COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL

Transcription

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Council Chambers
Monday, September 19, 2016
6:00 PM
AGENDA
TED ODELL,
ODELL, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
AGENDA ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
COU2016-53
Consider amendment to police pension plan related to time of service
Steve Noll
COU2016-54
Consider approval of amendment to the Employee Handbook related to
vacation accrual for employees with 20+ years of service
Amy Hunt
Council Project List - Discussion regarding Special Use Permits and
Conditional Use Permits in residentially zoned property
Chris Brewster
Initiative/Project List update
Quinn Bennion
*Council Action Requested the same night
POLICE PENSION BOARD
Committee
Committee Meeting Date: September 19, 2016
COU 20162016-:
CONSIDER MODIFYING THE EXISTING
EXISTING POLICE PENSION PLAN
PLAN TO
INCREASE THE SERVICE CAP FROM 25 YEARS TO 30 YEARS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Police Pension Board recommends increasing the service cap to a maximum of 30 years.
Eligible officers would elect this alternative beginning in their 26 year of service and the
employee’s contribution would increase from 4% to 8% of salary.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED ON:
ON:
October 3, 2016
SUGGESTED MOTION
Motion to approve increasing the service cap in the Police Pension Plan to a maximum of 30
years with officers increasing their contribution rate to 8.0% beginning in their 26th year.
BACKGROUND
The retention of senior supervisory officers within the Police Department has been a concern
for a number of years. The current Pension Plan allows for separation of service after 20 years
with a service cap of 25 years. This results in senior level officers leaving the PD during that
window of time and creates a gap in experience and institutional knowledge. While turnover,
separation, and retirements are expected within any organization, it takes between 10 – 12
months to backfill a police officer position. The costs for hiring and training a new officer range
from $27,000 (with experience) to $48,000 (for officers who attend the Police Academy).
These costs do not take into account the loss of institutional knowledge and valued operational
experience which is essential in public safety organizations.
The option discussed by the Pension Board and Department Staff is an investment by both the
employee and the City. This is an optional plan and the officer would opt in starting at year 26.
The officer’s contribution would double from 4% to 8% of their salary. According to the Plan’s
actuary, the individual officer’s contribution would double from 4% to 8% of their base salary.
The City’s investment cost would be a total of $12,500.00 on an annual basis which has
already been built into the 2017 Budget. This option would give officers the ability to accrue
pension benefits through 30 years of service. The City would gain from the potential retention
of experienced senior level supervisors and officers, as well as improved continuity of service.
FUNDING SOURCE
PREPARED BY
Steve Noll
Council Member / Police Pension Board Member
Date: June 10, 2016
2016 Police Pension 30 year cap
0101-0303-XXXX-5019
HUMAN RESOURCES
Council Meeting Date: September 19,
19, 2016
COU2016-54
COU
CONSIDER
INCREASE
OF
VACATION
EMPLOYEES WITH 20 YEARS OF SERVICE.
ACCRUAL
FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends increasing the vacation accrual for employees with twenty years of
continuous service from twenty (20) days per year to twenty-five (25) days per year. This is a
strategy option to promote retaining long-term employees while remaining competitively
aligned with surrounding cities.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED ON:
ON:
October 3,
3, 2016
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve proposed increase for employees with twenty years of continuous service
from twenty days to twenty five days per years.
BACKGROUND
Staff has been weighing strategies to improve the retention of tenured employees. Part of that
research included what benefit changes could incentivize an employee to remain with the
organization. Currently, when employees reach 10 years of continuous service they reach the
cap in vacation accrual of 6.15 hours per pay period. One specific comparison that stood out
where Prairie Village seemed to be falling behind was vacation accrual differences after an
employee completes 20 years of service as indicated in the following chart. If approved, this
would impact 12 employees (4 – Public Works, 6-Police Department, and 2-City Hall)
City
Overland Park
Shawnee
Leawood
Roeland Park
Mission
Olathe
Merriam
Lenexa
Westwood
Lawrence
KCK Police
KCMO Police
20 year accrual rate
25 days
29 days
20 days
24 days
25 days
20 days
25 days
20 days
21 days
25 days
30 days
25 days
24.08 average
Attachment – Employee Handbook Amendments
PREPARED BY
Amy Hunt
Human Resources
Date: September 13, 2016
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND SERVICES
4.1
VACATION
Full-time employees earn and accrue vacation leave in any pay period in which the employee is
compensated for forty (40) hours or more. Part-time employees are not eligible to earn vacation leave. A
full-time employee’s
employee’s vacation leave accrual is based on the employee’s
employee’s length of continuous employment,
as follows:
First five years of service. During the first five years of continuous service full-time employees earn
vacation leave at the rate of 3.39 hours per pay period, or 88 hours or 11 days per year. The employee’s
employee’s
vacation leave balance may not exceed 176 hours.
Six through ten years of service. During the sixth through tenth years of continuous service full-time
employees earn vacation leave at the rate of 4.62 hours per pay period, or 120 hours or 15 days per year.
The employee’s
employee’s vacation leave balance may not exceed 240 hours.
Eleven or more years of service. through 19 years of service. After ten years of continuous service, fulltime employees
employees earn vacation leave at the rate of 6.15 hours per pay period, or 160 hours or 20 days per
year. The employee’s
employee’s vacation leave balance may not exceed 320 hours.
Twenty or more years of service. After twenty years of continuous service, full-time employees
employees earn
vacation leave at the rate of 7.69 hours per pay period, or 200 hours or 25 days per year. The employee’s
vacation leave balance may not exceed 400 hours.
An employee may utilize any accumulated vacation leave benefit immediately after his or her date of hire.
Vacation leave may be taken in a minimum of fifteen (15) minute increments for non-exempt employees.
employees.
Exempt employees are not subject to salary reductions. Exempt employees may use vacation leave in
four (4) or eight (8) hour increments.
Vacation leave must be requested as far in advance as possible, and can only be taken if approved by the
Department Manager.
Manager Vacation leave requests may be denied due to inadequate notice or staffing
requirements. If more than one employee in a Department has requested vacation leave at the same
time, the Department Manager will determine which employees will be allowed the time off based upon
fair and impartial factors.
If an employee has scheduled or is on vacation leave when an illness occurs, the employee
employee may request
that the leave be charged as sick leave rather than vacation leave. The Department Manager in his or her
sole discretion has the authority to change the leave classification for the period of the illness and/or
recovery. Documentation from a health care provider may be required when an employee wishes to reclassify scheduled vacation leave to sick leave. That documentation should include:
•
•
•
•
name of the employee;
employee and
name of the employee or immediate family member attended to; and
date(s) the employee or immediate family member was hospitalized or under the health care
provider’s care; and
signature of the health care provider.
Unused vacation leave will be paid to employees upon separation, retirement, or termination. Vacation
leave may not be used after providing resignation notice, unless requested by the employee and
approved by the Department Manager.
Manager If a City paid holiday falls during an employee’s
employee’s vacation, the
employee will not be charged that day as vacation leave.
ADMINISTRATION
19, 2016
Discuss amendments,
amendments, changes, and/or amendments to Zoning
Regulations pertaining to Special Use and Conditional Use Permits.
BACKGROUND:
The Governing Body has identified the review of Special Use Permits and
Conditional Use Permits as a Project Initiative to be addressed in 2016. Staff and
the City Planner will be seeking direction on what Council envisions as permitted
uses that needs further review or consideration of changes, additions, or
amendments.
ATTACHMENTS
Memo from Chris Brewster
Zoning Regulations:
Chapter 19.28 - Special Use Permits
Chapter 19.30 – Conditional Use Permits
PREPARED BY
Wes Jordan
Assistant City Administrator
Date: September 15, 2016
STAFF MEMO
September 15, 2016
STAFF MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Issue:
Mayor and City Council
Chris Brewster, AICP, Gould Evans, Planning Consultant
September 19, 2016, City Council Meeting
Special Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits; Background
information for discussion
In general planning practice, Special Use Permits (SUP) and Conditional Use Permits (CUP) can refer to
the same process and are often used interchangeably. It is a tool that allows more flexibility for uses and
development of a site in exchange for greater site-specific planning and analysis, and where the
jurisdiction often reserves some discretion on each application until the review process.
This tool is best applied in two situations:
1.
To allow uses that are not ideal for the long-range planning goals of a particular area or district,
but are an appropriate interim use on a particular site that will not undermine other surrounding
investments that are consistent with plans or goals for the area.
2.
To allow uses that are not universally appropriate for a particular zoning district under generally
applicable standards, but based on specific site conditions, uniqueness of a particular location, or
design or operation criteria for that particular application, it may be appropriate.
In both instances, in addition to site-based analysis and reserved discretion, the periodic review and
renewal of the permit is needed to ensure that the conditions that warrant approval of the use remain and
the standards of the approval are complied with. However, the specifics of the tool are unique to each
jurisdictions’ particular ordinance, and can vary widely among jurisdictions.
