out here that are taking exception to this. And at, you know, at election is when we'll -- we pay back for whatever happens. So, we appreciate your time. And like I say you can sugarcoat a lot of things. And I'll give you guys credit, you got a big ad which was nice and you're paying an attorney to come explain all this stuff and try to right the things that maybe you said wrong. But, you know, we can't do that. And then the six people that wanted to get up there and show everything that we had going were limited to five minutes and we don't have time for that. So, I'm just going to leave you with that and I hope you do the right thing. This is a good thing in another spot. It's not a good thing right here on Pflumm Road and 61st Street. Thank you for your time.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Next, please.
MR. NACHBAR: I'm Greg Nachbar. I live at (Address Omitted). There is one thing I did agree with what the developer's speaker said that a look at the past is a prediction of the future. I'm paraphrasing that a little bit, but you kind of go with that Cottonwood Park, Shawnee Station, a couple of those apartment complexes. That'll kind of predict the future if you take on this new project. So, I think we know what that's brought to the area. We talked about the schools. We talked about the crime in the area. That's all part of it. Also I'm not surprised that the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce is for this project. We've had three tenants, recently the 10 Quivira Plaza. You know, Merriam is getting all kinds of stuff. Lenexa, Kansas City, Kansas. We've got to get something, but something is not this project. Let's do something, Chamber, to bring in some business. Now, talking the $400,000 tax incentive that the area is going to get. How much of that exactly is going to Shawnee? What's the additional cost for the traffic, the crime, the additional policing that we have to do of the areas? Can we take that all into consideration? One thing when this project was first proposed it was luxury, now it's quality. Where are we going now? What's next? You know, let's be smart here, Mayor, City Manager, City Councilmembers. This is not the project for this place. We're not against development of the area. We're just for a better project and this is not it. Thank you for your time and we expect you to vote the right way. Thank you.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Next, please. Okay. If there is no further public input, I will ask if there is any discussion from the Council.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 56 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MR. BRUNING: If I may.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.
MR. BRUNING: Ken Bruning, (Address Omitted) in Pflumm Wood. I didn't come with a bunch of statistics tonight. I did a little research online talking about looking at property values, whether they're improved or diminished by the construction of apartment complexes. All of us here can take the time to look that up because you're going to have one university study that says it has no negative impact. Another university study will say that it does have a negative impact. What I'm here to address more than anything is about the character of Shawnee. I moved to Shawnee 11 years ago coming up from New Orleans and my wife and I looked all over the metropolitan area and we chose Shawnee because Shawnee has a character of being a warm, small town. Frankly, apartments don't lend to the feeling of a warm, small town. And particularly in the location that you've all chosen or that the developer has chosen. I'm not against apartments per se. But when you're going to put up 40-plus foot buildings right across the street from single family housing, these people are going to have to wake up every day, look out their front door and look at these huge monstrosities across the street. Plus add to that the fact that renters really don't have an investment in our community. Homeowners have an investment in our community. And that land I really believe would be better suited for development of single family housing. In real estate they like to say location, location, location. Well, this location really in my opinion doesn't suit the climate of the neighborhood. I don't think it reflects the best interest of the residents in that neighborhood. I know the money that will be generated from it for the City coffers is attractive, but let's maintain the culture of that part of our community. And lastly, in respect to the people that have all been standing out here voicing their concerns, I'd have to ask each and every one of you individually if you would be willing to vote for a 40-foot, multiple 40-plus foot dwellings, being apartment complexes, being constructed right across the street from your own homes. I think there are better locations in Shawnee for this and I don't think any of you would want them in your own neighborhood. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. HENRY: Hi. My name is Eric Henry. I live at (Address Omitted). I won't take up the whole five minutes. I do want to challenge the developer's lawyer though. He said that this was the right site for the right project and he said it's the right developer. I can't speak to the developer, but I can speak to the site and the project. It's the wrong site for this project. I think this project is probably good for the City in another location. I look at Lenexa and I see 435 has got apartments all the way up it. I think that we should look at that type of development along our corridor. I think we have the land that we could do this with, but this is a residential area and I don't think it fits. I hope that you all will look at this and deny it. Thank you.
(Applause)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mayor, you said earlier you get two fives. I'm going to use one of my second five. One thing you don't know that this is room is full. Everybody knows that. But what you didn't see out in the hallway there were about 60 people in
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 57 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
the chairs. They were all full. And everybody out there was against this. And the second, that's enough.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Any other public input? Okay.
MR. CHALK: When does the clock start this time because I think last time it started earlier, but I'm not going to take five minutes. I want to speak of one other thing that I am constantly fighting with on City Council, and that's Widmer Road. The extension of Widmer Road from north, from 62nd Street down to the cul-de-sac. As stated, the proposed developer is not required to extend it. And there is a requirement though for them to set aside 30 feet of a right-of-way. This is supposed to accommodate additional development. Have you been on this road where this additional development can occur? I know of two members of this Council that have that. There is only the possibility of two lots that are on Mrs. Dudley's property that could be developed, but the cost of road improvement and utility construction negates that possibility. Drainage and terrain makes the rest of her property impractical for development. That's why the developer in 1976 did not do so with those lots. To develop anything on my property would have to be in the form of putting in caves because that's what the terrain looks like. Councilmembers, please do your work.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Any further public input? Okay. And actually before I open it up to Council --
MR. FARMER: Pardon me. I'm John Farmer. I live at (Address Omitted). And I hear all the things that these people have been saying tonight and I agree with many of them. If everyone says if you were putting single dwelling houses in this area where each person owned his house and would take care of it for years, if you revisit apartment complexes years later you know what happens. Now, no one said anything about return revenue that you're going to receive in the City. And I think you should check out, have someone look at how much the property values will decline in the single dwellings around this complex so that you'll end up not in the long run not getting any more revenue than you would have gotten if you hadn't done this. So, thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay. Before I open this up for Council discussion, I had a question for Mr. Peterson if that's okay.
MR. PETERSON: Yes, ma'am.
MAYOR DISTLER: And now I can't figure out which name it was that asked the question. The one that had the chart that showed like the property 2013 and then two years later it was sold or whatever. Now, is that from one of those other two silos that you were talking about earlier? It's not their development silo, but one of their other arms of their business, or what was that that we were looking at?
MR. PETERSON: I'm glad you asked the question. There's a handful of items that I felt were veering off into probably unintentional misinformation again, and that's one of them. So, Vantage is a product. It's like we said, products are repeated, you know, in different areas, and Vantage is one of those products. This developer has never
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 58 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
developed a Vantage project. This is the first time. They have purchased the rights from Clermont who has developed approximately 20 of these products in Texas and some other places. So, anytime someone is going off and googling Vantage, and again, I don't blame them. This is what -- I'm setting the record straight under oath, on the record. This is the facts. This developer has never developed a Vantage project. So, this other developer, which frankly I don't have -- I don't really know much about Clermont because it's not my client and they have -- they're not the developer and the owner of this project. They may have sold projects. That may be what others in the community are finding, but it would be -- it's absolutely wrong to make any connection between that developer building that product elsewhere and whether they flip or don't flip or whatever they do.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Answer the question.
MR. PETERSON: And that's not who's here. We are someone else doing the Vantage product and we have never flipped. That is on the record one hundred percent accurate.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.
MR. PETERSON: And, Mayor, if you want me to address a few of the public comments, or I can wait for Council to address.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You've already had your [inaudible] minutes.
MR. PETERSON: Because again, there's still some misrepresentation out there.
MAYOR DISTLER: Well, and for those making the comments about the time, Mr. Chaffee and Mr. Peterson were giving a presentation so that the Council and the people in this meeting could have an opportunity to see and understand the details of the project. They were not here as a part of public input. So, Council, do want Mr. Peterson to address now or do you want to have discussion first?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Let him address it.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Please go ahead.
MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Mayor. And again, I'm not going to go line by line from what everybody said, but I tried to do a good job of listening carefully and clumping into categories. And I'll start with the first category that I heard, the very first speaker of the night brought – the very first speaker of the night brought up and then I heard it resounding. I tried to lift a few quotes just to -- it's a very important concept here, so I'll read a few of them. Of course they're paraphrased, but I think you'll recognize them all. One, apartments of any kind do not fit on this site. This is not small town Shawnee. Renters do not invest in this City. And this is a paraphrase, but I know you'll recognize the sentiment. This does not belong in our back yards. If this was your back yard, Councilmen, would you like this project in your back yard. And all of those items fit within the bucket of concepts or comments that I tried to address on behalf of the developer in our presentation which is those are 50,000 feet. Those are just we don't like apartments. They don't drill -- any of those comments don't drill down to the
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 59 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
specifics of the zoning application before you, don't take into consideration the medium density master plan and all that. So, frankly, those are not valuable to you because they don't get to the heart of what you as a deliberative body are supposed to consider. They're just high level we don't like apartments and not in my back yard. So, that's one -- a lot of the comments made, Mayor, fall into that category and, frankly, don't carry weight in a deliberative process under Kansas law for zoning.
But let's get to some of the more specific comments. I'm glad you brought up the next one on the list specifically it's so important to understand who the developer is. That's one of the biggest areas of misinformation that hopefully we tried to address in our opening presentation and then with the follow-up, Mayor, with you on what Vantage is. Hopefully that's crystal clear. Again, we are not Clermont who has developed the other 20 Vantage products. This is our first time to get the opportunity to do it. And again, we have never sold a project that we've built.
Next, there was a few comments that fell into the category of, you know, I think they were talking about -- these individuals were talking about the Vantage products when they talked about how they were being managed poorly. Again, that has nothing to do with us. It was interesting though, it's important to note without getting too far into the weeds, that the slide that was put up that talked about management companies doing a bad job, again, that's not us. But it made me wonder the source because some of you are in the industry and may recognize it. Gray Star, which was on there getting an F is one of the largest multi-family, well-respected property managers in the country. And I don't want to bring up other clients by name, but institutionally back some of the top multi-family developers in the country. They're developing tall buildings in Kansas City, Missouri, downtown and things like that use Gray Star and some of the others on that list. So, I just want to offer up to you I'm not prepared to go through each line. I just don't know what that source was and I would say it doesn't really carry any weight again because we manage our own projects. But it's scary when you see somebody putting F's on a piece of paper up on the screen, so I wanted to at least address it. It's just not - - it's not relevant to what's going on here with this project which we always manage ourselves. Also when you see things like, wow, this project is cockroaches and all these sorts of things. Again, not us. Those were I think some other developer and I can't speak to that. But keep in mind, you know when you go to a restaurant or you go to a hotel or whatever, you're looking up online and you look to see if there's any comments, again, they weren't talking about us as a manager or owner. But keep in mind that you can always find somebody complaining about something. And certainly if you have 300 units of triple Class A luxury sky rise apartments in downtown Chicago somebody is going to be upset that the plumber didn't come fast enough and put a bad review. So, I would say take it with a grain of salt when there is kind of platitude remarks about, again, it's not even us, but just that such and such multi-family developer or manager isn't doing a good job, that probably, although we couldn't see what the source was, it's somebody getting online and looking if somebody is complaining. It's just you'll get that in any industry anywhere. So, it really shouldn't carry any weight and certainly it doesn't apply here because it wasn't about us.
Ms. Robinson brought up something that really goes to the heart again here of who is going to rent this project. Actually she got to that, but she brought up an important point about rooftops. Really it was interesting, going against what I believe the Council has been pursing and believing as a whole, again, since I have been, you know, involved a
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 60 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
lot with projects here in the last four years. She said, well, it's not really about rooftops and cited a study that said there's, what, 20 factors or something like that that are going to lead you to be able to get the commerce, the commercial, the retail. But again, I hear through you that the citizens are asking for. And she said rooftops really aren't on the list. I've never read that study before, but I stand before you telling you this is my industry, and especially with top-notch grocery anchor, top-notch retails, the very phrase that when we get rejected by committee, by retailers, what do they say. They say not enough rooftops. I hear it week in and week out. It's a fact. I live in that industry. But then she brought up almost to the exclusion of that we're not saying that, you know, higher incomes and education, she put those as key factors on the list. This isn't to the exclusion of. Remember there is almost this subtle implication that this project is a below-market rent or affordable housing or something like that. I'm not here to debate the merits of affordable housing today because I don't have -- that's not what we're doing. So, I'll take, you know, the premise that education and high incomes are helpful also to bring commerce and retail and all that. And again, when you look at our rents, and they're the highest, they'd be the highest in the City and they're comparable with a lot of the projects in the metro, certainly not all, right. You're going to get higher rents and probably even higher amenities in downtown Kansas City, Missouri. But we're not trying to be the very best in the entire region. We're trying to be great and this is a great project. So, the idea again that somehow we're missing the mark on leading to that ever important commercial and density and all that, simply it's a nice piece of paper on the screen, but when you drill down to the heart of it and the facts, again, it just doesn't carry the day.
The school was brought up, and I think it was Ms. Nachbar, and I apologize if I have the wrong speaker, but brought up Broken Arrow. And the implication there, boiling it down, and there was a couple other speakers that brought this up that Broken Arrow will suffer if this project is approved. And I have to be honest on this, respectfully, calmly, I say I don't get it. I'm not following. I don't understand. I don't know translating what's that's - - what are those statements really meaning? I'm going to do my best. So, apartment dwellers at the highest rent project in town, at a Class A project, you can see it with your own eyes, that somehow kids of parents, or a parent or whoever it is, in this sort of project are somehow going to hurt Broken Arrow school. I don't know if there's a deeper message there. I'm not understanding it. But it's been said a number of times and we absolutely disagree with that premise there. We just don't get it. It's not true. I don't know why those kids are any different than the, you know, other kids in single- family homes around there. Again, this is almost a subtle mischaracterization of the project.
We then get to -- there's only a couple more, Mayor, a couple general categories of comments here. One is there is an implication that the citizens understand better. It's almost a low view of Shawnee. And again, that's my perception. I could be totally wrong, but you hear people saying, well, people aren't going to come here. People aren't going to come to your project. It's Shawnee. This developer wants to invest $35 million in this project and absolutely believes in Shawnee. They have market studies. They've been here. And they want to come do that. And I hear this, again, it's kind of a subtle, well, no. Not us. Young people won't come here. Boomers won't want to live in this project. And all I have to say is these folks have done this, you know, thousands and thousands of units and they've never had a bankruptcy and they've never had a failed project. I truly believe their past predicts their future success and they believe in
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 61 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Shawnee, so I'd hope that you can too and help them to make this investment of $35 million.
Remember when I said that on interior, I mean, we don't even usually talk about interior finish. I've never been actually -- never is a little strong. Almost never in the history of a zoning file have I ever been before a governing body talking at all about interior finish. Again, we're okay talking about interior finish. But what's interesting is the conversation when it comes to everybody trying to define what Class A is and, you know, what quality is, I told you because I just felt it was going to come that somebody is going to pick out a few things that they don't like about this project and then say it's low quality. Well, of course, you're always going to be able to look to a project and find something that it -- whatever. I'm making this up, but it doesn't have textured ceilings, it has a different type of ceiling. It doesn't have a ceiling fan that you can control. I mean, you can always come up with things. And when you really look at the big picture, I'm not going to go through every single amenity, and you get out whatever the, you know, our informational piece in the Dispatch or what we talked about today and you look through all the amenities, this is a quality project. Can somebody stand up and point out that it doesn't have this or that? Of course. But there's attention, right. Because you can't also charge above market rent. You bring in a quality project that you know, that this company knows is going to work and that's what you end up with, a very, very nice project. Sure. You could pick out a few more amenities, but you'd have to give up something else, right? You can only reach a certain investment in the project before it doesn't pencil. Quality, quality, regardless if somebody says it's missing, you know, some nit or nat in the interior finish.
Traffic. All I would say on traffic because there's been a lot of pictures shown. There's been a lot of first-hand eyewitness accounts that there is horrible traffic on Pflumm. And, Mayor, all I would say is don't even listen to me, listen to your own City's professional staff. This is why obviously they're paid to advise the City. They have reviewed third-party professional studies. They know how the roads are designed. There's going to be accidents on any road. I'm not surprised. You could pick any road and take a picture in a year and you're going to find an accident. But, please, don't listen to me, listen to your professional staff and understand that these roads were built for this. And, in fact, a project that was improved that would have put a lot more volume onto this road infrastructure. This is actually, you know, a very, very large reduction in that. So, things like bringing up there's 600 trips, you can't talk, and this is platitudes again. You have to listen to the professionals. They talk in peak flows and they know this road infrastructure will perform, which is why your professional staff is recommending it.
So, I think where I'd stop is just here. This is a turning point, Mayor. I firmly believe it. And again, these are opinions, right? You can freely disagree with me and I'm sure there are people in the room that disagree. But I will define this as a crossroads and a turning point for this city. It's nothing short of that. There has been 15 years since we've had a multi-family project. We've talked about the demographics and the studies that show you have to have this loop. You have to provide the various levels of accommodation in your city or it becomes unhealthy economically. You have a top- notch developer. A top-notch developer. We've set the record straight. I'm under oath. I have a reputation here. We're giving you the absolute facts, not googling online, with good intentions. We've given you the facts about this developer. Top-notch. They're
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 62 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
ready to go. They have their financing. They want to start this in the spring. If this gets turned down, I don't know, what does it signal I'd rhetorically ask. What does it signal to the development community when there is a piece of dirt that was intended by the City in the master plan for this purpose with a developer that has a top-notch product, the best in the City, and at the end of the day they're turned down. So, Mayor, I'd ask you please, everyone has a right to speak. Everyone has a right to talk about how they don't want something in their back yard. But we have to go from 35,000 feet down to the fine details and weigh this out for the overall City vision for where we want to head and allow this property owner to be -- to make this investment in the City. Thank you. Open to questions now or later.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Okay. Now, we will have Council discussion. And members of the -- public input is done now, so now we're opening it up to the Council for discussion. Councilmember Meyer.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Thank you. I actually have a couple of questions for Planning Director Chaffee if you don't mind. The first one is I'm curious about the initial master plan for the City. Mainly I'm looking at how long has the piece of property that we're looking at now been zoned multi-family and commercial?
MR. CHAFFEE: The City's Comprehensive Plan in 1987 indicated that a majority of the property be developed in a medium density residential manner. Upon approval of the TIF plan for the original Cobblestone, the corner was indicated for a higher type density office/retail type of development.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, and I know from the Cobblestone that that is the case. I'm looking at more how long, I know we've kind of kicked around 1987 as kind of when we're looking back at previous plans from every year that this property has been zoned with the intent to fill it with multi-family or commercial since 1987, is that correct?
MR. CHAFFEE: You're correct.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. One other question, unrelated. I understand that there are a number of duplexes which are multi-family I would say, but single, in the area. Do you know how many duplexes surround this development or the proposed development?
MR. CHAFFEE: Let me go from Rosehill to the homes on the west side of Albervan, which is about the same length from Pflumm Road going east and west and from Johnson Drive to Shawnee Mission Parkway, there are 80 duplex buildings which would be 160 residential units.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, land that has been zoned for exactly this purpose since 1987 that already has at least 160 duplexes almost immediately surrounding it. Thank you, Paul. I would just make a general comment based upon that. You know, I was on the Planning Commission for a number of years as well and I think what it is the role of this Council is to look at the intent. It is zoned multi-family. It is actually partially zoned commercial which is a higher density than what they are proposing. And if you look at every single piece of this guideline, they meet those expectations. Yeah. I think we've kicked around a lot of conversation about property
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 63 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
rights tonight, and I think you're absolutely right. This is a property rights issue because the people who own that land and bought that land intending to use it as prescribed to be used have the same rights to do with their land as we would. And I think we've gotten so into the weeds with what we should or shouldn't do with business, I would not ever want someone to come in and tell me what I can do with my business. I don't think any of us would feel that way either and now we're quibbling and saying they have a typo, oh, nobody is going to want to move here. That's not our role to decide whether they make a business decision. It's our role to determine what fits within the guidelines of the City. And in my opinion this clearly does.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your role is to uphold the will of the people.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you, Ms. Meyer.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. That is correct. You're voted in. Your job is --
MAYOR DISTLER: If we're going to be disruptive from the audience, I'm going to have to ask you to leave the room. The Council is having their discussion on this vote. Mr. Jenkins.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, in follow-up to the comments I just heard we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all if this property that they're proposing fit the zoning requirements. We're talking about a zoning change in order to fit this. That's what this is all about. There asking -- requesting to change zoning. So, it doesn't meet everything. Yes, it meets the master plan, but, you know, we work with the master plan. I was on the Planning Commission for over 20 years, so I have a little bit of knowledge in that area myself. Okay. And the bottom line is that master plan we constantly updated to try to reflect what the zonings are and so on. We changed zoning a number of times to fit the master plan better. This wasn't changed. It still needs to be changed in order to accommodate this development. Now, I disagree with the idea that high density in-fill projects are a good thing. These neighborhoods are mature. People have the right to have the living climate they moved here for. As a good case in point I've been to several of the Meet the Mayor Thursdays. Each time Mayor Distler asks that each person introduce themselves and say what they like about Shawnee. Over and over you hear about how they like the small town atmosphere and the comfort they find in their neighborhoods. I believe the City of Shawnee did a good in zoning when they zoned this land. Competent planners did not foresee this high of a density for this area. Often the City requires transitional densities of development as you go from single- family residential to higher density development and we're certainly not doing that here. We're going from residential, bam, right into the high density apartment buildings. There is no buffer in between. There is no quadplexes or duplexes or some kind of transitional zone which is going to buffer these people from that sort of development. Now, I'm not saying this developer has planned or proposed a bad development. I think it's a good project. It's just in the wrong place. I agree with that, what people are saying.
(Applause)
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 64 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It's a great project in the wrong place. And I really kind of don't like to hear aspersions cast upon that because it's not really appropriate. The bottom line is it doesn't belong there. It just doesn't belong there. Finally, this Governing Body represents the people of Shawnee and that's you.
(Applause)
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: As a representative elected by the people of Ward II, I have a moral and an ethical obligation to hear those people and what they have asked me to do. And I have to represent them and use all of my power that I have to ensure that my constituents are well represented and their community stays theirs. And that's all I have to say about this, gentlemen.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Thank you.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I'd like to go ahead and start off by thanking everybody who is here for giving their input. I think we're all very passionate about our community and that's been shown tonight, regardless of which side we're on. And also I'd like to acknowledge that there's many people who couldn't be heard tonight as well due to jobs, families, and you know, taking their points into consideration as well.
Me personally I've heard people both reach out to me for and against this project, by e- mail and by phone. And, you know, one thing that I want to highlight. I'm 30 years old, so I fit the profile of a millennial. I think I'm the youngest person on this Governing Body and I also work with a lot of millennials as well. I work for a technology company with over 400 employees in the area, so I understand the concern, the residential concerns. I will remind the Governing Body that we a have responsibility to making decisions that are the best for the entire city, for the neighborhoods around the project, but as well as the City as a whole and our growth and development. One thing that was mentioned by Mr. Peterson earlier, he had mentioned the housing stock and the percentage. In Shawnee, 24 percent of our housing stock is apartments. And Overland Park, as he mentioned, that's 38 percent. I took the liberty of contacting the City Manager of Lenexa to get an idea of what their percentage is, and it's 31 percent. So, the idea that we have too many apartments is just not true based on the surrounding areas, number one. So, that's something to take into consideration when we make statements that we have too many apartments already in Shawnee. I happen to live down the street from Tuckaway. In fact, it's on my jogging trail. I do live in a home that I purchased in Shawnee. I've lived here 12 years. I know that when I first moved here I looked at Tuckaway as an option. They had a waiting list at the time and there was no way that I was going to be able to get in at time. I've called them recently. They continue to have a waiting list. That tells me that there is a market demand for high quality apartments within the City and that demand is not being met by just a couple of apartment complexes number one. Number two, having worked with a lot of millennials, it's not a question of affluence or being able to necessarily be able to afford a single residential home, it's a matter of desire and want. I work with many people who want maintenance provided communities. They have the salary level to be able to afford homes throughout the City
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 65 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
as well as Johnson County, but out of choice they would prefer maintenance provided living. Some of them travel and are on the road and so they don't have the time for upkeep. And others are involved in a number of things and just don't, and do not want a home. So, I think it's a misnomer to say that everybody aspires to single-family residential. That's a trend that we've seen changing within the last 20 years really. And I work with many people, only a couple of whom live in Shawnee within that 20 to 30 demographic. Many of them live in Crossroads. Many of them live in the downtown urban core of Kansas City. Others live in apartments in Leawood, Prairie Village and Lenexa. And the answer I get time and time again is that there aren't apartments, quality apartments in Shawnee that they want to move to. There isn't a space for them here. Several of them would love to live here because they work either along the Johnson Drive corridor or the Shawnee Mission corridor or they live just a little bit further south and the office developments out there. So, I think it's -- we would have young people that would move here because not all of them work in downtown Kansas City. Several of them work here in Johnson County and they want to be close to where they work. But if we don't have the opportunities for them to do that, they will move further out, which many of them have done. It's a known fact that we have a growing high growth industry within Kansas City, particularly with Google fiber coming here and the startup community. We have thriving bioscience industry. We have a thriving tech industry, information services, logistics, transportation. We see what Cerner is doing just north of here. We see what's happening in southern Johnson County. So, the question is there is going to be housing demand and need. Many of those people will go to communities where that demand and that need is being met. And another thing that was mentioned too is that a lot of the growth is primarily along the 435 corridor or highways. I think we shouldn't neglect to mention that Lenexa is redeveloping their entire city center around that area, 435, where those apartment complexes are going. They're moving city hall. They want to move their library out there. There is going to be a fitness center. They're making it into a walkable community. That is going to be the center of Lenexa ten years from now. There is no question about that. That's been part of their plan. Similarly, I consulted work in downtown Overland Park, they have two new developments that are going up there. The View, a 216-unit development, 10,000 square feet, as well as Market Lofts that are going. Those are both going around 80th and Marty area. Both of those projects are being funded as a CID district with an added one-cent sales tax which this developer has asked for no incentives. So, just another point to illustrate that there is inner-development happening, so it's not just when it comes to apartment complexes and condos, it's not just along highways. But you see this trend towards city centers. And many of those suburbs in Johnson County, in particular, providing these options. Both Overland Park and Lenexa have those at various places. So, and I would say too, I know a lot has been brought up about the 1985 denial of an apartment complex then. I would just, you know, cautiously suggest that communities change over time. 1985 was the last time the Royals won the World Series before this year. That was also the year that I was born. It was before my family actually moved to this county. In 1985, Shawnee had just a little bit over 30,000 residents. I think it was 32,000. We've more than doubled in growth. We're up to 65,000 residents as of last census. So, our community has grown. And as communities grow you have change in demographics, you have different work patterns and you have different industries and companies come in as well. So, just something to be cognizant of as far as that goes. You know, and I would also add, too, that for all the talk about apartment complexes and about those people, because they don't have ownership, not necessarily being part of the community. My parents moved here and
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 66 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
they did not purchase a home right away in Johnson County because they could not afford a home. They moved into an apartment complex. They moved into one in Lenexa. They were looking for a suitable and adequate apartment and that's where they found one in the metro. And so they lived there until -- and so I spent most of my childhood there until they could afford and save up for a house. They didn't want to have to finance a lot of it. They saved and spent as they made. And so when they were able to afford and put more than enough for the down payment to where they could buy most of the house, that's when we moved into a home. So, I would not be here and I would not be part of the community that I'm a part of if it wasn't for that decision to move to Johnson County and to move to an apartment complex. And so I've grown up here my entire life. Been a member of the community. A Shawnee Mission Northwest graduate. A-plus honor roll student. And the opportunities that were afforded to me was because of the community and the options that we had here.
But the last thing I would leave with is that I work with a couple of people right now, I have somebody I know who lives in Shawnee that's thinking about moving to a loft in downtown. Hasn't decided yet, but they want that smaller more minimalistic space. Again, there really weren't -- aren't a lot of options. And I think valid points have definitely been made about some of the apartment complexes that we already have in the City. And I think we can look back to prior approvals that were made on different complexes and agree that there were probably decisions made as far as growth that probably could have been made in a much better fashion. But I think that we also have to look to the future. And I have one person that I know of who lives in a single-family home right now who is looking to downsize and they don't know -- he doesn't know where he's going to move right now. He's a neighbor. I've talked to him and he's looking at -- he's looking at downtown, but he's also looking at Leawood and he's also looking at Prairie Fire over in southern Overland Park. So, I ask that you keep everybody in mind, too, and keep those people in mind who want to be part of our community and haven't had that opportunity yet. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Sandifer.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. I was on a housing task force ten years ago in the county. And the county had -- their staff saw this coming of the need for the housing. And we worked for quite some time trying to put together a plan that all the different cities could work through. Overland Park, Lenexa and several other cities jumped on this plan and they built several of these units that are like what this particular unit is. This is what's bringing it out in the community. This is -- they have waiting lists on these. I have a daughter that just got a divorce. She lived with us for a year. She has four children. She wanted to get out on her own. She just did. She's been looking around Shawnee. There's two available or places that she would even live in and it would have been Tuckaway or Greens of Shawnee. There's waiting lists for eight months. Any of the other units around here, and I don't want to say bad about them, but the insurance rates are higher because there's more crime in them. This particular unit I had to get wrapped around because I wasn't sure about it and I don't like apartments anyway. My daughter cannot live in Shawnee because there isn't anything available. You know, there is a need for this. You know, she's paying $1,700 a month rent for a 35-year-old apartment at 95th and Mission. You know, this would be a better deal for her. And that's to some opinions. I've done some research on this. I've checked into it a lot. And if I didn't believe in this, I was totally against it up until about a week ago. I
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 67 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
was not even considering it until I got into the nuts and bolts of this to find out the income levels of the people that would be able to afford this. And it's not a low income housing. You know, you guys can think it is all you want. And you can think that, you know, you're going to put criminals in some place that they have to have a card to get out of. They can't get out of there fast enough. You know, come on. We have Tuckaway that has a gated community right down by me. Tuckaway has been, what, crime free, is that true?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Basically crime free.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes. So, I was against Prairie Lakes which is right by my house. And we were sold a bill of goods on Prairie Lakes and I was against it. I was on the Planning Commission and the people came up and asked us to vote for it. I didn't want to vote for it. It's right in my back yard for say. But there's been people shot and killed there. People drown in the pool or in the lake there. It's been -- it's a crime area. It has not affected the value of my house or the houses around me. They're selling as fast as they go on the market. So, for people to come up and say all of this when I already know the difference, you know, people are talking about the values of the houses. We have the values of the houses that are around the Prairie Lakes ordeal and it's a subsidized, low-income, rental unit. And the property values have done nothing but go up from -- and that's proved by sales and by the county. You know, so it's very hard to turn something down when you've done some research on it and you really believe the City needs it. And most of the people you'll talk to in this City are going to tell you, yes, we need something. There's no question about it, we need it. And now, you know, this is what's in front of us at this time. You know, as of like that was said, since 1987 there hasn't been anything to be able to put on -- they couldn't -- nobody could afford to address the issues on the property and build a project. There was too much property involved. We have an issue on the table. He has the financing. How do we know another is going to come? I mean, if any of you people owned property and you came to the City Council with a project like this and you really felt in your heart that it was a good project and you come up here and we tell you, hey, we don't think you want to -- we want that there right now. Why don't you just keep paying taxes on that property and we'll let you know down the road. You know, that's just not fair to it. And, you know, you guys can sit back and say whatever you want, but if it was your own property you would look at this 100 percent differently than what you are. You know, that's the way it is. I mean, as been told many times before, if people do not want property to be developed, they need to buy it. You know, so this particular ordeal I was against until I got into the nuts and bolts of it and I got -- and it's not what I was told it was and it's not the way it was represented to me.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sorry. First of all, I want to thank Vantage for bringing their project to Shawnee. I mean, there's a lot of great comments of both sides. And the big deal here is that the project does not fit our zoning, otherwise we wouldn't be having this vote. We'd be on to the next steps. So, I mean, I don't see how with the public outcry on this project, and they all had some great, great things. And I hope you didn't offend any of them when you came back on them because they brought some real experts in. They did their research. I want to commend you guys for doing a great job. I mean, there's nothing I don't believe. And then, you know, some of this stuff that
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 68 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
was presented, you know, came across as, you know, you just didn't get off on the right foot. If you want to do a job, like Mr. Sandifer said, in the community, I mean, there is a give and take there. Okay. So, I was kind of under the impression when you guys had some more time that you were going to address some of those concerns that those people had. And it wasn't addressed in the concerns, it was addressing the comments that were made at the meeting. There was no changes made. Okay. So, really I think the people did a helluva job putting all their information together. And, I mean, there's just no way that this project fits on that piece of property. So, I mean, that's where I'm at.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, here we go. I'll be honest with you, you know, when this first project came about I wasn't -- I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm Ward III. I drive -- I'm a driver for economic development. I always have been. And when I first heard some of the comments by the Planning Commission, yeah, I had my reservations and that's why I think the developer realized that some information was getting misconstrued and got us the correct information. There's been some talks on subsidized housing. I'm going to say right now that's a non-issue, it's not going to happen. You can't spend $34 million today with no incentives and subsidize a project and get a return. You're going to lose money. You're going to go bankrupt. Something was said about, look at the projects that were built and look how they look today. There were certain projects, some of the last ones built in Shawnee that were built specifically Section 42 projects that did become subsidized, and that was probably the developer's intent from the beginning and that's why they were Section 42, which is tax credit projects. And that's how they ended up as subsidized projects. We have a project here that is no incentives. And the last project Cobblestone that everybody supports we got our butts kicked by a lot of people because we approving $11 million in incentives. And people said how could you do that, how dare you do that. So, now we're looking at a project that does fit within the zoning. The Planning Commission approved it 8-2. It's in the master plan that was put in in 1987. So, I understand that people built their houses there. Some of the houses were there about the same time, built before that, but a lot of the newer, nicer houses were built since 1987. No different than I bought my house - - I built my house off of K-7 in Crimson Ridge and, you know, I'm a few hundred yards from railroad tracks. And there is people that have built in my neighborhood that didn't know there was railroad tracks there and then all of a sudden we're upset because, well, I hear a train. Did you look at the railroad tracks and realize that you're 200-300 yards from tracks. That's just -- you've got to do your homework. And when you build a house next to a field you need to go into city hall and you need to say what's the master plan on this field. That's just how it is. That's why we master plan, so people can make decisions in the future. Do you all want to build next to a field that's master planned multi-family? Because there's a chance that's what's going to get built. And there's no guarantee it's going to be something that you necessarily want.
Let's talk about the some of the apartments when we talking about them looking bad. Nieman Square. Every one of these I've talked about is older than 15 years. Nieman Square Apartments was behind Color Tile. 7.46 acres, 152 units. They've got a nine- month waiting list. Their apartments start at $785 a month for a one bedroom.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 69 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Extremely popular with working professionals because of their access to both highways. They have no subsidy vouchers accepted. It appraises for $11.2 million, $155,000 tax benefit to Johnson County, $31,640 tax benefit to Shawnee. Pinegate West, 20.4 acres, 286 units. They essentially run at a hundred percent. Usually they'll say 98 percent because you always have the one that becomes empty. You've got a two or three-month period of turnaround. But they essentially look at themselves as a hundred percent full. Starting in the 700s, no vouchers, appraised at 19.9 million, $276,000 benefit to Johnson County, $56,000 benefit to Shawnee. Hampton Woods. I lived in Hampton Woods when I was 19 years old. I was one of the first people. In fact, I was the first one in my unit. Thirty-nine acres essentially, 344 units. They run 96 percent plus full, 700, they start in the mid-700s. No vouchers, $19.2 million appraisal, $268,000 benefit to the community -- to Johnson County, $54,000 to Shawnee. Tuckaway, 22.7 acres, 263 units, 8 -- they start at 825 for one bedroom up to almost $1,000 for two bedroom, hundred percent full, small waiting list, no vouchers. Appraised at $25 million, $349,000 taxes to Johnson County, $71,800 to Shawnee.
Interesting thing. I got to talking to the manager who has been there since day one, the manager and the maintenance guy at Tuckaway, been there since the day they were built. Average demographic that they're getting coming into their apartment, 40-year-old professionals, 40-year-old professionals. So, what we're saying is we don't want 40- year-old professionals in Shawnee. That's not the demographic we're looking for. That's what I'm hearing people say because basically what essentially is presented to us is a project very similar to Tuckaway, 40-year-old professionals which describes some of the people sitting at this table. The other thing that he said that they're seeing in the last few years is they're filling up with people that have sold their home and have not identified a home to purchase. And he said that's the biggest growth area they have right now. So, there's a lot of people out there because of this market we have, we have a high market and they sell their home and they're not able to go and purchase something they want or find what they want, so they're renting an apartment. He says what's interesting though is a lot of these people sign a six-month lease and some are there three years later because they go, you know, I kind of enjoy having the lawn mowed for me and having the amenities. So, this is from a guy that's been at that property since day one who says this is a big growth. This is an area of growth for them. People selling their houses and moving into an apartment waiting for that next house to come up. Now, do we want them to move into an apartment in Lenexa or Overland Park or Olathe and then take the chance of that house they buy? Once you get connected to an area and you like the amenities all of a sudden you're buying a house in that area and we lose that person. I'm not sure we'd want that.
Every one of those projects are still attractive projects. They're vibrant projects. They're not collecting vouchers. They were built market rate. They're still market rate. When a project is built market rate and is built in a quality area it stays that way. And I believe that's what is being presented to us.
Just to throw in another one just to give you an idea, which is totally off the radar from the market rate apartments, one of Shawnee's more vocal residents, Ray, lives in Carlisle Apartments. 23 acres, 436 units. That's appraised at $18 million. That's got $258,000 to the tax rolls and $51,000 to Shawnee. And that's I believe they probably have -- take vouchers in those apartments. So, some interesting facts. People talk about Cottonwood Apartments. Keep in mind Cottonwood was built in 1973. 1973.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 70 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
That's an old apartment. That's nothing that was built new. That's not like we approved this thing here recently. It was built in '73. That's an old, old apartment complex.
I've heard a few times that this is a residential community. Apartments shouldn't be allowed as though apartments aren't residential. It's residential. It's taxed residential. Your assessed value is residential, not commercial. It's 11.5 percent, same as your house when you're assessed. So, it's, you know, to say that this is a residential community or a residential area, we don't want apartments, well, that's residential. I mean, not everybody can afford to build a house or buy a house. And like we've heard, and I'm in commercial real estate, I've done plenty of research and I see plenty of material. That is a huge growing trend. The millennials and the younger professionals, they don't want to buy. They watched their parents get burned on their house. They watch the market crash. They are very apprehensive of dropping that 10-20 percent down payment on a house and hope it all works out. Many of them stay in their job for a couple of years and want to move. The days of having a 30-year career with the company, that just doesn't happen. So, they want to be a little bit more flexible. That might change down the road, but this is what we're dealing with right now. And I think it's going to probably -- it's kind of how the business community is working now. People work on projects for a couple years and then they move on and people come and go. But, you know, they have expendable income and they want a place to spend it.
When we talk about building on the highway the reality is go find a piece of land on 435 you can build an apartment in Shawnee. There isn't one. Number one, at Johnson Drive you have a landfill at 47th and Holliday Drive, between that you have a landfill and nobody is going to build an apartment complex near a landfill. And there's not a flat piece of ground. The only flat, in fact it's not even flat, but the only piece of ground that really makes sense is the Hodgkin property. We passed a TIF four years ago on it and we haven't had a single looker on it. And you couldn’t build an apartment complex on it because access is so difficult you couldn't get to it, so even if you built it nobody would be able to find it or access it unless millions of dollars are spent with some kind of exit on and off for 435. So, yeah, we can say go build them on the highway. Go find a piece of ground on 435. There's nothing flat or exists right now that you could build or on the market that you could build an apartment complex like this. So, then the next thing is we go out to K-7. Well, the reality is, is the Greens at K-7, they haven't built their -- they own the piece of ground to build Phase 2. They haven't done it because they don't run a hundred percent because K-7 is that far out. So, they have good residents, but they're not getting the millennials. What they get out there believe or not is a lot of divorced people that end up in there with their children and whatever because you have this giant residential community and they want to stay close in the school district, so you have a high percentage of that. And, yes, you have working professionals in there, but it's not attracting the millennials out there because it's on K-7. That's where I live. It's far out there. So, you know, will that come, yeah. Do we want to ten years to see another one get built? I don't think so. I think we're going to miss our window of opportunity.
It's been said that these by someone who works in the apartment industry that these are below rents, these aren't. When you look at their starting rents this is right in there with everything competitive, if not higher than a lot of the market rate apartment are. So, I don't know where that's coming from. But it's just not true.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 71 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Some of the other things I hear from people in Shawnee is employees. They have a hard time hiring people. You know, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Johnson County in Shawnee. Well, there's a lot of employers that that's tough on them. Whether it's the retail industry or warehousing, whatever it is, they have a difficult time hiring anybody from the local community, mostly because we don't have the product. We're at the 20-something percent versus these other communities at 30-some percent of that age bracket, which would supply that workforce. And we're not supplying the workforce. You know, I grew up in -- actually I spent my high school -- junior and high school years in Wyandotte County. When I turned 18 years -- 19 years old I moved out of my parents' house. Everybody said how come you didn't stay in Wyandotte County. Wyandotte County hadn't built an apartment complex in years. They finally built one, a new one, Village West Apartments, or I think -- whatever they're called, out there on 110th Street, just this last couple of years. But for years they had not had an apartment product. That was a major detriment for them. And when you look at the Village West development with all the restaurants and everything they had one of the biggest problems those retailers faced was A, we have a hard time getting employees, and B, we need a mass of people here to feed this animal. It's working, but there's not enough rooftops and they need the rooftops and that's what's coming.
I love hearing the sentiment that if it's not owned it's not kept up. I see a lot of home ownership where the grass is 12 inches tall, the shutters are falling off, broken windows, un-maintained, unkempt, unpainted houses. When you look at apartment complexes they're typically maintained by, and I'm not saying people in this room houses are like that, but we see them and they're out there. When you look at apartment complexes they're maintained on a regular basis. They have crews that come in and mow the grass every week. They have crews that will plow. They have crews that trim the trees. It's called property management. And so you contract it. It's probably done on a little bit more regular basis than what some other people do. And like I said if you drive through Hampton Woods, you drive through Tuckaway, you look at them all, they're very -- they're well-kept and they're attractive projects and that's what being recommended here.
So, I'm going to back to the whole, and I like the property rights. You know, this is a property, they own it. It's in the master plan. We have a project that fits that and as a property owner I think they have the right to sell the property and I think the developer has the right to develop it within the plan that we've prescribed or we've put forth or the expectations.
When it comes to representative government I hear all you people, but there's a whole lot of people that do support this project and we got e-mails from them. And I'll also say that my job is not always to vote what everybody tells me I should because everybody could stand up and say we don't like paying taxes, lower the mill levy by ten mills. If I have 2,000 people tell me that does that mean I should vote that way? No. Because that would crash the City's checkbook. So, I'm elected to do what's best for the community. I'm elected to do what I think is best for the City of Shawnee and for the future of the City of Shawnee. I think this is what's best. I know people don't agree with it, but I've just go to look at it objectively with the facts that are presented to me and I think this is the thing to do.
MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 72 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify something that a couple of my colleagues have said, and one of them was a colleague on Planning. So, I know he knows the drill, but the reason we are here for a rezoning tonight is not because the current property does not fit within an apartment complex structure, it is because we are lowering the density to bring in the apartment complex because part of it is zoned for mixed use commercial. So, we are going lower in density. This area has always been and is appropriate absolutely for the type of development that we're coming in for. I think it is a complete red herring to say, oh, they're coming before us now because it's not zoned appropriately. It absolutely is.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling and then Mr. Neighbor.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I actually have a couple questions to ask Mr. Chaffee because I was not on the Planning Commission like these other two, and I want some clarification.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How did you ever get elected?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I don't know. I'd like to clarify a couple terms I've heard, and I don't know if they're interchangeable, but I felt like they were. When you were talking with Ms. Meyer, she was using the term multi-family and you were using the term medium density. Do those mean the same thing?
MR. CHAFFEE: They can. Medium density gives a feel for a unit per acre. A multi- family is, oh, as Ms. Meyer felt, even duplex being multi-family because it's more than one or condominium or an apartment or whatever maybe.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I guess when I read these zoning titles though I don't see the term medium density, I don't see the term multi-family. I see Planned Unit Development, Mixed Residential.
MR. CHAFFEE: Let me clarify that a little bit for you too. The Land Use Guide in the Comprehensive Plan makes the identifications as to density classifications where they're the general ranges, and like Mr. Peterson and I indicated before, it's not intended to be a maximum cap. So, that's the term that's used in the Comprehensive Plan when we're talking about the general nature of development. Throughout the community we have classifications called Public/Quasi-Public, which would be schools or the AT&T facility or a church. We don't have a zoning district that's called Public/Quasi-Public. So, the zoning district names are different than the terms that are used generally in the Comprehensive Plan. And you'll find that for every city that you have. With a PUD you're approving the zoning and you're also approving the development plan. So, while it looks a little weird in what we're doing, we're going from PUDMR which is Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential, which is the zoning category that we use for a multi-family development or it could be a development that has a combination of duplexes and multi-family units. And PUDMX, which is one of our newer zoning districts that we have which is more a mixed use where we have the Cobblestone development that was going to have some retail and some office and some residential in a three-story building, we didn't really have a zoning category until about three years ago that would even accommodate something like that. So, when
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 73 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
you have a PUD you're approving the zoning and you're approving the development plan. So, as it stands today we've got this Cobblestone plan that's sitting out there that's basically been approved. People's land is zoned either PUDMR or the PUDMX, and so we've rezoned it to PUDMR to adopt a new plan and the old plan goes away and then this is the new plan that's adopted. And the reason we're not using the PUDMX is that there is no indication of a mixed use type of structure that's being proposed at this time.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, did we change the zoning when we approved Cobblestone?
MR. CHAFFEE: We did.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: From what?
MR. CHAFFEE: It was R-1 and it was changed to the PUDMX and the PUDMR.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Because I heard you telling Ms. Meyer that in '87 this was multi-family housing, but you're telling me it was R-1 up until two years ago?
MR. CHAFFEE: No. We talked -- my response to Ms. Meyer was in the Comprehensive Plan it showed as medium density residential.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Medium density.
MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But that's different than multi-family housing?
MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. It shows as --
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, it wasn't zoned for apartments until --
MR. CHAFFEE: Wasn't zoned that way. The Land Use Guide indicated that an appropriate use for that property, which at the time in 1987 was still undeveloped, would be a medium density residential type development.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. That's what I was trying to get at.
MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I appreciate you clarifying that for me.
MR. CHAFFEE: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I don't know if this -- this is probably isn't worth saying, but I'd like to commend Mr. Logan for being able to respectfully disagree with the people that spoke. I was pretty disappointed in Mr. Peterson. I thought you were condescending and you insulted the people here. You said that they were using
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 74 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
platitudes, that there was no real honest debate. That your debate was based on facts and theirs was just googling online. I find that condescending. Maybe talk to Mr. Logan afterwards for some pointers because I was offended for my constituents, so.
(Applause)
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I'm not sure on the official definition of a young professional. If I'm not one I was one a while ago.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Professional or young?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Young. I did my fair share of school and I moved out to Shawnee when I still had two years of college left. I was 24 years old. At that time my student debt was already more than the house I was purchasing. And I picked Shawnee. It was close to 35. But I don't know the pulse of every young professional out there or how we even classify that. But to me an apartment wasn't enticing. I lived in Kansas City for five years. I wanted to get out of there and I chose Shawnee because I could -- there was a house I could afford here. And so what young professionals want, we're just generalizing, I know my experience is anecdotal, but that is my experience and I feel like I do fit the definition, or like I said when I bought a house here at least I did.
Moving on to the property rights. I don't know. This could get kind of a sticky, I don't know if we're arguing semantics here or not. This area was zoned R-1 recently. Probably when a lot of these people bought their houses.
(Applause)
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: It was changed for the Cobblestone two years ago when we approved that. And when it was purchased it was not PUDMR like they want us to change it to. It's like we're saying you met the requirements, but now we're going to prevent you from building. What they're saying is they bought it and they want us to change it so they can build it. That's not quite the same thing to me. And maybe it's splitting hairs, but to me that's a little bit different than they bought it, they already met the qualifications, and then we're trying to prevent them from building it just because.
I feel like the Council deals with property rights all the time. Jeff said that the role of the Council -- I don't mean to single you out, but one of the things you said is that the role of the Council is to protect property values. And that argument has been used when we talked about zoning for food trucks. We said, well, it's your property, but I don't want you parking a food truck on your property because it might affect mine. We talked about it with the chicken coops just recently. Well, it's your property, but I don't want your chicken too close to my property. So, we do walk this fine line. I'm for property rights, I really do believe in them. But we do walk a fine line because to live in a society we do give up some of those rights to live in society and I don't believe in giving up a bunch of them. But to suddenly come out and say we don't ever infringe on property rights when that's been the discussion of two recent meetings, we do. We do talk about that. At what point do the people around you -- we also talked about special permitting for the animals, possibly having neighbor consent. And we didn't pass it, but that's a discussion we've had. So, it does go on there.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 75 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
Lastly, I ran two elections and I went door-to-door on weekends for a total of eight months between the two, and I met a lot of people, talked to a lot of people. There's probably some in this audience that I talked to on their doorstep. And thanks for being kind to me. One of the things I took away was they thought the Council didn't listen to them, that their government didn't listen to them. And that was kind of one of the reasons why I was running because I was irritated. I didn't necessarily feel that representation as well. And, you know, I love the fact that this project doesn't have any kind of incentive tied to it. I'm always against the TIFs. And so when I first saw this I thought awesome, let's get it done. But I've spent the last three weeks answering e- mails and phone calls. I can't even work on my patients without them sitting up and telling me to vote no on this thing. And so at some point I feel like I do need to listen to what they're telling me. My kids, they don't know what's best for them. So, what they want is somewhat irrelevant. But you people aren't my kids. You're the people that chose to put me in here. My kids didn't chose to have me as a parent, I chose to have them. But the other way around, you guys put me in here. You're not children. This is what you want, which is to block this. And even though it probably wasn't the initial way I was going, I respect that desire to block it and that's why I just couldn't be for it in the end.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. One thing. Mr. Smith, you spoke positively about Broken Arrow. Bless your heart, it's a good school. One of the things I will point out that -- the education that the kids that get to go to Broken Arrow is exactly the same education put on by the same fine school district. Admittedly I'm prejudiced, my wife is on the school board. If you have an issue with the school, talk to Cindy or Patty Mach, I'm sure they'll be glad to talk to you and get any information you want.
But to clarify on that, Broken Arrow currently has about 450 kids. The Shawnee Mission School District target or ideal is about 500 as suggested here. The K through 12 would be for this project would be 40 to 70, so we'll figure 35, which is right within -- it's not going to overburden the school. Another thing is the Shawnee Mission School, 23 kids is their target group for K through 2, and 26 or 27 on 3 through 6.
The other thing, I would like to thank Mr. Peterson, the developer, thank you for bringing this project to our city and putting it before us for consideration. I would also like to thank all the citizens that have taken, it's almost the witching hour and are still here, for coming and sharing your opinions. I listened to them all and have taken the consideration. And most importantly, I would like to thank our City staff who have worked on this diligently in trying to bring this project to the City.
Being elected, and you know, and as Jeff alluded to, we are all very cognizant of why we're here. We are here to take of the day to day, but we are here to have the strategic foresight to make plans to go for the future and what is best for the City, not only today, but ten years from today when there is a whole new group of people up here in front of you.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 76 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
That being said, you know, the things that gets us more rooftops, growth, gets us more restaurants, more places to shop, and again that's a huge responsibility. Every one of us in this room has a love for our city and whether we perceive it as being a nice, little smaller community, but we're 65,000 people. We're the seventh largest city in the state. And I think that is all very, very important, but I will share with, you know, as Ward I, I am not totally convinced that this is the right project to drop in on an in-fill in a mature neighborhood.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
(Applause)
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So, thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. Just one point of clarification and that regards the change in zoning a couple of years ago for this location. And I would submit that that change of zoning probably wouldn't have taken place if this were the project that we were proposed. The project proposed, Cobblestone, I've talked to a number of these people out here personally one-on-one, they tell me they like that project. So, gee wilikers, guys, we put a project that the people like in front of them, they say, yeah, sure, go ahead and change the zoning. So, we change the zoning to that and then you go, oh, no, we're not going to do that, we're going to do this other project here and we're going to stick that in there on you. Well, they don't like that project. They would have never changed the zoning in the first place if this were the original project.
(Applause)
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, I don't want to lose sight of that. I think it's a very important distinction. And Mr. Vaught talked about railroad tracks and all that kind of stuff. Any idiot can look out there and see a railroad track. But, you know, when it comes to what the property zone is you can go to the city hall and you can say what's the zoning on this property and the go, oh, it's R-1 and then agricultural. I mean, come on, guys, how many people go and look at the Comprehensive Plan except for Paul Chaffee and those guys that sit on the City Planning Commission. Yeah, we all know about it and we lock arms and we dance around about the great master plan and all this stuff. But the bottom line is if you're a citizen you go and check out the property and you say what's the zoning. Now, come on. I see a lot obfuscation. I see a lot smokescreens and all kinds of BS, but the bottom line is I want to move the question.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I'll second that.
MAYOR DISTLER: Real quick though because Mr. Sandifer and Mr. Vaught had asked -- had their pencils up before you moved the question. So, I'm going to grab their comments and then we can do that.
(Off Record Discussion of meeting procedure with the Mayor)
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 77 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, whether or not this project goes through, you know, eventually there will be something good on this property. I find it difficult for myself since I was on a committee in the county for quite some time trying to put together some housing plans for the communities to go against something that we were planning on. So, that is the reason that I'm agreeing with the project. Now whether it goes through or not I'll agree with something else down the road, too.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: This is something this Council needs to think about if you do a little bit of research on zoning issues in front of councils. There's reasons, specific reasons that have been settled in court on why we can vote no. And I don't believe we're abiding by those reasons. I think we're -- I think without people being a little bit better informed on this issue and we have -- if you younger people on this Council that haven't been faced with this before, but I’m telling you, in the industry I'm in and I've read cases on it, and I think everybody needs to be aware on the reasons we can vote no on a zoning decision. And I'm not saying everybody needs to vote tonight in support of it because of that, but I would say before everybody wants to vote no on this, you might want to think about tabling it and doing a little bit of research on it because we're kind of --
MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: No.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Excuse me, I'm talking, please. We might want to talk. We might want to talk -- we might want to do a little research.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Mayor, the question has been moved and there's a motion on the floor.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I understand that. I'm still talking.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, you're out of line with that.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, I'm not because the Mayor has recognized me.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because according to Robert's Rules of Order, Mr. Vaught --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The Mayor has recognized me.
(Mayor bangs gavel)
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught was recognized. He will finish his statement, then the question is called.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: We will take the vote and no more from the audience, please.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 78 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think everybody needs to do a little bit of research on some of the legal issues and some of the legal decisions that have been passed down and that have happened on zoning issues because what we don't want to do is find ourselves in a legal issue over this. I'm not saying we will, but I think everybody might want to do a little research on it.
MAYOR DISTLER: Now, the question has been called and seconded. Is someone going to make a motion or what are doing here?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I moved the question and I move that we vote on this issue and I move to turn it down. I move to vote down this project and not rezone.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I second.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. I will take a roll call vote. Mr. Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mister --
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Do you want to clarify what no means?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We've got to clarify what no and yes means.
MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, I'm sorry. So, to turn it down is an aye.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that would require six votes to turn down the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: To turn down is an aye because I recommended to turn it down.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Oh, okay. Well, no, I don't. Okay. But just this vote, if might interject here, the vote is -- to vote aye would be -- I would suggest vote against the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the rezoning, is that right?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That's what your motion -- can you restate it?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: My motion -- yeah.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Your motion is to override the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the zoning.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That's correct. That is correct.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, the aye vote would be to override the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the zoning. A nay vote would be to not override. So, an aye vote would vote the project down.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 79 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The motion doesn't pass because we don't have six votes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Kemmling to override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 4-4 with Councilmembers Vaught, Meyer, Sandifer and Kenig voting no.]
