Docstoc

CC06262006doc - CITY OF SHAWNEE

Document Sample
CC06262006doc - CITY OF SHAWNEE Powered By Docstoc
					                                   CITY OF SHAWNEE
                                CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                       MINUTES
                                      JUNE 26, 2006
                                        7:30 P.M.

Mayor Meyers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. in the Shawnee City Hall Council
Chambers. He welcomed the public and all stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, followed
by a moment of silence.

     Councilmembers Present        Staff Present
     Councilmember Distler         City Manager Gonzales
     Councilmember Goode           Deputy City Clerk Powell
     Councilmember Kuhn            City Attorney Rainey
     Councilmember Pflumm          Assistant City Attorney Rainey
     Councilmember Sawyer          Public Works Director Freyermuth
     Councilmember Straub          City Engineer Wesselschmidt
                                   Fire Chief Hudson
     Councilmembers Absent         Police Captain Morgan
     Councilmember Scott           Planning Director Chaffee
     Councilmember Sandifer        Parks and Recreation Director Holman
                                   Senior Project Engineer Lindstrom
                                   Senior Project Engineer Gregory
                                   Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke

Members of the public who spoke: (Item 7) LEN SHERDER, 200 Spruce Street, #200, Denver,
Colorado; (Item 9) DAVID MORRIS, 6125 Melrose Lane.

CONSENT AGENDA

1.       APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12,
         2006.

2.       REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
         JUNE 5, 2006.

3.       APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
         COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2006.

Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the entire
Consent Agenda. The motion carried 6-0.

MAYOR'S ITEMS

4.       There were no Mayor’s items.
PAGE 2                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006


ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2006

5.       SUP-3-04-01 WITHDRAWAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY
         ISSUED TO GORDON LIQUOR, FOR A DRIVE-UP WINDOW IN A LIQUOR
         STORE IN THE CN (COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING DISTRICT
         AT 11110 W. 75TH STREET.

         Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the Council
         approve the withdrawal of SUP-3-04-01 to Gordon Liquor.

         Councilmember Pflumm asked if they have had any real problems.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated they closed.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated he did not think they had any problems while Mr. Gordon
         owned it and did not know about after that time and if there had been any issues.

         Planning Director Chaffee replied he believes there had been an issue in the last operation
         of selling alcohol to underage drinkers.

         Councilmember Pflumm asked if it was through the window.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated it was at that location, but he is not sure whether it was
         through the window or not.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated as far as they know, there was no issue with the window.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated that is correct.

         Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to withdraw SUP-
         3-04-01, a special use permit previously issued to Gordon Liquor for a drive-up window
         in a liquor store in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district at 11110 W. 75th
         Street. The motion carried 6-0.

6.       CONSIDER SUP-05-06-06 SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO STACIE SCHEMMEL
         FOR A HOME DAYCARE WITH UP TO TEN (10) CHILDREN IN THE R-1
         (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AT 23600 W. 59TH.

         Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the Council
         approve SUP-05-06-06 to Stacie Schemmel.

         Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve SUP-
         05-06-06, a special use permit to Stacie Schemmel for a home daycare with up to ten
         (10) children in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district at 23600 W. 59th.
         The motion carried 6-0.
PAGE 3                                 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                              JUNE 26, 2006


7.       CONSIDER PUD-02-06-06, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
         REZONING FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL) TO PMR (PLANNED MIXED
         RESIDENTIAL) FOR SPECTRUM RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, AN
         INDEPENDENT SENIOR LIVING FACILITY IN THE 15700 BLOCK OF 63RD
         STREET.

         Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0 that the Council
         approve PUD-02-06-06 and rezoning from AG to PMR for Spectrum Retirement
         Community. If approved, an ordinance number will be assigned.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated the applicant requests approval of rezoning from
         Agriculture (AG) to Planned Mixed Residential (PMR) and the preliminary development
         plan approval for Spectrum Retirement Community, a 125-unit senior citizen apartment
         building located in the 15700 block of W. 63rd Street.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated the property is located at the southeast corner of 63 rd
         Street and Maurer Road. He stated the properties to the north across 63rd Street are zoned
         a combination of AG and PMR. He stated the AG property to the north is vacant and
         shown as medium density residential on the Future Land Use Guide. PMR property to
         the northeast is the location of the Wyndham senior residential facility. He stated the
         property to the south is zoned PMR and contains the Shawnee Station apartments. He
         stated the property to the west across Maurer is zoned a combination of AG and RS and
         contains two single family homes on property designated as being appropriate for
         office/commercial development. He stated the property to the east is zoned R-1 (Single
         Family Residential) and contains homes in the Leaton Acres subdivision.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated the Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan
         designates the area as appropriate for medium density residential uses. He stated the
         applicant has proposed to rezone 14.69 acres for a 125 unit, three-story apartment
         building. He stated this would yield a density of 8.51 dwelling units per acre.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated sole access to the site is provided from Maurer Road.
         He stated Maurer Road was recently improved to collector standards. He stated because
         this is a senior living facility, the trips generated by residents of the facility will be far
         less than those associated with a standard multi-family residential development.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated the applicant proposes to construct a 112,710 square
         foot, three-story building containing 125 residential units. He stated the units are broken
         down by size in that the project will provide 22 studio units, 82 one-bedroom units, and
         21 two-bedroom units.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated the proposed building has a j-shaped footprint, which
         allows for several wall setbacks and variations in wall angle to break up the mass of the
         structure. He stated many of the units have balconies that are protected with a decorative
         wooden railing. He stated exterior materials on all façade include red brick on the first
PAGE 4                                 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006


         and second floors and hardi-plank fiber cement lap siding painted medium brown on
         portions of the second and third floors.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated the roofline of the building has different elevations to
         provide a varied ridgeline. He stated all bulk requirements have been satisfied and access
         to the site will be from Maurer Road. He stated submitted plans show the provision of
         112 parking stalls and the Planning Commission required that they show an additional
         location where an additional number of stalls could be provided if necessary.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated landscaping shown on the submitted landscaping plan
         meets requirements of the zoning ordinance. He stated trash enclosure and a service
         delivery area have been incorporated into the building’s façade on the north elevation.
         He stated the multi-family amenity policy suggests that multi-family developments with
         125 units provide two amenities from the approved list. He stated the applicant is
         providing two areas of passive walking trails with five pedestrian seating benches on the
         north side of the building. He stated these trails connect to an internal sidewalk that rings
         the entire structure.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated because of the average age of the resident and the nature
         of the facility, the recreational programs provided are far in excess of a typical multi-
         family development. He stated the design of the building allows approximately 30
         percent of the gross floor area to be devoted to these recreational activities.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated storm drainage improvements required for this
         development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Manual of Technical
         Specifications and Design Criteria.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated erosion control and sediment control measures are
         required for all land disturbing activities. He stated the applicant is responsible for
         installing all such measures as shown on the approved plans prior to commencing any
         grading activities.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated telephone, electric, and cable service facilities are to be
         placed within rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24, except as
         specifically varied or waived by action of the City Council. He stated utilities shall be
         placed underground.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated this development is subject to the provisions of SMC
         Chapter 12.26, which pertains to the City’s excise tax on new development. He stated the
         estimated excise tax for this development is $137,520.42.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated the Planning Commission recommends approval of
         PUD-02-06-06, the preliminary development plan and rezoning from Agricultural to
         Planned Mixed Residential for the 112,710 square foot Spectrum Retirement Building,
         subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
PAGE 5                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            JUNE 26, 2006


         Councilmember Pflumm asked if this is what they proposed, or did they work with the
         Planning staff already with regards to things like egress into the facility.