This tool has evolved out of municipalities general police powers and zoning authority as a means to
implement planning policies. Kansas’ planning enabling legislation is a bit unique in that it specifically
mentions special use permits and conditional use permits, although there are no definitions for the term or
clear distinctions on the difference between the two terms within the statute. [KSA 12-755(a)(5)] It is
important to note that the jurisdictions discretion is limited to the same criteria it must consider in rezoning
decisions, plus any specific criteria that are included in the ordinance for SUP or CUP process, or for any
specific use.
The current Prairie Village Zoning Ordinance draws a distinction between these two terms which is a
variation on the above general planning practice. Although the ordinance does not clearly state this, it is
apparent that Special Use Permits are intended for things that are more significant, where the analysis
required in association with each application is more in depth, and where the City reserves more
discretion in the review process. In contrast, Conditional Use Permits are intended for things that are
more routine, smaller scale, or with some pre-approved conditions or performance criteria for each
conditional use are listed in the ordinance.
Under this system, the Special Use Permit is most similar to re-zoning and a Conditional Use Permit is
most similar to site plan approval. Although both application process do require a public hearing before
the Planning Commission, the Special Use Permit has to be approved by the Governing Body with the
Planning Commission’s recommendation, while the Conditional Use Permit is approved by Planning
Commission.
The Prairie Village Zoning ordinance addresses Special Use Permits in Chapter 19.28. Section
19.28.070 provides the following list of uses that are eligible for approval with a special use permit in any
district:
1
STAFF MEMO
September 15, 2016
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Country clubs / private clubs
Cemeteries
Columbarium
Hospitals
Nursery sales / green house
Nursing and convalescent homes as defined by state statues; but not including group homes
Utility services and public services (except utility poles and boxes)
Assembly Halls
Dwellings for senior adults
Service Stations (C-1, C-2, and C-3 only)
Car washes (C-1, C-2 and C-3 only)
Skating rinks, commercial recreation (C-1, C-2 and C-3 only)
Mortuaries and funeral homes (C-O, C-1, C-2, and C-3 only)
Day care centers in residential districts
Bar / Night Club (C-1, C-2 and C-3 only)
Accessory uses to motels (restaurants, and banquet rooms)
Accessory uses to hospitals
Utility Storage Buildings (non-residential)
Private Schools, Colleges and University Education Centers.
This Chapter also provides specific criteria against which all Special Use Permits shall be reviewed in
Section 19.28. 035.
Additionally, the Wireless Communication Chapter (19.33) also identifies telecommunications towers as a
special use permit. That entire chapter is dedicated to procedures and criteria for Special Use Permits for
wireless facilities that are in addition to those found in Chapter 19.28
The Prairie Village Zoning Ordinance addresses Conditional Use Permits in Chapter 19.30. Section
19.30.055 provides the following list of uses that are eligible for approval with a conditional use permit:
• Temporary uses of land (commercial or industrial)
• Off-street parking lots and parking structures.
• Drive-up, drive-through or drive-in services (C-O, C-1 and C-2 only)
• Satellite dish antennas (limited sizes)
• Property maintenance facilities
• Portable carts, booths or stands for retails sales of merchandise.
• Utility boxes (limited sizes)
This Chapter also provides specific criteria against which all Conditional Use Permits shall be reviewed in
Section 19.30.030.
2
Prairie Village Administration
Memorandum
To:
Fr:
Da:
RE:
Mayor, City Council, & Department Managers
Quinn Bennion, City Administrator
Sept. 16, 2016
Updated priority / project list
BACKGROUND
City Council and city staff are currently involved with a number of significant
initiatives. The projects are beyond the day to day operations.
Attached is an updated project / initiative list. The format has changed from the
previous version which also attached. The new format highlights current projects
receiving attention and projects that are “next up”.
The project / initiative list only includes the CIP projects that involve a committee,
such as Mission Road and Village Square.
The initiatives were originally refined during a Council retreat / worksession in
February and April 2010 and further discussed each year at the Council retreat or
Council committee. A significant number of the items have been accomplished as a
result of efforts by Council and staff during 2010 - 2015.
The projects and initiatives attached are beyond the day to day operations of the
City. The items listed are in addition to the daily city operations and department
initiatives. These initiatives require Council input and involvement or budget
allocation.
_________________________________________________________________
Prepared By:
Quinn Bennion
City Administrator
1
City of Prairie Village ‐ Sept. 2016
Project / Initiative List
#
In Progress
1 Initiate a bike/ped master plan
Project/Initiative
2
Village Square Committee and concept study
3
Rebid solid waste/recycling contract with possible glass recycling program
4
Ordinances related to public antenna networks (small cell antennas)
5
6
Explore the purchase of the city's street light system. Audit completed.
Review and update zoning code (allowable uses, SUP process) Status
City submitted grant to MARC in June 2016
$50K included in budget for concept study. Committee to start work in October.
Contract approved with Republic. Transition plan in progress. Republic services start in January 2017.
Amending ROW ordinance to reflect state statute changes that limit City's oversight Audit completed. Contract with KCPL approved Sept. 2016. Bond issue in Fall 2016.
Staff Support Scope
Keith
Med
Quinn, Alley
Lg
Wes
Med
Wes/Keith
Med
Keith
Wes
Med
Med
Next Up
7
8
Review of dangerous dog ordinance / procedure
Comprehensive salary & benefits study
9
Discussions with First Washington about future plans for the two shopping centers
10 Restructure of the Prairie Village Foundation
11 Exterior Grant Review
Added to priority list May 2016 by staff after receiving comments from several Councilmembers. Draft to Council in December.
Included in 2017 budget
Depends on scope and CID funds. Presentation to Council in October
Tim
Med
Lg
Quinn
Med
Discussion about City / Foundation funded PT position
Committee formed
Meghan
Wes
Med
Med
Quinn
Lg
Keith
Melissa
Melissa
Lg
Med
Med
Quinn
Med
Alley
Med
Ongoing 12 Meadowbrook property development ‐ park, TIF, park plan
13 Mission Rd ‐ 71st to 75th ‐ enhancements / pedestrian
14 Coordination of installation of Google Fiber network
15 Coordination of installation of ATT GigaPower product
16 Efforts to secure additional parkland
Reestablish / strengthen the Island Committee & develop plan for island statuary 17 maintenance. TIF plan, zoning, IRB, park plan, plat, designs & bond issue approved. Property closed on May 17. Construction started. Work group & public meetings held. Concept design approved. Construction started in June 2016. Substantial completion Sept. 2016
Completion expected in 2016
Depends on location, scope. Meadowbrook Park under construction.
Inventory audit conducted. Maintenance plan started.
#
Project/Initiative
Status
Desire for more maintenance code inspections. Promote homeownership, review rental Added Full FTE starting in 2015. Staff is reviewing recent 18 licensing program and property maintenance ordinance
legislative changes that limit interior inspections.
19 More effective / proactive communication with residents
PW has plan to monitor and address ponding water in channels. Code Enforcement is also treating standing water pools.
20 Zika outreach, response and education
Not Currently Addressed (not listed in priority order)
21 Review and update the City Code book
22 Review and update City policies 23 Determine and develop economic development strategies and incentives
Consider developing small business program: business incubator. Look into JCCC 24 programs
25 Establish or reenergize dormant homes associations where they do not currently exist
26 Develop form based codes and comprehensive plan amendments
Research the possibility of initiating a transportation program for seniors and special 27 needs residents
28 Proactive approach for regional transit related topics 29 Live stream/audio stream Council meetings
Explore a more proactive approach to the location and size of wireless tower facilities. 30 Compliance with FCC updates.
31 Review of Code of Ethics
32 Research and review KP&F plan
33 Political sign regulations ‐ as reqd by changes in state statute
Pedestrian crossings ‐ education/enforcement/evaluation of signage for optimum 34 compliance
35 Revisit use of the Consent Agenda
36 Explore the use of alternative fuel vehicles
Review of smoking ordinance and e‐cigarettes
Explore other alternatives to the City owned fuel tanks Program to encourage neighborhood block parties
Cultivate an environment that celebrates diversity
MARC solar initiative ‐ involvement level of the City TBD
Wes
Meghan
Med
Med
Keith
Med
Lg
Lg
Med
Depends on scope. Use Econ Dev funds.
Med
Planning & attorney costs for review
Med
Med
Based on other cities' experience ‐ $40k annual
Preliminary information provided to Council Sept. 2016.
May include a consultant
Supreme Court decision also impacts.
Cost associated with new signage / equip.
37 Determine level of involvement in Community of All Ages/residents aging in place
38
39
40
41
42
Staff Support Scope
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Review distance smoking is allowed from a doorway
Estimate of $2k annual
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
#
Project/Initiative
43 Explore drone ordinance
44 Initiate a resident welcome packet
Status
Staff Support Scope
Sm
Sm
Completed 2016
Expanded to City‐wide ordinance. Presentation to Council in 2016. Phase One includes height, setback and elevation. Hearing on June 7th.
Pilot program started in 2016. Trial ended in Sept. Approved March 2016.
