CITY OF SHAWNEE by benbenzhou

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 34

									                                   CITY OF SHAWNEE
                                CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                       MINUTES
                                    MARCH 27, 2006
                                        7:30 P.M.

Mayor Meyers called the meeting to order at 7:30 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 Goode           City Manager Gonzales
     Councilmember Kuhn            City Attorney Rainey
     Councilmember Novosel         Assistant City Attorney Rainey
     Councilmember Sandifer        Public Works Director Freyermuth
     Councilmember Sawyer          Planning Director Chaffee
     Councilmember Scott           Fire Chief Hudson
     Councilmember Tubbesing       Police Chief Clark
                                   City Clerk Charlesworth
     Councilmembers Absent         City Engineer Wesselschmidt
     Councilmember Pflumm          Finance Director Kidney
                                   Parks and Recreation Director Holman
                                   Project Engineer Gregory
                                   Project Engineer Lindstrom
                                   Traffic Engineer Sherfy
                                   Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke
                                   Deputy Parks and Recreation Director Lecuru

Members of the public who spoke: (Item 17) STEVE WARLICK, 13901 W. 54th Terrace,
PATTY SPEHART, 13905 W. 54th Terrace, KATHY ST.CLAIR, 13800 W. 54th Terrace,
MICHAEL SANDERS, 13817 W. 54th Street, JILL SPANGLER, 13908 W. 54th Terrace, NICK
SPEHART, 13905 W. 54th Terrace, DELOIS NELSON, 13901 W. 54th Terrace, ELIZABETH
ANN SANDERS, 13817, W. 54th Terrace; (Item 18) CAYLENE FOLEY, 6606 Long,
CYNTHIA WHITTEN, 12505 W. 66th Street; (Business from the Floor) SHARON FOSTER,
5832 Park Circle, JO HAWTHORNE, 11015 W. 62nd Street, and RACHEL SCHMIDT, 11418
W. 70th Street.

CONSENT AGENDA

1.       APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY
         27, 2006.

2.       REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
         FEBRUARY 22, 2006.
PAGE 2                              CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                       MARCH 27, 2006


3.       REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
         MARCH 6, 2006.

4.       REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PUBLIC                         WORKS         AND   SAFETY
         COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2006.

5.       REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY
         BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006.

6.       CONSIDER RESOLUTION FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED
         MAIN SEWER DISTRICT FOR THE VICINITY OF WOODLAND DRIVE AND
         WEST 63RD TERRACE (LOTS 1 & 2 SWANSON’S STREAMWAY DOG PARK &
         DAYCARE).

         Having been adopted, Resolution 1477 was assigned.

7.       CONSIDER THE UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH KANSAS
         CITY POWER AND LIGHT (KCPL) FOR THE 51ST STREET
         RECONSTRUCTION, FROM ROSEHILL TO QUIVIRA DRIVE, P.N. 3308.

         The construction cost for this work has been estimated at $454,709. Approval will
         authorize the Mayor to sign the relocation agreement with KCPL.

8.       CONSIDER THE UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH WATERONE
         FOR THE 47TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION, FROM MUND TO WOODLAND,
         P.N. 3309.

         The construction cost for this work has been estimated at $43,047.07. Approval will
         authorize the Mayor to sign the relocation agreement with WaterOne.

9.       CONSIDER THE UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH WESTAR
         ENERGY, INC. FOR THE 47TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION, FROM MUND
         TO WOODLAND, P.N. 3309.

         The construction cost for this work has been estimated at $105,000. Approval will
         authorize the Mayor to sign the relocation agreement with Westar Energy, Inc.

10.      CONSIDER THE AGREEMENT WITH KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
         TRANSPORTATION    (KDOT) FOR  THE  REIMBURSEMENT   OF
         CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR CLEAR CREEK RECREATIONAL TRAIL
         (GAMBLIN PARK TO K-7).

         Approval will authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with KDOT.
PAGE 3                               CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        MARCH 27, 2006


11.      CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO MODIFY THE INTEREST RATE FROM A
         VARIABLE RATE TO A FIXED RATE FOR THE ZARBAR/M $13,000,000,
         SERIES 2005 PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BONDS.

         Having passed, Ordinance 2806 was assigned.

12.      CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REDEMPTION OF MULTI-
         FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR HAVERFORD WEST
         APARTMENTS.

         Having been adopted, Resolution 1478 was assigned.

13.      CONSIDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY
         FOR   THE   RESEARCH    AND      DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER
         MANAGEMENT PROJECT TO EVALUATE WATER QUALITY UNITS AS A
         BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE FOR THE 65TH AND PARKHILL STORM
         DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT, P.N. 3290.

         This agreement obligates the County to pay 100% of the cost of the installation of two
         stormwater quality units for $69,000. The total cost of the project is $385,000 with the
         City‟s portion being $121,750 from the Parks and Pipes fund; and the County to provide
         a total of $263,250. Approval will authorize the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement
         with Johnson County for P.N. 3290.

Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to approve the entire
consent agenda. The motion carried 7-0.

MAYOR’S ITEMS

Mayor Meyers recognized and welcomed all the scouts present and asked each of them to give
their name and troop number. He stated it is very good to see so many troops involved in the
community and hopes they will all take one thing away from tonight‟s meeting and learn
something new. If that happens, then it will be a great success.

Councilmember Goode stated he has seen a lot of scouts attend these City Council meetings
through the years, but believes tonight may be the largest group he has seen yet.

14.      CONSIDER A CONTRIBUTION OF $1,000 FOR A COUNTYWIDE SURVEY ON
         SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES.

         Mayor Meyers stated that included in the packet is a letter of request from Johnson
         County Commissioner Furtado on behalf of the Health of the Public and Wellness Task
         Force.
PAGE 4                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         MARCH 27, 2006


         Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to approve a City
         contribution of $1,000 for a countywide survey on smoking in public places per the
         request from Johnson County Commissioner Furtado on behalf of the Health of the
         Public and Wellness Task Force. The motion carried 7-0.

APPOINTMENTS

15.      CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
         ADVISORY BOARD.

         Mayor Meyers stated that Councilmember Pflumm is recommending Amy Ruo;
         Councilmember Novosel is recommending Doris Yantis; and Mayor Meyers is
         recommending Kevin Fern for reappointments to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
         Board with their terms expiring on December 31, 2008.

         Councilmember Novosel, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to reappoint Amy
         Ruo, Doris Yantis, and Kevin Fern to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with their
         terms expiring on December 31, 2008. The motion carried 7-0.

PUBLIC ITEMS

16.      CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CONSOLIDATED
         ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE 2004 AND
         2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS.

         Mayor Meyers stated the Council will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the
         Performance and Evaluation Report for the 2004 and 2005 Community Development
         Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The CDBG program requires this public hearing be held to
         provide the opportunity for citizen participation. Staff will forward the report on to HUD
         after the public hearing has been held.

         Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to conduct a public
         hearing to consider the consolidated annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the
         2004 and 2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The motion
         carried 7-0.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated as part of the citizen participation process and the
         Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the City is required to hold a
         public hearing to let the public know in a public forum what they were able to accomplish
         during the year 2005, regarding their 2004 and 2005 Community Development Block
         Grant.

         Planning Director Chaffee reported the major projects completed, were Phase I for the
         downtown streetscape. The funding came from the Community Development Block
         Grant program and the second major infrastructure project was Phase II. He stated Phase
         I went from Barton to Reeder and Phase II was the stretch between King and Barton and
PAGE 5                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         MARCH 27, 2006


         from Reeder to Bluejacket. That was the infrastructure project. He stated that also, as
         the name of the department reads, Community Development and Housing, they also
         provided funding to Johnson County Housing Services to undertake improvements to
         individual‟s homes under the Minor Home Repair Program. He stated the citizens have
         to be from the City of Shawnee and meet income requirements. He stated during the year
         2005, Johnson County Housing Services utilized $14,877 and eight homes were provided
         services; these homes contained 22 residents.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated another feature of the Community Development Block
         Grant program is the provision of funds to community service organizations called
         Continuum of Care, how the City cares for their citizens other than through housing and
         infrastructure needs. He stated that no more than 15 percent of the Community
         Development Block Grant funds can be used for that purpose.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated in the 2005 grant year, there were five organizations
         that received funding. He stated three of them were CLASP, which is a provider of child
         care, YMCA of Greater Kansas City, which provides after school child care services, and
         Johnson County Parks and Recreation, which provides a summer program and provided
         service for 55 children of low to moderate income families in the City of Shawnee. He
         stated the total reimbursements made to these agencies in 2005 came to $25,124.20. He
         stated two organizations which received funding, the Salvation Army and Life Skills, did
         not meet reimbursement requests yet for last year, so the staff will review their progress
         in the next year.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated with all that said, he believes the City can be proud of
         the projects that have been undertaken and proud of the agencies that provide services to
         individuals that otherwise may not have been. He stated he is especially proud of the
         human service providers that provide the subsidized child care while parents might be
         trying to get back to work to provide a good living for their families. He stated it just
         helps those families out a little along the way, as all of them know that child care is
         getting quite expensive.

