Docstoc

CITY OF SHAWNEE

Document Sample
CITY OF SHAWNEE Powered By Docstoc
					                             CITY OF SHAWNEE
               FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
                                 MINUTES
                              DECEMBER 4, 2007
                                  7:00 P.M.

Chairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

 Committee Members Present                Staff Present
 Councilmember Scott                      City Manager Gonzales
 Councilmember Goode                      Assistant City Manager Charlesworth
 Councilmember Kuhn                       Deputy City Clerk Powell
 Councilmember Distler                    Assistant to the City Manager Singer
                                          City Attorney Rainey
 Other Councilmembers Present             Assistant City Attorney Rainey
 Councilmember Sandifer                   Public Works Director Freyermuth
                                          Planning Director Chaffee
                                          City Engineer Wesselschmidt
                                          Police Chief Morgan
                                          Fire Chief Hudson
                                          Parks and Recreation Director Holman
                                          Information Technologies Director Doherty
                                          Police Sergeant Larson
                                          Community Services Officer Campbell

Members of the public who spoke: (Item 1) WALT WAY, Director of Johnson County
Emergency Communications, KEVIN WHITTAKER, Johnson County Communications
Systems Manager.

1.     JUSTICE CENTER COMMUNICATIONS TOWER.

       Chairperson Scott stated that the County has approached the City about a joint
       communications tower at the Justice Center site. Staffs from both agencies have met
       several times to discuss this potential project. The tower would actually have to go to the
       Planning Commission first for a Special Use Permit; however, staff wanted to provide
       information on this joint project to the Council first to ensure their support for the inter-
       local arrangement. Staff members from Johnson County will be at the meeting to help
       answer any questions committee members may have. A memo from staff, a draft
       agreement and the tower layout are included in the packet.

       Police Chief Morgan introduced Walt Way, Director of Johnson County Emergency
       Communications and Kevin Whittaker, Communications Systems Manager. He
       recognized Shawnee Police Sergeant Sam Larson, who is in charge of the City’s police
       communications and technology unit.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                      PAGE 2


      Police Chief Morgan stated most everyone knows by now that Shawnee is building a new
      Justice Center out at Johnson Drive and Renner Road. He stated they will need a new
      communications tower out in that area to handle the Police Department communications.
      As part of that process, the Police Department already budgeted $40,000 in the Justice
      Center project to obtain a tower with all the supporting structures. The communications
      experts they are using were able to get a free 100 foot tower for this location. He stated
      they basically had to work on a concrete pad to put it on and make the electrical
      connections.

      Police Chief Morgan stated along the same time, Johnson County decided to start doing a
      county-wide radio project to upgrade their communications ability. He stated that will be
      something that the Council will hear more about from the Police Department, Fire
      Department, and some other City agencies later on in the upcoming budget process
      because Shawnee has a chance to join in with that process.

      Police Chief Morgan stated one of the first steps for this project, was to determine good
      places to locate towers. Motorola did a study and determined one of the best places
      would be at the Justice Center’s site out at Johnson Drive and Renner Road. He stated
      they approached the City and asked if they would be interested in jointly constructing this
      tower. They worked together and came up with an agreement that he will highlight this
      evening. He stated the people here from the County can certainly answer any questions
      and Sergeant Larson has a short PowerPoint presentation to show the Committee a
      resemblance of how the tower will look.

      Police Chief Morgan stated the best thing about the tower is that basically Johnson
      County is going to construct it and maintain it at their cost. He stated the City of
      Shawnee will still have some costs involved to buy antennas and do their connections,
      but they should save some of that $40,000, but are not sure how much at this point.

      Police Chief Morgan stated the total cost to the County is estimated to be around $1.3
      million to construct this tower, along with the supporting facilities. He stated they will
      build a 300 foot tower, which is about 300 times the size of the tower that the City
      originally investigated. One of the best things about that is that it will help with
      communication dead spots in western Shawnee. He stated the Police Department has a
      real problem along Midland Drive from about I-435 back west, as it is out in the valley
      and at times they lose radio communications. He stated the MVT’s, cars, and mobile
      battle terminals all have problems with signal strength down through there, so it is
      somewhat of an officer safety issue, as well as a service issue.

      Police Chief Morgan stated part of the agreement also calls for any cell phone companies
      to be able to locate an antenna on this tower that Shawnee will share in the revenue with
      Johnson County and that is another nice thing about this tower.

      Councilmember Goode asked if they are talking about a 300 foot tower, versus a 100 foot
      tower.
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                         PAGE 3


      Police Chief Morgan answered that is correct.

      Councilmember Goode stated that is a good idea, because they are sitting on the highest
      spot in Johnson County out there. He stated they will be above the lowest spot out west
      down by the river – way above it with 300 feet.

      Police Chief Morgan stated it is certainly a prime location to locate this tower. He stated
      they will also be able to add other microwave antennas and other communications-type
      antennas in the future to help improve internal City communications. He stated if
      Shawnee does choose to become part of this Johnson County area-wide radio system,
      they will already have a tower there and it will not be too much of a problem to switch
      over. He stated the maintenance of the tower is the responsibility of the County and
      Shawnee will, of course, have full access to the tower to do any maintenance.

      Police Chief Morgan stated once again, they do not know how much of the original
      $40,000 was in part of the Justice Center project to save some money, but certainly they
      will be able to save some by this.

      Councilmember Goode asked if this tower is 300 feet, how far they can get out south;
      probably pretty far with a 300 foot tower.

      Police Sergeant Larson stated there are microwave connections that will be on the tower
      that will shoot to Lenexa and there is the tower at 119th and Ridgeview, so there will be
      connections on this tower to connect 9 different tower sites in Johnson County and
      actually outside of the County so they can talk to one another. If one site goes down, the
      rest of them can pick up a load so they do not lose radio coverage.

      Councilmember Goode stated the highest spot will be the upper part of Mill Creek which
      actually begins in Olathe.

      Police Sergeant Larson stated this is a 300 foot tower, but there is a 450 foot tower that
      the County currently maintains at 119th and Ridgeview that covers that south area.

      Police Sergeant Larson introduced himself. He presented a layout of the Justice Center
      and noted Johnson Drive and Renner Road. He noted the location for the tower. The
      circle indicates the 200 foot fall zone required by City ordinance, so if it were to fall over,
      that is the necessary distance this tower has to be away from a building.

      Police Sergeant Larson noted the 200 foot radius right by the edge of the building which
      still allows for future expansion of the Justice Center.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked about the 200 foot radius and how much impact that has
      on the development of the Justice Center property, because they talked about additional
      buildings to be added down the road.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 4


      Police Sergeant Larson stated the staff spent a lot of times with the Motorola engineers
      talking about where to place this tower. It does cross where the future police/fire training
      center was planned to be located, but the thought was that that particular building could
      be moved a ways out to fall outside the 200 foot radius. He stated they specifically had
      that location in mind, so they could add on to the facility.

      Police Sergeant Larson stated the compound includes a fence, some bushes to block the
      view, a generator, and a concrete pad to maintain that facility. He presented a profile
      shot of how the tower will look – a 300 foot self-supporting tower with no guy wires.

      Police Sergeant Larson presented a picture of the 450 foot tower at I-35 and Shawnee
      Mission Parkway right by Baron BMW. That particular tower is painted red and white
      and this new tower will be gray and not painted at all. They will not have a large mast on
      the top. He stated the new tower will be about two-thirds the size of that tower. They
      want it gray to minimize the visual impact of the tower in that area.

      Councilmember Goode asked about the base.

      Police Sergeant Larson stated he believes the 300 foot tower has a 30 foot base.

      Councilmember Goode asked if the 450 foot tower has a larger base.

      Police Sergeant Larson replied he was there earlier and to him it looks bigger, but he did
      not get up in the compound to look at it.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked if it is a substantial income that will be coming in off the
      cell towers as well.