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Do we have another motion?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move to table this till the January, what is it?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Eleventh.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: January 11th meeting. It gives people an opportunity, and the Councilmembers to research it more and give the developer an opportunity to get any other information out.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The motion to deny a Planning Commission recommendation requires six votes to override the Planning Commission. The question
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 80 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
only got four votes. So, it did not pass. Statutorily the requirement to override a Planning Commission recommendation in favor of is six votes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, we need a super-majority for this thing to pass. It did not pass.
MAYOR DISTLER: To pass. Right. So, to deny --
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: There was no motion to pass.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We haven't voted on passing it yet, we only voted on not.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We didn't vote to pass, so I voted to table it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But my actual vote -- my actual thing was I wanted to deny this. That was what I said.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And you needed six votes to that and you didn't get it.
MAYOR DISTLER: Right. So, you need six votes to deny.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You didn't get six votes to deny.
MAYOR DISTLER: If you would have moved to approve, it would have failed.
(Audience making off the record comments)
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, move to approve.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Mr. Chaffee, could you clarify the requirements?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I've already motioned to table it.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. He already motioned to table it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That is bull.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Is there a second?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It's in the packet on page 91.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I'll second to table, too.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes. And it's in the packet on page 91, so that was clear before we ever walked into this meeting tonight.
MR. CHAFFEE: Do you want me to clarify?
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 81 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.
MR. CHAFFEE: Okay. Kansas State Statutes have procedures that the Governing Body needs to follow regarding issues with rezonings and votes that are required to happen. Generally speaking, it's a majority vote to approve unless there is a protest petition. In this case there was a valid protest petition, so the first go round for the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning is going to take -- or accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission is seven votes. You have to have a super-majority. State statutes allow the first go round that in order to override the recommendation of the Planning Commission, six votes are required. So, in this instance the Planning Commission recommended approval, so a motion to override the Planning Commission and recommend denial takes six votes. Another option in lieu of Mr. Vaught's motion to table is with five votes, the Governing Body can send the item back to the Planning Commission with specific items for them to look and discuss. The public hearing is over and done at the Planning Commission meeting. The only discussion that would happen would be between the Planning Commissioners discussing the reasons that the Governing Body sent the item back to them for further review.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I find this kind of absurd. I don't think there's a person in this room didn't know what that motion was to do. It was to kill this project and say we don't want it in Shawnee. Now, if the phraseology which was actually kind of modified a little bit by other people at this Council, changed it around to the point where we now we can't do it, that's really not good.
MR. CHAFFEE: No. No one has changed anything. Any motion to deny would be to override the decision of the Planning Commission, and that takes six votes to do that at this time.
MAYOR DISTLER: And that was in the packet before we ever entered the room tonight.
MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Move to approve it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, we can't because he's already got a motion to table it on the floor at the moment.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there a second to Mr. Vaught's motion?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, we get to go do this again.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. We have a motion and a second to table the item.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Which needs a simple majority, yes?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Yes.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 82 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. That's going to be great.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I vote no to table.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I vote no.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, just yell it real loud. The mics are just failing. Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I vote yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I'm going to vote no knowing that it wouldn't pass if we brought it back.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I vote yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. And those in –
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No, the motion fails.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: How does it pass, 5-3?
MAYOR DISTLER: I mean, motion fails.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Sorry. I wrote it backwards. Motion fails 5-3. Those voting in opposition Councilmember Vaught, Councilmember Meyer, Councilmember Kenig.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No. In opposition.
MAYOR DISTLER: In support of the vote -- it's backwards. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to table the item to the January 11, 2016 City Council meeting. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, Kemmling, and Sandifer voting no.]
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 83 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Let's make a new motion. I'd like to motion that we approve this project.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. We have a motion to approve. Mr. Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It hasn't been seconded has it?
MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is somebody going to second it?
MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: All these motions.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now we can vote it out.
MAYOR DISTLER: Now, do you want to approve the project?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: We got --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Clarify this for all of us, please.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Now, we say do we approve the project and it's no.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins made a motion to approve the project.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But I want to be clear, Mr. Chaffee, correct me, that is requires seven votes to pass. And in the absence of seven votes, then the only alternative left is to send it back to the Planning Commission with five votes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That's not what we were told. It fails if it doesn't get the votes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor, do you want to pass the project?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 84 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No. I'm going to go no this time.
(Applause)
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Motion fails with those in opposition, Mr. Vaught -- those in support. Yes. Those in support Mr. Vaught, Ms. Meyer, Mr. Kenig. Okay. So, motion fails.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Kemmling to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the rezoning. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, Kemmling, and Sandifer voting no.]
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, we need a motion to remand. We don't -- because it --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We don't need a motion for anything.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It's dead.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to remand it to the Planning Commission.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The statute -- Mr. Chaffee.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We don't have to have a motion to go back to the --
MR. CHAFFEE: We’ve actually given you three items that you need to do in the first go round. Number one is to approve the rezoning. On the first go round the State Statute gives you one of three choices to do. The first is you can accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. And in this case because there is a protest petition it takes seven votes to approve. Your second choice, and there is a colon, your second choice, or a semi -- a colon. Your second choice is to override the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and that takes six votes, or your third choice is to remand it back to the Planning Commission asking them to look at whatever specific item or items you want them to take a look at.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 85 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to remand it back to the Planning Commission to look at density.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, there is a motion and a second to remand it to the Planning Commission to look at density.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Mrs. Mayor, did you vote on the last motion?
MAYOR DISTLER: No.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: She didn't have to.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. But you can in a tie. So, if there were five people against this, you could be the sixth one if we wanted to override the veto. If we wanted to override the Planning Commission's suggestion you could have been the sixth vote. That's one of our three options on the page.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: But there were only four votes on that motion.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There were five.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Four plus Mickey was five. That's why I asked if she voted.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: On which motion?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: The motion to pass it.
(Inaudible; Councilmembers talking amongst themselves with the City Manager Gonzales)
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But the Mayor can vote if she's the last vote needed.
MAYOR DISTLER: But the motion to approve you need seven.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: To approve.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: She can, but doesn't have to.
MAYOR DISTLER: That was the last motion --
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
MAYOR DISTLER: -- was to approve.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 86 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: However, if the Governing Body wants to override the Planning Commission, the Mayor could be the sixth vote.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And there were only four votes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: There were five.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No. There were only four votes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Do you want me to count them for you there? There’s four here and one there.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It was four to four on the first vote to override it. So, your vote would not have mattered.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, okay, sorry.
MAYOR DISTLER: Right. The first vote was 4-4.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. Okay. I would just like to say to my fellow Councilmembers in lieu of Mr. Sandifer's last vote, if we were to vote to override again after this current motion that's on the floor, the Mayor could be the sixth vote if she decided to be the sixth vote.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, the current motion is to remand it to the Planning Commission for density.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that is a simple majority. The Mayor can be the fifth vote if she is voting with the motion.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: This is to send it back for density? No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 87 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Motion fails.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Motion to override the Planning Commission.
MAYOR DISTLER: And those in opposition were -- no, those in support, gosh darn this is backwards, were Mr. Vaught, Ms. Meyer and Mr. Kenig.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to remand the item to the Planning Commission to look at density. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, Kemmling, and Sandifer voting no.]
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Motion to override the Planning Commission and deny rezoning.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Didn't we already do that?
MAYOR DISTLER: But if you only needed a super-majority -- a regular majority to do the last thing we had that.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning.
(Inaudible; Councilmembers talking amongst themselves)
MAYOR DISTLER: So, please clarify the motion again.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Option Number 2 on page 91. The Governing Body may override the Planning Commission --
MAYOR DISTLER: I can't hear my fellow Councilmember's motion to even know what I'm voting on. Please keep down and, you know, sticking your tongue out at me, I don't know what you think that's getting you, but it's not -- it's not really effective. Mr. Kemmling.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 88 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Option Number 2 on page 91. The Governing Body may override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning with six votes. The Mayor may vote, but is not obligated. So, I am making that motion to deny the rezoning.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I seconded that.
MAYOR DISTLER: Deny rezoning.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So again, an aye vote is to deny the rezoning.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, wait, I wrote these backwards again. Ms. Meyer?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: 5-3, motion fails.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kemmling and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to override the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning. After a roll call vote, the motion failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Vaught, Meyer, and Kenig voting no.]
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: The Mayor doesn't vote, huh? Okay.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 89 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
(Off the Record Talking)
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I'll make another motion to remand it back to the Planning Commission for review of the density. Because we haven't accomplished anything else, so we've got to do something.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I'll second that.
MAYOR DISTLER: To remand.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Excuse me.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: This is a question for Paul. I mean, if we don't come to an agreement, how can -- this project fails just because we cannot determine why to send it back to the Planning Commission.
MR. CHAFFEE: There may be something else you'd like for them to look at other than density.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, there isn't.
MR. CHAFFEE: I mean, you know, that's an option also.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The whole project?
MR. CHAFFEE: You have to give a specific reason.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move to remand it back to the Planning Commission to look at traffic study.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But, Paul, if that motion fails, then you could do this all night. And you don't have to.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We have to follow the State Statute.
MR. CHAFFEE: The State Statute doesn't give you an option that you just don't do anything and let it lie. The Statute gives you the three choices.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We have a motion and a second.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. We have a motion to remand it back to the Planning Commission for traffic. Mr. Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 90 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I'll vote to send it back to the Planning Commission, yes. It’s not going anywhere.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: 4-4.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Unless the Mayor wants to break the tie.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It'll go now because you don't have to have the super- majority.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But she'll have to break the tie.
MAYOR DISTLER: Well, right now it's tied.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, she can break the tie.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It's up to Michelle.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: She can vote this time.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: She has to vote this time to break the tie.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: A lot of people.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 91 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We have to comply with the State Statute.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yeah. Well, and, yeah, I mean, we have to comply with the State Statute, so I'm going to vote aye. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to remand the item to the Planning Commission to look at traffic. After a roll call vote, the motion passed 5-4 with Councilmembers Neighbor, Pflumm, Jenkins, and Kemmling voting no and Mayor Distler voting aye to break the tie.]
3. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FURTHER CLARITY REGARDING BUILDING SETBACKS.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. The next item on the agenda, Item Number 3 is to Consider an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Regulations to Provide Further Clarity Regarding Building Setbacks.
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2015, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 10-0, recommended that the Governing Body -- we are trying to carry on a Public Meeting here. Please. By a vote of 10-0, recommended that the Governing Body approve the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to clarify language related to setbacks and minimum yard requirements. An ordinance is required. Is there any discussion from the Council?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s pretty cut and dry. Do you see something here?
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I was -- I don’t know if this is for, Paul. Does this cover the Ward II issue that we had with the building?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It does? Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR DISTLER: Yes. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.
MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a second?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 92 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to pass an Ordinance adopting the amendments to the Zoning Rules and Regulations of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, 2015 edition. The motion passed 8-0 and Ordinance No. 3143 was assigned.]
H. ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 2015 CHAIRED BY COUNCILMEMBER MEYER
1. CONSIDER THE 2016 STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is H. Items from the Council Committee Meeting of December 8, 2015, Chaired by Councilmember Meyer. Councilmember Meyer.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Sure minus a mic, sorry.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Somebody shut the mic down.
CITY CLERK POWELL: There can only be four mics on at one time.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Hey, we’re back in business. Okay. Just one item, it’s to consider the 2016 State Legislative Program. The Council Committee recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body approve the 2016 State Legislative Program. So I will accept a motion to do that unless there’s discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I just, I wasn’t going to say much. I was just going to say I reviewed this and I noticed that all the changes that we discussed during the committee meeting were in there and I was going to move for approval but everybody’s quick on approval.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That too.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I just thought I’d comment on this item here, I mean I’m going to vote to move this forward, but I don’t agree with everything in it as in the -- so if it ever comes up you can look at the minutes from the committee meeting.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I already did.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 93 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
MAYOR DISTLER: Oh, yeah, sorry. That jumped. 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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to approve the 2016 State Legislative Program. The motion passed 8-0.]
I. STAFF ITEMS
1. CONSIDER OMNIBUS ORDINANCE TO TERMINATE COBBLESTONE VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) DISTRICT RELATED PLANS AND AGREEMENTS.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And Mayor on this next item we’d recommend – staff recommends tabling it since the Vantage project did not move forward.
MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. And what about item number two?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move to table item one under Staff Items to Consider Omnibus Ordinance to Terminate Cobblestone Village Tax Increment Financing District Related To Plans And Agreements.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: 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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to table the consideration of an Omnibus Ordinance to Terminate Cobblestone Village Tax Increment Financing District Related to plans and agreements. The motion passed 8-0.]
2. CONSIDER INITIATING REZONING FOR DUPLEXES AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE 5900-6000 BLOCKS OF PFLUMM ROAD.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The same. Staff recommends tabling this since the Vantage project did not move forward at this time.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 94 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I move to table Item 2, Consider Initiating Rezoning for Duplexes and Single Family Residences in the 5900-6000 Blocks of Pflumm Road.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: Any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this? Motion passes. Oh, wait. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to table the consideration of initiating rezoning for Duplexes and Single Family Residences in the 5900-6000 Blocks of Pflumm Road. The motion passed 8-0.]
3. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE 2015 STORMWATER PIPE REPAIR PROJECT, P.N. 3409.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3, to Consider Change Order No. 1 for the 2015 -- my eyes are blurry -- Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, P.N. 3409. On September 14, 2015, the Governing Body awarded the 2015 Pipe Repair project, which included both full pipe replacement and pipe lining repair locations, to Amino Brothers Company, Inc. The 2015R Budget includes $160,000 for medium priority small storm water utility projects. Repairing pipes beneath streets scheduled to be resurfaced is a higher priority than some of the other planned stormwater utility activities. Staff recommends reallocating these funds for pipe repair and issuing a change order to the contractor.
Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.
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 Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to approve a change order to add up to 10 pipe repair locations to the contract with Amino Brothers Company, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas for the 2015 Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, P.N. 3401, in the amount not to exceed $160,000 for a revised total contract amount of $731,568.85. The motion passed 8-0.]
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 95 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
4. CONSIDER THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JOHNSON DRIVE AND MAURER ROAD (5915 MAURER ROAD).
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider the Sale of Surplus Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Johnson Drive and Maurer Road (5915 Maurer Road). Policy Statement PS-69, Disposal of Property, provides that the City work to dispose of real property for which the City has no present or future need or is not economically feasible to maintain; and real property, which if disposed of, would be put to a higher or better use for the City and its residents. In March 2015, the Governing Body authorized the disposal of this property. The City has received an offer of $80,000 for the land. The recommended action is to consider the sale of the land.
Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: 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 Vaught to approve the sale of property at the southeast corner of Johnson Drive and Maurer Road, accept and approve a deed of dedication of right of way with limited right of access and a permanent drainage easement from the purchaser, and authorize the Mayor to sign a sale contract for $80,000. The motion passed 8-0.]
5. CONSIDER REVISIONS TO POLICY STATEMENT, PS-12, BASEBALL, SOFTBALL, SOCCER AND SPORTS FIELD USE AND PS-60, SHELTER RESERVATION AND USER FEES.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 5 is to Consider Revisions to Policy Statement, PS- 12, Baseball, Softball, Soccer, and Sports Field Use and PS-60, Shelter Reservation and User Fees. At their November 2015 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended the Governing Body approve revisions to Policy Statement, PS- 12, Baseball, Softball, Soccer, and Sports Field Use; and, Policy Statement, PS-60, Shelter Reservation and User Fees. The revisions include inserting actual addresses of the parks, adding Erfurt Park to the inventory, updating the name of the Metro United Soccer Club, removing the Commercial rate category and implementing a tiered pricing structure and adding a new Rules and Regulation section.
a) Consider Approving Revisions to Policy Statement, PS-12, Baseball, Softball, Soccer and Sports Field Use.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 96 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
There are two actions required. The first is to consider approving revisions to Policy Statement, PS-12. Is there any discussion from the Council? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, we have two sections here, don’t we? There’s two actions?
MAYOR DISTLER: No, I didn’t see that. Thank you for catching that, Mr. Vaught. Yes. I accept a motion on PS-12.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval on PS-12. The Revision or Item A consider approving revisions to PS-12.
MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have a second?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve revisions to Policy Statement, PS-12, Baseball, Softball, Soccer and Sports Field Use. The motion passed 8-0.]
b) Consider Approving Revisions to PS-60, Shelter Reservation and User Fees.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to consider approving revisions to PS-60, Shelter reservations and user fees.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We already have one.
MAYOR DISTLER: I’m sorry. You did that before I accepted it.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I know.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 97 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It’s getting late.
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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve revisions to PS-60, Shelter Reservation and User Fees. The motion passed 8-0.]
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s after midnight. Your [inaudible] are just spent [inaudible].
MAYOR DISTLER: Well, and I’m not recovered from surgery Friday yet either.
6. CONSIDER A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ADDENDUM WITH SHAFER, KLINE AND WARREN, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE 60TH TERRACE AND EARNSHAW STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, P.N. 3407, (SMAC TC-021-067).
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 6 is to Consider a Professional Services Agreement Addendum with Shafer, Kline, and Warren, Inc. for Engineering Services for the 60th Terrace and Earnshaw Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3407, (SMAC TC-021- 067). This project was on the Capital Improvement Program for 2015 and is nearly completed. Addendum No. 1 represents additional inspection work that was required because of additional hours in the actual construction contract in the amount of $21,705. The recommended action is to consider approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract.
Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: 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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Shafer, Kline and Warren, Inc., related to
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 98 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
the 60th Terrace and Earnshaw Storm Drainage Improvements in the amount of $21,705. The motion passed 8-0.]
J. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR DECEMBER 14, 2015, IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,167,033.93.
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is J, Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to Ratify the Semi-Monthly Claim for December 14, 2015, in the Amount of $13,167,033.93.
Is there any discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and second on this item. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay? Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to ratify the semi-monthly claim for December 14, 20015, in the amount of $13,167,033.93. The motion passed 8-0.]
2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have an item they would like to discuss?
3. CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING LAND ACQUISITION.
a) Recess to Executive Session for 10 minutes for the purpose of discussing land acquisition.
MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Conduct an Executive Session for the Purpose of Discussing Land Acquisition.
I will accept a motion to recess into Executive Session for ten minutes to discuss land acquisition.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to recess to Executive Session for a ten minute period for the purpose of discussing land acquisition.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 99 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: 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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to recess to executive session for a ten minute period for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting in Recess from 12:31 a.m. to 12.38 a.m.)
b) Conclude Executive Session.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to conclude Executive Session.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to conclude the executive session. The motion passed 8-0.]
c) Reconvene Meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to reconvene the meeting.
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 Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to reconvene the meeting. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting Reconvened at 12:41 a.m.)
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 100 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
d) Motion to approve the acquisition of two parcels of property consisting of 19.85 and 5.83 acres more or less, at the Southeast corner of 59th Street and Woodland Road for a valid public purpose, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $250,000.
MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Neighbor.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay. I would like to move to approve the acquisition of two parcels of property consisting of 19.85 and 5.83 acres more or less at the south east corner of 59th Street and Woodland for a valid public purpose and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $250,000.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: 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 Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the acquisition of two parcels of property consisting of 19.85 and 5.83 acres more or less, at the Southeast corner of 59th Street and Woodland Road for a valid public purpose, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $250,000. The motion passed 8-0.]
e) Motion to approve the acquisition of property at the Southeast corner of 55th Street and Martindale Road consisting of 20.78 acres more or less, for a valid public purpose, accepting and approving a deed of access from the LTS Partnership upon the adjoining property, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $200,000. A condition of the contract is the granting of the access easement from LTS Partnership.
MAYOR DISTLER: Do I have another motion?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes, I would move to approve the acquisition of property at the Southeast corner of 55th Street and Martindale Road consisting of 20.78 acres more or less, for a valid public purpose, accepting and approving a deed of access from the LTS Partnership upon the adjoining property, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $200,000.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 101 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: And a condition of the contract is the granting of the access easement from LTS Partnership so the easement should be accepted by the Governing Body.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’ve already voted.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, we’ll put that in there.
MAYOR DISTLER: So, just for clarification.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: What, add that in?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: With acceptance of the –
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Include that in the motion, please, Mr. Powell.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the acquisition of property at the Southeast corner of 55th Street and Martindale Road consisting of 20.78 acres more or less, for a valid public purpose, accepting and approving a deed of access from the LTS Partnership upon the adjoining property, and authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a total purchase price of $200,000. A condition of the contract is the granting of the access easement from LTS Partnership. The motion passed 8-0.]
K. ADJOURNMENT
MAYOR DISTLER: I would accept a motion to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So moved.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.
MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to adjourn. The motion passed 8-0.]
(Shawnee City Council Meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.)
Journal 74, Volume 25 Page 102 SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 14, 2015
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
/das December 30, 2015
Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
______
Stephen Powell, City Clerk
Page 1 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 CITY OF SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2015 7:30 P.M.
Councilmembers Present Staff Present Councilmember Pflumm City Manager Gonzales Councilmember Neighbor Deputy City Manager Charlesworth Councilmember Jenkins Assistant City Manager Killen Councilmember Kemmling City Clerk Powell Councilmember Vaught Finance Director Rogers Councilmember Meyer Communications Manager Ferguson Councilmember Sandifer City Attorney Rainey Councilmember Kenig Parks and Recreation Director Holman Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom Business Liaison Holtwick
(Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 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 Council Committee members here tonight are Jim Neighbor, Ward I; Dan Pflumm, Ward I; Eric Jenkins, Ward II; Mike Kemmling, Ward II; Jeff Vaught, Ward III; Mickey Sandifer, Ward IV; and Brandon Kenig, Ward IV.
Before we begin our agenda I’d like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Committee at any of those times, please go to the podium. I will ask that you state your name and address for the record, then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear you, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes. And 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 like to also remind the Council Committee members to speak loudly and clearly and wait to be recognized before speaking. Our temporary audio system will broadcast our meetings online and archive a copy for the minutes, but will not amplify the sound in the room.
B. ITEMS
1. DISCUSS THE POLICY COMMUNICATIONS STATEMENT
We have four items on tonight's agenda. The first item is to Discuss the Communications Policy Statement.
With the hiring of a Communications Manager one year ago, the City has been able to streamline and expand communication efforts. In order to move the program along further in a quality manner, direction on overall policy, values, methods and key
Page 2 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 messages is needed from the Council. Dan Ferguson, Communications Manager, will make a presentation on the policy.
Welcome, Dan.
MR. FERGUSON: Thank you very much and good evening everyone. I want to thank the Council President for bringing warm cookies.
So, excited to talk to you here tonight. I’ve been on board with the City a little over a year and a half now, so been slowly trying to build in terms of our strategy and policy and plans for overall communications as a City and organization. So, excited to share with you this draft policy statement which has been provided to you in your packet. Obviously the policy issue, as you as the Governing Body, I welcome any feedback or thoughts you have on this. So, as we go through the presentation and afterwards if you have any questions, comments, obviously looking forward to hearing your feedback and thoughts on where we’re at.
So, obviously as a city we have never had, at least to my knowledge, a real formal communications policy in terms of a laid out plan and procedure. So, this draft policy statement is another step to move forward in that direction. So, kind of begs the question, we haven’t had one before, why is a communications policy important. I think obviously as a city government we have a lot of core functions, maintain infrastructure, public safety. I would argue that an additional core function we have is making sure we engage with the public, we communicate with them in a clear and consistent manner so that they know what’s going on, when it’s going on, why it’s going on and engage with them in a collaborative manner. That’s a really important function of city government. And putting some plans and procedures together is important. You need to formalize how you do it, is you can still, okay, we’re going to communicate with the public. You need to really think it out in a strategic manner. Again, I think this policy statement and putting a formal plan on some paper and moving forward with it is a positive step in that direction.
So, what are we hoping to accomplish with this policy statement which is being presented to you tonight as well as in terms of a communications plan, a formal communications plan moving forward. All these bullet points are pretty straightforward. I’ll touch on each of them quickly.
Build awareness of services. I think again that goes along with the core function of keeping the citizens, the residents and visitors to our community need to know the services we provide them, the projects that are going on, things that directly impact their lives on a daily basis. They needed to be provided with clear and accurate information, have the ability to connect with their city government to engage in that process. I think equally as important is something we’ve discussed internally a lot. I think it’s also important to let people know where the lines are dawn, where the City’s responsibilities lie as well as, okay, this is the county responsibility. There often can be the, you know, sort of lines between how local government functions. I think that’s part of the public education process and I think it’s our duty, it’s not the citizens’ responsibility, it’s our responsibility as a local government, quite frankly, to make sure that they understand the differences and the delineation for what we’re responsible for and what we aren’t, and making sure they’re informed of that. So, that leads right into the next one.
Page 3 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 Keep our citizens informed. Again, I think that’s just basic core function of what we do in terms of communications. The folks out there need to know the things that impact their lives on a daily basis and need to have the information out there, whether it’s a major project that’s going on or it’s an issue we’re dealing with as a city government, which leads into the next important part.
Increasing engagement with our citizens. That’s something we’re really focused on with this policy statement and moving forward. I think one of the takeaways I had from the recent citizen survey when we got the results back is I think it’s pretty clear from those results that the citizens in our community want a stake and have a -- feel that they need to have a stake in terms of part of the decision-making process, engaging with City officials and local elected officials on how we go about the decisions that we make on issues and projects. And so that’s something we’re really going to focus on moving forward. I think we do a pretty good of that, and have done a pretty good job with that.
I think one quick example, the project currently going on at Johnson Drive and Woodland. We engaged in an online survey process after the engineering study. Got about 1100-1200 responses from citizens talking about the different options out there. And eventually what we’ve done, is actually happening with the project, a traffic signal is going to go in and that was what, not everyone, but the majority of the citizens on that survey said they wanted. So, combining that feedback with the engineering studies led us to have a real collaborative process on that project. Which I think is a great example and we want to do more of that in the future.
Building credibility of our City communication channels. That’s kind of a never ending goal obtaining that, but long-term perfect world, I want to make it, and we want to make it as an organization that when people want news and information about the City that they choose to go to our City website, they choose to look at our City newsletter, sign up for our social medial channels, e-mail updates. We need to be the source of their information and hopefully provide that clear and accurate information on the things that they find important.
Maintain positive relationships with the local media. Obviously as a City we can provide a lot of conduits of information, but the media has a great deal of power and a great deal of influence. And I know it can be easy sometimes, I even fall into the trap that, you know, the media is the enemy. I want to look at the media as a friend. They’re a great partner in this process to keep our residents, our visitors informed about what’s going on in the city of Shawnee. And so kind of leveraging relationships I had from previous jobs and before I came to the City I tried to leverage those relationships to kind of build those relationships for the city of Shawnee and hopefully we continue to foster that in the future.
And then the last one, build community pride. I think all of you would agree there’s a lot of pride from our residents who are living in the City, very proud to be Shawnee residents. And while there are a lot of great things going on within our organization as a City government doing a lot of great things, there are a lot of great stories out there that I think we have the ability to share that maybe these organizations don’t. I think of a couple recent examples, you know, St. Joseph School recently won a $100,000 grant to get iPads for their students. I mean, we need to share that. That’s a great story. Mill Valley High School wins the State Football Championship. That’s a great story. So, I think using that kind of collaborative approach to share the story of the City is something
Page 4 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 that we should really focus on as well. So, that’s some of what we’re hoping to accomplish.
How do we go about accomplishing this? Again, it’s about creating a coordinated system. You don’t just decide to do it. It’s about putting formal policies, plans, procedures into place so we formalize how we communicate. One sort of making an impact and we are maximizing our staff time and resources and making the decision not necessarily on quantity of stuff we’re doing in terms of public communication, but on quality, that we’re doing a good job on what we do.
Maximize opportunities for citizen engagement. I’ve probably said engagement about 35 times now already, but that’s really what it is all about in terms of our public communication plan. And we talk about increasing citizen engagement, we can’t increase it unless you provide them opportunities. So again, using that example of the Johnson Drive and Woodland project, the online survey. I’ll get in some other examples later, some other things we’re looking at. But we need to continue to look at what opportunities we can provide our citizens to engage in the process of local government. It doesn’t mean we can do every single project, every single [inaudible], we need to be selective and strategically think about it. But it is important that we maximize those opportunities.
Getting information through a variety of outlets. We’ve got a very diverse population here throughout Shawnee. We’ve got millennials who, you know, I’ve got my iPhone. I basically live on that all day to get my information. We’ve got people that do it through traditional form, City newsletter, regular newspaper. There’s the Shawnee Dispatch and the Kansas City Star. So, we need to make sure we take a broad based approach and use a variety of outlets. I think, you know, hitting on the citizen survey again from this -- from 2015, I think a fascinating thing was one of the largest increases we saw in terms of how people get their information was Facebook and social media. At the same the number one source for information for the majority of residents was the CityLine. And those are diametrically opposed sort of outlets. And so I think that calls for that sort of broad based approach to make sure that we get information out there to citizens throughout our community.
And then consistent messaging. I think this is more of a customer service thing. You know, Citizen A comes into City Hall, whether this a call or, you know, asks a question on social media on Thursday afternoon about an issue and we give them, you know, whatever the answer is. If Citizen B asks that same question 25 minutes later, they need to get the same answer. That needs to be a consistent messaging and consistent, clear and accurate information that gets out there.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a couple things, Dan, on this one page.
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Get the information out to a variety of outlets. And I don’t want to do a commercial for the Dispatch, but the Dispatch newspaper seems to be dedicated and what’s going on Shawnee. Do we commonly put links in our little -- on our web page to the Shawnee Dispatch articles that may be supportive of something we’re reporting on?
Page 5 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. Generally what we’ve done with the Dispatch is when we have articles that are specific to City issues or projects we will share those on social media. We haven’t necessarily shared them on the City website at any point. But certainly that’s something we can take a look at.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Well, the reason I’m bringing that up is because by doing that and people start maybe going there, it might increase --
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- the number of people that are keeping current on what’s going on through that source.
MR. FERGUSON: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It can’t hurt. So, I didn’t know if we do that.
MR. FERGUSON: No, absolutely. I think we’ve built a --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No slam against Nico, but when I was out campaigning door-to-door I saw an awful lot of Dispatches laying out in the driveways all wet and smooshed and not getting picked up. So, I’d like to get the people picking those up and looking at them. So, if there’s anything we can do to kind of encourage that it would probably be helpful.
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And then on the consistent messaging thing I had just one comment.
MR. FERGUSON: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And it’s not meant to slam anybody, but it just makes me nervous when we talk about consistent messaging.
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because I know we want to have a consistent message in terms of not giving two or three different pieces of information on the same subject that are in conflict with each other. That looks bad. We can’t be doing that. But I do worry about coming up with a formulated message, just say public opinion or something, you know, we don’t want to go there.
MR. FERGUSON: No. And I think this is based on kind of the nuts and bolts information in terms of messaging that we make sure when citizens ask questions on things that they’re, and to your point, getting consistent answers. In terms of, you know, viewpoints, opinions, you know, that’s not my job. You know, I think our job as the Communications Division is to provide clear and accurate information and let people on a project or an issue decide those thoughts certainly. [Key messages slide]
Page 6 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 Okay. So, in terms of that messaging, I’ll hit on this in a little more detail at the end of my presentation. But as we looked at establishing and putting together a formal communications sort of work plan for the future, I’ve convened a group of myself and 11 other City employees across a variety of departments. We’ve been meeting over the past few months. I want to kind of talk about long-term communications planning, putting a formal plan on paper together, so we formalize how we communicate. But as a starting point we sort of talked about what are the key messages that we want to get out in terms of getting information out there. These are kind of, after a lot of brainstorming and a lot of careful thought, what we came up. Obviously again this is a draft policy statement. We’re going to take feedback from the Governing Body. This is a living breathing sort of thing, so.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, first of all, I think you’re doing a hell of a job.
MR. FERGUSON: Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Doing a great job with everything. And so far you’ve done a great job presenting what you’re presenting in a very humble way. This slide here is in the policy. You know, and I would think if we’re a communications group and we’re trying to communicate to the people out there, you know, I don’t think that we should say we are open and proactive, professional. I think we try to strive to be, you know, we invest citizen tax dollars wisely. We try to do that.
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean, it sounds -- I don’t mean to be negative. It sounds arrogant when I read that right there.
MR. FERGUSON: No. There is distinctions out there.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I printed it out back in the office and I was like, wow, we shouldn’t, you know, that was my own opinion. And then our goal is to make Shawnee, you know, like a great place to live and work and grow and all that. So, I just think there’s a little couple of words there that fits exactly what you’re saying and just changes it to be, you know, the way we’re -- if we say we’re perfect, then we’re obviously not.
MR. FERGUSON: No. No question. And I will say that this is something we’ve talked about kind of internally with the communications group and I’ve talked about obviously with management and other staff is, you know, what I’m talking about tonight and when we put plans on paper, again, it’s going to be a living, breathing document. It’s never meant, and I’ve told that to the committee that we’ve been working with internally that this should never be set in stone. We’re never going to be done. So, I think, yeah, looking at those distinctions and differences.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And this is part of the policy statement, so we should be more humble here than anywhere, you know.
MR. FERGUSON: No question. And I think part of that, and obviously there was some careful thought into putting that in the policy statement. But I think part of that, if, you know, whatever changes would be made, and again, we’re open to suggestions and tweaking. But I think, you know, with these that we’ve drafted right now and laying
Page 7 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 these out, I think it not only -- if we say that, we obviously we have to provide information and proof that that’s actually taking place. It’s one thing to say, oh, we’re great and we do this, but we’ve got to provide substance as to why that’s the case. And I think that’s our challenge as the City government overall, not just the Communications Division to do that. But certainly we can take a look and kind of tweaking to make sure there’s a little more comfort level with those messages. That’s not a problem at all.
So, again, welcome your feedback in terms of the messaging.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric, did you have something?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a little question. You know, just more kind of a question or just throwing it out there.
MR. FERGUSON: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Have we ever done, for example, a city services fair like they have job fairs and things like that where people can come to the Community Centre, whatever, and the guys could be -- from Public Works could be showing them how to use that online ability to report stuff. And I mean just kind of -- I don’t know how many people would attend really, but just another thought before I forget it because I’m getting kind of old and stuff.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, we have those What’s Happening in Your Neighborhood meetings where we have the different --
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. We’ve talked as a communications group, that committee that I’m working, you know, kind of with over the past few months and I’m still sort of learning, I’m still fairly new on the job, so I’m learning what we’ve done in the past, some things we need to try to do. I believe we’ve done -- we’ve done a What’s Going On in Your Neighborhood in the past. I think depending on the date and time it’s either been pretty well attended or, you know, we’ve seen some pretty light attendance. I think one of the things we’ve looked at is if we have, whether it’s a City open house or a services fair or something like that, what else -- who can we partner with or what can we do to make it more attractive rather than just come and learn about city stuff because I think unfortunately, I find it interesting, but not everyone out there does. So, I think we need to find sort of a hook for lack of a better phrase to get people. But, yeah, that’s something we’ve certainly taken a look at and seen what kind of event or events we can essentially do in the future to draw people into something like that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I kind of go along with Eric here. If we did something, maybe, you know, a booth at Old Shawnee Days that showed people how to use our new systems for doing a pot hole or reporting a traffic light that’s out, or, you know, something like that. That would –
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. We have some pretty neat stuff and I just don’t know if that -- we’ve got about ten percent of the people of Shawnee are probably really good about going to the website and being really informed and stuff and there’s that other big 90 percent that are going about their lives at hyper speed and that doesn’t
Page 8 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 even cross their mind half the time. I think that would be a great place to capture people. I think that’s a good suggestion like Old Shawnee Days.
MR. FERGUSON: No question. That’s something we’ve definitely looked at and seen, you know, what events -- and in a lot of cases, not only creating events on our own, but probably to your point Old Shawnee Days, partnering with events where we know there’s drawn in crowd already, so absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Piggy-backing.
MR. FERGUSON: And a lot of times in term of staff time and resources that usually ends up being more successful than maybe trying to, you know, get a blank piece of paper and draw something else on. So, yeah, that’s absolutely something that we’re looking towards in the future.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I was just going to say I think this looks great so far. But back to the messaging, just a suggestion I had. And maybe it was implied, but maybe [inaudible] explicit, but probably the key focus points or bullets about how the City is responsive to residents. And I think the Shawnee Connect app, which has already been brought up is a great example of that. It could be as simple as just highlighting all the different issues that have been submitted via the app, what’s been [inaudible] out, what the average time, with the particulars of the story to tell their -- there’s obviously more as far as responsiveness that can go along with that.
MR. FERGUSON: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: But I think that’s a great piece for it.
MR. FERGUSON: This is pretty self-explanatory. I think it sort of tells, you know, [inaudible] that’s obviously we use for information. I spoke earlier about the need to have a broad, sort have a broad-based approach and connect with as many citizens as possible to generate -- throughout generations, young and old. And I think right now I think we do a pretty good job of that. We’re obviously going to look at some new ways and continue to investigate other, you know, potential essential options for how we communicate with the public. But right now I think based on where we’re at early in the process I think our focus should be on doing a really good job on means and not spread ourselves too thin. And once we do a really good job on means, then we can take a look at some other essential options down the road.
A couple, one thing I wanted to mention in terms of citizen engagement tool, there’s that word again, engagement. Survey Monkey, that was the service we used for the online survey for the Johnson Drive and Woodland project. I think it’s a very simple cheap service to use. You can easily impact a lot of people and give the people the opportunity to not to have to come to a meeting and give us their opinion or thoughts. They can do it right from their home or office. So, that’s something we’re going to look to leverage.
And then nextdoor.com. I don’t know how many are familiar with that, how many of you guys are familiar with the nextdoor application. But basically it’s a social media tool that’s specific to neighborhoods. We’ve got about -- we did some research, I think
Page 9 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 we’ve got between 60 and 70 Shawnee neighborhoods that have established nextdoor pages. And these are all citizens in those specific neighborhoods that talk with their neighbors through this social media application. But local government agencies and police departments and things can establish their own pages. So, if there’s an issue that’s specific to a neighborhood you don’t have to get the message out to the entire city. You can say, you know, Lakeview Estates is having an issue with this. Hey, FYI, at the Police Department we’ve got this issue going on in the neighborhood. Here’s some things to look out for, whether it’s a traffic issue or codes issue, whatever it is. So again, that’s sort of one-on-one engagement, but again, not requiring people to have to come to a meeting or go to a certain spot. So, that’s something that I think early next year we’re going to look at and seeing maybe establishing a City page through that.
So, in terms of, I think anytime you put a plan together on anything, whether it’s communications or any other sort of strategic plan, you need to have some sort of values that you sort of sit back on that sort of kind of tell the story of what you’re trying to accomplish. And I think, again, as an organization these are four that we’ve really highlighted.
Accuracy. You know, we need to be our own toughest critics and make sure the information we’re getting out there is correct, it’s clear, it’s concise.
Timeliness. This is a huge thing. I say all the time, you know, we’re a customer service business at the end of the day. And the citizens of Shawnee are our customers. So, we need to be as responsive to them as possible. And I think, again getting back to some of the results of our citizen survey, I think you’ve seen that, that generally people are happy with the traditional customer service they get. One way I’ve, since coming on board, I’ve tried to increase in terms of our customer service aspect is through social media. So, if people have questions on social media we get them a response in a timely manner.
Inclusiveness. Again, that just gets back to that broad-based approach, making sure we’re not focusing on specific individuals or portions of the community.
Simplicity. And the last one is huge for me, simplicity. We get caught in the bubble of acronyms and our own expertise. And it’s generally, generally speaking, not for all citizens. But for the average citizen out there they don’t care or really just don’t want to know all that stuff. They just want a clear and concise answer. And so I think that should really be a focus of ours. Let’s just get them the basic information they want. And if they want to get the details, obviously that’s something we’re more than willing to do. An example that we tried to was that the Budget in Brief document that came out earlier this year to try to make the budget process feel a little simpler.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I’d like to, if we could, take these bullets here and put them in your policy statement there. Put them in the policy statement, that first bullet under Methods.
MR. FERGUSON: Okay. COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And when you say, “Create and maintain a coordinated system across the entire organization that ensures efficient, effective, and impactful communications,” it would be nice if we said, accurate, timely, inclusive and simple, you know.
Page 10 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 MR. FERGUSON: Okay. Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because since that’s your focus, I think that would be a good place to put it.
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Those are on the second page of the policy statement already. Just wanted to make sure you knew that. Under Values.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Under Values, but not under Methods.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, you’re wanting to incorporate Values into Methods?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, yes. Well, I think it’s important to include them in our methodology.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Those adjectives?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: More so than it even is to put it in values. I mean, it’s just --
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: [inaudible]
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean, these are action items here to me. I mean, they are values, sure.
MR. FERGUSON: I can see where you’re going with that.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But this is the method. This is the method under which we’re going to operate. I kind of want it in there, you know, so it reiterates what we’re saying here, so it kind of brings it all together.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The words [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But it is also in Values.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I mean, if you restate it, it’s not going to hurt anything I suppose.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Our value is not redundancy.
MR. FERGUSON: I can actually see where you’re going. We can absolutely take a look at this.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean, because that’s your action page here. I mean, this is where we’re going to carry out our functions. [Moving Forward slide]
MR. FERGUSON: No question. And so as I wrap up here, sorry if I’ve gone so long, but [inaudible] stuff. So, obviously again tonight on the agenda we’re asking to get your thoughts and feedback on the draft policy statement development and feedback both
Page 11 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 tonight and to move forward. We’re asking to get it put forward to January full Council and for approval once we kind of get everyone’s suggestions and changes in there.
Again, I’ve talked about the establishment of a communications committee, just real quick. What we’ve done in addition again to meet those key messages and talk of long- term plans we have, at this point drafted a formal one-year communications work plan. It’s a draft. It’s a living, breathing document. That will eventually be incorporated into the City-wide work plan. But eventually we want to get to a full robust two to three year strategic communications plan and policy for the City. But since we’ve never had something like this before, I wanted to start small and simple. Could we do a one-year plan? Because if we can’t do a one-year plan, you’re not going to be able to do a three- year plan. So, we’ve got a one-year plan that’s been drafted that’s in progress, it’s a draft really, for 2016 with a few specific goals and objectives, how we’re going to go about trying to achieve those and what measurements we’re going to set, if we’re doing a good job or not. We’ll meet quarterly throughout next year to make sure we’re accomplishing what we want and what we hope. And again, that’s a living, breathing document that will continue to change over time. And that’s the, again, like I said, the bullet point there again. Hopefully down the line in a couple years we’ll have a full two to three-year strategic communications plan.
And then lastly, the communications audit. That’s actually one of the goals we’ve drafted for next year. I think it’s really important to spend the next year taking a look at everything we do in terms of public communications. I mean, I’ve got a pretty good grasp for it, but I think really to get down in the details and analyze everything we do as a communications division. And are we maximizing staff time and resources? Are we making impact? Are we reaching the number of people we need to reach? Or are we just doing work because we’ve done it?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is this an internal audit?
MR. FERGUSON: Yes. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. So, it’s really, again, it gets back to the quality versus quantity issues. You want quality communications materials and strategies not just a bunch of -- so, I think we made some really good steps over the last year, year and a half. We’ve got a long way to go. It’s a long process to get where we want to be, but I think we’re moving in that direction and I look forward to working with all of you and continuing to move forward. So, with that, I’ll shut up and take any more questions you guys have.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, thank you, Dan. I just want to say I think you have -- I’ll echo what Dan said, too. I think you’re doing a fantastic job and it’s been great having you on board and it’s great having these conversations.
Just a couple things that I think are already kind of on your radar. I know we’ve previously talked about social media, and I think, and maybe I’m kind of making this up in my mind, but it seems like there has been a more concerted effort to get out and start sharing that stuff. So, kudos for that.
MR. FERGUSON: No. We’ve actually did some analysis over the last couple weeks. And this is not -- I’ve had a lot of help with this. It’s been more about just having a more organized statute to it. In terms of Facebook likes over the last year, year and a year, we’re up about 23 percent. Twitter has seen a huge jump. We’re about 40 percent up in terms of the number of followers. And that’s the end all be all. I mean, you know,
Page 12 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 anyone that knows anything about social media those numbers can lie in analyzing statistics, so they must align. So, it doesn’t mean everything, but I think it shows some increased engagement that we’ve tried to work on.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Absolutely. Do you have the plan? And this it’s like walk before you run, I know. But do you have a plan to maybe engage some of the other departments to get them to start funneling content to you that we can share on that main page?
MR. FERGUSON: Yes. As a part of one of the sort of strategies within that one-year work plan that we’re working on right now is establishing some communication liaisons. Really in all departments, but specifically the key departments. So, rather than me going to Public Works and saying, hey, who can I get this from, we’ll have a one person contact and say, you know, Person A, this is what I’m looking for.
We’re working on an editorial calendar actually which will be a living, breathing document. Right now we’ve got the major things in there. But again, for those quarterly meetings and through weekly discussions all have with different departments, we’re going to sit down and say, hey, what have you got going on this week. Obviously the Parks, Pipes and Pavement sales tax we’re going to see some dirt turning, some projects going on. We want to make that a huge highlight next year on the website and social media, so absolutely. I don’t know if that will be a formal plan, but the process of starting that is in place.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Great. And the one last thing I would say before I open it up to everyone else is I think we’ve talked a little bit about, and I think that the Budget in Brief that you prepared was an awesome first step. That’s a great document.
MR. FERGUSON: Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well done. About kind of looking at new ways we can present the budget. I know Brandon and I had some meetings when we were at the NLC conference with some folks who do that kind of, you know, more higher level budgets, some cool online stuff. Is that something that you kind of have in your mind right now?
MR. FERGUSON: Yes. Definitely in the back there. I’d certainly welcome anything you guys have heard in terms of strategies and ways to go about this. You know, I went to a conference back in September where there was some discussions with some communications professionals on they’re actually having the same issues trying to see what they can do to make it a little easier to read and a little I guess more “fun” to run. Fun in quotation marks.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Budgets aren’t fun?
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. Yeah. So, I’m going to be reaching out to some of those people that spoke, but certainly welcome any feedback on that. That’s definitely something we want to take a look at.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim, I think you had something.
Page 13 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I just want to say this is -- it’s good to have something like this and I appreciate the job you’ve been doing. I particularly like the idea that you have of having a one-stop shopping, one person in each department to go to or ask questions of because that will streamline it and make more information. I think it’s a great idea. But as you suggested many times, it’s a living breathing document and we’ll learn as we go along, but the City is going to be better off for it.
MR. FERGUSON: No. And I’ve told everyone, I mean, I’m working as hard as I can to improve stuff and to move us forward, but this is a team effort. I mean, I’ve had an incredible amount of help and been really blessed by it. Bridget specifically is one person, Bridge Moser. I’ve told her specifically she can’t leave as long as I’m in Shawnee. She’s not allowed. And I have tons of help. And I think kind of establishing those key people and sort of making [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Does anyone else have anything? Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Just a little bit of feedback. I love the idea of an editorial calendar by the way, so. I think the best companies who utilize social media most effectively have that. So, great idea. I really love that. The website redesign, refresh, does that fall into the one-year communications plan, or is that a separate project?
MR. FERGUSON: It is. We’ve kind of gone back and forth on it. Originally when we started on the work plan we had it in there and then there was some feedback that was sort of split on it. Part of the group was that’s a really large project, let’s focus on that later. But then thinking about it, talking about it more, that’s become a, I know a piece for me selfishly, but to be quite honest with you, a pretty high priority to redesign and improve our website. There’s no firm timeline on that, but that’s something I know that we’re going to start actively looking into. And so, yes, that is -- we do have it listed as sort of a strategy on the one-year plan. I don’t know if it’s going to meet within that one year, but that, you know, is certainly can be pushed back because that’s going to be a longer span of time to accomplish that. But we ultimately decided that we needed to put that in there because that’s such a [inaudible] for us to get at some point that to not have it in there seems -- it just seemed not to make sense really, so [inaudible].
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Part of that you’ll hear more about during the budget process, because of course it is a big project. But as we [inaudible].
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mike, did you have something?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. Are you done?
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. Yeah. Dan, thanks for the presentation. I’ll make a handful of comments, then I’ve got some questions for you as well.
MR. FERGUSON: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: The communication I think is hugely important. Just recently with this chicken coop thing that we had, I know that the Dispatch does a
Page 14 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 summary article and that’s their job is to summarize it. But I feel like the majority of e- mails I got were objections because they weren’t aware of what we were doing. So, they were objections about things that we had discussed for an hour. But since they couldn’t get it from the summary they didn’t know. And I feel like if we had had that information out there like we had discussed this, that and that, it wouldn’t have necessarily sold everybody, but it would have prevented I think a lot of the anger to know that we had done some due diligence on some of these items and had considered some of these items. So, that was just one recent example I think where communication would have been key and would have saved us probably a lot of angry e-mails just in general.
On your presentation here, I really do like the “What do we hope to accomplish.” That’s good. “How do we hope to accomplish it?” Great. The Outlets and Our Focus, I love all that. I’m kind of like Dan. I’m not quite sure on this Key Messages part because I feel like the role of the City in communication is to be informative, not to try to sell the citizen on what we’re doing. And so going back to this chicken coop, informative would be that we discussed possibly permitting. We discussed different regulations on distance, whereas selling would be chickens are going to be great, you’re going to love chickens, be for chickens. And so when --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Eat lots of chicken.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Eat lots of chicken. Yeah. Eat more chicken.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It’s not like a Chick-fil-A. It’s not like a Chick-fil-A.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Not your neighbor’s chicken.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. And so when it comes to being informative by all means the focus is great and it helps us accomplish that by being accurate and timely and inclusive and all those things. These key messages I feel like are an attempt to sell the City. Really I don’t even know on this key message if even the eight people sitting here could agree on whether we’re efficient or whether we use tax dollars wisely, and that’s a small sample. So, I’m just not a huge fan of that key message section. I like all of it outside of that. So, my comment is I don’t know if we should remove that or I just don’t see the purpose in that key message section.
MR. FERGUSON: And if I may [inaudible] questions and comments just to kind of respond to that very quickly. I can certainly understand your concern. I mean that’s, again, it’s a living breathing document. It weighs some things. And I think we looked in terms of this presentation and in terms of policy statement, you know, let’s put more in there maybe to start with and then we can get a starting point. I do think I certainly understand your point about that walking that fine line between selling someone something. I think that gets back to the point that when you do have a key message, whatever they are, whether it’s five or six or we tell them something different or we left them out. I do think it’s important though that when we communicate with the public that we talk about a project that we don’t sell it to you. To use your word sell it, but we do show that obviously, you know, you give us, you know, your tax dollars and we want people to feel good that they are getting invested wisely. It doesn’t mean that we’re always going to agree on every project, every issue. But I do think that it’s important
Page 15 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 that we have some -- a sense, a story to tell. But that’s a fine line. You make a great point. It is a fine line between a sales job and I think that’s where it leans back on us to if we’re going to have those key messages, we have to approve them. I mean it’s got to be substantial and substantive.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And when I’ve done, to jump in, when I’ve done -- I’m done a million of these communications plans through my world. Typically when you do a key messaging or something like this they’re more aspirational. So, we want to strive as a city to be all these things. We want everyone to think, so less of a we’re the best in town, but more of we hope to accomplish these.
MR. FERGUSON: And I think I see both where Councilman Pflumm and Councilman Kemmling are coming from in terms of maybe whether we include them or not, but if we do, looking at tweaking to make that a little clearer in terms of what the focus of them are. So, we can absolutely take a look at that.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It touches on my comment when I was talking about consistent message too because I was trying to stay away from the sales thing and we want to get the coordinated message when we’re putting facts out so that we don’t have three sets of facts going out obviously.
MR. FERGUSON: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But I didn’t want it to be opinion-swaying kind of stuff. It’s just the facts, man.
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. No question on that. Again, that’s our focus from what I’m told, you know, when I engage the citizens that, you know, the community, whatever, what I tell them it’s our job to provide the information. It’s up to you to decide whether it’s good or not. That’s not my job to persuade you.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I think you’ve done a fabulous job [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike, do you have more questions?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I have a handful of questions. If we want to discuss this topic tonight --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’ve got just a real comment, and I understand what Mike is saying. You said the word, I like the word “strive.”
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Uh-huh. That kind of word.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think that’s a good word.
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. Absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because I think we could, you’re right, I think we’d all -- some of us here would agree differently on that phrase, but I think we all can agree that we strive for that.
MR. FERGUSON: Right.
Page 16 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, going on to a couple questions. I’ll make a generalization. If we’re making a policy statement, we’re either trying to improve something that’s -- we’re either trying to fix something that’s broken or improve upon something that’s not quite working like we’d like it to.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Or I think establish a new protocol.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Or establish a new protocol. So, we’re making a new policy statement. What are we specifically as a -- can you give me an example of something we’re trying to prevent from happening again? Is there an area in the past that we’re fixing with this statement, or --
MR. FERGUSON: I don’t know if I can give you a specific example. I’ll speak in a general sense. I think what I’ve found and again, you know, I’ve had a great experience working with the employees across the departments, but I do think one major issue that I think this policy statement is a step, not the solution, but a step along with the formal communications plan and working through that is there is a lot of sort of people crossing over each other and not talking to one another and things not getting done as efficiently as possible. So, I think if I were to highlight one thing I think that’s the one I have seen. And it’s nothing, I mean, we’re like any other organization, but I mean, that’s going to be a constant challenge. So, it’s not unique to us, so I don’t want to alarm people that we’ve got something going on that’s unique to us. But I think that’s -- with this that’s one major area that I’m hoping that we can sort of rein in a little bit.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Mike, it seems to me though that we’re doing here is kind of -- we’re codifying our communications policy. We’ve had communications obviously all along. But now we’ve got a professional staff person that that’s their full- time responsibility. It seems appropriate to put together our basic, okay, this is how we’re going function with this new person and this is how we’re going to put our policy together for the City. So, it seems like a good idea.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan, did you have something on messages before?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. In general, we’re going to be doing a lot more traffic work, road repairs. I mean, we’ve had -- we get e-mails when Pflumm Road was down because we had a pipe broke and, you know, they had to shut the whole road down to go across there. That’s great. But I think that needs to be on our website. I’m not a Facebook guy, so maybe you had it on there, maybe you did. And then the other areas are like, you know, when people are warming their cars up, you know, the Police Department kind of says, hey, you know, we had a stolen car here. Don’t let your car warm up for more than five minutes. Those are the kinds of messages that you need to kind of coordinate through our website or something like that. But I don’t know that everybody uses Facebook. And I think more people than you think probably go to our website. MR. FERGUSON: No, there’s no question. We have a great number of our hits on our website. It’s one of our largest outlets. So, that’s something that we try to balance it, but then obviously we have a lot work going on at one time, so we don’t necessarily do every single road closure when we have -- sort of your one on Pflumm Road when we had that major one, we did have it out there. When we have those major ones that’s my first question generally when I get a notice about a road closure is, okay, what’s the impact that we’re talking about. And based on that we sort of make an independent
Page 17 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 case-by-case decision on, okay, does this, you know, kind of meet the parameters getting out there community-wide. And a lot of cases it does. And at that point, you know, I talk to Nico at the Dispatch and say can you get it out there on your website and we put it on our website, social media, through our e-mail update and Constant Contact. We have about -- around a thousand citizens right now signed up for those, which we grow here so. And obviously again, Councilman, with the Parks, Pipes and Pavement, you know, with those projects, especially with the street projects next year that’s something we’re going to really focus on consistently, keeping people updated on that work going on.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike, we’ll quit interrupting you now.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sorry.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Maybe.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m kind of -- I think you’ve kind of answered this question, but I was going to ask you, this policy statement, is this supposed to just apply to the Communications department or is it all City employees or what’s the scope of this?
MR. FERGUSON: I think it’s specific to the Communications division. Obviously for this policy to work and be effective and for the Communications committee to be effective we’re going to need buy-in from obviously the Governing Body to start, especially with the policy statement. And then we’re going to have to have buy-in from all City departments and Parks and Rec, City management. So, I would say, and people can correct me if I’m wrong, I would say the Communications division is in charge of helping oversee that this is put in place and handled appropriately and take the responsibility for it. But it’s going to be organization by [inaudible] successful or not.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And I guess my question there was about whether this is going to be used -- with Councilmembers here we get asked questions by press and typically we have Facebook pages and we make -- is this to be construed as applying to the Councilmembers themselves?