         Planning Director Chaffee replied they worked with staff and with Engineering regarding
         ingress and egress.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated the only reason he brought that up is because Maurer
         Road could have the potential for heavy traffic in the future with the plans for the west
         side. He stated if they have elderly people turning left out of there onto a three lane
         heavily trafficked road, they might run into issues.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated he thinks Engineering looks at those types of concerns
         when they recommend approval of where entrances and exits should be placed. He stated
         they would rather have the traffic onto Maurer Road than onto 63rd Street, which is
         unimproved.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated he understands that, but the plan is still not totally set in
         stone. He asked if the Council changes the zoning, will it still go back to Planning.

         Planning Director Chaffee replied if this is approved, they would then have to file their
         final plat before they could get a building permit.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated he knows 63rd Street is not improved, but asked how
         many residents they expect.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated there are 125 units and estimated there will be
         approximately 20 people who actually have a car and drive at the site. He stated most of
         the rest of the stalls will be used by the staff who works there.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated he had a different picture of this facility.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated he believes the average age at this facility is about 80
         years old.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated they have a lot of parking spots for only 20 drivers.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated they need parking for the staff, as well as visitors. He
         stated there will not be a lot of coming and going by the residents. They will have a bus
         to take them to different locations within the community, such as doctor’s offices and
         over to Wal-Mart, Target, and other pharmacies.

         Councilmember Pflumm asked how similar to Sweet Life this facility is.

         Planning Director Chaffee replied he thinks the residents are perhaps a little more mobile
         than Sweet Life.
PAGE 6                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006


         Councilmember Pflumm stated he is just concerned, because when they get people
         turning out there on Maurer Road, that location is probably does not have the best
         visibility.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated these are not people who are 65 years old.

         Councilmember Straub asked if that is their target market.

         Planning Director Chaffee answered yes. He stated Spectrum has several of these
         facilities across the country and that is the estimated age. He stated with the size of the
         units, heavier on the one-bedroom and studio units, they are not having a lot of space.

         Councilmember Straub stated he had a guy who was 99 at Town and Country that still
         drove. A lot of people still drive at older ages.

         Councilmember Goode stated he thinks this is a good location for this project.

         Councilmember Kuhn asked if the rezoning of this one and the others around them are
         similarly zoned.

         Planning Director Chaffee answered yes. He stated it is zoned PMR to the south and
         Wyndham is up to the northeast.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated they have R-1 to the east, basically along that whole
         border.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated there is another seven acres that will be undeveloped for
         Leaton and some overhead power lines and a creek that runs through that area that makes
         it undevelopable.

         Councilmember Distler asked since it says for persons ages 55 years of age and older, if
         it would better serve their residents to have a kitchen instead of a kitchenette. She stated
         since some of these people may be younger, they may want a stove.

         LEN SHERDER, 200 Spruce Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado replied as part of the
         enhanced living packages for these facilities, and they currently own and operate nine
         facilities, there is a commercial kitchen that serves three nutritious meals a day. He
         stated they find that for most residents, it is more of a social thing and they will come
         down and meet and eat. He stated it is one way for them to keep track of everyone as
         well. It is an informal roll call situation. He stated the kitchenettes are mostly for
         convenience for heating up leftovers that they take back to their rooms or maybe soup.

         Councilmember Distler stated when she saw the age 55 listed, she thought those people
         might still want to cook at times.

         LEN SHERDER stated the average age is actually about 84 nationwide.
PAGE 7                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            JUNE 26, 2006


         Councilmember Pflumm asked Mr. Sherder if he agrees with Planning Director Chaffee
         as far as only about 10 percent of the people will have cars.

         LEN SHERDER answered yes. He stated the American Senior Housing Association,
         which is a national organization that basically regulates the industry, has done numerous
         studies on parking because it is always the big question. He stated they find that once the
         residents see that the facility provides a community van and can actually take them to
         regularly scheduled doctor’s visits, activities, and shopping, very few actually want to
         continue driving a car. He stated inevitably what happens are the cars get parked and
         noted that some people should not be driving anyway.

         LEN SHERDER stated the American Senior Housing Association does studies on these
         every year and verifies that the parking requirements and driving done by these seniors
         that live in their facilities is very low.

         Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to pass an
         ordinance for PUD-02-06-06, a planned unit development and rezoning from AG
         (Agricultural) to PMR (Planned Mixed Residential) for Spectrum Retirement
         Community, an independent senior living facility in the 15700 block of 63rd Street. The
         motion carried 6-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2819 was assigned.

ITEMS FROM THE FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF
JUNE 06, 2006

8.       PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR KING STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND
         PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS.

         Councilmember Sawyer stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the Council
         approve the reconstruction of King Street from Johnson Drive to 57th Street, to include
         curb and guttering on the northeast two block length of the project, along with
         construction of a new parking lot at the southeast corner of King Street and 58th Street
         with an estimated total cost of the project at $817,400.

         Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the
         preliminary plans for the King Street reconstruction and parking lot improvements from
         Johnson Drive to 57th Street, to include curb and guttering on the northeast two block
         length of the project, along with construction of a new parking lot at the southeast corner
         of King Street and 58th Street with an estimated total cost of the project at $817,400.
         The motion carried 6-0.

9.       CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SKATEBOARDS, BICYCLES
         AND OTHER DEVICES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

         Councilmember Sawyer stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the Council
         approve an ordinance regulating skateboards and bicycles in the downtown pedestrian
PAGE 8                                 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006


         zone, generally shown as Ballentine Street to the east, 59th Street to the south, King
         Street to the west, and 58th Street to the north.

         Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to pass an ordinance
         regulating skateboarding on public right-of-ways, in parking lots open to the public for
         the downtown properties adjacent to Johnson Drive as outlined in a pedestrian zone,
         generally shown as Ballentine Street to the east, 59th Street to the south, King Street to
         the west, and 58th Street to the north.

         Councilmember Sawyer asked about Councilmember Pflumm’s original motion, with
         people being allowed to walk their bicycles down Johnson Drive from King Street to
         Ballentine Street.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated that was part of it, but the other part was about the
         parking lots.

         Councilmember Sawyer stated they could use them on the parking lots, unless the person
         posted otherwise. He asked if that is in the ordinance.

         Assistant City Attorney Rainey answered yes. He stated the part on walking the bicycle
         is being made separate, Section 9.16.040A – Walking along side a bicycle or carrying
         roller skates, a coaster, roller blades, skateboard, or similar devise, is not a violation of
         this Ordinance.

