Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

CITY OF SHAWNEE

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 34

									                                   CITY OF SHAWNEE
                                CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                       MINUTES
                                   OCTOBER 24, 2005
                                        7:30 P.M.

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

     Councilmembers Present        Staff Present
     Councilmember Goode           City Manager Montague
     Councilmember Novosel         Deputy City Manager Gonzales
     Councilmember Pflumm          City Attorney Rainey
     Councilmember Sandifer        Assistant City Attorney Rainey
     Councilmember Sawyer          Public Works Director Freyermuth
     Councilmember Scott           City Engineer Wesselschmidt
     Councilmember Tubbesing       Fire Marshal Mattox
                                   Finance Director Kidney
     Councilmembers Absent         Police Chief Clark
     Councilmember Kuhn            Parks and Recreation Director Holman
                                   Planning Director Chaffee
                                   Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke
                                   Traffic Engineer Sherfy
                                   Deputy Parks and Recreation Director Lecuru

Members of the public who spoke: (Item 9) DAVE MACGILLIVRAY, Springsted, 6800
College Blvd.; (Item 16) JACK YATES, 18511 Midland Drive, WEBSTER RYAN, 8324
Renner Road, ROBERT JACOBS, 7111 Warwick; (Item 17b) CHARLOTTE HARGIS, 6925
Ballentine.

CONSENT AGENDA

1.       APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER
         10, 2005.

2.       REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
         OCTOBER 3, 2005.

3.       REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
         OF JULY 21, 2005.

4.       REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PUBLIC                        WORKS       AND     SAFETY
         COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2005.
PAGE 2                               CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                      OCTOBER 24, 2005


5.       CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE 2005 TREE TRIMMING
         PROGRAM, P.N. 7646.

         The contract was awarded to Mars Tree Service on March 23, 2005, in the amount of
         $1,975. This change order reflects a net increase of $5,167.50. The new amount for this
         project is $7,142.50, which is $12,857.50 less than the 2005 budget amount.

6.       CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL FOR THE 2005 WEED
         CONTROL PROGRAM.

         The contract was awarded to Chem-Trol Inc. on February 28, 2005, in the amount of
         $13,798.90. This change order reflects a net decrease of $313.03. The new amount for
         this project is $13,485.87.

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

MAYOR’S ITEMS

There were no Mayor‟s items.

APPOINTMENTS

7.       CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE CONVENTION & VISITOR’S BUREAU
         COMMITTEE.

         Mayor Meyers stated that he is recommending the appointments of Kevin Fern, Connie
         Harrell and Ann Zimmerman to the Convention & Visitor‟s Bureau Committee, with
         terms expiring December 31, 2008.

         Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to approve the
         Mayoral appointments of Kevin Fern, Connie Harrell and Ann Zimmerman to the
         Convention & Visitor‟s Bureau Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2008.
         The motion carried 7-0.

8.       CONSIDER RE-APPOINTMENTS TO THE CONVENTION & VISITOR’S
         BUREAU COMMITTEE.

         Mayor Meyers stated that he is recommending the re-appointments of Cathy Marks,
         Mark Mollentine and Beverly Wetherton to the Convention & Visitor‟s Bureau
         Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2008.

         Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to approve the
         Mayoral re-appointments of Cathy Marks, Mark Mollentine and Beverly Wetherton to
         the Convention & Visitor‟s Bureau Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2008.
         The motion carried 7-0.
PAGE 3                                 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         OCTOBER 24, 2005


PUBLIC ITEMS

9.       CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LOWEST BID
         ON THE $7,460,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT
         BONDS, SERIES 2005A, AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE
         AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND DELIVERY OF GENERAL
         OBLIGATION INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2005A, IN THE
         PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $7,460,000, AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY AND
         COLLECTION OF AN ANNUAL TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE
         PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THE BONDS AS THEY BECOME DUE.

         Mayor Meyers stated the Council will consider adoption of a Resolution accepting the
         lowest bid for $7,460,000 principal amount of internal improvement bonds, Series
         2005A, of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, and authorizing further action in connection with
         the issuance and sale of said bonds; and consider approval of an Ordinance authorizing
         the issuance and delivery of $7,460,000 principal amount of general obligation internal
         improvement bonds, Series 2005A, of the City of Shawnee, Kansas, for the purpose of
         providing funds to pay the cost of internal improvements; prescribing the form and
         details of the bonds; and providing for the levying and collection of an annual tax for the
         purpose of paying the principal of, and interest on, the bonds as they become due.

         Finance Director Kidney corrected the above verbiage and stated that instead of
         $7,460,000, the actual amount is $7,355,000.

         Finance Director Kidney stated that annually the City does sell their general obligation
         bonds for projects that are essentially complete. He stated they took bids today, October
         24, 2005, at noon and received a record 14 bids from banks across the country. He stated
         the lowest bid was from Zions Bank out of Utah, with a trust interest cost of 3.71%. He
         stated the original projections were 3.84%, which does not seem like a lot, but taking into
         account that is approximately $103,000 in principal and interest savings over the life of
         the bonds, staff was extremely happy with the result of the bid.

         Finance Director Kidney stated that DAVE MACGILLIVRAY with Springsted is present
         this evening and would like to make a few comments about not only the sale today, but
         also reaffirm the City‟s AA3 rating, which was received from Moody Investor Services.

         DAVE MACGILLIVRAY, Springsted, Chairman, stated that Springsted is the City‟s
         financial advisor. He stated he thinks the highest number of bids the City ever received
         was seven and today‟s bids either matches or exceeds, in his career, the maximum
         number of bids he has ever seen on his transactions. He stated it is an extreme amount of
         interest and believes that is because of the high credit quality of the City of Shawnee. He
         stated this size, being between $5 and $10 million, is the right size for people to bid it and
         still have national attention.

         DAVE MACGILLIVRAY stated that Finance Director Kidney mentioned the credit
         rating. He stated that Moody Investor Services rates all of the City‟s issues. He stated
PAGE 4                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         OCTOBER 24, 2005


         this issue was rated AA3, which is a AA category. He stated they looked at the continued
         tax base growth due to favorable location. He stated they spend a lot of time these days
         on financial operations and the general fund. He stated it shows that sound financial
         operations are expected to continue. He stated they noted the reliance on sales tax
         revenue and the reserve level. He stated they talk about above average debt burden, but
         in reading that, they have to know that that includes the School District, County, and the
         City. He stated if they look at the City‟s debt only, their comments are that the City‟s
         direct debt burden is low at 1.9%.

         DAVE MACGILLIVRAY stated there was some conversation about a potential upgrade
         and they will look at that, along with the sales tax concentration and the growth of the tax
         base and that it remains to be seen where it will end up, but wanted to note that. He
         stated it is certainly an extreme level of competition and the rate is very low, both in
         terms of this market and historically for Shawnee.

         Councilmember Goode stated Springsted‟s past history with the City has been
         exceptional. He stated they all appreciate this low interest rate.

         Councilmember Tubbesing asked if Moody‟s report was included in their packet.

         Finance Director Kidney stated he will send that to the Council via email.

         Mayor Meyers stated the Council is very excited about the interest rate they received.

         Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to adopt a
         resolution accepting the lowest bid on the $7,355,000 principal amount of internal
         improvement bonds, Series 2005A. The motion carried 7-0. Having passed, Resolution
         1468 was assigned.

         Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to pass an
         ordinance authorizing the issuance and delivery of $7,355,000 principal amount of
         general obligation internal improvement bonds, Series 2005A. The motion carried 7-0.
         Having passed, Ordinance 2783 was assigned.

         Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to adopt a
         resolution prescribing the form and details of and authorizing the delivery of $7,355,000
         principal amount of internal improvement bonds, Series 2005A. The motion carried 7-0.
         Having passed, Resolution 1469 was assigned.

10.      CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM STRAUB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR A
         RESOLUTION OF INTENT FOR TAXABLE PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE
         BONDS AND TAX ABATEMENT FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING.

         Mayor Meyers stated the Council will consider adoption of a Resolution declaring the
         intent of the City to issue Federally Taxable Private Activity Revenue Bonds, not to
         exceed $2,400,000, for Straub Construction Co., Inc. to finance the acquisition,
PAGE 5                               CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                       OCTOBER 24, 2005


         construction and equipping of an office building, including real estate, buildings,
         improvements and equipment, to be located at 7801 Meadow View Road. The resolution
         provides for a 65% tax abatement under the City Financial Incentives Program.

         Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to adopt a
         Resolution of Intent, declaring the City to issue Federally Taxable Private Activity
         Revenue Bonds, not to exceed $2,400,000, for Straub Construction Co., Inc. to finance
         the acquisition, construction and equipping of an office building, including real estate,
         buildings, improvements and equipment, to be located at 7801 Meadow View Road, with
         the resolution providing for a 65% tax abatement under the City Financial Incentives
         Program. The motion carried 7-0. Having passed, Resolution 1470 was assigned.

11.      CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT FOR
         PATRICIA STUART.

         Mayor Meyers stated that Patricia Stuart, 13402 West 62nd Terrace, is requesting
         approval of a massage establishment permit for Between U & NYC.

         Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve a
         massage establishment permit for Between U & NYC, 13402 West 62nd Terrace, with an
         expiration date of December 31, 2005. The motion carried 7-0.

12.      CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEM FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
         MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2005.

         a)     Consider review of SUP-7-96-6, a special use permit previously issued to Sprint
                Spectrum for a communications tower at 43rd Street and K-7 Highway.

                Mayor Meyers stated that the Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the
                Council renew SUP-7-96-6 to Sprint Spectrum.

                Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Tubbesing, moved to
                renew SUP-7-96-6, a special use permit previously issued to Sprint Spectrum for
                a communications tower at 43rd Street and K-7 Highway, as per the Planning
                Commission‟s recommendations listed in the October 24, 2005 staff report. The
                motion carried 7-0.

13.      CONSIDER S-272-05-10, SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR VISTAR, 10600
         WEST 79TH STREET.

         Mayor Meyers stated that the applicant requests a sign variance for color at the Vistar
         location in the Switzer I Business Park at 10600 West 79th Street.

         Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve S-272-
         05-10, a sign variance request for color at the Vistar location in the Switzer I Business
         Park at 10600 West 79th Street. The motion carried 7-0.
PAGE 6                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         OCTOBER 24, 2005




14.      CONSIDER S-300-05-10, SIGN VARIANCE                       REQUEST        FOR      UNITED
         MISSOURI BANK, 22320 WEST 66TH STREET.

         Mayor Meyers stated that the applicant is requesting a sign variance for color at the
         United Missouri Bank location in the Monticello Center Shopping Center at 22320 West
         66th Street.

         Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve S-300-
         05-10, a sign variance for United Missouri Bank location in the Monticello Center
         Shopping Center at 22320 West 66th Street. The motion carried 7-0.

15.      CONSIDER S-304-05-10, SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR NATIONWIDE
         INSURANCE, 22342 WEST 66TH STREET.

         Mayor Meyers stated that the applicant is requesting a sign variance for color at the
         Nationwide Insurance location in the Monticello Center Shopping Center at 22342 West
         66th Street.

         Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve S-304-
         05-10, a sign variance request for color at the Nationwide Insurance location in the
         Monticello Center Shopping Center at 22342 West 66th Street. The motion carried 7-0.

16.      CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETITION TO VACATE
         THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE NORTH 435.8 FEET OF SONORA AVENUE
         LYING SOUTH OF MIDLAND DRIVE (SAV-05-004)

         Mayor Meyers stated that Webster Ryan has submitted a petition requesting the vacation
         of the right-of-way in Golf Club Gardens Resurvey.

         Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved conduct a public
         hearing to consider a petition to vacate the right-of-way for the north 435.8 feet of Sonora
         Avenue lying south of Midland Drive (SAV-05-004), subject to the reservation of the
         public utility easement and the construction easement. The motion carried 7-0.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated the petition was received from Mr. Webster Ryan for
         vacating at Sonora, south of Midland Drive, which is 40 feet of dedicated driveway,
         although there was never a street built at this location. He stated this is part of the Golf
         Club Gardens subdivision, which was platted in 1932. He stated that since that time, this
         particular street has not been developed.

         Councilmember Sandifer asked if the City had to purchase that piece of property.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered no. He stated when the plat was filed in 1932, it
         would have dedicated that right-of-way.
PAGE 7                                 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


         Councilmember Sandifer stated the City owns that piece.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated the City would have the right-of-way to have a street
         built at that location.

         Councilmember Sandifer stated he wondered about any funds being returned from that
         piece.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt replied that the City does not own that right-of-way. He
         stated a notice for the public hearing was published in the September 28, 2005 official
         City newspaper, which complied with the Kansas state statute. He stated that as of this
         date, the Engineering Division has not received any inquiries or objections from Shawnee
         citizens. He stated one nearby property owner, Mr. Jack Yates inquired about the public
         hearing. He stated that Mr. Yates, as well as the petitioners were notified of the public
         hearing tonight.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated that there are a couple of utilities that exist or plan to
         exist in this undeveloped right-of-way, which is the Johnson County Wastewater District
         and the Kansas City Power and Light. He stated that both utilities indicated if this right-
         of-way were to be vacated, they would need it to be set aside as a public utility easement.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated the purpose of the vacation is that the property
         owner at the location would have to have a front yard setback from Midland Drive, as
         well as a front yard setback from Sonora. He stated if this right-of-way is vacated, there
         would not be street frontage requirements. He stated the only requirements would then
         be to have a front yard setback from Midland Drive. He stated they are basically
         submitting a petition to make that piece of ground developable.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated that staff has no objections to this one way or the
         other, since it is an undeveloped piece of right-of-way and not of any use to the public
         today, although being provided for future streets for possible development. He stated
         with the flood plain at Little Mill Creek which has developed over the years, it has
         limited the use of ground in that area.

         Councilmember Pflumm asked if the property line will shift, or will they just be vacating
         the land and the homeowner will not be able to build on that property.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated when it comes to vacating right-of-way, it is very
         similar to a quick claim deed. He stated that basically the City will no longer have a
         claim to this right-of-way and it is then left up to the adjoining property owners to make
         claim on that right-of-way. He stated that typically half would go to one property owner
         and the other half to the other property owner.

         Councilmember Sawyer asked if there are utilities down through there, so that utility
         right-of-way would remain.
PAGE 8                                CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         OCTOBER 24, 2005


         City Engineer Wesselschmidt replied it would remain as a utility easement. He pointed
         out Mr. Yates‟ property and noted his driveway comes off Midland Drive through a low
         water crossing through Little Mill Creek.

         JACK YATES, 18511 Midland Drive, stated he is opposed to this action, because the
         right-of-way to him is a valuable piece of property, even though it is not used. He stated
         he definitely thinks this piece of property will be used in the future. He stated he can
         think of things to be done with it at any time.

         JACK YATES stated from the information he received from the City, he does not see the
         need for Mr. Ryan to obtain this right-of-way. He stated Mr. Ryan has a 125 foot
         frontage on his lot and his house is just over 70 feet and could easily set the house in the
         middle of that lot and not touch the right-of-way at all. He stated the whole thing is
         rather confusing to him. He stated the right-of-way, to him, in the future could serve as
         an access point to a trail system. He stated he is sure there will be a trail system down
         through there someday. He stated there were people who clamored for it when the sewer
         was completed. He stated that piece would be an excellent way to get to the trail system.

         JACK YATES stated had it been cleared when the sewer was finished, he would have
         tried to make the contractor use it as a contractor road. He stated it tore his place all to
         pieces and is still not fully recovered. He stated he is sure as time goes on, there will be
         other ways for people to use the thing. He stated he does not think the City should do
         anything with it.

         Councilmember Tubbesing asked if the presumed outline of a road is, in fact, a road.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered that is an undeveloped right-of-way.

         Councilmember Tubbesing stated his question is if those are right-of-ways for those other
         property holders, like Mr. Yates. He asked if it is a right-of-way, already proposed and
         what has already been withdrawn.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered that would be a right-of-way and is basically a
         partially developed subdivision platted in 1932 and certain roads were put in, such as
         Gladstone and Sonora to the north. He stated the City would not normally build that road
         and it would be up to those properties that wanted to further develop these lots. He stated
         they would have to build those roads themselves.

         Councilmember Tubbesing asked if there have been any other objections from
         surrounding property owners. He stated he is concerned about the develop ability of the
         land and knows it is in a waterway, but believes they should get rid of the whole thing
         and does not understand why they would only get rid of a small segment of the right-of-
         way.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated all the property owners were not contacted directly,
         other than the notice in the paper, just because the request of the vacation was limited to
PAGE 9                                 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


         that one area. He stated that this right-of-way was left there and it indicates these
         property owners wanted to build that road, or place homes through there, but again with
         the floodway and the flood plain, it would certainly limit them and make things difficult,
         at the least.