MR. FERGUSON: I would, and again, I will speak based on my opinion of that question you asked. I would say no. I generally as a Communications Manager for the City generally draw the lines between City and elected officials. It’s not in any way my responsibility to tell Councilman Kenig, Councilman Pflumm or Councilman Kemmling what you think about an issue and how you should handle the interview. I’m certainly there as an outlet if you don’t know a reporter and I’ve a relationship with them and you have a question on how to handle things or you want some information on an issue, I’m certainly there to help and willing to help. But in terms of you can’t talk to a reporter without coming to me, that’s -- I don’t think you’d do that anyway, but that’s not going to happen. But I think, yeah, I think it’s an organization-wide approach. COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. That’s my questions.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Is there any other discussion from the Council?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: The kids were just taking a selfie so that they could make sure that their teacher knew that they were here.
Page 18 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I know. They were putting it on Facebook maybe.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Or their website.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Maybe. Or their website, maybe both.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You’re going to be more famous than you ever were.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you, Dan.
MR. FERGUSON: All right. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none, the recommended action tonight is to forward the proposed policy statement to the January 11, 2016 Council meeting. Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I move that we forward the policy statement to the January 11, 2016 Council meeting for approval of the Governing Body.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I have a motion and a second. All in favor --
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Before we --
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, yes. Sorry.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Real quick, just a further discussion. So, there was talk about possibly changing the message section. Are we voting right now to forward as is without changes?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I believe that’s the motion on the floor, so.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, I moved -- it says, to read it, it says, “Staff recommends the Council Committee forward the Communications Policy Statement with any recommended changes to the January 11, 2016 City Council meeting for approval.” That would be the verbiage of my motion.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. What are our recommended changes?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, Dan, do you have enough information to make some modifications?
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah. We’ll work on the -- I know I saw Carol making some notes. Obviously I have made some notes. I think we’re pretty clear, but certainly if there are any questions the Communications committee will get in contact with you to make sure. And then again, at that, you know, [inaudible] finalize this. But, yeah, I think we’re good.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: With that clarification I continue to second it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Very good. We have a motion and a second. All this in favor say aye.
Page 19 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0).
2. DISCUSS REVISIONS TO POLICY STATEMENT PS-65, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND, REGARDING THE SHAWNEE ENTREPRENEURIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SEED) PROGRAM.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The second item on tonight’s agenda is to Discuss Revisions to Policy Statement PS-65, Economic Development Fund Regarding the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development SEED Program.
The SEED program was established in June of 2012 as a part of PS-65. It is an economic development incentive tool that encourages job creation within Shawnee. Since that time the program has assisted eight employers in Shawnee, helping to create more than 230 new jobs. City staff, along with other economic development partners, have reviewed the program and are proposing revisions to enhance its effectiveness. Additionally, Councilmember Kenig put forth several concepts related to start-ups that have been developed into proposed new elements of the SEED program. Andrew Nave, Executive Director of the Shawnee Economic Development Council, will review the proposed changes and receive input.
Go ahead, Andrew. Welcome.
MR. NAVE: Thank you. [Inaudible] This program has been around a couple years now and I think been extremely successful. But like any program we want to, first off, where does it do well, what are some areas we that can improve it, and then where are some areas that we can enhance it to make a little bit better. So, that’s what I’m here to discuss with all of you tonight.
Run through some of the summary points of the SEED program. The SEED program, Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development program, which you all remember was a little over three years ago that was passed as kind of a new tool in our toolbox of economic development incentives. We’ve had, you know, targeted incentives when it comes to locations and real estate. We’ve had some tools when it comes to what type of project we’re trying to incentivize, whether it’s a highly capital intensive project like a manufacturing building that requires potentially a large investment in real estate or a property tax abate could apply. We didn’t really have that perfect solution or that tool for kind of those labor intensive projects, whether it may be significant job creation, but not as high a capital investment. So, that was some of the theory around the task force of the EDC members that met and made some recommendations to this body. And as a result of that was incorporated into Policy Statement 65 as part of the Economic Development Fund.
But a lot of the language in the policy statement about the background and history, won’t repeat it all. But at its essence, at its core, the SEED program was focused around job creation and entrepreneurialship. We didn’t really have tools to address those two areas of economic development. And so that’s what the program was designed to do.
Page 20 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 It really came out in two components, tangible components. The Forgivable Loan Program, which is up-front cash-based program based on kind of new payroll commitment of a company moving to Shawnee. We’ve used that program as Council President Meyer alluded to seven times. And we have a couple of those projects pending and we reviewed that project -- that set of programs seven times. We have probably discussed it, pitched it, sold it to companies dozens and dozens of times, maybe hundreds of times. So, it’s sold a lot. It’s oftentimes the marketing hook that we use to stay in front of a company or to get our name, our community and our sites and building in on a project that may otherwise we wouldn’t have if we didn’t have this slate of tools that we have. So, the Forgivable Tool Program is a very good tool for us.
The Loan Fee Payment Program is a program that was created at the exact same time with a different focus. It was focused on entrepreneurs, a small business creation, a small business development. If you remember at the time there was a lot of changes and modifications to the SBA lending standards and some of the components of the SBA financing. And so we kind of took some of the best of some of the changes that were made to the SBA programs and created a program called the Loan Fee Payment Program, which is a little of a mouthful, but we couldn’t figure out a way to truncate, to shorten that. But it has been used once. We have two other companies right now in Shawnee that I would call them pending. They’re looking at it and they’re running their analysis. But essentially what that does is to help buy down some of the SBA fees for certain types of SBA loans and only a portion of fees. Not all fees, not all the bank fees, but a portion of SBA fees. And really what that is designed to accomplish or practically accomplish is that it helps companies lower their debt service, which thereby increases their cash flow. Typically in a SBA loan a lot of those fees are rolled into the loan principal, so that’s extra principal that you have to pay on. If we can lower that debt service that helps some of our entrepreneurs and small companies. So, those are the two components of the program that we currently have.
Participants in the program as of today, we have eight participants. One, you can see Heartland Seating there two-thirds of the way down. These are somewhat -- these are chronological order rather with the SBA Loan Fee Payment Program. I’ll tell you I feel really good. There’s a cross-section all over the community in terms of where these companies are located. Clarence M. Kelly stores are out in western Shawnee. Mile Hi Foods is at Westlink in the new development along K-7. Heartland Seating is in downtown. General Automatic, Wesco are in the Nieman Business Park in the eastern portion of our city, so good geographic spread around the community and an even spread between -- half of these are office users, half of these are industrial users. About half of these were leases where a company came in and they were only leasing, another half of them were purchasing an asset, purchasing a building. So again, I think the spread of how the tool has been applied has been very good.
You can see there at the bottom, I won’t go through all of them, but 320,000 has been expended for this particular program for these two components for the SEED program at 250 new jobs created in the community. That’s a little over $1,200 a job if you were to run the math that way, which comparing to state programs, which there’s obviously considerably more economic development incentive programs at the state level than at the municipal level. A cash base incentive program that’s between $1,000 and $1,500 per job is a pretty good standard, a pretty good metric when you compare those. There are other incentive programs, tax credit programs, other offsets that can exceed that greatly. They can go up to $2,000, $3,000, $5,000 a job if there was a tax credit. But
Page 21 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 this is a cash based program and I feel confident that your program is where it needs to be. So, that’s kind of a run-down of kind of who some of the recipients are.
I want to run through a few just highlights of some of the proposed changes. Again, we’re making some tweaks and a couple new suggestions and modifications to the program. A big one that we’re looking and proposing to adjust is allowing for median salary to be a component of eligibility. Right now the program calls for, again the two different component programs work differently, but the Forgivable Loan Program is the program we’re talking about here. It requires an average wage. The theory being that we’re trying to encourage companies to come into Shawnee that have an average wage in Johnson County. That we’re driving the wages in our community up, not down. That’s theory behind it. As the average wages kind of grow, as the economy recovers, last year as we promoted the program that average wage across Johnson County was about $48,000 a year. That’s all industries, everyone combined. So, that includes the big engineering firms. That includes Sprint. This year that average wage, as we sit today, is about $52,000. So, that average wage can be a component that makes some companies ineligible just because of that. Still a good thing, still a good policy to have that would drive the wages up. But we’re looking at proposing that we adjust it to within a specific industry. We look at the median of the average industry, the average wage in that industry meaning that if an employer pays well against their peers that they don’t necessarily maybe out-pay Sprint so to speak. That’s still a good job. That’s still a good investment of our resources to bring that company to Shawnee. So, proposing slight, it’s an addition to it, it’s not replacing the average wage. But in addition to another way that the company could be eligible is through their industry media.
We’re also redefining “spec” building occupant, the “spec” building occupant level of benefit. Before that was even [inaudible] still the previous definition was planned multi- tenant building occupant. And that was a mouthful. It was always hard for me to describe to the real estate brokers and with [inaudible] and folks that are helping these companies make these decisions, it’s easier just to say “spec” building. If we get a company that’s coming in that’s wanting to occupy a “spec” building, wanting to kick off a “spec” building that will give us additional real estate to lease to other companies in the future, that’s a good thing. That’s a good economic development strategy. So, we’re kind of clarifying that.
I’ll talk about “High Growth” program employer and a couple of the new programs, the Property Tax Assistance and Lease Assistance programs in a minute. At the bottom two other kind of tweaks in this recommendation are confirmation of salary eligibility to SEDC staff over privacy concerns. The eight participants we’ve had so far, over half of them have raised concerns. None of them have had, after we’ve kind of walked them through it, but over half of them have raised concerns about, well, wait a minute, if I share my average wage data with the City, how does that work, do my employees see all that data and what concerns does that create. We’ve had many, many more companies raise that concern that were eligible for the program that chose to deny the program. Some of which came to Shawnee anyway, but many of which did not because they did not want to disclose their wages. This is particularly acute when we’re dealing with a smaller company. You saw previously that some of these recipients of 19 jobs, 18 jobs, and the small business, when you’re starting to share wages, that can have -- that’s a sensitivity. That’s an impact that business owners definitely feel. So, what we’re proposing under these changes is to still have the requirement, still have that hurdle and that bar to know that when we’re expending public dollars that we’re still driving those wages up. But to have that information available to our office where it can
Page 22 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 be kept confidential and then our conveyance to you all when we come before you with one of these proposals is to convey that. That’s very similar to how the State Department of Commerce, Kansas Department Commerce discloses their information and kind of keeps that from being in the paper the next day so to speak. And then also kind of throughout the program kind of shifting the focus from that average salary focus and at least the language of the document to total payroll.
And again, I think you remember from when we set this up, the theory being on payroll there’s a lot of different ways in an incentive program to structure it. Some are based on per job, some are based on just the wage. We’re looking at the payroll. Again, we’re trying to add new wealth to our community. We’re looking at how much new payroll does a company bring into Shawnee or does a company add that’s already in Shawnee because it’s about payroll. We might have a high wage employer that has very few jobs, well, that’s a good thing. Inversely, we might have an average paying employer who does a lot of jobs, well, that’s a good thing, a good projected reason, so that’s why we focus on payroll. So, those are a couple of the tweaks to the language in the policy statement and then I’ll talk about a couple new components that we’d like you all to consider adding.
The first one being the High Growth Benefit is what we’re calling it. This would again be the Forgivable Loan Program. There’s a benefit level for a new business to Shawnee that’s 1½ percent. There’s a higher level, 2 percent for an existing Shawnee business. And that follows our longstanding policy on property tax abatement that we’re incentivizing those companies that have been in our community for the long period of time, incentivizing them at a higher level. That’s always been our policy. And then we’re looking at the Spec Building Program. This would be a fourth component, the high growth benefit, again focusing on and really trying to target what are those areas of our economy, not just the Shawnee and the Johnson County, the regional economy, but of the national economy and across all the industries. What industries are growing. What industries are really moving forward over the long term and what are going to have the highest impact.
Rather than just kind of take a stab at what those might be we really drilled down trying to decide which companies those are through some of the documents and discussions that are happening all around our region. Most recently, Mid-America Regional Council, in partnership with the Brookings Institute, has released kind of the, what they’re calling the Prosperity at a Crossroads, a report that focuses on economic development all across the Kansas City Metro, but it focuses on several core things that we as a metro can do to be more economic development competitive. One of the things is focus on key industries. What are the industries that our region, both Kansas and Missouri, that our region does really well and let’s leverage and maximize those. So, that’s kind of where we’ve kind of landed on. We’re going to focus on those high growth sectors rather than being kind of open-ended to, you know, each to his own opinion. This really kind of focuses with some data and with some backing of other groups that are targeting industries that have economic development programs. This is some of the ways we can target that.
So, the four that we’ve kind of pulled out of that report are transportation and warehousing. We’re basing this on NAICS, those North American Industry Classification Codes. Every business has their own industry classifications. So, transportation and warehousing which is obviously a big bucket, but certainly we see that. That’s always been a strength of Shawnee and will continue to be. We’re seeing
Page 23 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 that with the Westlink development. A number of the tenants in the Westlink development are warehouse distribution employers. Not as many manufacturers as I would have originally expected right out of the gate. I still think there will be manufacturing companies in the Westlink development, but the first three of the first four have been distribution companies.
Information. Certainly IT technology, the information sector, that’s NAICS Code 51. That’s a big sector, but that certainly is a growing industry. Finance and Insurance and Professional Services, those are two things that Johnson County and Shawnee, but certainly Johnson County has a strength in already, an area that I would recommend that we focus on. We’re going to have that more aggressive level of benefit.
You can see the benefit period that jumps 3.5 percent. That’s the benefit. We’re doing a quick example for you. We do some examples on some of the newer programs, but just an example. A hundred employee -- 100 jobs, 100 employee new company to Shawnee that had -- let’s say it’s an IT company, about $60,000 job per employee. That’s a $6 million payroll. That’s going to come to about $200,000 of that benefit. So, that gives you a frame of reference, 100 employees, $60,000, that’s about $200,000 of that level of benefit. Which from a technology company to kind of separate us in the marketplace, that will certainly have a positive impact. That will certainly help us do that.
So, that’s the High Growth Benefit. That’s kind of a new proposal, new kind of look. Some of this was Councilman Kenig’s suggestions in terms of let’s focus on the strengths of not only the things that we do well, but what are some things that are coming down the horizon that we should be targeting.
Another program. Property Tax Assistance Program. So, this is a program that as we look at kind of the gaps and our incentive tools. And that’s what we’re trying to, you know, we’re trying to meet the broadest cross-section of companies that we can attract to Shawnee. But there’s always gaps. There’s always challenges where our tools don’t precisely fit what the company is trying to do or what maybe they’re leasing and not buying or maybe they’re only going to consider leasing. We’re trying to fill gaps where we can. I think this program could do that in some respects. So, the Property Tax Assistance Program, how this would work would be, again, encouraging new business with some of the cost of a new property. Again, limited to high growth industry. So, as we propose today, those four NAICS codes, those four broad categories, limited to those, is a new incentive tool. But it would be a reimbursement of all of their real estate taxes. Four, unlike our property tax abatement program which lasts ten years, up to ten years, this would be limited to three years initially and potential of a fourth year. So, you can see kind of the breakdown there, 100 percent for the first year, 75, and then 50 for the third year. The fourth year --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. You didn’t mention on the fourth year what that was going to be. Is that 25 percent or --
MR. NAVE: I think that’s open-ended. I think the assumption would be that it would either be the same as the third year or we could continue to stair step it down with another 25 percent. We were leaving it fairly open-ended to get your feedback. But also, you know, again, what we’re looking to add with the fourth year is some components that encourage that company, that employer to further invest in the community. Whether it’s LEED standards, environmental sustainability, or is multi-
Page 24 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 mobile transit opportunities, whether it’s, you know, dedicating some right-of-way, dedicating some property on there, whether it’s newly acquired or a newly constructed building, providing some of those options. Or whether it’s continuing with the entrepreneurial focus of this program giving some assistance to some of the programs we already have in town, whether it’s the DeviceShop, whether it’s Enterprise Center of Johnson County, whether it’s doing some entrepreneurial assistance on their own and tell us what applicant, tell us what that looks like, what does that mean to you. And I think that’s an open-ended question.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But that isn’t giving like Westlink a hundred percent of their, for say, just to pay for four buildings through a cycle period --
MR. NAVE: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: -- when there’s one company involved that owns them. That’s several companies involved.
MR. NAVE: Right. Again, and this is designed for an employer. Again, they have to be located within the NAICS codes of a high growth industry, so no, I would not anticipate this -- this wouldn’t be eligible for a development or a developer, a multi-tenant.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Right. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What if -- and obviously our goal is to get commitments from employers that would be [inaudible], but not a lot of employers want to buy. And obviously from an investment perspective, so if I look at an employer that said, hey, I’ll sign a 15-year lease on that building but the numbers don’t work, can we tweak that so that an investor can come to us and we see that three-year benefit if we get a ten-year commitment from an employer to go in that building? Because in effect we accomplish the same thing, but not everybody wants to own real estate.
MR. NAVE: Or they come to the lease assistance program which addresses that to some degree.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Well, then just tell them to hold off. I’ll go back to [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, the comment I’ve got is, and I don’t know that I want to narrow it down to four categories. You know, I mean, we’re limiting ourselves and I don’t think we’re at the point that we can do that, that we just want IT guys or something like that.
MR. NAVE: Well, the thought being that, no, in each of those four broad categories those are very broad. There’s hundreds and hundreds of companies that would fall within those NAICS code. Within a three-digit NAICS code there’s actually six. So, it could be that each of those categories could be very, very broad. But the philosophy or the strategy was to encourage those that are really going to have an impact, you know, really going to expand long-term rather than incentivizing the furniture manufacturer that did that. Really what’s going to happen long-term for the global economy in the long- run is that --
Page 25 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, I’m not disagreeing. I’m just saying I don’t know that we want to minimize it.
MR. NAVE: And we may not have the right mix, Dan. We might need to be tweaking what are those four? What are those right mixes? We’ve got the four that we’re proposing to you, again from that Regional Prosperity at a Crossroads report that the Brookings Institute did their analysis on. These are the four sectors in Kansas City in the Kansas City Metropolitan area that have the potential of both in terms of organic growth, in terms of employment growth.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And it is amazing that we have this opportunity to [inaudible] step up [inaudible].
MR. NAVE: Point well made. We might need to be tweaking that.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, it doesn’t need to be limited to high growth industries. It could be targeting high growth industry companies, but open to where we so deemed appropriate for that type of assistance.
MR. NAVE: And as you know, at the bottom of the Policy Statement 65, there’s always the conveyance that whatever is the will of the Council. So, all of these programs can be tweaked to some degree or another with -- at you guys’ discretion.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. It’s only a policy.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I agree with Eric on the wording. You know, if you word it that you’re not limited to those, but you’re targeting these NAICS codes. You know, if we don’t say limited to that, then that leaves you open that when a guy calls up and he’s outside that and he’s brand new, next year, brand new industry, we can maybe offer him something.
MR. NAVE: And bear in mind, well, that’s the high growth industry focus is the highest level. That doesn’t mean that somebody that might fall out of that particular category wouldn’t still be eligible for the 1½ percent because they’re a new business to Shawnee, irrespective of their industry. So, it doesn’t preclude them from any benefit, it’s just it’s that the highest level of benefit.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: You can get a reduced benefit for him.
MR. NAVE: I’m sorry?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It would be a lower benefit.
MR. NAVE: It would be a lower benefit for sure.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I just wanted to address Councilmember Jenkins’ [inaudible] based on what you said. And I think I completely agree because I think the thinking behind this is that these incentives can definitely be relevant to multiple industries. But the thinking was just that we obviously had a void when it came to
Page 26 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 particular industries, especially with kind of the start-up arena and high tech where, you know, this was targeted to them. So, definitely I think we can tweak the wording. But the idea was sort of as you said have this targeted towards those industries and be able to provide something that’s more kind of relevant for them and the kind of diversity of the programs that we offer. So, by all means it would definitely improve that.
MR. NAVE: I have a couple of examples of how this program might apply in the Property Tax Assistance Program, and I think I breezed over it quickly before. But again, this could be somebody for acquiring, purchasing an existing building in Shawnee, which is the gap we have right now. Right now we have a tool if a company comes and wants to build a new building and we have the property tax abatement tool. We can help them do that. If they come in and want to buy an existing building [inaudible] we have a tool that can really address that. So, this is one again that I’d want to attempt to look at that. Or it could be for construction, too. It may be the size of the project, our minimum investment criteria for property tax abatement is $1.5 million. Maybe they’re going to build small buildings. So this again this [inaudible] tool would be used for smaller projects.
So, these are just two examples. Again, existing building. Just kind of try to throw two examples at you. So, take for example the Bank Midwest building out in western Shawnee. It’s about 5,000 square feet which would, and I think there’s five dedicated offices in that building today. There’s a [inaudible] in area. So, I just drew an estimate if maybe there’s eight people working there at $45,000 a year, that would give an annual payroll of $360,000 a year. The current taxes, as I pulled them up yesterday and today, are right at $50,000 a year. So, over a three-year period, again at that 100/75/50 that scale that would be $112,000 of benefit that we’d pay over that three-year period. And essentially what does that get us? That helps us get an employer that bought that building that’s generating $360,000 in payroll and wealth in our community over those three years. And it’s already on the tax rolls, so it wasn’t a tax abatement kind of thing. But somebody is now generating that kind of payroll in our community each year.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’ve got a problem doing this with banks. You know, we’re a bank city. They’re coming to us because this is where they want to be. And then if you want to give them incentive to get more in here?
MR. NAVE: Yeah. And this is just the Bank Midwest building which is vacant now, so I used it as an existing building example.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Because the bank owns it.
MR. NAVE: I know. And it very well might be --
[Inaudible; Councilmembers talking over one another]
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Exclude banks.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Exclude banks.
MR. NAVE: And then another example for newer office buildings, again --
[Inaudible; Councilmembers talking over one another]
Page 27 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 MR. NAVE: -- estimates of payroll and that type of thing, taxes. So, you know, a larger building, that [inaudible] is going to be a bit larger.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, I agree over the last few years with a program like this, the Perceptive building, finding the people that [inaudible] some pretty good prospects on that building this would have been a pretty good hook.
MR. NAVE: I don’t necessarily think this program would have been a good hook. Again, remember this is -- look at the three years.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I understand that. But it’s an existing building.
MR. NAVE: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, if you get someone looking at the tax roll on that building.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: The larger SEED program we currently have is our big hook, so this would be a hook for smaller employers.
[Inaudible; Councilmembers talking amongst themselves]
MR. NAVE: You just pick the base number [inaudible] so [inaudible] 100,000 square feet. The way the map [inaudible] -- the employer that’s going to fill up that building just because of its size is going to generate --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [inaudible]
MR. NAVE: But we do have a gap where maybe the company doesn’t have ten employees, which is the minimum criteria for the Forgivable Loan. Maybe they are buying a building, but they’re not, you know, they’re not constructing. So, there’s a gap here that I think this Property Tax Assistance Program is going to be the tool.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I’m curious. In your first example there that payroll doesn’t necessarily come back to Shawnee. I mean, yeah, it’s possible they could purchase lunch here, but that’s not a real earnings. I mean, the Property tax, yes, we will -- the property tax, like they’ll pay that. If they construct a new building they’re already paying it on the vacant building, aren’t they?
MR. NAVE: You’re absolutely right. Yeah. This isn’t a fiscal analysis in terms of the fiscal effect. The economic benefit I was trying to capture there is intrinsic. You’re absolutely right. Eight employers at $45,000 a job, that’s creates $360,000 worth of payroll. Is all of that money being spent in Shawnee? No.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
MR. NAVE: A chunk of it is, so that was trying to capture that. Not so much the fiscal on that, yeah.
Page 28 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. I would be curious to see if we could get some kind of estimate on what this does bring in. Because like I said I know one of the provisions, I can’t remember which program has the 25 percent provision, if that’s the loan -- I guess that’s the Forgivable Loan part that has the 25 percent, need to be Shawnee residents. But the others I don’t think have that stipulation. So with the others, in theory, all 100 percent of that could be living outside of Shawnee not paying, I mean because we don’t have an income tax, so they’re not --
MR. NAVE: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: We don’t really know how much of that is coming back.
MR. NAVE: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [inaudible] state law.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. There you go. Right. But I’m just kind of curious, because like I said we can calculate the cost fairly easily, but I’d be curious if there was something that we could do --
MR. NAVE: No. You absolutely hit on that key point that capturing the fiscal benefit of these is a lot more difficult. But we do do that for you when we propose a property tax abatement tool. You’ve seen those.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
MR. NAVE: And if you’ve seen things out in [inaudible] --
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
MR. NAVE: Maureen and I have discussed on a semi-regular basis to do that.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: The feasibility studies.
MR. NAVE: And kind of the feasibility studies. The challenge we have here on a one- off basis, first of all the SEED program is only three years old.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
MR. NAVE: So, we’ve only had a couple companies really go through one or two for brief periods, so we’re just now getting to the point where we have some reviewable data that we really [inaudible] can make some determinations on. But we would want to do that on a semi-regular basis, but still on an annual basis on every single employer with I don’t know how much data that would share with you in terms of the fiscal impact. It’s something we should do on a semi-regular basis.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: All right. Thank you.
MR. NAVE: So, those are the two examples for the Property Tax Assistance Program.
Page 29 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 And, Jeff, your question about what if a company comes in and they’re not building some new buildings, so property tax abatement maybe isn’t the right tool. They’re not going to purchase a small building, so the previous component maybe wouldn’t be helpful. They’re only going to lease. So, the Lease Assistance Program is another tool, another component that we drafted and proposed. I think this one really meets the need and the niche for entrepreneurship. Many of our small start-ups and our smaller entrepreneurs are starting out. They’re not going to build. They’re not going to buy a building. They’re going to come in and rent some space, and oftentimes a small space. And we don’t have a good tool right now as it stands to address that. So, also looking at targeting high growth as a level of benefit, targeting high growth. But more scalable to the [inaudible]. And this is really limited to and looking at companies that have ten or fewer employees. Again, the SEED program, the existing Forgivable Loan Program starts at ten jobs. We only have that good tool beneath that. We do have the SBA tool. And that other company can use the SBA financing. For several projects with some of our smaller companies that have looked at that and say, yeah, I’m bootstrapping this thing. I’m truly an entrepreneur. I can’t go to the bank and get a loan yet. I’m not to that point, so an SBA loan doesn’t do me any good. I really need some other assistance. So, this is really more of an entrepreneurial focus.
The benefit would be looking at that annualized lease payment. So, what is that annual lease payment that they’re -- if they’re moving into a space, if they’re, you know, kind of subletting an office from a landlord, what is that lease agreement, what is that least payment. We’ve been looking at it for three years. We kind of went back and forth on what that term is, but we kind of settled on three years is kind of that tried and true metric. If a business has really gotten off the ground in three years, they stand a good chance. There’s many that don’t make it to that standpoint. But three years is oftentimes a good metric.
We’re also looking at less than ten employees. How can we make it scalable for those really small companies. So, what we’ve landed on that made some sense is for two employees, a small benefit because it’s obviously clearly the smaller size of the company, a smaller number of employment impact, smaller economic impact that is going out. That two employees would be at an offset of 20 percent of their lease expense. So, they share with us what is their annualized lease rate, what is their annual lease payment and we look at 20 percent of that amount. For three to five employees it would scale up to a little bit higher level. As they grow in employment we’ll try to scale up with them. And then six to ten employees would be 30 percent.
We would look at seeking what are those lease rates, share with us your lease documents and then making sure that that’s within market rates. We wouldn’t certainly want something that’s out of the ordinary or out of the realm of what’s a fair lease rate in the market. And then certainly all of these components have a commitment to an agreement that any of these agreements that we’re going to have with a company that’s public money, so we’re going to have them commit to an actual agreement and there’s going to be measurements and there’s clawbacks included. So, that’s certainly part of a Lease Assistance Program as well.
Two examples, again, of the Lease Assistance Program. Again, at the top you can kind of see the scalability and kind of the benefit. For a start I just threw a couple of examples at you. For two employees, $45,000 a year is $270,000 of new payroll over three years. A two employee firm might rent 850 square feet. You know, we often look at 200, 250. It used to be 300 square feet per person per employee. That’s not really
Page 30 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 the number anymore. But always a common area is just for the sake of argument, 850 square feet. You’re looking at $15,000 of an annual rent. $18 a square foot is right in the meaty part of the curve for what our office rent rates are in Shawnee right now. So, the benefit would be $3,000 per year or $9,000 a year total. Again, looking at that for two employees at that 20 percent level, 20 percent of the 15,000 is about $3,000.
An expanding tech firm. This one gets a little more complicated, but looking at a company that has six employees, but is going to grow to ten over the three years, so they have six, then they have eight, then they have ten. So, their payroll kind of scales up. That’s why the 1.8 number is a little bit higher. Their payroll scales up as they grow which is what we want them to do. But they’re renting 3,000 square feet, so they’re going, you know, roughly have $54,000 in annual lease expenses. Again, using that scalability of 20 percent, 25, 30 percent as they scale up on employment, that would be a little over $16,000 a year for the Lease Assistance Program. Again, this is something -- it’s not giving tax abatement. They can’t quite get eligible for the existing SEED Forgivable Loan Program because they don’t have ten employees, so they’re smaller than that. This program would provide some assistance for that company [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes. I just want to make a few comments, just some background on this. I started working with Andrew, with City Manager Gonzales in I think earlier this past summer. Some ideas I had, some ideas that were already existing, so it’s a collaboration coming together, looking at some ways -- more creating uses of the SEED funds that we have to ensure that we were reaching some of the high tech, high growth startup industries in the Kansas City Metropolitan area. And two items that both of these programs are predicated on, just so you know, both the Property Tax Assistance Program, the lease program are -- the knowledge -- there’s actually data from the Kauffman Foundation and Enterprise Center of Johnson County that on average a startup across industries does not achieve profitability until the first year after they receive their initial Angel tax investment. And that usually will occur six months to twelve months after the company is incorporated. So, essentially you’re talking about on average two years from the time an idea comes to fruition to be developed before a startup is ready to proceed in terms of looking at office space. So, that’s the basis for the Property Assistance Program for those start-ups that are looking at being able to purchase property within the City as well as the office -- as well as the Lease Assistance Program. The other issue is that after talking to Melissa Roberts at the Enterprise Center of Johnson County, after talking to numerous start-up founders that I’m in contact with, by far the biggest response I get is the most significant expense a start-up has during year one and year two of incorporation is office rent by far. And often they are with initial investment they’re getting through Angel funding and then first round investing and second round, all that is going into their product and to their service to drive, go to market. So, it becomes very difficult to get out of the garage, get out of the basement that they’re working out of to be able to get into an office. But the sooner they can get into an office and become more viable, they become more visible and it helps them get onto the road to being able to be a sustainable company and be part of the community. So, just so you know both of those statistics, both of those common -- were common issues that we’ve heard time and time again, and both of those were incorporated into the basis for these two programs, so to kind of let you know the science behind it. Numerous people know the start-up side, but I [inaudible] on a daily basis.
Page 31 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 There is a huge opportunity I think for this City to be able to provide and fill a void in that arena there. More and more cities are looking at unique ways that they can be able to grow those industries and that’s something that’s really lacking right now. I talked to people on the Missouri side as well as the Kansas side and there’s a lot of marketability around us, being able to go and pitch this, including several start-ups, I know personally that are right on the verge of trying to decide am I ready for office space, where do I want to go, and might not know -- without any indication of where they want to start.
So, just a little bit of background about the program. And, of course, I know Andrew is happy to answer any questions. But if anybody has any questions about the start-up arena, kind of the basis for this, I’m happy to answer this as well.
MR. NAVE: And let me make a couple [inaudible] thoughts and that’s what we want to hear. I mean, we do this -- I do this every day, but to hear kind of the different components and different expertise that you all bring [inaudible]. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I would just, Andrew, I like the idea obviously of the SEED program. I think that it has done well. I really applaud this as expanding it, making it even more -- putting more tools in our toolbox if you will, and I’m sure that they will continue to generate the success we’ve already enjoyed.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff and then Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, and I understand our focus obviously is start-up industry, but with that is peripheral businesses, the service end. So, you know, where my mind is going is as I look at Nieman Road, I look at our town square zoning district and we have space available there. I mean, I even have available across the street where’s She’s a Pistol is at. There’s two empty spaces there. I don’t know if Dan is full or not in his building. We’ve got the corner where the 7-11 was. We need to [inaudible] our spaces properly. What if a law firm with six attorneys wanted to move into the town square zone, do we say, no, we can’t give you this benefit because you’re not a tech firm, or do we kind of -- because we want that type of business so bad in our downtown, we kind of look at loosening it up a little bit as an incentive for the people in our downtown area and they look at maybe a broader spectrum of professional services, or do we just focus on tech industries?
MR. NAVE: Professional services is one of the four proposed NAICS Code categories if you will, in legal services.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, accounting and --
MR. NAVE: Yeah. Again, just reiterate, transportation and warehouse, which again is that kind of intermodal focus that the Kansas City region seems to be doing so well with, intermodal and we’ve already reached a number of successes there. Information, which isn’t just IT, but a lot of things of information. Could be publishing, could be marketing, all falls with the information of the NAICS Code. Finance and insurance certainly covers a wide gamut of employers in that NAICS Code. And then professional services is everything from legal to engineering to different types of consulting. And there’s a slew
Page 32 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 of companies that would fall under those four NAICS. These four NAICS categories would cover literally hundreds and hundreds of different employers.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And the only thing I would say is, because I do think anything we can do to incentivize our downtown, and I don’t know if we want to put more teeth into it, and I think we can just say town square, within that town square zoning district, put a little bit more teeth into it or put a little bit added incentive because I mean I think that’s what we’re [inaudible]. As offices open up all over the place I think, you know, [inaudible].
MR. NAVE: [Inaudible] because again under the spec building program we’re trying to redefine and better quantify that spec building incentive. We also kind of tweaked the language there by you can see spec building occupant or area targeted for rezoning, which I clearly see as the NRA district. So, we have kind of modified that spec building incentive to now add to not just something that’s going into a spec building, but maybe something that’s going into one of our target areas, so we have [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And, Jeff, and forgive me if I say it’s back to that kind of substitute [inaudible] just because that’s what I work in.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Oh, no, that’s fine.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: By no means is that exclusive because I think building this out we’re looking at biosciences and we looked at legal services. We looked at different types of information services, so it’s definitely all-encompassing of those as well. I tend to just say tech since that’s what I --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No. I didn’t want that [inaudible] because I think everybody’s goal is we need earners in our downtown. We need $80,000 salaries to get up and walk out that door and go to lunch, 90,000, $100,000 salaries.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric, did you have something?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. I just had a couple real small things just for clarification on the actual policy statement. And the first one was B.1, which is Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development SEED Program under the SEED Forgivable Loan Program, Item F. And it talks about, “Validation of achieving payroll and job creation goals will be provided by an Annual Certification. Additional specific requirements will be based on the criteria established and set out in the Agreement.” And I just -- I kind of was concerned that you were taking out a source for them to verify that with, that uses a certification basis and now we have no real basis per se, and that kind of bothered me a little bit.
MR. NAVE: Yeah. And that harkens back to when we originally created this program. This program, as you saw earlier in the policy statement, the KEOIF program. The state’s KEOIF program was a tool that was eliminated actually in 2012. When we created this program, a few months later they eliminated their program. And that was a component that they looked for in the KEOIF program, of disclosing that KNCS. What we’ve run into, Eric, is that that form is very difficult to get from the employers because it has a lot of confidential information on those employees. Oftentimes on the form it specifies who those new employees are and oftentimes their Social Security numbers. We’ve looked at protecting that and how can we disclose that and it became --
Page 33 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, what you’re --
MR. NAVE: It became way more cumbersome that even asking them to disclose their wage information, but asking them to disclose that form even redacted became very, very cumbersome.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, we’re not going to have any actual basis for their annual certification other than whatever we put in the agreement. We’ll put in there you’ve got to certify this. But that’s kind of a self-certification at that point by the employer.
MR. NAVE: It is, yes, sir.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I guess we could all say we’re all good folks and we’re all going to be honest and all that kind of stuff. I don’t know. But it does leave it open. It would be nice if we could kind of tighten that down a little bit. I’d feel more comfortable about that.
MR. NAVE: We explored several ways to do that. And again, finding that balance between, you know, assuring that the public resources are protected and accounted for, but then also that sensitivity with, again, we’re trying to convince companies to come here and not have it be overly burdensome and overly difficult [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Part of the issue though is this is public money. If it was my money and I’m making a business deal with somebody and I shake hands and we make a deal or whatever that’s one thing. I’m going to bite the bullet and a guy takes advantage of me, but we’re using somebody else’s money to do this, the citizens’ money. I believe they’d like to know we have some kind of way to hold their feet to the fire. This is the numbers that we’re giving us and that’s my concern there. The only other concern I have is when we -- when I mentioned a little earlier about that fourth year, and I think since we’re here for discussion we probably ought to discuss that. And I would like to see it dropped to 25 percent. I know you can probably argue keeping it to 50 or whatever. But the fact of the matter is they’re already committed at this point. Hey, and we’ll give you a little more help. We’ll give you another 25 percent in that fourth year, but I don’t see giving them 50 percent again. I mean, by this time they’re already committed. It’s almost a freebie at that point anyway.
MR. NAVE: One thing I want to speak to on the first comment you made about kind of disclosures and kind of verification. We do have in each of the agreements that we have, we have provisions in that agreement that for whatever reason we're not comfortable with the information they've disclosed, or we’re led to believe that that information isn’t completely accurate, all of the agreements, and I’m looking at Maureen, I’m pretty sure all of the agreements have the version of where we can go in and audit. We have audit abilities capabilities to look in and say, hey, you need to disclose to us more information about those wages and are you meeting that wage standard because it is the public’s money. So, I know that we have it embedded in the agreements.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We have a hook in there. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jeff.
Page 34 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I like to hear that. It sounds good.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You know, is it possible to do a third-party verification? In all honesty, you know, on a $13,000 benefit or 16,000 it doesn’t make sense because I think the cost for a third-party verification is going to be as much if we’re doing a $100,000 benefit or 50,000-plus. I don’t know what it costs, but I know we could do a third-party audit that they would disclose to a, you know, similar to a CPA firm or something -- whatever.
MR. NAVE: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But where they disclose that information. That information, you know, has the contract date disclosed to us, yes, they meet these requirements, but that information never becomes public. So, at least we have -- and there would be a cost associated.
MR. NAVE: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, obviously, I mean, I think if it’s a $20,000 benefit, I think we’re just going to have to -- because I think it’s even when you look at it you get this one employee added it doesn’t make sense to spend the money. But, you know, to Eric’s point, if we’re giving someone a hundred grand, I think they should be fine kicking up four, five, six thousand. I don’t know what it costs. Would it cost five grand, I don’t know. But if we contract with somebody, you know, what would it cost for them. I mean, I think for them to put out five percent of that in a third-party audit to verify their information is almost like what a CPA does. I don’t know. I mean, is that feasible or --
MR. NAVE: I’d have to explore more in terms of what those audits look like and who does that and then what not. But I think it goes with the notion that we’re already looking at on a semi-regular basis we need to be reviewing this. We need to be reviewing is this program working. Is it creating the job that the company is committed to. Are they paying the wages that they claim to.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But I think more, I mean, I think those audits we can do something internally. I think on the initial application thought when someone is coming in saying, I mean, you look at Clarence Kelly. If we have 180 jobs, this is going to be our payroll, you know, we don’t like what you’re saying. They don’t want to disclose that information to us, we’ll disclose to a third-party auditor on that. That’s totally private. It’s totally secure. And then they come to us with a report that says, yes, what they’re saying is true or it meets your parameters. No numbers are disclosed, details, and that company pays for that. I think, like I said, on a smaller one I don’t, I mean, if you’re taking -- if 25 percent of your benefit is eaten up in an audit it’s kind of silly, it’s like what’s the point. And I think they’re small enough we can get our head around those. But then the really big ones we should look at in dollar amounts. This is, okay, you’re going to have to -- that’s big enough that we’re going to have to get a third-party opinion. And it takes the heat off of you guys. What you’re saying is staff reviews that. You know, I think reviewing a smaller one, great. But on the really big ones it kind of takes the pressure away from you and gets third-party eyes on it that say, no, you’re good. There’s no backlash.
MR. NAVE: I do know at the state level there are entities that do that. Whether they’re accounting firms or consulting firms I know there are groups that do that on a state
Page 35 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 basis. And again, I want to speak on a semi-regular basis. I don’t know that they do them every single year, but they do do them. So, yeah, I know it’s done. It's something we can certainly take a look at.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: On the big dollar amount.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Actually point one, actually to Councilmember Vaught’s point. There’s a number of companies in Kansas City that are background screening firms that do employment verification and they offer that as a standalone service. One of those is actually owned by a Shawnee resident, so I can inquire further about that. But I think there’s a number of options. I think that’s probably a great idea, more things to do. And I think it would be cost effective and probably a reasonable cost if you were getting that look because it wouldn’t be looking at running background checks on [inaudible]. So, but there are a number, I know of several.
So, the second point. Actually Councilmember Jenkins’ point. Originally, essentially when we were talking about this, I think for year four we had it at 25 percent. I know that’s what [inaudible], I’m totally fine with that. Actually talked with City Manager Gonzales about this a couple days ago, about the 25 percent figure, so that’s -- that we had the step-down approach if that makes sense.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just a more general comment and then I have a specific comment. I’m pretty supportive of the concept of keeping things in that three or four-year window. I think it’s a little bent out of shape on some of these 20-year abatements and stuff like that. We’re providing all these services and everything to these companies as well and they’re getting a free ride all this time and maybe we’re going to get something out of them 20 years from now if they don’t say, sorry, I’m moving to Lenexa or something at the end of 20 years. But these three or four-year deals, I mean, I think that’s within the realm of getting -- where you get some kind of return on it pretty soon. In the three or four years we helped these guys out they become good businesses here in Shawnee and for the next 30 years they’re paying their taxes and employing people and spending money with other businesses in Shawnee and so on, so this just makes a lot more sense.
MR. NAVE: Again, [inaudible] you don’t get a win by two touchdowns, you’ve got to just break the top.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s much less onerous than sitting here, you know, giving this guy whatever for 20 years. That’s a lot.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I was going -- I was looking around at the Council here and I think it’s actually pretty unique to us that we have so many on the Council that have actually started up a business. I think that actually positions our Council really well to discuss this topic. Did you start your business, Dan? So, Dan started his, Eric did, I did, Jeff did. Mickey, yours has been in your family for a while.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And I started one also.
Page 36 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I started one.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, I just wanted to point that out. In general, this Council understands some of the difficulties of starting a business because it’s not always fun. Second, I guess I’ll apologize to you guys because you’ve heard me complain about these all the time and you roll your eyes and you sit here and you get to listen to it a bunch, so I’ll get it out of the way again. I don’t really debate the effectiveness of this program because when you hand out free money it’s got to be effective. I imagine I would be tempted by it as well. So, I don’t really debate whether this is effective or not. Really for me it’s more the scope of government. I like Jeff’s idea on the excise tax abatement because it’s not handing out money, it’s just not collecting a tax and it’s pretty much universal to anyone that wants to come in and plot the land. I like that. Whereas, I feel like this Forgivable Loan is kind of us deciding who gets the free money and it is us handing it out, at least for the Loan Forgiveness part. So, there is my complaint out of the way. And I realize I’m on the minority there, so that’s fine.
Some of the things I’ve complained about in the past, and maybe we can actually address them here going forward, is on the Forgivable Loan. Under the requirements we have 25 percent of new hires are Shawnee residents. I like that because you can -- that’s a hard thing to verify. Hard as in it’s not soft. You can verify 25 percent are or 25 percent are not. I’ve always complained about the wording of the next two points on page 11, the beginning of page 12, “Significant use of Shawnee-based or partnering contractors.” I would love us to actually define what “significant” means because it might be different to different parties. And I feel like if we’re going to go in there and try to get money back on a clawback, it would be better if we were -- if we have some definitive number we could argue as opposed to whether it was significant or not. And the very next line we use “substantial.” And like I said I feel like that’s up to interpretation. So, I would love to strengthen those or to possible get a real, sorry, not a real definition, but just a definition that’s more solid on both of those two points. So, that’s kind of point one.
Point two. These clawback provisions, in the Forgivable Loan section, it seems like we basically say we either -- we are either going to do one of two things. Preclude future payments or ask for money back. And what I don’t get is if Jeff and I both got one of these and he failed and I failed, and on me you just didn’t give me any new money, but on him you didn’t give him new money and asked for money back, how does -- it kind of looks like we’re somewhat schizophrenic. We’re giving me one punishment and him a different. And I would like to basically have one punishment here on the clawback. If we basically could agree that, okay, on the Forgivable Loan, if you don’t meet it at this point, and so, you know, my recommendation would be if we’re going to do a clawback, then let’s just say we’re going, like I said, whatever the Council wants to do. But as long as they’re -- I think if we had one option, if you fail, this is what happens. It’s better than the “and/or” because then, like I said, people could complain of unfair treatment. And it seems like to some degree the clawback provision on the next one with the loan without the fees says repay all or a portion. So once again we’ve had this “or” language added in there where you could -- the City gets to decide if you’re a good guy or a bad guy and maybe you do one, maybe you do the other. Same with the Lease Assistance Program on the clawback, we have all or a portion, same on the Tax Assistance. So, I would like
Page 37 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 to see us maybe get to codify or just get the clawbacks down to one specific punishment as opposed to giving us options for punishments.
MR. NAVE: Well, I can speak to that. I think both of them kind of speak to this issue, Mike, and then it relates around to the subjectivity or objectivity of this policy. And I think it does speak to what we’re trying to do at this point. We’re trying to recruit. We’re trying to incentivize. We’re trying to encourage an action to happen. We’re trying to get these companies to happen. Different than whether it’s maybe a zoning or a regulatory issue from more of an objective standpoint. So, we struggle with that. We discussed it internally as, you know, what is that right balance. Again, we’re trying to encourage that to happen. We’re trying to encourage these actions to take place, so that’s why we have the subjectivity of it. Admittedly it is very subjective. I think there’s a difference between a company coming in and creating the number of jobs that they said, but maybe they missed their average payroll by just a few hundred dollars a year, or the company came in and you know what, they just got -- lost a big contract, but another contract is right around the corner. There’s always an excuse, there’s always a rationale, but I think it is subjective in terms of the qualifications of, again, of an incentive program, what we're trying to get them to do. We’re trying to recruit them and gain more of their investment, more of their capital in our community, so that’s -- we left it subjective there because of that nature. We’re trying to be open-ended and accommodating. We’re also trying to -- we try to balance with the clawbacks. We try to balance the level of just the oversight and the agreements and just how much regulatory oversight these have. Again, trying to be that more sales oriented, trying to encourage that investment. But that’s something we can certainly look at. Whether it’s -- are there situations and opportunities and instances where we need to be a little more defined, I think we need to type those up. But we did talk about the subjective nature of the local contributions, and mainly because it’s also an additional incentive. It’s an additional perk, it’s an additional benefit. And because of that, you know, what one company might invest in in terms of building a building maybe they don’t need a local contract. Or we have one local contractor [inaudible] construction based in -- you know what I mean? So, it’s that -- I need to just buy supplies so there’s less opportunity for me to do that. So, because of the nature of what we’re trying to encourage is subjective we are trying to leave it subjective.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, I agree. But maybe it would be better to have an appeals process or something like that. Have a black and white, but there is always an appeal, so we could consider extenuating circumstances or something like that. But that way at least you’ve got a solid foundation and if something does happen you gave the guys money to set up their new buggy whip company over here. And doggone nobody has got any carriages anymore so they can’t sell a buggy whip anywhere and that didn’t work out. But, you know, it could be a lot of different things.
MR. NAVE: Absolutely.
[Inaudible; Councilmembers talking over one another]
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I know that’s where you’re coming from. But having an appeals process, okay, here is what happened. We think if you give us a break here we can get it back on track and we’ll be right back in here in another six months or something [inaudible] here’s a way to handle that, you know, instead of just
Page 38 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 leaving [inaudible] up front. I don’t know. That’s just a thought. I’m not stuck on [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would -- I agree with Mr. Vaught. I think there’s --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Quick, write this down.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And the time.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What’s it, 7:12?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, it’s basically the idea, you know, whatever we can do to help individuals downtown. I still think we have some major issues. I don’t know what you want to call it, but we definitely need help down there. We've tried to outline stuff and we’ve got a little bit of stuff going, but we’re a long ways from being there, so.
MR. NAVE: Case in point, you know, with the NRA tool we have a couple different components of that tool and it’s done some good. It’s really made some good investments where folks have fixed up building facades and made some new investments in property, but there’s certainly more to go, but maybe there’s other opportunities where maybe they’re not making that huge investment in their building, but they’re bringing employment. So, it’s probably smart to have a wide variety of tools.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We need to refer to that as something different. No, we really do. NRP, Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I get confused, too.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I have had so many people say what the hell does the NRA have to do with downtown rebuilding. And I’m like, well, you know, I went, yeah. We should refer to that as NRP.
MR. NAVE: Yeah. [Inaudible] downtown property.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
[Inaudible; Councilmembers talking over one another]
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Maybe our Communications Department can help us re- brand it.
MR. NAVE: [inaudible] somebody meets a plan that I can stick to.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Like I said, swear to god, I have so many people, well, what does the NRA have to do with --
MR. NAVE: Yeah. I know.
Page 39 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’re going to have to go through an appeals process.
MR. NAVE: Other questions? Thank you very much.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, Andrew. All right. Is there any further discussion from the Council? Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I’d just like to allude to one thing based on what Councilmember Jenkins said. I think it would be great based on if there are issues with compliance in terms of the job creation that we can be informed with those, so we can have some insight as those are happening as a governing body so that as we progress we can look at whether or not those need to be tightened up a bit if it becomes an issue. It may not be an issue with these additional programs, but it would be good going forward to have insight into that so that on a case-by-case basis we have insight into that. I think that makes this point, one, does the governing body, when there are questions [inaudible] about that. So, how do we know how best to incorporate that, but I think that would be good [inaudible].
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Some of those items we’d look at in our Economic Development report, albeit I’m not sure that it would reach to that level, but that’s really our job to make it [inaudible] to you all and the public and report on the progress of all of our [inaudible]. So, [inaudible] that. Incentives in that report [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All right. And then probably just kind of an update, you know, with some of those sentences, you know, depending on how often, whether it would be quarterly or, you know, twice a year. And again, this all speculation. We don’t know when and how and whether or not there’s going to be issues that come up like that, compliance. But I think having that insight, you know, we can decide at that point, hey, we need to type this up, this may be an issue. And if not, then [inaudible], but it would be good to have that [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none, the recommended action is to forward the policy statement to the January 11, 2016 City Council meeting for consideration by the Governing Body.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And before that we do that, Andrew, Carol, do you all feel like you have comments and feedback from us enough to kind of know?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. That’s what I was kind of wondering. So, I have before we make a motion then a couple of the things that we looked at were the verification of salaries, the 25 percent in the fourth year, some kind of measurable criteria and the clawback provisions that maybe we want to touch on firming up.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: To standardize that clawback provision.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. So, I am just going down the list. Are we good with looking at some kind of third-party verification or -- yes? Looking into that?
Page 40 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, if we establish a threshold for what level of commitment we’ve got.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, the second -- yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, and then on that point. If it’s a, you know, if it’s a hundred thousand dollar deal or something like that, I don’t necessarily think that we should go out and have an auditor or whatever, but if we don’t feel that staff has gotten, you know, good permit data, then we should have an auditor. So, similar to what Andrew said. I mean we have an option to go in audit them at any given time.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I’d prefer to have it black and white if we’re going to do it. [Inaudible] without having to make a judgment.
(Inaudible; talking over one another)
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Oh, I think this number is right and this number is not right.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Do we say over a dollar amount or a not to exceed five --
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Why don’t we look at the cost related to it and I think -- I guess I would think that is more of an administrative thing that didn’t need to be included in this. But we do talk about the SEDC in that and [inaudible] can’t really direct the SEDC’s actions, so we may need to do that a little bit before we finalize this. But I’ve got the direction on that.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: They can encourage their action by unplugging their money.
MR. NAVE: Please don’t do that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, the second item is the dropping to 25 percent in the fourth year that Eric mentioned. Are we all good with that?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Can I make a comment real quick? Eric said he was getting old and forgot stuff, but I’m forgetting stuff here too. I’m okay with that 25 percent. It seems to me what I’m reading here on page 13 is the fourth year you’re only eligible if you’re LEED certified. And that’s basically saying your building is energy sufficient to the degree that you get --
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But for what degree of LEEDs because there’s several LEEDs.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And it’s a variety of things other than just LEED.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I think there was a list.
MR. NAVE: And this somewhat follows what we’ve embedded in our Property Tax Abatement tool and that I thought we defined it as LEED or LEED-eligible because
Page 41 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 there are a number of certifications out there, many of them are leading with acronym ABC, all but certified. It means that they’ve had a third-party do the analysis that this would be eligible for LEED silver or LEED gold or LEED-certified, but they don’t pay the U.S. Rebuilding Council for their stamp so to speak. So, I thought we had put that in there.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And Paragraph C, Andrew. And truly I think LEED is not the only criteria there. It goes on to read, “Provides access to or dedicated right-of- way for multi-modal transit,” and these are just examples that are provided.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: But these are all -- but they need to all be met, right?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think just one.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: No.
MR. NAVE: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Just one.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Oh, they just need to meet -- I guess I didn’t see the “or.” You’re right. It’s or. I’m sorry.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: On page 13, Paragraph 3(c).
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. We’re good.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: I thought it was and, not or. Sorry.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, are we good with the 25 percent in the fourth year then? Yes. Okay. Thank you. The third is looking at firming up the criteria for the additional local contribution to something more measurable than significant or substantial. Thoughts on that?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, Mike, what do you think? Campaign [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: But a building [inaudible].
MR. NAVE: And again, the purpose of leaving that subjective was the nature of that a small entity that’s creating 10 jobs or 15 jobs. Contributions they will make are the vendors, suppliers that they can hire is going to be dramatically different than somebody that’s obviously larger. So, we discussed a percentage. And then again at some point it gets to the level of complexity that is it doing what it intended to do? Is it doing -- is it encouraging that [inaudible]. That’s where we kind of [inaudible] focus.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, are we good with some ambiguity there with that classification?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m fine with it. I think if we get too drilled, and we’ve talked about this before, we get too drilled down on Shawnee, it’s hard to quantify
Page 42 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 number one. And two is we don’t have, I mean it’s not like -- I mean, Kansas City, Kansas has, you know, in their agreements the preferential treatment to -- what’s it called.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Prevailing wage.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Prevailing wage. But anyway, if you’re in KCK or if you’re Wyandotte County, you know, a contractor you get an extra, you know, [inaudible]. It’s massive and it’s very controversial.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is that going somewhere [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. No. The problem I think we have in Shawnee is we don’t have the -- when we start focusing on it we don’t have that base of necessary companies to pull from and, you know, if there’s only one, well, then he’s in a pretty good position to kind of control whatever he wants to do [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, we’re good with that. The last one I have is creating a uniform clawback provision rather than the flexible. Do we want to do that?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You know, I’d say Andrew knows what to put together there.
MR. NAVE: Yeah. We can certainly take a look at some -- tweaking that. Whether it’s in this document or even in the agreements and maybe sharing more of that information with you all, what do those agreements specifically say. And I mean I’ll be a little hesitant to describe [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. For some reason it may be [inaudible]
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. I’m reluctant to specify specifics. Because the smaller the company you’re going to have unique scenarios as they come up. But I think the answer to that is being able to have insight and oversight I should say as those cases come up. But I do [inaudible].
MR. NAVE: Leaning on staff and it appears -- Maureen reminds me that there’s also, where it’s not necessarily codified in the policy statement, but perhaps kind of what we’ve done with our agreements with the Forgivable Loan program is essentially two different payment methods. We have, one, which is the majority of the six participants that have taken advantage of is that up-front payment. Where we’ve expended that money. We have an agreement. Now, we’re looking at their annual review and annual forgiveness. The other one, we’ve had at least one or maybe two participants take advantage of is kind of a pay-as-you-go, which dramatically changes that review period in that clawback period. If we haven’t given them that benefit at all, then is there anything to necessarily claw back. So, that’s part of the reason for some of the ambiguity.