      Police Chief Morgan replied that just depends on the agreement signed with the cell
      phone company. He stated it just makes sense to have one tower to take care of
      Shawnee’s needs, as well as the County’s. He stated if a cell phone company wants to do
      the same, instead of cluttering the area up with more towers, they will just have the one.

      Councilmember Distler stated in the user agreement, it reads if Johnson County were to
      choose to abandon the tower in the future, that Shawnee would take over the cost. She
      asked if there is a significant cost difference in the maintenance between a 100 foot tower
      and a 300 foot tower.

      Councilmember Goode stated he does not think they will abandon it.

      Councilmember Distler stated she does note foresee that they would, but since it is there
      in the user agreement, she wondered if it was a significant cost.

      WALT WAY, Johnson County Emergency Communications, replied if it is not painted
      they will not have those issues. He stated frankly, they are galvanized, rust resistance,
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 5


      and mainly involves just making sure the light bulbs are replaced annually and the feed
      lines are kept in good condition, so the maintenance is minimal.

      Police Chief Morgan stated the Police Department spent a lot of time working internally
      with Johnson County on this. He stated that he and the staff feel it certainly meets the
      City’s needs and has a potential to even help the City down the road, because it is a larger
      tower and will improve their communications to get rid of the dead spots. There is even
      the potential for the City to earn some money off of it down the road and the cost is
      minimal. He thinks it is a great idea and a big savings for the City.

      Councilmember Goode asked City Manager Gonzales what she needs from the
      Committee this evening.

      City Manager Gonzales explained they can do two different the things. She noted this
      would be the tallest tower in Shawnee, as the tallest to date has been 180 feet. She stated
      that is more of a Planning Commission issue and they will talk more about that and bring
      it forward to the Council in the future. She does not see that as a problem, because the
      towers are getting taller and taller and they can only have so many towers out there, but
      this is logically a very good place for it to be located.

      City Manager Gonzales mentioned that Assistant City Attorney Rainey spent lots of time
      on this agreement and the staff is very comfortable with it. She stated they had a number
      of people review it. She stated the County’s Legal Department reviewed it as well, feel it
      protects them all, and is a very good relationship for this project.

      City Manager Gonzales stated with that said, the Planning Commission will hear the SUP
      and it will come before the Council at their January 14, 2008 Council meeting. She
      stated this committee could recommend that the Council approve the agreement, pending
      approval of the SUP, or just not take any action. She stated the staff really wants to make
      sure there are support and no concerns on behalf of the Council before they take it all the
      way through the process.

      City Manager Gonzales recommended having this committee recommend this to the
      Council for approval.

      Councilmember Goode stated he thinks to show some strength, they should do it here
      tonight.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she is not sure she is disinclined particularly to agree, but
      just with the process of things they have talked about in the past with the Planning
      Commission, City Council, and the appropriate rules of each, she is hesitant to
      recommend something that falls so obviously under the Planning Commission’s normal
      first guide.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                      PAGE 6


      City Manager Gonzales stated the recommendation this evening would have nothing to
      do with the SUP and planning and clearly would be to recommend the inter-local
      agreement, but certainly understands exactly what Councilmember Kuhn is saying.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she does not have any issue with that per se, but does have
      an issue with having had a number of things where they have said ‘this is clearly the
      Planning Commission’s thing’ and they are sending it back to them because they think
      that the Planning Commission should be the ones to look at it and stay ahead of the game;
      she thinks it should be approved without the Planning Commission, but that is not the
      recommendation here tonight, as it is pursuant to approval of the Planning Commission’s
      SUP and they see it as a positive thing.

      City Manager Gonzales stated that is exactly right.

      Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to recommend the
      Council approve the interlocal agreement between Johnson County and the City of
      Shawnee for the construction and operation of a 300-foot communications tower to be
      located at the site of the new Justice Center at Johnson Drive and Renner Road, provided
      the Special Use Permit is also approved by the Planning Commission. The motion
      carried 4-0.

2.    CONSIDER REVISIONS TO TITLE 6 OF THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL CODE
      PERTAINING TO ANIMALS.

      Chairperson Scott stated that in 2004, the City Clerk’s Department contracted for a legal
      analysis of the Shawnee Municipal Code, along with a review for statutory conformity
      and conflicts between titles and codes. The City Clerk's Department and the City
      Attorney's Office have completed a review of Title 6, Animals. Based on staff review and
      feedback from council members over the past few years, staff is proposing updates to
      Title 6.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated he will present this evening, along with Community
      Services Officer Sue Campbell from the Police Department.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the changes being proposed, for the most part, is just
      cleaning up Title 6 of the code. He stated they modified some definitions to comply not
      only with current procedures, but also with some state statutes so they are following those
      as well. He stated the PowerPoint presentation is pretty vague and the memo in the
      packet goes into more detail on what each change includes.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated in going down the list, the staff modified ‘neighbor’ to
      include schools so if someone wants to have three dogs, three cats, or whatever, the
      school could have a say in that. They also modified the definition of ‘dangerous animal’
      to follow the City’s expanded provisions of dangerous animals. A definition for ‘dog’
      and ‘cat’ was added. They added a definition of ‘owned, kept, and harbored’. They also
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                        PAGE 7


      added ‘Potentially Dangerous Animals’ which they will get to later on in the presentation,
      but have a new section that will cover potentially dangerous animals.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated Chapter 6.06 covers Dogs and Cats. The staff decided
      to take out all the fees in Title 6 and will put those in a policy statement.

      Councilmember Distler asked if they took into consideration adding something for a
      temporary stay, like the situation they had in the past where a kid came home from
      college with a pet – so if it is less than 90 days or something, it does not count.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated that is a good question and the staff did expand the
      provisions for a temporary non-resident owner permit. He stated they sort of expanded
      and restricted it somewhat, so that they can just have a little better guideline on the intent
      of those permits.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the staff took out all the fees in Title 6 which are
      included in a policy statement that is included in the packet. He stated they combined
      Sections 6.06.020 and 6.06.030 because when they get to Chapter 6.10, it will show that
      they combined the provisions for a special pet permit and special livestock permit into
      just one permit. He stated this section applied to that, so they decided to consolidate.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated Chapter 6.08 covers Animals Generally. The staff
      revised the section pertaining to cruelty to animals to reflect State statute and moved the
      provision for Commercial Animal Establishments to this chapter which was originally in
      Chapter 6.10, which probably was not a good fit, so now it makes a little more sense in
      this chapter.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated Chapter 6.10 is the Special Animal Permits. He stated
      they have combined the livestock permit and the special pet permit into a new permit
      now called the Special Animal Permit. He stated their reasoning was that the staff
      wanted to make it easier for the City’s residents to know that they do not need multiple
      permits, but just the one. The regulations for either were similar, so it just made sense to
      combine the two.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked if someone was to bring a pony to a house for a birthday
      party for the kids to ride, how that would work. He stated he has personally done that in
      the past and wondered how it would work today, as long as a person had proper fencing
      to lock it up.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated he would assume it would be okay, but the staff really
      did not look into that specifically. He knows the City of Overland Park and Lenexa does
      not have anything in their codes regarding a temporary permit. Shawnee has a permit for
      the temporary display of wild and exotic animals. He stated that he is not quite sure if a
      petting zoo would fall under that, especially if it was just for one day.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked if a pony would be an acceptable ordeal.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 8




      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated anyone who would have an operation like that would
      need a business license, so they would get their license from the City to operate a
      business.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated he owned a pony and would bring it into the City for a
      day and a half and then take it back. He wondered if it would be legal today and it does
      not have anything to do with having a business, but just about having a pet.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated off the top of his head, he would have to say that it
      probably would require a special animal permit to keep it at their residential house, but if
      they have it on property that is zoned for agricultural purposes, they would not need a
      permit.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked about bringing a pony to someone’s house for one day.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the City does not have a provision for a pony for a day.
      He stated it is a good question, but one that they would probably address on a complaint
      basis.