         Councilmember Sawyer asked if that means they can use them on the parking lots unless
         the owner posts otherwise.

         Assistant City Attorney Rainey answered yes, unless it is private property and posted by
         the property owner.

         Councilmember Straub asked the fine for a Class C charge.

         Assistant City Attorney Rainey replied a Class C fine is the lowest offense in the
         municipal court. He stated he is not really sure of the range, but believes it is $500.00 or
         less and up to 30 days in jail.

         Councilmember Straub asked if the judge will decide how much.

         Assistant City Attorney Rainey replied that would be up to the discretion of the judge, but
         it is his understanding, his guess, that in the cities that have actively enforced this
         ordinance they have taken a person’s skateboard until they appear in court and promise
         not to do it again and then are given the skateboard back. His understanding in talking to
         Karen Toreline, the City’s prosecutor, is she expects these fines to be very minor. He
         stated one actual ruling was to require the violator to bring their parents to court to make
         sure they are aware the ordinance is being violated. This is the ordinance and they can
         not do it again.
PAGE 9                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            JUNE 26, 2006


         Councilmember Straub asked how the City plans to enforce this ordinance. He asked if
         they will only be stopped if a policeman sees them. He asked if the City will actually
         have someone monitoring this activity.

         Assistant City Attorney Rainey replied he assumes it will be like any other offense in the
         city, from speeding to DUIs to battery; someone will complain and a law enforcement
         officer will show up.

         Councilmember Straub stated he does not want added liability to the City. He stated they
         have rules at the skate park and are not going to have anyone enforcing those rules 100
         percent of the time. He stated he is worried about that.

         Councilmember Sawyer stated to answer Councilmember Straub’s question, he believes
         that the business owners will call the police and they will then respond.

         Councilmember Straub asked if it can be anyone and not just the business owners.

         Councilmember Sawyer stated he can not speak for the Police Department and would not,
         but they can definitely make a report that someone is in violation. He understands that
         the Police Department currently has no ability unless they catch someone doing it.

         Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated that is correct, because there is no current
         prohibition.

         Councilmember Straub stated he is just curious as to how this will be monitored and if
         there is going to be anyone enforcing this ordinance. He stated he does not want to make
         an ordinance the City can not enforce. He stated he does not want any more liability on
         the City and knows that is an issue the City is worried about.

         Councilmember Sawyer stated Councilmember Straub’s point is well taken, but slightly
         off the mark, in his opinion.

         DAVID MORRIS, 6125 Melrose Lane, stated he read a little of the ordinance and asked
         along the east side of Nieman Road, where Chopper’s is located and the medical
         building, if it is legal to ride skateboards and bikes in that area.

         Councilmember Sawyer stated he thought the boundaries were from 58th Street to 59th
         Street.

         DAVID MORRIS stated as he understands it is along the Johnson Drive corridor.

         Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated perhaps Mr. Morris’ confusion is related to the
         bicycle provision. He stated the Governing Body wanted to prohibit the operation of
         bicycles on sidewalks, but only on sidewalks adjoining Johnson Drive, per the comments
         of the committee meeting. He stated it sounded pretty clear from the minutes that is what
         the committee members intended from that discussion.
PAGE 10                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            JUNE 26, 2006


      Mayor Meyers stated it does meet Mr. Morris’ concern.

      DAVID MORRIS asked if it is then legal to ride bicycles along the east side of Nieman
      Road until they reach Johnson Drive.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated if he understands Assistant City Attorney Rainey
      correctly, that is correct.

      DAVID MORRIS stated that would be his only concern, because he really does not think
      it affects anyone else, but those businesses along Johnson Drive such as Hartman’s,
      Encore, and Pegah’s that open out onto the sidewalk and are pretty active retail
      businesses.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he reads this to be 58th Street to 59th Street and that would
      be included. He asked if they would just have to spell out Nieman Road in the
      ordinance.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated he thinks Councilmember Kuhn had talked about the
      improved sidewalks, so it would include the sidewalks that Mr. Morris is asking about.

      Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated it does not state that in the ordinance as drafted.
      He saw some discussion on that.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she thought when she proposed it, based on the fact that
      they have hope to some day to improve as they go further down with increased retail that
      it would cover now, so that if there was a business that opened up onto their improved
      business district, then they would be protecting people walking in and out of those
      businesses. She stated that is what she understood with this showing 58th Street and 59th
      Street. She thought that covered that area, but must have misunderstood what she was
      reading. She likes the idea of it being the improved area and basically, if it has the nice
      red pavers, then someone can not ride their bike.

      Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated they could simply amend Section 9.16.030
      Operation of Bicycles Prohibited on Sidewalks Within Pedestrian District to read, No
      person shall operate a bicycle upon the sidewalks adjoining Johnson Drive or Nieman
      Road within the boundaries of the Pedestrian District described in Section 9.16.010.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated that is perfect.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he would amend his motion to include that add on.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she would amend her second to the motion.

      Therefore the amended motion read:
PAGE 11                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            JUNE 26, 2006


       Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to pass an ordinance
       regulating skateboarding on public right-of-ways, in parking lots open to the public for
       the downtown properties adjacent to Johnson Drive as outlined in a pedestrian zone,
       generally shown as Ballentine Street to the east, 59th Street to the south, King Street to
       the west, and 58th Street to the north, and write Section 9.16.030 Operation of Bicycles
       Prohibited on Sidewalks Within Pedestrian District to read, No person shall operate a
       bicycle upon the sidewalks adjoining Johnson Drive or Nieman Road within the
       boundaries of the Pedestrian District described in Section 9.16.010.. The motion carried
       6-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2820 was assigned.

BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

There was no business from the floor.

STAFF ITEMS

10.    APPROVAL OF BID FOR THE 47TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT,
       P.N. 3309.

       Mayor Meyers stated that bids were received on June 16, 2006. Blacktop Paving was the
       apparent low bidder for the project. Staff recommends tabling award of the contract to a
       future meeting until issues with the Debt Service Fund are resolved.

       Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Straub, moved to approve the
       staff recommendation to table the award of the contract to a future meeting until issues
       with the Debt Service Fund are resolved. The motion carried 6-0.

11.    APPROVAL OF KDOT AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE 47TH STREET
       PROJECT, P.N. 3309.

       Mayor Meyers stated that the 47th Street project, Mund to Woodland, is eligible for
       partial funding through the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program. The
       agreement provides for an 80% reimbursement, up to a maximum of $275,000, for all
       construction costs related to the on-street bicycle lanes and sidewalks within the project.

       Councilmember Sawyer asked if this is just the same as what they just voted to table. He
       asked how they can operate on any of it, if they are going to table the first part.