MS. ROGERS: And maybe that’s just kind of awkwardly written.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. I think if you’re going to go off of that you can specify no further payments if this. If bulk payment, then clawback here. I mean, you could say that specifically.
Page 43 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Could I make one more comment before the motion?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Make it.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: First give us the comment.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. How long is it?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: No. I just wanted to reiterate my thanks to City Manager Gonzales and Andrew Nave with the SEDC for all the work done on those and all the collaboration. It’s been a lot work coming together. It’s been encouraging to work with them. So, I really appreciate all the work that you do as well. And, Maureen, Finance and being able to identify and supply moving parts with that, so definitely an improvement [inaudible], so thank you for your contribution. I can’t say that enough.
And then just quickly want to draw attention, because I think Andrew highlighted, but it is a unique aspect of this program. Property Tax Assistance Program. The fourth year 25 percent optional benefit. That also includes whether the client that gives space to an Enterprise Center of Johnson County client or to a DeviceShop client or it gets funding. So, that’s a crucial element that’s often not covered for in these types of eco-dev benefit programs is the investment side. Starters that need investment capital or space and they’re not able to get that. So, being able to provide some assistance to companies that are actively helping out other companies in the community get started that just drives the success of our community, which I’m really glad to see that. It’s a [inaudible] program.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Good. All right. Given all of that we have the recommended action to move the policy statement forward to the January 11 City Council meeting for consideration by the Governing Body. I will accept a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS PFLUMM, NEIGHBOR, JENKINS, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. We have one nay vote, it is Councilmember Kemmling. And the motion passes. (Motion passes 7-1)
Page 44 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
3. DISCUSS COUNCILMEMBER APPOINTMENT PROCESS.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The third item is our perennial favorite, to Discuss the Councilmember Appointment Process. On February --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: You are out of order.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We have a motion and a second.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The chair is in doubt. On February 3rd, 2015, the Council Committee discussed this item and asked staff to conduct further research for consideration. At the July 7th, 2015 Council meeting, staff provided follow-up information and asked for more time to research the issue due to a new election bill. The Committee directed staff to provide an update at the December 8, 2015 Council Committee meeting. Katie Killen, Assistant City Manager, will present additional information. Staff is seeking feedback and direction on several items which Katie will discuss during her presentation.
Eric, yes?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Before we get too far with this I would really like to table this right now because of the fact that the legislative issue hasn’t been resolved. So, we’re kind of dangling at the end of a pendulum here without really knowing what the outcome of that is --
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And we don’t have an election.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- and that makes it pretty hard to do anything without that. Pardon?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And we don’t have an Election Commissioner to get any other answers from.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. So, I mean it’s just bad timing right now to do this. And I’m not trying to throw out the idea, I still want to discuss this, but I think we need to kick it down the road a little ways until such time as we can at least have access to some answers to some of the questions. Because right now this is just an exercise in futility. Tonight we’re going to put Katie through the paces. You can read all the stuff. And we’re still going to be scratching our head like I don’t have an answer to this. So, I’m just pointing out what the futility of all that is to do all that.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’m not going to argue with you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No. I would -- Eric, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We’ve beat this -- we’ve talked about it many, many times, but there are so many
Page 45 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 unknowns here that we could spend an hour talking about it and we would accomplish nothing and I would agree with you to table it.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I would agree.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Katie, are you dying to give this presentation?
MS. KILLEN: No.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Make a motion to table it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Third.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. All right. I have a motion -- yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Do we table it till a certain date, or how are we going --
(Councilmembers talking amongst themselves)
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What do you guys think? You want to give them -- when they’re going until at least the end of -- if they can accomplish it in this session.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: What, the end of session? That’s like next June.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, it may be, but we can’t answer questions till they do.
(Councilmembers talking amongst themselves)
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: See if it’s in committee at their mid-session and then we can always table it again.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Mid-session may be all right. We’d have an idea.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, then March? We’ll say the March Council Committee meeting? The March 16th?
MS. KILLEN: Or do you want to wait till April?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d be okay with April.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: When they’re on break? Yeah. That’s a good idea.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think April is fine. This is not a hot issue that we have to have an answer to today anyway.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, they might decide it for us anyway.
Page 46 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, I have a motion to table until the April 16 Council Committee meeting and a second. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
(Councilmembers talking amongst themselves)
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. The final item on tonight’s agenda is to Discuss --
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Councilmember Meyer. I’m sorry. I just want to correct that the Committee meeting is April 5th.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Yeah. So, the date specific.
MS. KILLEN: I think you said April 2016.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes. I said 16. Yeah. Cool. All right. April 5th, 2016.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Okay.
4. DISCUSS THE 2016 STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: The final item on tonight’s agenda is to Discuss the 2016 State Legislative Program. Assistant City Manager Katie Killen will present information about issues and priorities for the 2016 State Legislative Program. Go ahead.
[Overview slide]
MS. KILLEN: Hurry up here. Okay. Just going to go over some background, just letting everyone to know that we’re getting to the point that we are [inaudible] a draft that is before you. I’ll talk about just some items that are on the horizon and I’m sure most of you are aware of these because I know you all stay very much informed with what’s going on with the state. And then finally just review those sections, talk through each of them tonight and let me know if any major modifications or any changes. Of course anything that you want to add, change you have an opportunity to do that tonight.
In terms of background, typically we start with the previous year’s legislative program that we had. We evaluate how legislation has passed the current -- the past year and then also kind of look at the current climate of what we’re hearing and attend the interim committees. And there have been several that I have been attending over this past break of the legislature, starting in the late summer and then continuing on through the fall. And then also speaking to other cities and what the county has on their program. The County Manager’s office coordinates a joint city-county platform to be incorporated or the concepts of it through our program. And those are indicated with the little asterisks as you have gone through and looked at that. Also attend the League of Kansas Municipalities meetings. I sit on the Legislative Policy Committee for League of Kansas Municipalities. And then we review the Chamber’s Governmental Affairs items as well, which is to kind of see where the business community is sitting on certain
Page 47 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 issues. Also, of course, we want to ask our management team about their various professions. We think that they’re very excited by their respective groups, especially we see here quite a bit of our Police Department as of late. And then of course also wanting to hear your feedback. Carol mentioned updates previously that I was going to be working on this, anything that you wanted to have included. And then I was able to figure out that [inaudible] before Thanksgiving, spend a little bit more time with it before it got to you tonight. So, the culmination of all that is where we are today.
So, just talking about a few items that are on the horizon that effect kind of the atmosphere that will be in Topeka, or already is in the interim. The budget issues that we continue to hear about with the state. They seem to have found a way to make [inaudible] the 2016 year. I was at the Lathrop & Gage forecast this morning, and I know some other members were there. I don’t think anybody has quite a handle on how they’re going to fix the 2017 fiscal year issues that we’re having, so that will be something that they need to address, to think about. Additionally, they have several education lawsuits that are pending. And the timing of when those will kind of be resolved is still up in the air. There was discussion that perhaps it won’t during this session, but that’s anybody guess at this point. Also something that we don’t take a position on, but just to be mindful of is the whole discussion about Medicaid expansion. Many of you will recall last year the House barely got on the floor to debate anything because there was this fear that a Medicaid expansion amendment might be heard, and so just know that’s on the top of folks’ minds. And then also the tax language does affect us. There is a definitely a push to get that moved up to 2016 [inaudible]. So, just items to be mindful of.
So, the 2016 draft we have seven different sections. And last year was the first year that we put them into this kind of organization through sections. We also worked to tighten it up over the last two years to items that are not so broadly based, but we actually have a focus and we know there’s legislation out there where there is talk of legislation that we would have these statements for. So, those were the seven and we’ll go through each one of those.
In terms of Home Rule, we have our general statement in favor of home rule. There are several different items that can come out over the session where this is a good kind of standard policy, a statement to have that we used.
The next item is the Repeal Tax Lid /Local Funding Flexibility statement that is on there. And the Local Funding Flexibility language is something that we had for several years on our program. We just added the repeal of the tax lid language to that because that does affect your all’s ability to hand specific revenues and have all the rules available to you as you’re picking future plans [inaudible]. So, that’s where we get [inaudible]. That’s also on the Johnson County Joint City-County program.
The next item is Limits on Appraised Valuation Growth. And again, that is something we’ve had on there and is similar to the limits we had. We tweaked it just a little bit so that is was in line with what was on the joint program in the City-County this year.
Moving on to elections. Since the election law did pass last year we just tweaked that so that it would talk that we still prefer to have them in odd-numbered years and to leave that non-partisan issue up to the cities and not have that brought through the legislature.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Dan.
Page 48 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. This item here, I don’t know that I would agree with even having this item on here.
MS. KILLEN: The elections?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I mean, I think it’s really up to them to determine how our elections are going to be handled. And if that’s the way they are, that’s the way they are. So, I mean, my thing is I would think that, you know, I wouldn’t be in favor of telling the state, hey, we want to have elections on certain days and certain, you know, --
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m in favor of it.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m just saying I’m not.
MS. KILLEN: That sounds like a discussion --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m not in favor of it either. I echo Dan’s concerns there.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Should we do that now or would you like to wait till the end?
MS. KILLEN: We can do it section by section.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay.
MS. KILLEN: Okay. And then the last item on there was Unfunded Mandates. And this is something that as in the last section, especially with -- related to police body cameras and more specifically to the retention policies the way we’re looking at the legislation that we [inaudible] funded, mandate language. We added some language towards the end of that, but if they were going to help fund this for us that it wouldn’t be through a revenue stream we’re already receiving because that has been part of the discussion in the interim to fund this program. It would be certain funds that are already coming towards us and that we allocate back to us to pay for it. So, that is what changed all that.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, the Home Rule section it looks like the item we would be voting on whether or not to keep in the platform is the non-partisan election provision. So, Mickey.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: What was it 14 years ago that Johnson County had an election that determined --
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Their charter?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: -- their charter, whether or not it would be non- partisan elections. And it was voted in by the Johnson County residents overwhelmingly to have non-partisan elections. So, I don’t want to give it to the state to tell them, yes, you can make it partisan now because all the people -- we don’t care what the people have to say. We’re at the grassroots section. We’re supposed to care about the people. Obviously the other ones don’t.
Page 49 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I would just say it’s correct here. The way this is written, “...supports local elections remaining separate from state and national elections and is opposed to any legislation that would require...” Now, for that, that covers us having them now odd-year fall elections, correct, and they are non-partisan. So, this basically reflects the way the law is written now, correct?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Correct.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any further comments on this? Dan?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’ll just kind of reiterate. I mean, the law is the way it is right now. Why are, you know, what -- it seems like we’re just asking to pick a fight, you know, and say, you know, I just -- I don’t know why it’s even in here.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would weigh in and say I think probably the reason why it’s in here is when this proposal initially started it was even year partisan elections at the state level, so it got worked back to what the change is now. So, I think probably the thought behind is keep it where it is and don’t keep moving down that path. So, this is something that’s going to come up --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because that’s where they want to go with it. They want to keep moving on the path.
MS. KILLEN: That is the thinking behind it.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You either believe in Home Rule or you don’t. I mean, do we control out, you know, do we have -- are we smart enough at the local level to determine how we want to have our elections. Because I tell you what, if the federal government told the state how they were going to run their elections, everybody that supports screwing with our elections is the first one to scream and go, how dare you tell us as a state what to do. You are overstepping your authority. But yet, they have no problem coming in telling us, well, this is how you’re going to do it. Mickey is right. Johnson County voted this is how we want to do it. And we have a legislature now that’s basically thumbed their nose at the citizens of Johnson County and said we don’t care how you voted, we think you should do it this way.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But they just passed a law just the way it’s written here, so why do we say --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because they are still -- if you talk to anybody in the legislature their goal is still to get it into partisan even year elections. They want to tag us on to the end of -- you’re going to be on a ticket with the president, all the way down the list, and you’re going to be at the bottom of the list running that election, partisan. And then if Kobach has his way -- if Kobach has his way it’ll be a partied election where you can just flip Republican, vote down the line, or Democrat, down the line, you don’t know who is at the bottom of the list. You could just vote party, party line ticket and walk away from it and don’t know who you voted for.
Page 50 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Mike and then Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, I wanted to clarify what Jeff just said. You’re saying -- with the president and everything else, that’s - -
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We don’t now.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And that’s just it. The original proposal on this, if you look at what happened in Topeka, the original proposal was put us in even years with the big elections. We’ll be at the end of those tickets. And that’s the problem is voters fall off. They’re thinking we’re going to get more, you know, we have a better turn-out. Not really because if you look at the end of a long ballot voting fall-off at the end of that ballot, how many people vote for judges?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But that’s not what I heard. And when that was coming around it was, yeah, you run even years, so you run with the president. A lot high turnout. City stuff would be at the top, presidential stuff at the bottom.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: They would never put stuff above a president.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s what I heard.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Either way --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that’s the way it’s proposed.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: -- I think is the way we are now.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [inaudible]
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s the way it’s been proposed.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think it’s been proposed both ways at best. It’s been proposed a thousand different ways.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I just don’t know why we’re arguing a subject that they just voted.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, we’re arguing it because it’s not over. Because this bill to go and change it to a presidential or something else is going to come up. The bill is going to be reintroduced if it hasn’t already to keep moving down the line. So, the idea would be to keep it where it is.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And just remember if we have a partisan election, then everybody -- anybody -- then you’re talking about a partisan primary.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Uh-huh.
Page 51 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You’re telling me that’s not going to get ugly in a local election? I mean, we all know what would happen.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Try to fill a pothole correct.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Jim.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I would say, you know, the first thing I don’t want to have my campaign signs out for three months starting in the middle of August. [Inaudible]
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Which was dumb.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: And going back to here, this other thing. You know, one of the things we talked about a lot with Parks and Pipes when we went through it was, you know, it’s going to be at the bottom and get lost in the weeds. The one thing I will point out in that election was the difference between the turnout in our vote in Shawnee for the Parks, Pipes and Pavement proposals in I believe it was the [inaudible] and the County Commissioner of something, but something like 11 percent. So, we got pushed to the bottom of it, the bottom of the ballot and unless you’ve done a really done a good job of it, educating the people with staff and we all worked on it this last one --
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I think we’d get lost.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. It’s going to come back again as Stephanie suggested. If it hasn’t already been [inaudible], it is going to come back again because that’s one of the goals. And I believe in local control and I think we need to support keeping it the way the law is written at this time.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: When I served on the Johnson County Charter Commission recently, just a couple years back, this was an item that had a lot of contentious discussion and it lost in a pretty narrow vote to put on the ballot for people to decide on this. But during those discussions the words was what I was told and what was put before the group was that Johnson County is one of the few counties in the state of Kansas that doesn’t have partisan elections.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think that --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And it’s the most successful county in the state.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, no. Well, fair, but that’s not accurate.
(Councilmembers talking amongst themselves)
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that’s what they put out for all the discussion in the Charter Commission. And I still remember them discussing that item thoroughly.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: But when you talk with the League of Kansas Municipalities there is very of them.
Page 52 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Well, if there are no further comments I think it’s probably easiest to do a roll call to vote on this.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Are we just talking about the one item in this roll call?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Just the one, just the non-partisan elections.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And what is the motion?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Removal or non-removal.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, and I would be to keep it on the platform.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. So, Councilmember Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I vote to keep it on the platform.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Councilmember Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. I am a yes. Councilmember Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Five yeses, three nos. It stays on. Nos were Pflumm, Kemmling and Jenkins. (Motion passes 5-3). Moving on.
MS. KILLEN: Moving on to the next one is Finance and Taxation. The first item on here is a new item and this is to support continuation of the City sales tax-exempt status. There were different proposals and bills that were brought up throughout the session that would remove the sales tax-exempt status of cities in varieties of ways across the board, specifically building projects, capital projects. So, this was added this year to, you know, allow for a tax-exempt status. They are right now in a taxation
Page 53 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 interim and they’re carrying groundwork of all the different sales tax-exemptions that exempt property taxes and some subsidies, and so this is going to be a topic I would assume this coming session and that’s why we [inaudible].
The second item there is the statutory pass-through funding. We’ve had this on our agenda for several years as well. And as it [inaudible] frankly [inaudible]. These are [inaudible] statutory pass-through dollars continue. Two that we receive are the motor fuel tax. That goes through our Special Highway Fund that helps pay for our mill and overlay program. And then also the Alcohol and Liquor Tax that they split three ways. The total of both of those funds grants is about $2.4 million.
And then the third item there is a tax base policy, and we’ve had that on our agenda as well. And that’s just looking at keeping the tax base inside of the state as broad as possible. There have been several -- this is a legislation of recent that has started to exempt people and appropriations and groups out of that property tax base as well as all those [inaudible] tax exemptions that are out there and also just making sure that professional services that are kind of the bread and butter of Johnson County.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Dan?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Could we talk about that one at the end of that group?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. This is the end of the group.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh, that’s the end of the group. This to me seems like an incentive for corporations and for the state to entice companies. And then if we go back we ask that they don’t -- they don’t impose on our rights to provide incentives, but yet we’re asking them not to do incentives. So, I think that both of those should really either be eliminated, or I mean, if we want to continue to ask for our incentives and we don’t state that they not impose incentives upon the state in general.
MS. KILLEN: I would also point out that as part of some of those incentives they are taking away from [inaudible] tax basis. While we know that’s just part of the statement, it’s not the full statement. We’re also talking about ensuring that sales tax for professional services are not on there.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But you -- sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.
MS. KILLEN: That’s okay.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But you understand when we provide an incentive that goes against the school district, the library, you know, a lot of those other entities just like these would go against ours. But overall, we hope to increase the revenue. In their case they want to increase the revenue of the state. In our case we want to increase our revenue as a smaller entity.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And that’s where the policy discussion with this group, not --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Understand. But I just wanted to make her clear of what --
Page 54 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 MS. KILLEN: I understand.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay.
MS. KILLEN: I was just trying to give you background of where we’re coming from because it’s been on there for a while.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, I understand. I understand.
MS. KILLEN: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: And I think some of where we’ve seen this at the state level is less. I think I consider it more -- less of an incentive and more, like for example, the state decided to exempt gyms, like fitness gyms from a tax policy. So, is that creating an unfair winner and loser and what about the YMCA. And it’s sort of making the entire tax policy for the state sort of off kilter. So, I think that’s --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: My whole idea here is though if that’s -- if it’s used an incentive to entice dairy farmers to move back from California to Kansas, then, you know, we’re asking them not to do that. And two pages later or the next page we ask them not to impose on our ability to impose on the school district. So, that’s my problem. Okay. And so I know it’s been on there for a long time, but I mean I’d be in favor of just eliminating that paragraph.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, I would say -- I would kind of consider the paragraph to talk about two separate things. The issue you’re talking about, but also the tax on sales and -- or services.
MS. KILLEN: And I tried to get to this. And you want the whole thing gone --
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right.
MS. KILLEN: -- and there are different nuances in that well, so.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I would strongly oppose our effort or our conversation of removing our opposition to the tax on services. That would decimate the county.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I could go with that.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I didn’t think -- this is the topic that one piece, right?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: What?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: We need to talk about this one piece here, this tax- based policy.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. So, I’m looking at the last sentence basically.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, right. Because we talk about it up here under financing and taxation.
Page 55 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Right. Right. Right. So, that’s the sales tax, I’ll let Katie explain it. It’s a separate --
MS. KILLEN: The sales tax exemption is talking about the City’s sales tax exemption. The past state’s policy is talking about what its sales tax put on it in terms of professional services. We’re not [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t know why that’s not combined up here under sales tax exemption, the one for professional services. Why isn’t it up there with that? And then we could eliminate the rest of this.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, I don’t -- I think probably because the professional services have never been taxed, so it’s not exemption that we’ve created. They are just not taxed.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I would go along with you on that one if they want to leave that in there.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: How does everybody else feel on it? Jim?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, just to point out here, these items, a number of them here, I think that it is on the -- this is written as on the Chamber’s legislative agenda and it’s also on the Johnson County-City joint platform.
(Councilmembers talking over one another)
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If you look at it, I think everybody is looking at the draft, which I guess is the same thing. If you look at the -- isn’t that the draft and the final draft is the back page, page 39.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And it’s not unusual for people to say I want my cake and eat it too. I mean, you know, it’s like we’re -- it’s not like nobody does that. But I understand your point.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I think we ought to leave it the way it is.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And having the chamber, the chamber, I mean my whole thing here is, you know, it doesn’t matter if the county or the state or whoever has their legislation program. I just don’t think we can tell someone else don’t do that, but then we want to be able to do it. So, that’s not really good policy. I don’t care who you are. So, that was the reason why I brought that up.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Brandon.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I was just going to note, so I mean it seems like in both of these key sentences we’re basically requesting that the state leave assisting the [inaudible] as is. So, not just exemptions but also no tax policy on services. So, that’s
Page 56 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 kind of a [inaudible]. We’re not asking for an additional exemption, we’re asking for current policy to remain as-is versus asking for another incentive.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But what are you getting at, because it’s kind of like the election thing, you know. If the law is, and that’s different because they want to -- supposedly they want to change that. I think it just got changed on the elections, so why would we comment in our legislation program? But in this case if we’re just stating what the law is, I mean, this thing ought to be 12, 14 documents big, you know. So, I mean, and then if we’re asking to leave our incentives intact and then we tell them not to provide incentives that impose on us I just don’t get that.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Which one? When you’re talking about incentives, which -- are you talking about the tax-based policy with the ad valorem tax where the state can -- is that the one you’re focusing on?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s what’s I’m focusing in on.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And this was, if I’m not mistaken --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And this would be the services part of that.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If I’m not mistaken where that came from. So, at a local level, and you’re right, at a local level if we want to say we’re going to abate this company we do it because we have the full benefit of that company coming. I think where this came from, if I’m not mistaken, was the concrete -- Ash Grove. So, Ash Grove, which they end up winning quasi part of with it. So, Ash Grove said we want our building classified differently because all these things outside that are attached to our building that’s not part of our building, that’s equipment. And in Kansas we have an equipment tax, which as we know because every year we’re losing more and more of that revenue. If that would have passed the way it was written and just -- and not specific to them, I think the number that hit in Shawnee that we looked at, we had a number, but I know Johnson County, it was huge. It was millions and millions of dollars that people could reclassify all these things in their building. So, you had this scenario where the state has said we’re going to tie your hands and you can’t raise the revenue without this, this and this because we’re going to tax later and then you’re going to come in and do things that could cost you millions of dollars on your tax base, so you could be in a situation in the City where you just had several -- a few million dollars vaporize out of your budget and you have no way to recover it because now they’ve tax lidded you, that’s kind of where this whole thing came from. I agree with the incentive. This is about -- what they’re saying is -- what this is saying is, don’t pass a blanket policy that -- because this company over here is lobbying you to get a tax break that didn’t blanket -- it covers everybody in the state that’s getting the same treatment when you’re sitting here going, okay, but if you’re doing it to attract a company to Wichita, but it blanket policies the whole state, we have no benefit for this company going to Wichita and the taxpayer can give them that industry. But that industry is in Shawnee and also we lose that tax, well how is that --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But if the company is coming to Shawnee? That’s what you’re not thinking.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We do it ourselves.
Page 57 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We do it ourselves.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No, no, no. I mean --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But that’s what we do.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But they give you the right to do that. What if they take away that right?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But they haven’t taken away that right.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: The session isn’t over yet.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But they haven’t taken away that right.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: They haven’t taken away that right.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Carol, did you want to jump in?
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I just want to make sure we understand the difference between tax-based policy and incentives because this is a tax-based policy. These exemptions have not been used by the state nor do I think that they have any intention to use them as incentives. The discussions have been about existing bills that already existed in the state of Kansas and lobbying to get taken off the tax rolls. The exemptions are not to be used as [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: [Inaudible]
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But, whoa, whoa, whoa. I don’t know that you can say that because when we provide an exemption, we are enticing --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: An abatement.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- companies, an abatement, whatever you want to call it, we’re enticing companies to come to Kansas, Shawnee, Johnson County, you know, Kansas. All right. So, you cannot say that that’s not what they’re doing with these right here.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But that’s not what they’re -- we [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We may be enticing them to come from Overland Park or Lenexa.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But hold on. But what Carol is saying is --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s not what we’re saying.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- this is tax-based policy.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That has nothing to do with it.
Page 58 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: This is -- the whole thing with Ash Grove, they were already here. Ash Grove was saying we want to be evaluated differently tax-wise based on -- the reality of it was you could have said your air conditioner on your building, with the way it was originally written, you could have said your air conditioner is not part of your building, it’s a fixture and, therefore, shouldn’t be taxed.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Andrew Nave.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Now, is that --
MR. NAVE: Yeah. Let me jump in with the distinction. I think there is a little of distinction, it’s somewhat in semantics and I think there is a distinction between an incentive which responds to an action. A company comes to us, wants to create jobs, wants to build a building. It’s an actual event that we are trying to incentivize as opposed to we are giving, you know, zero property taxes or zero sales tax to any industry, any company of any type, future or existing, and that’s tax policy.
An incentive program is to incentivize an action. And whether it’s an excise tax, whether it’s a property tax or a sales tax with a TIF, CID, we’re incentivizing an action, or responding to a potential action, or an action. It’s not an across-the-board blanket tax policy, which is what in our Kansas Economic Development Alliance across our state looked at the Ash Grove issue, the fitness -- I can’t remember the community that the fitness clubs.
CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Wichita.
MR. NAVE: But it wasn’t to -- more of this, facilities are coming into Kansas, these fitness facilities are adding jobs or increasing fitness services across our state, it was one day they were taxable, the next day they weren’t. So, there was no action distinguished what was that incentive, so I think that’s an [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Which has the result of taking money out of your taxes.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Uh-huh.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, I still want to comment.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah, Dan.
MR. NAVE: Sure. Sure. Absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Just go back on that. I’m going to disagree, okay.
MR. NAVE: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: And I agree with part of what you’re saying, but the reason why the state, and I don’t care who lobbied for it or whatever, but somebody is getting an incentive, right? So, there’s an added incentive to move your company to the state of Kansas on a lot of these issues that that have, whether it was Ash Grove for one company or dairy farmers from California, you know, I mean, those are ones that have been targeted, and some of these laws are made for that. Okay.
Page 59 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, they’re not.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Not for dairy farmers they’re not. They’re already exempt.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, what I’m saying is we shouldn’t tell them not to do that when we’re asking on the next page to do incentives. And I agree, but our incentives, I mean, we have a lot more incentives than just a property tax abatement.
MR. NAVE: Well, I think we have policies that result in an incentive, somebody taking an action that’s like an incentive. But I think an incentive program and a tax policy are two distinct programs.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Totally.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: They can be used to entice --
MR. NAVE: A tax policy can be perceived as an incentive, but that doesn’t mean that it is one.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, some states get rid of their whole income tax to entice companies.
MR. NAVE: Right.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s a tax policy.
MR. NAVE: Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: So, is that an incentive?
MR. NAVE: I wouldn’t describe it as an incentive program, no. I would say it has an incentive effect, but I don’t think that it’s an incentive program. An incentive program responds to an action.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: That’s an incentive to get people to move to your state and that’s the reason why states do that.
MR. NAVE: Sure, absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. So, then we’re all going to agree, you know --
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, hold on, Dan. Would no income tax be a tool in the toolbox for a tax policy?
MR. NAVE: It’s semantics of what you mean by policy versus --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It still provides an incentive.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If it’s a policy, you’re right. I agree --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s an incentive --
Page 60 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I agree that it incentives people.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- to get people to move here.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I agree it incentives people, but it’s not used on a per basis --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Didn’t say it was.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We’re going to incentivize, no, we created this tax -- no different than the state lowering the business tax, the limited business tax. Is it an incentive, yeah, but it wasn’t -- it’s not an incentive tool. It’s tax policy in the state of Kansas says --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m not disagreeing with you.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay, then.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay, then what?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But what we’re saying here is, what we’re telling the state is, don’t pass a tax policy that eliminates the tax on certain businesses that will have a negative effect or bottom line if we are not going to be [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Eric.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Unless you want to just be ready to raise the mill levy at any given time to make up for it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, my current comment is we have the right to be parochial and the state -- we may be at odds with the state. They say you can’t do it, but we can and all that, but so what. I mean, you know, looking after good old us, that’s kind of what everybody does, you know. So, I don’t really know where this -- we’re going down the wrong road really. I mean, I understand your point clearly, yeah, we are speaking out of both sides of our mouth somewhat, but it’s still pretty normal for a community to look after their best interests first and the state can sort it out. And they’re going to do what they damn well please anyway quite frankly. So, yeah, I think that one’s been beat to death a little bit.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. I feel a little bit, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Okay. So, can we have a quick vote on it then?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Let’s have a vote on it. So, whether or not to omit the tax-based policy paragraph, did you want to keep or remove the tax on services, Dan?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Keep.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Keep. Okay. So, keep that piece, remove the rest. I will do a roll call. Again --
Page 61 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Wait a minute. I’m confused on what we’re voting on.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I’m about to explain it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Okay. Good.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, I’m a little bit confused myself actually. Okay. So, we’re going to say if you vote yes, keep it in the platform as it is.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Leave it like it is.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Leave it as is. If you’re a no vote, then you vote to omit all of the tax on services. Does that make sense?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Uh-huh.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Councilmember Neighbor?
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Pflumm?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Jenkins?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kemmling?
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I am a yes. Councilmember Vaught?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Sandifer?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Councilmember Kenig?
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. We have a 7 to 1 vote with Councilmember Pflumm being the no. So, it stays in the platform as it’s -- (Motion passes 7-1)
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Like it used to be.
Page 62 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, and to go, kind of go -- this is like a sale tactic here. You know, if I’m working on a customer and I want him to buy something from me, I don’t tell him to do something else that’s maybe, I don’t know, that’s not in his best interest.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: [Inaudible]
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s all about sales.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Your point is well-taken.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Open Government.
MS. KILLEN: Open Government. Very little change on this. We deleted one sentence from the Kansas Open Records that we have, and that was just because it was kind of redundant. The sentence that was in there has been covered already inside of that second.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, or just gentlemen as it were, are we good with the Open Government section as is?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m good.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ve got one comment here.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That was just this one about the Kansas Open Records, and I just wanted some clarification where you crossed out “Act and its ability to recoup costs of requests as allowed for in current statute.” Did they take it out of the statute, is that why we’re deleting that?
MS. KILLEN: No. I figured I could see that we could get that across in terms of where it says “the ability of public agencies to conduct their essential business functions.” So, we could be saying that we could charge those fees to be able to recoup those costs, so it was just redundant.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d like to be a little more specific about it. That doesn’t sound redundant. That sounds pretty loosey-goosey that first statement. If we’re going to charge them, I’d like to say, yeah, we’re going to charge you for this stuff.
MS. KILLEN: And if you want it to be -- leave it the way it was last year, that’s fine. I was just trying to tighten up language.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: I think having some flexibility -- to me having some flexibility, and if we are or are not going to charge people for open records requests I think it’s beneficial.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Wow, I don’t like it. Playing that game where we’re going to charge this guy, we’re not going to charge that guy. Whoa.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But this is a policy to the --
Page 63 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s scary.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: This is a policy to the legislature to say, you know, this is our position on that. We’re not looking for a real definitive. It’s not like they really read it anyway.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Yeah. They’re not going to read it anyway.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Well, that’s encouraging. Thanks a lot.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. But it’s pretty easy --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Only when we write stuff that’s going to make them mad.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, obviously they don’t because they pretty much voted against everything we’ve passed.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: You guys are killing me. Okay. All right.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean, all you’ve got to do is take the --
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Why don’t we put it -- why don’t we focus on what we can change.
(Councilmember Meyer calling for order.)
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just take the red highlighting off and it’s pretty easy.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Lightbulbs, we can change lightbulbs.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Are we changing anything with Open Records and Open Meetings Act provision, or are we moving on?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m good.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m good with it.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t like it. I’d like to have that stated in there like we had it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay.
MS. KILLEN: It’s easily put back into the statement.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I like it the way it was.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Well, let’s just for the sake of it, for argument, let’s do a quick vote then.
Page 64 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, wait a second. What are we saying, just adding in the --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Leaving it the way it was.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Putting it back to what it was.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Which says that the Act and --
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And its “ability to recoup costs of request as allowed for in current statute.”
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: All right. Does it matter to -- just put it back in.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Let’s put it back in. I surrender. Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yea, an easy one. Got one.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: How you feeling, Eric?
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s your lucky -- you better get a lottery ticket.
(Inaudible; talking over one another)
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Oh, my god, Public Safety.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: He better get a lottery ticket. It’s his lucky day, man, I’m telling you.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Public Safety.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Something got changed.
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Public Safety.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s a tough crowd.
MS. KILLEN: Okay. Moving on to Public Safety. The item that we have on here is the Metro Law Enforcement Mutual Aid. This legislation was introduced last year. It had quite a bit of work and hearings on the House side last year. And it did get moved out of committee, but never got a vote on the floor. It did take quite a bit of time to work through the session. There was a lot of compromise and language, bringing lots of people in. The report was very specific to the Kansas City area, but the problem is language that they kind of worked on opening it up to other parts of the state that bordered the state lines. So, hopefully this year it will make it across the finish line. There’s been lots of discussion about it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yea.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sounds good.
Page 65 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 MS. KILLEN: And the other -- we did remove the Emergency Management Homeland Security Statement with a very generic statement.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Unt-oh.
MS. KILLEN: I talked to both of our chiefs and neither one of them anticipated a legislation that we would need that statement for, and that the statement, trying to tighten things up, that’s why we have removed it.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Eric?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’m not going to worry about the Emergency Management Homeland Security Statement, but I want to get back to the Metro Law Enforcement Mutual Aid.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. That’s what we’re on.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d like to add some language in there. Something that refers to the current level of threat with WMD and acts of terrorism and so on, which really puts more of a focus on this because you’re going to be resource poor in one of those kinds of environments.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Absolutely.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And we want to -- I think that’s a good lever to use to try to get them to look at this more strongly because that’s a hot item right now. So, putting in, you know, adding that in thereafter, you know, response to an emergency, particularly in light of current events and the, you know, the current climate and the WMD threats and all that jazz. And that might get some more action on that. I’m hoping to because I like this piece. I want to see this passed.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: It’s a great bill, yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, let’s put some extra zingers in there to put some oomph into it.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You better get a mega millions ticket, too, Powerball and that one.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, are we all good with Eric’s second change?
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We’re all good.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’re good.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Big winner tonight.
MS. KILLEN: Economic Prosperity.
(Off Record Talking)
Page 66 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 MS. KILLEN: So, with anticipation of this first topic, we kind of talked about it already. I’ve worked with Andrew on rewording this for this coming session. There has been quite a bit of discussion about specifically this, how our cities -- how our [inaudible] are currently set up in cities using those. That has been a topic inside of the tax committee that’s been meeting, their final day is tomorrow, which I will be up there for that. And they will be offering the recommendations for the legislature based on the discussion that was had at the breakfast this morning again. I would anticipate that they’re going to put some type of language looking at TIF. I’m not quite sure what that’s going to exactly look like, but we just kind of reworded this in terms of how local communities are looking at what [inaudible] they’re trying to provide, specific land uses. They’re going to try to target [inaudible] allow those. So, that was the change there.
In terms of transportation, I just -- a few minimal changes there. We did add that last sentence because they are starting to talk about the next kind of version of TWORKS, if you will, and what that might look like, and so we did that include that information there as well.
We've had a statement about education in the past. And since the block grant bill did pass and they’re going to be looking at a huge funding formula, we added that new sentence inside of there that just talks about a fair and equitable plan, and that provides for that quality of education that Johnson County residents have come to expect.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Excellent. Any comments on Economic Prosperity? Okay. Moving on.
MS. KILLEN: Okay. Human Services. We did remove one item here, which was the Internal Symbol for Access. Where that movement is really going to be [inaudible] is the federal government. And we have had it in our federal legislative program, and I would just say that this Governing Body would [inaudible] to be there, we had it and we discussed that after the first of the year on our federal program, but because of the state [inaudible] to do anything to move that there really isn’t much in there. There hasn’t been a lot of push from any legislature maneuvering this wording, resolutions or anything like that. So, we don’t need to do that. And then the other two items are items that we have had in the past that talk about just general human service support. It’s providing for those safety net needs and then also adequate state psychiatric hospital resources. And I know this is something very important to our police department in being able to have that mental health piece there.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Are we good with Human Services? Eric?
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I wanted to focus on that adequate state psychiatric hospital resources. I would like to even strengthen that if we could to where we use it with these much needed services. And I would say we could even add something like, and would strongly support any expansion of these services.
MS. KILLEN: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Are we all good with that?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s number two for him.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Three.
Page 67 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Three.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Public Employees, last section.
MS. KILLEN: Yes. Just one item here. Again, we moved the PEERA statement that we had. That’s the Public Employer Employee Relations Act. Not to any legislation that we’re anticipating. So again, to tighten things up we removed that. That’s just what the [inaudible] and the House [inaudible]. The item that we have here is our KPERS statement. We expanded it a little bit based on some legislation that started to take shape at the very end of this session in terms of changing the way final average salaries for long-term folks would possibly be affected. They also pulled in KP&F in that. KP&F was also discussed this in this and they [inaudible]. So, that’s where we were going with this change with that. Some other items that came out of that, we’re also looking at our sick and leave time policies, but specifically focusing on the retirement benefit.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Any changes to the KPERS statement, Public Employees?
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Moving on.
MS. KILLEN: Okay. So, for next steps we would recommend approval with the changes that have been made here tonight. And I’ve expedited this to the December 14th, Council meeting, to the one in January so that we can get this put together and then provide this information to legislatures. It’s our intention to try and set meetings with them. And the Mayor, of course, will let you know what’s been set up if anybody else wants to join in on those. And then the state session begins on January 11 [inaudible].
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Thank you, Katie. Any further discussion on this from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, the recommended action is to Forward the 2016 State Legislative Plan to the December 14, 2015 City Council Meeting for Consideration by the Governing Body.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Is there a second?
COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. The motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0)
C. ADJOURNMENT
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All those in favor say aye.
Page 68 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015 COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0). We are adjourned. Thank you.
(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Adjourned at 9:44 p.m.)
Page 69 SHAWNEE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES December 8, 2015
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
/das December 28, 2015
Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
______
Stephen Powell, City Clerk
Page 1 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015
CITY OF SHAWNEE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SHAWNEE JUSTICE CENTER POLICE TRAINING ROOM 5850 RENNER RD
MINUTES December 7, 2015 7:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Commissioner Augie Bogina Planning Director Paul Chaffee Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff Deputy Planning Director Doug Allmon Commissioner Dennis Busby Planner Mark Zielsdorf Commissioner Doug Hill Administrative Assistant Angie Lind Commissioner Kathy Peterson Commissioner Les Smith Commissioner Alan Willoughby Commissioner Steven Wise
PLANNING COMMISSIONER(S) ABSENT Commissioner Randy Braley Commissioner Sara Somsky Commissioner Henry Specht
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Good evening and welcome to the December 7, 2015 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. A. ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Somsky is absent. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.
Page 2 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley is absent. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht is absent. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Smith. COMMISSIONER SMITH: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: Present. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. If you’d please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Item 1 of the Consent Agenda is the minutes of the November 16, 2015 meeting. Unless there is a request to remove the item from the Consent Agenda, the item will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove this item from the Consent Agenda? C. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2015. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I move for approval of the Consent Agenda subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I’ll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda Item C, all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0; Braley, Somsky, and Specht absent) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item D which is: D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Z-04-15-12; REZONING FROM TOWNSQUARE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10910 W. 60TH STREET. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY MARK MOLLENTINE, OWNER.
Page 3 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 PLANNER ZIELSDORF: The applicant requests approval of rezoning from TSQ (TownSquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for property located at 10910 W. 60TH Street. The application is filed by Mark Mollentine, owner. The subject property is located at 10910 W. 60th Street, which is located just east of Nieman Road on the north side of 60th Street. The property is zoned TSQ (Townsquare) and consists of nine platted lots in the original City of Shawnee plat of 1878. The site currently contains a single family residence, a detached accessory structure, and a large paved parking area. This is the site of the former Governor’s Meeting House restaurant. A few years ago, the owner closed the restaurant and catering business operated at this location and now it is being used only as his residence. The TSQ zoning district allows for residential use in conjunction with commercial uses, but does not allow for single family uses independently. The owner’s residence and restaurant and catering business was an allowed use, however now that the restaurant and catering operation has closed, the use as just a residence is considered non- conforming. The applicant requests rezoning approval from TSQ to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to bring the currently non-conforming status of his residence into conformance with the zoning code. Properties to the north are zoned TSQ and R-1. The property to the northwest is zoned TSQ and developed with a six unit apartment building. Directly north and to the northeast are two properties zoned R-1 and developed with single family homes. To the east is a non-conforming single family home on property zoned TSQ. The applicant’s property fronts 60th Street to the south, with properties south of 60th Street being zoned TSQ. These properties contain a non- conforming single family home, a vacant lot and a small 2 story office building. Property directly to the west is zoned TSQ and contains a non-conforming single family home. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as appropriate for low density residential uses. Given this parcel is currently developed with an existing single family residence, and several of the surrounding properties are developed with similar single family uses, it would not be out of character for the immediate area to allow for a single family residence at this location. The existing parcel contains 29,383 square feet and is approximately 232 feet by 126 feet. It is platted as Lots 13 thru 21 of Block 46 and the vacated east half of Fourth Street and the south half of the vacated alley behind Lots 13 thru 21, of the original City of Shawnee. Based on a review of Johnson County AIMS imagery, the existing structure appears to be set back from the front and rear property lines approximately 30 feet, and over 60 feet from the closest point to either side property line. All bulk requirements of the R-1 zoning district appear to be met. Any new additions or alterations to the existing structure would be required to meet the minimum setback requirements of the R-1 zoning district, including a minimum 30 foot front set back, combined side yards of no less than 20 percent of the lot frontage width, with no side yard less than seven feet, and a minimum rear yard of 30 feet. Access to the property is provided from an existing driveway off of 60th Street, and is expected to remain unchanged from its current location. Access is adequate for public safety purposes. The rezoning of the property should not have a detrimental effect upon the site. The property is developed with a single family home that has been the applicant’s residence, as well as, the location for his restaurant and catering business. The rezoning will allow the applicant to continue to use the property as his residence without the restaurant and catering business in operation.
Page 4 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 Denial of the rezoning request would not appear to benefit the public. The slight expansion of the R-1 zoning district in this area should not have a negative impact on the area as it is currently developed with several single family residential homes. Staff recommends approval of Z-04-15-12, rezoning from TSQ (TownSquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for property located at 10910 W. 60th Street, subject to the following condition: 1. Publication of the rezoning ordinance. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Mark. Is the applicant present? APPLICANT: My name is Mark Mollentine, I’m the owner of 10910 W. 60th Street. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Are you in agreement with the staff’s recommendations? MR. MOLLENTINE: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the Commission have any questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you. I have a question for the applicant. Is that structure on the register of historic homes? Do I remember that it is? MR. MOLLENTINE: No. It is not in the reason that it is not is because it was, it used to face Nieman Road and in the 60s it had been turned if you will; the window became a door; the door became a window and it now faces another direction; a porch was added to it; and so to try to even get it on the national register, it just wouldn’t even be, it would be applicable. Only if I had and Ann Renée Kelly’s money… COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Smith. COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you. Mark, (inaudible) and first of all agree 100% of the rezoning no questions asked, but a couple of questions. Being in character of the neighborhood I noticed two things; that one being a large kitchen exhaust on the top of the building; and then the large parking lot in the side yard. That seems to be someone out of character, and has that been addressed at all? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: That, those have not been addressed, per se, the, I mean, the principal use of the residence in terms of the structure is going to be a single-family residence obviously; in the single-family residential code there is no, even though it is a parking lot, there’s no provisions that address how much of your yard you can have paved for parking; is it a little excessive for a family residence, you have probably but the code doesn’t have anything specific as to how much of the yard can be paved. COMMISSIONER SMITH: And that was my question. Sure, that’s not what you find in a normal subdivision of homes (inaudible). CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: For staff, so the other properties that are south and east and west of this address, those are both nonconforming, right because they’re in town square, but they’re single-family. So do those people have to request or, you know, how does it…? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: They would need to request, those properties that are in nonconformance… COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay.
Page 5 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 PLANNER ZIELSDORF: They’re considered legal nonconforming currently. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: So, yes. For them to bring them to conformance they would have to request rezoning. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, question for staff. What is the, I guess, the value of rezoning, what would be the process of perhaps in the future someone might purchase the property and want to turn it back into a restaurant? It’s in the town square area surrounded by town square, is there a need to rezone? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: For it to be conforming, legal conforming use, it would need to be rezoned residential; and for it to continue to be zoned town square (inaudible) which can cause a property owner some issues if they’re looking to possibly refinance the property/sell the property, those kind of things. If he were to rezone it to R-1 and somebody came in later and looked to rezone it back to town square, they could. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: All right. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. This is a public hearing, so does anyone wish to speak on this item? If not, we would be in Commission Discussion. Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I know it’s difficult to get things on the historic register and all that because of the changes that were made but is there any plan going forward to help preserve this building moving forward by doing this, by backing it off to completely residential or can we attach something says is there efforts that will keep this historic location as it is? Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are you asking the Commission? COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes. What would our abilities be to hold on to that or by releasing this into totally residential will we be…whatever happens, happens? And, no offense, if you choose to bulldoze it tomorrow, that history would be gone. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mark, I know we’re in Commission discussion, but could you address that question? (Inaudible) Paul? (Inaudible) PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: It really doesn’t make a difference if they go commercial or residential since it’s not designated and doesn’t meet the current requirements that are set to be designated as a national historic site (inaudible) changes, only if they were on the register would it be limited as what could be done, but it’s sort of lost its architectural significance already and I know it’s an issue we pursued years ago and I think we found out that you just hope that the property owner maintains the integrity (inaudible). COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Did you get what you needed? COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion on this item? COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.
Page 6 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I’ll make a motion to, for approval of rezoning for Z-04-15-12; rezoning of TSQ to R-1 at 10910 W. 60th Street, subject to staff conditions. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I’ll second it. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve Z-04-15-12; rezoning of TSQ to R-1 for property located at 10910 W. 60th Street, all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion passes. (Motion passes 8-0; Braley, Somsky, and Specht absent)
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. MR. MOLLENTINE: And I’d like to say that since my family has, my wife’s family has been here since, they’re the McAnany’s, since it started, we’ll be stewards of the property for the rest of our lives; after that I’ll leave it in someone else’s hands. So, thank you so much. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Good.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 2 is: 2. SP-33-15-12; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BENNINGHOVEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 73,722 SQUARE FOOT SCHOOL TO BE LOCATED AT 6720 CAENEN AVENUE. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY ACI BOLAND ARCHITECTS FOR SHAWNEE MISSION USD 512, PROPERTY OWNER. DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests site plan approval for a new 73,722 square foot elementary school to be located at 6720 Caenen Avenue. ACI Boland Architects files the application for Shawnee Mission USD 512, property owner. The applicant requests site plan approval to construct a 73,722 square foot elementary school on approximately 10.67 acres. The property is located on the southwest corner of 67th Street and Caenen Avenue. The new school will replace the school building that is currently located on the property. The property is zoned PD (Planned Development). Property to the west is also zoned PD and contains Shawnee Mission Northwest High School. Properties to the east (across Caenen Avenue) and south are zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential), and contain single-family homes in the Caenen School Addition subdivision. Property to the north (across 67th Street) is zoned R-1 and contains homes in the Goode Estates subdivision. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for Public/Quasi-public uses to indicate the current use of the property as an elementary school. Schools were originally allowed in the PD zoning district. Thus, the request is in compliance with the plan. All bulk requirements have been satisfied. The existing school was built in 1974. The proposed building provides a setback of 90 feet from the east property line, 110 feet from the west
Page 7 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 property line, 75 feet from the south property and 500 feet from the north property line. Parking is located at least 25 feet away from adjacent right-of-way lines. These setback distances exceed any comparable setback required by current zoning district standards. The building will be two-story in height, with a floor plate of 49,330 square feet on the first floor. The structure will contain a total of 32 classrooms, including early childhood rooms, kindergarten rooms, an art room and two music rooms. The school is proposed to be constructed behind (to the south of) the existing Benninghoven Elementary building. The district intends to use the existing school until the new facility is ready for occupancy. Once this occurs, the existing school will be demolished. Access to the school currently comes from Caenen Avenue, and access to the new school will remain from this general location. The location of the new northernmost approach increases its present distance from the 67th Street intersection. A second approach will be constructed that aligns with 68th Street to the east. This intersection will allow straight, left, and right turning movements. A third, southern approach will be constructed to access staff parking and the fire lane located at the rear of the building. This approach and drive will also be utilized by service and delivery vehicles that need access to the northwest corner of the building. Primary access to the building is provided from a traffic circle that extends westward from the Caenen Avenue driveway approach to provide a one-way (north to south) passenger drop-off area at the front entrance. The entry drive has been designed with additional width to allow double-stacking and short-term parking for student pick-up and drop-off, as well as an inner third “thru” lane for moving vehicles. The amount of parent stacking exceeds that provided by the school’s current parent drop-off system. A sidewalk and crosswalk has been provided adjacent to the building and circular drive for pedestrian access. The relocation of the north driveway represents a circulation improvement as it has increased the storage capacity for southbound Caenen Avenue. The new design has also improved the traffic storage between the loop roads along southbound Caenen. The proposed sidewalk locations and the new pedestrian crosswalk location at 68th Street are also expected to improve pedestrian circulation and safety. Future monitoring of northbound vehicles along Caenen that want to turn left into the main loop road will be undertaken after construction. Idling vehicles could create backups for northbound Caenen, this activity may need to be discouraged in the future or time restricted as has been done at several other area schools. A left turn out of the loop road restriction would minimize northbound congestion, but cause unanticipated additional traffic along 68th Street and southbound Caenen during the restricted times. Submitted plans show the provision of 110 parking stalls, including five (5) handicap accessible spaces to satisfy ADA requirements. Chapter 17.70.030 of the zoning ordinance requires two (2) parking spaces per classroom for primary and junior high schools. With 32 classrooms, 64 on-site parking spaces are required. (Schools are specifically exempted by the Code from maximum parking requirements). The parking plan depicts parking stall dimensions that meet the minimum design standards required by the zoning ordinance. All drive aisles are dimensioned at a width of 24 feet or greater (back of curb to back of curb), which meets the minimum driveway width required for two-way traffic. The street improvements required for this development shall be designed according to the standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The following items were noted as part of this project:
Page 8 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 There are three proposed drive approaches as part of this site plan located on Caenen Avenue. The conceptual design for the proposed driveway approaches appears to be in substantial compliance with City standards and Standard Detail 3205-3 although the following design issues and any additional issues discovered during the review of the site civil plans must be resolved prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit or a building permit. The total width of all approaches will not exceed 20 percent of the street frontage. Curb returns will have a minimum radius of 15 feet and a maximum radius of 25 feet. No portion of an approach will extend across the prolongation of a side lot line. Stormwater collected on a public street is not allowed to drain onto adjoining properties. An approach will have a slope of ¼-inch to ½-inch per foot toward the street. Beyond the right-of- way, the centerline gradient of the driveway should not exceed a slope of plus 12 percent or minus 8 percent. The existing drive approaches on Caenen Avenue will be required to be removed and the ROW restored as necessary. The building will measure roughly 400 feet in length from north to south. The front (east) elevation of the proposed building is slightly curved with a bend at the building entry. This curvature aids in breaking up the mass of the front façade and provides architectural interest to the building. A glass wall that is constructed with dark bronze aluminum framing is located above the main entry on the front elevation. The building will have predominantly flat roof surfaces of varying heights to break up the single roofline. The exception to this is a sloped shed roof that provides over-story windows on the west elevation of the structure. Rectangular window openings have been provided on all other elevations to allow light into classroom areas found on the first and second floor. These windows will have bronze anodized frames to match those found on the main entry. Exterior building materials on all facades include a combination of brownish-gray brick (“Oyster Grey”) in the center and upper story of the structure, with a reddish horizontal tile blend (“Terra Cotta: Sienna, Red, Salmon blend”) making up a portion of the first floor. This same red tile blend has been shown to enclose the full height of stairwells found at the corners of the building, and to separate rectangular window banks found on the first and second floor. The multi- purpose room will be constructed of beige precast concrete panels with a textured exterior. Vertical rustication joints have been shown at 6-inch intervals to provide additional relief to the façade. This same material has been used as a wainscot on the building’s base to provide continuity between the multi-purpose room and the remainder of the structure. The roof will be flat and the majority of it will be equipped with internal roof drains. The taller multi-purpose room will have two overflow scuppers and downspouts that are shown to be colored beige to match the building. The majority of the mandoors are glass, but other metal mandoors, louvers, and the single overhead delivery door are shown to be colored to match the adjacent brick wall. Street tree requirements for the site have been met. Based on the amount of frontage along 67th Street, 12 street trees are required. Twelve (12) Sawleaf Zelkova trees have been provided adjacent to the right-of-way line. The applicant has also provided a total of 24 Red Pointe Maple trees adjacent to the Caenen Avenue right-of-way line to satisfy street tree requirements for this frontage. Based on usable open space, 108 open space trees are also required. The applicant has provided a total of 108 open space trees within the parking lot and around the site to satisfy the
Page 9 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 requirement. Open space tree plantings include summer shade maple, Pacific sunset maple, honey locust, Hillspire junipers, Canaertii junipers and white oaks. A portion these open space trees have been concentrated along the south property line to buffer the back yards of residential homes to the south. Site landscaping will be further enhanced with shrub plantings clustered around the front entrance of the building, and adjacent to parking areas. Species include varieties of decorative feather grass, spreading junipers, sumac and ninebark. Trees and shrub sizes meet minimum requirements of the zoning code. Existing chain link fencing that is currently located on the north, east and west perimeters of the site will remain in place after construction. Improved playgrounds will be located at the southwest and northwest corners of the building. The plan includes a large open space to the north of the building that will be used for open play fields. This area will be seeded with a sports turf blend. All disturbed areas, other than the noted north play field, shall be planted with sod in accordance with SMC 17.57. Air-handling units are proposed to be located on the roof at various locations and will be screened by the roof parapet. If noise or visibility of these units becomes an issue after the units are installed, the applicant shall be required to take corrective measures to mitigate the problem. The existing monument sign will be removed in conjunction with the project. A new monument sign, constructed with a brown stone base, will be installed to the north of the new northern entry drive that connects to Caenen Avenue. Height of the monument sign, including the base, shall not exceed 7 feet and each sign face shall not exceed 50 square feet. The sign will have manual changeable copy as allowed by code. All signage shall meet all requirements of the Shawnee Municipal Code, and a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation. Parking lot light poles will measure 23-feet in height (including the base) which meets City requirements. A cut-sheet of the fixture head has been provided that indicates a flat lens with cutoff shields so the bulb will not extend below the shoebox fixture. Shoeboxes within the south fire lane are noted to have full cutoff shields to further buffer the adjacent residential homes. The trash enclosure is located at the northwest corner of the building, adjacent to the service area. The enclosure will be constructed of precast rusticated concrete to match the building, and will have a wooden gate painted to match the building. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The enclosed and open components of the drainage system shall be designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 4 percent (25-year return period) design storm. The overflow components designed to convey the runoff from a 1 percent (100-year return period) design storm. The applicant has submitted a preliminary storm drainage study showing a conceptual grading plan, a drainage system, a drainage area map, and a drainage table summarizing the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the site. The study is substantially complete and adequate for the purposes of reviewing the site plan. The following design issues were noted: A complete hydrologic and hydraulic drainage table will need to be prepared according to the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual for the site civil plans. A plan and profile of the proposed public and private storm sewers must be included as part of the final storm drainage plans prepared for the site civil plans.