      City Manager Gonzales stated if someone complained a lot, someone from the City might
      come out and tell the owner they have an unlicensed animal.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated he will say that they did have a resident who wanted to
      keep a pony in her backyard for a month until a stable or other facility was constructed
      and the City told her that she would have to get the Livestock Permit. At that point, she
      said she did not want to go through all that and made other arrangements.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated in Section 6.10 she does not remember reading it like this in
      the past when looking over the policy. She stated under Section A (Page 49 of the
      packet) it reads, more than two dogs or more than two cats over the age of six months to
      be kept at the same address would, require a special animal permit. She stated she
      always thought it was 2 and 2, where someone could have two dogs and two cats without
      having to come in and ask for something, but if they added a third dog or another kind of
      animal, they had to come in for a special permit. She stated the way she reads that is that
      anyone who has two dogs and a cat has to get a special use permit or two cats and a dog
      and she does not think that is a good idea.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked if there is a way to read that so instead of just two dogs
      and/or cats it could read something about a domesticated animal, because they did have
      the pot bellied pig issue that came up in the past and that could have been alleviated in
      some way if it was just the third animal and stopped the conversation of whatever type of
      animal.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated to answer the second question regarding the pig, that
      would still be considered a large animal and under the current provisions as they are
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 9


      today that would require a livestock permit. He stated under the new provision, it would
      just be the one special animal permit.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated he believes the intent for the number of dogs and cats is
      that someone could have two dogs and two cats, but not three dogs or three cats.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated to clarify, that means two and two, not and/or.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the staff will definitely look into rewording that part.
      He stated part of it was to make this as clear as possible, because in reading the old code,
      it got rather confusing at times.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the second portion are the number of animals that are
      allowed and that remains the same.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell continued with Section 6.10.020 and stated the staff took out
      the fee and it is in the policy statement included in the packet. They took out the
      minimum lot size restrictions because they felt, along with the community services
      officers, when people come to the City with, for example, four Shitzu dogs, and their
      property was not technically large enough, however those dogs are so small and do not
      need much room, that was something that never really played a role in the community
      services officer either approving or denying a permit. He stated the few times it did, was
      because the animals were small and probably they really thought that was more of a
      technicality, having four dogs on a lot that might be 100 square feet less than what the
      code said, is really not a good reason to deny a pet permit.

      Chairperson Scott asked what if someone had four German Shepherds.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated that is a good point, but the staff tried to equalize it and
      there really was no good way to say if the dogs are ‘this big’ and the lot is ‘this big’ and
      really felt that might complicate things more. He stated for the most part looking at the
      current City pet permits, most of the dogs are not large dogs and most of the lots
      obviously are large enough to accommodate.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated if someone did have a very small lot, the community
      services officer could disapprove the inspection.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated they would possibly fail them on the
      inspection if the lot was too small and they did not meet the City requirements.

      Chairperson Scott stated that is almost a common sense call on the part of the CSO.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated they also removed the petition requirements and rather
      than having an applicant carry a petition to all their neighbors, the City will just send a
      letter to the neighbors. It streamlines the process and they have a set time limit on the
      cut-off date for responses; it makes the whole process easier. They did include the $25.00
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 10


      fee for letters that is in the current code and added it to the permit fee, so now the permit
      would be $50.00 rather than $25.00 which allows the process to be sped up.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated they also revised the point system. There are points
      assigned to the permits and the staff tried to narrow that down to include only valid
      points, which would be a valid complaint that has been documented by a community
      services officer (CSO) or a police officer, or a valid animal violation that would be
      documented.

      Chairperson Scott asked Deputy City Clerk Powell if he is talking about a paper trail.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell answered yes, a paper trail and they will not count points if
      someone says the applicant cannot afford the animals or the homes association does not
      allow three dogs, for example – things that are subjective in nature that they can not
      prove. He stated they tried to take out some of the subjectivity and make it as black and
      white as possible.

      Councilmember Goode asked if it would be up to the community services officers.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the CSOs would do their inspection, the City Clerk’s
      Department would send the application and all the materials to the Police Department and
      any complaints that would come in, in response to the letters that went out would be
      logged into the Citizens Service Request (CSR) database. The community services
      officers would actually go out and investigate. If they were valid complaints and the
      CSO could actually say the complaint was valid, it would be marked as a point. He
      stated the resident can also go online now instead of submitting a response to a letter. He
      stated any violations that would have been issued in the past would also be counted as a
      point.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked when they send out the letters asking for any objections and
      the City gets them back saying everything is great, but sometimes they get the letters
      back who object and they can either list a reason or not, then what in the point system
      happens to one who says, ‘No, I don’t want them to have it’, but does not list a reason or
      a specific complaint.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied the staff would give all that information to the CSOs
      who would contact those residents personally and speak with them. He stated they have
      found many times in the past when people have said they do not want someone to have
      ‘this many pets’, once they are talked to and get to the root of the problem, it really has
      nothing to do with the pets and has been somewhat of a mediation technique that has
      worked well in Overland Park and Lenexa. He stated he has personally talked to
      neighbors on the phone that was adamantly against the pets and once he got to the root of
      the problem they were not so opposed.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated if someone wants to have a point assigned, they need to
      have a valid complaint, i.e. the dog barks, it is a public nuisance, it runs at large.
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 11




      Councilmember Kuhn asked if they do not have to have had previously during the year
      filed a complaint for the City to take into consideration.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell answered no.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked about the situation where someone made enough points
      where it had to come before the Council because they have received enough complaints
      during the year, but those complaints were all from the same person. She asked if each
      call gets a point, whether or not they are from the same person.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied the staff addressed that in the administrative code,
      attached in the packet, and that code will set forth the procedures that the staff will follow
      when processing the applications. It defines which department is responsible for what
      items and how points are calculated, so basically if someone does an online CSR stating
      that a dog is barking and calls the City saying the dog is barking again and then sends in
      the letter saying the dog is barking the staff will count that as 1 point. He stated they
      have tried to consolidate and not get a person twice for the same complaint. He stated if
      one person calls and one neighbor calls in and everyone else up and down the street call
      too, they will count those as separate complaints, because they will be entered into the
      database separately and all be investigated on a case-by-case basis.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked what if she is just not too fond of her neighbor and wants to
      make their life miserable, so she calls on Tuesday and says the dogs are barking and calls
      in again on Thursday and says the dogs are out and then calls again on Friday and says
      the dogs are not being taken care of and do not have any water, and so on. She stated that
      has happened when the City has gotten some requests for denial in and it seems pretty
      obvious that it is not so much the dog, but the people just not liking each other.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated that is a good point and thinks the staff has tried to cover
      that as much as possible by saying that a point is a valid complaint. He stated if someone
      says the dogs are not being watered and the CSOs go out and find the dogs in ship shape,
      they can not count it as a point because the complaint is not valid.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated the Council still has the opportunity, no matter how many
      points are assessed, if the complaint is valid they can override the decision and even if it
      says they have 27 points and are somewhat valid from one person, it can balance itself
      out if they do not think it is a real problem.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated that is correct – in the new provisions.