         Councilmember Tubbesing stated it just seems to him that they should vacate the whole
         semi-circle or do none of it.

         JACK YATES stated he is not sure if any of them are familiar with Little Mill Creek, but
         it is a beautiful little stream and a lot prettier than Mill Creek where it runs through his
         property. He stated the trail system that would go down through there, as he envisions,
         would really be a marvelous thing. He stated that would be a really good access point for
         it and when they built their house up on the top of the hill, they considered trying to get
         that piece for their driveway, but it was a little too far to the west. He stated it has been
         there this long and thinks someone will have a good use for it some day and would hate
         to see it vacated.

         Councilmember Pflumm asked about the man who was going to build on that lot. He
         stated that Mr. Yates is saying that gentleman has enough space there to place his 70 foot
         house. He asked for the setback from Sonora, which is required and the setback from the
         western property owner.

         JACK YATES responded that Mr. Ryan‟s house measures just over 70 feet wide and his
         lot is 125 feet, so if they placed the house right in the middle they would have ample
         space.

         Councilmember Pflumm asked for the setbacks from Sonora.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt read from the packet. He stated if the subject right-of-way
         is not vacated, then a home built on Parcel 54B, would be required to have a minimum
         front yard setback of 35 feet from Sonora, which is the unused right-of-way. He stated an
         example would be 55 feet from the street centerline. He stated that even though it is one
         street, it is considered a corner lot.

         City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated if it is vacated, then the home would be required to
         have a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet from the east property line, which would
         probably then become the center line of the vacated right-of-way. He stated if it is
         vacated, it is a 15 foot setback from the middle of Sonora and if it is not vacated, then
         they would need to be a setback of 55 feet from the center line. He stated it certainly uses
         up some of that lot.

         Councilmember Pflumm stated that basically there is 15 feet from the westernmost
         property owner, plus 55 feet from the center of Sonora. He stated that comes to 70 feet.
         He stated his question is if there is enough space for the home.

         Planning Director Chaffee stated it is 35 feet from the inside of the right-of-way.
PAGE 10                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         OCTOBER 24, 2005




      Councilmember Sandifer asked if the 125 feet goes to the center of the right-of-way.

      Planning Director Chaffee stated the setbacks on the west side are 15 feet and zoned
      residential suburban, so that would not change at all. He stated the front setback along
      Midland Drive is 35 feet and that would not change at all. He stated if the right-of-way
      was not vacated, the setback would be 35 feet from this western edge of the existing
      right-of-way. He stated if Sonora is vacated and they assume that half goes to one side
      and half to the other and the new property line runs down the middle and there is no
      right-of-way, then it would become a side setback because there is no frontage on the
      street. He stated the setback would then become 15 feet. He stated if there is 125 feet of
      frontage and the two 15 foot sections, someone could build a 95 foot home. He stated if
      they go the other way, there would be 50 feet setbacks required, so 125 feet less 50 feet
      could allow a 75 foot home on the property without vacation.

      WEBSTER RYAN, 8324 Renner Road, stated that he and his wife recently purchased the
      property in question, which is three acres. He stated they paid pretty good money for this
      property and they currently have a house that is actually 77 feet wide. He stated that
      property is going to be redeveloped into a subdivision. He stated they recently moved
      into the house and spent a lot of money remodeling. He stated assuming this item has a
      favorable outcome this evening, another thing will soon come before the Council with
      regard to moving his house. He stated it is their intention to take the house currently on
      Renner and move it onto this piece of land. He stated they have a 77 foot wide house and
      a 35 foot setback from one side and 15 foot setback on the other, making for a very tight
      fit.

      WEBSTER RYAN stated the real issue here is if the Council would look at the house on
      the adjacent lot, they can see it was virtually built right on the property line. He stated
      that without the vacation of right-of-way, they would be forced to virtually place their
      house almost next door to that existing house. He stated, like anyone else, they would
      like a reasonable distance between houses and it would also look a lot better. He stated
      by looking at the map, the natural setting for a house would be someway midway
      between the houses on either side. He stated that is what they are trying to accomplish
      here; trying to put the house more or less midway between the two houses. He stated the
      only practical way to really do this is with the vacation of right-of-way.

      WEBSTER RYAN stated he spent a fair amount of time discussing this with City staff
      and the different ways to go about this and this turns out to be the best way to go. He
      stated he certainly agrees that ideally, it would be best to vacate the entire right-of-way,
      but unfortunately the way the rules are on that, as he understands them, is that every
      property owner that has property adjoining, all have to unanimously agree. He stated he
      is sure that can be challenging. He stated they have met one property owner who would
      refuse to that this evening. He stated that is the reason why this was presented in the
      manner it is, as that is the only way they can get this done – to vacate the section being
      asked for.
PAGE 11                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Councilmember Goode asked Mr. Ryan how long ago he purchased the property.

      WEBSTER RYAN replied it was just recently purchased in the last few months. He
      stated they purchased it with the express intention of being able to relocate to that
      property with their current house. He stated they like the area where they currently reside
      up on Renner and are very close to Shawnee Mission Park and hope to continue to be
      close to the park. He stated he thinks Mr. Yates has a great idea about the trail system
      and someday when he sells his 20+ acres, maybe he will sell it to the park and his
      driveway can be the entrance to that system.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked Planning Director Chaffee if he said Mr. Ryan could
      place a 75 foot house on that property without vacating the property.

      Planning Director Chaffee replied yes, if the lot has 125 feet of frontage.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated if Mr. Ryan has a 77 foot house, he can not place it on
      this property.

      Planning Director Chaffee stated that is correct.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked Mr. Ryan if he has talked with the Sparrmans on the
      adjoining property and if they would be willing to sell him the entire piece, as opposed to
      cutting it in half and push their house a little more to the east.

      WEBSTER RYAN answered no. He stated he just assumed that the Sparrmans would
      get half and he would get half. He stated his understanding is that Mr. Sparrman is
      currently in the process of subdividing his lot. He stated he plans on putting the house
      and the garage on three-quarters of an acre and selling it. He stated Mr. Sparrman will
      then try to sell the other two and a quarter acres as a separate lot.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked Parks and Recreation Director Holman about Mr. Yates
      proposing this would be an ideal location for some kind of a park entrance or streamway
      trail system. He stated he does not think the streamway trail system is going to be more
      than what it is, from what he understands the Johnson County budgets to be. He asked
      Parks and Recreation Director Holman if he could elaborate if this would be a potential
      use of the land.

      Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated he can not speak for the County, but the
      City has the land there on Gladstone where the eight homes were located. He stated
      when Midland does get redone, there will be an on-stream and recreational trail that will
      go down and tie in through there. He stated Midland is getting a bike path.

      Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated that years back, the original plan was to go
      behind West Glen, under the bridge, and through the golf course. He stated the County
      was opposed to having it go through the golf course.
PAGE 12                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Councilmember Tubbesing stated since all that land is now sold, what is the likelihood
      west of Lackman of them actually having a stream system along the creek and cutting
      over past I-435 as well.

      Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated the golf course will not allow it.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated that realistically the thought of there being any kind of
      a streamway trail system connection point is probably nil off Midland in the property
      areas they are discussing.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated something that Parks and Recreation Director
      Holman did point out and this drawing does not reflect, is that the City owns all the
      property where the nine houses have been removed. He stated that is basically park
      ground giving access directly to Little Mill Creek.

      JACK YATES stated the reason he does not think that Mr. Ryan needs the right-of-way
      vacated, is because the lot he purchased is 125 feet wide on the front. He stated when he
      says front, he is not talking about the Sonora Road right-of-way, as that is actually side.
      He stated Mr. Ryan can sit his house on the 125 foot lot with plenty of room legally, with
      the side yard setback required by the City. He stated there is actually no reason to vacate
      that right-of-way at this time.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated Mr. Ryan stated his house is 77 feet wide and if that is
      true, it is two feet over the requirements.

      JACK YATES stated if they subtract 77 feet from 125 feet, that leaves plenty of room for
      a side yard setback.

      Mayor Meyers stated there would have to be a 35 foot setback.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked Planning Director Chaffee for clarification.

      Planning Director Chaffee stated that this lot does not have two side setbacks; it has two
      front setbacks. He stated there is a front setback on Sonora, even though Sonora is not
      there and it has a front setback on Midland Drive.

      Councilmember Sandifer asked Planning Director Chaffee if the house can only be
      placed there if they approve the vacation.