Page 10 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 The existing public system that extends from the southwest corner of the site south to the cul- de-sac located on 68th terrace is undersized. The applicant will be required to reconstruct this section of this system to increase the capacity to handle the 25-year run-off from both Benninghoven and the adjacent high school. Run-off that exceeds the 25-year storm will be routed via overland flow from the southwest corner of the site to the inlets located at the low- point of 69th Street. The applicant is responsible for completing additional survey work as part of the final construction plans to verify the low openings of the existing homes. The 100-year overflow swale shall be designed so that the existing low openings of the homes are above the minimum low opening for the swale. The applicant is responsible for submitting final storm drainage plans as an integral part of the site civil plans. The design issues discussed above and any additional issues discovered during the review of the site civil plans must be resolved prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit or a building permit. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.08, Stormwater Management, which pertains to the City’s stormwater utility regulations. The applicant is responsible for preparing an impervious area plan in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2600, Storm Drainage, using coordinates based in the Kansas North State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (NAD-83). The plan must accurately depict the limits of all parcels that comprise the development site and indicate the applicable Johnson County parcel identification numbers. Use crosshatching for existing impervious areas and halftone shading for proposed impervious areas. All existing and proposed impervious areas must be summarized in a table by parcel number including the proposed total impervious area per each parcel. The applicant is responsible for submitting the impervious area plan as an integral part of the site civil plans for review and acceptance by the Development Engineer. Once the plan is accepted, the applicant is responsible for submitting a separate printed copy and an electronic copy in AutoCAD© format prior to the issuance of a building permit. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit for development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting separate land disturbance plans for review and acceptance by Code Administration. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules. The applicant is responsible for submitting a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and in compliance with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) General Permit for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) program for stormwater runoff from construction activities. For development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Runoff from Construction Activities and obtaining such permits
Page 11 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 as required by KDHE prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. The applicant must submit to the City a copy of the NOI prior to the issuance by the City of a Land Disturbance Permit for the development site. The applicant is responsible for obtaining such permits as may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for grading activities covered by Section 401 (Water Quality Certification), Section 402 (Wetlands), and Section 404 (Waters of the United States) of the Clean Water Act. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.24, Stormwater Detention, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. This site has a high point which creates stormwater runoff to flow both to the north and south side of the site. The runoff flowing to the north will not be required to be detained since the flow will be decreased. The runoff flowing to the south portion of the site is being increased therefore detention will be required. The applicant is proposing an extended dry detention basin at the southwest corner of the site to meet the detention requirements. The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater detention study showing a conceptual layout of the underground facility, a drainage area map, and estimated storage volumes and allowable release rates. The preliminary study is substantially complete and adequate for reviewing the site plan although the any design issues discovered during the review of the final stormwater detention plan must be resolved prior to the approval of site development plans submitted for a building permit. This stormwater detention facility is required to be as-built and certified by the Engineer prior to a CO for the building. The as-built shall be prepared in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The impervious area for this site is being decreased; therefore, Stormwater Treatment Facilities are not required. All water lines, fire hydrant, fire lanes and fire suppression equipment shall be installed as required by the Fire Department. The applicant is responsible for scheduling a pre-design meeting with the Development Engineer prior to preparing the site civil plans, which must show all proposed site improvements. The final site civil plans for this development must be submitted for review and acceptance by the City prior to issuance a public improvement permit or building permit. All site improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. No certificate of occupancy for the building shall be issued prior to the completion, inspection, and acceptance of all required site improvements and the certification of the stormwater detention facility. A Public Improvement Permit is required for grading and restoration of the ROW, commercial drive entrances, and the construction of the new public storm sewer system. All utilities shall be placed underground. Staff recommends approval of SP-33-15-12, site plan for the new Benninghoven Elementary School, located at 6720 Caenen Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
Page 12 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 1. The building and site improvements shall be constructed as depicted on submitted site plans and building elevations. All mandoors and the overhead delivery door shall be painted to match the adjacent wall color; 2. All rooftop units shall be screened from view, and the trash enclosure shall be constructed of precast concrete to match the building. In the event noise or visibility from these units becomes an issue after installation, the owner shall take appropriate corrective measures to mitigate the issue; 3. The commercial driveway approaches required for this development will be designed according to the standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, as outlined in the staff report; 4. The parking lot, including installation of ADA stalls and signage, shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 5. Parking lot lighting shall be 23 feet in height (including the base) and the light bulb shall not extend below the fixture head. Shoeboxes along the south property line shall be equipped with back shields on the street side; 6. The street improvements, including any retaining walls, required for this development shall be designed according to the standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual as detailed in the staff report; 7. The existing drive approaches on Caenen Avenue will be required to be removed and the ROW restored as necessary; 8. Open space fees are not applicable to this redevelopment project; 9. The City’s excise tax is not applicable to this redevelopment project; 10. The stormwater drainage system required for this development will be designed according to the standards Shawnee Design and Construction Manual as outlined in the staff report; 11. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.24, Stormwater Detention, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. Detention shall be provided as detailed in the staff report; 12. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site as detailed in the staff report; 13. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The impervious area for this site is being decreased; therefore, Stormwater Treatment Facilities are not required; 14. Signage shall meet all requirements of the Shawnee Municipal Code, and a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation; 15. All landscaping as depicted on the submitted plan shall be planted prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. All disturbed yard areas, with the exception of the north play field, shall be planted with sod; 16. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.08, Stormwater Management, which pertains to the City’s stormwater utility regulations. The applicant is
Page 13 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 responsible for preparing an impervious area plan in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2600, Storm Drainage, as detailed in the staff report; 17. The applicant is responsible for scheduling a pre-design meeting with the Development Engineer prior to preparing the site civil plans, which must show all proposed site improvements. The final site civil plans for this development must be submitted for review and acceptance by the City prior to issuance a public improvement permit or building permit; 18. All site improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. No certificate of occupancy for the building shall be issued prior to the completion, inspection, and acceptance of all required site improvements and the certification of the stormwater detention facility. A Public Improvement Permit is required for grading and restoration of the ROW, commercial drive entrances, and the construction of the new public storm sewer system; 19. All water lines, fire hydrant, fire lanes and fire suppression equipment shall be installed as required by the Fire Department; and 20. All utilities shall be placed underground. That completes our report. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is the applicant present? APPLICANT: Good evening. I’m Mike Brown with Boland Architects. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Have read the staff report? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And, are you in agreement with staff’s recommendations? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, I was curious, what is the student capacity of the new building; the proposed building first the existing? MR. BROWN: It’s a three section school (inaudible) per class and so what we’re trying to do is around the 550 to 600 mark so it’s a little bit less. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And, do you know what the student population of the existing school is? Any concerns with overcrowding? MR. BROWN: I don’t know that number off the top of my head; however, we sort of work with the school district pretty closely, obviously, and so those decisions were made on their end and we designed the building to accommodate their needs for their numbers. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I guess my only concern is if not planned out properly I’d sure hate to build a new building and then put temporary classrooms right next to it because it doesn’t have the capacity that it needs. MR. BROWN: We have a number of what we consider flex classrooms in small classrooms which are essentially additional classrooms throughout the space when they are needed; we have four flex and two small classrooms in addition to the three designated rooms for each grade level.
Page 14 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: So, to get back to the, this question, so are, is there expansion plans that are included when you guys do a site like this in the event that you would need more space in the future or something like that? MR. BROWN: We don’t, we always think about that as were designing and there is room for growth on this site; I will tell you that there’s not a lot given where the building is located, nestled back southwest corner but, you know, that is something we always have to kinda plan for. We don’t have actual drawings or plans of what that might be but it is possible. If the school district comes back and says, you know, we need to (inaudible) and that something we do with really any project this nature. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Question pertaining to the new ball fields. The existing ball fields are used quite extensively now and, you know, is there a good time frame, you know, when the building will be demolished and when the fields will be ready to use again? MR. BROWN: The idea is to, the current school, the current elementary school will have classes all of 2016, after that construction…construction is going to be ongoing from March 2016 to May 2017 basically. While that is all taking place, they will be in class at Benninghoven and the construction will start really at the southernmost, southwestern point to kind of keep it away from the existing school for safety reasons, obviously; so, as far as when the ball fields will be usable, we don’t have an exact date on it; as you can imagine it’s going to little, not tricky, but the whole phasing of this is going to get a little bit difficult; so, I anticipate it a 13 or 14 month construction timeframe from beginning to end; after the 2016 school year, the current Benninghoven School will be demolished and so that’s can happen really late in the game and as that happens, you know, they’ll be moving stuff out into the new building; so, I know I didn’t really answer your question but I’m trying; I don’t have an exact date or real time frame for a usable ball field; I will say it’s just gonna be green space and all we are providing really within the plans is a backstop, so were not put in ball fields, but it’s going to be a green field. Hopefully that kind of… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you. This might be more for staff but there to put in parking lot lighting at 23 feet and somehow that, I presume is within the confines of the restraints we have? And Doug, since it’s in a residential area does that concern you or are the parking lot lights turned off basically in the evening? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: My understanding is, to answer your first question, yes they are within the parameters of our code, there actually a foot shorter than the maximum that we would allow and especially in this case that southern side they are showing not only flat lens, 90° angle, they’re showing full cutoff fixtures as well even further eliminating glare source from that fire lane that’s on the south side of the building; it’s not that uncommon to have lighted parking lots adjacent to residential but I do believe the District has them on a timer, unless there’s a special event or something like that at night; they generally go off fairly early in the evening. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you and another question. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.
Page 15 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I have one comment and that is I’ve been on the Planning Commission for a while now, but I’m not that old and I haven’t been on long; this happens to be the fourth elementary school in Shawnee on the Shawnee Mission school district that has been redone in the last five or six years and one junior high was basically an addition to it and it’s really kind of amazing because we thought our schools were getting a little older but it’s incredible that the school district has really stepped up and put a lot of money into Shawnee and I thank them for that. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, I just had a quick question, the plan did show any fencing around the perimeter so is there any plan? MR. BROWN: There is plans, yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, could you tell us what that is? MR. BROWN: Yes, so… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Number one, why wasn’t it shown on the plan? MR. BROWN: Well, we were still kinda working out what kind of fences going to be existing to remain versus what’s going to be new. I will say on the south side just beyond the property line where we have the residential there is an existing fence that we are going to leave. Along Caenen the idea is to have new fencing is currently it’s a 4-5 foot more or less chain-link fence that were going to improve. So, though be all new fencing there and were in a tie into the existing fencing on the south. So yes, to answer your question there is going to be new fencing. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, and what type of fencing which you propose? MR. BROWN: I think it’s more or less a 6 foot black sort of cast iron type, nice, durable fence. A much of her situation. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes, because I’m not a fan of the Shawnee Mission school district putting in fence, chain-link fence in front of their schools so if you are proposing it to be an iron type then I would be agreeable to that. MR. BROWN: And those would be discussions that we’ve been having lately about the fencing is to not just put up, like you said, chain-link fence. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Does the Commission have any others questions for the staff or the applicant? Thank you. MR. BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: We’d be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, I just want to also commend the school district for reinvesting in that area. I know the community has been a very big supporter in the bonds that have been approved over the years and it’s nice to see that school upgraded. I know it’s been many years of overcrowding there. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Yes, Mr. Chairman given to your point about the fencing, I think we should include that in the motion so that we don’t get confused on it or there isn’t any hay will try and do it; we make that a part of the motion that we don’t have to worry about it. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there any other discussion? Would you like to make that motion Mr. Busby? COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Well, sure.
Page 16 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Wait a minute I have… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I’m sorry. Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: On page 30 it says, existing chain-link fence that is currently located on the north, east, and west perimeters of the site will remain in place after construction. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: The north, the south, and the west. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: The north, east, and west. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: 67th and Caenen and northwest. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Northwest. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And he’s volunteered to change that so… COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: But that’s fine, I just remembered reading that. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And as I said, I think you can use chain-link to provide good security on the backside and the sides of the building but to place it in front of the building that you’ve spent millions of dollars on, I think deteriorates the aesthetics of the building, in my personal opinion. Commissioner Busby, would you like to make a motion? COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Yes, I would. I move for approval of SP-33-15-12; site plan for Benninghoven elementary school, 6720 Caenen Ave., per ACI Boland Architects for Shawnee Mission USD 512, owner. Move for approval with the addition that the front fence would be a wrought iron or an iron type since that is quite attractive. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And (inaudible). COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I’m sorry? COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And north. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: And north. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Along… COMMISSIONER BUSBY: And north along the… COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: 67th Street… COMMISSIONER BUSBY: 67th Street and Caenen, that’ll be Caenen and 67th St., thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, you want to incorporate the 20 stipulations into your motion? COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a second? Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve SP-33-15-12; site plan for Benninghoven elementary school, to construct a 73,722 sq. ft. school located at 6720 Caenen Ave., subject to the staff’s conditions and Commissioner Busby’s addition, all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Abstain. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Abstain?
Page 17 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. (Motion passes 7-1-0; Peterson abstain; Braley, Somsky, and Specht absent)
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number three is: 3. PREPLAT-17-15-12; REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A PORTION OF HILLS OF FOREST CREEK SUBDIVISION, A PLANNED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 6100 BLOCK OF LAKECREST DRIVE. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY PHELPS ENGINEERING FOR MANCHESTER PARTNERS, LLC, DEVELOPER. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mark. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: The applicant requests approval of a revised preliminary plat for a portion of Hills of Forest Creek subdivision, a planned single family residential subdivision, located in the 6100 Block of Lakecrest Drive. The application is filed by Phelps Engineering for Manchester Partners, LLC, developer. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat for a portion of the Hills of Forest Creek subdivision. The original preliminary plat was approved in February 2002 containing 205 lots on 99.5 acres. A revised preliminary plat containing 200 lots on 99.5 acres was approved shortly thereafter in October 2002, based on the findings of a more detailed storm drainage study prepared for the development and more update floodplain boundary information available at that time from the ongoing Mill Creek Watershed Study. Development of this subdivision had been slow since its approval. The remaining undeveloped portions of the subdivision were recently acquired by a new developer who is steadily building out the remaining portions of the subdivision in accordance with the approved October 2002 preliminary plat. However, after further study of the remaining undeveloped area predominantly south of 61st Street, the developer has determined that the revised preliminary plat of 2002 is no longer feasible to construct as approved based on the updated Flood Insurance Study (FIS), including the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), effective on August 3, 2009, and the City's current floodplain management regulations governing development of land within and adjacent to flood prone areas. Accordingly, the developer is proposing a new revised preliminary plat for this remaining 18.26 acres of land lying south of 61st Street. This plat proposes the termination of both 62nd Street and Lakecrest Drive in permanent cul-de-sacs to eliminate the need to construct a street crossing over the Clear Creek Tributary and its associated floodplain. This results in a reduction lots from 24 to 7 on roughly 5.24 acres, with the remaining 13.02 acres of land platted as private open space. The revised preliminary plat contains 7 lots and one tract on 18.26 acres. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates low density residential development for this area. The plat provides a density of 0.38 dwelling units per acre, which equates to a density of 1.84 dwelling units per acre for the overall subdivision. This is within the low density residential range, defined as one to five dwelling units per acre. The lots provided in this revised preliminary plat exceed the minimum size requirements of the PSF district. The revised preliminary plat is in general conformance with the Plan. All bulk requirements have been satisfied. The lots range in size from 8,324 square feet to 128,176 square feet. All structures will be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the subdivision boundary, which meets the periphery setback requirement of the PSF zoning district. Front
Page 18 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 building setbacks are platted at 25 feet. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 7 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be 30 feet. All of the lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements in the PSF district. The plat contains one tract of approximately 13.02 acres. This tract contains stream channels and their associated floodplain. Tract D will be used as private open space and will contain a private trail that will connect to the City’s Clear Creek stream way trail system to the south. Tract D will be owned and maintained by a home owners association. The applicant will be responsible for preparing and submitting the appropriate home owner’s association documents along with the submittal of the final plat. The two lots to the south will be accessed by way of 62nd Street from The Meadows at Clear Creek. Existing 62nd Street will terminate approximately 65 to the east in a permanent cul-de- sac to serve these two lots. Lakecrest Drive will terminate in a permanent cul-de-sac approximately 300 feet south of 61st Street to serve these 7 lots. While the connection between 62nd Street and 61st Street by way of Lakecrest Drive will not be made, the proposed lot layout, points of access and street network for this development are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes. Additional traffic through The Meadows at Clear Creek will be negligible with the addition of only two lots. Interconnectivity will still be made to the west with The Forest at Clear Creek with the extension of 60th Terrace being made with improvements within The Hills of Forest Creek Fourth Plat. The street improvements required for this development shall be designed according to the standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The interior conceptual street layout shown is sufficient, as are the proposed centerline grades and vertical curves shown on the preliminary centerline profiles. However, any design issues discovered during the review of the street improvement plans will need to be resolved prior to approval of those plans and the issuance of the Public Improvement Permit. All internal streets shall comply with the geometric and roadway design standards for a local residential street per the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and the applicable Standard Details. Sidewalks should be placed on the side of a street closest to the nearest existing or planned elementary school. Sidewalks shall comply with standard details for location within the right-of- way and dimension. The applicant is responsible for paying for city-installed street name signs prior to the issuance of a Public Improvement Permit for constructing the streets. The applicant is required to construct a recreational trail within Tract D that connects to the existing public trail system. The proposed trail location is sufficient for review of the preliminary plat. The exact location will be determined in the field to ensure existing trees and grades are taken in to account when finalizing the alignment. The portion of the trail located within Tract D will be maintained by the Homes Association of this subdivision. The portion of the trail that extends on to the City parkland will be maintained by the City. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed street improvement plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. The streetlight improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual.
Page 19 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed streetlight improvements plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. A public improvement permit is required to install the public streetlights. The streetlights shall be installed prior to the release of the development for building permits. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The enclosed components of the storm drainage system must be designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 10 percent (10-year return period) design storm. The overflow components designed to convey the runoff from a 1 percent (100-year return period) design storm. The applicant submitted a preliminary storm drainage study with the preliminary plat showing a conceptual drainage system, a drainage area map, and a drainage table summarizing the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the development site and all upstream tributaries. The preliminary study was substantially complete and adequate for reviewing the preliminary plat. Any issues discovered during the review phase must be resolved prior to the approval of the storm drainage improvement plans. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed storm drainage improvement plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. The preliminary plat for this subdivision pre-dates the change in the City’s stormwater detention regulations that occurred in 2014; as such this final plat is grandfathered in under the old regulations. On-site detention is not required or permitted because this development drains directly to a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the applicant may comply with these regulations by paying a detention fee of $350.00 per lot instead of constructing an on-site facility. The detention fee for this final plat is $2,450 based on 7 lots. The fee must be paid prior to commencing construction work on any public improvements. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities (STF) to preserve and enhance the quality of stormwater runoff. Over 50% of the lots on the initial preliminary plat for Hills of Forest Creek Subdivision have been final patted; therefore, per Chapter 11.16, stormwater treatment is not required. This development lies adjacent to Clear Creek and is traversed by Clear Creek Tributary B. None of the proposed lots lie within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Most of Tract D lies within either Zone AE, a SFHA, or Zone X (future), an area actually prone to flooding now, but having an upstream watershed too small to be classified as a SFHA. As part of the subdivision grading plan, to be approved prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant is responsible for identifying the Base Flood Elevations of both the 1% annual chance flood based on existing (1998) development conditions and on the ultimate development conditions for the watershed at the upstream corner of all lots adjacent to the SFHA or flood prone area. The Minimum Low Opening (MLO) required for all structures on those lots shall be a minimum of two feet higher than the ultimate Base Flood Elevation. Also, if the proposed basement floor of any structure adjacent to the SFHA or flood prone area is lower than the existing Base Flood Elevation, then the landowner is responsible for demonstrating that the
Page 20 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 proposed structure will be “reasonably safety from flooding” as established in FEMA Technical Bulletin 10 01 (Reasonably Safe from Flooding). All landowners of lots adjacent to the SFHA or flood prone area are responsible for submitting FEMA Elevation Certificates demonstrating compliance with the above requirements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. No building larger than 120 square feet shall be constructed closer than 30 feet of the limits of the 1% annual chance flood based on ultimate development conditions for the watershed. Adjacent to the proposed development, Clear Creek has an upstream watershed exceeding 5,000 acres. Accordingly, the stream buffer associated with Clear Creek of 120 feet measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as established in the field. The revised preliminary plat will need to be modified to correctly show the required buffer for Clear Creek. Clear Creek Tributary B has a watershed exceeding 160 acres, which requires a stream buffer of 6 feet. Lastly, the unnamed tributary lying east of Lakecrest Drive has a watershed of less than 80 acres, which requires a stream buffer of 40 feet. All buffer areas within this development shall be preserved as open space, including those portions on any lot, especially dense stands of native vegetation within the 25 feet closest to the top of bank. However, the City Engineer acknowledges that those portions of a buffer lying within a lot, but not within the first 25 feet of the buffer, may be planted with turf on the existing grade, which is deemed necessary for the successful completion of this development. All proposed stream crossings shall be constructed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300, Storm Drainage. All utilities shall be placed underground. Telephone, electric and cable service facilities are to be placed within rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24, except as specifically varied or waived by action of the Governing Body. If the Governing Body approves the placement of utilities within the front yard, then such utilities are to be placed within the right- of-way and not within easements adjacent to the right-of-way. When an easement is needed specifically for either a sanitary or stormwater sewer, the easement must specify the intended use. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit for development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting separate land disturbance plans for review and acceptance by Code Administration. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules. The applicant is responsible for submitting a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and in compliance with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) General Permit for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) program for stormwater runoff from construction activities. For development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Runoff from Construction Activities and obtaining such permits as required by KDHE prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the
Page 21 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 development site. The applicant must submit to the City a copy of the NOI prior to the issuance by the City of a Land Disturbance Permit for the development site. The applicant is responsible for obtaining such permits as may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for grading activities covered by Section 401 (Water Quality Certification), Section 402 (Wetlands), and Section 404 (Waters of the United States) of the Clean Water Act. All public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements. Building permits will not be released for this development until all public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City. All fire hydrants, fire lanes, and fire suppression equipment as required by the Fire Department shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. This development is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 12.26, which pertains to the City’s excise tax on new subdivision plats. The street improvements required for this development are not eligible as a credit against the required excise tax nor is the right-of-way eligible for a reduction in the gross area subject to the excise tax because the streets are not classified as major streets. Lot 182 is 128,176.25 square feet in size. The area subject to the excise tax for large lots is capped at the equivalent of 65,340 square feet (1.5 acres) as per SMC 12.26.040.D. Therefore this lot is eligible for a reduction in the gross area subject to the excise tax in the amount of 62,836.25 square feet or a reduction in the overall excise tax of $13,509.79. The estimated excise tax for this revised preliminary plat, including the above listed credits or deductions, is $157.483.07 based on a taxable area of 795,315.69 square feet at the current rate of $0.215 per square foot. The excise tax is due prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of the final plat. The final calculation of excise tax will be figured using the excise tax rate in effect at the time final plat is recorded. The developer may enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that would allow for the suspension, partial or in full, for the excise tax due, provided the final plat is approved and recorded prior to expiration of the suspension of the excise tax as set by the City. This agreement between the property owner and the City shall be created, agreed upon, and executed prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of the final plat. This subdivision is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. The previous developer dedicated, through a warranty deed, a 19.7 acre tract to the City for use as public park ground for the extension of the Clear Creek trail system. Therefore, the open space fees for this subdivision have been waived. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat. The computation plat should show the bearings and lengths of all lines, and the individual area, in square feet, of all lots, open space tracts, and right-of-ways, and the centerline miles of all newly dedicated streets. The County Engineer requests that all points shown on a plat be based on the Kansas State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (NAD-83).
Page 22 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 Staff recommends approval of PrePlat-18-15-12, Revised Preliminary Plat of Hills of Forest Creek subdivision, located in the 6100 Block of Lakecrest Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Acceptance of the dedications on the final plat by the Shawnee Governing Body and recording of the final plat with the Johnson County Register of Deeds shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits; 2. The preliminary plat contains seven lots and one tract on 18.26 acres; 3. All bulk regulations of the PSF (Planned Single Family) zoning district shall be met, including 30 foot peripheral boundary and a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 7 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be 30 feet; 4. No greater that twenty percent of the homes in the subdivision may be constructed with the same front elevation; 5. The applicant is required to construct a private recreational trail within Tract D extending from 61st Street to the City’s Clear Creek trail system. Construction of the trail shall be completed concurrently with the public improvements associated with the lots within this preliminary plat. The trail will be maintained by the homes association of this subdivision; 6. The provisions of the excise tax shall be satisfied prior to the Mayor signing the recording copies of the final plat. The developer may enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that would allow for the suspension, partial or in full, of the excise tax provided the final plat is approved and recorded prior to expiration of the suspension of the excise tax as set by the City. This agreement between the property owner and the City shall be created, agreed upon, and executed prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of a final plat for this area; 7. Open space fees have been waived in lieu of past dedication of public park ground by the previous developer, as provided by Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14; 8. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing and submitting home owner association documents that provide for the ownership and maintenance of Tract D. Such documents shall be submitted to the City with the application of the final plat; 9. The street improvements required for this development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as detailed within the staff report; 10. All internal streets shall comply with the geometric and roadway design standards for a local residential street per the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and the applicable Standard Details; 11. Sidewalks are required along the west and north side of the interior streets. Sidewalks shall comply with standard details for location within the right-of-way and dimension; 12. The applicant is responsible for paying for city-installed street name signs prior to the issuance of a Public Improvement Permit for constructing the streets; 13. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed street improvements plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance; 14. The streetlight improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed streetlight improvement plans for review and
Page 23 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. A public improvement permit is required to install the public street lights. The streetlights shall be installed prior to the release of the development for building permits; 15. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as detailed within the staff report; 16. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed storm drainage improvement plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance; 17. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. On site detention is not required or permitted because this development drains directly to a 100 year floodplain. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of detention in the amount of $350.00 per lot. The detention fee is $2450.00 based on 7 lots. The detention fee shall be paid prior to commencing construction work on any public improvements; 18. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities; 19. No building larger than 120 square feet shall be constructed closer than 30 feet of the limits of the 1% annual chance flood based on ultimate development conditions for the watershed; 20. The applicant is responsible for identifying the Base Flood Elevations as detailed within the staff report; 21. All landowners of lots adjacent to the SFHA or flood prone area are responsible for submitting FEMA Elevation Certificates demonstrating compliance prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 22. The stream buffer associated with Clear Creek has a required setback of 120 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark as established in the field. The stream buffer associated with Clear Creek Tributary B has a required setback of 100 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark as established in the field. The stream buffer associated with unnamed tributary lying east of Lakecrest Drive has a required setback of 40 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark as established in the field; 23. The revised preliminary plat shall be modified to correctly show the required 120 foot buffer for Clear Creek; 24. All buffer areas within this development shall be preserved as open space, including those portions of on any lot, especially dense stands of native vegetation within 25 feet closest to the top of bank. Those portions of a buffer lying within a lot, but not within the first 25 feet of the buffer, may be planted with turf on the existing grade; 25. All proposed stream crossings shall be constructed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300, Storm Drainage; 26. Telephone, electric and cable service facilities are to be placed within rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24; 27. All utilities shall be placed underground;
Page 24 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 28. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules; 29. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all such permits as may be required by all Federal, State, and Local agencies, including but not limited to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Kansas Division of Water Resources (DWR), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); 30. All public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements. Building permits will not be released for this development until all public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City; 31. All fire hydrants, fire lanes, and fire suppression equipment shall be installed as required by the Fire Department; and 32. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat. That concludes staff’s presentation. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Mark. Is the applicant present? APPLICANT: Good evening my name is Tim Tucker, I’m with Phelps Engineering, and our address is 1270 N. Winchester, Olathe, KS. We are in agreement with the stipulations and I’d be glad to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commission have any questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for you, it might need clarification on this, but you’re going to be required to make a private recreational trail that goes to Clear Creek Pkwy., right? MR. TUCKER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Okay. I would assume that that would be owned by the land owner, the homeowners association? MR. TUCKER: They would own and maintain the portion on our property and then we would go across to the City park area, is the location of the trail, right here it’s just a small section; it’s a small trail that would be constructed by us (inaudible) ownership. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Will that trail be differentiated from saying the other landowners there? In other words, such that… MR. TUCKER: We hadn’t really thought about it, it could very easily be… COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Would you be opposed to a suggestion that it hath signage on it that says it’s owned by the homeowners association so that 10 or 15 years from now someone doesn’t say I thought that was public land and therefore part of the trail system?
Page 25 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 MR. TUCKER: We, I mean, I think the intent is for the subdivision it’s really for (inaudible) the trail basically is to provide a connection for the residents within this subdivision up to the north to Clear Creek trail. I’m not sure if providing signage of some sort to indicate demarcation between the City’s maintained trail and between the developers trail (inaudible)… COMMISSIONER BUSBY: It would seem to me we had an issue here a year ago or so where somebody had used that trail so often that they thought it was just a public trail and it really wasn’t that fun to figure out and I think just the addition of the sign on both ends that says you’re now on basically private property owned and maintained by the Homes Association might clarify the that cuts through there in 3, 4, or 5 years. MR. TUCKER: I’m sure something between the developer and the City (inaudible)… COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I’ve got a question. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, Tract D that’s going to be maintained is it maintained by the whole area? (Inaudible) COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, the seven homes will just be a part of the bigger one. MR. TUCKER: That’s correct. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, we’re not asking you seven homes to maintain that 13 acres. MR. TUCKER: No, and that’s all good to be pretty much just native floodplain. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Right, but we’ve seen problems with those in the past with the snakes and stuff. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: This is a follow-up to Commissioner Busby’s question on the trail connector. Is that intended or will that be essentially public access or is it gonna be private use only by the residents? So, for example, can anybody in the City show up and use that trail at any time without any restrictions? MR. TUCKER: It really hasn’t been discussed on the developer side or I don’t think there’s anything to restrict anybody from using it (inaudible). COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: The details really haven’t been discussed in great detail but that is something that we can definitely work with the developer and the City Parks department and have that addressed when we come back with the final plat. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you. Is, these are public streets I assume… PLANNER ZIELSDORF: They are public streets. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And so anybody… PLANNER ZIELSDORF: And public sidewalks. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: …can drive their car and park it and walk and I would hate to have a restriction on who could access it, the public trails.
Page 26 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 PLANNER ZIELSDORF: And this is just a proponent of the trail system that they are providing that extends up north of 61st St. and carries on the north to Clear Creek Pkwy. that is part of this development. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If the ordinary high water mark estimate will be from 100 foot to 120 foot on Lot 182, could you give us an idea as to how that structure would be sited in the future? MR. TUCKER: Yeah, right, actually the boundary of this lot right here, it’s a large lot, is currently about 3 acres in size, it’s gonna shift over not very far, I mean, it’s still going to be in excess of 2 acres on that one lot. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Can you guess forests where that house will be sited in the future? MR. TUCKER: Oh, okay. There’s enough room here to site the house or could go back in here in this location, I mean, it’s a large lot. (Inaudible) MR. TUCKER: Floodplain all the way around to minimize the infrastructure that we had and we ran a preliminary or temporary turnaround or permanent turnaround/cul-de-sac so that’s what were left with sense were putting in the infrastructure two lots to minimize that one location put it on the west side of the high-pressure gas line that runs through there and then everything else back here is that one lot. So, I mean, there’s a lot of flexibility; there’s a sanitary sewer line that runs, bisects it pretty much right down the middle, so that lot could be placed behind it and in front of it, so… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: With it shaped like a coke bottle… (Inaudible) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: This may be a question for Mark more than you, have you met the minimum with requirements of a lot should you have to change to 120 foot setback? MR. TUCKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the width of the lot have to, the minimum width of the lot have to continue throughout the entire course of the plat or does it only have to be that at the front and back? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: Well, the minimum lot frontage or minimum lot width would need to be met at the front property/right-of-way line or in this case the cul-de-sac at the 30 foot building line, but basically this lot is, basically this whole area right here is that right there, they could shift that up or even if that hundred foot boundary without moving the lot lines they could shift that hundred foot boundary up a little bit the front of the lot they would just need to maintain… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, you think it could be built to conform? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: Yes, it will conform. The lot line would not necessarily have to match the 120 foot buffer boundary. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: The lot line could extend even though the applicant so chooses to move that lot line it does provide a buffer to extend on along that line (inaudible) either turf or natural grass. MR. TUCKER: Our intent would be to keep it off the lot (inaudible).
Page 27 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. Any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Thank you. We’d be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Smith. COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you. Following up with Commissioner Busby, everything is great as long as we’re all here, but once we move on the homeowners association decides to change things sometimes; if the trails open up to public access, (inaudible) in one of the conditions for approval that it be included in the declaration of conditions and restrictions as part of what staff approves; that will be better for everyone; if that’s important to the Commission, that’s what I’d suggest. (Inaudible) Don’t ask me how. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And, Mark, didn’t you say that, did you suggest that we might work on that with Parks Department as part of the final plat when it comes back? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: Yeah, I hate to jump to a decision, I understand the concern, but I’d hate to jump to a condition right now without having time to discuss it with City Parks staff and the developer as to how that will be done. You know, if we put something in there that says it needs to be looked at, we’d consider something of that nature, that’d probably be appropriate. Obviously we can’t do anything about it until the final plat is done so staff will make sure that it’s in the final plat. COMMISSIONER SMITH: Yeah, I mean, it’s a given that it has to be something with Parks service (inaudible) but I think you’re right as long as that goes forward at this point and you understand the expectation that if it is something that is (inaudible). CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Smith, do you have a motion? COMMISSIONER SMITH: I do, sir. I’d like to move for the approval of PrePlat-17-15-12; the preliminary plat for a portion of Hills of Forest Creek subdivision located at 6100 Block of Lakecrest Drive, subject to staff conditions as written. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve PrePlat-17-15-12; a revised preliminary plat for a portion of Hills of Forest Creek, a planned single family residential subdivision, located in the 6100 Block of Lakecrest Drive, all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you. (Motion passes 8-0; Braley, Somsky, and Specht absent)
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 4 is: 4. PREPLAT-18-15-12; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR RIDGESTONE MEADOWS WEST SUBDIVISION, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 6800 BLOCK OF MARION STREET. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY PHELPS ENGINEERING FOR RIDGESTONE WEST, LLC, DEVELOPER. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mark. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for Ridgestone Meadows West subdivision, a single family residential subdivision, located in the 6800 Block of
Page 28 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 Marion Street. The application is filed by Phelps Engineering for Ridgestone West, LLC, developer. The applicant seeks preliminary plat approval for single phased, single family residential subdivision. The property is zoned R-1 and is generally located in the 6800 block of Marion Street. The property is wooded with topography sloping down to the north and northwest to an open stream channel. The property is currently undeveloped. Single family homes within Ridgestone Meadows subdivision are adjacent to the east and single family homes within Monticello Crest subdivision are adjacent to the south. Property to the northeast, across the stream channel is unplatted and zoned Single Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Highway (CH). These properties are undeveloped. The preliminary plat contains 37 lots and two tracts on 17.97 acres. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates low density residential development for this area, which is defined as one to five dwelling units per acre. The preliminary plat provides a gross density of 2.06 dwelling units per acre, which is within the low density residential range. Public sewers and other utilities are available to serve this area. The proposed preliminary plat is in general conformance with the Plan. All bulk requirements have been satisfied. Lots range in size from 9,292 square feet to 20,862 square feet. Minimum lot frontages of 75 feet have been provided, as measured at the front property line or as measured along the platted building line for lots at the end of a cul-de-sac or on a curve. Front yard setbacks of 30 feet are shown on the preliminary plat. On corner lots where a reduced side building line is used, the side building line shall be no less than 20 feet and shall be designated as a side building line. The total width of both side yards shall be no less than 20 percent of the total lot width with no side yard less than seven feet. Rear yard setbacks shall be no less than 30 feet. All of the lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements in the R-1 district. The plat contains two private open space tracts totaling 4.69 acres. Tract A is approximately 199,576 square feet (4.58 acres). This tract contains the stream channel running along the north and northwest side of the subdivision. This tract will also contain a stormwater detention facility located at the northeast end of the tract. Tract B is a small tract consisting of 4,848 square feet (0.11 acres) located at the south end of the Brownridge Drive cul-de-sac. This tract is intended as a passive open space and buffer at the end of the street. Both tracts will be owned and maintained by a home owners association. The applicant will be responsible for preparing and submitting the appropriate home owner’s association documents along with the submittal of the first final plat for this development. The applicant is proposing a tree preservation easement along the rear of Lots 17 - 25 in an effort to protect and preserve the existing trees in this area. A narrow tree preservation easement is also proposed for the rear of Lot 1, 26-27, and 37 that matches a tree preservation easement on the adjoin subdivision to the east to help protect the existing trees in this area. All tree preservation easements shall be private and be dedicated to and enforced by the home owners association. Access to the lots within this subdivision will be provided from the westward extension of 68th Street from the adjacent Ridgestone Meadows subdivision. A second point of access will be from the northward extension of Marion Drive from the adjacent Monticello Crest subdivision. Both of these streets are local residential streets that were expected to be carried through to provide access to the adjacent property as it was developed. The proposed lot layout, points of access and street network for this development are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes.
Page 29 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 The public street improvements required for this development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The interior conceptual street layout shown is sufficient, as are the proposed centerline grades and vertical curves shown on the preliminary centerline profiles. However, any design issues discovered during the review of the final plans will be required to be resolved prior to plan approval and the issuance of the Public Improvement Permit. All internal streets shall comply with the geometric and roadway design standards for a local residential street per the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and the applicable Standard Details. Sidewalks should be placed on the south or east side of a street. Sidewalks shall comply with standard details for location within the right-of-way and dimension. The applicant shall be required to remove the existing temporary turnaround on Marion Drive. The preliminary plans indicate the removal of the existing temporary turnaround and for the preliminary plat, the detail provided is sufficient. However, for the final plans more detail is required. A detailed survey will be required in this area to identify locations of mailboxes, trees, landscaping, yard ornaments, etc. that might require removal and replacement. Additionally, prior to final plan approval the applicant will be required to provide to the City a temporary easement or right of entry form executed by the homeowner of the lot(s) that the turnaround is located on. The applicant is responsible for paying for city-installed street name signs prior to the issuance of a Public Improvement Permit for constructing the streets. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed street improvements plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. The streetlight improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed streetlight improvements plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. A public improvement permit is required to install the public street lights. The streetlights shall be installed prior to the release of the development for building permits. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The enclosed components of the storm drainage system must be designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 10 percent (10-year return period) design storm. The overflow components designed to convey the runoff from a 1 percent (100-year return period) design storm. The applicant submitted a preliminary storm drainage study with the preliminary plat showing a conceptual drainage system, a drainage area map, and a drainage table summarizing the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the development site and all upstream tributaries. The preliminary study was substantially complete and adequate for reviewing the preliminary plat. Any issues discovered during the review phase must be resolved prior to the approval of the storm drainage improvement plans.
Page 30 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed storm drainage improvement plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.24, Stormwater Detention, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater detention study showing a conceptual layout of the detention facility, a drainage area map, and estimated storage volumes and allowable release rates. The preliminary study is substantially complete and adequate for reviewing the site plan although any design issues discovered during the review of the final stormwater detention plan must be resolved prior to the approval of site development plans submitted for a building permit. This stormwater detention facility is required to be as-built and certified by the Engineer prior to the release of building permits. The as-built shall be prepared in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The applicant is proposing the use of preserved native vegetation and a native vegetated conveyance swale to meet the Level of Service of a 6 for this project. All STFs required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant’s consulting engineer is responsible for certifying that both the design and construction of such facilities complies with all applicable regulations. A 3rd Party inspector will be required to inspect the construction of the STFs. The applicant is responsible for the cost of all 3rd party inspections that will be required. The applicant is required to execute and record with the Johnson County Register of Deeds the City’s standard form entitled “Declaration of Stormwater Treatment Facility Maintenance Restrictions and Covenants” prior to the start of construction on the site civil items. The applicant’s consulting engineer is responsible for preparing an as-built certification of each STF, which requires City acceptance prior, to the City issuing any building permits for this development. This development lies adjacent to Clear Creek Tributary A, which has a floodplain identified as a Zone X (future). Although the upstream watershed is too small for this floodplain to be designated as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), it is an area actually prone to flooding now, instead of some future date. None of the proposed lots are located closer than 30 feet to the limits of the 1% annual chance flood based on ultimate development conditions for the watershed. As part of the subdivision grading plan, to be approved prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant is responsible for identifying the Base Flood Elevations of both the 1% annual chance flood based on existing (1998) development conditions and on the ultimate development conditions for the watershed at the upstream corner of all lots adjacent to the floodplain. The Minimum Low Opening (MLO) required for all structures on those lots shall be a minimum of two feet higher than the ultimate Base Flood Elevation. Also, if the proposed basement floor of any structure adjacent to the SFHA is lower than the existing Base Flood Elevation, then the landowner is responsible for demonstrating that the proposed structure will be “reasonably safe from flooding” as established in FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 (Reasonably Safe from Flooding). All landowners of lots adjacent to the SFHA are responsible
Page 31 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 for submitting FEMA Elevation Certificates demonstrating compliance with the above requirements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The stream buffer associated with Clear Creek Tributary A has a required setback of 60 feet measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as established in the field. The buffer area within this development shall be preserved as open space, especially dense stands of native vegetation within the 25 feet closest to the top of bank. All proposed stream crossings shall be constructed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300, Storm Drainage. All utilities shall be placed underground. Telephone, electric and cable service facilities are to be placed within rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24, except as specifically varied or waived by action of the Governing Body. When an easement is needed specifically for either a sanitary or stormwater sewer, the easement must specify the intended use. The site contains some significant grades and substantially wooded areas throughout. The applicant is requesting the Governing Body approve the placement of utilities within the front yard areas for Lots 1-27 to avoid disturbing the steep slopes and to minimize damage and removal of existing trees along the rear of these lots. Given the existing site conditions, Planning staff agrees this is a valid request and recommends the placement of utilities within the front yard for Lots 1-27. The applicant shall be responsible for verifying with Johnson County Wastewater that the placement of front yard utilities will not conflict with the placement of the sanitary sewer lines, particularly along the northwest side of Brownridge Drive and the northeast side of Marion Drive. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit for development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting separate land disturbance plans for review and acceptance by Code Administration. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules. The applicant is responsible for submitting a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and in compliance with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) General Permit for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) program for stormwater runoff from construction activities. For development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Runoff from Construction Activities and obtaining such permits as required by KDHE prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. The applicant must submit to the City a copy of the NOI prior to the issuance by the City of a Land Disturbance Permit for the development site.
Page 32 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 The applicant is responsible for obtaining such permits as may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for grading activities covered by Section 401 (Water Quality Certification), Section 402 (Wetlands), and Section 404 (Waters of the United States) of the Clean Water Act. All public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements. Building permits will not be released for this development until all public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City. All fire hydrants, fire lanes, and fire suppression equipment as required by the Fire Department shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. This development is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 12.26, which pertains to the City’s excise tax on new subdivision plats. The street improvements required for this development are not eligible as a credit against the required excise tax, nor is the right-of-way eligible for a reduction in the gross area subject to the excise tax, because the streets are not classified as major streets. The estimated excise tax for this revised preliminary plat is $168,290.75 based on a taxable area of 782,747.72 square feet at the current rate of $0.215 per square foot. The excise tax is due prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of the final plat. The final calculation of excise tax will be figured using the excise tax rate in effect at the time final plat is recorded. The developer may enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that would allow for the suspension, partial or in full, for the excise tax due, provided the final plat is approved and recorded prior to expiration of the suspension of the excise tax as set by the City. This agreement between the property owner and the City shall be created, agreed upon, and executed prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of the final plat. This subdivision is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential lot ($14,800) shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat. The computation plat should show the bearings and lengths of all lines, and the individual area, in square feet, of all lots, open space tracts, and right-of-ways, and the centerline miles of all newly dedicated streets. The County Engineer requests that all points shown on a plat be based on the Kansas State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (NAD-83). Staff recommends approval of PrePlat-18-15-12, Preliminary Plat of Ridgestone Meadows West subdivision, located in the 6800 Block of Marion Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Acceptance of the dedications on the final plat by the Shawnee Governing Body and recording of the final plat with the Johnson County Register of Deeds shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits; 2. The preliminary plat contains 37 lots and two tracts on 17.97 acres; 3. All bulk regulations of the R-1 zoning district shall be met, including minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75 feet, and a minimum front setback of 30 feet. On corner lots where a reduced side building line is used, the side building line shall be no
Page 33 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 less than 20 feet and shall be designated on the plat as side building line. The total width of both side yards shall be no less than 20 percent of the total lot width with no side yard less than seven (7) feet. Rear yard setbacks shall be no less than 30 feet; 4. The provisions of the excise tax shall be satisfied prior to the Mayor signing the recording copies of the final plat. The developer may enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that would allow for the suspension, partial or in full, of the excise tax provided the final plat is approved and recorded prior to expiration of the suspension of the excise tax as set by the City. This agreement between the property owner and the City shall be created, agreed upon, and executed prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of the final plat; 5. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential lot ($14,800), or the current open space fee rate in effect at the time a building permit is applied for, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit, as provided by Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14; 6. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing and submitting home owner association documents that provide for the ownership and maintenance of Tracts A and B. Such documents shall be submitted to the City with the application of the final plat; 7. Any tree preservation easements provided on the final plat shall be private and dedicated to and enforced by the home owners association; 8. The street improvements required for this development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as detailed within the staff report; 9. All internal streets shall comply with the geometric and roadway design standards for a local residential street per the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and the applicable Standard Details; 10. Sidewalks are required along the south and east side of the interior streets. Sidewalks shall comply with standard details for location within the right-of-way and dimension; 11. The applicant is responsible for paying for city-installed street name signs prior to the issuance of a Public Improvement Permit for constructing the streets; 12. The applicant shall be required to remove the existing temporary turnaround on Marion Drive. Prior to final plan approval the applicant will be required to provide to the City a temporary easement or right of entry form executed by the homeowner of the lot(s) that the turnaround is located on; 13. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed street improvements plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance; 14. The streetlight improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed streetlight improvement plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. A public improvement permit is required to install the public street lights. The streetlights shall be installed prior to the release of the development for building permits; 15. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as detailed within the staff report;
Page 34 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 16. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed storm drainage improvement plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance; 17. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities; 18. The stormwater detention facility required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. This stormwater detention facility is required to be as-built and certified by the Engineer prior to the release of building permits. The as-built shall be prepared in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual; 19. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The applicant is proposing the use of preserved native vegetation and a native vegetated conveyance swale to meet a Level of Service of 6 for this project; 20. All Stormwater Treatment Facilities required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and as detailed within the staff report; 21. The applicant shall execute and record, with the Johnson County Register of Deeds office, the City’s standard form entitled “Declaration of Stormwater Treatment Facility Maintenance Restrictions and Covenants” prior to the start of construction on the site civil items; 22. The applicant’s consulting engineer is responsible for preparing an as-built certification of each STF, which requires City acceptance prior, to the City issuing any building permits for this development; 23. The applicant is responsible for identifying the Base Flood Elevations, as identified in the staff report, as part of the subdivision grading plan that shall be approved prior to the recording of the final plat; 24. All landowners of lots adjacent to the SFHA are responsible for submitting FEMA Elevation Certificates demonstrating compliance prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 25. The stream buffer associated with Clear Creek Tributary A has a required setback of 60 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark as established in the field. The buffer area within this development shall be preserved as open space, especially dense stands of native vegetation within 25 feet closest to the top of bank; 26. All proposed stream crossings shall be constructed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300, Storm Drainage; 27. The applicant is requesting the Governing Body approve the placement of utilities within the front yard areas for Lots 1-27 to avoid disturbing the steep slopes and to minimize damage and removal of existing trees along the rear of these lots; 28. The applicant is responsible for verifying with Johnson County Wastewater that the placement of front yard utilities will not conflict with the placement of the sanitary sewer lines, particularly along the northwest side of Brownridge Drive and the northeast side of Marion Drive; 29. All utilities shall be placed underground;
Page 35 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 30. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules; 31. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all such permits as may be required by all Federal, State, and Local agencies, including but not limited to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Kansas Division of Water Resources (DWR), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); 32. All public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements. Building permits will not be released for this development until all public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City; 33. All fire hydrants, fire lanes, and fire suppression equipment shall be installed as required by the Fire Department; and 34. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat. That concludes staff’s presentation. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is the applicant present? APPLICANT: Tim Tucker, Phelps Engineering, 1270 N. Winchester, Olathe, KS. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for the staff or the applicant? Have you read the staff report? MR. TUCKER: I have and I’m in agreement with the stipulations. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Any questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: It looks like this drawing shows sidewalks on both sides of the street throughout the subdivision, is that correct? (Inaudible) COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Will it? I know it said south and east but there’s a…unless that’s a setback line. (Inaudible) COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: It’s probably the utility easements shown up there (inaudible) COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: (Inaudible) MR. TUCKER: They’re small slender boxes. The existing subdivision right there is you come in, they (inaudible) and working to do exactly what they did with the landscaping around it
Page 36 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 (inaudible) landscaping like pompous grass around (inaudible) if you Google and put that little guy on there and look (inaudible) from the side you don’t see it unless you’re directly in front of it and just (inaudible) shown on the landscape plan and the preliminary plat too. COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. We would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, I would just like to say that I don’t normally like to have utilities in the front yard and it’s one of the things I appreciate about most areas within Shawnee that they are in back and you can’t see them, but I certainly understand with the conditions of the terrain that it would be acceptable in this case. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson do you have a motion? COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes, I do. I move that we approve with staff recommendations, the pre-plat-18-15-12; preliminary for Ridgestone Meadows West subdivision located at 6800 Block of Marion Street. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Question, did you want to look at staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I thought I said that at the beginning. Subject to staff recommendations numbers through 34. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve PrePlat-18-15-12; for Ridgestone Meadows West subdivision located in the 6800 Block of Marion Street, all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you. (Motion passes 8-0; Braley, Somsky, and Specht absent)
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to: E. OTHER BUSINESS CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does staff have any other business? Does the Commission have any business for the staff?
F. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise, do you have a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER WISE: I will make a motion that we adjourn. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion and second to adjourn, all in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.
Page 37 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2015 (Motion passes 8-0; Braley, Somsky, and Specht absent)
Page 1 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
CITY OF SHAWNEE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SHAWNEE JUSTICE CENTER POLICE TRAINING ROOM 5850 RENNER RD
MINUTES December 21, 2015 7:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff Planning Director Paul Chaffee Commissioner Augie Bogina Deputy Planning Director Doug Allmon Commissioner Randy Braley Planner Mark Zielsdorf Commissioner Dennis Busby Administrative Assistant Angie Lind Commissioner Doug Hill Commissioner Kathy Peterson Commissioner Les Smith Commissioner Sara Somsky Commissioner Henry Specht Commissioner Alan Willoughby Commissioner Steven Wise
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Good evening and welcome to the December 21, 2015 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: Present. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here.
Page 2 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Here. 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. COMMISSIONER HILL: Present. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. If you’d please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Item 1 of the Consent Agenda is the minutes of the December 7, 2015 meeting. Unless there is a request to remove the item from the Consent Agenda, the item will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove this item from the Consent Agenda? C. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2015. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I move for approval of the Consent Agenda subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I’ll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda Item C, all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes. (Motion passes 11-0) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item D which is: D. NEW BUSINESS 1. SP-34-15-12; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR DISCOUNT TIRE, A 7,820 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL TIRE STORE TO BE LOCATED 11330 SHAWNEE MISSION
Page 3 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015 PARKWAY. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY KAW VALLEY ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF DISCOUNT TIRE, PROPERTY DEVELOPER; AND 2. S-222-15-12; SIGN VARIANCE TO LOCATE A WALL SIGN ON THE WESTERN FAÇADE OTHERWISE NOT ALLOWED BY THE SIGN CODE. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY SCOTT FOURNIER, PROJECT MANAGER FOR DISCOUNT TIRE. *APPLICATIONS WERE PRESENTED SIMULTANEOUSLY DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests site plan approval for Discount Tire, a 7,820 square foot retail tire store to be located 11330 Shawnee Mission Parkway. The application is filed by Kaw Valley Engineering on behalf of Discount Tire, property developer. The applicant requests site plan approval for a 7,820 square foot Discount Tire store. The project site is the former home of Arrow Rents, which provided equipment and truck rental services. The Arrow Rents building, three houses and related accessory structures have now been removed from the site. The retail tire store will occupy the eastern lot 2 of the Douglas HPI subdivision, which contains 1.03 acres. The property is zoned CH-O (Commercial Highway-Overlay). Right-of-Way for 62nd Terrace is located to the north, while the frontage road for Shawnee Mission Parkway is located to the south. Surrounding zoning to the south and east is also CH-O, while zoning north of 62nd Terrace is R-1 (Single Family Residential). Property directly west is lot 1 of the Douglas HPI subdivision where a McAlister’s Deli is currently under construction. Other surrounding uses include an oil changing facility to the southeast, and a single family home to the northeast. Two single-family homes are also located on the north side of 62nd Terrace. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan indicates commercial land uses as appropriate for the site. Thus, the requested site plan for a retail tire store is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ingress and egress to the site was established on the recently approved subdivision plat for the property, and the approved site plan for McAlister’s deli. Access control on the plat established one driveway cut to serve both lots within the subdivision, and also removed the eastern-most driveway cut currently found at the southeast corner of the site. The site plan places the centerline of the new driveway approach approximately 94 feet to the east of the centerline of Flint. This matches the entrance location approved with the McAlister’s site plan that is shared with Discount Tire. There was some concern expressed by the Planning Commission about a conceptual plan that depicted a potential fast food restaurant on this lot. Construction of a retail tire store on the lot in lieu of a fast food restaurant should lessen peak time traffic use of the Flint Street traffic signal. All bulk requirements have been met. The building is set back more than 30 feet from adjacent public street rights-of-way. All parking stalls are located at least 20 feet from adjacent right-of- way lines. Height of the building is 29 feet to the tallest point of the roof parapet, which is less than the 45-foot maximum height allowed in the CH-O zoning district. The building, which is roughly 57 feet wide by 138 feet long, is rectangular in shape. The building is positioned on the site so the shortest profile is oriented toward Shawnee Mission Parkway. This allows the three overhead service doors to face east, rather than toward the frontage road or adjacent restaurant. The customer entrances are located at the southeast and southwest corners of the building, and a private sidewalk has been provided from the front entrance that connects to the adjacent parking stalls.
Page 4 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
Thirty-one (31) parking stalls are shown in the parking lot. Two (2) spaces have been marked as ADA accessible, meeting the ordinance requirement. Based on the proposed retail use at the site, 31 parking spaces are required. The building will be constructed with a flat roof that is surrounded by a parapet wall. The building will be constructed primarily of red face brick (Quik-Brik “Richfield”) and brown rough- hewn concrete masonry units (Carolina Prestress “Medium Brown”). Other walls will be further accented by rectangular areas of brown cement stucco with diagonal reveals (SW 7714 “Oak Barrel”). A second, horizontal burgundy band of stucco (SW “Sundried Tomato”) will be constructed at the top all walls to provide the background for store signage. Wall areas above the stucco band will be constructed of a secondary cream colored rough-hewn CMU (Carolina Prestress “Antique White”). The south, east and west walls are further accented by vertical pilasters constructed of red brick. The pilasters and secondary CMU color adds interest to the building design. The storefront windows are limited to the customer/retail portion of the structure, and are located on the south wall, and the southeast and southwest corners of the building. The windows will be clear with red anodized aluminum storefront frames. Windows on the southeast and southwest corners are accented by sloped metal awnings that are light tan in color (Berridge “Champagne”). All three overhead doors on the east elevation are shown to be painted brown (SW “Oakbarrel”) to match the main wall color. A smaller roll-up door also located on the east wall will be used for deliveries. This door will also be painted brown so that it blends with the adjacent wall. All portions of the roof will be capped with a decorative cornice and metal coping, colored antique white. The building will utilize internal roof drains and roof access ladders so they are not visible. All metal mandoors and utility meters are shown to be colored to match the adjacent wall. The landscape plan shows a total of three (3) street trees adjacent to Shawnee Mission Parkway, and a total of five (5) street trees adjacent to 62nd Terrace. Based on the frontage lengths, the number of trees provided meets minimum requirements of the landscape ordinance. Species of street trees shown on the plan include Skyline Honey Locust and Sugar Maple. Nineteen (19) additional site trees (sugar maple, redbud, and perfecta cedars) will be planted in open space areas around the perimeter of the site to meet open space and parking lot tree requirements. Rows of shrubs (sea green juniper and knockout rose) are also proposed to accent the back of parking stalls. Upright junipers will be planted at the northwest corner of the site to screen the trash enclosure. In all, 62 shrubs (roses, junipers and decorative grasses) and 27 trees will be added to the site. All plant sizes meet minimum requirements of the code, and all areas disturbed areas are shown to be sodded in accordance with SMC 17.57. Five new parking lot light fixtures will be installed around the perimeter of the parking lot. Submitted information indicates the poles will be 23 feet in height, including the concrete base. Shoebox fixtures will be mounted at a 90-degree angle with the pole, and fixtures will have a flat lens so that no part of the bulb is exposed. Exterior wall mounted lighting on the building is shown to have full cutoffs that project light down directly toward the ground.