      City Manager Gonzales stated then they can always appeal it.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell continued with 6.10.030 and 6.10.040 - provisions for denying
      a permit and revoking a permit. He stated the staff changed it to read that the City Clerk
      or his or her designee can deny or evoke a special animal permit. It gives the various
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                      PAGE 12


      reasons and upon that decision the applicant can appeal. He stated it just keeps the
      process streamlined, so if the staff needs to revoke a permit or someone has the three
      points or more, they can deny it and the homeowner would have the option to appeal. He
      stated it is pretty much the same as they are doing now. He stated in the code today, it
      does not say that the City Clerk can deny a permit, but just says that the City Clerk can
      not administratively approve it – depending on how it is read.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated Section 6.10.050 and 6.10.060 are two new sections that
      cover appeals and hearings. He stated there are two options to consider. He stated
      Option A under both new sections would allow the City Council to conduct a hearing and
      hear an appeal of a decision by the City Clerk to deny or revoke a special animal permit.
      He stated Option B would allow the municipal judge to take care of all that.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the staff talked with Overland Park who uses this
      process and informed the staff that it has been very successful. Lenexa is actually
      approaching their City Council about doing the same thing. He stated they both felt that
      a City Council meeting was really not a good forum for homeowners to come in and have
      all their neighbors dish it out in public. He stated the staff talked with the municipal
      judge and court manager who both said it would not be a big increase in their workload
      and do not get that many that would need to be appealed. He hopes he does not eat those
      words later, but this really streamlines the process.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked if this would be on an appeal or new ones as well.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied this would be if someone came in for a new permit and
      the City Clerk denied it, or if someone had an existing permit and the City Clerk revoked
      it. He stated typically they would be revoked if they were a public nuisance or if there
      was some danger to the health and welfare of the public.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated one of the issues is that when these are brought before
      the City Council, they have to wait the two weeks to get it on the agenda and there is
      another, usually, 30 days for that applicant to comply with the ordinance if the Council
      upholds the decision to not administratively approve the permit, so this would allow them
      to get these cases settled pretty quickly. He stated they would have to apply for the
      appeal with the municipal court, it would be put on the docket, and the judge would hear
      it.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked about any other permitting, or if this is just on dogs.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied it is just on the special animal permit, so it would be to
      keep three dogs, three cats, a horse, goat, chicken, or pig – just the special animal permit
      and not for any of the other permits in Title 6.

      Councilmember Sandifer gave an example: If Old Shawnee Days needed an animal
      permit; they would have to go in front of the judge to get it.
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                        PAGE 13


      City Manager Gonzales replied only if Assistant City Manager Charlesworth denied it.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated they added a provision that the City Clerk could go
      ahead and approve a permit if there was evidence that a reasonable person could come to
      a reasonable conclusion that the issuance of the permit is not going to be a threat to the
      public or is a public nuisance, so they have those provisions to approve those types of
      permits.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked about the other way. She stated obviously if a person comes
      in and applies for their dog permit and Assistant City Manager Charlesworth looks at it
      and denies it, then it goes before the judge to appeal. She stated that makes a lot of sense
      on that side of it, but what about the other way and if a person comes in to apply for the
      third dog permit and Assistant City Manager Charlesworth looks at it and says it looks
      good and she will approve it – everything is great. She asked what if she is the lady who
      lives behind them and knows that those dogs are a nuisance in the world and she should
      have complained, or others should have complained, but it was not enough and she wants
      to appeal Assistant City Manager Charlesworth’s decision, would she then have any
      opportunity to go before the municipal court to ask them to look at it again.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell answered no, because the permit is not issued, in this case, to
      Councilmember Kuhn, using her example. He stated one thing they will try to encourage
      with this, is if there is a valid complaint, that person needs to contact the City so they can
      look into it. He stated the number one priority here is safety. He stated if someone feels
      unsafe because of a third dog, or whatever the case may be, the staff wants the people to
      contact either the City Clerk’s Department or the Police Department so it can be looked
      into. He stated if it turns out that it is not a valid complaint, then it will not go anywhere.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated if someone has a permit, it can be revoked if it turns out
      to be true that the dogs are running at large, biting people, or barking constantly. He
      stated they always have that provision to revoke any permit issued.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she is less worried about someone who has had the dogs and
      is having it reissued, but there is always the probability if someone gets a third dog,
      neighbors do not think it is going to be a problem and have no idea, and three months
      later there turns out to be a significant problem. She would like to have some recourse
      that does not require the citizens to wait another nine months to try to get that addressed.
      She knows the CSOs will go out and try to take care of it, but it would be a good thing for
      people to have a timely answer to something that might be a real nuisance.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated that is a good point, because there have been times in
      the past where they found that people will not sign those petitions and the people will get
      their permit and the calls start coming in. He stated if there is a legitimate problem, the
      permit can always be revoked.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated she will cover Chapter 6.14 – Dangerous
      and Exotic Animals. She stated basically in looking at the City’s existing dangerous
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                        PAGE 14


      animal ordinance, it just was not strict enough for them to be able to enforce. She stated
      there would be situations where, especially dogs, would be threatening, but under the
      City’s current ordinance there was really nothing they could do about it except give them
      a warning. She stated they wanted to add another layer in between the run of the mill dog
      and the dangerous dog, which is called a potentially dangerous dog. If someone has a
      dog that is threatening to the public, restrictions can actually be put on that animal and
      gives the owners an opportunity to do some training or get rid of the dog and actually get
      it back off of the potentially dangerous list, so it is just a regular dog again, or if they do
      not follow through or the dog is basically a dangerous dog, they then have stricter
      requirements which would fall under ‘dangerous dog’.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated in her experience, probably 99% of the
      dogs at this point that one might think would be dangerous, would really fall under the
      potentially dangerous category, because they are really not horribly nasty dogs, just
      undisciplined, and the owners just do not know how to handle them. She stated if
      training is involved, they feel that will cure a lot of the problems and is somewhat of the
      premise of why they wanted to add this section.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated they put stricter requirements under
      Section 6.14.050 – Dangerous Animals – for confinement of the dogs and also made
      them more specific. Right now it is pretty open to interpretation, so they wanted to make
      it a lot stricter so it is very clear to the owner what they need to do and makes it easy to
      enforce and tell them if they are doing things properly or not. She stated they also
      wanted to require microchipping and neutering of dangerous dogs.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated if they look at some of the statistics from
      the Center of Disease Control, the dogs who do the most biting and damage are the ones
      who are not spayed or neutered and are mostly the un-neutered males. They feel
      neutering and spaying dogs that are considered dangerous will help the situation.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked what dog types the City has restrictions against at this
      time.

      Community Services Officer Campbell replied the only breed the City restricts is a Pit
      Bull-type dog. She stated they consider a Pit Bull-type being a Pit Bull Terrier, a
      Staffordshire terrier, or a mix of the two, together or with other dogs.

      City Manager Gonzales stated that is the only breed, but the ‘potentially dangerous’
      would be defined by behaviors that the CSO would assess, regardless of breed.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated he sees this is basically about dogs at this point, but the
      City has other exclusions on dangerous animals.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated that is correct and they have not modified
      any of the other dangerous animal provisions. She stated the only thing they are
      modifying is where it talks about dogs. There are a lot of animals that are dangerous by
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                      PAGE 15


      nature, such as an alligator or poisonous snakes and are still prohibited. She stated no
      amount of training will allow the people to keep those kinds of animals.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated they do not allow pythons in the City.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated they allow the little ones, but a 20 foot long
      python would be considered dangerous.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated they also want to require the owner and
      dog to complete specialized training. She stated when they are looking at a dog that has
      bitten someone, because a dangerous animal would be a dog that has already bitten, so
      now they know that not only does the dog need training, but the owner as well because
      they have to learn how to control their dog.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she is not advocating this, as she has had questions asked by
      a number of people, back to the discussion they had as far as breeds the City does not
      allow or have been prohibited in the City of Shawnee, she can definitely understand one
      question she was asked, because a lot of the time it is the breeding and not necessarily the
      nature of the dog, especially when there is a limited amount of it in a mixed breed, but it
      is the owner, the way it has been raised, and really a number of things that causes the
      problems.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked if there is a real necessity for the City maintaining a
      prohibition of a specific type of dog, if they are tightening up the dangerous animals
      provision so much that now it is not only a dog that has bitten someone, but one that has
      acted in an aggressive manner – period. She stated in doing that, would they not then be
      taking care of – as she has seen mixes of animals that were thought to be dangerous – a
      Rottwieller or Pit Bull and has even seen purebreds that seem to be, in that particular dog,
      significantly less dangerous than a German Shepherd or even some very small dogs that
      are just mean and seriously more of a hazard, because people ordinarily think of a small
      child being mauled by a large dangerous dog, but the reality of what happens so much
      more often is the smaller, significantly more high strung dogs who do not like children
      are often the biters.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated often when you go to a place to purchase a dog they list the
      dogs that are good for people who do not like kids. She stated there are a lot of dogs that
      bite people and cause scarring and stitches. She stated she does not know if she has a
      particular need to remove it, but it has been brought to her attention and she likes the
      concept of a policy that does not necessarily take out a specific breed, but really puts
      them in a position to be more proactive to an animal that could be dangerous or presents
      itself to be uncontrolled.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated she would agree with Councilmember
      Kuhn.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                     PAGE 16