      Planning Director Chaffee replied if his calculations are correct and the lot is really 125
      feet wide, Mr. Ryan could only put a 75 foot house on the lot to meet the setback
      requirements.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated if that happened, he will also be hugging right up
      against the guy to the west, because he is built right on the property line.
PAGE 13                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Planning Director Chaffee stated that is really not the case, as it is really off the property
      line somewhat.

      Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to conclude
      the public hearing. The motion carried 7-0.

      Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember Sandifer, moved to approve the
      petition to vacate the right-of-way for the north 435.8 feet of Sonora Avenue lying south
      of Midland Drive (SAV-05-004), subject to the reservation of the public utility easement
      and the construction easement.

      ROBERT JACOBS, 7111 WARWICK, stated he owns the pie shaped piece with the slot
      through it. He stated that his dog is not in this fight, but he is not giving his land up, so
      the City better not have any plans to move him off. He stated he came to a City Council
      meeting for a golf course deal where the Council was going to expropriate land from one
      woman with condemnation and would not do it. He stated that he does not see how this
      is one iota different than that situation.

      ROBERT JACOBS stated he owns another lot adjacent to this property and the County
      virtually took it for their sewers for the 48 inch pipe. He stated that is fine and he is
      settled with that, but does not see this as any different taking this from Jack Yates against
      his will, than from taking the 200+ acres from the woman who did not even live on the
      property.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated they are actually giving it to him.

      ROBERT JACOBS stated they are taking it from Mr. Yates, because it is against his will
      that the Council is allowing this thing to happen. He stated he will not give up that pie
      shaped piece as long as he is alive.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated they are only talking about vacating a small portion on
      Sonora.

      ROBERT JACOBS stated that Councilmember Tubbesing is saying the City is going to
      get the rest of it later, so they will just take this now.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he is saying that he thinks the City should give him
      back that land.

      ROBERT JACOBS stated he does not want it back. He stated he pays taxes on it and
      that is ridiculous. He stated there is a taxation problem in the DeSoto School District that
      really underlies his problem.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated they are not forcing him to request that and if he does
      not want to, he doesn‟t have to.
PAGE 14                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                       OCTOBER 24, 2005


      ROBERT JACOBS stated they are forcing Mr. Yates to take it.

      Councilmember Tubbesing replied that they are not forcing Mr. Yates to take it, because
      he does not actually own any of that land.

      ROBERT JACOBS stated there is something here that is really amiss. He stated he
      thinks they are on different pages.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated Mr. Yates is not gaining any property.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated the only part being vacated is between Mr. Sparrman and
      Mr. Ryan. He stated that is not Mr. Yates‟ property.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated the Sparrmans and the Ryans are the only people
      gaining land. He stated his only point is if the residents who own that land want the City
      to vacate the right-of-way, he believes the City should be willing to vacate.

      ROBERT JACOBS stated he thought it was right up against Jack Yates‟ property.

      Therefore the motion read: Councilmember Tubbesing, seconded by Councilmember
      Sandifer, moved to pass an ordinance to vacate the right-of-way for the north 435.8 feet
      of Sonora Avenue lying south of Midland Drive (SAV-05-004), subject to the reservation
      of the public utility easement and the construction easement. The motion carried 7-0.
      Having passed, Ordinance 2784 was assigned.

COUNCIL ITEMS

17.   CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS &
      SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2005.

      a)     Consider Preliminary Plans for the East Swimming Pool.

             Councilmember Pflumm stated that the Committee reviewed the plans and no
             action was taken.

             Councilmember Pflumm stated they basically reviewed the plans and the
             committee had no action at that time. He stated it is up to the additional
             Councilmembers who were not present on that evening and asked if they have any
             questions.

             Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve
             the preliminary plans for the East Swimming Pool. The motion carried 7-0.

      b)     Consider Convention & Visitor‟s Bureau (CVB) Funds.
PAGE 15                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


          Councilmember Pflumm stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the
          Council approve changes to the distribution of funds for the Convention &
          Visitor‟s Bureau in 2006 to allocate $20,000 off the top for Old Shawnee Days, as
          well as the $10,000 request from Wonderscope to be used by them, subject to the
          approval of their proposal; and the remainder be divided 50/50 between the City
          (for Shawnee Town) and the Convention and Visitor‟s Bureau.

          Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve
          the changes to the distribution of funds for the Convention & Visitor‟s Bureau in
          2006 to allocate $20,000 for Old Shawnee Days, as well as the $10,000 request
          from Wonderscope to be used by them, subject to the approval of their proposal;
          and the remainder to be divided 50/50 between the City (for Shawnee Town) and
          the Convention and Visitor‟s Bureau.

          Councilmember Tubbesing stated he believes that Wonderscope is a real treasure
          to this community. He stated he understands the motion has been made and he is
          supportive of the funding for this, but when the City has something that is literally
          on the map like Wonderscope which brings in between 80,000 and 90,000 visits a
          year from people who come right into Shawnee and right past Old Shawnee
          Town, that is more than Old Shawnee Town probably speaks for on a consistent
          basis.

          Councilmember Tubbesing stated he thinks this is something the City needs to be
          funding on a more consistent basis. He stated they have had people from
          Wonderscope on the CVB board for a while and they are extremely active, as far
          as promoting people to come to Shawnee from all over the metro area. He stated
          it is an appropriate use of funds, just as children‟s museums throughout the
          country, and frankly the world, are supported by the cities in which they reside.
          He stated he thinks it is an appropriate use of funds to continue and not just for
          one year.

          Councilmember Sandifer amended the motion, to allow Wonderscope to use the
          funds this year on the exterior renovations of the building, as much as possible.

          Councilmember Pflumm stated they talked about that at the committee meeting.
          He stated they did not say that Wonderscope had to use the funds for exterior
          work.

          Councilmember Sandifer stated it was said that the Council could make the
          motion read so that Wonderscope used the money for the exterior of the building.
          He asked City Manager Montague for clarification.

          City Manager Montague stated it was certainly discussed that way.

          Councilmember Tubbesing stated it can be difficult to jump on something in the
          course of a 12-month period. He stated that Wonderscope has a lot of needs and
PAGE 16                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


          they have to be clear about this money. He stated he thinks it is okay to leave it as
          being for the exterior, as long as it is not elaborated on more than that.

          CHARLOTTE HARGIS, 6925 Ballentine, asked if Wonderscope is private
          property. She stated if it is private property, how can the City use public money
          on it, or is the CVB fund different and the City can spend that money on anything
          they want. She stated she does not understand how the Council can put $10,000
          of City money into a private business, no matter how much they like it or how
          many people it draws to the City. She stated she thought there was an undeniable
          rule that the City could not spend public money on private property.

          Councilmember Pflumm asked if the City is not doing that for the downtown
          businesses when they were each given $5,000 to clean up their properties.

          CHARLOTTE HARGIS stated that is not her questions, but is certainly part of it.
          She stated the Council needs to answer this question, because they are the ones
          distributing the money.

          City Attorney Rainey stated the City would be making a grant to a not-for-profit
          organization that has a federal tax exemption. He stated he thinks the City can
          probably do that, as they do make grants to other public entities for some types of
          school activities. He stated he believes the City can probably make a grant to
          that, as it is a tax exempt entity and the Governing Body would be making a
          determination that improvements to Wonderscope is in the public‟s interest.

          City Attorney Rainey stated if the Governing Body wishes to proceed in this
          matter, he would be happy to look into it and give a more definitive opinion at a
          future date.

          CHARLOTTE HARGIS stated if the Council is going to treat it in that regard,
          then should it not be treated at the same time as all the other 5013C‟s, so the
          public is made aware and all those items are treated the same. She stated to take
          this money out of the CVB is a little different than anything ever done before here
          in the City and it hides it from the public‟s view.

          City Attorney Rainey stated that those, of course, would be policy or
          administrative decisions and not legal decisions and he would not comment on
          those. He stated there is always a legitimate question as to what the Convention
          and Visitor Bureau funds can be used for, in that they are limited to convention
          and visitor-type activities and to economic development activities.

          CHARLOTTE HARGIS stated it should be publicly declared and identified
          before it is done. She stated she thinks that this gives the illusion of awarding
          money out of a fund that is specifically directed at another area.
PAGE 17                        CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


          City Attorney Rainey stated he is not addressing the policy issue and will leave
          that to the wisdom of the Governing Body to determine.