       City Manager Gonzales replied that she and Public Works Director Freyermuth reviewed
       the agreement with KDOT and it does include a cancellation provision that the City
       would be liable for any costs incurred up to the point if we would cancel it, but at this
       point they do not believe there would be any or if so, very minimal costs incurred. She
       stated if they do not move forward with the project, they would notify KDOT of the
       cancellation, but felt it was expedient to go ahead and get the agreement approved and
       have it ready. She stated if they have to do something different, they will.
PAGE 12                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                              JUNE 26, 2006


      Councilmember Sawyer asked if the City will not be out any money if they have to
      cancel the project.

      City Manager Gonzales replied if any, very little. She stated it will only be money that
      KDOT contributed to the project.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated they really probably do not have a real good
      handle on just what the figure might be, but the thought is there would probably be no
      additional money from action tonight. He stated there may be some KDOT funds that
      have already been expended on the project to get the agreements drafted and set up
      everything to this point that they now have this agreement before them. Between now
      and awarding the contract, there should be no more activity by KDOT since there is
      nothing to do at this point on the project until they hear it is awarded.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he wants to hear dollars. He stated he does not want to
      hear maybes, because they get hung up on maybes and should be and could be. He stated
      they get bit on every one of these.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated the way he understands it, is that basically KDOT already
      spent some money. If the City cancels the project, they will probably be liable for a
      portion of that or all of it.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked for the dollar amount.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated it does not change if they go ahead and continue on with
      the process.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he understands that, but somewhere if they cancel the
      project they will be out money. He wants to know how much that will be.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated they may be out money. He stated they would
      need to check with KDOT to see if there would be any expenditures that they will assign
      to this project at the end of the project. He stated that typically on all past projects, they
      do not see any of the cost issues from KDOT until the end of the project, at which time
      they would then deduct 80 percent out of the $275,000 and 20 percent out of a local share
      the City would owe. He stated at this point, because they are doing the inspection and
      also administering the project, he does not think there is any cost in it, but they did put
      that statement in their agreement and is the only reason they brought it up. He stated
      they do say that they have expended funds and if the City cancels, they would have the
      right to recoup what they have spent to this date. He stated the staff can certainly contact
      KDOT and find out if they would have any expenses in the event they cancel.

      Councilmember Goode asked if that would be 20 percent.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth replied that the federal funding is based on 80/20; 80
      percent federal and 20 percent local. He stated anything they have spent on the project
PAGE 13                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006


      would be an eligible cost. It should be an 80/20 split of any costs incurred and would be
      just staff time in preparing the agreement that they have prepared here.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated that surely there would be a consulting fee on this road
      that they are already on the line for and asked how much is that. He stated he wants to
      get down to it and asked how much money has been spent so far on this project. He
      asked if anyone has a clue.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated at this point, they have the engineering costs
      the City has actually paid. He stated they have done that through City funds and he does
      not have those numbers with him tonight. That is an expenditure that the City has made
      and there was no KDOT funds nor any matching federal funds involved with that
      portion. He stated typically design fees would be in the range of between 10 and 12
      percent, so it would be several hundred thousand dollars for design and design would be
      accomplished at this point.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked Public Works Director Freyermuth to give him an idea of
      what the project will be total.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated there is a total project cost of $2,770,000 with
      construction at $1.6 million. He stated around $160,000 would be in the 10 percent
      range, so it would be plus or minus that. He stated the design costs are a portion of the
      total cost of a project and this is a project they have been, up to this point, pursuing the
      construction of during this construction season.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked Public Works Director Freyermuth in his opinion, could
      they already be out 10 to 20 percent of this $275,000.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth replied they are probably close to 15 percent, because
      they have right-of-way acquisition.

      City Manager Gonzales stated Councilmember Sawyer is talking about the CMAQ
      portion.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated no CMAQ funding has been spent to this point
      of the $275,000.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated they do not know how much they could be liable for
      because the City does not know what they have spent.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that is correct. He stated they just do not know
      what potential hours KDOT has put into it that they may want to assess back, or charge
      to the City if the project is cancelled. He stated if the project goes forward, he does not
      believe there will be any KDOT expenditures, but if they cancel, that is when they
      possibly, as the agreement says, might be able to recoup the hours they had in the project
      up until the time of cancellation.
PAGE 14                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            JUNE 26, 2006




      Councilmember Kuhn stated with the phrasing of what the City would be out, to her that
      seems an inaccurate statement based on the fact that they have agreed to table this item
      because they have budget concerns. She thinks it would be very irresponsible of the
      Council to assume that the funding would be there at this time for that project. She stated
      the funding the City has already spent on the engineering study is not just gone, as they
      have the engineering study so if the budget allows at a later date, which she really hopes
      it would because this is an incredibly important project, then they have spent money on
      an engineering study that would still be good.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that is correct. He stated the majority of the
      money spent on engineering is for the actual construction set of plans they would use to
      bid the job. He stated those plans are already finished, completed, and available to use at
      any time. He stated if there was a delay, they would still be used at a later date. He
      stated it is somewhat premature at this point to know whether or not the project will go
      forward or stop.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he understands that part, but is merely saying the City has
      already spent around $300,000 – give or take.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated they have probably spent less than $300,000. It
      is in the $200,000 plus range with easements and right-of-way.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he bets it will come in closer to $300,000 than $275,000.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she understood that the reason why it was important to go
      ahead and approve the agreement, was if they decline the agreement at this time it only
      puts them further back and if when they sit in budget talks and find the funds to do the
      47th Street project, then it is better to already be ahead of the game. She stated the
      likelihood of KDOT assessing fees to the City is much higher on a cancelled project, than
      on a project that actually goes forward. She stated leaning on the assumption that they
      are going to go forward will probably be more cost effective when dealing with Item #11.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that would also be his understanding, as long as
      they move forward. He stated that they have less chance of past KDOT time charged to
      them. Either way, it would see a limited amount of KDOT time between tonight’s
      meeting and whatever decision in the next 30 to 60 days is made on whether to cancel the
      project or substantially delay it, at which time they would notify KDOT. He stated he
      does not think if there is an amount owed, they are going to owe it whether they approve
      the agreement this evening or not.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked why they would move one forward without moving the
      other. He asked why not table both of them.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated the thought process she received from City Manager
      Gonzales was that this one is more of a logistics, administrative-type of question as in,
PAGE 15                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006


      they need to have Council approval to continue the paperwork and the process on it. It is
      best to keep moving forward with that, rather than being further behind at the end of
      budget talks when hopefully the 47th Street project can go ahead to where it should be.
      She asked if that is an accurate statement.

      City Manager Gonzales answered yes. She stated the staff just felt it was good to move
      ahead and they would have it ready and prepared to send out if the plans were approved.
      She stated certainly if the Council feels uncomfortable and would rather table this one,
      they can bring it back to the same meeting that they bring the project back to. She stated
      either way is appropriate.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated he does not have a problem going ahead and doing it.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated that personally, she would rather just have the logistics out
      of the way if it is not something that would cost the City any more money. She stated
      that perhaps, it might for once cost them less to be ready for something when the time
      comes.