      Councilmember Kuhn stated that might be something worth considering as a Council – if
      they are able to really strengthen that language, because she has had a number of people
      in Shawnee who are very involved ask her about that. She stated when they look at some
      of the other provisions and talk about places where there are shelters and animals being
      put down who have never had any past aggressive behavior, but someone has moved to a
      city or out of a city where there has been a ban and now that dog is being euthanized
      because of what it is, even though there has been no aggressive behavior and if the City
      required a dog that showed any type of aggression to go through those steps, they may
      alleviate any of those potential problems before they happen.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated his family was involved with another family who had a
      Pit Bull pup who grew up with their children. Out of the blue one day it almost killed
      one of their sons. He stated the dog was three years old and had been with these children
      every day, so he has to understand the other side of it a bit. He stated there are probably
      two sides to this debate. He stated it may depend on the genes of the dogs on down or if
      the parents were bred for fighting, but this one dog almost killed this one boy who had
      done nothing but love this dog its entire life, along with the entire family.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated as a dangerous dog, if it was to bite someone, they allow
      it to back to the family because it was questionable, but what if it bites someone a second
      time.

      Community Services Officer Campbell replied they are proposing if a dog bites and it is a
      minor injury, they would deem it as ‘potentially dangerous’ and the owners would have
      to follow all the restrictions for a potentially dangerous dog. There are stricter
      requirements for confinement and would require training.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked what if it bites a second time.

      Community Services Officer Campbell replied then it would automatically become a
      dangerous animal and would have to be neutered and have a lot stricter requirements or
      confinement, along with more training and be microchipped.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked about a third incident.

      Community Services Officer Campbell replied the City does not have anything written
      that says the owner would ever be told they have to destroy the animal.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated if a dog bites once not bad, the second time it might get
      worse, and the third time it might kill someone.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated in every instance with a bite, there is the
      potential for a citation to be written. She stated with most minor bites, no citations are
      issued because usually the person receiving the bite does not want anything done. She
      stated when it gets to a point where they have a dangerous dog that has already been
      deemed dangerous and it has now bitten someone, the City would request that the owners
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                     PAGE 17


      come to court when they write the citation. The judge can make the decision as to what
      will happen to that dog.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated there is a provision where someone could say something
      and the judge could make the determination if the dog would be allowed to stay in the
      City, if anything, as it could go out to a farm or some other place.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated the CSOs talk to the owners at length and
      makes recommendations, but can not tell the owners to get rid of the dog, but have
      certainly recommended to some owners to get rid of their dogs.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated with the ordinance of what they are trying to do now, it
      would leave everything in the judge’s hands.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated that is correct, if there is a situation where
      someone was not following the requirements of the dangerous dog ordinance.

      Councilmember Goode asked if the owners who are told to get rid of their dangerous
      dogs are complying with that request.

      Community Services Officer Campbell replied they have had one recently that did not.
      She stated that dog is a good example of why the City probably needs to go more strict
      and more specific on their ordinance, because that particular dog should have been
      ranked potentially dangerous and training would have fixed a lot of stuff with that dog, as
      it is a nice dog, but the owners do not know what they are doing, so they allow the dog to
      continually bite and every bite makes the situation worse. She stated the CSOs are really
      tied as to what they can make them do. She stated the owner did have to go in front of
      the judge on the last bite and she was given a stern talking to, had to pay some money,
      but still has the dog.

      Councilmember Goode asked if that particular dog is still as rowdy as ever.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated it is one of those situations where you go to
      the house and the dog is just as nice as can be, but if someone goes riding their bike down
      the road or another dog goes running down the road and the dog happens to get loose, it
      will bite.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked if they should come up with some type of thing if a dog
      bites.

      City Manager Gonzales stated with the definitions for potentially dangerous and
      dangerous, the intent is to make the owner accountable, make them implement some very
      strict procedures to confine the animal to prevent biting from happening at all, and if by
      chance they really are doing all of those things and something does happen or if they do
      not do them, then Community Services Officer Campbell is saying that a ticket would
      probably be written, it would come to court, and the judge could make the call.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                      PAGE 18




      Community Services Officer Campbell stated they do have in the ordinance that the City
      would have the right to take the dog from the owner and impound it. She stated they
      have never done that before, but based on how it is written, they could potentially
      impound the dog until they go to court and is what a lot of cities do no matter how big the
      bite – they impound the dog until they go in front of a judge and then is determined what
      they will do. She stated they do have a way to at least get the dog off the street.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated at that point, the City is liable for the expenses on the
      impoundment.

      Community Services Officer Campbell replied it depends on how the court case comes
      out.

      City Manager Gonzales stated the judge would probably charge back those expenses to
      the owner, at least as part of the penalty.

      Community Services Officer Campbell stated she thinks she only impounded one dog
      and the judge made the owners pay for all of it.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated they have a section under Chapter 6.24 - Violations and
      Penalties - that talks about dangerous animal and Pit Bull violations. One section says
      that in addition, the court shall order the registration of the subject Pit Bull revoked and
      the dog removed from the City. He stated Assistant City Attorney Rainey said they could
      probably modify that just to say ‘dangerous animal’, so the staff can certainly look into
      that.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell continued with section Chapter 6.20 – Community Service
      Officer. He stated it just sort of outlines their duties and responsibilities. They did a
      couple of revisions to clean it up and make it a little more uniform with some of the other
      proposed revisions.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell continued with Policy Statement – Animal License and Permit
      Fees. He stated this is a new policy statement outlining all the fees for dog tags, pet
      permits, and any fee that was in Title 6 is now in this policy statement. He stated the
      special animal permit fee would go up to $50.00 instead of $25.00 basically, just
      combining those two fees that are already in the code.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated there is a new proposed administrative code –
      Guidelines for Special Animal Permits. This outlines the procedures of the staff when
      administering the special animal permits. It just defines the City Clerk’s Department’s
      responsibilities, the Police Department’s responsibilities, how points are totaled, and the
      timeline as to how long each step of that process takes. Under the administrative code,
      the whole process should take no longer than 40 days. He stated that is from the day that
      someone comes in and applies for the permit to the day it is either approved or denied. If
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                         PAGE 19


      it is denied, it would take a little longer after that just to go through the municipal court or
      through the City Council – whichever is decided.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated the person would have 90 days, if they were to move into
      the City and ask for it at that point anyway.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied the person would have 40 days.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated this makes it a straight 40 days.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated that is correct.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked what if a person can not get all the work done during that
      40 day period.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated most of the work is put on the staff, so they have all the
      standardized forms, have talked with the CSOs and Police Department, and feel that is a
      very doable timeframe and gives them enough room to make sure they can get everything
      accomplished.

      City Manager Gonzales stated that is just general, as they are not promising that, but
      gives the City Council an idea of the process and timeframe of the process in which they
      think they can get things done. She stated if the CSO receives 15 NO letters and has to
      contact all 15 people, it may take more time.

      City Manager Gonzales stated there are 53 policy statements and documents that the City
      Council actually adopts. They are statements of policy and guidelines for a variety of
      things and the Council knows many of the issues they have talked about in the past. She
      stated, as Deputy City Clerk Powell said earlier, they are trying to incorporate fees into
      them because they are less cumbersome to change than an ordinance that is in the code
      book.