         Mayor Meyers thanked Planning Director Chaffee for his presentation.

         Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to conclude the
         public hearing to consider the consolidated annual Performance and Evaluation Report
         for the 2004 and 2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The
         motion carried 7-0.

17.      CONSIDER PET PERMIT APPLICATION FROM BETH WARLICK, 13901
         WEST 54TH TERRACE.

         Mayor Meyers stated that Beth Warlick is requesting approval of a pet permit to keep
         four (4) dogs: one Great Pyrenees/Labrador Mix; one Great Pyrenees; one Miniature
         Pinscher; and one Miniature Poodle.
PAGE 6                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         MARCH 27, 2006


         City Clerk Charlesworth stated Mrs. Warlick has had a permit to keep three dogs since
         July 2004. She stated late last fall, Mrs. Warlick added a fourth dog. Because she added
         that dog she is required to apply for a new permit. This required her to obtain signatures
         from residents who live within 200 feet of her property. She stated three neighbors have
         indicated they are opposed to the permit. She stated one neighbor sent a letter, which is
         included in tonight‟s packet of information and the other two neighbors indicated they are
         opposed to a fourth dog because it goes against their homes association regulations.

         City Clerk Charlesworth stated when she spoke with Mrs. Warlick, she informed Ms.
         Warlick of this. Ms. Warlick was going to contact her homes association and make
         application with them to keep the four dogs. She stated she spoke with Mrs. Warlick
         earlier today who informed her that she did, in fact, receive that approval from her homes
         association and has an email indicating such. The applicant is present this evening.

         STEVE WARLICK, 13901 W. 54th Terrace, stated they informed City Clerk
         Charlesworth of the homes association‟s approval for their request and they submitted
         letters separately through email.

         Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Warlick if the homes association was aware that three of
         the neighbors are against this permit.

         STEVE WARLICK replied that he and his wife met with the Board and they were aware
         of one of the neighbor‟s concerns. He stated he is pretty sure they knew that they had to
         go before the City Council, because the context of their discussion with the association
         was to get approval prior to coming here; he thinks they knew.

         Councilmember Scott requested confirmation that the homes association knew there were
         other complaints.

         STEVE WARLICK answered yes, they knew.

         Councilmember Goode asked how many people were on the homes association board at
         the time of the meeting.

         STEVE WARLICK answered they met with three people. He stated that was not a
         quorum for the meeting. They passed on additional information to the president of the
         Board and he provided that information to the other members of the Board. They voted,
         he assumes, in block for that additional information.

         Councilmember Goode asked Mr. Warlick if he received unanimous approval by that
         block.

         STEVE WARLICK replied that he can not answer that question. He apologized to the
         Council and stated they have been trying to work with the homes association to get that
         step done before the meeting tonight. He stated they were not aware of the homeowner‟s
         process, which requires that permission be granted by the architectural committee of the
PAGE 7                                 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


         association. He stated the regulations require approval for more than an aggregate
         number of one bird, one dog, one cat, or one rabbit for a total of two. They are a little
         late on the scene with that one and that is the reason for the delay.

         Councilmember Novosel asked Mr. Warlick if he and his wife were aware that some of
         the neighbors did complain.

         STEVE WARLICK answered they were aware that one neighbor had complained. He
         stated, to be honest, they were aware on a couple of occasions when they first moved into
         the neighborhood about eight years ago with their Labrador. He has been dead for
         approximately three years now. He stated when his mother-in-law, who lives with them
         now, got a puppy they were aware that that dog was making noise. Then took action and
         got a barking collar, and they believed the issue had been dealt with satisfactorily up until
         when they met with their neighbors last week and found out they still have some
         concerns about the noise from that one particular dog.

         Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Warlick if they got a copy of the covenants and
         restrictions when they moved into Woodland Place.

         STEVE WARLICK answered they did not receive that information. He stated they did
         not have a clue about it, frankly, until the issue came up a few years later.

         Councilmember Scott stated she lives in Woodland Place as well, and when they moved
         in they received a packet of all these rules.

         STEVE WARLICK stated they did not receive that packet.

         PATTY SPEHART, 13905 W. 54th Terrace, stated she and her husband live just north of
         the Warlick‟s, so their backyards butt up back-to-back. She stated they have had a lot of
         complaints over the years. She stated the Warlick‟s have had dogs that they have put out
         on the porch for up to two hours and all that information is included in the letter she
         provided the City. She stated those were dogs the Warlick‟s had in the past and are no
         longer living. In October 2005, she did write a letter to Mayor Meyers informing him
         that this problem continues. She stated she has talked with the City many times and
         never felt she could get this problem resolved.

         PATTY SPEHART stated the Warlick‟s do have four dogs at this time and there have
         been times they have also had visiting, guest dogs, that were also a nuisance. She stated
         the Warlick‟s would put dogs both in the backyard and front yard, so they would have
         yipping in the front and barking in the back, so this has gone on for quite a long time.
         She stated when she spoke with the Community Services Officer when the Warlick‟s first
         moved into the neighborhood, she told the officer she did not want to get on their wrong
         side and wanted everything to work out. She asked what she needed to do to make this
         situation okay. She stated the Community Services Officer told her it was not her
         problem and was solely the problem of the people who have the pets to control the dogs
         and make sure they are not a nuisance.
PAGE 8                                 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006




         PATTY SPEHART stated with that, they tried to resolve this issue. She stated she met
         with Beth Warlick two years ago and told her they were not going to do this any more.
         She stated she informed Beth they were going to start calling the Community Services
         Officer, because they were not going to put up with the barking. She stated at that time,
         Beth asked her if she thought they should put the dog collars on that they had obtained
         for their dogs and she told her yes, they should put them on the dogs. She stated it took a
         while, because the collars either were not regulated correctly or not the right ones.

         PATTY SPEHART stated in the winter with everyone‟s houses closed up, it is not as big
         of a problem. The rest of the year they try to keep their house open as much as possible.
         She stated their little lap dog in the backyard continues to yip, so she does not know what
         the problem is with that, but that particular dog does continue to be a nuisance.

         PATTY SPEHART stated in their homes association, they have regulations. She stated
         they did have the meeting and she spoke with them this evening and they informed her
         they did approve it. The thing that concerned her was that they approved it without
         talking to the people who were opposed. She stated they had talked with the Warlick‟s,
         but Mrs. Ott, the Sander‟s, and herself were all out of town at the time they had that
         meeting, so it was approved. She stated she is not certain if they had an open or closed
         meeting because she does not think they have met again since two weeks ago on
         Wednesday. She stated she did talk to the homes association president this evening and
         told him her concerns and how she thinks that is not adequate when all the people
         involved are not invited to the meeting to be able to have some kind of a say.

         PATTY SPEHART stated that three out of the 11 neighbors disapprove, which is 27
         percent, which she sees as a significant number. She stated in the little brochure from the
         City, it says there are different points. She stated one point is if there is a letter to the
         City and then if there are three neighbors who indicate they disapprove. She stated by
         her calculation, that would be four points. She stated they would like to see that the pet
         permit be disapproved.

         Councilmember Kuhn stated the dog that Mrs. Spehart mentioned concern about the
         smaller lap dog. She clarified if the Council denies the permit, the Warlick‟s can get rid
         of whatever dog they want and can keep that little dog. She asked Mrs. Spehart if that
         will solve her problem.

         PATTY SPEHART replied that they did meet with the Warlick‟s last week and they told
         the Spehart‟s they would try, but they also told them they would try two years ago.

         Councilmember Kuhn asked Mrs. Spehart if the Warlick‟s get rid of the larger dog, the
         one not barking, how that will fix her issue.

         PATTY SPEHART answered, to keep adding dogs to the mix, a lot of times they feel as
         if they live next to a kennel.
PAGE 9                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


         Mayor Meyers asked City Clerk Charlesworth if this ends up being a situation where this
         permit is denied, will the Warlick‟s have to get rid of two dogs.

         City Clerk Charlesworth replied that is correct.

         KATHY ST.CLAIR, 13800 W. 54th Terrace, stated she also has a letter of support from
         another neighbor who lives at 13900 W. 54th Terrace. She stated she disagrees with her
         neighbors on this particular topic, but they do all share a concern with their property
         value. She stated she is not a dog lover and does not own dogs, but does support the
         Warlick‟s right to own these dogs. She stated she has lived in her house for 12 years and
         has never once heard the Warlick‟s dogs bark or see them wandering the streets. She
         stated she feels that the Warlick‟s are extremely respectful dog owners.

         KATHY ST.CLAIR stated that unfortunately, Mrs. Spehart has a reputation in the
         neighborhood of complaining and forcing complaints over many neighbors in many
         situations. She thinks this is just the icing on the cake and does not believe it will stop
         with this and that the Council will see Mrs. Spehart again in many other circumstances.
         Many of them have felt her wrath over the years. She stated in this particular case, she
         really feels the Warlick‟s deserve to have those dogs and they treat the neighbors with
         extreme respect. She stated they have met with the neighbors and discussed it and tried
         to work with the Spehart‟s. She stated there is no reason for the Warlick‟s not to own
         their dogs.