Lg
Med
Sm
48 Review breed specific dog ban ordinance
Public comments in Aug. Council discussion and vote on Sept. 6, 2016
Med
49 Citizen Survey
50 Installation of KCPL electric charging station at City Hall complex ‐ second round
Council voted not to pursue as budgeted item in 2017
Electricity cost for stations up to $2k per year
Med
Sm
45 PV building guidelines
46 Explore curbside city‐wide glass recycling
47 Tobacco 21 ordinance
Discussed and not being pursued further Sept. 2016
Prepared by: Q. Bennion
City of Prairie Village ‐ January 2016
Priority / Initiative List
# Scope
2016
2017 Initiative/project
1
Lg
X
Meadowbrook property development ‐ park, TIF, park plan
2
Lg
X
Mission Rd ‐ 71st to 75th ‐ enhancements / pedestrian
3
4
5
6
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
X
PV building guidelines
Review and update the City Code book
Review & update zoning code (allowable uses, SUP process)
Review and update City policies
7
8
Med
Med
X
X
X
9
10
Med
Med
X
__
11
Med
X
12
Med
X
13
Med
X
14
15
16
17
18
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
X
X
X
19
20
Med
Med
X
21
Med
22
23
Med
Med
24
25
Med
Med
X
X
Comments
TIF plan, zoning, IRB, park plan, plat, designs & bond issue approved. Property closed on May 17. Construction started.
Work group & public meetings held. Concept design approved. Construction starts in June 2016.
Expanded to City‐wide ordinance. Presentation to Council in 2016. Phase One includes height, setback and elevation. Hearing on June 7th.
Coordination of installation of Google Fiber network
Coordination of installation of ATT GigaPower product
Completion expected in 2016, 2017
X
Discussions with First Washington about future plans for the two shopping centers
Kansas City Christian school upgrades / expansion
Depends on scope and CID funds
X
Efforts to secure additional parkland
Reestablish / strengthen the Island Committee & develop plan for island statuary maintenance. Desire for more maintenance code inspections. Promote homeownership, review rental licensing program and property maintenance ordinance
Explore a more proactive approach to the location and size of wireless tower facilities. Compliance with FCC updates.
Restructure of the Prairie Village Foundation
Initiate a bike/ped master plan
More effective / proactive communication with residents
Explore curbside city‐wide glass recycling
Rebid solid waste/recycling contract with possible glass recycling program
Determine and develop economic development strategies and incentives
Consider developing small business program: business incubator. Look into JCCC programs
Establish or reenergize dormant homes associations where they do not currently exist
Develop form based codes and comprehensive plan amendments
Research the possibility of initiating a transportation program for seniors and special needs residents
Proactive approach for regional transit related topics Depends on location, scope. Meadowbrook Park under construction.
Inventory audit conducted. Maintenance plan started.
Added Full FTE starting in 2015
May include a consultant
City / Foundation funded PT position at $50k per year
Estimated at $30k city cost w/ grant in 2016
pilot program started in 2016.
new contract starts Jan 2017. Consultant hired to compile RFP. RFP out in June.
Depends on scope. Use Econ Dev funds.
Planning & attorney costs for review
Based on other cities' experience ‐ $40k annual
City of Prairie Village ‐ January 2016
Priority / Initiative List
# Scope
2016
2017 Initiative/project
26
Sm
X
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
Installation of KCPL electric charging station at City Hall complex ‐ second round
Explore the purchase of the city's street light and/or traffic signal system. Audit completed.
Research and review KP&F plan
Organize Ward meetings ‐ Ward 6 held meeting Dec. 2015
Ordinances related to public antenna networks
Review of solicitation ordinance in relation to ice cream trucks
Political sign regulations ‐ as reqd by changes in state statute
Tobacco 21 ordinance
34
Sm
X
Review of dangerous dog ordinance / procedure
35
36
Sm
Sm
X
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Sm
Key
Lg, Med, Sm
X
C
X
Review breed specific dog ban ordinance
Review of Code of Ethics
Pedestrian crossings ‐ education/enforcement/evaluation of signage for optimum compliance
Revisit use of the Consent Agenda
Explore the use of alternative fuel vehicles
Determine level of involvement in Community of All Ages ‐ MARC initiative
Review of smoking ordinance and e‐cigarettes
Explore other alternatives to the City owned fuel tanks Program to encourage neighborhood block parties
Cultivate an environment that celebrates diversity
MARC solar initiative ‐ involvement level of the City TBD
site plan & PUD reinspections ‐ systematic resinspection of approved SUP
Explore drone ordinance
Initiate a resident welcome packet
Large, Medium & Small. Estimated scope of council & staff time commitment and involvement
Initiative is underway, committed or significantly in progress
Completed
June 2016 version
Prepared by Q. Bennion
Comments
Electricity cost for stations $2k per year
Other cities experience 3 to 5 year payback. Then significant cost savings.
Minimal. Primary cost is for mailer.
Staff initiated. To be reviewed with fee schedule.
Supreme Court decision also impacts.
Approved March 2016.
Added to priority list May 2016 by staff after receiving comments from several Councilmembers
Added to priority list May 2016. Anticipated July 2016.
Cost associated with new signage / equip.
Review distance smoking is allowed from a doorway
Estimate of $2k annual
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE
Council Chambers
Monday, September 19, 2016
7:30 PM
I.
CALL TO ORDER
II.
ROLL CALL
III.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV.
INTRODUCTION OF STUDENTS & SCOUTS
V.
PRESENTATIONS
Introduction of Teen Council
VI.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(5 minute time limit for items not otherwise listed on the agenda)
VII.
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed below are considered to be routine by the Governing Body and
will be enacted by one motion (Roll Call Vote). There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the regular agenda.
By Staff
1.
2.
Approve the regular Council meeting minutes - September 6, 2016
Approve the interlocal agreement with Johnson County for the final
construction of the 2016 Stormwater Management Advisory Council
(SMAC) Meadowbrook Regional Detention Project
By Committee
3.
Consider approval of a bond sale resolution for streetlight purchase
VIII.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
IX.
MAYOR'S REPORT
X.
STAFF REPORTS
XI.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII.
OLD BUSINESS
XIII.
NEW BUSINESS
XIV.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
XV.
ADJOURNMENT
If any individual requires special accommodations
accommodations – for example, qualified interpreter, large print,
reader, hearing assistance – in order to attend the meeting, please notify the City Clerk at 3853854616, no later than 48 hours prior to the beginning of the meeting.
If you are unable to attend this meeting, comments may be received by ee-mail at
[email protected]
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE
September 6,
6, 2016
The City Council of Prairie Village, Kansas, met in regular session on Tuesday,
September 6, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Building, 7700
Mission Road, Prairie Village, Kansas.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Laura Wassmer called the meeting to order and roll call was taken with the
following Council members present: Ashley Weaver, Jori Nelson, Serena Schermoly,
Steve Noll, Eric Mikkelson, Andrew Wang, Sheila Myers, Brooke Morehead, Dan Runion,
Courtney McFadden, Ted Odell and Terrence Gallagher.
Staff present was: Tim Schwartzkopf, Chief of Police; Keith Bredehoeft, Director
of Public Works; David Waters representing the City Attorney; Shannon Marcano,
Assistant City Attorney; Quinn Bennion, City Administrator; Wes Jordan, Assistant City
Administrator; Lisa Santa Maria, Finance Director and Joyce Hagen Mundy, City Clerk.
INTRODUCTION OF STUDENTS & SCOUTS
No scouts or students were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Jamie Dial, from Raymore, Missouri, shared that six years ago she watched two
pit bulls that she owned kill another dog she owned in her presence and she was unable
to stop them. She does not feel lifting the existing ban is in the best interest of public
safety.
1
Kim Goings, 7118 Village Drive, is a SPCA volunteer with experience with pit
bulls. She noted that when walking she has been charged by a golden retriever and told
of an animal bite that occurred at Indian Hills Middle School by a German shepherd. Her
primary concern with the breed specific legislation is how vague it is. The ban makes her
feel oppressed. Visual identification is flawed and inaccurate. If this ignorance and
intolerance continues, she will move from the city.
Dan Sullivan, noted the power and anger of a pit bull is oppressive and shared an
experience he had with a chained pit bull. He noted the fences in Prairie Village are
designed to keep children and small pets in. Pit bulls can easily jump these fences. Mr.
Sullivan noted the reference to State Farm Insurance and noted the premium for that
coverage is expensive and the coverage is quickly cancelled with any kind of an incident.
He enjoys the freedom he feels in Prairie Village. He views owning a pit bull is like having
a loaded gun with a safety turned off. He views such ownership as a selfish action toward
your neighbors as it changes the dynamics of a neighborhood. He stated that everyone
he spoke with was surprised that this was even being considered in Prairie Village and
strongly oppose the proposed repeal.
Ann Thomas, 2304 West 73rd Street, works in animal welfare and was never more
proud of Prairie Village than at the public hearing where removing this ban was strongly
supported.
Monica Matthews, a veterinarian and resident of Kansas City, Missouri and owner
of a pit bull asked that her dog not be stereotyped as one that needs to be chained.