      City Manager Gonzales stated the administrative code is actually an internal document to
      the organization that she actually signs off on and has more to do with day-to-day
      operations of the staff, and who is doing what kinds of things and is the difference
      between those two documents. She does not know if the Council has ever seen an actual
      administrative code, because they normally would not bring it forward to them, but in this
      case wanted the Council to have an idea of what the procedure would actually look like.

      Councilmember Goode stated they have far too many dogs in this City and people try to
      skip by without buying licenses. He stated he has been hollering about this for 30+ years
      and the City is still far behind. He stated probably 35% of the dogs and cats out there
      have a license and the City has to do something about it because they are missing out on a
      lot of revenue because of it.
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                        PAGE 20


      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated that is a good point. He stated the staff has started
      sending out more renewal notices to the pet owners who currently have a license. He
      stated they have seen a slight increase in the number of renewals they are receiving back.
      He stated the staff has also contacted the local vets. The City has a brochure for pretty
      much every permit or form imaginable and have taken the brochure for pet licensing and
      actually made it into an application. He stated they sent 50 copies to all the vets in town
      and if they know a person lives in Shawnee, they can hand them the form, have them fill
      it out, fax it in, and the staff gets the process started. He stated they are trying to get the
      word out.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the staff has discussed working with some of the
      apartment complexes to make sure that those tenants know if they are going to have cats
      or dogs, they need to get a license. He stated the staff is trying to come up with a creative
      way to get the word out to make it a little easier for the residents to get the licenses.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked about the form they are sending to the vets and if there is
      something on there asking about the other pets in the home.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated he can not remember off the top of his head, but if not,
      that would be a simple change to make as it is a very good idea.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated currently the vets can not collect the fees. She stated people
      ask her why they need to license their pets and why in the world would they pay the City
      to have a dog, because they get nothing from that. She has told people one thing that
      some people do not realize, is that when a dog is licensed, that number is registered with
      the City. She knows of two dogs that she found in her neighborhood and was able to call
      Animal Control about them with the number, who in turn called the owners who were
      able to come get their dog in both instances.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she is wondering if it is something that instead of just letting
      the vets fax in the form and the people would still have to come to City Hall to get their
      tag, maybe they could allow the citizen to give the vet the form and the $5.00 and have
      the vets even promote some of the positives that come with it in a different way. She
      stated if a vet is going to give a rabies vaccine to a cat or a dog, the City could ask them
      to collect the fee as part of doing business in the City of Shawnee for animal healthcare.
      She thinks that would be a very good way to get additional revenue, but really thinks it is
      a big deal when there is such a huge problem in this country with animals having to be
      euthanized because they are either lost or someone has too many pets, so anything they
      can do to help control that is a plus. She stated outside of revenue, there is a cost to the
      City every time they have to care for a dog at a shelter for a number of days. There is a
      cost to the City for having to euthanize a dog that does not get claimed, so anything they
      can to do to work towards putting a stop to that would be a plus.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated he agrees with Councilmember Kuhn and when he
      spoke with the vets, before he actually sent anything to them, he asked them if they
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 21


      thought that might be a feasible idea and they all seemed a little uncomfortable taking the
      money and sending it in to the City, but were not opposed to it by any means.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked who collects the rabies’ money and where do the vets send
      that money when they get a rabies tag. She stated her vet gives her dog a shot and gives
      her a tag that is numbered and says that in the City of Shawnee, County of Johnson, her
      dog has been given her rabies vaccine and is okay. She asked if there is a way to tie in
      with that tag that she has to get to prove her dog received her vaccine, because she can
      not go to doggie daycare or to a kennel without her proving it received the vaccine.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated he has talked with some of the people in IT about that
      exact thing, because the staff is seriously looking into doing online pet licensing and
      thinks that is an easy way for citizens to log in, take care of it, and once the rabies
      information is verified, they will be sent a tag. He stated the City of Lenexa and the City
      of Overland Park are starting to do this sort of thing and the staff is looking into what it
      would take to get that done.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the staff brainstormed about the vets logging in and
      doing that for the people if they are paying with a credit card. He stated they need to
      figure out if that is something the City would have to audit for if they did not receive the
      money if there are people who have their tags and they have not collected the revenue, or
      if the vet did not send in the money what would happen. He thinks it is feasible and a lot
      of the veterinarians he spoke to said they thought it was feasible and said that currently
      there is not any other city doing it that way. He does not think it is something the City
      could put in a policy to make their vets do, but something to definitely look into, as he is
      all for getting as many pets registered as possible.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated there are a lot of good reasons to do it.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated her original question goes back to the subsection dealing
      with the animal cruelty violations. She stated the City has a fine up to $1,000 for
      violating City policies, as in not having a special use permit or having too many dogs, or
      any of those kinds of things. She stated the City has a fee of no less than $200 for
      keeping a Pit Bull or dangerous animal in the community, but the best thing she can find
      for violating the City’s cruelty to animals provisions, the only financial cost to that
      person is purely being liable at court order for veterinarian fees and reasonable costs
      associated with the care or custodian of euthanized or abused animals. She would like to
      see that strengthened significantly and would like there to be, if at all possible, some way
      to address a fine of a higher number.

      Assistant City Manager Charlesworth stated in looking at Section 6.24.010, it talks about
      any violation of this title is a conviction not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment not to
      exceed 30 days. She stated not only can they be fined, but are also responsible for
      reasonable veterinarian fees. She stated under 6.24.010 A. it reads, any violation of the
      title at all, so if a person is convicted of cruelty to animals, the judge could fine them up
      to $1,000 or sentence them to jail for 30 days.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 22




      Councilmember Kuhn stated down under Part B. for public nuisance, it does not touch on
      the cruelty, but specifically was pulled out.

      Assistant City Manager Charlesworth stated in addition to that cruelty to animals the
      judge can also impose the cost for any vet care.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked if someone was convicted of that, the City would be able to
      fine them the same amount, because the way it was pulled out had her deeply concerned
      that they were not going to address it.

      Assistant City Manager Charlesworth stated it will allow the City to do more than just the
      fines.

      Councilmember Distler asked for the time limit for someone to temporarily have a pet in
      their home.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the permits are only valid for 30 days and that is really
      all that the original ordinance said. He stated the staff added a couple restrictions in
      Chapter 6.06.040 – Temporary Non-Resident Owner Permit. So, if someone was going
      to have a dog from a friend who was not a resident for 30 days, they could come in, apply
      for a permit, show their rabies’ certificate, and be issued a 30 day permit. He stated it
      goes on to say that they can not be renewed, so after 30 days that permit is over and done
      with. He stated they could be issued another permit – two times a year. He stated the
      staff did that, because they wanted people who have children who are students and come
      home a couple times a year to be able to bring their dog with them.

      Councilmember Distler asked if the kids who come home for the summer only have 30
      days and if so, what will they do with the dog for the other 60 days until they go back to
      school.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated they would have to apply for a special animal permit.

      Councilmember Distler asked if that is just like if the dog was staying there forever.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell answered yes. He stated they did that because that issue
      recently came up with a special pet permit and the owners were told, as others have been
      told in the past under similar circumstances, if they need a permit for more than 30 days,
      they are just going to have to comply with the special pet permit restrictions and fill out
      the application and do the petition. He stated this gives a second permit and was not in
      the code originally, but will sort of alleviate that, if you will, and if it is more than 30
      days they would have to either license the dog if they fall under the limit of the number of
      dogs or cats a person is allowed and would have to license it and if it more than that, they
      would have to get a special animal permit.
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 23


      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated if someone is denied a special animal permit, they can
      not come in asking for a temporary non-resident owner permit for that third dog or cat –
      whatever the case may be. He asked Councilmember Distler if that makes sense.

      Councilmember Distler answered yes and noted that she did read that part, but was
      looking to see if the time was upped to 60 or 90 days.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated they did not up the time, but allowed a second additional
      permit.