         KATHY ST.CLAIR submitted the other neighbor‟s letter to City Clerk Charlesworth for
         the record.

         Councilmember Scott asked City Clerk Charlesworth about Page 74, where it says that
         one of the recommendations is the Council can deny the four dogs, but can also renew the
         pet permit to keep three dogs.

         City Clerk Charlesworth stated that is correct. She stated the Council has options, but if
         the permit is denied, they would then have to reduce the number to two dogs. She stated
         the Council can say they are going to deny the permit for one more dog. She stated she
         will clarify that the City did contact all three of the opposing residents and asked them if
         it would be okay with them if the Warlick‟s kept three dogs and all the neighbors were
         opposed to that as well. She stated two of the neighbors said it was against their homes
         association regulations; the other neighbor was Mrs. Spehart.

         Councilmember Kuhn asked if the other two neighbors are opposed, just because it is
         against the covenants of the homes association.

         City Clerk Charlesworth answered, that is correct, the other two neighbors could not
         identify barking issues – or at least, they did not identify barking issues when they
         contacted the City.
PAGE 10                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


      Councilmember Tubbesing asked if the City feels that the issue of the homes association
      has been mitigated. He asked City Clerk Charlesworth if the staff feels they have a
      confirmation from the homes association.

      City Clerk Charlesworth replied Mrs. Warlick has an email which was shown to her that
      says the homes association in fact did approve. She stated the Council just heard Mrs.
      Spehart say that the homes association did confirm to her that they approved it today.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he is not quite sure if they still have an issue with
      13817 and 13813. If not, it does not really belong before the Council this evening,
      because those issues would then be off the table, because it goes back to administrative
      control.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated to be honest, she does not know. She stated that is what
      they tell the staff when they call in and if they do not tell them anything more, it is hard
      for the staff to determine exactly what is the issue or problem. She stated if they inform
      staff it is against the homes association regulations and they do not want these people to
      have more than two dogs, the staff does not know the whole situation.

      MICHAEL SANDERS, 13817 W. 54th Terrace, stated his purpose this evening is to
      request that the pet permit by the Warlick‟s be denied. He stated the homes association
      guidelines permits two pets with consent. He stated the Warlick‟s have had three dogs
      and they consented to that, but if the Council would look at the location of his house, they
      are farther away from the barking noise than the other neighbors.

      MICHAEL SANDERS stated some of his issues have to do with safety. He stated they
      have a lot of individuals in their family with young children. He stated he sees a problem
      with four dogs. He stated with one of the Warlick dogs, they actually got loose one day
      and ran down the hill. He stated Mrs. Warlick was trying to catch the dog and got down
      into their cul-de-sac and got out of her car, but the car was left running and was damaged.
      He stated the car left an oil slick out in their front yard. The Warlick‟s tried to clean up
      the oil slick, but were unsuccessful. He stated that was one problem with one of their
      dogs at that time and he can not afford to have that happen when he has young children
      over to their house during family gatherings. He stated he would prefer that the
      Warlick‟s be limited to two dogs, the way the homes association intended for it to be and
      that is his request.

      JILL SPANGLER, 13908 W. 54th Terrace, stated she is a brand new resident to the area
      and moved in at the end of August 2005. She stated she has met everyone in her section
      of the cul-de-sac and they are all really nice people. She stated it is a totally quiet
      neighborhood, ideal actually. She stated she just wanted to say that she has a home office
      and a home based business, so she is home seven days a week all day, every day and she
      has never heard the dogs bark once. She stated she has never seen the dogs roaming and
      never seen them bother anyone. She stated she actually has a dog and walks him up the
      hill. She stated the Warlick dogs seem very calm and contained.
PAGE 11                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


      NICK SPEHART, 13905 W. 54th Terrace, stated he is Patty‟s husband. He stated that he,
      too, has a home office and travels and as Patty stated earlier, they do keep their windows
      open during the warmer months. He stated his home office is towards the back of the
      house, so they are right next door to the Warlick‟s. He stated he hears that dog barking
      all the time. He stated they have not heard the barking since late in the fall because they
      obviously have had their windows shut. He stated that dog barking is a constant
      nuisance.

      NICK SPEHART stated the Warlick‟s promised them they would get a barking collar for
      the dog. He stated they put it on the dog and sometimes it is not adjusted correctly and
      does not work, so it continues to be a nuisance. He stated the other neighbors who spoke
      this evening in favor of keeping the dogs live farther away, so it stands to reason they are
      not going to hear the barking. The homes are in the front of the lot and the dog is in the
      backyard, so that is why they hear it at their house.

      NICK SPEHART stated the Council can also see the proximity of the neighbors opposed
      to the permit on the overhead. He stated he lives directly next to the property, so that
      makes a huge difference. He stated they heard Mr. Sanders say that one dog has been
      loose, the previous dog, and he is not sure they had a permit for it either since they have
      had several dogs for many years. He stated the dog has been running loose and has run
      loose in his backyard, even while members of the family were on the back deck. This is
      documented.

      NICK SPEHART stated that he and Patty have tried everything they can to talk to the
      Warlick‟s and have reported everything to them. He stated one of the problems they have
      is that it becomes their responsibility to police their dogs, whereas it should be the
      Warlick‟s responsibility to take care of their animals. He stated this is why they are
      asking that the Council to deny this permit.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated the dog doing all the barking seems to be the small little
      dog – the 19-year-old.

      NICK SPEHART stated that is not correct, as it is the brand new dog. He stated the
      Warlick‟s met with them last week and informed them they have had four dogs for many
      years. He stated he is not sure what permit they had prior to this, but if they had a permit
      for anything less than four dogs, they either lied to them last week or whatever, because
      they told him they have had four dogs for many years.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated it was his understanding that the small dog was making
      all the noise – the mother-in-law‟s dog.

      NICK SPEHART stated that is correct – they have two small dogs and two large dogs.
      He stated the dog that most often barks now is that small lap dog that is chained in the
      backyard.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked about the ones they have had for some time.
PAGE 12                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                          MARCH 27, 2006




      NICK SPEHART stated prior to this, those other dogs did bark when they would put
      them out on the back deck. He stated he is not sure, because he does not go in their house
      and does not know where those other dogs are, but assumes they are dead.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated chances are the Warlick‟s would keep the two dogs they
      had originally, which will be the two barking dogs.

      NICK SPEHART stated he has no idea which dogs they will keep. He stated they told
      him they had one dog and needed to have a second dog to be a companion to the one dog,
      so those are the two large dogs.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked Mr. Spehart if he is asking they get rid of the quiet dogs.

      NICK SPEHART clarified he is asking that the Warlick‟s have no more than two
      animals. He stated he does not care how they shuffle the deck, because he is sure if the
      remaining dogs bark, he will be calling Animal Control complaining. He stated he does
      not care if they get rid of two dogs or all of them.

      NICK SPEHART stated he also has grandchildren like Mr. Sanders mentioned earlier
      and the dogs are a safety issue. He stated they bring their grandchildren over to the house
      and the Council knows how kids are – they like to run around in the yard. He stated they
      have a very large lot, so he is afraid that even though these dogs are on leashes, they are
      going to get loose or something, because there has been proof that they have gotten loose.
      He stated Mr. Sanders pointed that out earlier and they have already documented that as
      well. He stated maybe it might only happen one time, maybe that is the time his
      granddaughter is running around the backyard and he is very concerned with that
      happening, so there are other issues of concern other than barking.

      Councilmember Goode asked about the barking dog and if he barks 24 hours a day, or
      just at certain times.

      NICK SPEHART replied it barks only at certain times during the day. He stated the
      Warlick‟s keep the dog in the house, but they sometimes put the dog out and clarified that
      it is the small dog.

      Councilmember Goode asked if every time that particular dog is outside – night or day -
      he barks.

      NICK SPEHART answered yes it does.

      DELOIS NELSON, 13901 W. 54th Street, stated she is the grandma in the house and two
      of the dogs being talked about this evening are her dogs. She stated she brought the one
      little dog with her into the house when she came to live with her daughter and her family.
      She stated that dog is now 18 years old.
PAGE 13                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            MARCH 27, 2006


      DELOIS NELSON stated two years ago, this little dog was so old that she lost 4 out of
      10 pounds and she thought she was dying. She stated she was not really sick, just old.
      She stated she got the second dog, because she thought she was losing her. She stated
      she nursed her and nursed her and she has hung in at six pounds now for two years. She
      stated she really did not have an intent to have two dogs, but that is what she has and she
      has tried to take good care of them.