Shannon Gott, 3607 West 74th Terrace, walks her dog everyday and noted that
the dogs she is afraid of are not pit bulls. She would like to see the ban address all
dangerous animals.
2
David Schwartz, 7831 Nall, spoke in support of the repeal and noted that he has
the support of the largest animal welfare organizations.
John Coleman, on West 72nd Terrace, stated that he had a mixed chocolate lab
that was threatened to be taken by animal control because of its appearance. He does
not feel this ban should have ever been put in place.
Steve McClain, 7705 Reeds, shared a story of his successful rehabilitation of an
abused border collie with a history of biting people that he adopted. He feels that all
animals can be turned around with love and patience. He supports the repeal of the ban.
Caitlin O’Toole, 7746 Chadwick, urged the city council to listen to credible facts,
to evaluate resources noting that what she has heard from the opposition and has been
said is not accurate or believable. She stated that she would be devastated if the ban
was not repealed.
Allen Gregory, 4608 West 72nd Street, applauded the council on the amount of
research that has been done on this issue. However, he does not feel the city council
does the same due diligence on other topics and situations. He feels that there should
be more transparency and that the minutes of the meetings do not reflect everything that
has occurred. He suggested a court reporter or other recording of meetings to capture all
conversation. He questioned the expenditure of $4M for flooding issues rather than
$50,000 for appropriate signage at a low water crossing as responsible fiscal
government.
With no further public comment, public participation was closed at 8:05 p.m.
CONSE
CONSENT AGENDA
3
Serena Schermoly noted corrections to the minutes of August 15th in reference to
comments made by the Mayor under Old Business correcting the reference of “copyright”
to “trademark”.
Ted Odell moved the approval of the Consent Agenda items for September 6,
2016 with the noted correction to the minutes:
1. Approve the regular City Council meeting minutes of August 15, 2016
2. Approve Claims Ordinance #2945
3. Approve Resolution 2016-04 approving the Prairie Village Arts Council Monthly
Artist Receptions as special events and authorizing the sale, consumption and
possession of alcoholic liquor and cereal malt beverages within the boundaries
of designated public areas of the event.
4. Approve a production services agreement with S.E.C.T. Theatre Supplies, Inc.
to provide, set-up and take down of stage, sound, lighting and roof necessary
for the Prairie Village Jazz Festival.
5. Approve the 2017 Mission Hills contract for law enforcement and court
services for 2017 and the 2017 Mission Hills budget.
A roll call vote was taken with the following members voting “aye”:
Weaver,
Nelson, Schermoly, Noll, Mikkelson, Wang Myers, Morehead, Runion, McFadden, Odell
and Gallagher.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Committee of the Whole
COU2016-44 Consider approval for the purchase of the streetlight system from KCPL
with LED lighting upgrades
COU2016-45 Consider approval of the agreement with KCPL for the purchase of the
streetlight system for $2,282,945.00
Ted Odell recused himself from the discussion and vote on COU2016-44 and
COU2016-45. Keith Bredehoeft responded to the questions regarding the impact of the
recent policy statement by AMA on the warmth and brightness of LED streetlights and
4
the cost implications. Mr. Bredehoeft noted there are no additional costs and noted the
actual selection of the lights would be done at a later date.
Ashley Weaver moved the City Council approve the purchase of the streetlight
system from KCPL and LED lighting upgrades at a cost of $2,282,945. The motion was
seconded by Brooke Morehead.
Dan Runion asked if the cost figure included the cost of the LED upgrades. Mr.
Bredehoeft replied the cost was the purchase price. Mr. Runion asked if there was a
contract for the upgrade. Mr. Bredehoeft responded that bond sale would cover the cost
of the LED upgrade.
The motion was voted on and passed by a vote of 11 to 0 with Mr. Odell
abstaining.
MAYOR’S REPORT
Mayor Wassmer and City Administrator Quinn Bennion made a tour of the
Meadowbrook Development with their project manager. The roads for the project will be
completed by Christmas. Four builders have been selected for the single family homes and
over 30 of the townhomes have been spoken for. They have a letter of intent for the
proposed senior living facility, but have not yet finalized the agreements. Mayor Wassmer
stated she made a presentation to over 100 ReeceNichols realtors regarding what was
happening in the City regarding upcoming construction and developments. She participated
in the annual Lancer Day Parade and is looking forward to participating in the Prairie Village
Jazz Festival on Saturday and hopes that many of the council can also attend.
STAFF REPORTS
Public Safety - None
5
Public Works
• Keith Bredehoeft reported on the construction of the new city courtyard and
reviewed the traffic flow, entrance and parking changes.
• Public Works crews will be setting up for JazzFest this week.
Administration
• Wes Jordan reported that the City is aware of issues related to the Barracuda
spam filter blocking the receipt of emails. Barracuda will be disabled for most of
Council.
• Demolition has begun on 7501 Mission Road.
OLD BUSINESS
Consider Approval of the Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Services Agreement
with Republic Services for collection operations beginning January 1, 2017
Wes Jordan stated he and the Assistant City Attorney, Shannon Marcano, have
worked with Republic Services to finalize the Solid Waste and Recycling Services
Agreement. Mr. Jordan reviewed the key points in the scope of services as written in the
agreement. The remaining item for action by the City Council is whether the contract is
written for five years or for ten years and reviewed the proposed rates at both levels.
Eric Mikkelson shared his support for a lower rate with a ten year contract,
especially due to the termination clause that favors the City. The longer contract will save
the City a significant amount of money each year.
Dan Runion asked for clarification on the Consumer Price Index. Wes Jordan
stated that a worst case scenario would be a 3.25% increase in 2019.
Sheila Myers expressed her support of the five year contract due to the changes in
the industry. She pointed out that the five year contract included a satisfaction survey
and she would like to see that continued if the longer contract is pursued.
6
Wes Jordan informed the Council that the contract needs to be determined today
in order to set the 2017 Solid Waste Assessment Rate.
Terrence Gallagher expressed his support for the 10 year plan to allow residents
to have a smaller, more incremental increase to their taxes.
Steve Noll supported the 10 year plan as we embark on a new relationship with a
new vendor. This is something that requires longevity.
Dan Runion expressed his concern that Republic could be bought by another
company and we wouldn’t want to be locked into a 10 year contract. He suggested a five
year contract with an option to extend at the end of the five year term.
Courtney McFadden supported the five year contract due to the uncertainty of a
new relationship with Republic.
Ashley Weaver moved the City Council approve the Solid Waste and Recycling
Services Agreement with Republic Services for collection operations beginning January
1, 2017 for a period of ten years. The motion was seconded by Eric Mikkelson and
passed 7-6, with Mayor Wassmer breaking the tie.
Request Permission to set the 2017 Solid Waste Assessment Rate
Based on the new Solid Waste and Recycling Services agreement approved by
the City Council, an increase in the amount assessed for solid waste services needs to
be made. The previous year’s assessment was $174.00. The new assessment needs to
be $192.00.
Ashley Weaver moved the City Council increase the 2017 Solid Waste
Assessment rate from $174.00 annually to $192.00 annually. The motion was seconded
by Eric Mikkelson and passed 11-1 with Ted Odell voting nay.
7
Discussion regarding dog breed restrictions in city code
Eric Mikkelson moved to repeal Ordinance 2-106 related to the prohibition of pit
bulls with an effective date of December 1, 2016. The motion was seconded by Serena
Schermoly. Further discussion ensued.
Brooke Morehead has researched policies within apartments and management
companies in cities without a pit bull ban. She made eight calls with all complexes
reporting no pit bulls were allowed. She shared her own experience when a boxer-mix
attacked her own dog in her front yard. This ordinance gives residents freedom and
peace of mind to walk our streets. She stated Mikkelson’s support for the reconfiguration
of Mission Road was due to a safety concern, and she believes pit bulls are of equal
concern.
Jori Nelson appreciated that Brooke Morehead reached out to apartment owners,
but she prefers the testimony of Police Chiefs and Animal Control Officers. She wants to
address all dangerous dogs, not specific breeds. If there is real concern about safety, the
City should address issues such as playgrounds, pedestrians, public pool, skate parks,
and bike accidents. Proper precautions, training, safe behaviors are the key.
Serena Schermoly recalled that five veterinarians stated that pit bulls are no more
dangerous than any other dog breed. She trusts professional veterinarians over
apartment managers or home owners’ association.
Eric Mikkelson stated that the Mission Road reconfiguration is both beautiful and
safe, and was an evidence based change. He thinks breed specific bans make our City
less safe. If the Police Department isn’t out chasing down pit bulls, we are safer because
officers can tend to more important issues.
8
Terrence Gallagher asked that if a land lord could still restrict ownership of pit
bulls if they were allowed in the City. David Waters stated that landlords could enforce
their own rules on their private property.
Chief Schwartzkopf was called on to make comments. The Police Department
does not use an abundance of resources dealing with pit bulls within the City. He stated
that City Council makes the policies and the Police Department will carry those polices
out.