      Councilmember Goode stated he does not think it will ever cost less, but there is a degree
      of reasonability.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he will restate that he just does not want to see the City go
      out there and hang themselves for more cost on this project, in case they do not find the
      pot of gold that everyone thinks they are going to find. He asked if everyone thinks it is
      fine to spend the money, then what is one more consulting fee. He stated the City seems
      to be very liberal in spending money on consultants.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked for clarification, and by keeping this approval on the table it
      is not approving additional expenditures for consultants or anyone else. It is only keeping
      the paperwork going and the only additional funds that the City could possibly be on the
      line for, if any work hours that KDOT would deem are the City’s from tonight’s meeting
      through the maximum of 60 days when the budget is decided and 47th Street’s future is
      decided.

      City Manager Gonzales stated that is correct and staff does not believe there will be any
      additional work during that period of time.

      Councilmember Goode stated the only thing that could mess them up is the final phase
      out of the whole thing on behalf of the City and that is not their intention at this point in
      time. They all hope to bring this back in the future, or he would not be voting either way.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated they hope the project would still continue on
      with as much as has been done to it up to this point, towards the construction effort. As
      stated, staff does not feel the cost would change any between tonight’s approval or the
      tabling of this and knowing whether or not they will go forward with the project in the
      near future.
PAGE 16                           CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            JUNE 26, 2006




      Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Straub, moved to approve
      authorizing the Mayor to sign the KDOT agreement related to the 47th Street project,
      P.N. 3309, Mund to Woodland, which is eligible for partial funding through the
      Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program and the agreement to provide for
      an 80% reimbursement, up to a maximum of $275,000, for all construction costs related
      to the on-street bicycle lanes and sidewalks within the project. The motion carried 5-1,
      with Councilmembers Pflumm, Goode, Kuhn, Straub, and Distler voting aye and
      Councilmember Sawyer voting nay.

12.   CONSIDER APPROVAL   OF  THE    K-7                        HIGHWAY          CORRIDOR
      MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU).

      Mayor Meyers stated that the K-7 Highway Corridor Management Study has been
      completed with the final public meeting held on March 28th. Staff has reviewed the final
      report and believes the study provides an acceptable plan for our segment of the K-7
      Corridor.

      Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to authorize the
      Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the K-7 Highway
      Corridor. The motion carried 6-0.

13.   WATERSHED STUDIES AND FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING UPDATE.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the Johnson County Stormwater Management Program began a
      series of watershed studies intending to provide current floodplain data for most of the
      county. Two major watersheds were studied in Shawnee: the Mill Creek Watershed and
      the Turkey Creek Watershed. A map of the watershed areas in Shawnee is attached. Staff
      will update the Council on the remaining steps of the process at the meeting.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated that tonight he will discuss the watershed studies
      Johnson County has been doing over the entire County and how they have submitted
      these to FEMA to use to update all the County maps concerning FEMA regulated
      floodplain.

      Councilmember Goode asked Senior Project Engineer Gregory if the County got this
      information and updated FEMA.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory replied the County is currently working with FEMA to
      update them.

      Councilmember Goode stated whatever they do, it was their process for FEMA to come
      up with a new plan.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated that is correct. He stated when the County first
      started this process, they went ahead and re-flew the County to get new contours, so they
PAGE 17                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           JUNE 26, 2006


      could have the most up-to-date information. He stated Councilmember Goode spoke
      about when FEMA issues new maps, they are considering what is the existing 100 year
      floodplain. He stated the studies performed by the County, using the 1998 contours have
      been completed. He stated Shawnee has been involved in two major areas: the Millcreek
      watershed, the Turkey Creek watershed, and the watershed up around Lake Quivira.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated the Public Works Department is planning to hold
      two public informational meetings in July to explain this to the property owners impacted
      by the change in the floodplain. He wanted to make clear that the study does not cover
      the whole entire City and there is a western portion next to the Kansas River and the
      Kansas River Basin that is not a part of the study.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated the Millcreek area covers about 25 square miles.
      He presented a chart showing the new floodplain area. He stated Lake Quivira also has
      some areas in Shawnee and he thinks there is another name for that watershed – Tulley
      Creek. He stated Shawnee is on the upper edge of Turkey Creek, so there are areas that
      have become part of the new floodplain.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated a lot of those areas were already in the floodplain.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated that is correct.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory reviewed some history and stated in 1978, the City
      entered into the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with FEMA. The maps they
      had at that time were considered to be the existing 100 year floodplain. In 1985, FEMA
      did a new study which resulted in new maps in 1991, so it takes about five to six years
      just to get it to the point where they can get new maps out for the area. He stated along
      the way in 1995 and 1997, they updated their maps with new roads, but no changes in the
      floodplain. He stated in 2000, the County started these new watershed studies and in
      2002 they received another map update. They keep getting new maps with new dates,
      but there have been very few changes unless someone did a specific study and a Letter of
      Map Amendment to it. For instance, someone built up the ground then that little portion
      would be revised.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated in 2006, the studies have been completed and
      given to FEMA. FEMA is planning through their next year’s process to issue those maps
      in 2007. He pointed out that it has been about 15 years since they have had a
      comprehensive watershed study for the area and that quite a bit of time and development
      has gone by.

      Councilmember Goode stated the reason for those changes is probably all the hard
      surface asphalt and paving the City has put down in conjunction with construction.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory replied whenever it is changed from Agricultural (AG)
      to fully developed land, it will of course have much quicker runoff of water and the peak
      floods will be higher.
PAGE 18                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006




      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated the next map shows in yellow the existing FEMA
      watershed. What it is currently. He stated the yellow does not quite cover all the light
      blue areas which are from the new study so there are quite a few areas where it extends.
      He stated the studies took their evaluation further than what FEMA normally would, so
      they went up some side channels and different places and FEMA’s map will not extend
      all the way. He stated the new FEMA map may not go up little tributaries. They have
      yet to receive that map, but expect it in the next few weeks. He stated staff wanted to
      have this informational meeting before they conduct the public meetings so to inform the
      Council.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated some bigger changes that might affect some more
      established businesses will take place over in Turkey Creek down around Nieman Road
      and 62nd Street. He stated even though the FEMA floodplains may not go up some of the
      side tributaries, those houses are still in the studied 100 year floodplain and the City will
      regulate construction of anything that will go on by that. They have some new and good
      information to use and help evaluate new construction when it comes through, along with
      new development and subdivisions. He stated they also have a consistent way that all
      these studies have been done, so they can require all the engineers or developers to
      follow the same, consistent manner of figuring out the floodplains.