      DELOIS NELSON stated she is a responsible person and has had dogs all her life. She
      stated she thought the best time to put the dog out on the line to see how she would do,
      would be during the day when everyone had gone to work. She stated she planned it that
      way. She stated she did not know and was never told that anyone worked next door out
      of their home. She stated the little dog did bark and she brought it inside. She stated she
      never put the little dog out unless she was home. She stated she is retired and stays home
      all the time, so the little dog is only outside when she is home.

      DELOIS NELSON stated the dog has had a bark collar on for two years now and she
      does not bark. She stated she had not been told that there was any problem until this past
      week. She stated no one said a word to her that there was any noise and she is right there
      on the property and did not hear anything, so she has been unable to figure out the issue.
      She stated she tries to be a good neighbor and does not put out the dog for very long at a
      time. She stated the dog is never out in the evening or on the weekends. She stated she
      tries to do it in a neighborly way.

      DELOIS NELSON apologized if people are unhappy. She stated she wishes she had
      known there was some concern, as she would have tried to fix the problem. She stated
      she is trying to be a responsible neighbor and is sorry she caused difficulties.

      ELIZABETH ANN SANDERS, 13817 W. 54th Terrace, stated if she had her way, she
      would waive a magic wand and make everyone get along in an amicable way. She stated
      her issue, as her husband mentioned earlier, is safety. She stated they do not have any
      children or grandchildren who stay at their home, but do have nieces and nephews. She
      stated that she, as an educator, does not claim to be an animal specialist, but she does
      know that dogs can develop a pack mentality and often times it is the smaller dogs that
      are a little more aggressive that cause a situation for the larger dogs to become
      aggressive.

      ELIZABETH ANN SANDERS stated she does know that small children love animals
      and her nieces and nephews are no different. She stated her nieces and nephews like to
      play, run, and squeal and actually have their own pet dogs. She stated each of her nieces
      and nephews have one large dog who lives separately in two separate households. She
      stated if these children see a large dog, they are going to run up to it and the adults will be
      out trying to supervise them. She stated she can not have, as they all have been reading
      in the newspaper about incidents of children being mauled by dogs. She stated the
      “sorry” afterwards, would not suffice to her or her family.
PAGE 14                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


      ELIZABETH ANN SANDERS stated she believes if there is a two dog permit in the City
      as well as the subdivision, everyone should have known that when they moved in. She
      stated the situation her husband mentioned earlier where the one larger dog got loose and
      there was a huge oil slick made on her property, because she is kind of an upfront person,
      anyone who knows her and she is the one that called the Warlick‟s and told them this will
      not work for her. She stated her husband said that maybe the rain would take it away.

      ELIZABETH ANN SANDERS continued that very weekend she was going to have
      guests from a national association visiting her home. She stated her home was selected to
      be a place of open house. She stated the embarrassment was that members of the groups
      of the Jack and Jill Organization had chosen her home and she had agreed to open it to
      the visiting guests and they had an open house where about 50 persons came and there
      was this huge oil slick out front. She stated the Warlick‟s came to her and asked if her
      husband had a pressure hose and could they help them clean up the slick. She stated that
      was not her job, so they ended up having that slick out in front of their home. She stated
      this all was a result because the Warlick‟s had more dogs than they should have been
      allowed.

      ELIZABETH ANN SANDERS stated she is present this evening asking the Council to
      adhere to the ruling or regulation that every homeowner be limited to two animals.

      STEVE WARLICK stated he would just like to clear up a couple things. He stated they
      have had four children who have had multiple kids visit their house at all times and are
      absolutely in agreement with the Sanders about the issue of dogs and kids. He stated he
      thinks that is a general concern and thinks if that is going to be applicable to their
      situation then there should be some fact to support it and there is none.

      STEVE WARLICK stated he wished Lori Barrett were present this evening, so she could
      tell the Council about the 1 ½ year old child that just trots across the house and sits there
      with these Pyrenees dogs getting licked to death. He stated they are not aggressive dogs
      and he really objects to the idea of a pack of dogs in their house. He stated they have a
      big house and no kids. He stated they have two small dogs; one of which who moves
      about five feet in one direction and lays down again in his mother-in-law‟s portion of the
      house. He stated the Pyrenees lay on the couch with them. He stated they are not
      aggressive dogs and he understands that any dog is an animal, but thinks that concern is a
      little out of range for the issue before the Council tonight.

      STEVE WARLICK stated he wants to clarify his belated understanding of the
      homeowner‟s rules. He stated it is a requirement to have permission requested to have
      more than two animals. He stated it is not a prohibition, but a request that those certain
      decisions be done by approval of the homes association. He stated they have done that
      and they have been approved.

      STEVE WARLICK stated he apologized as far as this issue with the hydraulic spill, but
      would explain further. He stated they had one dog, Sam, who got out one time. He
      stated Sam had a pension to run straight for Pflumm and stand out in front of cars trying
PAGE 15                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            MARCH 27, 2006


      to get someone to stop and play with him. He stated they did not want Sam out and his
      wife drove out looking up towards Pflumm to find the dog. He stated she spotted him
      down in the other cul-de-sac, which is just around the corner. He is not sure exactly what
      happened and is sure she is probably embarrassed about the situation, but she jumped out
      with the car still moving forward and it came up on a high curb and sheared a hydraulic
      brake line, which dumped a lot of fluid in the street. He stated they were trying to clean
      it up and they both spent three hours out there scrubbing with all sorts of different
      degreasers and brushes. He apologized for that part of it and does not think that is
      relevant to the discussion before the Council this evening.

      STEVE WARLICK stated that instance happened with that one dog and it did not happen
      because that dog was chased out of the house by the other dogs. It just got out one time.
      He stated he does not know what to say. He stated, as his mother-in-law said earlier, they
      are responsible people and do take these concerns seriously. He stated the dog that does
      apparently make noise on the line in the back when she is out, has a barking collar on all
      the time. He stated he is not telling the Council if that collar works all the time perfectly
      and does not know, quite frankly, how much noise that dog makes, but really thinks they
      have done as much as they can.

      STEVE WARLICK stated his family will continue to do as much as they can and pay
      attention to this situation, but he really believes there are a lot of other issues encroaching
      on this issue.

      Mayor Meyers stated he appreciates all the comments from all the residents, both pro and
      con on this item. He did make mention that one of the things the Council heard several
      times is the talk about the homes association‟s rules and even though they take that into
      account and like to hear as much information as they can, everyone also needs to
      understand that there is a City ordinance that says that each household is allowed up to
      two dogs, unless they are issued a special pet permit. He stated that is the issue they are
      really dealing with here and the Council needs to make a decision on whether they feel
      that they want to approve or deny the special permit for the Warlick‟s to have up to four
      dogs, or abide by the ordinance which allows two dogs at their residence.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked Mr. Warlick when they moved into this house.

      STEVE WARLICK answered in 1997.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked Mr. Warlick when his mother-in-law moved in with
      them.

      STEVE WARLICK answered some time in 2000.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked at what point in time did they obtain a three dog
      permit.
PAGE 16                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


      STEVE WARLICK answered in 2004 – that is the first time they were even made aware
      of that provision. He stated they got the petition signed and as he recalls, there was one
      family that objected and they had a permit for a third dog.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked Mr. Warlick if he was aware, at least at that time, that
      there were provisions in the City.

      STEVE WARLICK answered yes.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked about Loki who is eight months old and how he was
      obtained.

      STEVE WARLICK answered they bought Loki.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked if Loki was bred from Cassidy.

      STEVE WARLICK answered no.

      STEVE WARLICK clarified that they applied for the permit when the dog was six
      months old. He stated they got the paperwork and he did not realize, frankly, until he
      read it that it was not even required until the dog was six months old, so they submitted it
      at that point in time.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated his point is the Warlick‟s were aware at the time they
      obtained a fourth dog that it was not allowed in the City of Shawnee. He stated they had
      to get the exception to even get the three dog permit in 2004.

      STEVE WARLICK stated that is true.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked if when they obtained the fourth dog, they knew it was
      not permitted in the City of Shawnee.

      STEVE WARLICK stated it depends on what Councilmember Tubbesing means by
      „permitted‟.

      Councilmember Tubbesing explained a fourth dog was not allowed, without coming
      before the Council and requesting an exemption.

      STEVE WARLICK stated the way he reads the requirements is that they have to specify
      the dog and the age and it has to be six months old, so he did not know how to get
      advance permission.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated in 2004, prior to the birth of Loki, let alone obtaining
      him, the Warlick‟s knew that it was the rules of the City of Shawnee to only have two
      dogs and they already obtained an exception to have three dogs, yet they still went out
      and obtained a fourth dog.
PAGE 17                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         MARCH 27, 2006




      STEVE WARLICK stated that is correct technically, but he would not say they were
      aware they had to have a permit for additional dogs and there are people in the City with
      additional dogs He did not think it was a prohibition. He did not think of this as an
      exemption, but as an issue as far as animal safety, sanitation, nuisances – those kinds of
      concerns. He stated, to be honest with the Council, they thought they would just go
      through the same process and had no idea it was going to be this contentious.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated Mr. Warlick stated when they went through the process the
      first time, they remembered there being someone who objected. She asked if it was the
      same neighbors that objected this time.