Page 5 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
Mechanical equipment will be mounted on the roof, and will be completely screened by the parapet wall. No individual monument sign is permitted on the lot. A shared monument sign will be provided for the subdivision. The elevations indicate signage on the south, east and west building walls. Signage is allowed by code on the north, south and east walls. The owner has requested a sign location variance to allow the north wall sign to be placed on the west wall. This be discussed in a subsequent application. Wall signage shall not exceed 7 percent of the wall area. All signage shall meet requirements of SMC 5.64 and sign permits shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to installation of any signage on the building. The plans indicate a trash enclosure at the northwest corner of the property. This location is several hundred feet away from Shawnee Mission Parkway and conceals the enclosure from adjacent streets. The enclosure walls will be constructed of brown rough-hewn masonry to match the building. The enclosure will be further screened from 62nd Terrace by a solid board privacy fence that will be constructed adjacent to the right-of-way line. This same privacy fence will be extended southward along the east property line to buffer the existing single family home. Open space fees, based on $0.04 cents per square foot of lot area, shall be paid in conjunction with issuance of a building permit. The open space fee estimated for this project is $1.794.67. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration Division prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit for development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting separate land disturbance plans for review and acceptance by Code Administration Division. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules. The applicant is responsible for submitting a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and in compliance with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) General Permit for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) program for stormwater runoff from construction activities. For development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Runoff from Construction Activities and obtaining such permits as required by KDHE prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. The applicant must submit to the City a copy of the NOI prior to the issuance by the City of a Land Disturbance Permit for the development site. The applicant is responsible for obtaining such permits as may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for grading activities covered by Section 401 (Water Quality Certification), Section 402 (Wetlands), and Section 404 (Waters of the United States) of the Clean Water Act.
Page 6 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
The street improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2200 Streets and all applicable Standard Details. The shared driveway approach for this site is being installed as part of the approved construction drawings for McAlister’s Deli. The permitted drive approach needs to be widened slightly to accommodate the Discount Tire site plan and anticipated delivery trucks. The applicant has provided the revised approach design to the engineer for McAlister’s Deli to coordinate construction of the wider approach. McAlister’s Deli has provided written acknowledgement to the City that they will coordinate the construction of the revised approach with their contractor. The applicant is responsible for submitting final site improvement plans to Development Services for review and acceptance prior to the plat being recorded. Any design issues discovered during the review of the site plans must be resolved prior to the issuance of a Public Improvement Permit and/or Building Permit. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300 Storm Drainage. The enclosed and open components of the commercial drainage system must be designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 4 percent chance (25-year return period) storm. All overflow components must be designed to convey the runoff from a 1 percent annual chance (100-year return period) storm. The applicant is responsible for providing public drainage easements for any portion of the public storm system that is located outside of a public street right-of-way. The drainage easements will be recorded as part of the final plat for this development. Prior to the plat being recorded, the location of the drainage easements will need to be finalized. The applicant is responsible for submitting storm improvement plans to Development Services for review and acceptance prior to the plat being recorded. The design issues discussed above and any additional issues discovered during the review of the storm plans must be resolved prior to the issuance of a Public Improvement Permit and/or Building Permit. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.08, Stormwater Management, which pertains to the City’s stormwater utility regulations. The applicant is responsible for preparing an impervious area plan in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2600, Storm Drainage, using coordinates based in the Kansas North State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (NAD-83). The plan must accurately depict the limits of all parcels that comprise the development site and indicate the applicable Johnson County parcel identification numbers. Use crosshatching for existing impervious areas and halftone shading for proposed impervious areas. All existing and proposed impervious areas must be summarized in a table by parcel number including the proposed total impervious area per each parcel. The applicant is responsible for submitting the impervious area plan as an integral part of the site civil plans for review and acceptance by the Development Engineer. Once the plan is accepted, the applicant is responsible for submitting a separate printed copy and an electronic copy in AutoCAD© format prior to the issuance of a building permit. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The applicant submitted a stormwater management letter stating that the impervious area for the site
Page 7 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
will be decreased. Since the impervious area is decreasing, stormwater treatment is not required. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.24, Stormwater Detention, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. The applicant submitted a stormwater management letter stating that the impervious area for the site will be decreased. Since the impervious area is decreasing, stormwater detention is not required. The applicant is responsible for scheduling a pre-design meeting with the Development Engineer prior to preparing the individual site civil plans. The final plans for this development must be submitted for review and acceptance by the City prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit or building permit. All private and public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements. The applicant is required to provide construction phasing plans for the development. Additionally, the applicant is required to provide traffic control and signage during construction. Detailed traffic control plans are required to be prepared. The plans need to ensure that access is provided to all businesses and residences impacted during the construction of this development. Additionally, the plans need to ensure that emergency personal can access all existing businesses and residences at all times. All fire hydrants, water lines, fire lanes and fire suppression equipment shall be installed as required by the Fire Department. All utilities shall be placed underground. Staff recommends approval of SP-34-15-12, site plan for construction of a 7,820 square-foot Discount Tire store, to be located at 11330 Shawnee Mission Parkway, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building shall be constructed as depicted on the submitted site plan and building elevations. All metal doors, utility meters and overhead doors shall be painted to match the adjacent wall. Downspouts and roof ladders shall be located internally; 2. The parking lot shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Shawnee Design Manual and shall be constructed and striped prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 3. All mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof, and the units shall be fully screened by the surrounding parapet wall; 4. All landscaping shall be planted as shown on the landscape plan prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, and all disturbed areas shall be sodded per SMC 17.57; 5. Parking lot lighting shall be 19-24 feet in height (including the base). Wall-pack and pole fixtures shall be mounted at a 90-degree angle and provide full glare cutoff; 6. An individual monument sign is not allowed. All signage shall meet requirements of SMC 5.64, and permits shall be obtained prior to installation of any signage at the site; 7. The trash enclosure exterior shall be clad with masonry to match the building;
Page 8 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
8. The street improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2200 Streets and all applicable Standard Details; 9. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with Division 2600, Storm Drainage, of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, as detailed in the staff report; 10. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.08, Stormwater Management, which pertains to the City’s stormwater utility regulations. The applicant is responsible for submitting the impervious area plan as an integral part of the site civil plans for review and acceptance by the Development Engineer; 11. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities (STF) to preserve and enhance the quality of stormwater runoff; 12. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.24, Stormwater Detention, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities.; 13. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant shall satisfy land disturbance requirements as outlined in the staff report; 14. The applicant is responsible for scheduling a pre-design meeting with the Development Engineer prior to preparing the individual site civil plans. The final plans for this development must be submitted for review and acceptance by the City prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit or building permit; 15. All private and public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements; 16. Open space fees, estimated at $1,794 .67, shall be paid in conjunction with issuance of a permit; 17. The applicant is required to provide construction phasing plans for the development. Additionally, the applicant is required to provide traffic control and signage during construction. Detailed traffic control plans are required to be prepared. The plans need to ensure that access is provided to all businesses and residences impacted during the construction of this development. Additionally, the plans need to ensure that emergency personal can access all existing businesses and residences at all times; 18. All water lines, fire hydrants, fire lanes and fire suppression equipment shall be installed as required by the Fire Department; and 19. All utilities shall be placed underground. The applicant requests approval for a sign variance to locate a wall sign on the western façade otherwise not allowed by the sign code. The application is filed by Scott Fournier, Project Manager for Discount Tire. The proposed Discount Tire store is to be located at 11330 Shawnee Mission Parkway, just east of the new McAlister’s Deli. A wall sign is proposed on the south, east, and west elevations.
Page 9 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
The sign ordinance allows for a business to display one wall sign on each street frontage. Wall signs are also permitted on the side or rear of a building adjacent to an off-street parking area or two-way drive aisle with adjacent off-street parking if the off-street parking area and/or drive aisle is at least 40 feet in width. The proposed wall sign on the south façade is permitted, since it faces Shawnee Mission Parkway. The wall sign on the east façade is permitted, because it faces a drive aisle and off-street parking. A wall sign is permitted on the north façade, because it faces 62nd Terrace. No wall sign is proposed on the north façade however, because the applicant feels the sign is not practical since it faces a residential area. The applicant is requesting a location variance to place a wall sign on the west façade, in lieu of placing a sign on the north wall toward 62nd Terrace and the adjacent residential area. The sign code allows the Planning Commission to grant a location variance to move a sign to an alternate wall. The applicant believes that the sign variance is warranted because a wall sign on the west façade will provide for better visibility from Shawnee Mission Parkway and the adjacent commercial property. They are requesting a wall sign on the west façade in lieu of a wall sign on the north façade. The applicant has provided a letter from the property owner indicating that they have no objection with the placement of the wall sign on the west façade. Staff has reviewed the variance proposal and feels the proposed location of the sign would pose no adverse effects. The placement of the sign on the west façade allows for more visibility from adjacent commercial areas and the street frontage as compared to any signage on the north façade. This will also minimize the effect of wall signage on the adjacent residential area to the north. The building would still only have three signs on the façade as is allowed by City sign code. Staff recommends approval of S-222-15-12, a sign location variance for Discount Tire, located at 11330 Shawnee Mission Parkway, subject to the conditions listed below: 1. A wall sign on the west elevation is permitted in lieu of a wall sign on the north elevation. 2. All requirements of Shawnee Municipal Code 5.64 shall be met. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to installation of the sign. That completes staff’s presentation. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present? APPLICANT: Gary Leeds, Kaw Valley Engineering. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And your address? MR. LEEDS: 14700 W. 114th Terrace, Lenexa, Kansas. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Have you read the staff report? MR. LEEDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are you in agreement with staff’s recommendations? MR. LEEDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there a presentation you’d like to make? MR. LEEDS: I’m here to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the Commission have any questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Willoughby.
Page 10 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I only counted 30 parking stalls (inaudible) I only counted 30. (Inaudible) DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: You are correct. The revision that came in… I can tell you what happened, the building was originally sized a little smaller with 28 stalls and the revision came in and we found an error in their dimensioning so they had to add some stalls and apparently they did add enough. So, 31 are required, we will add that to the plan, at a spot to the plan, we can reorient, or they can reduce the square footage of the building by hundred 50 ft.², that’s a good catch, I appreciate that. I apologize. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: Question about, and I know it was mentioned about the phasing plan but how this will coincide with the McAllister’s construction; will that be finished when this starts and if so how is that going to work with construction traffic? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I’ll let Gary answer that but it’s something that our Development Services department will watch very closely; I’m not sure about the phasing; I know that you’ve been in contact with their engineer on construction and completion in the drive approach in several issues because as you said it is good to be a busy site and to the McAllister’s if they finish the site and have occupancy they will have good access to the site (inaudible). MR. LEEDS: We’ll have to provide security fencing along the east side of that, along the shared drive to allow for construction traffic to come in along the front; our vision is you come in (inaudible) and go out on the other side; keep that traffic as separate as possible (inaudible). (Inaudible) DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: (Inaudible). That’s one of the good things about having a larger site, it set up for two developments (inaudible) the back part of this lot. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: What would you say is the reason that, it seems like a couple of these… Wendy’s, Applebee’s, Boston Market, McAllister’s, none of them have three signs or sign on east, west, and south; what would you say that makes Discount Tire different from them that would make the request and it should be granted? MR. LEEDS: Well, I think the difference is that with this westerly facing sign is really up against the common drive space and parking for McAllister’s; we have assignments allowed by code on the north side and we don’t want the residential neighbors to have to look at that sign all the time; so put that sign around the front for it to be more visible to the passing traffic and (inaudible). CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, the sign on the south obviously would tell the person’s passing; the sign on the east would tell people that’s the entrance; so the sign on the west is just advertising, is that true? MR. LEEDS: I believe that would be true; I mean, we’ve got an entrance on the southwest corner and that southeast corner; both entrance doors, I believe, are on the south facing… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, we’ve had these requests before about taking a sign on the backside and putting it on the front and in those cases we didn’t find them to be compelling, so what would make your project more compelling than anyone else? What would be the compelling argument, besides advertising, for a sign on the west side? MR. LEEDS: Well, I guess the fact is, you know, to follow the letter of the code we could go ahead and put the sign on the north side of the building…
Page 11 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I understand. MR. LEEDS: Which will be offensive to the residents north of us or we can take that sign down and around the corner, spare them that sign that’ll be on all hours of the day and night and have it around and pointed toward another commercial property, projected more towards them… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I think we understand that you could place a sign and no one would see it and that you have the right to, but I don’t know that that’s necessarily the argument that as to why it should be placed on the west. MR. LEEDS: Well, again it’s just in our opinion a better placement of the sign; it’s a more useful place for this, from my client standpoint; it’s better for the residents of Shawnee since it’s not projecting this sign aura out; it setting across the street and yes we’ve got screening but you’re still going to be able to see through some of that and it’s now below the street so while the buildings tall sign is up high on the building and if I’m sitting out on the porch across the street, looking directly at that sign. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I… MR. LEEDS: We’re just asking for that, for the ability to move that sign around the corner and maybe make their lives a little better, make it a little better for them and still get some benefit out of the ability to keep the three signs that are allowed by code. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, Doug, if I could shift to your question, a question for you… Why would they be allowed to place a sign on the north side and not one on the west? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: If you read the code for the site plan, just the way the sign code has been set up is that you have to have a field parking and a drive aisle wider than 40 feet to have a sign; in this case, because the property line splits that drive they essentially have half the drive on the west side of their building; there allowed one on the north side because of street frontage; it’s an unusual situation to say the least. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Obviously myself, I think three is too many but you think that they… DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I would say that they, I think there’s merit having this sign on the west side and on the north side (inaudible)… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I mean, we refused these in the past and if Wendy’s or Applebee’s or Boston Market or any of those others came in and said why should I/we have the same opportunity to advertise what do you think the staff’s opinion would be? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: To be quite honest with you there allowed three signs by code; they’re only asking for three signs; there just asking for a location change and it makes much more sense to have it on the west. I don’t necessarily have a problem with… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Do you recall the last applicant was that asked that? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: We’ve approved a couple of these… Actually, the HCA, the last one I can remember was the HCA emergency care facility that took their sign put it, actually they put two signs on the west wall as I recall, but that’s last time I remember approval. It was a situation where I think they had parking on the north side of the building so they could append the north side there and we allowed them to the west wall… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And I would just, shift two, make a comment on the landscape plan because I was very impressed with the landscape plan for McAlister’s and I think that you should try to maybe look at that maybe perfect your landscape plan and match what’s there because I think that it may have met code but I don’t think that it, I think it’s gonna look scrawny
Page 12 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
compared to McAllister’s myself because they did a very good job, they have (inaudible). Anyone have any questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Question for staff, sign, so is that the other properties that we were describing earlier today all have signs out front (inaudible)? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: They’ve, when these have an individual monument sign, I think Applebee’s has an individual monument sign, but they were in before the code changed; this particular development will have one monument sign that they will possibly share that’s a guesstimate about half the size of this other businesses have monument sign face; (inaudible)… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And I’m sorry I forgot to mention… Subway does have monument sign in three signs… DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Right… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: (Inaudible) And so yeah, it was different, but yes Applebee’s in Kentucky Fried only have a sign on each side or on two sites but they also have monument signs. There somebody in there that had a whole lot less signage than anyone else but I forgot that was… DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Maybe First Watch… CHAIRMAN BOGINA: First Watch, they were not on the west as Discount Tire is… There but the doorway on the east and I forgot to the other one was… (Inaudible discussion) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And I’m sorry I forgot to say that, but I meant to say they had monument signs. Is there any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes, I noticed that you have a privacy fence across the back that’s going to match the houses; I was driving down 62nd Terrace the other day and noticed that there is a gap in the privacy fences, I think it’s between (inaudible) and the new building, like it’s a small walkway off of Flint Street and… DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: They can only go to their property line in this case the property line will actually match one another because it’s a common property line… COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I completely understand that and the fact that it goes to the property line one of the things is, is that pedestrian traffic, I understand you don’t want to allow them access to walk in or out of these neighbors but you’re completely stopping anybody from walking to any of these places from Flint; they have to go either all the way around to the front or, so if one of those residents wanted to drop their car off at Discount Tire and walk home, they would be better off not to. You’re discouraging that, is that the deal? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: 62nd Terrace, none of those streets have sidewalks and so you would literally be encouraging people to walk in the street. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Which they do anyway. DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: We want to discourage that. I think that’s (inaudible). That’s not a good answer but that’s why. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: We are not interested at all in encouraging walking traffic take any of those…
Page 13 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I would say that if any of these streets were ever improved with sidewalks or… Then we would start entertaining the sort of things with the businesses… COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Would that fall on the businesses that belong there or is the city responsible for the sidewalks? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Probably would be Capital Improvement Plan; it would be a city initiated street improvement because it’s been ditch section roads for many, many years. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: (Inaudible) DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Well, honestly no. They passed the sales tax and those funds are being targeted towards various projects. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right. (Inaudible discussion) COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. We’d be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Mr. Chairman, just one point is, we’ve always made a point on the sign that we are allowing something that’s unusual with the motion needs to include the reason why so that we don’t end up with, McAllister’s got it, now why can’t we have it too so whomever makes the motion needs to include the language this is the reason why we’re allowing this unusual situation. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: I would question a little bit, I was looking at this on Google Earth and I really was paying attention and it looks like the placement of the building, the line of sight coming from the west to the east where the position of the sign on this building, the line of sight has to be pretty short, I mean to give you time to change lanes for the turnoff onto the, of the Shawnee Mission Parkway to cross to enter the building anyway. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Onto Alden? COMMISSIONER HILL: Right. (Inaudible) COMMISSIONER HILL: Right. So if you look, basically the turn off from Shawnee Mission Parkway isn’t, it’s just almost adjacent to the building and if you look at how the building is placed, looking at it on Google Earth from the west to the east I don’t know how soon you’ll actually see that, see the sign in enough time to change lanes in position to make a left-hand turn to get there any way. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If there’s not an objection, we would do these under two different, who do these under two different motions. Is there a motion on the site plan approval for Discount Tire? Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, I’d like to make a motion for approval of the site plan SP- 34-15-12; site plan approval for the Discount Tire at 11330 Shawnee Mission Pkwy as stated in the report and subject to staff’s conditions. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Specht.
Page 14 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I’ll second that motion. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Also, with the condition of increasing the parking spaces. COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I’ll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve SP-34-15-12; site plan approval for the Discount Tire at 11330 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes. (Motion passes 11-0)
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, we’d be on the sign variance; with no discussion, is there a motion on S-222-15-12? Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion for to approve the sign variance S-222-15-12 for Discount Tire at 11330 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, with the stipulation that the reason for the sign adjustment is to move that off of the north elevation to the west elevation for improved visibility from Shawnee Mission Parkway. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I second that. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve S-222-15-12; a sign variance to locate a wall sign on the western façade for the Discount Tire, all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: No. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion passes. (Motion passes 10-1)
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to: E. OTHER BUSINESS CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul. Planning Director Chaffee led a brief discussion on the City Council’s December 14, 2015, decision to remand the Vantage at Shawnee [PUD-01-15-11, a rezoning from PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and PUDMX (Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and preliminary development plan approval for Vantage at Shawnee, generally located in the 6100 Block of Pflumm Road] for further discussion by the Planning Commission regarding traffic. This item was tabled at the November 23, City Council Meeting. Planning Director Chaffee also thanked the Planning Commissioner’s for their time and dedication during 2015. The next Planning Commission meeting will be January 4, 2016, back in Council Chambers at Shawnee City Hall, 11110 Johnson Drive.
Page 15 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2015
F. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby, do you have a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move we adjourn. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Smith. COMMISSIONER SMITH: Second. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion and second to adjourn, all in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes. (Motion passes 11-0)
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Stephen E. Powell, MMC, City Clerk
DATE: January 11, 2016
SUBJECT: Request to Waive Town Hall Fees for Alcoholics Anonymous
BACKGROUND On Sunday, September 11, 2016, the Shawnee Group of Alcoholics Anonymous will celebrate its 48th anniversary of service to those in the Shawnee community. They are requesting the Governing Body waive the rental fee for the use of Town Hall at Shawnee Town for that evening.
DISCUSSION PS-4, Public Facilities, Use for Social or Fund Raising Events requires that the Governing Body approve any request to waive the fees for an event. Alcoholics Anonymous has requested and received a waiver of fees for Town Hall since 2002. A copy of their letter of request is included.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The financial impact to the City would be $80 per hour of use. In the past, the group has used the facility for approximately 5 hours.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve the request to waive the fees for Alcoholics Anonymous for Sunday, September 11, 2016, to celebrate its 48th anniversary of service to the community.
1 2 3 4
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Jason Bowman, Street Project Manager
DATE: January 11, 2016
th SUBJECT: Agreement for Mill and Overlaying Gleason Road, 79 Street to the South City Limit
BACKGROUND The City of Shawnee shares numerous street segments with other local jurisdictions. One of these segments, Gleason Road from 79th Street to our southern city limit is shared with the City of Lenexa. The east side of this 1,350’ segment belongs to the City of Shawnee and the west side belongs to Lenexa.
DISCUSSION Gleason Road from 79th Street to the south city limit is included on Shawnee’s 2016 Mill and Overlay Program. It is one of the lowest rated chip seal streets in Shawnee. It is also designated in the Street Improvement Program as a chip seal street that is eligible to convert to an asphalt surface.
In order to provide a good overall surface on Gleason Road, both sides of the road need to be resurfaced. Staff has worked with the City of Lenexa to partner with them on this section of road. The following agreement was prepared for approval of both parties.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The estimated cost for asphalt patch and mill and overlay to Gleason Road from 79th Street to the south city limit is $64,320; $32,160 for Shawnee and $32,160 for Lenexa. The actual cost will be based on the square yards of mill and overlay improvements in each City. Shawnee will administer the project and Lenexa agrees to reimburse Shawnee the actual per square yard cost within 30 days of invoice date.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve an Agreement between the City of Shawnee and the City of Lenexa to share costs for mill and overlay of Gleason Road from 79th Street to the south city limit.
5 6 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS AND THE CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS FOR MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS TO GLEASON ROAD
This Agreement is made and entered into effective the 11th day of January, 2016, between the City of Shawnee, Kansas ("Shawnee") and the City of Lenexa, Kansas ("Lenexa"), collectively “the Cities,” for the purpose of making mill and overlay surface public improvements to Gleason Road, a distance of 1,350 linear feet South of 79th Street in the City of Lenexa, and a distance of 1,350 linear feet South of 79th Street in the City of Shawnee, (hereinafter referred to as the “Improvements”). WHEREAS, the Cities have determined that it is in the public interest to jointly make the Improvements, as hereinafter provided; WHEREAS, because the centerline of 79th Street serves as a city limit between Lenexa and Shawnee, the Improvements to Gleason Road at 79th Street will be physically located partially within the jurisdictional boundaries of Shawnee and partially within the jurisdictional boundaries of Lenexa; WHEREAS, the Cities desire to enter into this Agreement to clarify their responsibilities for completion and future maintenance of the Improvements; WHEREAS, the Cities desire to each assume responsibility for and pay for the Improvements to those portions of Gleason Road within their respective City limits. WHEREAS, the Cities are authorized to enter into an agreement for this joint public improvement by the power vested in the Cities by Article 12, Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution and by K.S.A. 12-2908 and 68-572; WHEREAS, the City of Shawnee has approved and authorized this Agreement on the _____ day of ______, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City of Lenexa has approved and authorized this Agreement on the _____ day of ______, 2016.
7 AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, Shawnee and Lenexa agree as follows: 1. THE PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT. Shawnee and Lenexa enter into this Agreement for the purpose of jointly undertaking the Improvements. The Cities agree to improve that portion of Gleason Road through a full width mill and 4 inch overlay, including full depth 8 inch patching, within the Shawnee and Lenexa city limits, and agree to those standards set forth in the Shawnee Technical Specifications in the 2016 City of Shawnee Mill and Overlay Contract. 2. PHASES OF THE PROJECT. The Improvements will be completed by Shawnee in one phase in the 2016 calendar year. The Improvements to be completed by Shawnee within the each city limits, and the estimated cost thereof are as follows.
A. City of Lenexa Public Improvements to Gleason Road, a distance of 1,350 linear feet South of 79th Street to the driveway at 8120 Gleason Road: Misc. full depth 8" patching, 1" Profile full width mill and 4" surface overlay Lenexa cost: 128 SY Full depth patching @ $25 per SY = $3,200 1,800 SY full width (1/2 road) milling @ $1.20 = $2,160 400 tons asphalt surface mix (Lenexa only) @ $67 = $26,800 Total Lenexa estimated and itemized cost = $32,160
B. City of Shawnee Public Improvements to Gleason Road, a distance of 1,350 linear feet South of 79th Street: Misc. full depth 8" patching, 1" Profile full width mill and 4" surface overlay Shawnee cost: 128 SY Full depth patching @ $25 per SY = $3,200 1,800 SY full width (1/2 road) milling @ $1.20 = $2,160 400 tons asphalt surface mix (Shawnee only) @ $67 = $26,800 2
8
Total Shawnee estimated and itemized cost = $32,160
3. FINANCING OF THE PROJECT. The total estimated cost of the Improvements identified in the above paragraph for each respective City is $32,160 (Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Dollars), which includes the total estimated cost of completing the described Improvements a distance of 1,350 lineal feet within the respective City, from the centerline of 79th Street. Lenexa agrees to pay 100% of the actual cost of the Improvements within Lenexa, estimated to be $32,160 (Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Dollars). Shawnee agrees to pay 100% of the actual cost of the Improvements within Shawnee, estimated to be $32,160 (Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Dollars). As a result, Lenexa agrees and intends to reimburse Shawnee by payment of the actual cost of completion of the Improvements based on the actual number of square yards of full depth patching, actual number of square yards of milling, and actual tons of asphalt mix Improvements situated within the Lenexa city limits. Lenexa shall be solely responsible for any increase in cost resulting from the issuance and approval of change orders for work to be performed within the Lenexa city limits. However, no change order for work to be done within the city limits of Lenexa shall be approved or issued without the prior written consent of the Lenexa City Engineer. Shawnee shall be solely responsible for any increase in cost resulting from issuance and approval of change orders for project work performed within the Shawnee city limits. The costs for completion of the Improvements will be paid by Shawnee when incurred and shall be reimbursed by Lenexa within thirty (30) days of the date Lenexa is invoiced. The Improvements are currently scheduled to begin and be completed in the Summer of 2016.
3
9
4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROJECT. Shawnee will be the Administrator for the Improvements. As Administrator for the Improvements, Shawnee will assume and perform the following duties: A. Coordinate and review the completion of the Improvements. B. Require the Improvements to be completed within conformance with the generally recognized and prevailing standards for completion. C. Require the contractor to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing construction of the Improvements. D. Solicit bids for and enter into a contract for the making of the Improvements in the manner required by law and require the contractor to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing public contracts, including all non-discrimination laws and regulations. E. Require statutory, performance and completion bonds for the Improvements from all contractors and require that all contractors discharge and satisfy any mechanics or materialman's liens that may be filed. As Administrator, Shawnee will upon request of Lenexa make any claim upon the statutory, performance and completion bonds and require that the contractor fully perform all obligations under the statutory, performance and completion bonds. F. Require a maintenance bond for the Improvements from all contractors for a two-year period commencing on the date of substantial completion. As Administrator, Shawnee will, upon request of Lenexa, make any claim upon the maintenance bond and require that the contractor fully perform all obligations under the maintenance bond. G. Require evidence of insurance from the contractor for loss or damage to life or property arising out of the contractors’ negligent acts or omissions in an amount not less than $2,000,000. 5. DURATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the Improvements. The obligation and provisions related to the future maintenance of the Improvements shall survive and continue. The
4
10
Improvements shall be deemed completed upon receipt of written certification to each of the Cities by Shawnee. 6. FUTURE MAINTENANCE. Upon completion of the Improvements and acceptance of the same by Lenexa, Lenexa agrees to maintain those portions of the Improvements within the city limits of Lenexa, and Shawnee agrees to maintain those portions of the Improvements within the city limits of Shawnee. 7. MISCELLANEOUS. This Agreement cannot be modified or changed by any verbal statement, promise or agreement, and no modification, change nor shall amendment be binding on the parties unless it shall have been agreed to in writing and signed by both parties. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Kansas. The attorneys for the Cities shall cause sufficient copies of this Agreement to be executed so as to provide each City with duly executed copies and any copy duly executed by both Cities shall be deemed an original for all purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above and foregoing Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto and made effective as of the date and year first above written.
5
11
CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS
______MICHELLE DISTLER, MAYOR ATTEST:
______STEPHEN POWELL, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM
______ELLIS RAINEY, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS
______MICHAEL A. BOEHM
ATTEST:
______DAVID F. BRYANT III, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM
______SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
6
12
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Cynthia Moeller-Krass, P.E. Senior Project Engineer
DATE: January 5, 2015
SUBJECT: Consider Change Order No. 1 (Final) for the 60th Terrace & Earnshaw Street Storm Drainage Improvement, P.N. 3407, SMAC TC-21-067.
BACKGROUND The 60th Terrace & Earnshaw Street Storm Drainage Improvements project was on the 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Drainage from this area has been a concern since 1998. This project collects drainage from the neighborhood southwest of 59th Terrace and Quivira starting at the 60th Place cul-de-sac west of Quivira. This new system discharges into the existing system just west of 59th Terrace and Quivira.
The Governing Body approved the final plans on June 22, 2015. The Governing Body awarded construction of the project to Blue Nile Contractors, Inc. on July 27, 2015 in the amount of $764,009. The existing inadequate collection system was causing flooding of five homes and two streets. The project included installation of approximately 1500 LF of piping, 12 inlets and 8 manholes or junction boxes. The project has been completed and accepted.
DISCUSSION The City’s Purchasing Manual requires that a Final Change Order be presented to the Governing Body at the end of the Contract if there is an increase or decrease in the base contract amount. All change orders on this project came to a total 5.6% decrease on a $764,009 contract. Change Order No. 1 (Final) accounts for final quantity extensions and reductions.
With this change order, the status of the 60th Terrace & Earnshaw Street Storm Drainage Improvements is as follows:
Purpose Approval Amount Original Contract Governing Body $764,009.00 C.O. 1F Extension / Reduction in Quantities. ($42,838.10)
Total $721,170.90
13
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Cynthia Moeller-Krass, P.E. Senior Project Engineer DATE: January 5, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Change Order No. 1 (Final) for the 60th Terrace & Earnshaw Street Storm Drainage Improvement, P.N. 3407, SMAC TC-21-067 PAGE: 2
With this Final Change Order, the status of the 60th Terrace & Earnshaw overall project costs breakout is as follows: Total Cost SMAC Eligible City Portion Right-of -Way $19,600 $0 $19,600 Professional Services Contract - SKW $153,335 $98,723 $54,612 Construction Contract –Blue Nile $721,171 $418,875 $302,296 Total Project Cost $ 894,106 $517,598 $376,508
FINANCIAL The 2015R Capital Improvement Program Project Summary shows the financial plan for this project. This project is partially funded (75%) through SMAC funds and the remaining portion is funded through the City’s Parks and Pipes Sales Tax Fund. Some SMAC non-eligible sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement, and street mill and overlay work was funded solely from the Parks and Pipes Sales Tax Fund. Based on the estimated final pay estimate for the construction contract and all engineering costs, the total project cost is estimated at $894,106; the total 2015R budget for the project was $990,000.
The expected SMAC eligible funding portion of the total project is $517,598 and the City portion of the entire project is estimated at $376,508 all of which will be funded from the Pipes portion of the Parks & Pipes Sales Tax fund. The county has not yet completed the approval process for the administrative change order. Total City costs are estimated at $376,508 with full SMAC funding which is within the 2015R budgeted amount of $490,000. There is $113,492 of City budgeted funds available to cover the SMAC Administrative Change Order amount of $75,000 if any of it is not approved. Based on the anticipated final costs for this project, it is within budget.
The 2015R Capital Improvement Plan Project Summary shows the following financial plan for this project. Project Financing Funding Sources Estimated Expenditure Schedule Description 2014 2015 R Total Description 2014 2015 R Total Right-of-Way $ - $ 35,000 $ 35,000 General Fund $ - $ - $ - Construction $ - $ 747,000 $ 747,000 Debt $ - $ - $ - Legal $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Benefit District $ - $ - $ - Engineering $ - $ 132,000 $ 132,000 County CARS $ - $ - $ - Miscellaneous / Utility $ - $ - $ - County SMAC $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Equipment $ - $ - $ - Special Revenues $ - $ 490,000 $ 490,000 Contingencies $ - $ 71,000 $ 71,000 State / Federal / CDBG $ - $ - $ - Administration $ - $ - $ - Other $ - $ - $ - Financing $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Cost $ - $ 990,000 $ 990,000 Total $ - $ 990,000 $ 990,000
14
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Cynthia Moeller-Krass, P.E. Senior Project Engineer DATE: January 5, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Change Order No. 1 (Final) for the 60th Terrace & Earnshaw Street Storm Drainage Improvement, P.N. 3407, SMAC TC-21-067 PAGE: 3
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve Change Order No. 1 (Final) for deduct amount of $42,838.10 on the construction contract with Blue Nile Contractors, Inc., Claycomo, Missouri, in the final amount of $721,170.90 for the construction of the 60th Terrace & Earnshaw Street Storm Drainage Improvements project, P.N. 3407, SMAC TC-21-067.
15 16 17 18
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Cynthia Moeller-Krass, P.E., Senior Project Engineer – Storm Drainage
DATE: January 5, 2016
SUBJECT: Consider Change Order No. 7 (Final) for the Johnson Drive and Halsey Street Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3394, SMAC TC-021-065
BACKGROUND The Johnson Drive and Halsey Street Storm Drainage Improvements project was on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2015. The Governing Body authorized the agreement for design on April 14, 2014 and awarded construction of this project to Amino Brothers Company, Inc. on March 23, 2015 in the amount of $1,088,764.30. The project has been completed with the exception of final acceptance of sod in a few locations. Amino Bros. has provided a guarantee of sod correction in spring 2016 to make these locations fully acceptable.
The project was to replace an inadequate and deteriorating storm sewer system which was causing flooding of two homes, a business, and Johnson Drive. The project included 2200 linear feet of pipe, 24 inlets, and a new box culvert under Johnson Drive.
DISCUSSION The City’s Purchasing Manual requires that a final Change Order be presented to the Governing Body at the end of the Contract if there is an increase or decrease in the base contract amount. All change orders on this project came to a total 11.95% increase on a $1,088,764.30 contract. Change Order No. 7 (Final) accounts for final quantity extensions and reductions. With this change order, the status of the Johnson Drive & Halsey Street Storm Drainage Improvements is as follows:
19
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Cynthia Moeller-Krass, P.E., Senior Project Engineer – Storm Drainage DATE: January 5, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Change Order No. 7 (Final) for the Johnson Drive and Haley Street Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3394, SMAC TC-021-065 PAGE: 2
Purpose Approval Amount Original Contract Governing Body $1,088,764.30 Repair 2 pipes for 2015 Mill & Overlay Project & C.O. 1 Administrative $39,101.96 sanitary pipe replacement size correction. Flowable fill for street repair (3/23-5/23/15), AB-3 C.O. 2 street backfill, & replacement of parking lot $34,708.73 drainage removed due to project work. Administrative Flowable fill due to utilities (5/23-6/27/15), AB-3 C.O. 3 Administrative $51,410.85 street backfill, & reduction in quantities. Flowable fill due to utilities (6/27-7/25/15) & C.O. 4 Administrative $17,566.10 extension/reduction in quantities. C.O. 5 Extension & reduction in quantities Administrative $12,483.29 C.O. 6 Extension & reduction in quantities Administrative $988.56
C.O. 7F Reduction in Quantities ($26,184.70)
Total $1,218,839.09
With this Final Change Order, the status of the Johnson and Halsey overall project cost break-out is as follows: Total Cost SMAC Eligible City Portion Right-of -Way $30,000 $0 $30,000 Professional Services Contract - Olsson Associates $293,243 $219,932 $73,311 Construction Contract –Amino Bros. ( Thru C.O. 7F) $1,218,839 $879,515 $339,324 Total Project Cost $ 1,542,082 $1,099,447 $442,635
FINANCIAL The Capital Improvement Plan Project Summary shows the financial plan for this project. This project is partially funded (75%) through SMAC funds and the remaining portion is funded through the City’s Parks and Pipes Sales Tax Fund. Some SMAC non-eligible sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement and pipe repairs were funded solely from the Parks and Pipes Sales Tax Fund. Based on the estimated final pay estimate for the construction contract and all engineering costs, the total project cost is estimated at $1,542,082; the total budget for the project was $1,603,000.
The SMAC eligible funding portion of the total project is $1,099,447. The City portion of the entire project is estimated at $442,635, all of which will be funded from the Pipes portion of the Parks & Pipes Sales Tax fund. Total City costs are estimated at $442,635 with $455,000 budgeted. Based on the anticipated final costs for this project, it is within budget.
20
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Cynthia Moeller-Krass, P.E., Senior Project Engineer – Storm Drainage DATE: January 5, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Change Order No. 7 (Final) for the Johnson Drive and Haley Street Storm Drainage Improvements, P.N. 3394, SMAC TC-021-065 PAGE: 3
The Capital Improvement Plan Project Summary shows the following financial plan for this project.
Project Financing Funding Sources Estimated Expenditure Schedule Description 2014 2015 Total Description 2014 2015 Total Right-of-Way $ 60,000 $ - $ 60,000 General Fund $ - $ - $ - Construction $ - $ 1,007,000 $ 1,007,000 Debt $ - $ - $ - Legal $ 8,700 $ 4,300 $ 13,000 Benefit District $ - $ - $ - Engineering $ 141,000 $ 111,000 $ 252,000 County CARS $ - $ - $ - Miscellaneous / Utility $ - $ 20,000 $ 20,000 County SMAC $ 125,000 $ 1,023,000 $ 1,148,000 Equipment $ - $ - $ - Special Revenues $ 109,800 $ 345,200 $ 455,000 Contingencies $ 25,100 $ 225,900 $ 251,000 State / Federal / CDBG $ - $ - $ - Administration $ - $ - $ - Other $ - $ - $ - Financing $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Cost $ 234,800 $ 1,368,200 $ 1,603,000 Total $ 234,800 $ 1,368,200 $ 1,603,000
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve Change Order No. 7 and final for a decrease of $26,184.70 on the construction contract with Amino Brothers Company, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas, for a final construction contract amount of $1,218,839.09 for the Johnson Drive and Halsey Street Storm Drainage Improvements. (P.N. 3394, SMAC TC-021-065).
21 22 23 24 25 26
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Caitlin Gard, Assistant Public Works Director
DATE: January 11, 2016
SUBJECT: 2015 Crack Seal Project, Change Order No. 1 – Final
BACKGROUND On August 24, 2015, the Governing Body voted to award the 2015 Crack Seal Project to Pavement Management, LLC in the amount of $160,838.86. The contractor crack sealed 30 lane miles of arterial and collector streets that were identified as needing preventative maintenance. In addition to the contracted crack seal work, Public Works crews crack sealed 25 lane miles of residential streets.
DISCUSSION A copy of the change order is included in the packet. This change order reflects a decrease in material quantity, due to the difference between estimated and actual field quantities needed to complete the project.
The City’s Purchasing Manual requires that a final change order be presented to the Governing Body at the end of the contract if there is an increase or decrease in the base contract amount.
FINANCIAL The 2015 budget and the approved contract amount was $160,838.86 for the crack sealing contract. This change order is a decrease of $3,590.86, which is a 2.23% decrease. Purpose Approval Amount Approved by City Original Contract $160,838.86 Council Change Order No. 1 Decrease in needed crack seal material ($3,590.86) Total $157,248.00
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve Change Order No. 1 and Final for the 2015 Crack Seal Project for a decrease of $3,590.86.
27 28 29 30
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Paul Lindstrom, P.E., Senior Project Engineer
DATE: January 6, 2016
SUBJECT: Conduct a Public Hearing for Clear Creek Parkway Improvement District and Consider an Ordinance to set Maximum Assessments
BACKGROUND Prior to the recession, zoning was approved and a plat filed for development of Farmington Hills, a residential subdivision between Clare Road and Gleason Road in western Shawnee, south of 57th Terrace. The plans were discontinued during the recession, and eventually a large portion of the area became bank-owned.
The City has been approached by the Bank of Blue Valley and Prieb Homes with a proposal to develop a subdivision with over 300 residential units. The project plan includes constructing Clear Creek Parkway between Clare Road and its current dead end just west of K-7 Highway (Hedge Lane Terrace). The proposal was for the City to initiate an improvement district to partially fund the western section of road from Clare Road to Gleason Road that would go through the proposed development. In order to complete the entire road at one time and to allow for appropriate access, the City would need to also improve Clear Creek Parkway from Gleason to Hedge Lane Terrace. This entire segment of Clear Creek Parkway is shown on the Circulation Plan as a future major collector with an off-street recreational trail.
The Bank of Blue Valley/Prieb Homes is in the process of acquiring all tracts within the proposed improvement district. All tracts within the improvement district would qualify for an excise tax credit based on completing the required public improvements. City staff would administer the design, construction, and inspection for this project.
The scope of the improvements related to the improvement district includes the new construction of Clear Creek Parkway from Clare Road to Gleason Road. At the same time, the City would construct the east segment of Clear Creek Parkway, from Gleason to Hedge Lane Terrace. The improvements within the proposed district would include grading, pavement, curbs, sidewalk, street lights, storm sewer facilities, pavement markings, and signing. As part of the improvements outside the district, a
31
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Paul Lindstrom, P.E., Senior Project Engineer DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: Conduct a Public Hearing for Clear Creek Parkway Improvement District and Consider an Ordinance to set Maximum Assessments PAGE: 2
roundabout would be installed at the intersection of Clear Creek Parkway and Gleason and the same roadway improvements would be extended to Hedge Lane Terrace.
On November 23, 2015 the Governing Body approved a resolution to hold a Public Hearing on December 14, 2015 regarding creation the proposed improvement district.
The Public Hearing was held on December 14, 2015. Several neighboring residents presented concerns about possible increase in traffic near Belmont School. The Governing Body approved creation of the improvement district. In addition, the Governing Body approved a resolution designating Clear Creek Parkway from Hedge Lane Terrace to Gleason Road as a main trafficway to provide statutory authority to issue general obligation bonds to finance that portion of road construction.
DISCUSSION The proposed action is consideration of the maximum assessments for the Clear Creek Improvement District. The method of assessment is calculated by total cost of the improvement divided per square foot area of the tracts included in the improvement district area. The attached map shows the road alignment and tracts within the district, and the attached assessment roll shows the maximum assessment per tract.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION This project is not included within the current Capital Improvement Program but has been included in the financial forecast of the Economic Development Fund for several years. The estimated total project cost within the improvement district is $3,171,000. The City would participate to the extent of the calculated excise tax on the nine parcels in the proposed district, estimated at $1,521,866. The remaining cost of $1,649,134 represents the maximum assessment to be apportioned between the parcels of the improvement district. If the final project costs turn out to be less than the maximum assessment, the assessments will be lowered accordingly. The project cost estimates should include sufficient contingency to prevent the actual costs from exceeding the maximum assessment, in which case the excess costs would be borne by the City.
It is anticipated that construction would begin summer 2016. The project would be debt funded for ten years with general obligation bonds. Payments are included in the Economic Development Fund forecast, but if tax base improves in the future, in part as a result of this development, the Council could choose to fund it in the Debt Service Fund.
The estimated cost of the section of Clear Creek Parkway from Hedge Lane Terrace to Gleason is approximately $2.1 million. The estimated City cost for the entire road from Hedge Lane Terrace to Clare Road would be approximately $3.6 million, with estimated City-funded annual debt payments (net of special assessments) of $435,000 per year for ten years. If the owners of the property adjacent
32 TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Paul Lindstrom, P.E., Senior Project Engineer DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: Conduct a Public Hearing for Clear Creek Parkway Improvement District and Consider an Ordinance to set Maximum Assessments PAGE: 3 to this section of road choose to plat the property in the future, excise tax would be due upon platting because the City would have already assumed the cost of the improvements. Clear Creek Parkway Estimated Cost Summary City Funded Benefit District Total Clare Road to Gleason Road $ 1,521,866 $ 1,649,134 $ 3,171,000 Gleason Road to Hedge Lane Terrace 2,088,000 - 2,088,000 Total Project Cost $ 3,609,866 $ 1,649,134 $ 5,259,000 Annual Estimated Debt Payments$ 435,000 $ 190,000 $ 625,000
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following actions:
a) Open and conduct a public hearing; b) Close public hearing; c) Pass an ordinance levying and assessing maximum special assessments for the Clear Creek Improvement District.
33 34 CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY WEST - GLEASON TO CLARE ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT ROLL SUMMARY
OWNER, ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER AND SQUARE FEET WITHIN *SQUARE FOOT BENEFIT DISTRICT TRACT No. LEGAL DESCRIPTION **EXCISE TAX CREDIT % OF ASSESSMENT AND SITUS DESCRIPTION TRACT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT 9-12-23 PT NW1/4 BG 627.93' N SW CR E 250.67' SE 452.56' CUR LF 73.75' Clear Creek Partners, LLC SE 235.34' NE 45.44'NW 176.95' N 651 N. Somerset Terrace QF231209-1030 194.18' SW 80.52' NW 137.94' 51.13' & 1 Olathe, KS 66062 584,020 $ 261,629 $ 125,564 $ 136,065 8.25% 204.23' TO N/L S 1/2 NW1/4 W 658.41' 13.4 acres more or less TO NW CR S 1/2 NW1/4 S 707.16'TO SITUS: NS NT POB SUBJ TO PT IN RD 13.7 ACS M/L SHC 204 1 9-12-23 PT NW1/4 & SW1/4 BG SW CR NW1/4 N 627.93' E 250.67' SE 452.56' CUR LF 73.75' SE 235.34' NE 45.44' Clear Creek Partners, LLC NW 176.95' N 194.18' SW 80.52' NW 651 N. Somerset Terrace QF231209-1031 137.94' 51.13' & 204.23' TO N/L S 1/2 E 2 Olathe, KS 66062 2010.97' TO NE CR S 1/2 S 1332.02' TO 2,752,165 $ 1,232,914 $ 591,715 $ 641,199 38.88% 63.2 acres more or less SE CR NW1/4 S 217.97' TO SE CR N SITUS: NS NT 13 1/3 ACS N 1/2 SW1/4 W 2664.48' TO SW CR N 13 1/3 ACS N 217.97' TO POB EX 17.914 AC & SUBJ TO PT IN RD 61.716 ACS M/L 9-12-23 BG 217.97' S NW CR SW1/4 PT Clear Creek Partners, LLC BEING SW CR N 13 1/3 AC SW1/4 S QF231209-2013 651 N. Somerset Terrace 237.84' E 96.92' SE47.84' 102.92' 3 Olathe, KS 66062 150.61' 394.95' & 297.90' NE 254.14' 469,137 $ 210,164 $ 100,864 $ 109,299 6.63% 10.8 acres more or less NW 467.20' TO S/L N 13 1/3 AC W SITUS: NS NT 1075.02' TO POB 10.641 ACS M/L SHC 212 1 9-12-23 BG 549.81' S NW CR SW1/4 S 789.39' TO SW CR N 1/2 SW1/4 E L.C. Ferndale 1045.14' N 252.51' NW 110.65' & 97.74' 11040 Oakmont St. QF231209-2014 SW 145.91' NW 99.43' & 34.83' NE 4 Overland Park, KS 66210 573,439 $ 256,889 $ 123,289 $ 133,600 8.10% 18.14' NW 50' NE 33.43' NW 136.34' NE 13.2 acres more or less 110.26' NW 327.23' & 161.93' WLY 71' SITUS: NS NT 33.04' & 96.92' TO POB 13.374 ACS M/L SHC 212 2 9-12-23 BG 455.81' S NW CR SW1/4 E 96.92' SE 47.84' 102.92' 150.61' 394.95' & 297.90' NE 254.14' NW 467.20' TO Clear Creek Partners, LLC S/L N 13 1/3 AC E 1589.46' TO SE CR N 651 N. Somerset Terrace QF231209-2015 13 1/3 AC S 1114.06' TO SE CR N 1/2 5 Olathe, KS 66062 1/4 W 1618.04' N35 252.51' NW 110.65' & 1,893,047 $ 848,047 $ 407,005 $ 441,042 26.74% 43.5 acres more or less 97.74' SW 145.91' NW 99.43' & 34.83' SITUS: NS NT NE 18.14' NW 50' NE 33.43' NW 136.34' NE 110.26' NW 327.23' & 161.93' WLY 71' 33.04' & 96.92' N 94' TO POB 42.705 ACS M/L
CWD Investments 9-12-23 BG 665.79' W NW CR SE1/4 11040 Oakmont QF231209-2019 SW1/4 S 750' W 332.79' N 750' TO N/L 6 Overland Park, KS 66210 247,643 $ 110,939 $ 53,243 $ 57,696 3.50% S 1/2 SW1/4 E 332.90' TO POB 5.73 5.7 acres more or less ACS M/L SHC 212 4 1 SITUS: NS NT Clear Creek Partners, LLC 9-12-23 BG 330' W NE CR SE1/4 651 N. Somerset Terrace QF231209-2018 SW1/4 W 335.79' S 750' E 335.57' N 7 Olathe, KS 66062 247,542 $ 110,894 $ 53,222 $ 57,672 3.50% 750' TO POB 5.78 ACS M/L SHC 212 2 5.7 acres more or less 1 SITUS: NS NT Clear Creek Partners, LLC 9-12-23 N 845' E 330' SE1/4 SW1/4 651 N. Somerset Terrace QF231209-2016 DESC AS: 487.02' N SE CR SE1/4 8 Olathe, KS 66062 SW1/4 N 845' W 330' S 845' E 330' TO 278,900 $ 124,942 $ 59,964 $ 64,978 3.94% 6.4 acres more or less POB SUBJ TO PT IN ST 6.40 ACS M/L SITUS: NS NT SHC 213 1A
CWD Investments 9-12-23 BG SE CR N 750' E 1/2 W 1/2 11040 Oakmont QF231209-2020 SE1/4 SW1/4 W 332.79' S 66.48' CUR 9 Overland Park, KS 66210 LF 229.69' 29.63'& 104.62' CUR RT 32,552 $ 14,583 $ 6,999 $ 7,584 0.46% 0.75 acres more or less 45.23' TO POB .75 ACS M/L SHC 212 4 SITUS: NS NT 2
35 IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 7,078,445 $ 3,171,000 $ 1,521,866 $ 1,649,134 100.00% TOTALS 36 CITY OF SHAWNEE
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING AND ASSESSING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON CERTAIN LOTS, PIECES AND PARCELS OF LAND LIABLE FOR SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO PAY THE COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS, AS AUTHORIZED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1767 OF THE CITY (CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY FROM CLARE ROAD TO GLEASON ROAD).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1767 of the City of Shawnee, Kansas (the “City”) adopted on December 14, 2015, the Governing Body has authorized the creation of an improvement district and the construction of the following improvements (the “Improvements”):
The new construction Clear Creek Parkway from Clare Road east to Gleason Road. The Improvements will include grading, pavement, curbs, sidewalk, recreational trail, street lights, storm sewer facilities, pavement markings, and signing. The new street will be built to major collector standards as shown in the City’s Circulation Plan. This segment of Clear Creek Parkway is designated as an off-street recreational trail. These Improvements shall include acquisition of any required temporary or permanent easements or right-of-way. All work is to be in accord with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual; and
WHEREAS, prior to commencement of construction of the Improvements, the City has determined the maximum amount of assessment against each lot, piece or parcel of land deemed to be benefited by the Improvements based on the approved estimate of cost of the Improvements and has held a public hearing on the proposed maximum special assessments to be levied against property in the improvement district for the cost of construction of the Improvements after providing notice of such hearing as required by K.S.A. 12-6a09;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to K.S.A. 12-6a01 et seq., special assessments to pay the costs of the Improvements are hereby levied and assessed against the lots, pieces and parcels of land liable therefor as described on Exhibit A to this Ordinance, which is incorporated herein by reference, and in the maximum amounts set forth on Exhibit A following the description of each lot, piece or parcel of land; provided, however, that if the final cost of the completed Improvements is less than the maximum amount of the assessments set forth on Exhibit A, the Governing Body of the City shall adjust the assessments to reflect the cost of the completed Improvements. If any property owner elects to prepay the maximum assessment as provided in Section 2 and the final cost of the completed Improvements as determined by the Governing Body is less than the 37 ORDINANCE NO. _____ PAGE 1 4848-5330-7436.1 estimated cost of the Improvements used to determine the maximum assessments, the City Clerk shall mail a check to the then current owner of the property for the difference.
SECTION 2. The amounts so levied and assessed shall be due and payable from and after the date of publication of this Ordinance; and the City Clerk shall notify the owners of the affected properties of the maximum amounts of their assessments, that unless the assessments are paid by the Prepayment Date (as herein defined), bonds will be issued therefor and such assessments will be levied concurrently with general taxes and be payable in 10 annual installments. The “Prepayment Date” shall be October 15, 2016, unless the Prepayment Date is extended by a motion, resolution or ordinance of the City, following which notice of the extended Prepayment Date shall be mailed to the owners of record of all property in the improvement district.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the County Clerk, in the same manner and at the same time as other taxes are certified, for a period of 10 years, all of the assessments which have not been paid by Prepayment Date, together with interest on such amount thereof at a rate not exceeding the maximum rate as prescribed by the laws of the state of Kansas; and such amounts shall be placed on the tax rolls and collected as other taxes are collected, the levy for each year being a portion of the principal amount of the assessment plus one year's interest on the amount remaining unpaid.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication once in the official City newspaper. The City Clerk is directed to file this Ordinance with the Register of Deeds of Johnson County, Kansas.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
38 ORDINANCE NO. _____ PAGE 2 4848-5330-7436.1 PASSED by the Governing Body this 11th day of January, 2016.
APPROVED AND SIGNED by the Mayor this 11th day of January, 2016.
CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS
By: Michelle Distler, Mayor {Seal}
ATTEST:
By: Stephen Powell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Ellis Rainey, City Attorney
39 ORDINANCE NO. _____ PAGE 3 4848-5330-7436.1
EXHIBIT A (CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY FROM CLARE ROAD TO GLEASON ROAD)
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT
9-12-23 PT NW1/4 BG 627.93' N SW CR E 250.67' SE 452.56' CUR LF 73.75' SE 235.34' NE 45.44'NW 176.95' N 194.18' SW 80.52' NW 137.94' $136,065 51.13' & 204.23' TO N/L S 1/2 NW1/4 W 658.41' TO NW CR S 1/2 NW1/4 S 707.16'TO POB SUBJ TO PT IN RD 13.7 ACS M/L SHC 204 1
9-12-23 PT NW1/4 & SW1/4 BG SW CR NW1/4 N 627.93' E 250.67' SE 452.56' CUR LF 73.75' SE 235.34' NE 45.44' NW 176.95' N 194.18' SW 80.52' NW 137.94' 51.13' & 204.23' TO N/L S 1/2 E 2010.97' TO NE CR S $641,199 1/2 S 1332.02' TO SE CR NW1/4 S 217.97' TO SE CR N 13 1/3 ACS N 1/2 SW1/4 W 2664.48' TO SW CR N 13 1/3 ACS N 217.97' TO POB EX 17.914 AC & SUBJ TO PT IN RD 61.716 ACS M/L
9-12-23 BG 217.97' S NW CR SW1/4 PT BEING SW CR N 13 1/3 AC SW1/4 S 237.84' E 96.92' SE47.84' 102.92' 150.61' 394.95' & 297.90' NE $109,299 254.14' NW 467.20' TO S/L N 13 1/3 AC W 1075.02' TO POB 10.641 ACS M/L SHC 212 1
9-12-23 BG 549.81' S NW CR SW1/4 S 789.39' TO SW CR N 1/2 SW1/4 E 1045.14' N 252.51' NW 110.65' & 97.74' SW 145.91' NW 99.43' & 34.83' $133,600 NE 18.14' NW 50' NE 33.43' NW 136.34' NE 110.26' NW 327.23' & 161.93' WLY 71' 33.04' & 96.92' TO POB 13.374 ACS M/L SHC 212 2
9-12-23 BG 455.81' S NW CR SW1/4 E 96.92' SE 47.84' 102.92' 150.61' 394.95' & 297.90' NE 254.14' NW 467.20' TO S/L N 13 1/3 AC E 1589.46' TO SE CR N 13 1/3 AC S 1114.06' TO SE CR N 1/2 1/4 W 1618.04' N $441,042 252.51' NW 110.65' & 97.74' SW 145.91' NW 99.43' & 34.83' NE 18.14' NW 50' NE 33.43' NW 136.34' NE 110.26' NW 327.23' & 161.93' WLY 71' 33.04' & 96.92' N 94' TO POB 42.705 ACS M/L
9-12-23 BG 665.79' W NW CR SE1/4 SW1/4 S 750' W 332.79' N 750' TO $57,696 N/L S 1/2 SW1/4 E 332.90' TO POB 5.73 ACS M/L SHC 212 4 1
9-12-23 BG 330' W NE CR SE1/4 SW1/4 W 335.79' S 750' E 335.57' N $57,672 750' TO POB 5.78 ACS M/L SHC 212 2 1
9-12-23 N 845' E 330' SE1/4 SW1/4 DESC AS: 487.02' N SE CR SE1/4 $64,978 SW1/4 N 845' W 330' S 845' E 330' TO POB SUBJ TO PT IN ST 6.40 ACS M/L SHC 213 1A
9-12-23 BG SE CR N 750' E 1/2 W 1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 W 332.79' S 66.48' $7,584 CUR LF 229.69' 29.63'& 104.62' CUR RT 45.23' TO POB .75 ACS M/L SHC 212 4 2
40 ORDINANCE NO. _____ PAGE 4 4848-5330-7436.1
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original Ordinance; that said Ordinance was passed on the 11th day of January, 2016; that the record of the final vote on its passage is found in Journal No. ______, Volume No. ______, and Page No. ______; and that the Ordinance was published in The Shawnee Dispatch, the official City newspaper on the _____ day of January, 2016.
______{Seal} Stephen Powell, City Clerk
41 ORDINANCE NO. 3140 PAGE 5 4826-4134-8907.1 42
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Andrew Nave, Executive Director, Shawnee Economic Development Council
DATE: January 6, 2016
SUBJECT: SEED Program Agreement for TallGrass Freight Co., LLC
BACKGROUND On June 11, 2012, the Governing Body, through adoption of Policy Statement 65, Economic Development Fund, established the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage expansion of existing businesses and attraction of new employers by supporting job creation and new payroll. The SEED program provides for an initial one-time payment to the business, with increments of the loan forgiven over time as job creation and other targets are met. (A variation of the program allows payments in annual allotments rather than a one- time forgivable payment.) In order to be eligible, an employer/owner must be a business in good standing, current with tax and assessment payments and must meet all provisions of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The business must project that a minimum of ten (10) new (full time equivalent) jobs will be created with a combined average salary that exceeds the minimum average salary in Johnson County as defined by the Kansas Department of Labor.
The Policy states that the amount of the Forgivable Loan will be determined by the Governing Body and set out in the Agreement, but for a new business shall generally be 1.5% of committed new payroll. An additional 0.5% may be awarded for meeting other local contribution criteria beneficial to the community, such as 1) 25% of new hires are Shawnee residents, 2) significant use of Shawnee-based or partnering contractors and/or vendors or 3) substantial contribution made to a Shawnee-based charitable organization.
DISCUSSION TallGrass Freight Co., LLC is a Kansas-based logistics services and freight brokerage company planning to establish their first permanent location at 8527 Hedge Lane. David Barnes and Damon Anderson are co-owners. TallGrass is not a start-up company, but has operated remotely up to this point. They are active and in good standing with the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office.
TallGrass currently has 5 employees with a sixth employee scheduled for hire early this year. They plan to create 12 new jobs within their first three years in their new location, and 16 within the first five years. Average salaries are estimated at approximately $50,000. TallGrass is leasing 20,000 square feet for three years with a three year renewal option. A statement from Mr. Barnes indicating his intention to move the company’s headquarters to Shawnee is included as Exhibit A to the attached proposed agreement. 43
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Andrew Nave, Executive Director, Shawnee Economic Development Council DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: SEED Program Agreement for TallGrass Freight Company, LLC PAGE: 2
Pending approval of proposed changes to PS-65, this agreement is structured according to the existing policy which tracks average salaries. If the Governing Body chooses to approve revisions to PS-65, existing and future companies will be evaluated on total payroll generation rather than average salaries.
The agreement provides for a forgivable loan of $12,000 to be paid in 2016 with $4,000 forgiven annually over a three year term. Anticipated job creation is shown below:
Calendar Year Number of Additional Jobs Annual Average Created over the Base Salary Employment Number
2016 6 $ 53,400
2017 3 $ 48,000
2018 3 $ 48,000
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The financial impact to the City would be $12,000 in 2016. Funding is available in the Economic Development Fund.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the SEED Agreement with TallGrass Freight Co., LLC.
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director
DATE: December 28, 2015
SUBJECT: Z-04-15-12, Rezoning from TSQ (Townsquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for the property located at 10910 West 60th Street
BACKGROUND The applicant requests approval of Z-04-15-12, rezoning from TSQ (Townsquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for the property located at 10910 West 60th Street.
DISCUSSION The Planning Commission considered this rezoning request at their December 7, 2015 meeting. The applicant requests rezoning of a 0.67 acre parcel of land located at 10910 West 60th Street.
The property being rezoned contains 0.67 acres and is developed with a single family home and accessory structure on the north side of 60th Street. The structure is commonly known as the Governor’s Mansion. The lower floor of the building had been converted into a restaurant and catering business, with the upper floor being used as a residence. The restaurant and catering business have been closed and the entire structure is being used as a single family residence. The applicant is requesting rezoning of the property to remove the legal non-conforming status of the property. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan indicates low density residential uses as appropriate for the area, thus the request is in compliance with the Land Use Guide. Access to the property will continue to be through a circle driveway off 60th Street. The rezoning of the property should have little or no detrimental effect, since the use of the property will be consistent with development in the area. The Planning Commission staff report is attached.
RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8-0, recommended that the Governing Body approve Z-04- 15-12, rezoning from TSQ (Townsquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, for a 0.67 acre parcel of land, located at 10910 West 60th Street, subject to the condition listed in the staff report.
57 58
City of Shawnee
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2015
FROM: PLANNING STAFF
SUBJECT: Z-04-15-12; REZONING TSQ (TOWNSQUARE) TO R-1(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) 10910 W. 60th STREET MARK MOLLENTINE, OWNER
The applicant requests approval of rezoning from TSQ (TownSquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for property located at 10910 W. 60TH Street. The application is filed by Mark Mollentine, owner.
REZONING FACTORS
1. The subject property is located at 10910 W. 60th Street, which is located just east of Nieman Road on the north side of 60th Street. The property is zoned TSQ (Townsquare) and consists of nine platted lots in the original City of Shawnee plat of 1878. The site currently contains a single family residence, a detached accessory structure, and a large paved parking area. This is the site of the former Governor’s Meeting House restaurant. A few years ago, the owner closed the restaurant and catering business operated at this location and now it is being used only as his residence. The TSQ zoning district allows for residential use in conjunction with commercial uses, but does not allow for single family uses independently. The owner’s residence and restaurant and catering business was an allowed use, however now that the restaurant and catering operation has closed, the use as just a residence is considered non-conforming. The applicant requests rezoning approval from TSQ to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to bring the currently non-conforming status of his residence into conformance with the zoning code.
2. Properties to the north are zoned TSQ and R-1. The property to the northwest is zoned TSQ and developed with a six unit apartment building. Directly north and to the northeast are two properties zoned R-1 and developed with single family homes. To the east is a non-conforming single family home on property zoned TSQ. The applicant’s property fronts 60th Street to the south, with properties south of 60th Street being zoned TSQ. These properties contain a non-conforming single family home, a vacant lot and a small 2 story office building. Property directly to the west is zoned TSQ and contains a non-conforming single family home.
3. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as appropriate for low density residential uses. Given this parcel is currently developed with an existing single family residence, and several of the surrounding properties are developed with similar 59 PLANNING COMMISSION RE: Z-04-15-12; MOLLENTINE RESIDENCE REZONING; 10910 W. 60TH STREET DECEMBER 7, 2015 PAGE 2
single family uses, it would not be out of character for the immediate area to allow for a single family residence at this location.
4. The existing parcel contains 29,383 square feet and is approximately 232 feet by 126 feet. It is platted as Lots 13 thru 21 of Block 46 and the vacated east half of Fourth Street and the south half of the vacated alley behind Lots 13 thru 21, of the original City of Shawnee. Based on a review of Johnson County AIMS imagery, the existing structure appears to be set back from the front and rear property lines approximately 30 feet, and over 60 feet from the closest point to either side property line. All bulk requirements of the R-1 zoning district appear to be met. Any new additions or alterations to the existing structure would be required to meet the minimum setback requirements of the R-1 zoning district, including a minimum 30 foot front set back, combined side yards of no less than 20 percent of the lot frontage width, with no side yard less than seven feet, and a minimum rear yard of 30 feet.
5. Access to the property is provided from an existing driveway off of 60th Street, and is expected to remain unchanged from its current location. Access is adequate for public safety purposes.
6. The rezoning of the property should not have a detrimental effect upon the site. The property is developed with a single family home that has been the applicant’s residence, as well as, the location for his restaurant and catering business. The rezoning will allow the applicant to continue to use the property as his residence without the restaurant and catering business in operation.
7. Denial of the rezoning request would not appear to benefit the public. The slight expansion of the R-1 zoning district in this area should not have a negative impact on the area as it is currently developed with several single family residential homes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Z-04-15-12, rezoning from TSQ (TownSquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for property located at 10910 W. 60th Street, subject to the following condition:
1. Publication of the rezoning ordinance.
60
T
S
T
E
K
C
A
J
E
U
L B
W 59TH ST T S
T E K
C T
A
S
J E
Location E N
U I
L T
B
N
E
L
L A W 59TH TER B D R
N ! A TSQ M E I N W 60TH ST R-1
ROGER RD
W 61ST ST W 61ST ST
Z-04-15-12 TSQ (Townsquare) to 0 50 100 200 300 R-1 (Single Family Residential) Feet 10910 W 60th St Mark Mollentine µ 61 CITY OF SHAWNEE
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CHANGING AND REZONING OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF LAND IN THE CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS, FROM TSQ (TOWNSQUARE) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10910 W. 60TH STREET, HEREINAFTER SET FORTH AND AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL CODE.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS:
PARAGRAPH 1. SHAWNEE CITY, Lots 13-21, Block 46 and the vacated east ½ of Fourth Street and the south ½ of the vacated alley, a subdivision in the City of Shawnee, Johnson County, Kansas.
Said property is located at 10910 W. 60th Street, shall be and the same is hereby changed and rezoned from that of TSQ (Townsquare) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district, as hereby approved by the Governing Body.
The Official "Zoning Map of Shawnee, Kansas" is hereby directed and ordered to be amended to define the zoning change reflected by this amendment. The Official "Zoning Map of Shawnee, Kansas" as so amended shall be and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the provisions of the Shawnee Municipal Code and the “The Zoning Rules and Regulations of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, 2015 Edition, as amended.”
PARAGRAPH 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as provided by law.
62 PASSED by the Governing Body this 11th day of January, 2016.
APPROVED AND SIGNED by the Mayor this 11th day of January, 2016.
CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS
By: ______Michelle Distler, Mayor {Seal}
ATTEST:
By: ______Stephen Powell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ______M. Ellis Rainey, II, City Attorney
63 ORDINANCE NO. ____ PAGE 2 I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original Ordinance No. ____; and that said Ordinance was passed on the 11th day of January, 2016; and that the record of the final vote on its passage is found in Journal No. ____, Volume No. ______, and Page No. _____; and that a Certified Summary of the Ordinance was published in The Shawnee Dispatch, the official City newspaper, on the ____ day of ______, 20____.
______{Seal} Stephen Powell, City Clerk
64 ORDINANCE NO. ____ PAGE 3
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Dan Ferguson, Communications Manager
DATE: December 29, 2015
SUBJECT: City Communications Policy
BACKGROUND Staff presented a draft of the Communications Policy Statement (PS-70) to the Council Committee on December 8, 2015.
DISCUSSION The Committee thoroughly reviewed each section of the draft statement and suggested the following changes.
1) Incorporate our “Values” into the “Methods” section as well as under the “Values” section.
2) Under “Key Messages”, modify the language to indicate that these are things that the City will strive to do rather than will do. Additionally, include another key message in regards to responding to citizens’ requests and questions in an accurate and timely manner.
These changes have been included in the revised policy statement. They are noted in italicized and bold font.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION This policy statement has no direct financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION The Council Committee recommended 8-0 to forward the Communications Policy Statement (PS-70) to the Governing Body for approval with suggested changes, which are included.
65 66
CITY OF SHAWNEE POLICY STATEMENT
SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE City Communications Policy PS-70 DD/MM/YYYY 1 of 3
BACKGROUND As a city government, one of our most important responsibilities is communicating with the public. The residents and businesses of Shawnee are key stakeholders in creating progress in our City and because of that, it is vital that we keep them informed in an accurate and timely manner. By doing this, the City is promoting open communication and helping to build our community’s trust in their local government. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to set out the methods, key messages and values by which the City will communicate. POLICY It is the policy of the Governing Body that our organization remain proactive in identifying and developing the most efficient and effective ways to communicate this with the public. As a City, we will focus on the following: Building community awareness of the services and programs that are provided by the City. Keeping our citizens informed in a timely and accurate fashion on major issues and projects that have a direct impact on their lives. We want information about policies, projects and programs to be available for all audiences and for priority projects to be common knowledge. Cultivating and increasing engagement with our citizens so they are invested in the process of building our community. Building and maintaining positive relationships with local media outlets to help ensure fair, accurate, and comprehensive coverage of City news and events. Positioning the City’s communications channels and tools as the most timely and accurate source for City government information. Building community pride among citizens and businesses through positive interactions with our City. METHODS As the number of ways in which our citizens can obtain information continues to expand, it is important that we continue to change and expand our methods of communication to reach our audiences. We must do this by focusing on providing accurate, understandable, and timely information to as many of our citizens as possible. To maximize our efforts, we will: Create and maintain a coordinated system across the entire organization that ensures efficient, effective, and impactful communications between the City and our citizens and businesses. Establish consistent messaging throughout all City communication channels.
67 POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE City Communications Policy PS-70 DD/MM/YYYY 2 of 3
Disseminate information through a wide variety of channels in order to reach as broad a spectrum of the community as possible. Maximize opportunities for community engagement so citizens and businesses feel encouraged to express their ideas and concerns directly to City staff. KEY MESSAGES The key messages we want our audiences to know: We strive to be an open, proactive, professional, and efficient city government. We strive to invest citizens’ and businesses’ tax dollars wisely. We constantly work to provide a variety of City programs, services, and events. We strive to invest in the priorities and services that our citizens have identified as most important to them. We will always try to respond to citizens’ questions and comments in an accurate and timely manner. Shawnee is a great place to live, visit, and do business. VALUES When communicating with our Key Audiences, we will adhere to the following: Accuracy. We will always communicate fact-based information about issues facing the City. Timeliness. We will respond to the public and media in a timely manner to maintain credibility and build trust. Inclusiveness. We will attempt to engage as many citizens as possible when making decisions on issues and projects that directly affect them. Simplicity. We will always strive to provide information in a clear and concise manner. KEY AUDIENCES Citizens Businesses City Boards and Committees Community Organizations Employees and Volunteers Local Media Outlets RESPONSIBLITIES The Communications Division will provide oversight for the implementation and training related to this policy. However, all employees and elected officials of the City will play an integral role in successfully meeting the goals of this policy.
68 POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE City Communications Policy PS-70 DD/MM/YYYY 3 of 3
RESOURCES When considering the best methods to meet the goals of this policy, staff will take into consideration resources available including staff time and budgeted dollars.
IMPLEMENTATION This policy shall remain in force until officially changed by the majority of the Council Members present and voting; where the number of the favorable votes is one (1) less than required, the Mayor shall have the power to cast the deciding vote in favor of the action. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND REVISION DATES January 11, 2016, City Council, Agenda Item XXX OTHER REFERENCE (COMMITTEE MEETINGS) December 3, 2015: Council Committee, Agenda Item No. B.1
Michelle Distler, Mayor Stephen Powell, City Clerk
69
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Dan Ferguson, Communications Manager
DATE: December 1, 2015
SUBJECT: City Communications Policy
BACKGROUND Currently there is no formal policy or plan in place that lays out how the City communicates with the public. In the City’s work plan, the Communications Division is charged with creating and implementing a communications plan that will clearly outline specific goals and objectives for the City’s communications strategy.
DISCUSSION The drafted policy statement (PS-70) is one of the first steps in the process of formalizing the Council’s policy on how the City will communicate and interact with the residents and visitors of our community. The drafted statement includes what the focus of the City’s communications strategy will be, as well as outlining the ways we will work to achieve high levels of engagement with the public.
At the meeting staff will ask for feedback from the members of the Council Committee on the drafted policy statement.. Following approval of Policy Statement, staff will develop a work plan, based on the approved methods, key messages and values. The work plan will be included during 2016R/2017 budget presentations.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION This policy statement does not have direct impact on the City’s budget. All communications methods have a cost of staff time and/or funding. As the work plan evolves over time, any new projects with substantial cost would be discussed as part of each budget process.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council Committee forward the Communications Policy Statement (PS-70) with any recommended changes to the January 11, 2016 City Council meeting for approval.
70
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Andrew Nave, Executive Director, Shawnee Economic Development Council (SEDC)
DATE: January 6, 2016
SUBJECT: Consider Revisions to Policy Statement PS-65, Economic Development Fund, regarding the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) Program
BACKGROUND The Shawnee Entrepreneurial & Economic Development (SEED) program was established in June 2012 as part of Policy Statement 65 (PS-65, Economic Development Fund). The Economic Development Fund receives its revenue from approximately half of the landfill impact fee contract. Its stated priorities are product development, support of expansion and retention of existing Shawnee businesses, attracting new office and industrial employers, attracting a significant economic catalyst, and supporting small businesses.
The SEED Program is designed to augment other economic development incentive tools that encourage job creation within Shawnee, and to assist employers that own or lease existing space rather than constructing new buildings. The program was initially suggested by Shawnee EDC staff and a volunteer task force of members. It was modeled after the Kansas Economic Opportunity Initiative Fund (KEOIF) that was eliminated due to budget constraints. To date, the SEED program has assisted eight employers in Shawnee, expending approximately $325,000 for over 230 new jobs created, relocated or committed. SEDC staff have found that the availability of the SEED program is very attractive to prospective Shawnee employers and expanding businesses. The program helps keep Shawnee properties on their short list or even create the tie-breaking advantage between locations.
The program has now been in effect for over three years, and has served a variety of businesses and situations. This year has been an appropriate time to review the program requirements and propose several changes and updates. City and SEDC staff have continually analyzed the effectiveness of the program, looking for areas of improvement and enhancement. In the summer and fall of 2015 SEDC staff communicated with various stakeholders of the program. Ideas and suggestions came from economic development partners including Kansas City Area Development Council, Kansas Department of Commerce, as well as real estate and site selection consultants. In addition, there were several internal meetings to discuss how these ideas could best be implemented. Councilman 71
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Andrew Nave, Executive Director, Shawnee Economic Development Council DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Proposed Revisions to PS-65 regarding SEED Program PAGE: 2
Kenig also suggested some changes specifically related to technology and entrepreneurship, which were the basis for two new program ideas, the Property Tax and Lease Assistance Program. The Council Committee reviewed the following proposed changes to PS-65 at their December 8, 2015 meeting. The attached draft PS-65 includes these changes as underlined.
Shift of emphasis from salary growth to payroll growth due to concerns about privacy of salary information Allows for median salary within an applicant’s industry category as the criterion to establish program eligibility to assist employers who may be ineligible based on average salary because of the effect on company-wide averages of owner/senior management salaries More clearly defines the benefit for a “spec” building occupant as a key factor in encouraging new construction in Shawnee Replaces the “New Building Commitment” forgivable loan with an enhanced benefit of 3.5% of new payroll for “High Growth” employers that create or bring jobs in highly attractive sectors Creates a new “Property Tax Assistance Program” for smaller, entrepreneurial employers that are constructing a building but perhaps not eligible or interested in property tax abatement Creates a new “Lease Assistance Program” for smaller, entrepreneurial companies that are leasing space within Shawnee Collection of the annual performance information shifts from City staff to SEDC staff in order to address concerns over privacy of proprietary information. The annual Economic Development Report would track payroll rather than salary growth going forward.
The Council Committee also suggested several other revisions at the December 8, 2015 meeting which are discussed below and shown in the attached draft as underlined and italicized.
DISCUSSION
The Council Committee suggested the following revisions, included in the attached draft policy in italics and underlined and recapped below:
Section B.1.f – SEED Forgivable Loan Program – Requirements: The Committee discussed independent third party review of the larger SEED relationships. The proposed language keeps the policy broad but provides for specific requirements at the individual agreement level: “The Applicant may be subject to a third party audit of job creation and payroll targets specified in the agreement.”
Section B.1.g – SEED Forgivable Loan Program – Clawback Provision: Because there are two possible methods of paying the forgivable loan proceeds, the existing policy language was confusing. The Committee suggested clarifying the clawback separately for each type of agreement: “Failure to meet employment and payroll requirements, or any other requirements set out in the Agreement, may 1) preclude further payments (for pay-as-you-go SEED agreements where the City pays each annual amount in arrears), or 2) require 72
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Andrew Nave, Executive Director, Shawnee Economic Development Council DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Proposed Revisions to PS-65 regarding SEED Program PAGE: 3
repayment of the portion of the loan term not in compliance (for agreements where the applicant has received the full loan amount initially). Other ancillary costs incurred by the City related to implementation of the program may also be eligible for repayment.”
Section B.3.c – Property Tax Assistance Program – Program Description: The Committee preferred to set a specific percentage of assistance for the optional fourth year of assistance: “A fourth year will be added at 25% if the applicant incorporates LEED certified or equivalent standards in their acquired or constructed property; provides access to or dedicated right-of-way for multi-modal transit options, provides entrepreneurial assistance, funding, or space to clients of the Shawnee DeviceShop or Enterprise Center of Johnson County.”
For both the newly proposed Property Tax Assistance and Lease Assistance Program, the Committee preferred specific clawback language if the business relocates out of Shawnee during the term of their agreement and there was discussion about even including one year post- Agreement: Section B.3.g – Property Tax Assistance Program – Clawback Provisions: “The City will require the applicant to repay all of the Property Tax Assistance Program payment if the business relocates out of the City of Shawnee during the term of the payments or within one year after receiving the last Property Tax Assistance Program payment.” Section B.4.g – Lease Assistance Program – Clawback Provision: “The City may require the applicant to repay all or a portion of the Lease Assistance Program payment, if any of the requirements or eligibility criteria are not met or the business ceases to occupy the building during the term of the Agreement. The City will require the applicant to repay all of the Property Tax Assistance Program payment if the business relocates out of the City of Shawnee during the term of the payments or within one year after receiving the last Lease Assistance Program payment.”
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The 2016 Budget and 10 Year Forecast for the Economic Development Fund include placeholders for future SEED agreements. If all of the City’s project goals culminate within a short timeframe, there would be more potential costs than the fund can support, but at this point in time there are dollars available for an expanded SEED Program.
RECOMMENDATION The Council Committee voted 7-1 at the December 8, 2015 meeting to recommend the Governing Body approve the proposed changes to PS-65.
73 74
CITY OF SHAWNEE POLICY STATEMENT
SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE Economic Development Fund 03/05/2013 PS-65 06/11/2012 1 of 8 01/11/2016
PURPOSE The City of Shawnee is committed to quality business development in all parts of the City. Business development provides opportunities for investment by individuals, jobs and incomes for people, and economic support for City services. The City wants to encourage businesses to invest in our community in order to assure future economic stability and provide Shawnee residents and visitors with desirable local amenities and products. The establishment of the Economic Development Fund provides resources which the City can use to support strategic programs which will encourage the retention and expansion of existing businesses, the attraction of new businesses and the growth of new businesses in the community. Specific programs have been designed to stimulate job creation and capital investment. Under these programs, through agreements, performance based incentives will be tailored to the specific value the employer/owner brings to the City of Shawnee which may include the degree to which the business improves the diversification of the economy of the City and its environment; the potential of the business for future expansion and additional job creation; the increase in real property and estimated sales tax revenue which may result from the new or expanded business; the utilization of local products or other materials and services; and the beneficial economic impact the business will have on a particular area of the City.
POLICY A. Funding. Primary funding for the Economic Development Fund comes from the Impact Fee on the operation and maintenance of the sanitary landfill in the City provided for by Ordinance 2986. Generally, half of the funding provided through that Ordinance is credited to the fund annually. Pursuant to budgeting laws and statutes, during each budget process the Governing Body will determine the funding level for the next budget year. However, through long term forecasting any multi-year commitments, such as debt financing, will have to be provided for. Adequate fund balance will be maintained to meet future needs demonstrated in the forecast. Interest and other revenue associated with the fund will be deposited back to the fund. Appropriate expenditures from the fund include activities that support economic development, including the contractual payment to the Shawnee Economic Development Council for its services, projects or studies that support or encourage development and the specific programs as set out in this policy statement. All programs provided for in this policy are subject to availability of funding by the City. B. Strategic Incentives. The Governing Body has identified the following strategic economic development priorities. Through this policy, incentives unique to the City of Shawnee have been established to encourage the private sector to partner with the City in support of these efforts. Highest Priority Product Development. 75
POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE Economic Development Fund 03/05/2013 PS-65 06/11/2012 2 of 8 01/11/2016
Support expansion of existing businesses. Support retention of existing businesses. Additional Priorities Attract new office and industrial employers. Attract a significant economic catalyst. Support the start up and growth of small business. C. Principles. The City believes that it is in the best interest of the community if these programs: have measurable long-term return-on-investment for the City; have sufficient, but not overly burdensome or complex eligibility and reporting requirements; and can be offered and expedited with staff-level authorization when appropriate.
PROGRAMS A. Product Development 1. Background. It has been discussed for many years by various community leadership groups that while the City still has ample undeveloped land, there are a limited number of sites that are attractive for development due to lack of transportation and utility infrastructure. In many cases, because of multiple ownerships and the nature of land valuation, it is complicated for property owners to work together toward the development of a larger area. 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Program is to leverage City funding to create more sites that are ready for development. 3. Program Description. Product development may include using City funding to do studies of an area, to help support a benefit district for construction of infrastructure or to help offset cumulative costs related to providing access to gas, electricity, water and sewer service. 4. Eligibility. Sites identified as having potential for significant economic impact are eligible for assistance. 5. Allocation. The level of support provided by the City will be based on cost/benefit analysis and the amount of private investment provided. 6. Requirements. Requirements will vary based on the site, however could include willingness to sell/develop, specific land pricing by owners, and other matching funds available. Various agreements and legal documents may be required depending on the types of financial support provided. B. Shawnee Entrepreneurial & Economic Development (SEED Program) 1. SEED Forgivable Loan Program a. Background. The development of new commercial or industrial property is encouraged by the City’s policy statements on property tax abatement, tax increment financing, community improvement districts, and others. However, if a new employer does not occupy a new property or if an existing business plans to grow their business, there are very few economic development tools to encourage or attract that job creation and payroll in Shawnee. By 76
POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE Economic Development Fund 03/05/2013 PS-65 06/11/2012 3 of 8 01/11/2016
focusing on the payroll, the community can attract wealth much like many other cities in our region with similar programs or the state of Kansas had with its Kansas Economic Opportunity Initiative Fund (KEOIF) program. b. Purpose. The City of Shawnee SEED Program is established to encourage expansion of existing businesses and attract new office and industrial employers by supporting job creation. c. Program Description. The SEED Forgivable Loan Program provides for an initial one-time payment or in payments in annual allotments, then increments of the loan are forgiven over time as job creation targets are met. d. Eligibility. In order to be eligible an employer/owner must be a business in good standing, current with tax and assessment payments and must meet all provisions of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. Retail industry applicants are not eligible. i. A minimum of 10 new (full time equivalent) jobs must be created, and the combined average salary of all new positions must exceed the minimum average salary in Johnson County as defined by the Kansas Department of Labor or the median salary for the industry as defined by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). ii. “High Growth” Industry Employer will be defined as those industries that are expected to see significant growth within region and state. Mid-America Regional Council’s “Prosperity at a Crossroads” report focused the Kansas City metropolitan region’s growth on several sectors including: Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48-49), Information (51), Finance and Insurance (52), and Professional Services (54). Applicants within these two-digit NAICS codes will be eligible. e. Allocation. The amount allocated will be based on the number and average salary of jobs created. Specific criteria and commitment will be established through the Agreement. The Agreement between the City and the employer/owner shall set out the specific timing for the initial payment, which may take place upon issuance of a building permit, adoption or a Resolution of Intent for Internal Revenue Bonds, Occupancy Permit or some other date provided for in the Agreement. Timing for any approved ensuing payments will also be set out in the Agreement. i. The amount of the Forgivable Loan will be determined by the Governing Body and set out in the Agreement, but shall generally be consistent with the following guidelines: New Business: 1.5% of committed new payroll Existing Businesses: 2% of committed new payroll “Spec” building occupant or area targeted for redevelopment: 3% of committed new payroll “High Growth” Industry Employer: 3.5% of committed new payroll An additional .5% for meeting other local contribution criteria beneficial to the community such as: o 25% of new hires are Shawnee residents o Significant use of Shawnee-based or partnering contractors and/or vendors o Substantial contribution to a Shawnee-based charitable organization 77
POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE Economic Development Fund 03/05/2013 PS-65 06/11/2012 4 of 8 01/11/2016
f. Requirements. Validation of achieving payroll and job creation goals will be provided by an Annual Certification. The Applicant may be subject to a third party audit of job creation and payroll targets specified in the agreement. Additional specific requirements will be based on the criteria established and set out in the Agreement. g. Clawback Provision. Failure to meet employment and payroll requirements, or any other requirements set out in the Agreement, may 1) preclude further payments (for pay-as-you- go SEED agreements where the City pays each annual amount in arrears), or 2) require repayment of the portion of the loan term not in compliance (for agreements where the applicant has received the full loan amount initially). Other ancillary costs incurred by the City related to implementation of the program may also be eligible for repayment. 2. SEED Loan Fee Repayment Program a. Background. Research conducted by the Kauffman Foundation and others has consistently shown that companies less than five years old accounted for nearly all net job creation in our economy over the past three decades. The primary source of financing for growing businesses in America is the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Over the past few years in an effort to support small businesses, the SBA waived the fees for its loan programs. Shawnee could differentiate itself as a place for investment by establishing a program which functions similarly, e.g. covering costs for SBA fees for Shawnee businesses. b. Purpose. The SEED Financing Assistance Program is designed to encourage small business development by alleviating some of the initial costs of financing for small businesses and entrepreneurs that choose to locate and grow in Shawnee. c. Program Description. The SEED Financing Assistance Program provides an upfront payment of eligible fees of the SBA’s 7a, 504, or Microloan program to an eligible applicant. The eligible fees include: SBA 7a program: guaranty fee on the guarantee portion of the loan, City payment not to exceed $ 100,000. SBA 504 program: bank participation fee; City payment not to exceed $25,000 and community development company (CDC) processing fee City payment not to exceed $ 75,000. Microloan Programs: guaranty fee on the guarantee portion of the loan; City fee not to exceed $ 25,000. d. Eligibility. Eligible businesses must be located in or have made a commitment to purchase or lease property within the City limits of Shawnee. Refinancing of businesses or debt retirement will not be eligible. Applicant must be current on all local, county, and state taxes and meet all provisions of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The business may not have more than 50 employees or gross revenues more than $5 million. Eligible businesses must be for-profit entities and meet all existing zoning and occupancy regulations within the City. e. Allocation. Applicants, their lending institutions or CDC may contact City staff to request consideration of the SEED Loan Fee Payment Program. Payments may be made directly to the applicant or their lending institution upon completion of underwriting and written approval to the City by the lending institution. 78
POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE Economic Development Fund 03/05/2013 PS-65 06/11/2012 5 of 8 01/11/2016
f. Requirements. The applicant must create at least two new (full time equivalent) jobs within the City of Shawnee or commit to construct or purchase a commercial building within the City of Shawnee or sign a lease at a commercial building within the City of Shawnee equal to the term of the SBA guaranteed loan. The applicant will complete an annual review of job creation for the term of the loan provided by City staff. g. Clawback Provision. The City may require the applicant to repay all or a portion of the fees, and other ancillary costs incurred by the City related to implementation of the program, if any of the requirements or eligibility criteria are not met. 3. Property Tax Assistance Program a. Background. Encouraging new business creation and formation can often have significant economic impact as companies grow in Shawnee. Shawnee has a history of supporting entrepreneurs with their innovative ideas or business models and impact the surrounding region and world, reinforcing the notion of “Good Entrepreneurs Start Here”. b. Purpose. The SEED Property Tax Assistance Program is designed to encourage small businesses in high growth industries to locate and make an investment in Shawnee by alleviating some of the initial costs related to purchasing or constructing a small building for its occupancy. c. Program Description. The SEED Assistance provides an annual payment covering the cost of all property taxes for the building at 100% for the first year; and 75% for the second year; and 50% for the third year A fourth year will be added at 25% if the applicant incorporates LEED certified or equivalent standards in their acquired or constructed property; provides access to or dedicated right-of-way for multi-modal transit options, provides entrepreneurial assistance, funding, or space to clients of the Shawnee DeviceShop or Enterprise Center of Johnson County. d. Eligibility. Eligible businesses must have an eligible NAICS codes as determined in the SEED Forgivable Loan Program section D as a “high growth industry” employer and have made a commitment to purchase property within the City limits of Shawnee. Refinancing of businesses or debt retirement will not be eligible. Applicant must be current on all local, county, and state taxes and meet all provisions of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. Eligible businesses must be for-profit entities, in good standing with the State of Kansas, and the location must meet all existing zoning and occupancy regulations within the City. e. Allocation. Applicants must present property tax bill and payment will be made to the applicant in the amounts as provided for in the agreement. f. Requirements. The applicant must commit to construct or purchase a commercial building within the City of Shawnee and, create at least two new (full time equivalent) jobs within the City of Shawnee over the period of the Agreement. The applicant will complete an annual review of job creation for the term of the loan provided by City staff. g. Clawback Provisions. The City may require the applicant to repay all or a portion of the Property Tax Assistance Program payment, if any of the requirements or eligibility criteria are not met or the business ceases to occupy the building.The City will require the applicant to repay all of the Property Tax Assistance Program payment if the business relocates out of the City of Shawnee during the term of the payments, or within one year after receiving the last Property Tax Assistance Program payment. 79
POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE Economic Development Fund 03/05/2013 PS-65 06/11/2012 6 of 8 01/11/2016
4. Lease Assistance Program a. Background. Encouraging new business creation and formation can often have significant economic impact as companies grow in Shawnee. Shawnee has a history of supporting entrepreneurs with their innovative ideas or business models and impact the surrounding region and world, reinforcing the notion of “Good Entrepreneurs Start Here”. Office rent is one of the most significant costs for a startup acquiring independent office space and expanding the workforce. This program will not only attracts tenants for existing office parks in Shawnee but will also promote the expansion of office space development as demand for office space increases. b. Purpose. The SEED Lease Assistance Program is designed to encourage small businesses in high growth industries to locate in Shawnee by alleviating some of the costs related to leasing business space. c. Program Description. The SEED Rental Assistance Program would assist with lease payments for the first three years of when they begin to lease the space and based on the following schedule: Number of Leasing Offset Employees* 2 20% 3-5 25% 6-10 30% *as of December 31st of each year of the agreement The applicant will complete an annual review of job creation for the term of the Agreement. If employment increases, the amount of offset would increase accordingly based on the schedule. d. Eligibility. Eligible businesses must begin the program with 10 or fewer employees, be a high growth industry and have made a commitment to lease space within the City limits of Shawnee. Applicant must be current on all local, county, and state taxes and meet all provisions of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. Eligible businesses must be for-profit entities and meet all existing zoning and occupancy regulations within the City. The Applicant must be paying per square foot lease rates that are comparable with spaces of a similar nature geographically, and in age, size and condition. e. Allocation. Applicants must present lease documentation annually and reimbursements will be made to the applicant quarterly in the amounts as provided for in the agreement. f. Requirements. The applicant must commit to lease commercial building space within the City of Shawnee and, have or create at least two new (full time equivalent) jobs within the City of Shawnee to enter into the Agreement. The applicant will complete an annual review of job creation provided by City Staff for the term of the Agreement. g. Clawback Provision. The City may require the applicant to repay all or a portion of the Lease Assistance Program payment, if any of the requirements or eligibility criteria are not met or the business ceases to occupy the building. The City will require the applicant to repay all of the Property Tax Assistance Program payment if the business relocates out of 80
POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE Economic Development Fund 03/05/2013 PS-65 06/11/2012 7 of 8 01/11/2016
the City of Shawnee during the term of the payments or within one year after receiving the last Lease Assistance Program payment.. C. Excise Tax Abatement Site Development Program 1. Background. The Excise Tax was established by the City in 1998, as set forth in Chapter 12.26 of the SMC, in order to help offset costs of street improvements that became necessary as a result of development. The availability of “development-ready” sites has been, and will continue to be, a key component of Shawnee’s economic development challenges. Because, especially in the waning time of a poor economy, those one time up-front costs could impede development of unplatted property, the Governing Body voted in Ordinance No. 3060 on March 5, 2013 to offer an abatement of excise tax to developers who plat property and enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that contains certain requirements for development of the property within a defined period of time. The intent of the ordinance is to offer this abatement for a two year period with annual review. 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Site Development Program is to use EDF monies to help support the Excise Tax Abatement offering by providing funding for required infrastructure improvements. 3. Program Description. This Program includes offsetting the costs for required public improvements in the amount that would have been considered a credit to the excise tax. This may happen in a reimbursement to the Developer, or as a percent of a benefit district to be funded by the City. This Program also includes a payment to a property owner who has already paid or is paying for a required public improvement up to the amount that would be calculated for the excise tax. 4. Eligibility. Unplatted property in the City, for which a Developer enters into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement, is eligible for this program at the time that it would be final platted. Final eligibility will be determined by approval of an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement. 5. Allocation. The amount of funding provided by the EDF will be defined in the Excise Tax Abatement Agreement, but in general will be based on the calculated amount of the abated excise tax. 6. Clawback. Specific requirements and corresponding timelines will be set out in an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with a developer. If those requirements and timelines are not met, the Agreement will provide for recovery of the funds expended by the City. D. Other Offerings. The City may consider other types and methods of offerings that will provide assistance in achieving strategic development goals.
81
POLICY STATEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE REVISION PAGE NO. DATE DATE Economic Development Fund 03/05/2013 PS-65 06/11/2012 8 of 8 01/11/2016
IMPLEMENTATION A. These programs work in conjunction with other economic development incentives including tax abatements, tax increment financing, neighborhood revitalization act, community improvement districts. B. Expenditures related to Product Development may be in the form of Agreements, Resolutions, direct construction contracts or other methods and will be subject to approval of the Governing Body. C. Terms related to any SEED Program offering will be set out in an Agreement between the City and the business, and subject to approval of the Governing Body. Required criteria that may be proprietary in nature will be reviewed by the Shawnee Economic Development Council and verified to the City. D. Continuation of these programs will be considered by the Shawnee Governing Body on a bi-annual basis after a review of a report on the economic impact of the programs.
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND REVISION DATES June 11, 2012; March 5, 2015; January 11, 2016
OTHER REFERENCE (COMMITTEE MEETINGS) December 8, 2015: Council Committee, Agenda Item No. B.2
Michelle Distler, Mayor Stephen E. Powell, City Clerk
82
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Andrew Nave, Executive Director, Shawnee Economic Development Council (SEDC)
DATE: December 2, 2015
SUBJECT: Consider Revisions to Policy Statement PS-65, Economic Development Fund, regarding the Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) Program
BACKGROUND The Shawnee Entrepreneurial & Economic Development (SEED) program was established in June 2012 as part of Policy Statement 65 (PS-65, Economic Development Fund). The Economic Development Fund receives its revenue from approximately half of the landfill impact fee contract. Its stated priorities are product development, support of expansion and retention of existing Shawnee businesses, attracting new office and industrial employers, attracting a significant economic catalyst, and supporting small businesses.
The SEED Program is designed to augment other economic development incentive tools that encourage job creation within Shawnee, and to assist employers that own or lease existing space rather than constructing new buildings. The program was initially suggested by Shawnee EDC staff and a volunteer task force of members. It was modeled after the Kansas Economic Opportunity Initiative Fund (KEOIF) that was eliminated due to budget constraints. To date, the SEED program has assisted eight employers in Shawnee, expending approximately $325,000 for over 230 new jobs created, relocated or committed. SEDC staff have found that the availability of the SEED program is very attractive to prospective Shawnee employers and expanding businesses. The program helps keep Shawnee properties on their short list or even create the tie-breaking advantage between locations.
The program has now been in effect for over three years, and has served a variety of businesses and situations. This year has been an appropriate time to review the program requirements and propose several changes and updates.
DISCUSSION City and SEDC staff have continually analyzed the effectiveness of the program, looking for areas of improvement and enhancement. In the summer and fall of 2015 SEDC staff communicated with various stakeholders of the program. Ideas and suggestions came from economic development partners including Kansas City Area Development Council, Kansas Department of Commerce, as 83
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Andrew Nave, Executive Director, Shawnee Economic Development Council DATE: December 2, 2015 SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to PS-65 regarding SEED Program PAGE: 2
well as real estate and site selection consultants. In addition, there were several internal meetings to discuss how these ideas could best be implemented. Councilman Kenig also suggested some changes specifically related to technology and entrepreneurship, which were the basis for two new program ideas, the Property Tax and Lease Assistance Program.
The attached redline PS-65 highlights the proposed changes, summarized below:
Shift of emphasis from salary growth to payroll growth due to concerns about privacy of salary information Allows for median salary within an applicant’s industry category as the criterion to establish program eligibility to assist employers who may be ineligible based on average salary because of the effect on company-wide averages of owner/senior management salaries More clearly defines the benefit for a “spec” building occupant as a key factor in encouraging new construction in Shawnee Replaces the “New Building Commitment” forgivable loan with an enhanced benefit of 3.5% of new payroll for “High Growth” employers that create or bring jobs in highly attractive sectors Creates a new “Property Tax Assistance Program” for smaller, entrepreneurial employers that are constructing a building but perhaps not eligible or interested in property tax abatement Creates a new “Lease Assistance Program” for smaller, entrepreneurial companies that are leasing space within Shawnee Collection of the annual performance information shifts from City staff to SEDC staff in order to address concerns over privacy of proprietary information. The annual Economic Development Report would track payroll rather than salary growth going forward.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The 2016 Budget and 10 Year Forecast for the Economic Development Fund include placeholders for future SEED agreements. If all of the City’s project goals culminate within a short timeframe, there would be more potential costs than the fund can support, but at this point in time there are dollars available for an expanded SEED Program.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council forward the revised PS-65 to the Governing Body for approval at the January 11, 2016 City Council meeting.
84
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Caitlin Gard, Assistant Director of Public Works
DATE: January 11, 2016
SUBJECT: Agreement with BNSF for the permanent closure of the 59th Street crossing, DOT No. 006131Y
BACKGROUND The volume and frequency of train horns has become a quality of life concern for an increasing number of Shawnee residents. The City is aware of the concern and has produced a report as an effort to provide information on the complex challenges of train horns in our community.
On January 13, 2015, the City held a public meeting for citizens at Mill Valley High School, which included a presentation from City staff and additional information from a representative of the Federal Railroad Administration. Further discussion of train horn noise took place at the Council Committee meeting on Tuesday, February 3, 2015.
After working closely with BNSF, the State of Kansas Department of Transportation, and Federal Railway Administration, staff formulated recommendations for silencing the train horns at each railroad crossing within the city. Staff also created a prioritization schedule that was presented to the June 2, 2015 Council Committee.
In June 2015 there was a change in the number of train horns sounding in western Shawnee, as research revealed that the 59th Street crossing just east of Woodland was misclassified as private instead of public. In order for the City to apply for State or Federal funding to assist in the costs of quiet zones, the 59th Street crossing needed to be accurately classified as a public crossing.
The Emporia Subdivision line running through the center of the City carries approximately 89 trains per day. Four crossings along this line (two private and two public) were among the top crossings in staff’s prioritization table. With increased neighborhood and Council support, staff moved forward with more detailed solutions for each crossing. The original estimates to install double gates with median channelization at the 59th Street crossing just east of Woodland was $310,000 and did not include any associated road improvements. Staff conducted a traffic study for 59th Street and determined it was used less than five times per week. After consulting with BNSF, it was determined that closing this crossing is the safest and most cost effective option.
85
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Caitlin Gard, Assistant Director of Public Works DATE: January 11, 2016 SUBJECT: Agreement with BNSF for the permanent closure of the 59th Street crossing, DOT No. 006131Y PAGE: 2
On November 23, 2015 the City submitted a Notice of Intent to establish a quiet zone along the Emporia Subdivision line.
DISCUSSION In the Notice of Intent, the City outlined its intention to acquire two tracts to the east of the railroad crossing and to eliminate public access to these tracts by closing 59th Street. The City obtained approval to acquire the tracts at the December 14, 2015 City Council meeting, and will hold a public hearing for the vacation of 59th Street on January 25, 2016.
To permanently close this crossing, the City must enter into an agreement with BNSF which will require the City to place permanent type barricades (such as jersey concrete barriers) and MUTCD compliant reflector strips just outside of the BNSF right of way on each side of the railroad tracks.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The City Council authorized acquisition of two tracts of ground to the east of the railroad tracks at the December 14, 2015 meeting at a purchase price of $250,000. The City closed on this property on January 4, 2016. All expenditures related to the crossings are being charged to the Economic Development Fund.
BNSF and the State of Kansas Department of Transportation both participate in incentive programs to assist cities in closing public crossings. Each has committed to a $15,000 and $7,500 incentive respectively. This revenue will offset a portion of the property purchase and be deposited into the Economic Development Fund.
Minor improvements to the street will need to occur, including placement of permanent type barricades (such as the jersey concrete barriers) and MUTCD compliant reflector strips. This work will be done in house by the Public Works Department.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body:
a) Approve the agreement with BNSF for the permanent closure of the 59th Street crossing, DOT No. 006131Y.
b) Permanently close 59th Street from Woodland Road east to the railroad tracks.
86
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Caitlin Gard, Assistant Director of Public Works DATE: January 11, 2016 SUBJECT: Agreement with BNSF for the permanent closure of the 59th Street crossing, DOT No. 006131Y PAGE: 3
87 88 HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING CLOSURE AGREEMENT
BNSF File No. BF1000----- 59th Street U.S. DOT No. 006131Y Railroad Line Segment: 7100 Railroad Milepost: 15.184
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "BNSF", and the CITY OF SHAWNEE, hereinafter referred to as the "Agency".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, elimination of a grade crossing by closing the road includes the abandonment and permanent vacating of roadway right-of-way across the railroad right-of-way, and
WHEREAS, the BNSF agrees to pay the Agency a closure donation for eliminating crossing DOT No. 006131Y by closing the road, and
WHEREAS, the Agency in cooperation with BNSF will permanently close 59th Street grade crossing DOT No. 006131Y, and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these facts, the parties hereto agree as follows:
SECTION 1. The Agency after having executed this agreement, and after taking all actions necessary to permanently close and vacate 59th St Public Crossings DOT No. 006131Y and easement across the BNSF’s property, and after removing both roadway approaches and installing the appropriate signage and end-of-road treatment in the form of permanent barricades – located no closer than 50 feet to nearest rail. The CITY OF SHAWNEE should contact the BNSF Roadmaster TODD VELDHUIZEN [email protected] in advance of removing roadway approaches to coordinate scheduling of work next to tracks.
SECTION 2. The BNSF hereby agrees to pay the Agency the sum of fifteen thousand dollars and no cents ($15,000.00), upon the receipt of the above referenced statement.
SECTION 3. The BNSF further agrees to remove the railroad crossing surfaces and advance warning equipment that currently exist on its right-of-way, upon the receipt of the above mentioned statement. This action will take place no later than 30 days upon execution of this agreement.
SECTION 4. The Agency agrees to own and maintain their end-of-road treatment.
SECTION 5. The Agency agrees, by the above consideration received that the crossings will remain closed and will not be re-opened by the Agency.
89
City of Shawnee Crossing Closure Agreement Page 1 of 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by their proper officials thereunto duly authorized as the dates below indicated.
EXECUTED by the BNSF this day of ,
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
By: Kamalah Young
Title: Manager Public Projects
EXECUTED by the Agency this day of ,
CITY OF SHAWNEE
By: MAYOR, CITY OF SHAWNEE
WITNESS:
90
City of Shawnee Crossing Closure Agreement Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Gary Gray, Fleet and Facility Coordinator
DATE: January 11, 2016
SUBJECT: 2016 Public Works Replacement Snow Removal Vehicles through the Mid America Regional Council on Public Purchasing (MACPP)
BACKGROUND Like all City departments, the Public Works Department has an established replacement schedule in order to provide a framework for long-range planning. As vehicles reach their useful life they are evaluated based on the use, vehicle miles, condition, and maintenance costs. After that analysis, vehicles that are in need of replacement are identified. Sometimes modifications are made in the types of vehicles to be replaced (e.g. we don’t always replace like with like) in order to increase efficiency.
Whenever possible, vehicles that are no longer capable of performing their assigned function but still have value in another use will be repurposed in their department or transferred to another Department. If the vehicles are used to the point where they would not have value in another department, they are typically sold at auction.
For the past several years, the City has participated in the MACPP annual vehicle bid. The City benefits from the cost savings from multiple governmental entities joining together in this bidding process.
DISCUSSION The Public Works Department is requesting to replace four snow removal vehicles: two F-350s to replace with F-550s (or equivalent vehicle) and two single-axle dump trucks.
The Public Works Department has two F-350’s that are being used as crew trucks for various light workload functions and also for snow removal. With a low vehicle weight rating and repeated mechanical failures, these vehicles do not work effectively for snow removal operations. To increase the efficiency of our snow removal program, the replacement trucks will have a minimum gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 19,500 pounds (F-550 type of truck or equivalent). Per the recommendations in the 2013 Public Works Fleet Optimization Review, the replacement schedule has included replacement of these vehicles over the past few years. The department will have fulfilled the recommendation with the replacement of these two vehicles.
91 TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Gary Gray, Fleet and Facility Coordinator DATE: January 11, 2016 SUBJECT: 2016 Public Works Fleet Vehicle Purchase PAGE: 2
The first of these two trucks to be replaced is truck #125, a 2006 Ford F-350 that has approximately 90,000 miles on it. The replacement of this vehicle meets the replacement schedule recommendation of 10 years as outlined in the City’s administrative policy for asset replacement. Truck #125 will be repurposed in our Parks and Recreation Department.
The second of these two trucks to be replaced is truck #152, a 2004 Ford F-350 that has approximately 70,000 miles on it. The replacement of this vehicle meets the replacement schedule recommendation of 10 years as outlined in the City’s administrative policy for asset replacement. Truck #152 will be sold at auction. Even though this truck has fewer miles than truck #125, it has more mechanical and physical (rust) issues and as a result, staff is recommending truck #152 be replaced.
A sealed bid process was used for the necessary bed, hydraulics and spreader controller for the F- 550s. Bids were solicited from American Equipment, Viking-Cives, Casco, Knapheide, and Krans. American Equipment was low bid for the Bed, Hydraulics and Spreader Controllers in the amount of $15,130 each. The total cost of each the vehicle with additional equipment is $62,807.
The Public Works Department has two single-axle dump trucks that are being used as crew trucks for various workload functions and also for snow removal.
The first of these two trucks to be replaced is truck #289, a 1996 International that has approximately 60,000 miles on it. This vehicle has been repurposed from the Parks and Recreation Department for the use in snow removal operations. The replacement of this vehicle meets the replacement schedule recommendation of 10 years as outlined in the City’s administrative policy for asset replacement. Truck #289 will be sold at auction.
The second of these two trucks to be replaced is truck #139, a 1996 International that has approximately 90,000 miles on it. The replacement of this vehicle meets the replacement schedule recommendation of 10 years as outlined in the City’s administrative policy for asset replacement. Truck #139 will be sold at auction.
A sealed bid process was used for the necessary bed, hydraulics and spreader controller for the International trucks. Bids were solicited from American Equipment and Viking-Cives. Viking-Cives was low bid for the Bed, Hydraulics and Spreader Controllers in the amount of $35,997 each. The total cost of each the vehicle with additional equipment is $111,773.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The Equipment and Facility Reserve Fund includes $370,000 for Public Works snow removal vehicle replacement in 2016.
92 TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Gary Gray, Fleet and Facility Coordinator DATE: January 11, 2016 SUBJECT: 2016 Public Works Fleet Vehicle Purchase PAGE: 3
MACPP 2016 Actual Vehicle Description 2016 Budget Bid/Vehicle Sealed Bid Vendor Total w/ Options 2 Cab and Chassis, Summit Truck $230,000 $151,552 -- $151,552 International 7400 Group 2 Cab and Chassis, Ford Shawnee $140,000 $95,354 -- $95,354 F-550 Mission Ford 2 Bed, Hydraulics and Included in Spreader Controllers for -- $71,994 $71,994 Viking-Cives vehicle budget International Trucks 2 Bed, Hydraulics and Included in American Spreader Controllers for -- $30,260 $30,260 vehicle budget Equipment F-550s TOTAL TOTAL $370,000 $349,160
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve the purchase of two dump trucks from Summit truck Group and two F-550 from Shawnee Mission Ford and corresponding equipment from Viking-Cives and American Equipment in the total amount of $349,160.
93 94 SHAWNEE MISSION FORD Ford F-550 Code Price Base Price STD $ 30,628
Options Crew Cab W5 $ 2,841 6.7L Diesel 99T $ 7,093 6 speed Auto 44W included with diesel 4x4 5H $ 3,145 PTO Provision 62R included per bid spec 60” CA 176 STD 40/20/40 Vinyl Seats AS STD 19500 Payload upgrade 68M/X4L $ 1,293 Stainless Steel Nerf Bars DI $ 450 Electric Shift on the Fly 213 $ 158 Power Group 90L $ 942 Electric Brake Controller 52B $ 230 Snow Plow Prep 473 $ 73 Engine Block Heater 41H $ 64 Manual Regen 98R $ 214 SYNC 91M 62D 585 $ 546 $ 47,677
95 Summit Truck Group International 7400 Price Base Price $ 66,428
Options Rear axle with driver control traction differential $ 905 DEF tank, 7 gallon STD Cab to axle 88" STD Engine, N9, 315hp, 950tq $ 6,649 Fuel tank 50 gallon STD Hoses, silicone $ 100 All keyed alike, Z-001 $ 35 Paint, standard 2303 red STD Snow plow package, switch and wiring for plow lights $ 150 Snow valve for air cleaner $ 149 Steering wheel, tilt $ 122 Tires, 11R22.5 16ply in lieu of 12R22.5 $ (498) Trailer tow package for air brake trailer $ 580 Wiring for engine remote speed control $ 43 DELETE front PTO flange $ (187) Wing plow configuration $ 711 Radio, AM-FM weatherband, Bluetooth $ 178 Engine shut down $ 140 Circuit breakers $ 94 Manual fan switch $ 27 Bright finished, heated mirrors $ 78 Cowl cover $ 72 $ 75,776
96
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Capt. Jason Brunner, Road Patrol Bureau Commander
DATE: January 11, 2016
SUBJECT: Consider Purchase of 2016 Police Department Replacement Vehicles through the Mid America Regional Council on Public Purchasing (MACPP)
BACKGROUND For the past several years, the City of Shawnee has participated in the MACPP annual vehicle bid. The City benefits from the cost savings from multiple governmental entities joining together in this bidding process.