Mayor Wassmer stated that she believes this is a lose-lose situation. She doesn’t
believe that all pit bulls are bad, but could not live with herself if the ban is overturned
and a person is mauled. She can’t ignore the reports of pit bull attacks across the country
and the City can’t legislate owners.
Jori Nelson stated that in many of the cases of reported pit bull attacks, there was
a misidentification of the dog as a pit bull. There is media sensationalism around these
stories. No one has DNA tested these animals.
Andrew Wang commented about faulty media reports on many newsworthy items,
including those on pit bull attacks that minimize the responsibility of poorly trained dog
owners. The City should focus on a more comprehensive dangerous animal ordinance.
He recapped his Animal Control Board experience. In the last two dog bite cases that
came before the City, neither were pit bulls and neither were determined dangerous.
Council is not protecting the citizens with a breed ban.
Eric Mikkelson addressed the pit bull bite strength and locking jaw myth. Evidence
is not there to support those myths, and that several other dog breeds have more
significant bite impacts. He stated that bans do not reduce dog bites or fatalities by dogs.
9
The City should use the next couple of months to draft tougher penalties and proactive
remedies.
Sheila Myers shared her personal experience with a pit bull as the daughter of a
veterinarian and believes that not all animals can be rehabilitated.
Jori Nelson stated that criminal penalties could be enacted with fees and fines for
bad dogs. There is no data to convince her that a breed ban is effective. She asked the
Council to consider if a child bitten by a lab is less important than one bitten by a pit bull.
Serena Schermoly stated that City Council needs to trust our residents. She has
run two Facebook campaigns with most residents have supported this with only a few
against. She believes that if City Council doesn't lift the ban, then people will just hide
their dogs. She stated that a Google search of Rottweiler attacks will also bring up
horrific accounts of animal attacks, showing that the breed doesn’t matter.
Eric Mikkelson restated his motion to repeal the ordinance related to the
prohibition of pit bulls with effective date of December 1, 2016. Serena Schermoly
seconded the motion. The motion failed on a 5-7 vote.
Jori Nelson moved to have staff prepare an ordinance to repeal 2-106 and
strengthen the current dangerous dog ordinance sections using the proposed ordinance
that was sent to Council and offer input and suggestions. [The second was not recorded.]
The motion failed on a 5-7 vote.
Jori Nelson moved to prepare an ordinance to repeal the ban and change the
ordinance similar to what the residents submitted regarding handling of dangerous
animals. [The second was not recorded.] The motion failed on a 5-7 vote.
Jori Nelson moved to consider mandatory restrictions on purebred American
Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and American Pit Bull Terriers that
10
would include mandatory spay/neuter and include a $500,000 liability insurance. [The
second was not recorded.]
Discussion ensued. Mayor Wassmer mentioned that she visited with many of her
neighbors and residents, and there is a silent majority that has not spoken at City Council
meetings. Serena Schermoly stated that the majority has spoken and they are in
attendance tonight. A member of the audience approached the podium and questioned
parliamentary procedure. Mayor Wassmer reminded everyone that this was time for the
council to address the issue.
Jori Nelson restated the motion. The motion failed on a 5-7 vote.
Eric Mikkelson moved to ask staff to draft a breed neutral, strengthened
dangerous dog ordinance while repealing the breed specific portions. Andrew Wang
seconded the motion. The motion failed on a 5-7 vote.
NEW BUSINESS
Consider an alcohol permit for the sale of hard liquor at the 2016 State of the Arts
Daniel Andersen reported that the Arts Council would like to sell alcohol at the
2016 State of the Arts event. The event will be catered, and the bar will be staffed by the
catering company. Wine would still be complimentary.
Dan Runion asked if the sale and presence of liquor would increase City liability.
Daniel Andersen responded that the liability would fall to the caterer. Steve Noll reported
that caterers are insured and hire professionals that will not over serve patrons. Laura
Wassmer stated that one of the reasons patrons enjoy the event because it is free. Dan
Andersen responded that this would be a trial year.
11
Steve Noll made a motion to allow the sale of hard liquor at the 2016 State of the
Arts event. The motion was seconded by Serena Schermoly and passed unanimously.
Committee meetings scheduled for the next two weeks include:
Prairie Village Arts Council
Tree Board Meeting
JazzFest Committee Meeting
Planning Commission Meeting
Park & Recreation Committee Meeting
Council Committee of the Whole
City Council
09/07/2016
09/07/2016
09/08/2016
09/13/2016
09/14/2016
09/19/2016
09/19/2016
5:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
5:30 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
=================================================================
The Prairie Village Arts Council is pleased to present the works of Gary Cadwallader &
Jodi Harsch in the R.G. Endres Gallery during the month of September. The artist
reception will be at 6:30 p.m. on Friday, September 9th.
The 7th Annual Prairie Village Jazz Festival will be held on Saturday, September 10th
beginning at 3 p.m. with the Shawnee Mission East Blue Knights and concluding with
Marilyn Maye performing at 8:30 p.m.
The City has a table at the Shawnee Mission Education Foundation breakfast on
Thursday, September 22nd at the Overland Park Convention Center beginning at 7:30
a.m. Please let Meghan Buum know by September 16th if you would like to attend.
The 2016 Citizens Police Academy will begin mid September, Classes are held on
Wednesday evenings from 6 to 9 p.m. for 11 weeks. If you are interested in attending,
contact Captain Myron Ward.
The League of Kansas Municipalities Conference will be held Saturday, October 8th
through Monday, October 10th at the Overland Park Convention Center. If you are
interested in attending, please contact Meghan Buum by September 23rd.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ted Odell moved pursuant to KSA 75-4319 (b) (6) that the Governing Body,
recess into Executive Session in the Multi-Purpose Room for a period not to exceed 10
minutes for the purpose of discussing the possible acquisition of property. Present will
12
be the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator and City Attorney.
The motion was
seconded by Eric Mikkelson and passed unanimously.
Mayor Wassmer reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the City Council the meeting was adjourned
at 10:05 p.m.
Joyce Hagen Mundy
City Clerk
13
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
19, 2016
CONSIDER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY
COUNTY FOR THE FINAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2016 SMAC MEADOWBROOK REGIONAL DETENTION
PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Move to approve the interlocal agreement with Johnson County for the Final
Construction of the 2016 Stormwater Management Advisory Council (SMAC)
Meadowbrook Regional Detention Project.
BACKGROUND
An Interlocal Agreement has been received from Johnson County for execution by
Prairie Village. This agreement will limit the County share to 75% of the project’s
construction related costs to a maximum of $1,413,177. The maximum city funding
would be $471,059. The County’s funding for this project comes from the Stormwater
Management Advisory Council(SMAC) Program.
Previously the County/SMAC agreement for design costs for this project was executed.
FUNDING SOURCE
City Funding for the City portion will come from the Meadowbrook Project TIF Funds.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Interlocal Agreement with Johnson County.
PREPARED BY
Keith Bredehoeft, Public Works Director
Page 1 of 1
C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\10512.doc
September 15, 2016
Agreement between
Johnson County and the City of Prairie Village
For Construction of a Stormwater Management Project known as
95th and Roe Area Stormwater Improvements
IC-11-001
This agreement is entered into by and between the Board of County Commissioners of
Johnson County, Kansas (the "County") and the City of Prairie Village (the "City") pursuant to
K.S.A. 12-2908.
Recitals
1.
Pursuant to K.S.A. 19-3311, by Resolution No. 38-90, the County has established a countywide retailer’s sales tax for the purpose of providing funds for stormwater management
projects, and by Resolution No. 76-90, created a Stormwater Management Advisory Council
to identify and recommend projects for inclusion in the Stormwater Management Program.
2.
The County has established a Stormwater Management and Flood Control Fund for the
purpose of funding Stormwater Management Program projects.
3.
The County, by Resolution No. 66-92, as modified by Resolution No. 034-94, adopted the
Johnson County Stormwater Management Policy and the Administrative Procedures for the
Johnson County Stormwater Management Program ("Policy and Procedures") to promote
interlocal cooperation between the County and the participating municipalities in stormwater
management activities.
4.
The County has established a Five-Year Master Plan consisting of a list of proposed
stormwater management projects that meet the established criteria for funding from the
Stormwater Management and Flood Control Fund. The County, upon the recommendation
of the Stormwater Management Advisory Council, has selected certain projects from the Five
Year Master Plan to be included in the County's Project Priority List which contemplates the
timely design and construction of those selected projects.
5.
In accordance with the Policy and Procedures, the City has requested that the County
participate in the funding for the construction of the stormwater management project
identified as 95th and Roe Area Stormwater Improvements (the "Project"), which Project is
on the County's Project Priority List, and the County is willing to provide such funding upon
the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement.
1
Agreement
In and for the consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this agreement and the
mutual benefits to be derived from the Project, the City and the County agree as follows:

Policy and Procedures. The City acknowledges receipt of the Policy and Procedures. The
City and County agree that the Project shall be undertaken, constructed, and administered in
accordance with the terms and provisions of the Policy and Procedures provided, however, in
the event a conflict exists between any provision of the Policy and Procedures and any
provision of this agreement, the terms and conditions of this agreement shall control.