      STEVE WARLICK stated he is fairly sure it was the Spehart‟s who objected. He stated
      his wife got the names on the petition.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked Mr. Warlick if when they obtained Loki, did they assume
      that when they went through the Council again, there would probably be a concern by
      that same neighbor which might influence the Council being able to allow them the
      fourth dog.

      STEVE WARLICK stated he may be naïve, as he thought the issue before had been
      generated by the miniature Pinscher puppy and the barking associated with that dog. He
      stated they thought they had addressed the problem effectively and did not anticipate this
      happening at all. He declared that neither he or his wife would not ever want to go
      through this process.

      Councilmember Scott asked about the point system in the City. She asked City Clerk
      Charlesworth if she would agree with Mrs. Spehart that this would be eight points – the
      three houses and the letter.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated the staff counted four points. She stated Mrs. Spehart
      submitted a letter to the Mayor earlier and the three neighbors opposed, which comes to
      four points.

      Councilmember Scott asked where that stands on the scale.

      City Clerk Charlesworth replied four points requires Council approval.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked City Clerk Charlesworth if 13813 W. 54th Terrace, which
      was the other neighbor who said they do not feel the Warlick‟s should not get the special
      permit because it is against covenants, if they were out of the mix, would three points
      have required this issue to come before Council.

      City Clerk Charlesworth answered no. She stated she would have approved it.
PAGE 18                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            MARCH 27, 2006


      Councilmember Kuhn stated on top of that, a person gets a double ding if the person who
      says “no”, also writes a letter.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated Mrs. Spehart wrote the letter prior to the Warlick‟s
      applying, so it was counted as a point.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked if one neighbor got particularly frustrated by a situation,
      could they cause a need to go to the Council by themselves by causing the four points in
      letters or complaints and then opposing.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated that is correct. She stated Mrs. Warlick had a permit for
      three dogs before and she would have just renewed this permit. She stated she was
      required to apply for a new permit for four dogs. She stated the Council has the option to
      revoke the permit for three dogs and then deny her permit for four dogs and just allow her
      two dogs. She stated the Council could allow Mrs. Warlick to keep her permit for three
      dogs.

      Councilmember Novosel, seconded by Councilmember Tubbesing, moved to deny the
      Warlick‟s request to keep four dogs and to approve the request for a pet permit to keep
      three dogs, with the applicant being allowed 60 days to comply with the City ordinance
      limiting the dogs to the three. The motion carried 7-0.

18.   CONSIDER PET PERMIT APPLICATION FROM CAYLENE FOLEY, 6606
      LONG.

      Mayor Meyers stated that Caylene Foley is requesting approval of a pet permit to keep
      three (3) dogs: one Hound; one Pomeranian; and one Collie/Terrier Mix.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated the City received a complaint that the Foley‟s were
      keeping more than two dogs and two cats without a permit. She stated the Community
      Services Officer went out to investigate and found out they were keeping more dogs. She
      stated the officer issued a citation for failure to license the animals and also for failure to
      have a permit to keep more than two dogs and two cats. She stated the resident pled
      guilty, paid the fine, and then applied for a special pet permit.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated they sent letters out to the neighbors within 200 feet and
      three were opposed to the permit. She stated one neighbor indicated that there are too
      many dogs in the neighborhood. She stated one person said that the dogs bark when they
      walk by, and one said the dogs bark and charge the fence when they sit on their deck.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated there were three citations total; one for failure to license
      and two for limits on animals. She stated the Community Services Officer has
      recommended approval of this permit and she believes the applicant is present this
      evening.
PAGE 19                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


      CAYLENE FOLEY, 6606 Long, stated this is the first time she has ever heard that they
      are only allowed two dogs in the neighborhood. She stated they did not get a packet and
      she did not know that they had a homes association, because no one came to their door.
      She stated they try to let their dogs in every time they bark. She stated they never leave
      the dogs out. She stated the dogs are like their pets, like their kids. She stated the 15-
      year-old dog is the oldest, which is the Collie/Terrier. She stated the Pomeranian is only
      2 and she has a 13-year-old Hound.

      CAYLENE FOLEY stated the dogs are just like their kids and they never get out in the
      yard or out of the fence. She stated no one has ever complained until now. She stated no
      one comes over and complains to her that their dogs are barking. She stated if that ever
      happened, she would have left them in and handled it like that. She stated she just wants
      her permit.

      Mayor Meyers stated a lot of neighborhoods do not have homes associations, but the City
      has an ordinance that says residents can keep two dogs or if there are certain things that
      take place, it then comes before the Council and people have to obtain a special permit in
      order to keep three or more dogs. He stated there are certain things that can happen,
      where the City Clerk can handle these issues on their own, but with the four point system,
      once it reaches four points it comes before the Council to make the determination.

      CAYLENE FOLEY stated she knows that now. She stated she has lived in this house for
      five years and never had one complaint. She stated she has never had this problem at any
      other place she has lived.

      Councilmember Goode asked Ms. Foley where these complaints are coming from, if she
      has lived in her home for five years and never heard anything until now.

      CAYLENE FOLEY stated she was going to foster some cats and help them. She stated
      when the head of the foster organization came to her home and noticed that they had too
      many dogs, that is when all of this started. She stated she can‟t think of the lady‟s name,
      but she works for Harbor at Pet Smart.

      Councilmember Goode asked if she lives in the area.

      CAYLENE FOLEY answered no – she lives in Basehor. She stated she was just trying
      to do her a favor and foster some cats until they get adopted. She stated that is how it all
      started. She stated she will never do that again, because this is what happens when you
      try to do someone a favor. This is what it comes down to. She stated she is an animal
      lover and wanted to help this lady with the cats so they would not get put to sleep. She
      stated when this lady noticed that there were three dogs in the house, that is when the
      complaints started. She stated none of the other neighbors ever complained to her, it was
      only when they received the letter for them to approve.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked if there was an actual complaint, or did three people object
      because of the letter.
PAGE 20                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006




      City Clerk Charlesworth stated there was originally a complaint and that is how the staff
      found out in the first place. She stated she is not sure where the complaint came from, as
      it does not say on the complaint form.

      Councilmember Kuhn asked for the specific complaint.

      City Clerk Charlesworth replied that there were possibly more than 10 cats at the
      residence. She stated there were three dogs and five cats when the Animal Control
      Officer went out to the residence. She stated Ms. Foley has since reduced the number of
      cats to below the number required for the pet permit, so she just needs the special permit
      for the three dogs.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated if he understands this correctly, Ms. Foley has lived here
      for five years. He asked City Clerk Charlesworth if a person has to register even one dog
      at a residence.

      City Clerk Charlesworth answered yes.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated Ms. Foley has lived in her home for five years and
      registered none of her dogs.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated Ms. Foley received a citation for failure to register, so she
      would say that the dogs did not have a current license at the time. She stated she is not
      certain whether they had previous licenses or not.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated, not to be unreasonable about persons who do not follow the
      law as they are expected, but she would venture to bet that 50 percent of Shawnee‟s
      citizens do not know they have to license their dogs. Her own vet did not tell her she had
      to license her dog and it is only because she has been blessed enough to have been
      elected to the City Council that she saw dog issues come up and recognized she had to
      register her dog. She stated she is not sure that in and of itself makes someone incapable
      of purposely following the rules, but more of a question of when a person finds out about
      the laws.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated maybe they should change the law.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated she thinks the vets should actually be required to let people
      know their animals need to be licensed.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated that is not his point; his point is that Ms. Foley has lived
      in this home for five years and none of her dogs have been licensed. He stated he almost
      does not know of any City that does not require licensing of dogs. He does not know that
      for a fact so he will not go there. He stated this residence has three dogs and someone
      turned them in, so this Governing Body is supposed to sit there and feel compassion for
      these dogs. He stated the City has rules and they all have to live by these rules. He stated
PAGE 21                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                          MARCH 27, 2006


      that is unfortunate, but it is the real world. He stated he simply asked the question if
      these dogs have been at this residence the full five years.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated she would tell the Council that as part of CityLine this
      month, they did include a notation about residences having more than two dogs or two
      cats and before anyone gets more than that allotted number, to please know they have to
      obtain a pet permit.

      Mayor Meyers stated he thinks they have done that previously in CityLine.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated she hopes it helps, but is always open to new ideas.

      Councilmember Goode asked if when Ms. Foley found out she needed a permit, did she
      get a permit. If so, how long ago was that.

      City Clerk Charlesworth replied Ms. Foley is applying for that permit right now. She
      stated that is part of this process.

      Councilmember Goode asked if Ms. Foley ever got a permit during the five year period.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated Ms. Foley stated she was not aware that she had to have a
      special pet permit until just recently when she was issued a citation.

      Councilmember Goode asked Ms. Foley if that is correct. He stated he thinks
      approximately 60 to 70 percent of the City‟s population probably does not know they
      need a special permit. He stated he has been around a while and can identify that.