      Councilmember Distler asked Deputy City Clerk Powell if he does not think there would
      be any benefit to that. She stated there are a lot of college students who come home for
      the summer. She asked Deputy City Clerk Powell if he thinks there is a problem for a
      third dog for a temporary stay.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied he thinks it gets back to consistency and how the City
      has handled these situations in the past. He stated he knows these permits are just on a
      yearly basis from January through December, so if a student were to come home for
      Christmas and were here on January 1st, because school usually does not start back up
      until around the middle of January, so that is two weeks roughly, plus a week for spring
      break, plus three months over the summer, plus fall break, plus Christmas break and
      Thanksgiving,; when all that time is added up it comes to more than just 3 months. He
      stated thinking in those cases, if there are children who have pets and need to come home
      on weekends or holidays, they can just apply for the special animal permit and they
      would be covered, so throughout the year the kids can come home with their pet and not
      need a temporary permit.

      Councilmember Distler stated that all makes sense and does believe the pets should be
      licensed, but struggles with neighbors who do not like neighbors and will complain for a
      dog that is there for a couple of months out of the year. She stated she supposes they
      would still have to ask the neighbor’s permission, if the pet is not there 365 days out of
      the year.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she would like to go a different route on that same note.
      She asked if there is a provision included for something that a person does not have to
      have a special use permit for three or less dogs if it is 7 days or less of a stay. She stated
      she is going through her head thinking that her family is going home for the holidays to
      her parent’s house and she takes her dog, her sister takes her two dogs, and her parents
      have two dogs. She stated there are five dogs in that house in St. Louis, nowhere near
      Shawnee by the way, and they have a dog provision, but is thinking that she would hate
      to have a law that they encourage people to break basically because the reality of the
      situation is that people are not going to come in at Christmas and ask for a special dog
      use permit because they are going to visit their parents.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated it would be nice if there was a provision somewhere in it
      that said something about short term visitations of five or less days, or maybe seven or
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 24


      less days are not required for something and asked if there is something that handles that
      sort of thing.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated it should be three days. He stated it has been three days
      for some time and if it were any longer, a person could get a temporary permit at no cost.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked if that would take care of some of the questions about
      college students to some extent, because if she is home for Easter for two days that would
      not count against them, Thanksgiving for two days, spring break, but only home for three
      days and some place else for the other time – none of those days would count against
      them and only if she were there longer than a three day period.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated that is correct.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated Deputy City Clerk Powell talked way earlier about when a
      homeowners association would not allow the three dog provision and worries about that
      being a point. She stated, just for clarification, because people will ask her about it – City
      ordinance trumps any kind of individual homeowners association policy, but the
      homeowners association, even if the City approves a third dog provision based on the fact
      that it fits within the criteria for the City’s needs, the homeowners association would have
      the ability to then use civil court to enforce their own homeowners association’s rules,
      just like they would for an ugly paint color, a fence the wrong length, or a trampoline in
      the backyard.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied that is his understanding, not being an attorney, but is
      how it has been handled in the past.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated to quickly go back to Councilmember Distler’s question
      – if a student did come home for however long and they kept the requirement where they
      say they needed to obtain a special animal permit that would last the whole year, the City
      has the provision that the City Clerk could approve that if she or he felt that there was no
      issue or that evidence presented was not substantial.

      Councilmember Distler stated she is thinking if they send out the letters to the neighbors
      who see three dogs and freak out and say they are against it when there has been no
      problems whatsoever and the dog has not even been at the house yet. She would rather
      see it where they have the person pay for their year long license, the dog can come home
      over the summer, and if there are complaints they deal with it at that time, versus getting
      everyone all stirred up before anything ever happens. She does not have a problem with
      the people paying the year long fee, but a lot of this is neighbor against neighbor rather
      than about the dogs.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated they have tried to remedy that as much as possible by
      really focusing on those points and saying they are only going to count it if it is a valid
      complaint that has been investigated and confirmed by a CSO, or an actual violation to
      where there has been a written warning or citation issued. He stated if the staff gets back
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                     PAGE 25


      10 letters saying the neighbor can not afford the dog and the homes association does not
      allow it, they will not be counted because they are subjective and do not want to count
      those against the residents who are maybe in a personal feud with their neighbor.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated he thinks it is important for the CSOs to talk to the
      residents who are opposed.

      Councilmember Distler stated in some situations the City may be able to approve the
      permit and the neighbors would never even know there was a third dog in the house if the
      dogs are only let out one or two at a time. She stated until the third dog is even brought
      to their attention, the neighbors may not even know there is a third dog in the house.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the staff can certainly look into this more. He knows in
      the other cities around them it is not an option and the people would just have to comply
      with the other animal permit regulations. He thinks it gets down to knowing for sure
      which dogs are only here certain weekends and which dogs are actually here for the
      whole year. He stated if they issue a special animal permit to a student who ended up
      maybe not going back for a semester, how would the City know that because then they
      would have to come in and the neighbors would have to be notified. He stated thinking
      off the top of his head, it would be very difficult to write that into a policy, but can
      certainly look into it more.

      City Manager Gonzales stated she has one general comment about Option A and Option
      B, because to her that is really the biggest change to this policy for them to think about
      and consider of the ultimate appeal. She stated the idea of a lot of these changes is to
      move as much as possible into the administrative realm, so that they can approve many of
      them. She stated obviously maybe one out of ten denials will not appeal, maybe more
      than that as they just do not know. Option B would be a very drastic change from what
      they have done in the past, but is what other cities are looking at and have moved to, to
      move it to the municipal judge and is certainly an appropriate way to handle it. Option A
      would be those that wanted to appeal the denial would come before the City Council and
      the staff’s hope is that there would be fewer than they have had in the past.

      City Manager Gonzales stated she honestly does not think that staff has a
      recommendation on that, which is why they presented it this way, but either way is going
      to work and they will handle the process, so it is really a policy decision for the Council
      on where they feel it is appropriate to have that decision.

      Chairperson Scott asked City Manager Gonzales if the staff wants that decision this
      evening.

      City Manager Gonzales replied if there is a decision that someone wants to make, yes,
      but supposes this could be taken to the Council for further discussion. Her hope would
      be that the Committee has this discussion and agrees one way or the other on a
      recommendation to the Council.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 26


      Councilmember Sandifer asked if the appeals would come before the Council anyway.

      City Manager Gonzales replied if they came all through the process and the City Clerk
      denied it, then the citizen has the right to appeal. She stated the appeals under Option A
      would come before the Council as they have in the past and under Option B, they would
      go before the municipal judge.

      City Manager Gonzales stated Deputy City Clerk Powell mentioned it might speed things
      up with using the municipal judge but does not want to promise that, because it just
      depends on their dockets and could actually be longer than the next Council meeting, so
      she would not let the speed of the process influence their decision.

      Councilmember Goode stated by using Option B, they will run into some delays on this
      stuff.

      City Manager Gonzales stated she hopes it would not be too long, but either way they
      could do it.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked if there was a major problem, like if a judge denied it for
      some reason, are they then able to appeal it a second time and go further up.

      City Manager Gonzales replied that either decision would be final under both options.

      Councilmember Goode stated people can ask for delays in these instances.

      City Manager Gonzales stated they would leave it in the judge’s hands.

      Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated in municipal court in Chapter 12, there is a
      provision that allows a person to have a noble appeal from a decision made by a
      municipal court judge, so it would go out to district court and start all over again in front
      of a district court judge.

      Councilmember Goode asked about the judge giving a delay for a later hearing.

      Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated he is sure the judge could grant a delay. He stated
      no one knows because there is not a lot of case law on this, but the staff discussed this
      earlier and he believes they may have the right to file an appeal of a municipal court
      judge’s decision to the district court and has a fear of what the district court judges might
      do to the City when that starts happening. He stated he thinks someone has that right, but
      they do not know.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated when he spoke with Overland Park, who currently uses
      the municipal court system, they told him when they deny or revote a permit, the person
      is given the letter and it has the timeframe they can do an appeal and they call and talk to
      them about it. He stated most people would rather comply with the ordinance in
      Overland Park than go through the municipal court process, because it gets costly. He
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 27


      stated another thing to consider is that the City Clerk in Overland Park said that most
      people would rather just comply with the ordinance, but some people get very attached,
      so it is a tough decision.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked for the cost for someone to file an appeal under the
      municipal court, assuming they are going to represent themselves and not have attorneys
      – just the court costs.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied it is set by an administrative order by a municipal judge
      and off the top of his head he is not sure of that fee.