      Councilmember Pflumm asked about the red line on the chart.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory replied it is the edge of the watershed. He pointed out
      the term “Bottoms” on the chart and noted that even though those are shown as the
      FEMA 100 year floodplain, there are levies all along there which prevent floods from
      happening. He added that no one has taken the time to get that out of the floodplain and
      he does not think they are interested in doing that.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory continued with some facts about the existing FEMA
      floodplain. They think there are around 409 parcels of property in the current FEMA
      floodplain, which has about 52 residences and 77 other types of out structures. He thinks
      that number may even be more, since their data for out structures is based off of older
      data from 1998.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated the new floodplain mapping again was from the
      County-wide studies. He mentioned that the FEMA floodplain limits will be somewhat
      less than the new study limits. This means that not all the properties that are in the
      floodplain will be in the FEMA regulated floodplain. He stated that is an important
      distinction, because FEMA regulates things a little differently and they, as a City, have
      agreed to do that. He stated the reason they are in the FEMA NFIP (National Flood
      Insurance Program) is that if they are part of that program. The City’s citizens anywhere
      in the entire City are then able to purchase flood insurance backed by the government.
      Otherwise, a person would probably not be able to get the insurance or it would be very
      expensive.
PAGE 19                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                              JUNE 26, 2006


      Councilmember Pflumm stated if someone is in the FEMA floodplain, a person can buy
      insurance, but asked if the City is regulating the 100 year floodplain farther up the line
      than FEMA and how would that affect someone.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory replied they naturally have floodplains throughout the
      City, but FEMA came up with this national program to provide flood insurance for
      people and to be part of that program, the City has to agree to regulate construction to a
      certain level. For instance, the City says a person has to be 200 feet above the 100 year
      floodplain when they build something and can not build down in it. He stated they
      continue to ask for more and tell the people they have to go to this latest study –
      whatever it is. He stated some people may now find themselves in the floodplain and can
      buy flood insurance. He stated even if someone sits on top of a hill, they can purchase
      flood insurance.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated more than likely, they would be required to buy flood
      insurance.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated only a mortgager can require that, as no one has
      to have flood insurance. He stated if a person feels their house is higher than the
      floodplain, they can work with FEMA to get themselves officially out of it and get a
      Letter of Map Amendment. He has helped many people do that.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated the City’s floodplain goes a little deeper up the channel
      than FEMA’s and asked how that affects those homeowners in those areas.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory replied it would mean the City has a flood study that
      shows if a house is built up in there, some provision must be made to stay above that
      flood level for new construction, not old construction. He stated any time anyone builds
      a subdivision today, the City requires them to do, whether they are near any of the
      streams or not, flood studies, so the City can make sure they are taking care of any kind
      of flooding problems that may occur and provide 100 year drainage from the detention
      and 10 year drainage throughout the subdivision.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated they have certain levels of rules and the City was
      recently audited by FEMA. He stated Shawnee’s level of regulation has given the City
      the highest rating out of the State of Kansas. He stated out of all the cities that have this
      program, this level of regulations, Shawnee’s level is at a Level 8. He did not bring any
      of that information, but being in the program, with that Level 8, property owners are able
      to gain a discount for anyone who has to get insurance. They can get a discount of
      around 15 percent.

      Councilmember Straub asked if someone has to go through the City to get that.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory answered no, it is automatic since the City is part of the
      program. He stated they will have members from the NFIP at the public meeting, as well
      as from FEMA, to explain that if anyone has a question.
PAGE 20                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006




      Councilmember Straub stated he knows it is a distance from there, but asked what about
      height, as some people are way up on the hill and still within the 90 feet.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated that is a little different issue than 90 feet and the
      height. He stated they strictly go by if someone is within the line of the map that shows a
      floodplain. They do not care how high up they are, they are within the floodplain. He
      stated there are many places on the old FEMA maps where they have drawn the FEMA
      floodplain and it is about 30 feet away from the creek. They have missed it completely.
      That just means that the property owners will have to work with FEMA and find out
      information and get it all straightened out and done on a one-by-one basis. He stated the
      staff has dealt with many people over the years, one at a time, to help them figure out if
      they are in the floodplain, what they can do, how they can get out, what kinds of forms
      they need, and staff works pretty close with the developers or the individual property
      owners.

      Councilmember Distler asked with the older houses, does the City do anything
      proactively to minimize the advancement of the floodplain to try to keep them from
      flooding if they see they are now in a floodplain.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory answered yes. He stated over the last 10 to 12 years,
      they have done 35 or 40 flood protection projects using County stormwater funds 75/25
      split, where the City provides 25 percent, to help prevent unknown flooding problems.
      He stated if a property has been flooding, that gives it enough points and priority that
      they can get the funding from the County and they have done quite a few projects that
      way.

      Councilmember Distler asked if any part of Parks and Pipes covers any of this.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory answered all that money goes towards those types of
      projects.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated he had the GIS guys figure out that there were
      about 1,200 parcels in the new blue area – the new floodplain. That is three times as
      many as there were before at 400. He stated not all of these will be in the FEMA
      regulated floodplain, but quite a few will, along with 203 residences and businesses. He
      stated many of the residences were also built in subdivisions where they knew since
      2000, that this study was going on and they worked with this study. They built up the
      ground in those areas or took those into account and they were able to make sure they
      were going to be outside of the flood level in that area. A lot of those houses will fall
      into that, but they still need to work all those out. He stated the County will work on
      trying to get those properties out of the floodplain using Letters of Map Amendment, so
      there will be a very large effort made by the County to get those houses out at the
      County’s expense, as a part of these studies.
PAGE 21                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                              JUNE 26, 2006


      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated some of the areas marked on the map show
      different subdivisions, so there are a lot of areas where they have received information
      and noted it is a huge effort. He stated Millcreek is about 67 square miles and Shawnee
      is 25 miles of that and the entire County is covered by these studies. It is a big
      commitment on the part of the County to try to help the citizens, but also keep them from
      being in areas that are flooded. He stated good floodplain information is vital to help
      them regulate and make sure people do not build in the floodplain.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated the new studies are a little more conservative
      than in the past, so they will have information that says not only what the existing
      floodplain is now, but what it will be in the future, so this study should stand quite a long
      time before there would be any reason to change it. He does not think there would be
      any reason to change it.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated FEMA’s schedule shows they are currently in the
      review period. He stated in the next few weeks they plan on issuing the City their
      preliminary maps. That will be followed by a 30 day comment period, which is just to
      receive errors or corrections from the City like naming a street wrong, or missing it
      completely. On July 13th and July 19th, they will hold two public meetings in different
      parts of town. He stated in September, if everything goes as planned, the base flood
      elevations will be published in the newspaper along with the notices of these changes to
      these elevations and they will begin a 90 day public appeal period, where people can
      appeal with technical reasons of why they think they are in or out of the floodplain. He
      stated they may have to get engineering reports or elevations.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated if all the appeals have been resolved in December
      2006, there will be a Letter of Determination issued which then gives a six month
      compliance period to update their ordinances and comply with the new regulations, so
      the City can remain in the National Flood Insurance Program.

      Councilmember Straub asked if the new people will be notified they are in the floodplain
      – will it be public notice.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory replied that FEMA will publish in the local newspaper
      two times and the City will send letters to everyone that touches the new floodplain and
      invite them to the public meeting. The two meetings will repeat the same information
      twice. He stated his phone number will be included in the letter as well. He stated to
      most people, it will not make much of a difference but they will want to know about and
      should remain aware of what is going on.