          Councilmember Goode asked Charlotte Hargis if she ever took a tour of
          Wonderscope.

          CHARLOTTE HARGIS answered she is not in that generation. She stated her
          niece took her kids there and she was told they did not think it was much. She
          stated she has never been to Wonderscope.

          Councilmember Goode stated he disagrees and thinks it is an outstanding place to
          visit.

          CHARLOTTE HARGIS stated there are many entertainment places around the
          metropolitan area that she does not visit and does not want to support.

          Councilmember Goode stated they made the exception to do this for one year and
          give it consideration from there on out.

          CHARLOTTE HARGIS stated she does not know if she would support this or
          not, but if she did, she would want it put in a category with all the other charity
          items and not out of the CVB fund. She stated she thinks the CVB is a very
          dangerous fund and can be slopped over in many areas without regard to the
          public‟s wishes.

          Mayor Meyers thanked Ms. Hargis and stated the Council understands her
          objections and reasoning for them.

          Councilmember Tubbesing stated he wanted to make clear that the Council is not
          hiding this and he is sure the members of the press present this evening will make
          sure of that. He stated this is not a charitable contribution, but a way to bring
          people into Shawnee so that they use the City assets, resources, and businesses.
          He stated this is money spent that will bring a return.

          CHARLOTTE HARGIS stated she does not think that is a legitimate reason to
          spend the public‟s money. She stated the public is not interested as much as the
          Council is interested in the draw they think Wonderscope brings to business in
          Shawnee. She stated that most of them would like to see smaller government and
          less expenditure. She stated when they begin to expand it, as they are now
          considering, they lump it all together and say, „Well, there they go again‟. She
          stated when she looks at Charter Ordinance #35, the Council has included
          unlimited funds without the public‟s vote, which is very suspicious. She stated
          they have included golf courses and she does not know if it is the one that was in
          the paper today or the one the Council considered three months ago.
PAGE 18                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                      OCTOBER 24, 2005


              CHARLOTTE HARGIS asked if the Council gets her drift, because it is a draw
              for the business section, it is not something that attracts public, because they
              never go on to explain how that line item comes out on how much they put in and
              how much a draw is brought to other people in the City.

              Therefore the amended motion read: Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by
              Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the changes to the distribution of funds
              for the Convention & Visitor‟s Bureau in 2006 to allocate $20,000 for Old
              Shawnee Days, as well as the $10,000 request from Wonderscope to be used by
              them for exterior repairs, subject to the approval of their proposal; and the
              remainder be divided 50/50 between the City (for Shawnee Town) and the
              Convention and Visitor‟s Bureau. The motion carried 7-0.

       c)     Consider Term Limits for the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning
              Appeals.

              Councilmember Pflumm stated that the Committee recommended 4-0 that the
              Council not set term limits for the Planning Commission, but recommended to the
              Planning Commission that they review their bylaws.

              Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to
              approve the Council not set term limits for the Planning Commission, but
              recommended that the Planning Commission review their bylaws. The motion
              carried 7-0.

BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

There was no business from the floor.

STAFF ITEMS

18.    CONSIDER BIDS FOR JOHNSON DRIVE AND RENNER IMPROVEMENTS,
       P.N. 3311.

       Mayor Meyers stated that bids were received on October 18, 2005.

       Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to award the bid for
       the Johnson Drive and Renner improvements, P.N. 3311, to Teague Electric, Lenexa,
       Kansas, in the amount of $144,500. The motion carried 7-0.

19.    CONSIDER BIDS FOR 20700 WEST 52ND STREET BUILDING DEMOLITION
       AND SPILLWAY IMPROVEMENTS, P.N. 3254A.

       Mayor Meyers stated that bids were received on October 18, 2005.

       Councilmember Pflumm stated he has always been a proponent of using local
       contractors. He stated on Page 100 of the packet, it shows a Shawnee contractor who bid
PAGE 19                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


      on this project. He asked if the staff thoroughly reviewed the lowest bidder and if they
      always have to take the lowest bidder in all cases.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt replied that WCI is not someone the City has used in the
      past, so therefore they did some checking with the references they supplied and they
      performed some projects in south Johnson County and North Miami County. He stated
      they received no negative comments about their work. He stated the staff has no reason
      to reject their bid.

      Mayor Meyers asked City Attorney Rainey to make comment on the policy of the City to
      take low bid.

      City Attorney Rainey responded that the Governing Body has considerable discretion in
      determining the bids at this time, because they have exempted themselves from the State
      laws that require they be awarded to the lowest responsible bid. He stated he does not
      know if there could be circumstances in which there could be claims of violating
      anything based on residence. He stated the Governing Body probably has wide
      discretion.

      City Attorney Rainey stated he would point out that the City commonly uses contractors
      who are not within the City. He stated the project being performed in front of City Hall
      is with a contractor not within the City. He stated he thinks the Governing Body has
      quite a lot of discretion on it as a legal matter.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated the question brought up really is that the next lowest
      bidder, Max Rieke Brothers, are currently doing work in the City. He stated he just feels
      comfortable going with someone the City knows, as opposed to going with someone they
      do not know. He stated he knows when he gets references from bidders, they do not
      provide the bad references and give examples of the jobs where they have performed
      well. He stated that those references will always ultimately be good.

      Mayor Meyers asked Public Works Director Freyermuth if WCI ever worked before for
      Shawnee.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth replied as far as he knows, WCI has never worked for
      the City and is not aware of any past contracts.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he sincerely believes the City should be doing business
      with local businesses whenever possible, to the fact that he would still really like to see
      something put forward by staff and when all these bids come in, a ranking system is
      provided to the Council, somewhat like a point system. He stated that dollars are one of
      the things that matter a whole lot. He stated they should have point system evaluations
      on a lot of these projects coming in, because they walk in the door and some of these jobs
      are $250,000 and are beat out by $1,000 from someone the City does not know for Adam.
      He stated another contractor may have done 18 jobs for the City, perfectly, and they are
      being told no.
PAGE 20                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005




      Councilmember Tubbesing stated a lot of entities use point systems. He stated that
      coming from the technology world, he can tell the Council that he does not think over the
      last five years he has submitted a bid to an entity that did things solely on price. He
      stated these things are hard, because all the Council is looking at is a dollar amount.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated they do have some other information. He stated the
      people up on 51st Street near the drainage project that this second lowest bidder is
      currently working on, have been very happy with their work. He stated the City staff has
      been fairly happy with them as well, as far as what he has heard.

      Councilmember Goode asked about this engineer‟s estimate of $242,180.00 and who
      came up with that amount.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered the City‟s consulting engineer came up with that
      number. He stated he would preface that number and stated the City basically gets a
      number from their engineer prior to the letter, that they call the engineer‟s estimate, and
      usually the highest amount the staff thinks would be reasonable to pay for that work. He
      stated they are not asking the engineer, when preparing the estimate, to provide a
      competitive number, but it is a number that typically would be somewhere around the
      mid to upper range of all the bids received.

      Councilmember Goode stated WCI is coming in at $149,000 and that is almost $100,000
      less from the engineer‟s estimate. He stated that gives him concern. He stated City
      Engineer Wesselschmidt is telling him that is kind of an erroneous figure and is fine with
      him.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated the cost to do the work is best told by the bids
      received, because those are coming from the contractors who actually do the work. He
      stated the range seen here from $149,000 to $216,000 is basically the cost at which these
      firms are saying they can do the work.

      Mayor Meyers stated he personally believes the City puts themselves in a dangerous
      situation in these types of matters, if they do not accept low bid and if they do not know
      of specific reasons to deny or turn down the lowest bidder. He stated, in his opinion, a
      contractor not ever having done work in the City of Shawnee is not reason enough for
      him to be turned down, but if there were other circumstances or concerns with a
      particular low bidder, he would strongly take that into consideration.