      CAYLENE FOLEY answered yes that is correct.

      Mayor Meyers stated Councilmember Sawyer‟s comment was on licensing. He stated it
      is not that Ms. Foley did not know about the special permit for three dogs, but the fact
      that she did not have any of her dogs licensed.

      Councilmember Goode asked Ms. Foley if she knew she had to license the dogs.

      CAYLENE FOLEY answered no.

      City Clerk Charlesworth stated she has had people tell her that when they receive their
      vet tag, they think that is the tag they are required to have by law.

      CYNTHIA WHITTEN, 12505 W. 66th Street, stated her property goes right behind the
      Foley‟s property. She stated she has lived at her property since 1995. She stated the
      Foley‟s are fabulous neighbors and she knows all three dogs by name. She stated Ms.
      Foley did not realize about the special permit or licensing, but found out and took care of
      it. She stated there have never been any complaints.
PAGE 22                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                            MARCH 27, 2006


      CYNTHIA WHITTEN stated she finds it interesting that the people who complained via
      the mail or phone calls have never talked to Ms. Foley personally and that bothers her as
      a neighborhood. She stated their homes association does not have any special
      requirements other than the rules of the City of Shawnee, which is two cats and two dogs.
      She stated these dogs are members of the family, so for them to have to get rid of one of
      the dogs would really be a shame. She stated she knows ignorance or not understanding
      or not knowing the law is not an excuse, but as soon as the Foley‟s found out they took
      action. She stated they have been trying to work through this process since July and no
      one has come forward to talk to them about it except for herself.

      CYNTHIA WHITTEN stated she lives right next door to the Foley‟s and her bedroom is
      right into their backyard and she does not have any complaints.

      Mayor Meyers stated he can only say in this situation and in many of the situations in the
      City, he knows that letters get sent out to a resident and a lot of times the residents are not
      complaining or even have a complaint, other than they are aware that the City ordinance
      says that each residence can only have two dogs and they are being asked it they object to
      a third dog. He stated sometimes the residents object to a third dog and is not based on
      any type of complaint, but they are just being asked the question if they object to a third
      dog being obtained and sometimes their answer is no, but many times it is yes.

      Councilmember Goode stated from what he has heard here tonight, the majority of the
      people are not against keeping these three dogs. He stated he represents this ward and
      will make a motion for approval. He informed Ms. Foley if they do not comply with
      these rules down the road, the Council will take the appropriate steps necessary to
      conclude what they have agreed to tonight.

      A roll call vote was taken:

      Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Sandifer, moved to approve a pet
      permit to Caylene Foley to keep three (3) dogs: one Hound; one Pomeranian; and one
      Collie/Terrier Mix. The motion carried 4-3, with Councilmembers Scott, Goode, Kuhn,
      and Sandifer voting aye, and Councilmembers Sawyer, Novosel, and Tubbesing voting
      nay.

19.   CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEM FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
      MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2006.

      a)     Consider FP-03-06-02, the final plat for Cross Pointe, 3rd Plat, for 31 single-
             family lots in the 5100-5300 blocks of Noland Road.

             Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 9-0-1 that the
             Council accept the dedications on FP-03-06-02, the final plat for Cross Pointe,
             Third Plat.
PAGE 23                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


           Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Tubbesing, moved to accept
           the dedications on FP-03-06-02, the final plat for Cross Pointe, 3rd Plat, for 31
           single-family lots in the 5100-5300 blocks of Noland Road, as per the Planning
           Commission‟s recommendations listed in the March 27, 2006 staff report. The
           motion carried 7-0.

20.   CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS                           FROM       THE      PLANNING
      COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2006.

      a)   Consider FP-06-06-03, the final plat for Woodland Farms, 4th Plat, for 33 lots in
           the 4900 block of Longview Street.

           Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the
           Council accept the dedications on Woodland Farms, 4th Plat.

           Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to accept
           the dedications on FP-06-06-03, the final plat for Woodland Farms, 4th Plat, for
           33 lots in the 4900 block of Longview Street, as per the Planning Commission‟s
           recommendations listed in the March 27, 2006 staff report. The motion carried
           7-0.

      b)   Consider FP-07-06-03, the final plat for Meadowbrook Estates, for 46 lots in the
           5200 block of Old K-7 Highway.

           Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the
           Council accept the dedications on Meadowbrook Estates.

           Councilmember Kuhn, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to accept the
           dedications on FP-07-06-03, the final plat for Meadowbrook Estates, for 46 lots in
           the 5200 block of Old K-7 Highway, as per the Planning Commission‟s
           recommendations listed in the March 27, 2006 staff report. The motion carried
           7-0.

      c)   Consider Z-04-06-03, a request to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to RE
           (Residential Estates) for Saer Subdivision, for six (6) single family lots in the
           26900 block of West 73rd Street.

           Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the
           Council approve Z-04-06-03, to rezone from AG to RE for Saer Subdivision.

           Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to pass an
           ordinance approving Z-04-06-03, a request to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to
           RE (Residential Estates) for Saer Subdivision, for six (6) single family lots in the
           26900 block of West 73rd Street, as per the Planning Commission‟s
           recommendations listed in the March 27, 2006 staff report. The motion carried
           7-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2807 was assigned.
PAGE 24                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        MARCH 27, 2006




COUNCIL ITEMS

21.   CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS &
      SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2006.

      a)   Consider the KDOT Federal-Aid Safety Funding for 2008 and 2009 for
           Qualifying Intersections.

           Councilmember Sandifer stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the
           Council approve the submittal of the Shawnee Mission Parkway ramp with
           Lackman Road intersection signalization through KDOT for Federal-Aid Safety
           funding for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

           Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve
           the submittal of the Shawnee Mission Parkway ramp with Lackman Road
           intersection signalization through KDOT for Federal-Aid Safety funding for fiscal
           years 2008 and 2009. The motion carried 7-0.

      b)   Consider the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Program Funding for
           2007-2008.

           Councilmember Sandifer stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the
           Council approve to submit CMAQ funding request applications for: 1)
           Monticello Road Sidewalk and Bicycle Lanes, Midland to the 7900 block for
           2007, and 2) the intersection of 75th Street and Quivira Road for 2008.

           Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to
           approve submitting CMAQ funding request applications for: 1) Monticello Road
           Sidewalk and Bicycle Lanes, Midland to the 7900 block for 2007, and 2) the
           intersection of 75th Street and Quivira Road for 2008. The motion carried 7-0.

      c)   Consider the Street Lighting Request for Reserve at Belle Meade Farms.

           Councilmember Sandifer stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the
           Council approve the street lighting request from Brad Davidson for Belle Meade
           Farms subdivision to use an anodized black spun aluminum pole in lieu of the
           standard aluminum pole.

           Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to
           approve the street lighting request from Brad Davidson for Belle Meade Farms
           subdivision to use an anodized black spun aluminum pole in lieu of the standard
           aluminum pole. The motion carried 7-0.

BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

      a)   Nativity Display – City Hall.
PAGE 25                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006




          Sharon Foster, 5832 Park Circle, Jo Hawthorne, 11015 W. 62nd Street, and Rachel
          Schmidt, 11418 W. 70th Street.

          JO HAWTHORNE, stated they would like to request of the City Council a
          proposal that the Nativity scene would be restored to the traditional Christmas
          display in front of the Shawnee City Hall. She stated that by depicting the birth of
          Christ in the Christmas display, they will be adding and enhancing the cultural
          history of Shawnee during the Christmas season. She stated they also feel that it
          is important to more accurately represent the faith of the Shawnee residents.

          JO HAWTHORNE stated they have a letter that a few people have signed
          supporting their proposal. She stated they feel it is important for the children of
          their community to have a working knowledge of why they really celebrate
          Christmas from a religious standpoint. She stated they feel like displaying the
          Nativity scene with other Christmas symbols is definitely legal and constitutional,
          because they have done some research and received feedback from about three
          organizations: the Catholic League, the Alliance Defense Fund, and Jay Seculo
          from the American Center of Law and Justice.

          JO HAWTHORNE stated they are just asking the City Council to look over the
          material collected and get back with them on this mission.

          RACHEL SCHMIDT stated these organizations also provided letters for all of the
          members of the City Council written to boards such as themselves. She stated
          they cite several court cases where presentations just as this have been brought to
          court and they have found it to be constitutional to allow this on government, or
          any type of city property, as long as the same offer is extended to any type of
          religious group or any persons who want to do this.

          RACHEL SCHMIDT stated at the same time of the Christmas season, they are
          also totally happy to have a Menorah or anything else from different religious
          backgrounds. It is not exclusively for the nativity scene, but just for them to have,
          as citizens, the right to display what a large part of the Shawnee citizens hold to
          be very important, which is Christianity. The City of Shawnee is largely
          Christian and should have the right to display this as long as they are open to the
          same offer for everyone else as religious freedom.