      City Manager Gonzales stated it used to be $10 for years and believes they have raised it
      to $25, so it is in the ballpark – that is the court cost.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she would be very open to moving this to Option B. She
      stated tonight they have spent so much time talking about pet permits, which they always
      do, at which point in time they are using their staff’s time, their resources, and all the fun
      stuff for people to sit in here and all be moved by the Council’s own personal beliefs
      anyway. She stated she is not sure the right place for a pet permit review process is
      before the City Council. She stated she is always going to be soft and want to give the
      person their dog. She stated Councilmember Pflumm is always going to want to abide by
      the strictest letter of the law, which are not bad things, but just the way people react to
      things they feel for people.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated that this is an administrative process that while they feel for
      their pets, is no different than really any other administrative process in the City and
      makes a lot more sense for it to go before a judge who can make an impartial decision
      and not have to weigh not only the personal feelings for the process, but also the question
      of electability and being liked or respected for those decisions. She stated a judge is so
      much more able to make the impartial decisions in something that is an administrative
      question more or less.

      City Manager Gonzales stated if the Committee feels informed enough and inclined to
      make a recommendation, then it would be to recommend approval of the policy statement
      and the changes to the ordinance. She does not believe Option B has any associated
      additional expense.

      Councilmember Goode stated he is wondering about the number of cases.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated it seems the pet permits go in phases throughout the
      year. He stated to be honest, most of them get approved and never even come before the
      Council, but there are a handful of them every now and then that require additional
      attention.

      Councilmember Goode stated it is not going to be a big number.
DECEMBER 4, 2007        FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                         PAGE 28


      Deputy City Clerk Powell replied he does not think it will. He stated when he spoke with
      Overland Park they said it was not any major workload for them to be sent through
      municipal court.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated even if it did suddenly turn out that the City had piles of
      them, it still would not be a cost to the City, because there is still a fee of court costs only
      if someone is appealing the decision to revoke or deny the permit. When they go to the
      court to do that appeal, they have to pay the court costs associated with it, so really there
      should not be any cost to the City at all.

      City Manager Gonzales stated theoretically if they had to increase salary to cover his
      additional time, it would be covered by the court costs. She does not think there is going
      to be that many of them and should not take that much time.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she can not imagine that the judge would sit and listen to
      something like this for four hours.

      Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember Distler, moved to recommend the
      Council approve the draft ordinance amending Title 6 of the Shawnee Municipal Code
      pertaining to Animals and the new Policy Statement, Animal License and Permit Fees
      and accept Option B to authorize the municipal court judge to conduct the hearings and
      appeals as the preferred method of handling appeals. The motion carried 4-0.

      City Manager Gonzales suggested bringing this to the December 18, 2007 meeting, since
      they are canceling the December 24, 2007 meeting. She stated there is no big hurry, but
      since it is approved, they might as well move it forward.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked when it will take affect.

      Deputy City Clerk Powell stated the intent is to have it take affect on January 1, 2008.

3.    DISCUSS THE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM.

      Chairperson Scott stated each year the City prepares a State Legislative Program which
      states the City’s platform and position on issues which will be discussed in the upcoming
      legislative session. The document will serve as a guide during the Legislative session. A
      memo from staff and a draft of the 2008 State Legislative Program are included for
      review.

      Assistant to the City Manager Singer stated the 2008 State Legislative Program does not
      include a lot of significant changes. She stated a lot of the things which have been struck
      through, are things that were accomplished last year. A few new current issues were
      added. Some of the specific ones are Payday Loans which was addressed earlier, but is
      just stating the City’s position in support.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                       PAGE 29


      DUI – Involuntary Blood Draws – Assistant to the City Manager Singer stated this is
      where they are just asking for some clarification in the way this process works.

      Publication of Legal Notices – Assistant to the City Manager Singer stated this is
      another issue that some of the other cities in Johnson County are also supporting to save a
      little money and still effectively communicate with the residents.

      Intergovernmental Discourse – Assistant to the City Manager Singer stated this is
      another issue that has come up recently about cities having the right to lobby at the State
      legislature and are keeping up with issues that affect the community.

      Eminent Domain – Assistant to the City Manager Singer stated while the legislature
      addressed it last year, it was moved to a standing position because of what happened in
      Greensburg and the issue is going to be reopened, so they want to make sure nothing
      crazy happens there and they restructured to address the needs in Greensburg.

      Assistant to the City Manager Singer stated aside from that, all the other issues are the
      standing legislative positions and basically just give the staff some direction as to what
      the Council deems and the City’s platform. That way, if anything comes up throughout
      the session, they are able to address it and move forward. She stated honestly overall
      they will probably be more on the defense at this session and thinks they will focus more
      on the power plant in western Kansas and will be one of their defining issues of the
      session.

      Councilmember Goode asked about Payday Loans. He read: We support efforts to limit
      finance and interest charges, reduce the frequency of loans by imposing a waiting period
      between loans, and offer repayment plans to provide additional flexibility for the
      borrower. He stated the City does not have any great jurisdiction on that at all and can’t
      announce any jurisdiction.

      Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated those are provisions in the State statutes.

      Councilmember Goode asked if the City is going to try to change those.

      Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated the City would not have the authority to change
      those and adopt their own provisions. He thinks Assistant to the City Manager Singer
      wants the State to change the State law on those provisions, so there would be no City
      provision.

      Councilmember Goode stated he did not want to see the City get involved in that and not
      be able to do much about it.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked Assistant to the City Manager Singer about Publication of
      Legal Notices. She stated she does not know why she did not realize it before but after
      talking with some people, when the City has an applicant come forward who is using one
      of the City’s incentive policies, for example an IRB or something like that, there is a
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES                      PAGE 30


      requirement to post legal notices for that. She asked if the City has the newspaper bill the
      applicant.

      Assistant to the City Manager Singer stated that is correct.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated that is a whole different topic for policy discussion and for a
      later date. She asked if it were something that the State adopted and allowed the City to
      post their notice online and have the option to come up, would that be something they
      could also make available to persons who are required to post by the City’s requirement,
      to perhaps alleviate.

      Assistant to the City Manager Singer replied she would think so.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated it is no disrespect to the City’s chosen paper, but it is very
      expensive to post the legal notice and when the City is trying to do everything they can to
      try to get businesses come here and build, every one of those costs, whether they are
      $500.00 or $1,000 makes a difference. She would love to see that as part of the City’s
      policy statement and may be something to move towards.

      City Manager Gonzales stated if the statute is written in such a way to allow that, the City
      would certainly allow it. She stated the intent of how they have handled it, is that the
      applicant is asking for a benefit from the City and the general taxpayers should not bear
      any additional cost, so they are responsible for it.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated that is a whole different conversation on the big picture and
      a secondary conversation if that is the direction in which they do – if that is an
      opportunity for the City to include that.

      Assistant to the City Manager Singer stated as the session moves forward, and she knows
      a lot of the cities in Johnson County have all put this in their program and has a feeling
      there will be some legislation that will be coming along that, she will keep them all
      informed on as to what it may look like.

      Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to recommend the
      City approve the 2008 State Legislative Program. The motion carried 4-0.

      City Manager Gonzales stated this item will also be placed on the December 18, 2007
      City Council meeting.
DECEMBER 4, 2007       FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES       PAGE 31


ADJOURNMENT

Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to adjourn. The motion
carried 4-0, and the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.

Minutes prepared by: Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:



___________________________________________
Vicki Charlesworth, City Clerk

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:11
posted:4/21/2010
language:English
pages:31