      Mayor Meyers stated when they are talking about a difference of monies when going
      with the low bidder, what amount should they go with for the Shawnee bidder if this
      number was $25,000 and not $12,000. He asked what is the magic number that would
      create their belief that they should not go with the lowest bidder, but with the Shawnee
      company. He stated that is his biggest concern. He stated if they had reasons or facts
      about problems with the lowest bidder, he could see not going with that company, but not
      based on them being a first time performer in the City.
PAGE 21                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                       OCTOBER 24, 2005




      Councilmember Sandifer asked if there is any possibility of locking in WCI to where they
      can not have change orders down the road. He stated if they get a change order they
      could possibly get up over the $163,834.00 figure from Rieke.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated the contractor is locked in on these prices, unless
      there is a change in the conditions of the site.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated if the contractor starts digging and hits rock, he can then
      turn around and charge the City $25,000 more.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt responded that this work includes tearing down a house
      and the removal of some asbestos. He stated they had an asbestos study done prior to the
      bidding to determine how much asbestos was in that building. He stated if they get into it
      and find out there is more, there could be some change in price. He stated the actual
      removal of the house is $15,000, so that is a fairly small portion, so any change in
      asbestos will be a minor item.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated if a change in condition is out there, it would be a
      change in condition to any contractor out there. He stated if they have the low bidder out
      there and that second low bidder, the change in condition would apply to both of those.
      He stated that change in condition would be subject to a change order to either one of
      them.

      Councilmember Novosel stated he wholeheartedly agrees with Mayor Meyers and would
      like to see the City go with the low bidder. He stated he does think in the future some
      weighted average ought to go in there having to do with local contractors, but he can not
      see giving the contract to someone else just because they have done business with the
      City before. He stated if there is a change order, everyone will have to submit a change
      order because they are only bidding on specific items and the change order would require
      the other company to do it as well.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated the reason he brought this up, is when the City finds a
      contractor who does good work, he thinks if they are local or semi-local, that is an added
      benefit. He stated it was not just because these guys are from Shawnee, but because they
      have done fairly good work for the City in the past. He stated he thinks he was on the
      opposite end of this conversation when they were talking about the work being done in
      front of City Hall. He stated when the City went with Miles Excavating, they were
      $850,000 over the engineer‟s budget, but because Miles was a reputable contractor and
      happened to be the only bidder they, as a Council, elected to go ahead with them.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated he is not saying the City should take the next lowest bid
      because they are a Shawnee company, but believes they should because they are a
      reputable company. He stated they have a reputable company and an unknown company
      here to decide between.
PAGE 22                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                       OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Councilmember Sawyer stated they do not necessarily know for sure that WCI is not a
      reputable company.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated he merely said they have a reputable company and an
      unknown company here.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated they all know the City already has a ton of money tied up
      in this piece of property, trying to straighten out this mess. He stated they had an
      engineering firm that kind of blew it and they are now trying to right a wrong. He stated
      they have already spent a ton of money on this and while he agrees that they should look
      at Shawnee firms, he is looking at the piece of property and what they are trying to solve
      here. He stated they have a ton of money tied up in this and that is one reason he thinks
      they should take the low bid, as they need to try to get this problem fixed and move on to
      other things, without spending more money than what is necessary. He stated they need
      to spend the right amount to get it done right.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated the consulting company is also paying a portion.

      City Manager Montague stated the exact amount has not yet been negotiated. He stated
      he would not say the consulting company is paying a considerable amount.

      Councilmember Sandifer stated they are at least now making the consultants somewhat
      accountable for their work.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated the consultants agreed to that themselves. The City did
      not make them do anything.

      Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to award the bid
      for the 20700 West 52nd Street building demolition and spillway improvements, P.N.
      3254A, to WCI, Paola, Kansas, in the amount of $149,069.99. The motion carried 6-1,
      with Councilmembers Scott, Sawyer, Goode, Novosel, Sandifer, and Tubbesing voting
      aye, and Councilmember Pflumm voting nay.

20.   CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM SHAFER, KLINE AND WARREN (SKW) TO
      PROVIDE A TRAFFIC STUDY AND DESIGN PLANS FOR THE 71ST AND
      PFLUMM ROAD SIGNALIZATION.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the staff requested a proposal from SKW to perform an updated
      Traffic Study and Design Plans for the 71st and Pflumm Road signalization for a fee of
      $13,355.

      Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to approve the
      proposal from SKW to perform the updated Traffic Study and Design Plans for the 71 st
      and Pflumm Road signalization, for a fee of $13,355. The motion carried 7-0.
PAGE 23                           CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                       OCTOBER 24, 2005


21.   CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM BRUNGARDT HONOMICHL AND COMPANY
      (BHC) TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING DESIGN AND SERVICES FOR THE
      RENNER ROAD STREET LIGHTING PROJECT.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the staff requested a proposal from Brungardt Honomichl and
      Company (BHC) to provide engineering design and services for the Renner Road Street
      Lighting project for a fee of $6,350.

      Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the
      proposal from Brungardt Honomichl and Company (BHC) to provide an engineering
      design and services for the Renner Road Street Lighting project, for a fee of $6,350. The
      motion carried 7-0.

22.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
      WITH GEORGE BUTLER ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE DESIGN,
      BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR STORM DRAINAGE
      IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF VAHALLA DRIVE, NORTH OF 67TH
      TERRACE, P.N. 3292.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the City has negotiated a contract with George Butler
      Associates, Inc. to provide professional services for design, bidding and construction
      services for storm drainage improvements in the area of Vahalla Drive, between 66th
      Terrace and 70th Street. This project is funded through the Johnson County Stormwater
      Management Program, who will pay 75% of the cost, which is estimated at $698,000 and
      the City‟s portion is $374,000, funded by Parks and Pipes funds and General Obligation
      Bonds.

      Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to authorize the
      Mayor to sign a professional services contract with George Butler Associates, Inc., for
      design, bidding and construction services for storm drainage improvements in the area of
      Vahalla Drive, between 66th Terrace and 70th Street, P.N. 3292, to be funded through the
      Johnson County Stormwater Management Program which will pay 75% of the cost,
      estimated at $698,000, and the City‟s portion will be $374,000, to be funded by the Parks
      and Pipes funds and General Obligation Bonds. The motion carried 7-0.

23.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT
      WITH BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF CORPORATION TO PROVIDE THE
      SERVICES FOR THE 2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the City is required to perform bridge inspections every two
      years. Staff requested proposals from five (5) engineering firms.

      Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to authorize the
      Mayor to sign an engineering services contract with Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation
      (BWR), to provide the services for the 2005 bridge inspection program for a maximum
      expenditure of $13,105. The motion carried 7-0.
PAGE 24                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005




24.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT
      WITH PHELPS ENGINEERING TO PERFORM DESIGN SERVICES FOR
      DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN THE PFLUMM WOODS AND
      WOODLAND PLACE SUBDIVISIONS.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the City received a proposal and negotiated a contract with
      Phelps Engineering to perform engineering design services for drainage improvement
      projects in Pflumm Woods and Woodland Place subdivisions. The cost for bidding and
      construction phase services is $15,800. The estimated cost for construction at these two
      locations is $134,000. Funding is by the City because these projects are too small to be
      eligible for SMAC funding.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated the City hires these consultants up front and sometimes
      they are happy with what happens and sometimes they are not. He stated that as he reads
      this, he sees that the Engineering Department received a proposal and negotiated a
      contract with Phelps Engineering. He asked where the City draws the line between going
      out for a request for a few people to come back to them with bid about this service. He
      asked if Engineering ever actually approaches a single firm, versus multiple firms. He
      asked how they went about picking Phelps in this circumstance.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt responded that a lot of it has to do with being familiar with
      the firms and knowing their abilities. He stated the other part has to do with the size of
      the contract. He stated he does not have any set figures on what is considered a small or
      large contract, but staff generally looks at all involved, the fee, and how much time is
      going to be spent by not only the City‟s staff, but the consulting engineers on responding
      to RFQs and RFPs and preparing proposals.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked for the rough threshold used by the City across the
      department, like when to hire a consultant without a bid process or use their best
      judgment, just based on a lower dollar amount.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated they do not have a formalized policy. He stated
      maybe the third thing has to do with the amount of time on responding to proposals and
      getting some work done before the end of the year. He stated if it is the Council‟s desire,
      they could certainly develop more formalized policies on that, but again there are a lot of
      factors involved.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated all he is asking is that the City has, at least, an
      understood guideline. He stated they obviously ran into an issue on the 52nd Street
      building demolition and how that engineering firm was selected.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated that was a large project where they received several
      proposals. He stated the staff went over everyone‟s qualifications and reviewed the
      proposals and chose the firm which they felt was best suited to that project and then
PAGE 25                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         OCTOBER 24, 2005


      negotiated the contract. He stated the project at 52nd and Woodland was one where they
      did the full blown process of receiving proposals.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated this will go back to where he is at, as far as whether
      those guidelines are out there about when and when not to go to bid. He stated he would
      think that the staff may know that Phelps, for example, was the right guy for the job, even
      though it went over a threshold amount. He stated that is why he thinks the City needs to
      have a point system, because they know that Phelps has done this type of job exactly in
      the City of Shawnee and should be able to do it better and more efficiently. He stated
      that dollar amount makes up certain points in the 1 to 100 point system and there are
      other point systems along the way.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated there are a number of firms qualified for this size of
      project, or even larger. He stated he would add that they are working with a number of
      firms, not only on the capital improvement side, but also on the development side. He
      stated they get a feel of what their workload is, based on response times of submitting
      plans or responding to the submitting of plans. He stated it is not only on the capital
      improvement side, but also the development side, so that is another feel from the staff on
      how quickly they think they can get a firm in to get the work done, so they can get the
      work out to bid.