          SHARON FOSTER stated she would just like to say that she moved to Shawnee
          three years ago and one thing that really struck her when she moved to Shawnee,
          besides the really nice parks and the downtown area, was the fact that they had a
          nativity scene in front of City Hall and she did not see that in her previous town or
          in a lot of others. She stated it is her understanding that the nativity scene had
          been in front of City Hall for years, but in 2004 and 2005 it was taken down and
          she was very disappointed. She hopes the Governing Body will strongly consider
          reinstating this and she did try to get signatures this past weekend. She stated she
PAGE 26                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                          MARCH 27, 2006


             did not have to work very hard and got about 21 signatures from various parts of
             the City of Shawnee, as there are a lot of people interested in this endeavor.

             JO HAWTHORNE stated she would add that all of the organizations pretty much
             agree on the guidelines, in that they can not have a Nativity scene by itself and
             that it has to be displayed with other secular symbols of Christmas. She stated
             they also said there could be a disclaimer put in place by the City itself, saying
             that the City does not endorse this message, in case it results in any legal hassle.
             She stated she understands the Council‟s concern, especially with lawsuits and
             other people coming forward about religious expression, but hoped the Council
             will look over the material collected and see what they think.

             Mayor Meyers stated this material will be presented to the staff, the City Council,
             and he will review it as well. He thanked them for making their presentation and
             promised they will certainly hear back from the City Council on this issue.

STAFF ITEMS

22.   CONSIDER BIDS FOR THE 2006 MILL AND OVERLAY CONTRACT.

      Mayor Meyers stated that bids were received on March 3, 2006. Staff recommends that
      Council award the bid to Miles Excavating, Inc., Basehor, Kansas, in the amount of
      $2,959,548.74. A memo from staff and recapitulation of bids are included in the packet
      for review.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he knows this has come up a number of times when
      they have had bids such as these, where they have had discussions about whether the City
      should have more of a point system or look more to Shawnee contractors or local
      contractors. He stated that obviously in this particular instance, there is a large spread
      between the local contractor, McAnany Construction and Miles Excavating – roughly 10
      percent, and he is not sure a point system would overcome that spread. He wonders
      where staff is at, as far as any progress in maybe considering a point system that would
      take into account local merchants. He asked if that has been looked at or considered by
      staff.

      City Manager Gonzales replied the staff has, in the past few months, revised the internal
      purchasing processes in terms of how they select and qualify firms. She stated they have
      not in that process taken into account local firms. She stated if the Council would like to
      have that and formally request the staff to put some kind of proposal, recommendation, or
      information on a committee agenda, that can certainly happen.

      Councilmember Tubbesing agreed with City Manager Gonzales and stated he thinks it is
      something they should at least bring up at a committee meeting after some research by
      staff about how other cities might operate. He stated with this project there is a 10
      percent spread and that is probably too much, but if this was a $500.00 difference on a
PAGE 27                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         MARCH 27, 2006


      $30 million bid, he certainly thinks they should be looking at Shawnee businesses more
      favorably than businesses outside the City.

      Mayor Meyers asked if they know of any other nearby cities that are going by a point
      system.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth replied that offhand he is not aware of any other cities
      who are doing something that does show any type of preferences to local firms over any
      firms within the metro or immediate area. He stated the staff really has not checked into
      that, so they could look at it to see if anyone has a point system on their competition
      bidding. He stated generally in the past, they have not run across that. It may tend to
      discourage bidders from the area to not bid competitively, if they think someone local has
      an edge on what their bid might be.

      Councilmember Kuhn stated her question is not so much a concern of local versus not, as
      she would not want to hurt the City in a competitive market where Shawnee people can
      not get bids in Lenexa, but she is concerned about folks who always give the lowest bid
      and then always come back with the biggest adjustments. She asked how the staff takes
      that into consideration when deciding on jobs. She stated that is something that seems to
      come up a lot – as here are the bids and the Council and staff pick what they think is the
      best case scenario and then it costs more than what they thought it was initially. She
      stated she wonders if that would have happened with every person they picked, or if it
      happened because they picked the low bid and what they ended up paying in overages,
      ended up being what the second bid would have been anyway.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that does make sense, but for the most part, the
      things they are seeing on the changes in the construction contracts over the past several
      years are just items that either the City as owner wants to change, or things as they
      develop in the field that are potential issues that were not put into the design drawings
      and therefore not part of the bid system. He stated they also see quantity changes. He
      stated the bids are based on unit prices and the number of units of work to be done. He
      stated as they go through the process and actually get in the field constructing the item,
      many times the units change because they are estimated off of drawings the best they can,
      but thinks things like tonnage of asphalt will change as they go through the course of the
      project.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that generally, those have been the types of
      change orders received. He stated he is not aware of any situation where the City had
      local contractors, and by local, he means those in the general Kansas City area, where
      they have had problems with them trying to come back on a regular basis and give a low
      bid and then come up with some way to try to change the contract amount to get
      additional funds. He stated that can only happen if staff‟s recommendation and the
      Council‟s acceptance is for a change order to allow for additional work to be done that
      was not in the construction contract.
PAGE 28                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


      Mayor Meyers stated he knows, as far as his experience on the Council, that he has never
      seen a problem with that type of experience. He stated Councilmember Goode has been a
      part of this Council a lot longer than him, but would assume he would agree that they
      have never seen these types of experiences taking place as far as problems of low bidders
      purposely low bidding and then coming back with change orders to raise their contract.

      Councilmember Kuhn apologized, because that was not her implication that somebody
      purposely would come in with a low bid. Her implication was that when somebody bids
      on a project, they thought this is how much it would be When they went in to do the job,
      they thought it came out to more and then the other person who bid on it originally,
      initially thought it was actually going to cost that much. She asked if that made sense.

      Mayor Meyers stated he has seen many of these same companies come to the Council
      over the years and have sometimes had change order increases, along with change order
      decreases. He stated he has not seen any type of consistency of one thing happening
      more so than another, especially with a particular company of any type.

      Councilmember Goode stated over the years, he has seen many bids with far less
      differentiation that these bids being compared here tonight.

      Mayor Meyers stated he does not think there would be any problems with having
      discussions from a committee meeting standpoint. He asked Councilmember Tubbesing
      if he is aware of any specific cities or situations that use a point system that he would like
      staff to research.

      Councilmember Tubbesing responded in other industries, it is quite common practice to
      apply a point system. He stated some of the areas he is familiar with, especially in
      technology, 80 out of 100 points will be assessed based on the dollar amount of the bid,
      but 10 percent will be for the proposal of how to actually implement the project. He
      stated 5 percent would be at the discretion of the staff and an additional 5 percent could
      be all kinds of things. He stated, not as an example they should follow, but over in
      Kansas City, Missouri they use 5 percent for both local as well as for minority
      involvement or what not. He stated there are definitely systems for the City to take a
      look at and see if it might work appropriately in Shawnee.

      Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to award the bid
      for the 2006 mill and overlay contract to Miles Excavating, Inc., Basehor, Kansas, in the
      amount of $2,959,548.74. The motion carried 7-0.

23.   CONSIDER BIDS FOR THE 2006 WEED CONTROL SPRAYING PROGRAM.

      Mayor Meyers stated that bids were received on March 17, 2006. Staff recommends that
      Council award the bid to Chem-Trol, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas, in the amount of
      $15,732.72. A memo from staff and recapitulation of bids are included in the packet for
      review.
PAGE 29                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                          MARCH 27, 2006


      Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to award the bid for
      the 2006 weed control spraying program to Chem-Trol, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas, in the
      amount of $15,732.72. The motion carried 7-0.

24.   CONSIDER BIDS FOR THE 2006 STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM.

      Mayor Meyers stated that bids were received on February 24, 2006. Staff recommends
      that Council award the bid to McAnany Construction, Shawnee, Kansas, in the amount of
      $49,648 for the spring and fall Sweeping contract, and $31,244 for the summer Sweeping
      contract, for a total of $78,752 for the two contracts.

      Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Tubbesing, moved to award the bid
      for the 2006 street sweeping program to McAnany Construction, Shawnee, Kansas, in the
      amount of $49,648 for the spring and fall sweeping contract, and $31,244 for the summer
      sweeping contract, for a total of $78,752 for the two contracts. The motion carried 7-0.

25.   CONSIDER BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT TRUCKS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS
      AND PARKS DEPARTMENTS.

      Mayor Meyers stated that bids were received on March 3, 2006. Staff recommends that
      Council split the award between the three bidders: American Equipment, Kansas City,
      Kansas, in the amount of $136,038; Kranz of Kansas City, Missouri, in the amount of
      $36,611; and Knapheide Truck, Kansas City, Missouri, in the amount of $40,911.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he wanted to thank staff for clearly putting into the
      office memorandum about the amount coming specifically from the budget and that is the
      clarity he was hoping for.

      Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to award the
      bid for replacement trucks for the Public Works and Parks Departments to American
      Equipment, Kansas City, Kansas, in the amount of $136,038; Kranz of Kansas City,
      Missouri, in the amount of $36,611; and Knapheide Truck, Kansas City, Missouri, in the
      amount of $40,911. The motion carried 7-0.