Estimated Project Cost. The parties acknowledge and agree that this agreement obligates
the parties to proceed with the construction phase of the Project. For budget and accounting
purposes, the total project cost including the design engineering, estimated construction
engineering and construction costs of the construction phase of the Project is One Million
Eight Hundred Eighty Four Thousand, Two Hundred Thirty Six Dollars ($1,884,236) based
upon engineering and design assumptions which the construction contract bid prices and
construction inspection contract prices may or may not confirm.

Option to Terminate. Upon receiving construction bids for the Project, the City shall
determine the total engineering and construction costs for the construction phase of the Project
based upon contract bid amounts. Within seven days of the construction contract bid date,
the City shall notify the County, in writing, of the total engineering and construction costs for
the construction phase of the Project. In the event total estimated construction engineering
and construction costs for the construction phase of the Project exceed the Stormwater
Management Program's estimated construction phase cost of the Project, the City and the
County each shall have the option of terminating this agreement as set forth in this Paragraph.
The City agrees to notify the County whether it desires to terminate this agreement within
thirty days following the bid date of the contract. Within thirty days after the City gives its
notice of intent to terminate this agreement to the County, the County may, at its option, elect
to contribute additional funds to the Project in an amount sufficient to cover any and all
additional expenditures over and above the design and estimated construction cost of One
Million Eight Hundred Eighty Four Thousand, Two Hundred Thirty Six Dollars ($1,884,236)
in which event this agreement shall not terminate but shall continue in full force and effect
except that the County's obligation for Project costs shall be increased accordingly.
Should the total engineering and construction costs for the construction phase of the Project
exceed the amount of this agreement, the County agrees to either:
a. Notify the City of the County’s intent to terminate this agreement and reprioritize the Project within thirty days of the receipt of the notification of total
2
engineering and construction costs for the construction phase of the Project,
or;
b. Authorize the City to proceed with the construction of the Project.
Within thirty days after the County gives its notice of intent to terminate this agreement to the
City, the City may, at its option, elect to contribute additional funds to the Project in an amount
sufficient to cover any and all additional expenditures over and above the amount of this
agreement in which event this agreement shall not terminate but shall continue in full force
and effect except that the City’s obligation for the Project costs shall be increased accordingly.
Within sixty days from the date of the termination of this agreement as provided in this
Paragraph, the City shall provide the County with a final accounting of Project costs and the
County's share of such costs whereupon the County shall reimburse the City subject to the
limitations set forth in the Policy and Procedures and in this agreement.
Upon the termination of this agreement as provided in this Paragraph, the Project shall be reprioritized according to the Policy and Procedures.

Project Construction. The City agrees to select a responsible and qualified contractor or
contractors to undertake and complete the construction of the Project according to the Final
Plans and Specifications ("Project Contractor"). The parties agree that it shall be the City's
obligation to comply with and, to extent reasonably practical, to require the Project Contractor
comply with, all applicable laws and regulations governing public contracts, including all
applicable non-discrimination laws and regulations.

Administration of Project. It is acknowledged and agreed that the City shall enter into all
contracts relating to the Project in its own name and not as the agent of the County. The City
agrees to be solely responsible for the administration of all construction and other contracts
for the Project. Any contract disputes shall be resolved by the City at the City's sole cost and
expense.
The City shall be responsible for requiring adequate performance and payment bonds for the
Project from the Project Contractor. The City shall discharge and satisfy any mechanic's or
materialman's lien that encumbers the Project and the costs thereof shall not be considered a
reimbursable cost under this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, costs and expenses,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the City to enforce a contract of indemnity
under a performance or payment bond shall be reimbursable, subject to any limitations on
reimbursement set forth in the Policy and Procedures or this agreement.
The City shall require adequate indemnity covenants and evidence of insurance from
contractors and engineering service providers for loss or damage to life or property arising out
of the contractor's or engineering service provider's negligent acts or omissions. The required
3
insurance coverage and limits shall be established by the City but shall not, in any event, be
less than $2,000,000 on a per occurrence basis for general liability coverage for the general
contractor and $1,000,000 professional liability coverage for engineering service providers.
The City may, in the exercise of its reasonable judgment, permit any insurance policy required
by this agreement to contain a reasonable and customary deductible or co-insurance provision.
The City shall submit to the Finance Director, upon execution of this agreement, a monthly
projection of cash flow expenditures for the Project, in substantially the form set out in Exhibit
B attached hereto.

County Contribution Toward Project Costs. The County shall reimburse the City from
the Stormwater Management and Flood Control Fund for expenditures made by the City for
the Project as follows:
Not more than once each calendar month, the City shall submit to the County a request for
payment, invoice, or statement satisfactory in form and content to the County Stormwater
Engineer detailing total Project costs and expenses, in line-item detail, for the preceding
calendar month ("Payment Request") and for year-to-date.
The City's Payment Request shall list, by category, those particular expenditures that are
reimbursable according to the Policy and Procedures. The City represents and warrants that
each Payment Request shall seek reimbursement for only those expenditures that the City
determines, in good faith, to be reimbursable by the County. The County Stormwater
Engineer may require the City to supplement the Payment Request as needed to satisfy the
County Stormwater Engineer, at his discretion, that the Payment Request accurately reflects
properly reimbursable costs and expenses.
The County agrees to make payment to the City within thirty days following the County
Stormwater Engineer's approval and acceptance of a properly documented Payment Request
in an amount equal to seventy-five percent (75%) of the Payment Request.
Within sixty days from the date of the completion of the Project, the City shall provide the
County with a final accounting of Project costs and the County's share of such costs,
whereupon the County shall make a final reimbursement to the City as provided in this
agreement. For purposes of this agreement, the Project shall be deemed complete on the
earliest date upon which any of the following events occur:
a. The City notifies the County that the Project is complete, subject to usual and
customary "punch list" items.
b. The Project architect or construction engineer issues to the City a certificate
of substantial completion for the Project.
4
c. The date the County Stormwater Engineer certifies, in good faith, that the
Project is substantially complete following an inspection of the Project by the
County Stormwater Engineer who shall be accompanied by a City
representative.

Limitation of Liability. To the extent permitted by law and subject to the provisions of the
Kansas Tort Claims Act, including but not limited to maximum liability and immunity
provisions, the City agrees to indemnify and hold the County, its officials, and agents harmless
from any cost, expense, or liability not expressly agreed to by the County which result from
the negligent acts or omissions of the City or its employees or which result from the City’s
compliance with the Policy and Procedures.
This agreement to indemnify shall not run in favor of or benefit any liability insurer or third
party.
In addition, the City shall, and hereby agrees to, insert as a special provision of its contract
with the Project Contractor chosen to undertake the Project construction as contemplated
by this Agreement the following paragraphs:
The Project Contractor shall defend, indemnify and save the Board of County
Commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas and the City harmless from and
against all liability for damages, costs, and expenses arising out of any claim,
suit, action or otherwise for injuries and/or damages sustained to persons or
property by reason of the negligence or other actionable fault of the Project
Contractor, his or her sub-contractors, agents or employees in the performance
of this contract.
The Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas shall be
named as an additional insured on all policies of insurance issued to the Project
Contractor and required by the terms of his/her agreement with the City.

Only if the City has proposed a Project design that contemplates a deviation from the
American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications contained in Section 5600
Storm Drainage Systems and Facilities, shall the following provisions apply:
a. The City represents that it has determined that APWA Section 5600
specifications are not feasible, are impractical, or cannot be met without
an expenditure of funds that, in the City’s opinion, significantly exceeds
the anticipated Project benefit.
5
b. The City represents that, based upon its own analysis, the APWA
Section 5600 specifications set forth on the attached Exhibit ______ are
not feasible, are impractical, or cannot be met without an expenditure of
funds that significantly exceeds the anticipated Project benefit.
c. The City acknowledges and agrees that the costs of “flood proofing" any
structure within the Project area shall not be a reimbursable expense
under the Stormwater Management Program but shall be borne solely
by the City. "Flood proofing," for purposes of this section, means any
method by which a structure’s windows, doors, or other openings are
covered or sealed in an effort to prevent flood water entering the
structure through such openings.
d. The City acknowledges that it has, in its sole and absolute discretion,
determined to deviate from APWA Section 5600 specifications by
approving a Project design that may result in seven inches or more of
water flooding over a street or roadway during a 100 year storm event.