      Councilmember Pflumm asked City Engineer Wesselschmidt if BWR was the low bidder
      on the 2005 Bridge Inspection Program.

      City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered no. He stated with professional services, they
      did receive a Statement of Qualifications and a proposal for what services they provide.
      He stated the third part was their fee for services and they considered the first two items,
      before they would look at the third.

      Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to authorize the
      Mayor to sign an engineering services contract with Phelps Engineering, to perform
      engineering design services for drainage improvement projects in Pflumm Woods and
      Woodland Place subdivisions at a cost for bidding and construction phase services of
      $15,800 and the estimated cost for construction at these two locations of $134,000. The
      motion carried 7-0.

25.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT
      WITH SHAFER, KLINE AND WARREN, INC. (SKW) FOR KING STREET
      RECONSTRUCTION, FROM JOHNSON DRIVE TO 57TH STREET, AND
      PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the services and fees include the study and report, preliminary
      design, final design, bidding phase, and construction contract administration for $75,200;
      and the construction inspection for $51,900.
PAGE 26                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Councilmember Goode stated he has been away from this for a while, but $75,200 and
      $51,900 seems like a lot of money to him. He asked Senior Project Engineer
      Schnettgoecke to elaborate.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated, with regard to the $75,200 amount, the
      City uses a rule of thumb of about 15% construction cost per design. He stated the road
      improvements and parking lot are estimated at about $550,000. He stated this ends up
      being around 13.7% and falls within those guidelines.

      Councilmember Goode asked if that was 15% of the total construction costs and that is
      the theory behind all of this.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke replied that it is a guideline.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked for the cost of the street and parking lot.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke answered the budgeted amount is $550,000.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked if that included King Street and what parking lot.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke replied the parking lot is on the east side of King
      Street, north of the carpet store and south of 58th Street, right in that vacant lot.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated this does not include parking for the pool.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated that is correct.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated that other parking lot is expensive.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked if the purpose for that parking lot was to park
      downtown overflow traffic. He stated he knows the Council passed and approved that
      months ago, but that thing always just sat there as a half million dollar “why” to him and
      he does not understand the purpose of it – is it to park potential downtown overflow.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated it is also for overflow pool parking.

      Councilmember Tubbesing asked how many cars they have at peak time at the west pool.
      He asked after combining the Civic Centre, library, and pool, how many parking spaces
      are there.

      Parks and Recreation Director Holman stated they can not use 75 spaces at the library.

      City Manager Montague stated the City can not use Wonderscope‟s parking lot.
PAGE 27                              CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                          OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he understands that it is one parking lot and the theory,
      but does not think anyone will be doing parking lot monitoring and people are going to
      park where they want, because they will see it as one parking lot.

      City Manager Montague stated the City currently has that problem at the west pool and
      people are not allowed to park in the library parking. He stated they know if someone is
      going to the library or to the swimming pool. He stated they already came to an
      agreement with Wonderscope, not to allow people to park in their spots.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated the City is spending $500,000 for parking overflow.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated it is for street and parking.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated it is not separated out. He stated the budget
      was for King Street, which goes from Johnson Drive to 57th Street. He stated they are
      reconstructing King Street and the parking lot.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he, like Councilmember Goode, thinks they are talking
      about $125,000 to design it and get it ready for bid. He stated they may want to say
      $75,200, but it is really $75,200 plus the $51,900.

      City Manager Montague clarified that the $51,900 is totally separate from the design.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he knows it is for inspections.

      City Manager Montague stated that number could be taken out and actually bid
      separately or given to a different contractor. He stated it is just part of this particular bid,
      but has nothing to do with the design.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he struggles with the City having engineers on staff and
      asked why they always have to spend money for inspections for their own projects.

      City Manager Montague stated if the City engineers were to be out there all day long
      watching those projects that would not be a good use of their time. He stated those
      inspectors have to be on that job at all times. He stated they can not actually come and go
      as they please, as this is a full time inspection operation. He stated it is the same as with
      the downtown streetscape. He stated there is a full time inspector on the job, even though
      there are people at City Hall, but there is no way for them to run out there and watch the
      different pours and everything that is going on. He stated even with that inspector on the
      job 100% of the time, there are still mistakes made from time to time.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated the $75,000 was a no bid award.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated that is correct.
PAGE 28                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                      OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Councilmember Tubbesing asked about the $51,900 and if that is also to go to Shafer,
      Kline and Warren, Inc. and if they also inspect, as well as act as an engineering firm.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated that is correct.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked if they are actually on the job at all times.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke answered yes. He stated the $51,900, provides
      for approximately 60 days for an inspector.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he does not want approximately, because the statement
      was made that they have someone on the job at all times. He stated he does not believe
      that statement and does not think anyone in the room believes these inspectors are on the
      jobsite at all times.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he believes most of the time, these companies go off a
      four hour minimum and are called out by the construction company for the inspection.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated this contract for $51,900 includes 560
      hours of inspection services. He stated that equates to roughly 60 days.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked what they are inspecting; the concrete pour, the asphalt
      pour, or moving dirt around.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke responded that it involves the inspection of the
      compaction of the earth work, placement of the asphalt, placement of the concrete curbs,
      and inspection of the storm sewer system.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he could really understand sometimes this thing going
      out to the best firm that Engineering determines is best for the job. He stated he has a
      harder time with the inspection work not going out to bid.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated one of the reasons they directly selected
      Shafer, Kline and Warren, is that Yarger Design Group, who are doing the new east pool,
      are also using Shafer, Kline and Warren as their civic site engineer. He stated they
      wanted to have some economies by having the same engineer work on the King Street
      reconstruction, as on the pool.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated from the inspection side, they are really two separate
      wings of the company. He stated the inspectors are coming in and inspecting what they
      are told to inspect by the construction company, based on the engineering and
      architecturals.

      City Manager Montague stated that is not correct.
PAGE 29                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated it is based on the owner‟s requirements of what
      needs inspection during a day to day process, during the course of construction.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he does not see a loss. He asked what the City loses by
      bidding out the construction inspection.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated the reason they do not bid, is because when
      choosing professional services, they have used a qualifications-based process to come up
      with the firms who provide those services, as opposed to a hard bid number. He stated
      the reason they do it that way, is because they want to have the best services available
      and not necessarily the lowest cost.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he will then go back to his point system.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated it is a possibility to use a point system on
      qualifications, but does not think they would want to use a process that would score for
      the lowest cost when what they are looking for is the actual knowledge and ability to do
      the work appropriately, as opposed to how inexpensively they could have someone there
      on occasion or whatever the case might be.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated every point system that goes out the door, is not based
      on the one point system formulated 10 years ago. He stated, just like when they were
      dealing with the new safety center, there was a point system for that RFP process. He
      stated everyone is going to potentially be unique. He stated if this is a more expertise,
      versus cost based job, then they weigh the points more towards expertise and less towards
      cost.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated the Council‟s job is to try to pull together the facts
      presented to them every single two weeks and attempt to make managerial decisions. He
      stated when this kind of stuff is presented to him, he does not have data to really make a
      decision about whether or not this is an intelligent decision on his part, or whether he is
      just going with the flow. He stated that is what bothers him about this process – there is
      no point system awarded and no one is telling him this is the better firm for this particular
      reason or why the inspections should or should not be separated out. He stated he is
      uncomfortable with these kinds of situations.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated that on the previous item tonight, they were asked to go
      with a $15,800 amount and now they are up to $75,000. He stated he is not quite sure
      when they are going to hit the break of when they actually start stressing to staff to go
      through an RFP process. He stated he understands that takes time and is a drain on
      resources, but sometimes it is the appropriate use of funds.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that to some degree, they have used the system
      of coming up who is the better choice of an engineering firm to do the work. He stated
      they are not focusing in on any cost issue and typically would not. He stated they have
      used point systems before to select engineering services and are required to do so
PAGE 30                             CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                         OCTOBER 24, 2005


      whenever doing any work that has Federal funding with a construction project or KDOT
      funding. He stated they use a point system to go through the process of a selection with
      proposals sent from generally three to five firms, but there is no cost issues. He stated
      that is actually KDOT‟s direction; that they would not get the cost proposals from the
      selected engineering firm, until the point system selects the individual firm. He stated
      they are looking on a local basis, where they are working with these engineering firms on
      quite a few jobs over a two to three year period and stay current with their qualifications
      and what they can do. He stated they use some of the other issues involved with the
      project to help them make that selection.