DISCUSSION The Police Department has budgeted $292,484 for 10 fleet vehicles in 2016 to replace vehicles that are outside useful service life because of either years in service, high mileage or excessive repair costs of the vehicle.
Eight of the vehicles will be used in the Police Department Patrol Division. The three Ford Police Interceptor sedans and four Ford Police Interceptor utility vehicles will be used by the Road Patrol Bureau and Special Operations Bureau of the Patrol Division. The Ford F-150 will be assigned to the Patrol Division to be used by a Community Service Officer. Additional required equipment (not listed in the chart) will be purchased from the Public Safety Equipment Fund in the amount of $4,000 to be installed on the F-150 for the Community Service Officers.
Two Ford Taurus sedans will be unmarked vehicles for staff use and in later years for investigative or administrative use.
The current vehicles being replaced will go to auction or replace marginal vehicles in other City departments as identified by the Fleet and Facility Coordinator that have higher mileage, higher maintenance costs or are older.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The Public Safety Equipment Special Revenue Fund includes $292,484 for police vehicle replacement in 2016.
97 TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: Capt. Jason Brunner, Road Patrol Bureau Commander DATE: January 11, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Replacement of 2016 Police Department Replacement Vehicles through the Mid America Council on Public Purchasing (MACPP) PAGE: 2
MACPP 2016 MACPP 2016 Vehicle Description Bid/Vehicle w/ Actual Vendor QTY Item # Budget Options Total Ford Police Interceptor Shawnee Mission 3 34 $ 92,391 $28,670 $86,010 Sedan – AWD (3) Ford Ford Police Interceptor Shawnee Mission 4 35 $ 123,188 $31,050 $124,200 Utility – AWD (4) Ford Ford F-150 4X4 Half Shawnee Mission 1 21 $36,799 $34,088 $34,088 Ton Pickup CC (1) Ford Ford Taurus Shawnee Mission 2 13 $40,106 $20,625 $41,250 Sedan (2) Ford TOTAL TOTAL 10 $292,484 $285,548
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve the following purchases ten Police Department replacement vehicles from Shawnee Mission Ford in the amount of $285,548.
98 99 100 101 SHAWNEE MISSION FORD FORD AWD POLICE SEDAN FOR PATROL / DPU CODE Price Sedan Police Interceptor AWD STD $23,833 3.5L V6 GTDI EcoBoost™ AWD Only 99T $2,845 6-speed Automatic Transmission
Police Interceptor # 2 - Front Headlamp / Police Interceptor Housing Only 13P $113 Front headlamp/PI Housing only: Amber,park-turn signal indicators,pre-drilled LED holes
Police Interceptor # 5 – Trunk Upfit Package 854 $887 • Rear Console Mounting Plate • Wiring Harness – Two (2) light cables – supports up to (6) LED lights (engine compartment) – Two (2) grille LED light cables – Trunk Power Distribution Box (PDB) – Two (2) 50 amp battery and ground circuits in-trunk – One (1) 10 amp siren / speaker circuits (engine to trunk) • Trunk Circulation Fan • Trunk Electronics Tray • Pre-Wiring for grille lamp, siren, and speaker
Lighting Dark Car Feature – Courtesy lamp disable when any door is opened STD Spot Lamp: Driver only (LED Bulb) 21F $141
Wheels Wheel Covers: 18" Full Not Hub Caps 64L /STD
Misc Remappable (4) switches on steering wheel 47K $141
Doors, Windows, and Mirrors Rear Door Handles Inoperable / Locks Inoperable 18G $30 Windows: Rear window inoperable (operable from front driver door switches) 67D $23 Heated mirrors 549 $57
Keys Keyed Alike: 1284X 43B $48
Safety & Security Reverse Sensing / SYNC 53M / 76R $552 Rearview Camera STD Rear view Mirror Display (Backup) 77B NC $28,670
102 SHAWNEE MISSION FORD FORD AWD POLICE UTILITY (SUV) CODE Price Utility Police Interceptor AWD K8A $26,158 3.5L V6 GTDI EcoBoost™ AWD Only 99T $3,106 6-speed Automatic Transmission STD
Police Interceptor # 2: Front Headlamp / P I Housing Only 86P $110 – Pre-drilled LED holes (does not include LED installed lights).
Wiring Pre-Wiring for grille lamp, siren and speaker 60A $45
Lighting Dark Car Feature: Courtesy lamp disable when any door is opened STD Spot Lamp: Driver only (LED Bulb) 51T $179
Wheels Wheel Covers: 18" Full Face Wheel Cover 64B/STD
Misc Remappable (4) switches on steering wheel 61S $136 Roof rack side rails- black 68Z $136 Auxiliary Air Conditioning: Secondary unit in rear 17A $532
Floors Heavy duty vinyl front and rear: No carpet STD
Key Keyed Alike: 1284X 59B $45
Safety & Security Reverse Sensing 76R $240 Rear View Mirror Display (Back up camera) 87R NC SYNC Basic 53M $258 Rear View Camera STD
Windows,Doors, and Mirrors Locks Inoperable 68G $30 Rear Window Inoperable 18W $22 Outside Heated Mirrors 549 $53
$31,050 103 Shawnee Mission Ford 2016 Ford Taurus SE - Staff vehicle CODE Price 2016 Ford Taurus SE STD $20,625
No additional options added to the vehicle
No additional options added to the vehicle $20,625
104 CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: John Mattox, Fire Chief
DATE: January 6, 2016
SUBJECT: Consider Approval and Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for Purchase of a Fire Truck, and Approval of a Resolution to Issue General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A
BACKGROUND The Fire Department maintains a 15- year replacement schedule for the City’s fleet of fire apparatus and equipment. This schedule is reviewed and updated each year. The Governing Body, in preparation and approval of the 2016 Budget, provided for purchase of a fire truck to be debt financed for a five year term. The 2016 Budget provides for and authorizes payment of the first annual installment.
The apparatus that is scheduled to be replaced is a 1987 E-One that had currently served as a reserve engine at Station 71 until developing pump problems. When the new truck arrives, it will become the primary apparatus at Station 72 and the current primary apparatus, the Quint 72, will become a reserve vehicle. Staff has been advised by Conrad Fire Equipment that the 1987 E-One has no trade-in value; therefore we recommend the apparatus be donated to the Kansas City Kansas Community College Fire Science program. Shawnee has worked to support their program by sharing on-site training resources, and through that relationship we realize their need for a fire training apparatus.
DISCUSSION The Mid-America Regional Council/Houston/Galveston Area Council MARC/HGAC solicits nationwide bids for fire apparatus every two years. This cooperative, competitive bid process allows municipalities and other end users to take advantage of cooperative low-bid purchases without the need to duplicate the bidding process. Shawnee’s Purchasing Manual allows “piggy- backing” on existing public bids. The City purchased the most recent fire truck in 2014 through this process. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. was designated the low bidder from the MARC/HGAC for this apparatus.
The purchase of this apparatus is budgeted in the Public Safety Equipment fund through a five year debt purchase rather than a cash purchase. The budget was based on an estimated total cost of $1.3 million with annual payments of $296,100. The proposed purchase agreement with Pierce 105
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: John Mattox, Fire Chief DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Approval and Authorization for Mayor to Sign an Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for Purchase of a Fire Truck, and Approval of a Resolution to Issue General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series Notes 2016A PAGE: 2
Manufacturing, Inc., for a 2016 Pierce Aerial Quint is $978,477.03 with discounts and credits. Considering that the actual cost of the truck is significantly less than anticipated, after discussion with the City’s Financial Advisor, Springsted, and Bond Counsel, it was determined that a general obligation temporary note would be the most efficient and cost-effective means of financing. The maximum term for a temporary note is four years, but with the reduced cost of the truck and favorable rates, the annual payments for a four year financing remain within the approved budget and forecasted annual amounts.
Springsted has solicited bids from local banks that are active in the municipal bond market and the vendor’s financing agent with a due date of January 8, 2016. A bid recap will be provided at the City Council meeting, typical of the general obligation bond and note process. The attached resolution authorizing issuance of the notes will also be updated after the bid and approval process is complete.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The final pricing worksheet from the vendor is attached. The quote provides for payment of $978,477.03 upon ordering the truck. An agreement will be generated based upon this worksheet as part of the ordering process. The payment to Pierce would be made from proceeds of the temporary note.
The 2016 Budget for the special Public Safety Equipment Fund budget includes $296,100 for the first annual debt payment, and in each of the next four years of the future financial forecast. The 2016 revised budget and 10 year forecast will be adjusted in the 2016R/2017 budget process to reflect the actual payments each year.
The actual rate and amortization schedule will be provided at the City Council meeting. A preliminary estimated schedule is attached. Based on these estimates, the principal amount of the note will be approximately $995,000 with four annual debt payments averaging approximately $263,000. Each annual payment is well within the approved budget and forecast, and the forecasted fifth year payment would be eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Governing Body:
a) Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., for a 2016 Pierce Aerial Quint Fire Truck with a purchase price of $978,477.03.
b) Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of general obligation temporary notes, Series 2016A.
106
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager FROM: John Mattox, Fire Chief DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider Approval and Authorization for Mayor to Sign an Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for Purchase of a Fire Truck, and Approval of a Resolution to Issue General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series Notes 2016A PAGE: 3
c) Authorize donation of the 1987 E-One to the Kansas City Kansas Community College Fire Science Program
107 108 109
$995,000 City of Shawnee, Kansas Internal Improvement Bonds, Series 2015 Series 2015 GO Bonds - Firetruck
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 12/01/2016 245,000.00 2.500% 20,729.17 265,729.17 12/01/2017 245,000.00 2.500% 18,750.00 263,750.00 12/01/2018 250,000.00 2.500% 12,625.00 262,625.00 12/01/2019 255,000.00 2.500% 6,375.00 261,375.00 Total $995,000.00 - $58,479.17 $1,053,479.17
SIGNIFICANT DATES
Dated Date...... 2/01/2016 Delivery Date...... 2/01/2016 First Coupon Date...... 12/01/2016
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars...... $2,339.17 Average Life...... 2.351 Years Average Coupon...... 2.5000001%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)...... 2.7126827% True Interest Cost (TIC)...... 2.7184450% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes...... 2.4962402% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)...... 3.1461783%
IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost...... 2.5000001% Weighted Average Maturity...... 2.351 Years
110Series 2015 GO Bonds - Fi | SINGLE PURPOSE | 12/11/2015 | 9:20 AM
CITY OF SHAWNEE
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS, TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN PUBLIC BUILDING FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND DELIVERY OF $[995,000] PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY NOTES, SERIES 2016A, OF THE CITY TO FINANCE THE COST OF SUCH EQUIPMENT, ALL PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 12-1736 ET SEQ. AND K.S.A. 10-123.
WHEREAS, K.S.A. 12-1736 to 12-1739, inclusive, as amended, authorizes the governing body of the City of Shawnee, Kansas (the “City”), to acquire and construct, make repairs, reconstruct, remodel, replace, make additions to, furnish or equip any public building and to issue general obligation bonds of the City for such purposes; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to provide for the equipping of Fire Station #72 in the City and/or other fire stations owned and operated by the City by the acquisition of certain firefighting equipment including a fire truck at an estimated cost of $[995,000] (the “Public Building Equipment”); and
WHEREAS, K.S.A. 10-123 authorizes any city to issue general obligation notes for any improvement for which the city has authorized the issuance of general obligation bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the City finds it to be in the best interests of the City to authorize the Public Building Equipment to be financed through the issuance of general obligations bonds or notes of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS, AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.01. Definitions of Words and Terms.
“Act” means the Constitution and statutes of the State including, but not limited to, K.S.A. 10-123 and K.S.A. 12-1736 et seq., as amended and supplemented.
“Authorized Costs” means the amount of expenditures to acquire and/or construct equipment or an improvement, which may include interest during construction, which has been authorized to be paid by the City by an ordinance or resolution of the City including expenditures made to redeem outstanding notes issued to pay for such equipment or improvement and Costs of Issuance of the Notes, less (1) the amount of any notes or bonds of the City which are currently outstanding and available to pay such 111 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 1 4848-1425-4124.1 Authorized Costs and (2) any Authorized Costs which have been previously paid by the City or by any eligible source of funds unless such amounts are entitled to be reimbursed under State and federal law.
“Authorized Investments” means those investments permitted by K.S.A. 10-131, as amended from time to time, or as otherwise permitted under the laws of the State.
“Book-Entry Notes” means the Original Purchaser has elected to have the Notes in book-entry only form and the portions of this Resolution pertaining to book-entry registration shall apply to the Notes.
“Bond and Interest Fund” means the Bond and Interest Fund of the City for its general obligation bonds.
“Bond Counsel” means the firm of Kutak Rock LLP, or any other attorney or firm of attorneys whose expertise in matters relating to the issuance of obligations by states and their political subdivisions is nationally recognized and acceptable to the City.
“Cede & Co.” shall mean Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York.
“City” means the City of Shawnee, Kansas.
“City Clerk” means the appointed City Clerk or, in the City Clerk’s absence, the appointed acting City Clerk of the City.
“Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the applicable regulations proposed or promulgated under the Code of the United States Department of the Treasury.
“Costs of Issuance” means all costs of issuing the Notes, including, but not limited to, all publication, preparation, signing and mailing expenses, registration fees, all legal fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and other legal counsel, all fees and expenses of the financial advisor and all fees of the Attorney General of the State.
“Improvement Fund” means the Improvement Project Fund for the City of Shawnee, Kansas, General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A, created by this Resolution.
“Improvements” means the Public Building Equipment referred to in the preamble to this Resolution and any Substitute Improvements.
“Interest Payment Dates” means June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing December 1, 2016, and ending on the Maturity Date of the Notes, or such other time as the Notes are paid or provision for the payment is made.
112 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 2 4848-1425-4124.1 “Letter of Instructions” means the arbitrage letter of instructions (dated as of the date of issuance of the Notes) relating to certain matters within the scope of Section 148 of the Code, as the same may be amended or supplemented in accordance with its terms.
“Mayor” means the elected Mayor of the City or, in the Mayor’s absence, the acting Mayor of the City.
“Note Registrar” means the Treasurer of the State, Topeka, Kansas, and its successors and assigns.
“Notes” means the General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A, authorized by the Resolution in the aggregate principal amount of $[995,000], and dated February 4, 2016.
“Original Purchaser” means the original purchaser of the Notes described on Exhibit B to this Resolution.
“Outstanding” means all Notes issued, authenticated and delivered prior to a particular date under the provisions of this Resolution, except:
A. Notes canceled by the Paying Agent or delivered to the Paying Agent for cancellation pursuant to this Resolution;
B. Notes for the payment or redemption of which monies or investments have been deposited in accordance with this Resolution; and
C. Notes in exchange for or in lieu of which other Notes have been authenticated and delivered pursuant to this Resolution.
“Owner” when used with respect to any Note means the person in whose name the Note is registered on the registration books of the City as maintained by the Note Registrar.
“Participants” shall mean those financial institutions for whom the Securities Depository effects book-entry transfers and pledges of securities deposited with the Securities Depository, as such listing of Participants exists at the time of such reference.
“Paying Agent” means the Treasurer of the State, Topeka, Kansas, and any successors and assigns.
“Principal and Interest Account” means the Principal and Interest Account for the City of Shawnee, Kansas, General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A, created within the City’s Bond and Interest Fund.
“Principal Payment Dates” means December 1 of each year beginning December 1, 2016, or until such time as the aggregate principal amount of the Notes has been paid or provision is made for payment. 113 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 3 4848-1425-4124.1 “Purchase Price” means the purchase price for the Notes described on Exhibit B to this Resolution.
“Rebate Fund” means the Rebate Fund for the City of Shawnee, Kansas, General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A, created by this Resolution.
“Record Dates” means the fifteenth day of each month preceding the Interest Payment Dates of each year the Notes are Outstanding.
“Replacement Notes” shall means Notes issued to the beneficial owners of the Notes in accordance with Section 2.04 of this Resolution.
“Resolution” means this Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Notes.
“SEC Rule” means the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (17 CFR part 240, § 240. 15c2-12).
“Securities Depository” means, initially, The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successor and assigns.
“State” means the State of Kansas.
“Substitute Improvement” means any improvement or addition in the City which has been authorized by a resolution or ordinance of the City in accordance with Section 5.04 of this Resolution to be in place of or in addition to the Improvements set forth in the preamble to this Resolution.
ARTICLE II
AUTHORIZATION OF PUBLIC BUILDING EQUIPMENT AND THE NOTES
Section 2.01. Authorization of Public Building Equipment and Authorization and Security for the Notes. In accordance with K.S.A. 12-1736 to 12-1739, inclusive, as amended, the Governing Body of the City hereby finds and declares the necessity for and authorizes the acquisition of the Public Building Equipment and authorizes the issuance of its general obligation bonds or notes in an aggregate amount not to exceed $[995,000] to provide funds to pay the cost of the Public Building Equipment. The Notes are authorized and directed to be issued pursuant to the Resolution for the purpose of providing funds to pay the Authorized Costs of the Improvements.
The Notes shall be general obligations of the City payable as to both principal and interest from general obligation bonds of the City and from current revenues of the City authorized for such purpose. If not paid, the principal of and interest on the Notes shall be payable from ad valorem taxes which may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount upon all the taxable tangible property, real and personal, within the territorial limits of the City. The full faith, credit and resources of the City are irrevocably pledged 114 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 4 4848-1425-4124.1 for the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes as the same become due.
Section 2.02. Description of the Notes. The Notes shall consist of fully registered notes in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, and shall be numbered in such manner as the Note Registrar determines. All of the Notes will be dated February 4, 2016, shall become due on the Principal Payment Dates and bear interest until paid from their dated date at the rate set forth on Exhibit B to this Resolution.
Interest on the Notes at the rates stated above (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) shall be payable on the Interest Payment Dates to the Owners of the Notes whose names appear on the books maintained by the Note Registrar at the close of business on the Record Dates.
Section 2.03. Designation of Paying Agent and Note Registrar. The Treasurer of the State, Topeka, Kansas, is designated as the Paying Agent and Note Registrar for the Notes. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City are authorized and empowered to execute on behalf of the City an agreement with the Note Registrar and Paying Agent for the Notes.
Section 2.04. Initial Registration with Securities Depository, Method and Place of Payment of the Notes. The Book-Entry Notes shall be registered on note registration books maintained by the Note Registrar to Cede & Co., the nominee for the Securities Depository, and no beneficial owner will receive certificates representing their respective interests in the Book-Entry Notes, except in the event the City issues Replacement Notes as provided in this section. It is anticipated that during the term of the Book-Entry Notes, the Securities Depository will make book-entry transfers among its Participants and receive and transmit payment of principal of, and interest on, the Book-Entry Notes until and unless the City authenticates and delivers Replacement Notes to the beneficial owners in the manner described in this section.
If the City determines: (i) that the Securities Depository is unable to properly discharge its responsibilities, or (ii) that the Securities Depository is no longer qualified to act as a securities depository and registered clearing agency under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or (iii) that the continuation of a book-entry only system to the exclusion of any Book-Entry Notes being issued to any Owner other than Cede & Co., is no longer in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the Book-Entry Notes, or if the City receives written notice from Participants having interests in not less than 50% of the Book-Entry Notes, as shown on the records of the Securities Depository, that the continuation of a book-entry only system to the exclusion of Book-Entry Notes being issued to any Owner other than Cede & Co., is no longer in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the Book-Entry Notes, or if the Securities Depository determines to discontinue providing book-entry services, then the City shall notify the owners of the Book-Entry Notes of such determination or such notice and of the availability of certificates to Owners who request certificates, and the City shall authenticate and deliver Replacement Notes to the beneficial owners or their nominees 115 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 5 4848-1425-4124.1 in principal amounts representing the interest of each, making such adjustments as it may find necessary or appropriate as to accrued interest and previous calls for redemption. In such event, all references to the Securities Depository in this Resolution shall relate to the period of time when the Securities Depository has possession of at least one certificate. Upon the issuance of Replacement Notes, all references in this Resolution to obligations imposed upon or to be performed by the Securities Depository shall be deemed to be imposed upon and performed by the City, to the extent such provisions are consistent with and applicable to Replacement Notes. If the Securities Depository resigns and the City or Book-Entry Note Owners are unable to locate a qualified successor of the Securities Depository, then the City shall authenticate and deliver Replacement Notes to the Participants for the benefit of the Book-Entry Note Owners.
The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes shall be payable in any coin or currency which, on the respective dates of payment, is legal tender for the payment of debts due the United States of America.
The principal of the Notes shall be paid to the Owner of each Note upon presentation of the Note at the maturity or redemption date to the Paying Agent for cancellation. The interest payable on the Notes on any Interest Payment Date shall be paid by the Paying Agent to the Owner of each Note at the Owner’s address as it appears on the registration books of the City maintained by the Note Registrar at the close of business on the Record Date for such interest:
A. by check or draft mailed by the Paying Agent to the address of such Owner shown on the Note Register;
B. at such other address as is furnished to the Paying Agent in writing by such Owner; or
C. in the case of an interest payment to any Owner that is a Securities Depository, by wire transfer to such Owner upon written notice given to the Note Registrar by such Owner, not less than 15 days prior to the Record Date for such interest, containing the electronic transfer instructions including the bank (which shall be in the continental United States), address, ABA routing number and account number to which such Owner wishes to have such wire directed.
The Paying Agent will keep in its offices a record of payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on all Notes.
Section 2.05. Method of Execution and Authentication of the Notes. The Notes shall be executed for and on behalf of the City by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor, attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk and the seal of the City shall be affixed to or imprinted on the Notes. The Notes will be registered in the office of the City Clerk, evidenced by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk with the seal of the City affixed to or imprinted on the Notes. The Notes shall also be registered in the office of the State Treasurer, evidenced by the 116 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 6 4848-1425-4124.1 manual or facsimile signature of the State Treasurer with the seal of the State Treasurer affixed to or imprinted on the Notes. The Notes will be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk and the seal of the City is to be affixed or imprinted adjacent to the signature following registration of the Notes by the State Treasurer. In the event any of the above-mentioned officers cease to hold their offices before the Notes are issued and delivered, the Notes may be issued and transferred to other Owners as though the officers had not ceased to hold office, and the signatures appearing on the Notes will be valid and sufficient for all purposes as if they had remained in office until the issuance or transfer.
The Notes are not to be valid obligations under the provisions of the Resolution until authenticated by the Note Registrar or a duly authorized representative of the Note Registrar by execution of the Certificate of Authentication appearing on each Note. It will not be necessary that the same representative of the Note Registrar execute the certificate of authentication on all of the Notes.
Section 2.06. Registration, Transfer and Exchange of Notes. As long as the Notes remain Outstanding, the City will instruct the Note Registrar to keep the books for the registration and transfer of the Notes as provided in the Resolution.
Upon presentation of the necessary documents as described below, the Note Registrar shall transfer or exchange any Note(s) for new Note(s) in an authorized denomination of the same maturity and for the same aggregate principal amount as the Note(s) which was presented for transfer or exchange.
All Notes presented for transfer or exchange shall be accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer or authorization for exchange, in a form and with guarantee of signature satisfactory to the Note Registrar, executed by the Owner of the Notes or by the Owner’s authorized agent. In addition, all Notes presented for transfer or exchange shall be surrendered to the Note Registrar for cancellation.
Prior to delivery of the new Note(s) to the transferee, the Note Registrar shall register the same in the registration books and shall authenticate each Note.
The City shall pay out of the proceeds of the Notes the fees of the Note Registrar for registration and transfer of the Notes and the cost of preparing a reasonable supply of registered note blanks. Any additional costs or fees that might be incurred in the secondary market, other than fees of the Note Registrar, are the responsibility of the Owners. The City and the Securities Depository shall be paid directly by the Note Owner for any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to a transfer.
The City and the Note Registrar shall not be required to issue, register, transfer or exchange any Notes during a period beginning on the day following the Record Date preceding any Interest Payment Date and ending at the close of business on the Interest Payment Date, or within 30 days of a date on which Notes are redeemed after
117 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 7 4848-1425-4124.1 notice of such redemption has been given in accordance with Article III of this Resolution.
New Notes delivered upon any transfer or exchange shall be valid obligations of the City, evidencing the same debt as the Notes surrendered, shall be secured by the Resolution and shall be entitled to all of the security and benefits to the same extent as the Notes surrendered.
The City, Note Registrar and Paying Agent may deem and treat the person in whose name any Note is registered as the absolute Owner of the Note, whether the Note is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on the Note and for all other purposes, and all such payment so made to any such Owner or upon the Owner’s order shall be valid and effectual to the extent of the sum or sums so paid, and neither the City, Note Registrar and Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary.
Section 2.07. Surrender and Cancellation of Notes. Whenever any Outstanding Notes are delivered to the Note Registrar for cancellation pursuant to the Resolution, upon payment of the principal amount of and interest on the Note or replacement pursuant to the Resolution, the Note shall be canceled by the Note Registrar and returned to the City Clerk.
Section 2.08. Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Notes. In the event any Note is mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed, the City may execute and the Note Registrar may authenticate a new Note of like date, maturity, denomination and interest rate; provided, that in the case of any mutilated Note, the mutilated Note shall first be surrendered to the City or the Note Registrar, and, in the case of any lost, stolen or destroyed Note there will first be furnished to the Note Registrar’s and the City’s satisfaction evidence of such loss, theft or destruction together with an indemnity. In the event any such Note shall have matured, instead of issuing a duplicate Note, the City and Note Registrar may pay the same without surrender of the Note. The City and Note Registrar may charge to the Owner of such Note their reasonable fees and expenses in connection with replacing any Note or Notes mutilated, stolen, lost or destroyed.
Section 2.09. Execution and Delivery of the Notes. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Notes in the manner specified above, and to cause the Notes to be registered in the offices of the City Clerk and the State Treasurer as provided by law, and, when executed and registered, to deliver the Notes to the Original Purchaser, upon receipt by the City of the Purchase Price.
Section 2.10. Form of the Notes. The Notes shall be printed in accordance with the format required by the Attorney General of the State and shall contain information substantially in the form set forth on Exhibit A to this Resolution or as may be required by the Attorney General pursuant to the Notice of Systems of Registration for Kansas Municipal Bonds, 2 Kan. Reg. 921 (1983), in accordance with the Kansas Bond Registration Law, K.S.A. 10-620 to 10-632, inclusive.
118 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 8 4848-1425-4124.1 ARTICLE III
REDEMPTION OF THE NOTES
Section 3.01. Optional Redemption. At the option of the City, Notes maturing on December 1, 2018, and thereafter may be called for redemption and payment prior to maturity on December 1, 2017, or thereafter at any time in whole or in part (selection of Notes to be designated by the City in such equitable manner as it may determine) at the redemption Price of 100% (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount), plus accrued interest to the date of redemption.
Section 3.02. Sinking Fund Redemption. Any Term Notes shall also be subject to mandatory redemption and payment as described on Exhibit B to this Resolution.
Section 3.03. Selection of Notes to be Redeemed. The Notes are to be redeemed only in the principal amount of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. When less than all of the Notes are to be redeemed and paid prior to maturity, the Notes will be redeemed in the manner as the City determines.
In the case of a partial redemption of Notes by lot when Notes of denominations greater than $5,000 are Outstanding, each $5,000 of face value will be treated as if it were a separate Note of the denomination of $5,000. If it is determined that one or more, but not all, of the $5,000 units of face value represented by any Note is selected for redemption, then upon notice of intention to redeem the $5,000 unit or units, the Owner or the Owner’s authorized agent shall present and surrender the Note to the Note Registrar: (i) for payment of the redemption price (including the redemption, if any, and interest to the date fixed for redemption) of the $5,000 unit or units of face value called for redemption; and (ii) for exchange, without charge to the Owner of the Note(s), for a new Note(s) of the aggregate principal amount of the unredeemed portion of the principal amount of such Note. If the Owner of any Note of a denomination greater than $5,000 fails to present the Note as described above, the Note will, nevertheless, become due and payable on the redemption date to the extent of the amount called for redemption.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, in the event of a partial redemption of the Book-Entry Notes, the Securities Depository may, at its option, in lieu of surrendering such Book-Entry Note, make an appropriate notation on the Book-Entry Note certificate indicating the date and amounts of the reduction in the principal amount of such Book-Entry Note (except in the case of the final maturity of such Book-Entry Note, where the Book-Entry Note certificate shall be presented to the City prior to payment).
Section 3.04. Notice of Redemption. Unless waived by any Owner of Notes to be redeemed, if the City calls any Notes for redemption and payment prior to the maturity of the Notes, the City shall instruct the Note Registrar to give written notice of its intention to call and pay the Notes on a specified date, the same being described by 119 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 9 4848-1425-4124.1 maturity, the notice to be mailed by United States first-class mail addressed to the Owners of the Notes, each of the notices to be mailed not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption. The City will also give any additional notice as may be required by State law in effect as of the date of the notice.
All official notices of redemption will be dated and state (1) the redemption date, (2) the redemption price, (3) if less than all of the Outstanding Notes are being redeemed, the identification (and, in the case of partial redemption, the respective principal amounts) of the Notes being redeemed, (4) on the redemption date the redemption price will become due and payable on each Note or portion of the Note called for redemption, and interest on the Note shall cease to accrue from and after the date, and (5) the place where the Notes are to be surrendered for payment of the redemption price, which is the principal office of the Paying Agent.
During the time the Book-Entry Notes are registered in the name of Cede & Co., the notice described in the immediately preceding paragraphs shall be delivered to the Securities Depository. The Securities Depository shall, in turn, notify its Participants. It is expected that the Participants, in turn, will notify or cause to be notified the beneficial owners of the Book-Entry Notes. Any failure on the part of the Securities Depository, or failure on the part of a nominee of a beneficial owner of a Book-Entry Note (having received notice from the City, a Participant or otherwise) to notify the beneficial owner of the Book-Entry Notes so affected, shall not affect the validity of the redemption of such Book-Entry Notes.
Prior to any redemption date, the City will deposit with the Paying Agent an amount of money sufficient to pay the redemption price of all the Notes or portions of Notes which are to be redeemed on that date. In accordance with the notice, once the Notes are surrendered to the Paying Agent, the redemption price will be paid to the Owner. Installments of any interest due on or prior to the redemption date shall be payable as provided in this Resolution. Upon surrender of the partial redemption of any Note, a new Note or Notes of the same maturity in the amount of the unpaid principal will be prepared for the Owner. All Notes which have been redeemed will not be reissued. They will be cancelled and destroyed by the Paying Agent.
Section 3.05. Effect of Call for Redemption. Whenever any Note is called for redemption and payment as provided in this Article, all interest on the Note shall cease from and after the date the call is made, provided funds are available for its payment at the price previously specified.
120 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 10 4848-1425-4124.1 ARTICLE IV
ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS
Section 4.01. Creation of Funds and Accounts. Simultaneously with the issuance of the Notes, the following funds and accounts will be created within the Treasury of the City:
(a) Improvement Fund for the City of Shawnee, Kansas, General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A and with such fund a Capitalized Interest Account;
(b) Principal and Interest Account for the City of Shawnee, Kansas, General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A; and
(c) Rebate Fund for the City of Shawnee, Kansas, General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A.
Section 4.02. Administration of Funds and Accounts. The funds and accounts established in this Resolution shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution as long as the Notes are outstanding.
ARTICLE V
APPLICATION OF NOTE PROCEEDS
Section 5.01. Disposition of Note Proceeds. Upon issuance and delivery of the Notes, the proceeds shall be deposited as follows:
(a) In the Principal and Interest Account, a sum equal to the accrued interest, if any, on the Notes and any premium directed to be deposited into such account as shown on Exhibit B. Moneys in the Principal and Interest Account will be used exclusively for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes and for the payment of Paying Agent fees.
(b) To the credit of the Improvement Fund, the balance of the purchase price for the Notes, which will be used solely for the purpose of paying the Authorized Costs of the Improvements. The City covenants that in the acquisition or construction of the Improvements, it will perform all duties and obligations relative to such Improvements as are now or may be imposed by the Act and the provisions of the Resolution.
Section 5.02. Withdrawals from the Improvement Fund. The City Treasurer shall make withdrawals from the Improvement Fund solely for the purpose of paying the Authorized Costs of the Improvements.
Section 5.03. Surplus in the Improvement Fund. All moneys remaining in the Improvement Fund after the completion of the acquisition or construction of the 121 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 11 4848-1425-4124.1 Improvements shall be transferred immediately to the Principal and Interest Account and applied to the principal due on the Notes.
Section 5.04. Substitution of Improvements. If the City is prevented, hindered or delayed from proceeding with the acquisition or construction of the Public Building Equipment, the City may elect to substitute or add other improvements pursuant to this Section (the “Substitute Improvement”) provided the following conditions are met: (1) the Substitute Improvement and the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay the cost of the Substitute Improvement has been duly authorized by the Governing Body of the City in accordance with the laws of the State, (2) a resolution or ordinance authorizing the use of the Substitute Improvement has been duly adopted by the Governing Body of the City, (3) the Attorney General of the State has approved the amendment to the transcript of proceedings for the Notes to include the Substitute Improvements and (4) the City has received an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that the use of the proceeds of the Notes to pay the Authorized Cost of the Substitute Improvement will not adversely affect the tax-exempt status of the Notes under State or federal law and the Substitute Improvement has been duly authorized pursuant to this Section and the laws of the State.
ARTICLE VI
PAYMENT OF THE NOTES
Section 6.01. Application of Moneys in the Principal and Interest Account. All amounts paid and credited to the Principal and Interest Account will be expended and used by the City for the sole purpose of paying the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes as and when the same become due and paying the usual and customary fees and expenses of the Paying Agent.
Section 6.02. Transfer of Funds to Paying Agent. The City Treasurer is authorized and directed to withdraw from the Principal and Interest Account and forward to the Paying Agent sums sufficient to pay both principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Notes when they become due, and also to pay the charges made by the Paying Agent for acting in such capacity. Charges over and above the amount of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes shall be forwarded to the Paying Agent. If, through the lapse of time, or otherwise, the Owners of Notes are no longer entitled to enforce payment of their obligations, it will be the duty of the Paying Agent to return the funds to the City. All moneys deposited with the Paying Agent shall be deemed to be deposited in accordance with and subject to all of the provisions contained in the Resolution.
Section 6.03. Surplus in Principal and Interest Account. Any moneys or investments remaining in the Principal and Interest Account after the retirement of the indebtedness for which the Notes were issued and all other indebtedness of the City shall be transferred and paid into the Bond and Interest Fund of the City.
122 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 12 4848-1425-4124.1 ARTICLE VII
DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENT OF FUNDS
Section 7.01. Deposits. Cash moneys in each of the funds and accounts created and established by this Resolution will be deposited in a bank or banks or federal or state chartered savings and loan association(s) and shall be secured in accordance with State law.
Section 7.02. Investments. Moneys held in the funds and accounts created or established by this Resolution in conjunction with the issuance of the Notes may be invested by the City in Authorized Investments, or in other investments allowed by State law in the amounts and maturing at the times as shall reasonably provide for moneys to be available when required in the accounts or funds; provided, however, that no investment shall be made for a period extending longer than to the date when the moneys invested may be needed for the purpose the fund or account was created. All interest on any Authorized Investment held in any fund or account (except amounts required to be deposited into the Rebate Fund in accordance with the Letter of Instructions) shall accrue to and become a part of the fund or account. In determining the amount held in any fund or account under the provisions of the Resolution, Authorized Investments shall be valued at their principal par value or at their then redemption value, whichever is lower
Section 7.03. Deposits into and Application of Moneys in the Rebate Fund.
(a) There shall be deposited in the Rebate Fund such amounts as are required to be deposited pursuant to the Letter of Instructions. Subject to the transfer provisions provided in subsection b below, all money at any time deposited in the Rebate Fund shall be held in trust, to the extent required to pay rebatable arbitrage to the federal government of the United States of America, and no Owner of any Notes shall have any right in or claim to such money. All amounts deposited into or on deposit in the Rebate Fund shall be governed by this Section, by the preceding Section and by the Letter of Instructions (which is incorporated by reference).
(b) Computations of the rebatable arbitrage shall be performed by or on behalf of the City in accordance with the Letter of Instructions. Pursuant to the Letter of Instructions, the City shall remit rebate installments and the final rebate payments to the United States. Any moneys remaining in the Rebate Fund after redemption and payment of all of the Notes and payment and satisfaction of any rebatable arbitrage, or provision made, shall be withdrawn and released to the City.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Resolution, including in particular this Article, the obligation to remit rebatable arbitrage to the United States and to comply with all other requirements of this Section, the
123 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 13 4848-1425-4124.1 preceding Section and the Letter of Instructions shall survive the defeasance or payment in full of the Notes.
ARTICLE VIII
DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
Section 8.01. Remedies. The provisions of the Resolution, including the covenants and agreements, shall constitute a contract between the City and the Owners of the Notes. The Owner or Owners of any of the Notes at the time Outstanding have the right for the equal benefit and protection of all Owners of Notes similarly situated:
(a) by mandamus or other suit, action or proceedings at law or in equity to enforce the rights of such Owner or Owners against the City and its officers, agents and employees, and to require and compel duties and obligations required by the provisions of the Resolution or by the Constitution and laws of the State;
(b) by suit, action or other proceedings in equity or at law to require the City, its officers, agents and employees to account as if they were the trustees of an express trust; and
(c) by suit, action or other proceedings in equity or at law to enjoin any acts or things which may be unlawful or in violation of the rights of the Owners of the Notes.
Section 8.02. Limitation on Rights of Owners. The covenants and agreements of the City contained in this Resolution and in the Notes shall be for the equal benefit, protection, and security of the Owners of any or all of the Notes, all of the Notes shall be of equal rank and without preference or priority of one Note over any other Note in the application of the funds pledged by this Resolution to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes, or otherwise, except as to rate of interest, date of maturity and right of prior redemption as provided in the Resolution. No one or more Owners secured shall have any right in any manner whatever by his or their action to affect, disturb or prejudice the security granted and provided for in this Resolution, or to enforce any right described below, except in the manner provided by this Resolution, and all proceedings at law or in equity shall be instituted, had and maintained for the equal benefit of all Owners of such Outstanding Notes.
Section 8.03. Remedies Cumulative. No remedy conferred upon the Owners is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, but each remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other remedy and may be exercised without exhausting and without regard to any other remedy conferred in this Resolution. No waiver of any default or breach of duty or contract by the Owner of any Note shall extend to or affect any subsequent default or breach of duty or contract or impair any rights or remedies on the Note. No delay or omission of any Note Owner to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any right or power or be construed to be a waiver 124 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 14 4848-1425-4124.1 of any such default or acquiescence. Every substantive right and every remedy conferred upon the Owners of the Notes by the Resolution may be enforced and exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In case any suit, action or proceedings taken by any Owner on account of any default or to enforce any right or exercise any remedy is discontinued or abandoned for any reason, or is determined adversely to the Owner, then, and in every such case, the City and the Owners of the Notes will be restored to their former positions and rights under this Resolution, respectively, and all rights, remedies, powers and duties of the Owners shall continue as if no such suit, action or other proceedings had been brought or taken.
ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENTS
Section 9.01. Amendments. The City may from time to time, without the consent of or notice to any of the Owners, provide for amendment to the Notes or the Resolution, for any one or more of the following purposes:
(a) To cure any ambiguity or formal defect or omission in the Resolution or the Notes or to make any other change not prejudicial to the Owners;
(b) To grant to or confer upon the Owners any additional rights, remedies, powers or authority that may lawfully be granted to or conferred upon the Owners;
(c) To more precisely identify the Improvements; or
(d) To conform the Resolution or the Notes to the Code or future applicable federal law concerning tax-exempt obligations.
The following modifications or amendments to the Notes or the Resolution shall require the consent of 100% of the Owners of the Notes:
(a) The extension of the maturity of the principal of any of the Notes, or the extension of the maturity of any interest on any of the Notes.
(b) A reduction in the principal amount of any of the Notes or the rate of interest on the Notes.
(c) A reduction in the aggregate principal amount of the Notes.
Amendments or modifications of the Notes and the Resolution not listed above may be made at any time by the City with the written consent of the Owners of not less than two-thirds (66.66%) in aggregate principal amount of the Notes at the time Outstanding.
125 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 15 4848-1425-4124.1 Section 9.02. Written Evidence of Amendments. Every amendment or modification of a provision of the Notes or of the Resolution to which the written consent of the Owners is given as above provided shall be expressed in a resolution of the City amending or supplementing the provisions of the Resolution shall be deemed to be a part of the Resolution. It shall not be necessary to note on any of the Outstanding Notes any reference to such amendment or modification, if any. A certified copy of every such amendatory or supplemental ordinance, if any, and a certified copy of the Resolution will always be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk and made available for inspection by the Owners of any Note or prospective purchaser or Owners of any Note authorized by the Resolution, and upon payment of the reasonable cost of preparing the same, a certified copy of any such amendatory or supplemental resolution or of the Resolution will be sent by the City Clerk to any such Owner or prospective Owner.
ARTICLE X
DISCLOSURE
Section 10.01. Exemption from SEC Rule 15c2-12. The City represents in connection with paragraph (a) of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 that the Notes are not part of an offering of municipal securities with an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 of more.
ARTICLE XI
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 11.01. Succession of a Securities Depository. In the event the Notes are in book-entry only form and the Securities Depository resigns or is no longer qualified to act as a securities depository and registered clearing agency under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the City may appoint a successor Securities Depository provided the City receives written evidence, satisfactory to the City, with respect to the ability of the successor Securities Depository to discharge its responsibilities. Any such successor Securities Depository shall be a securities depository which is a registered clearing agency under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or other applicable statute or regulation. The City, upon receipt of a Book-Entry Note for cancellation shall cause the authorization and delivery of a Book-Entry Note to the successor Securities Depository in appropriate denominations and form as provided in this Resolution. If the City makes the determinations or receives the notice described in Section 2.04 of this Resolution, the City shall cause the notices described in Section 2.04 to be delivered and issue Book-Entry Notes as described in that section.
Section 11.02. Tax Covenants. The City covenants and agrees that it will not take any action or fail to take any action, if any such action or failure to take action would adversely affect the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Notes under Section 103 of the Code. The City covenants and agrees that it will use the 126 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 16 4848-1425-4124.1 proceeds of the Notes as soon as practicable and with all reasonable dispatch for the purpose for which the Notes are issued as set forth above, and that it will not directly or indirectly use or permit the use of any proceeds of the Notes or any other funds of the City, or take or omit to take any action that would cause the Notes to be “arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of Section 148(a) of the Code. To that end, the City will comply with all requirements of Section 148 of the Code to the extent applicable to the Notes. In the event that at any time the City is of the opinion that for purposes of this Section it is necessary to restrict or limit the yield on the investment of any moneys held by the City under the Resolution, the City shall take such action as may be necessary.
Without limiting the generality of the above, the City agrees that there will be paid from time to time all amounts required to be rebated to the United States pursuant to Section 148(f) of the Code and any temporary, proposed or final Treasury Regulations as may be applicable to the Notes. This covenant shall survive payment in full or defeasance of the Notes. The City specifically covenants to pay or cause to be paid to the United States, at the times and in the amounts determined under this Resolution, the Rebate Amounts as described in the Letter of Instructions.
Section 11.03. Designation of “Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations”. The City hereby designates the Notes as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Section 11.04. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions of the Resolution or of the Notes issued under this Resolution is for any reason found to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of the Resolution, or of the Notes relating to the Resolution, but the Resolution and the Notes will be construed and enforced as if the illegal or invalid provision had not been contained in the Resolution. In case any covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement contained in the Notes or in the Resolution is for any reason found to be in violation of law, then such covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement shall be deemed to be the covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement of the City to the full extent permitted by law.
Section 11.05. Further Authority. The Mayor, City Clerk and other officials are further authorized and directed to execute any and all documents, take actions they may deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out and perform the purposes of the Resolution. They may make and approve alterations, changes or additions in the above-mentioned agreements, statements, instruments and other documents approved, authorized and confirmed by this Resolution, and the execution or taking such action shall be conclusive evidence of the necessity or advisability.
Section 11.06. Governing Law. The Resolution and the Notes will be governed exclusively by and construed in accordance with the applicable laws of the State.
Section 11.07. Effective Date. This Resolution is to take effect and be in full force from and after its adoption by the Governing Body of the City. 127 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 17 4848-1425-4124.1
THIS RESOLUTION is hereby adopted by the Governing Body of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, this 11th day of January, 2016.
CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS
By: Michelle Distler, Mayor {Seal}
ATTEST:
By: Stephen Powell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Ellis Rainey, City Attorney
128 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 18 4848-1425-4124.1
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF NOTE)
[Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company, a New York corporation; (“DTC”), to the City or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange, or payment, and any certificate issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein.]
REGISTERED REGISTERED NUMBER R-1 $______
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF KANSAS COUNTY OF JOHNSON CITY OF SHAWNEE GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY NOTE SERIES 2016A
Interest Rate: Maturity Date: Dated Date: [CUSIP: ] February 4, 2016
REGISTERED OWNER: [Cede & Co.]
FEDERAL TAX I.D. NUMBER: [13-2555119]
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That the City of Shawnee, in the County of Johnson, State of Kansas (the “City”), for value received, acknowledges itself to be indebted and promises to pay to the registered owner identified above, or registered assigns, as of the Record Dates as provided on the Maturity Date identified above, the Principal Amount identified above, and in like manner to pay interest on such Principal Amount from this date at the rate of interest per annum set forth above (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months), semiannually on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing December 1, 2016 (the “Interest Payment Date”) until the Principal Amount is paid, unless this Note shall have been previously called for redemption and payment as hereinafter set forth.
The principal or redemption price of this Note shall be paid at maturity or upon earlier redemption to the person in whose name this Note is registered at the maturity or redemption date, upon presentation and surrender of this Note at the principal office of the Treasurer of the State of Kansas, Topeka, Kansas (the “Paying Agent” and “Note Registrar”). The interest payable on this Note on any Interest Payment Date shall be 129 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 19 4848-1425-4124.1 paid to the person in whose name this Note is registered on the registration books maintained by the Note Registrar at the close of business on the record date for such interest, which shall be the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the calendar month next preceding the Interest Payment Date (the “Record Dates”). Such interest shall be payable (a) by check or draft mailed by the Paying Agent to the address of the Owner shown on the Note Register or (b) at such other address as is furnished to the Paying Agent in writing by the Owner or, (c) in the case of an interest payment to any Securities Depository (as defined in the Resolution) as Owner of a Book-Entry Note, by electronic transfer to such Owner upon written notice given to the Paying Agent by such Owner, not less than 15 days prior to the Record Date for such interest, containing the electronic transfer instruction including the bank (which shall be in the continental United States), address, ABA routing number and account number to which such Owner wishes to have such wire directed. The principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes shall be payable in any coin or currency which, on the respective dates of payment, is legal tender for the payment of debts due the United States of America. The Notes constitute general obligations of the City payable as to both principal and interest from general obligation bonds of the City or from current revenues of the City authorized for such purpose. If not so paid, the principal of and interest on the Notes shall be payable from ad valorem taxes which may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount upon all the taxable tangible property, real and personal, within the territorial limits of the City. The full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on this Note and the issue of which it is a part as the same respectively become due.
This Note is one of an authorized series of Notes of the City designated “General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A,” in an aggregate principal amount of $[995,000] (the “Notes”) issued for the purposes set forth in the resolution of the City authorizing the Notes (the “Resolution”). The Notes are issued by the authority of and in full compliance with the provisions, restrictions and limitations of the Constitution and laws of the State of Kansas, including, but not limited to, K.S.A. 10-123, K.S.A. 12-1736 et seq., as amended, and all other applicable provisions of the laws of the State of Kansas.
At the option of the City, Notes maturing on December 1, 2018, or thereafter may be called for redemption and payment prior to maturity in whole or in part (selection of notes to be designated by the City in such equitable manner as it may determine) on December 1, 2017, or on any date thereafter, at the redemption price of 100% (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount), plus accrued interest to the date of redemption.
[Each of the Notes maturing on December 1, 20__, and December 1, 20__, shall also be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and payment on the dates and in the amounts set forth in the Resolution, at the principal amount, plus accrued interest to date fixed for redemption and payment, without premium.]
Whenever the City is to select Notes for the purpose of redemption, it shall, in the case of Notes in denominations greater than $5,000, if less than all of the Notes then 130 RESOLUTION NO. ____ PAGE 20 4848-1425-4124.1 outstanding are to be called for redemption, treat each $5,000 of face value of each such fully registered Note as though it were a separate Note in the denomination of $5,000.
If any Notes are called for redemption and payment prior to maturity, the City shall instruct the Note Registrar to give written notice of its intention to call and pay such Notes on a specified date, the same being described by maturity, said notice to be mailed by United States first-class mail addressed to the owners of said Notes, each of said notices to be mailed not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption. All Notes so called for redemption and payment shall cease to bear interest from and after the date for which such call is made, provided funds are available for the payment of such Notes at the price specified.
The Notes are issued in fully registered form in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. This Note may be exchanged at the office of the Note Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Notes of the same maturity of other authorized denominations upon the terms provided in the Resolution.
The City and the Note Registrar may deem and treat the registered owner as the absolute owner for purposes of receiving payment of or on account of principal and interest due and for all other purposes and neither the City nor the Note Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary.
This Note is transferable by the registered owner in person or by the registered owner's agent duly authorized in writing, at the office of the Note Registrar, but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges provided in the Resolution and upon surrender and cancellation of this Note. The City shall pay out of the proceeds of the Notes all costs incurred in connection with the issuance, payment and initial registration of the Notes and the cost of a reasonable supply of note blanks. Neither the City nor the Note Registrar shall be required to transfer or exchange any Notes during a period beginning on the day following the Record Date preceding any Interest Payment Date and ending on the Interest Payment Date or to transfer or exchange any Notes called for redemption.
IT IS DECLARED AND CERTIFIED that all acts, conditions, and things required to be done and to exist precedent to and in the issuance of this Note have been properly done and performed and do exist in due and regular form and manner as required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Kansas, and that the total indebtedness of the City, including this series of Notes, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation.
This Note shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication and Registration shall have been lawfully executed by the Note Registrar.
131 RESOLUTION NO. ____ PAGE 21 4848-1425-4124.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Note to be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of its Mayor and attested by the manual or facsimile signature of its City Clerk, and its corporate seal to be affixed to or imprinted on, and this Note to be dated the Dated Date shown herein.
CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS
By: Mayor (SEAL)
ATTEST:
By: City Clerk
This Note shall not be negotiable unless and until countersigned below by the City Clerk following registration by the Treasurer of the State of Kansas.
By: City Clerk
(SEAL)
132 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 22 4848-1425-4124.1
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
STATE OF KANSAS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
I, the City Clerk of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, certify that the within Note has been registered in my office according to law as of January 11, 2016.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
By: City Clerk
(SEAL)
133 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 23 4848-1425-4124.1
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION AND REGISTRATION
This Note is one of a series of General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2016A, of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, described in the within-mentioned Resolution.
Registration Date:
Office of the State Treasurer Topeka, Kansas as Note Registrar and Paying Agent
By:
Registration Number ______
134 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 24 4848-1425-4124.1
CERTIFICATE OF STATE TREASURER
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER, STATE OF KANSAS
I, , Treasurer of the State of Kansas, do certify that a transcript of the proceedings leading up to the issuance of this Note has been filed in my office, and that this Note was registered in my office according to law on ______.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(SEAL) Treasurer of the State of Kansas
135 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 25 4848-1425-4124.1
NOTE ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
Print or Type Name, Address and Social Security Number or other Taxpayer Identification Number of Transferee
the within Note to which this assignment is affixed in the outstanding principal amount of $______standing in the name of the undersigned on the books of the Note Registrar. The undersigned do(es) irrevocably constitute and appoint ______as agent to transfer said Note on the books of said Note Registrar with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name of the Registered Owner as it appears upon the face of the within Temporary Note in every particular.
Signature Guaranteed By:
(Name of Eligible Guarantor Institution)
By: Title:
136 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 26 4848-1425-4124.1
EXHIBIT B
ADDITIONAL TERMS OF THE NOTES
Definitions. The following terms defined in the Resolution shall have the meanings ascribed below:
“Original Purchaser” means ______, ______, the original purchaser of the Notes.
“Purchase Price” for the Notes shall be the par value of the Notes[, plus a premium of $______].
[“Term Notes” shall mean the Notes maturing in the year 20 .
“_____ Term Notes” shall mean the Notes maturing in the year 20__.]
Maturity Schedule. All of the Notes shall be become due on the Principal Payment Dates and shall bear interest as the rates per annum as follows:
SERIAL NOTES
Principal Principal Interest Principal Payment Principal Interest Payment Date Amount Rate Date Amount Rate
December 1, 2016 December 1, 2018 December 1, 2017 December 1, 2019
[TERM NOTES
Principal Payment Principal Interest Principal Principal Interest Date Amount Rate Payment Date Amount Rate
December 1, 20__ $ % December 1, 20__ $ %
Mandatory Redemption. Each of the _____ Term Notes shall also be subject to mandatory redemption and payment on December 1, 20 , or on any December 1 thereafter, pursuant to the redemption schedule set out below, at the principal amount, plus accrued interest to date fixed for redemption and payment, without premium. The City agrees to redeem the following principal amounts of the ______Term Notes in each of the following years:
Principal Amount Year
]
Premium to be deposited in the Principal and Interest Account: $______. 137 RESOLUTION NO. _____ PAGE 27 4848-1425-4124.1 138
CITY OF SHAWNEE
PACKET MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Gonzales, City Manager
FROM: Paul Lindstrom, P.E., Senior Project Engineer
DATE: January 4, 2016
SUBJECT: Approve Final Plans for the 2016 Bridge Repair Program
BACKGROUND The 2016 Bridge Repair Program is included in the CIP for annual bridge maintenance and is funded as part of the Street Maintenance Program budget. This year that work involves repairing bridge deck structure #23, Lackman Road Bridge over Shawnee Mission Parkway, and repairing and resurfacing bridge deck structure #8, Wilder Road Bridge over Mill Creek. The repair and maintenance of the City’s bridge structures is necessary, not only for safety and to extend the life of the structures, but also to maintain eligibility for future federal funding when these structures will need major repair or replacement.
DISCUSSION Final plans have been completed by Lochner, Kansas City, Missouri. A bid opening is anticipated on January 29, 2016, with construction scheduled to begin when weather permits. This work will require approximately 6 weeks of various lane closures for the Lackman Road repairs and an 8 week detour for the Wilder Bridge repair. The detour will be routed along I-435, to Johnson Drive, to Woodland, to 47th Street. Plans are available in the Council Conference room for review.
Staff delayed bidding these repairs until 2016 funds were available and could be combined with the 2015R funds. Combining both bridge repairs into one contract should reduce the overall cost of the repairs.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION The total project budget established for this work is $300,000. This amount includes $150,000 from the 2015R budget and $150,000 from the 2016 budget. In 2015 the Governing Body approved an additional $150,000 for bridge repairs because the bridge repair funds for 2015 were allocated to an emergency bridge repair along 75th Street, west of K-7. The entire project is funded in the Special Highway Fund as part of the City’s Street Maintenance Program.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Governing Body approve the final plans and direct staff to proceed with bidding this project.
139 140 141 142