      Senior Project Engineer Gregory stated that will make the effective date of the map June
      2007. He stated the one public meeting will be held at the Civic Centre and the second
      will be held at the Mill Valley High School. The meetings will run from 5:30 p.m. to
      7:30 p.m. with an open meeting format where there will be a short presentation about
      FEMA, the mapping process, and the regulations. He stated they will also have people
      from the Johnson County Stormwater Management program, FEMA, NFIP, Kansas
PAGE 22                           CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                               JUNE 26, 2006


      Department of Agriculture Water Resources Group, and several City staff on hand to
      help talk with everyone individually and help with questions. He stated they can always
      have more meetings with different people or developers as needed.

      Mayor Meyers thanked Senior Project Engineer Gregory for his presentation and stated
      the Council looks forward to the rest of the process.

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

14.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR JUNE 26, 2006, IN
      THE AMOUNT OF $1,819,369.40.

      Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the
      semi-monthly claim for June 26, 2006, in the amount of $1,819,369.40. The motion
      carried 6-0.

15.   MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.

      a)    Pioneer Crossing.

            Councilmember Goode asked Public Works Director Freyermuth about the
            Pioneer Crossing project on Shawnee Mission Parkway. He stated they do not
            seem to be getting very far with that project and wants to know the hold up. He
            stated they are underdeveloped in the area - the entrance to the City.

            Public Works Director Freyermuth replied they still need to get information from
            the designer of the wall itself, the mural part, and once they get the confirmation
            of the engineering information they will then be ready to continue the efforts. He
            stated the problem has been just getting the details needed from the supplier of
            that part of the project to know it is going to work properly. He stated Parks and
            Recreation Director Holman might have additional information or specifics on
            timing, but it is his understanding those are the details of the hold up to this point.

            Councilmember Goode stated just recently he received some questioning on this
            project. He told these people he is not sure exactly what the hold up is and asked
            if anyone has an idea of when they will get this thing going.

            Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated they are hoping to get it resolved in
            the next couple months. He stated they have sent their comments to the engineer
            in New Jersey and they have to make their return comments and sit down and talk
            about what will happen.

            Councilmember Goode stated he thinks most people’s expectation is that they
            would have arrived at this thing quicker and that is probably why they are asking
            questions.
PAGE 23                          CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                                JUNE 26, 2006


          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated he hopes it will be sooner than three
          months.

          Public Works Director Freyermuth stated this is obviously going much longer
          than the staff’s expectations as well. He stated it is a unique type of construction
          issue – the mural itself is not something they can get everywhere and not
          something that is done all the time. He stated it is a little different in the details of
          how it is to be constructed and supported, to know it is going to last. They
          definitely want to protect the interest of the City and not have it be something that
          would cause problems and additional costs at a later time, possibly five to fifteen
          years down the road.

          Mayor Meyers asked if this is a situation where they are meeting resistance.

          Councilmember Pflumm asked if the supplier has been back to town.

          Public Works Director Freyermuth stated it is his understanding that the supplier
          is cooperating and working with the City on this project. There has been some
          resistance in some of the details needed, but they have continued to work with
          getting the details to the staff. He stated some of it is just getting the information
          correct. He stated they are trying to be very diligent in their reviews and in their
          consultant’s reviews of the information being sent in to make sure it is correct and
          everything will end up lasting a long time and not create future costs to the City.

          Councilmember Sawyer stated that is a very diplomatic answer, but first of all
          they should not paint any pretty pictures here, because the thing is not red brick
          like this Council approved. He stated it is fiberglass that looks like limestone,
          which is far from what this Council approved. He asked how many months have
          they been going on with this supplier. He stated the supplier hauled half or one-
          third of it in here and does not really know what is sitting up there, but they have
          been dinking with this guy to get them the engineering plans so when it ends up
          getting put up it will stay. He asked where do they draw the line and tell the guy
          to pack it up and take it back, because it is not anything near what this Council
          approved. He stated all of the staff involved with this project has failed to deal
          with the fact that it is not red brick and red brick is what was approved. He asked
          if that is correct and would like a yes or no answer.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman replied no, it is not. He stated it was a
          brick material of different colors. He stated it is a concrete reinforcing fiber. He
          stated they wanted brick and ended up getting a panel – that is true. He stated the
          detail is very nice. He stated the problem is, the supplier wants to stack it and the
          staff disagrees. He stated it is 400 pounds on top of each other and they think the
          bottom one will start to crack.

          Councilmember Sawyer asked how they plan on getting it off the centerline.
PAGE 24                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                               JUNE 26, 2006


          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated the staff is not happy either.

          Councilmember Sawyer stated they were supposed to dedicate this thing in March
          2006 and he thinks it might be safe to say they probably will not end up
          dedicating it until the end of 2007 based on this rate of anybody making the
          supplier comply. He asked what is it that they can do to move this forward other
          than telling the supplier he can do it however he wants. He is beginning to think
          the supplier is sitting out there waiting for the City to cave in and tell him to do
          whatever he wants to do. He does not want to see that happen.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated they have been having the supplier
          do exactly what they want him to do with the engineering to make sure it will all
          stack.

          Councilmember Pflumm asked if there was a discrepancy in the specifications
          and why is the supplier basically offering something that is much more
          economical than what the Council originally approved.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman responded that the bricks were so detailed
          that the supplier did come back with a panel – it was more like a block and then
          he came back with panels. He stated the question is if they want to continue to
          work with the guy. He noted they have not agreed to accept the piece and it has
          to be put up before final acceptance. He stated if it is not accepted, he will have
          to pick it up and they will have to find someone else. He stated the staff is not
          happy either, but are at the point to wait a little longer and have the supplier bring
          in the other bricks to see how everyone likes it.

          Councilmember Goode stated if the staff is unhappy, what actually caused them
          to be unhappy.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated the staff is unhappy with the
          supplier’s commitment to this project.

          Councilmember Goode asked if the supplier is not following through with his
          original commitments.

          Public Works Director Freyermuth replied to a certain extent that is true. He
          stated some of the issues came from the fact that it changed from the bricks or
          blocks to these panels, which changed some of the requirements for what he
          needed to supply to the City to show that everything was going to work
          appropriately. He stated the local architect designer on this project knew the
          details of how the blocks would go together and be supportive of the weight of the
          additional blocks above the others, so everything was in pretty good shape. This
          panel type material requires the City to get more detail and make sure they agree
          before acceptance that it is going to be the equivalent and a good product. He
          stated the staff is disappointed that by changing the design, the supplier is still not
PAGE 25                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                              JUNE 26, 2006


          getting them the information in a quick and timely manner, to keep this project
          moving along. He stated this project has drawn out a long time, much further
          than they anticipated. He stated it was back in January and February that they
          were starting to get some of the information and details on this different material.
          He stated the supplier has not performed as they would have expected.

          Public Works Director Freyermuth stated staff can put together a report of where
          they are at and their options, if the Council would like to receive more detailed
          information. He stated at some point, they will probably recommend making
          some adjustment to end this contract or some other alternative, but at this point
          they still feel the supplier of this mural is trying to work with the staff to get the
          appropriate details. He stated because it is a unique type of construction and
          construction material, it is not something that every engineer he can go to, to work
          out the details will even be familiar with, so it has been a complicated issue.