26.   CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE 51ST AND
      BALLENTINE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, P.N. 3271.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the contract was awarded to Max Rieke & Bros., Inc.,
      Shawnee, Kansas, on November 8, 2004, in the amount of $1,644,652.98. This change
      order reflects a net increase of $94,954.93. The new contract amount for this project is
      $1,739,607.91.

      Councilmember Goode asked if items were added to this to make this change.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth replied the change on this project, as he understands
      it, is both for quantity changes for final quantities, and also for several items that were
PAGE 30                           CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        MARCH 27, 2006


      brought to Council‟s attention and the changes were made during the course of the
      project. He stated they had some retaining wall sections to center some of the channel
      behind those homes. He stated at the time this was approved basically in concept,
      because they did not have final numbers at that time, so now they are bringing forward
      the final dollar amount.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated this is where they had to add the retaining wall; they did
      not have to, but chose to add the retaining wall.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that is correct. He stated that was based on the
      request of the residents to make it look more uniform through the length of the channel.

      Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to approve Change
      Order No. 1 and Final for P.N. 3271 for the 51st and Ballentine storm drainage
      improvements which reflects a net increase of $94,954.93, giving a new contract amount
      for this project of $1,739,607.91. The motion carried 7-0.

27.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION
      INSPECTION AND TESTING SERVICES FOR THE 2005 BRIDGE DECK
      REPAIRS.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the planning for the Bridge Deck Repairs began in 2005. The
      City has requested a proposal from Bucher, Willis and Ratliff (BWR) to provide
      construction inspection and testing services for this project. The proposal for fees has
      been negotiated to a not-to-exceed amount of $125,000. The project will be funded
      entirely by the City at Large.

      Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to authorize the
      mayor to sign the contract with Bucher, Willis, and Ratliff to provide construction and
      inspection and testing services for the 2005 bridge deck repairs at a proposed fee
      negotiation not-to-exceed $125,000 and to be funded entirely by the City at Large. The
      motion carried 7-0.

28.   CONSIDER BIDS FOR THE BRIDGE DECK REPAIRS.

      Mayor Meyers stated that bids were received on March 3, 2006. Staff recommends that
      Council award the bid to Comanche Construction, Inc., Olathe, Kansas, in the amount of
      $1,427,610.80.

      Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to award the bid
      for the bridge deck repairs to Comanche Construction, Inc., Olathe, Kansas, in the
      amount of $1,427,610.80. The motion carried 7-0.

29.   CONSIDER  PRELIMINARY     PLANS     FOR   STORM    DRAINAGE
      IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF 52ND AND CHARLES STREET, P.N. 3288.
PAGE 31                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                           MARCH 27, 2006


      Mayor Meyers stated that Peridian Group Consulting Engineers submitted the
      preliminary plans. The total estimated cost of the project is $1,079,000. The Johnson
      County Stormwater Management Program is funding 75% of the eligible cost and their
      total participation is estimated at $714,000. The City‟s portion of the total estimated cost
      is $365,000, which will be funded through the Parks and Pipes Fund.

      Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the
      preliminary plans submitted by Peridian Group Consulting Engineers for storm drainage
      improvements in the area of 52nd and Charles Street, P.N. 3288, at a total estimated cost
      of $1,079,000 with the Johnson County Stormwater Management Program to fund 75%
      of the eligible cost and their total participation estimated at $714,000 and the City‟s
      portion of the total estimated cost of $365,000, which will be funded through the Parks
      and Pipes Fund. The motion carried 7-0.

30.   CONSIDER CHANGE ORDERS NO. 4 AND 5 FOR SHAWNEE MISSION
      PARKWAY, PHASE III, HALSEY TO PFLUMM, P.N. 3237.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the contract was awarded to D. F. Freeman Contractors, Inc.,
      Shawnee, Kansas, in the amount of $6,989,189.71. These change orders reflect a net
      decrease of $442,602.41. The new contract amount for this project, after all change
      orders, is $6,734,810.18.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked if those are the final change orders.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth replied these two change orders will be the final two
      change orders on this project to set the City‟s final contract amount for the construction
      project. He stated Change Order No. 4 was basically finalizing quantities on the project,
      which was considerably lower units of construction on the project than what was
      estimated in the contract amount when bid. He stated Change Order No. 5 would be for
      assessing 108 days for liquidated damages for the fact the project was not finished on the
      original construction date, or actually with an extension of time of approximately 67 days
      of additional time granted to the contractor. He stated 108 days came to $216,000.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked if this is the change order that the City feels is necessary,
      but not necessarily agreeable with D. F. Freeman.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth answered that is correct. He stated that he actually
      believes Change Order No. 4 was agreeable to them on quantities, but Change Order No.
      5 is not agreeable to them on the liquidated damages, as they do not feel it would be
      correct for them to be charged the liquidated damages on this project. He stated they
      have not signed and do not agree with that particular change order.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated this is an item where they basically had the
      details finished up in the late fall of last year and held off bringing it before the Council
      to actually finalize the two change orders, knowing that the contractor wanted to try to
      work out issues that they have with the final dollar amount on the contract. He stated
PAGE 32                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                          MARCH 27, 2006


      they were holding it to allow the staff to negotiate, but the contractor at this point may
      still be looking to negotiate. He stated the City feels at this point in time, it is not a
      reason to hold off on the finalizing of the two change orders.

      Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to approve
      Change Orders No. 4 and 5 for Shawnee Mission Parkway, Phase III, Halsey to Pflumm,
      P.N. 3237, to for D. F. Freeman Contractors, Inc., Shawnee, Kansas, in the amount of
      $6,989,189.71. The motion carried 7-0.

31.   CONSIDER FINAL PLANS FOR THE EAST POOL PROJECT.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the final plans are complete and the bids are scheduled to be
      opened April 21, 2006. The total estimated not-to-exceed cost of the project is
      $6,580,000.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated his main concerns or questions are the walkability as
      the potential of the downtown district continues to the west a bit and interconnecting –
      pretty much with Old Shawnee Town. He asked if the frontage on Johnson Drive is
      going to allow for a decorative sidewalk of the width they have in the downtown district
      at this time, if it ends up going down that far.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke replied the staff has not looked into that.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he does not want to go through the process of creating
      retaining walls and fences, when what they are trying to do is welcome people in through
      a walkable downtown. He stated if the Johnson Drive edge of this pool is more of a “go
      around to the parking lot”, he thinks it defeats the purpose they are trying to create
      throughout the entire downtown district.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated the staff would be glad to look into that.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he believes they already have a retaining wall there on the
      sidewalk.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated it is a concrete wall.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated it is actually a retaining wall and has been there for eons.
      He stated he agrees with Councilmember Tubbesing, but does not think they can put the
      sidewalk in this project.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated if it means they might have to move everything back
      four feet so that they do not destroy something four years later when they put in the
      sidewalk – that is what he looking at doing.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated it is his understanding they are not doing anything with
      the trees out front in this project.
PAGE 33                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         MARCH 27, 2006




      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke replied two of those trees are coming out. He
      stated one has the top broken out of it from a previous storm, so there are five trees out
      front along Johnson Drive and they will be replacing those with some other trees.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he is asking for staff‟s consideration with those kinds
      of things because trees are more complicated to move five or ten years down the line.

      City Manager Gonzales clarified an error made in the attached memo. She stated the
      funding for this project is actually coming from the Land Acquisition Fund, which the
      Council approved a resolution three, almost four, years ago now with regard to the school
      sales tax that those monies would be allocated towards aquatic facilities in eastern and
      western Shawnee, so half of the funding for the East Pool is actually coming from those
      funds and not from Parks and Pipes money.

      Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to approve the final
      plans for the East Pool Project at a total estimated not-to-exceed cost of $6,580,000. The
      motion carried 7-0.

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

32.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR MARCH 27, 2006,
      IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,277,018.13.

      Councilmember Novosel, seconded by Councilmember Sandifer, moved to approve the
      semi-monthly claim for March 27, 2006, in the amount of $3,277,018.13. The motion
      carried 7-0.

33.   MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.

      There were no miscellaneous Council items.

34.   CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE
      ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.

      Councilmember Novosel, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to recess to
      executive session for approximately 40 minutes for the purpose of receiving
      attorney/client privileged communication, with the City Council meeting to reconvene in
      the Council Chambers at the conclusion of the executive session. The motion carried 7-0,
      and the meeting recessed at 9:13 p.m.

      Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Kuhn, moved to conclude the
      executive session. The motion carried 7-0.

      Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to reconvene the
      meeting. The motion carried 7-0, and the meeting reconvened at 9:52 p.m.
PAGE 34                           CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                 MARCH 27, 2006




ADJOURNMENT

Councilmember Novosel, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to adjourn. The motion
carried 7-0, and the meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m.

Minutes prepared by: Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:




_________________________________
Vicki Charlesworth, City Clerk

								
To top