      Councilmember Tubbesing stated he trusts the quality of staff, but is merely saying that
      sometimes these things lead to comfort, when there are other firms out there begging to
      get in and the door is not open for them. He stated those companies are never given an
      opportunity.

      Councilmember Pflumm stated the staff needs to give the Council enough information,
      because just like the local contractor he mentioned earlier this evening, they do it one
      way and then the other way with the next job. He stated that is why he asked who the
      low bidder was on the next project and was told the firm selected was not the low bidder.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated there is a different selection process for
      construction, where they are actually doing a hard bid, opposed to retaining professional
      services for the design side. He stated they do use two different processes and the point
      system could be used on the bid side to work into the equation some of the local
      contractor issues and things of that nature. He stated if it is desired by Council to put that
      together, they can certainly go in that direction, but it would be staff‟s preference that
      they stay with a qualifications-based selection process on architectural and engineering
      services, when that scope of work is just the design service.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked if the City actually bid this, or did they just allow 15% of
      the project as their normal fee.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth answered it was negotiated.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated it was not really bid.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth answered no; they do not bid professional services.

      Councilmember Goode stated Shafer, Kline and Warren is very reputable and the City
      has worked with them for years. He stated this 15% bothers him, because he wants to
      know if that is a hard and fast 15%, or are they just stuck with no way to negotiate that
      percentage down.

      Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that is a guideline, not an actual number
      chosen. He stated he was just referring to an upper limit guideline on it and as Senior
      Project Engineer Schnettgoecke indicated, this one was actually around 13%. He stated
PAGE 31                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                        OCTOBER 24, 2005


      that usually the contracts are based on information submitted to staff on the time and
      amount of work needed.

      Councilmember Goode stated maybe engineering companies can not be negotiated with
      these days – he does not know.

      Mayor Meyers stated he thinks they are hearing they are and have negotiated and this one
      was, again, below that 15% guideline which the staff follows.

      Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to authorize the
      Mayor to sign an engineering services contract with Shafer, Kline and Warren, Inc. to
      include the study and report, preliminary design, final design, bidding phase, construction
      contract administration for $75,200 and the construction inspection for $51,900, for King
      Street reconstruction, from Johnson Drive to 57th Street, and parking lot improvements.
      The motion carried 7-0.

26.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE
      SKATE PARK TO JOHNSON WESTERN GUNITE COMPANY.

      Mayor Meyers stated that the contract was awarded to Grindline Skateparks, Inc. but they
      are unable to provide the required bonds. Johnson Western Gunite Company has offered
      to provide the required bonds to complete the project and to subcontract all the work to
      Grindline.

      Councilmember Pflumm asked if there is an increase in cost.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke answered no.

      Councilmember Sawyer asked who is taking their portion off of their part of it.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke replied that Johnson Western‟s fee is being paid
      by Grindline. He stated that Grindline submitted a cost of $300,000 to design and
      construct the skatepark and it has stayed that amount.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated the only thing that worries him about this whole thing, is
      that the Parks Department seems to want this one company to do this skatepark so bad,
      but they can not get bonding, so they are now going around the barn to make it happen.
      He stated he wonders if this will still come in at the same price as the original bid.

      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated that is correct.

      Councilmember Sawyer stated he will be anxious to see if that actually happens.

      Councilmember Pflumm asked if Grindline was the low bidder.
PAGE 32                            CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                       OCTOBER 24, 2005


      Senior Project Engineer Schnettgoecke stated a long time has passed since that bid
      process, but reminded the Council that this is a design/build project.

      Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to authorize the
      Mayor to sign a construction contract with Johnson Western Gunite Company who has
      offered to provide the required bonds to complete the skatepark and to subcontract all the
      work to Grindline Skateparks, Inc. The motion carried 7-0.

27.   CONSIDER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION/PERMANENT                                   SANITARY
      SEWER EASEMENT FOR QUIVIRA GLEN PARK.

      Mayor Meyers stated that north of 51st Street, the sanitary sewer system ends on the west
      side of Quivira Glen Park, formerly the Shawnee Township landfill. The sanitary sewer
      system needs to extend further east to serve the Timber Springs subdivision which is now
      under construction. JCWWD is offering $4,744 for the easements.

      Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to authorize the
      Mayor to sign the temporary construction/permanent sewer easement for Quivira Glen
      Park and extend the sanitary sewer system further east to serve the Timber Springs
      subdivision which is now under construction, with JCWWD offering $4,744 for the
      easements. The motion carried 7-0.

28.   CONSIDER UTILITY EASEMENT FOR SWARNER PARK IMPROVEMENTS.

      Mayor Meyers stated that lighting improvements at Swarner Park will require installation
      of an electrical main and transformer by Kansas City Power & Light, all within the utility
      easement.

      Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Scott, moved to authorize the
      Mayor to sign the utility easement for the Swarner Park improvements, to include the
      installation of an electrical main and transformer by Kansas City Power & Light. The
      motion carried 7-0.

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

29.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR OCTOBER 24,
      2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,193,950.89.

      Councilmember Sandifer, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to approve the
      semi-monthly claim for October 24, 2005, in the amount of $2,193,950.89. The motion
      carried 7-0.

30.   MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.

      a)     City Disaster Plan.
PAGE 33                         CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                          OCTOBER 24, 2005


          Councilmember Tubbesing stated in lieu of what they have all been witnessing
          over the past year with all the various disasters which have struck, especially in
          the southern part of the country, he would like the Council to request staff to do a
          top to bottom review of the City Disaster Plan. He stated he wants to know the
          City, County, State, and Federal responsibilities and bring it all down so the
          Council understands and knows their responsibilities to the people of this City.

          Councilmember Tubbesing stated after all is complete, they need to disseminate
          that to the citizens of Shawnee through CityLine and the media, so everyone
          knows what is going on. He stated he has talked with his neighbors and others at
          the Chamber and has not received a single answer from anyone that they even
          know what to do in the event of a disaster. He stated he would appreciate it if
          staff could put together a Blue Ribbon committee of some kind and provide the
          Council with a presentation.

          City Manager Montague stated the City has a disaster plan in place, but it is not as
          comprehensive as it should be. He stated they recently formed a committee in the
          Fire Department and representatives from all the different departments. He stated
          they are developing a more comprehensive plan for the City, which is scheduled
          to be completed by the end of this year.

          City Manager Montague stated, as part of this plan, there will also be a tabletop
          exercise following and then actually a real life exercise. He stated they will be
          glad to apprise the Council of that plan and it will be brought to the Council after
          the first of the year in 2006.

          Councilmember Tubbesing stated he would like the committee to have some
          element on how to disseminate that information to the public. He stated the
          Council knowing what to do is only half the battle, as the people knowing what to
          do and where to go is the other half.

          Councilmember Pflumm asked if the Council could be instructed on their role.
          He stated he knows when they were individually sworn in, one of the items
          pertained to emergency assistance. He stated if any of the eight individuals on
          this Council were to be asked today, he is sure that they would not know who to
          call or where to go in the event of an emergency. He stated if they could just
          know what is expected from them, it would really be beneficial.

          City Manager Montague stated the emergency center for the City is the public
          safety center on Quivira Road. He stated that is where the Mayor and
          Councilmembers should report in case of an emergency or disaster of any type.
          He stated in the event that that building is not available or for some reason is not
          usable, then the Public Works facility on Johnson Drive is the backup. He stated
          if that facility is not available, then Fire Station #3 in western Shawnee is the third
          location. He stated those are the three basic public facilities available for
          emergency assistance in place at this time.
PAGE 34                           CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               OCTOBER 24, 2005




ADJOURNMENT

Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Novosel, moved to adjourn. The motion
carried 7-0, and the meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.

Minutes prepared by: Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:




_________________________________
Carol Gonzales, Deputy City Manager

								
To top