          Mayor Meyers asked if staff has received re-engineering from him that has been
          sent to the City and did he respond back.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman answered yes. He stated the supplier does
          have an engineer from New Jersey and he has sent staff the calculations for all of
          the material in that block. He stated the staff made their comments, along with
          Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke, and HNTB and it is now back with his
          engineers. He stated he thinks there are only a few items left, one being the
          calculations.

          Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated the engineering should be done in a
          couple of weeks.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated instead of looking at a framing
          system with some of the same material, they are now looking at ribs for the back
          and that should hold the weight.

          Councilmember Pflumm stated the biggest question here is if the City specifically
          outlined what the supplier was supposed to do and then he came back with
          something completely different. He asked if that is a correct statement.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated that would be correct.

          Councilmember Pflumm stated they have that outlined in the contract.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman answered yes.

          Councilmember Pflumm stated now they are talking to the supplier and telling
          him the staff will look at his engineering specs and if they like what they see, and
          then maybe they will write up another contract. He stated somehow the City
          needs to get some monetary relief for what the supplier is providing, as opposed
PAGE 26                        CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006


          to what the Council specified. He stated the supplier obviously is providing
          something that is much more economical than what they originally approved.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated that he is looking into this, along
          with Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke, Assistant City Attorney Rainey, and
          Public Works Director Freyermuth.

          Councilmember Pflumm asked if they have talked with the supplier about
          monetary relief.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated quite frankly, they are just trying to
          get him to bring the other half to the City and get it put up so they can decide if
          they are going to accept it or not.

          Councilmember Goode stated that is about as good as they can do.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated the detail is there and if it does go
          up and everyone is happy, then they will accept it.

          Councilmember Pflumm asked why the supplier would bring it to the City, if the
          Council has the option to axe it. He would then be out double the shipping costs
          and double the work for the second half. He stated the Council needs to decide if
          they are going to accept it and come to some type of an agreement. He stated if
          the engineers agree with the supplier’s engineering company and say it is going to
          hold and last for 50 years, they then need to decide how much money to pay him.
          Should they give him the full amount and then when the next guy comes into the
          City where they have asked for white topping in an intersection and instead
          asphalt is put down because it is more economical, are they just going to let things
          like that continue to happen. He asked if the City is just going to let people do
          that to them.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated he would hope not.

          City Manager Gonzales stated once the staff is satisfied with the engineering and
          the changes, they would then bring a composite of those changes to the Council to
          determine if they are okay with it and want to move forward. She stated they also
          need to see if they can get the supplier’s agreement as well.

          Councilmember Pflumm stated they are just talking about the structural part.

          City Manager Gonzales agreed and thinks it is all together. She stated they need
          to look at the whole picture and compare the value of what is being provided to
          the value of what was specified and determine what would be the appropriate
          compensation, especially with all the other additional costs incurred with
          engineers. She stated they would need to bring all of that to the Council to
          determine how they want to move forward.
PAGE 27                        CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                             JUNE 26, 2006




          Councilmember Sawyer stated the Council saw the actual brick originally.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated that is not correct. He stated that
          was the stage before the brick is made.

          Councilmember Sawyer stated he thought vandals damaged it and pushed it all
          over.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated they did a Styrofoam cutout, but
          they never actually saw brick.

          Councilmember Sawyer stated he questions whether the Council will absolutely
          stand together on this. He stated he is hearing that they are going to have the
          supplier put this thing up and then the Council will determine if they even like it.
          He wonders if there will be enough people on the Council strong enough to say
          they do not like it, take it down, and get the bricks. He doubts it. He stated they
          have dinked with this guy all year long and he is aware that he is sitting on the
          outside looking in, but apparently the supplier does not like the idea that the City
          is requiring him to come up with the certified engineering plan that says the
          structure will stay there. He thinks that was some of the problem they had when
          he unloaded the first load. The supplier then packed up and left town, upset, and
          has not been back. He asked if that was correct.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated that is true.

          Councilmember Sawyer asked what makes staff think that the supplier even cares.
          He stated he personally cares and wants this finished and does not particularly
          care if it is the supplier. He does not know who designed it to stack up there in
          block and asked who that was.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman replied Charles Goslin did the artist
          rendering and then Tim Watson from Brickstone took that – that is what he does.
          He stated Tim Watson has stuff all over the place. He stated down at the St.
          Louis Arch the whole thing is that brick-type sculpture.

          Councilmember Pflumm asked if the same guy did the St. Louis Arch.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman replied he did the downstairs museum
          piece and has some on the building.

          Councilmember Pflumm asked if that is what he is proposing here.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated that is the smaller bricks and these
          are the bigger panels. They are different.
PAGE 28                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                              JUNE 26, 2006


          Councilmember Sawyer stated he would have to agree with Councilmember
          Goode and Councilmember Pflumm and wonders if they are ever going to see
          anything other than these panels leaning up against each other, stacked up to the
          east.

          Councilmember Straub stated it does sound as if the Council would appreciate an
          update on where they are at with all of this, so they can make a decision. They
          need staff’s suggestions about moving forward and everyone needs to get on the
          same page.

          Councilmember Goode stated they need to get it off dead center to make some
          progress. He stated it is up to the staff to negotiate and make things happen.

          Public Works Director Freyermuth stated unfortunately the next step is the mural.
          They even attempted to do some additional work on site with the main general
          contractor, but there is really nothing he can do that does not conflict with the
          mural part of it. He stated it needs to be resolved before they can make additional
          progress on the site.

          Councilmember Sawyer asked how long they are going to wait. He stated he has
          heard two weeks and even a couple of months. He question what is it. He
          personally thinks two days is long enough because they have messed with this
          guy forever. He stated some day they have to say, okay this is the end of the line
          and either they have it or they do not and move on.

          City Manager Gonzales stated if the Council is at that point, they will put together
          a report and bring it in. This is probably something they should discuss in
          executive session at the next Council meeting.

          Assistant City Attorney Rainey stated he was just going to suggest the same thing
          and with the consent of City Manager Gonzales and Mayor Meyers, they have
          discussed a plan, but it is difficult for them to discuss a plan about how to react to
          this in a public meeting. He stated an executive session would probably be more
          appropriate. He stated they can then discuss all their options and the problems
          with this project.

          Councilmember Sawyer stated he agrees.

          Councilmember Pflumm stated he does not care that they get the project done, but
          concerned that they are getting sold a bill of goods. He stated that is the bigger
          part of this whole thing. He stated if it takes them an extra year to get this right,
          so be it.

          Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated that is why they are making sure
          they have everything documented with an engineer’s stamp. He stated HNTB is
          looking for the best product possible.
PAGE 29                           CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                  JUNE 26, 2006




ADJOURNMENT

Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to adjourn. The motion
carried 6-0, and the meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.

Minutes prepared by: Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:



_____________________________________________
Vicki Charlesworth, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:5/5/2010
language:English
pages:29