The City hereby represents that:
e. The City has concluded that the relevant APWA Section 5600
specifications are not feasible, are impractical, or cannot be met without
an expenditure of funds that, in the City’s opinion, significantly exceeds
the anticipated benefit.
f. The City agrees to and shall develop an emergency plan to protect life
and property at the anticipated flooded crossing point during a 100-year
storm or other high-water event.
g. The City represents that it has endeavored to advise its citizens in and
near the Project area of the City’s proposed deviation from APWA
Section 5600 specifications and its alternative plans to protect life and
property at the flooded crossing point during a 100 year storm or other
high-water event.
h. The City agrees to and shall take appropriate measures to protect the
public at low-water crossings, which are allowed to exist as part of the
City’s Project.
i. The City acknowledges that it is deviating from the APWA Section
5600 specifications upon its discretion based upon its own investigation,
analysis, and risk assessment and without reliance upon SMAC or the
6
Board of County Commissioners, or their respective employees or
agents. To the extent permitted by law and subject to the maximum liability
provisions of the Kansas Tort Claims Act the City expressly agrees to and
shall hold SMAC and the Board of County Commissioners, and their
respective employees and agents, harmless from any property loss,
property damage, personal injury, or death arising out of the
construction of the Project.
The City also agrees that not withstanding any assistance, advice, technical consulting,
or engineering services provided by SMAC or the Board of County Commissioners, or
the failure to provide any such assistance, advice, technical consulting, or engineering
services, the City shall bear the sole and absolute responsibility for the Project’s design,
construction, maintenance, and repair.

Notice Addresses. Any notice required or permitted by this agreement shall be deemed
properly given upon deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
If to the County:
Mr. Kent Lage, P.E.
Urban Services Manager
Johnson County Public Works
1800 W. Old 56 Highway
Olathe, KS 66061
If to the City:
Mr. Keith Bredehoeft, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Prairie Village
3535 Somerset Drive
Prairie Village, KS 66208
In addition, any notice required or permitted by this agreement may be sent by telecopier or hand
delivered and shall be deemed properly given upon actual receipt by the addressee.
7

Effective Date. Regardless of the date(s) the parties execute the agreement, the effective date
of this agreement shall be _________________ provided the agreement has been fully
executed by both parties.
Board of County Commissioners Of
Johnson County, Kansas
City of Prairie Village
Ed Eilert, Chairman
Laura Wassmer, Mayor
Attest:
Attest:
Linda W. Barnes
County Clerk
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Approved as to Form:
Robert A. Ford
Assistant County Counselor
City Attorney
8
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Council Committee Meeting Date: September 6,
6, 2016
19, 2016
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BOND SALE
SALE RESOLUTION (KCPL STREETLIGHT
STREETLIGHT
PURCHASE)
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution authorizing the sale of General
General Improvement Bonds (KCPL
Streetlight Purchase), Series 2016C.
BACKGROUND
General Improvement bonds are planned to be used to fund the purchase of the
currently leased KCPL streetlight system.
Gary Anderson of Gilmore and Bell will be present at the meeting to present and discuss
the bond resolution and bond structure.
ATTACHMENTS
Bond Sale Resolution
PREPARED BY
Keith Bredehoeft, Public Works Director
Page 1 of 1
September 1, 2016
EXCERPT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING
OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF
THE CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANSAS
HELD ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2016
The governing body (the “Governing Body”) met in regular session at the usual meeting place in
the City, at 7:30 p.m., the following members being present and participating, to-wit:
________________________________________________________________________
Absent: _________________________________________________________________
The Mayor declared that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
**************
(Other Proceedings)
The matter of providing for the offering for sale of General Obligation Improvement Bonds,
Series 2016C, came on for consideration and was discussed.
Councilmember ________________ presented and moved the adoption of a Resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFERING FOR SALE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2016C, OF THE CITY OF
PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANSAS.
Councilmember ________________ seconded the motion to adopt the Resolution. Thereupon,
the Resolution was read and considered, and, the question being put to a roll call vote, the vote thereon
was as follows:
Aye:
_______________________________________________________________________.
Nay:
_______________________________________________________________________.
The Mayor declared the Resolution duly adopted by the Governing Body and the City Clerk
designated the same Resolution No. _______.
**************
(Other Proceedings)
[BALANCE OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Excerpt of Minutes is a true and correct excerpt of the
proceedings of the Governing Body of the City of Prairie Village, Kansas, held on the date stated therein,
and that the official minutes of such proceedings are on file in my office.
(SEAL)
City Clerk
(Signature Page to Excerpt of Minutes)
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFERING FOR SALE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2016C, OF THE CITY OF
PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANSAS.
WHEREAS, the City of Prairie Village, Kansas (the “Issuer”) intends to authorize certain
streetlight improvements within the Issuer (the “Improvements”) pursuant to Charter Ordinance No. 28
and Article 12, Section 5 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas.
WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to issue its general obligation bonds in order to finance the costs
of such Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Issuer (the “Governing Body”) has selected the firm of
Columbia Capital Management, LLC, Overland Park, Kansas (the “Financial Advisor”), as Financial
Advisor for one or more series of general obligation bonds of the Issuer to be issued in order to provide
funds to permanently finance the Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to authorize the Financial Advisor to proceed with the offering for
sale of said general obligation bonds and related activities; and
WHEREAS, one of the duties and responsibilities of the Issuer is to prepare and distribute a
preliminary official statement relating to said general obligation bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to authorize the Financial Advisor and Gilmore & Bell, P.C.,
Kansas City, Missouri, the Issuer’s bond counsel (“Bond Counsel”), in conjunction with the Finance
Director to proceed with the preparation and distribution of a preliminary official statement and notice of
bond sale and to authorize the distribution thereof and all other preliminary action necessary to sell said
general obligation bonds.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE,
KANSAS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
There is hereby authorized to be offered for sale the Issuer’s General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 2016C (the “Bonds”) described in the Notice of Bond Sale, which is to be
prepared by Bond Counsel, in conjunction with the Financial Advisor and Finance Director (the “Notice
of Bond Sale”). All proposals for the purchase of the Bonds shall be delivered to the Governing Body at
its meeting to be held on the sale date referenced in the Notice of Bond Sale, at which meeting the
Governing Body shall review such bids and award the sale of the Bonds or reject all proposals.
Section 2.
The Mayor and Finance Director, in conjunction with the Financial Advisor and
Bond Counsel, are hereby authorized to cause to be prepared a Preliminary Official Statement relating to
the Bonds (the “Preliminary Official Statement”), and such officials and other representatives of the
Issuer are hereby authorized to use such document in connection with the sale of the Bonds.
Section 3.
The Finance Director, in conjunction with the Financial Advisor and Bond
Counsel, is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said bond sale by publishing a summary of
the Notice of Bond Sale not less than 6 days before the date of the bond sale in a newspaper of general
circulation in Johnson County, Kansas, and the Kansas Register and by distributing copies of the Notice
of Bond Sale and Preliminary Official Statement to prospective purchasers of the Bonds. Proposals for
the purchase of the Bonds shall be submitted upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Notice of
Bond Sale, and awarded or rejected in the manner set forth in the Notice of Bond Sale.
Section 4.
For the purpose of enabling the purchaser of the Bonds (the “Purchaser”) to
comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Rule”),
the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized: (a) to approve the form of the Preliminary Official
Statement and to execute the “Certificate Deeming Preliminary Official Statement Final” in substantially
the form attached hereto as Exhibit A as approval of the Preliminary Official Statement, such official’s
signature thereon being conclusive evidence of such official’s and the Issuer’s approval thereof; (b)
covenant to provide continuous secondary market disclosure by annually transmitting certain financial
information and operating data and other information necessary to comply with the Rule to the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board; and (c) take such other actions or execute such other documents as such
officers in their reasonable judgment deem necessary to enable the Purchaser to comply with the
requirement of the Rule.
Section 5.
The Issuer agrees to provide to the Purchaser within seven business days of the
date of the sale of Bonds or within sufficient time to accompany any confirmation that requests payment
from any customer of the Purchaser, whichever is earlier, sufficient copies of the final Official Statement
to enable the Purchaser to comply with the requirements of the Rule and with the requirements of Rule G32 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
Section 6.
The Mayor, Finance Director, City Clerk and the other officers and
representatives of the Issuer, the Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel are hereby authorized and directed
to take such other action as may be necessary to carry out the sale of the Bonds.
Section 7.
Governing Body.
This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the
[BALANCE OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2
ADOPTED by the City Council on September 6, 2016.
(SEAL)
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
(Signature Page to Sale Resolution)
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE DEEMING
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT FINAL
________________ __, 2016
_____________________
_____________________
Re:
City of Prairie Village, Kansas, General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016C
The undersigned are the duly acting Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Prairie Village, Kansas
(the “Issuer”), and are authorized to deliver this Certificate to the addressee (the “Purchaser”) on behalf of
the Issuer. The Issuer has previously caused to be delivered to the Purchaser copies of the Preliminary
Official Statement (the “Preliminary Official Statement”) relating to the above-referenced bonds (the
“Bonds”).
For the purpose of enabling the Purchaser to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12(b)(1)
of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Rule”), the Issuer hereby deems the information
regarding the Issuer contained in the Preliminary Official Statement to be final as of its date, except for
the omission of such information as is permitted by the Rule, such as offering prices, interest rates, selling
compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal per maturity, delivery dates, ratings, identity of the
underwriters and other terms of the Bonds depending on such matters.
CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANSAS
By:
Title: Mayor
By:
Title: City Clerk
MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Monday,
Monday, September 19,
19, 2016
Committee meetings scheduled for the next two weeks:
Environment/Recycle Committee
Council Committee of the Whole (Tuesday)
City Council (Tuesday)
09/28/2016
10/03/2016
10/03/2016
5:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
=================================================================
The Prairie Village Arts Council is pleased to present the works of Gary Cadwallader &
Jodi Harsch in the R.G. Endres Gallery during the month of September.
The League of Kansas Municipalities Conference will be held Saturday, October 8th
through Monday, October 10th at the Overland Park Convention Center. If you are
interested in attending, please contact Meghan Buum by September 23rd.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
September 19,
19, 2016
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Council Committee of the Whole Minutes – September 6, 2016
Planning Commission Minutes – August 2, 2016
Arts Council Minutes – August 24, 2016
Parks and Recreation Minutes - May 11, 2016
Mark Your Calendar
COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
September 6,
6, 2016
The Council Committee of the Whole met on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order by Council President Ted
Odell with the following members present: Mayor Laura Wassmer, Ashley Weaver, Jori
Nelson, Serena Schermoly, Steve Noll, Eric Mikkelson, Andrew Wang, Sheila Myers,
Brooke Morehead, Dan Runion, Courtney McFadden, Ted Odell and Terrence
Gallagher.
Staff Members present: Tim Schwartzkopf, Chief of Police; Keith Bredehoeft, Director of
Public Works; David Waters representing the City Attorney; Quinn Bennion, City
Administrator; Wes Jordan, Assistant City Administrator; Lisa Santa Maria, Finance
Director; City Administrator and Joyce Hagen Mundy, City Clerk. Also present was Gary
Anderson, Bond Counsel for the City.
Acknowledgement of JCPRD’s recent Park Planning Award for Meadowbrook Project
Jeff Stewart, Deputy Director for Johnson County Park & Recreation District, Chris
Middleton, Planning Manager for Johnson County Park & Recreation District, and Bill
Maasen, Superintendent of Parks were pleased to announce the District’s recent
recognition by the National Association of County Recreation Officials for the
Meadowbrook Park Plan. Mr. Middleton expressed appreciation for the joint partnership
with the City of Prairie Village and VanTrust that made the creation of this park possible.
Also recognized was former park district employee and Prairie Village resident Randy
Knight who was in attendance.
COU2016COU2016-52 Consider approval of a bond sale resolution for streetlight purchase
Keith Bredehoeft stated that general improvement bonds are planned to be used to fund
the purchase of the currently leased KCPL Street Light system. Gary Anderson
reviewed the process to be followed noting that the authorization for the issuance of
general obligation bonds for the purchase of the street light system is the first step. This
does not commit the City to the sale, but is an indication of its intent to sell. Formal
action by the Council will be required for acceptance of the sale.
Ted Odell recused himself due to a professional conflict of interest and turned the
meeting over to former Council President Brooke Morehead.
Sheila Myers made the following motion, which was seconded by Steve Noll and passed
unanimously:
MOVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
APPROVE RESOLUTION 20162016-05
AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS
BONDS (KCPL STREETLIGHT PURCHASE), SERIES 2016C
COUNCIL ACTION
ACTION REQUIRED
CONSENT AGENDA
1
Discuss Project DELN0001 – Delmar/Fontana South of 83rd Street Drainage Project
A full design for a drainage improvement project was competed back in 2007, however, due to
the project costs for the City increasing by more than a million dollars, the project was cancelled.
That project’s intent was to solve problems related to the drainage channel between Delmar
Lane and Somerset Drive just south of 83rd Street. There are currently two low water crossings
at Delmar Lane and Fontana Street. Just east of Delmar the open channel drains into an
underground drainage system. During significant rainfalls the backup of water at this culvert
causes significant roadway flooding as well as the flooding of residential properties. In June of
2010, a storm caused flooding of a home in this area which caused this project to be looked at
again. Just recently on August 27, 2016 a vehicle was swept into this channel at the Delmar low
water crossing. Mr. Bredehoeft reviewed the following history of this project:
• In 1984 Prairie Village developed a storm water master plan and listed this channel as
a future project.
• In 1996 City started a feasibility study for this area. Plan was to utilize County SMAC
funds. Project was tabled as there was no support for removing the low water crossings.
At this time both SMAC and Public Works felt removing the low water crossings was a
critical component of the project.
• In 1998 Record storms in Kansas City area. Car was swept downstream at the Delmar
low water crossing. A teen age girl was able to kick out the rear window and a resident
helped her escape safely.
• In 2000 to 2007 The project was reconsidered and a committee comprised of City Staff
members, City Council members, our Engineering Firm, and neighbors was created to
develop a solution. The project was debated and lack of support for removal of the low
water crossings, by the neighbors, causing the city to request and obtain an exception
from SMAC to leave the low water crossings. Projects costs increased with this
alternative solution by about 1 million dollars. Public Works requested additional funds
in the fall of 2007 and council decided to not add the additional City funds to the project
and the project was cancelled.
• In 2010 significant rainfall caused high water at the Delmar low water crossing which
caused garage and basement flooding. A video of the event was shown.
• In 2012 new Staff at Public Works became aware of the past problems at the low water
crossings. After seeing video of flooding Public Works felt the project needed to address
a significant safety concern.
• In 2012 a resident meeting was held and the general consensus was to build the project
that was cancelled in 2007.
• In 2013 Public Works requested to re-evaluate the past project to confirm it was the
correct and best way to spend $2.5 million dollars. Larkin, Lamp, Rynerson &
Associates was hired to do this analysis.
• In 2013 Study Public Works and Larkin studied the design of the past project and
became concerned that the past project did not solve the roadway flooding problems.
The project did plan to install a system at the low water crossings to warn of the roadway
flooding but Public Works felt that given the cost of this project the roadway flooding
should be adequately addressed. Further investigation of the past project discovered
that the water flows used to develop the past project were underestimated.
• In 2016 Council discussed the project on March, 21, 2016 following a meeting with the
resident’s adjacent to the channel. Two options for moving forward were discussed and
Council directed Public Works to do a peer review of the work.
• Public Works hired Don Baker with Water Resources Solutions to review the work
Larkin, Lamp, Rynerson had completed. After review of the models and after
discussions with Johnson County SMAC it was determined that the 2007 project would
2
NOT meet the SMAC criteria for funding. Since the 2007 project does not meet SMAC
criteria the project, if constructed, would need to be fully funded by the City.
Keith Bredehoeft stated that staff believes if the City were to build a $3 Million to $4 Million dollar
project in this area, that it should not only remove residential properties from the 100 year flood
plain but should also eliminate the low water crossings.
Mr. Bredehoeft presented the following two options:
1. Move forward now with developing a project to solve residential flooding and remove the
low water crossings. Given that this is essentially starting over we suggest we begin with
a new request for proposals from consultants and start with a new analysis and new
ideas for the project. If SMAC funds were available, the first $250,000 is not
reimbursable by SMAC since that is what they funded for design of the original project.
The soonest a Preliminary Engineering Study could be submitted to SMAC would be
January 2017. Staff would also recommend installing warning signs now as it will take a
few years to develop a new project. Attached is a possible solution that Larkin, Water
Resources Solutions, and Public Works have developed. This is conceptual design only.
Costs could be around $4 Million for this type of an improvement but further analysis is
required to determine better costs.
2. Cancel the existing CIP project and install warning signs now. The drainage project
would be considered in the future when the downstream metal pipes needed to be
replaced due to condition. This would be at least 15 to 20 years into the future. When
these pipes need to be replaced the residential and street flooding would need to be
addressed at that time.
Past funding on this project was reviewed.
Ted Odell asked if the city has completed what is required for SMAC funding. Mr. Bredehoeft
responded that a consultant would need to be hired to prepare the SMAC application. After
completion of the application, the city would know what funding would be necessary in the 2018
CIP.
Dan Runion asked if the previous application could be amended. Mr. Bredehoeft replied an
amendment would not be accepted as it would contain significant changes.
Mr. Runion stated that he had spoken with the individual whose car was recently swept into the
creek who wants the council to be aware of what could happen if changes are not made.
Photos of the damage to his vehicle were distributed. His biggest concern is that the city accepts
its responsibility. Mr. Runion noted that the warning signs were under water and not visible.
The current situation is not acceptable.
Mayor Wassmer provided additional history on the project noting the disagreement on how to
proceed previously. The neighborhood likes the character of the low water crossing and that it
slows traffic. They were opposed to any change in the channel that would change the character
of their neighborhood and council was concerned with the significant cost investment. She
noted that to solve the problem, the low water crossing needs to be removed and that will
change the character of the neighborhood and will not be supported by the neighbors.
Mr. Bredehoeft stated the projected costs to move forward would be the expenditure of
$325,000 for design engineering in 2017 and a projected $4M project cost which would be
covered at 75% by SMAC funds resulting in a cost to the city of approximately $1.5M.
3
Dan Runion acknowledged the tension between the flooding of homes and safe streets, but
noted the infinite benefit to the city to finally have this issue resolved.
Sheila Myers confirmed that residents would not be relocated by the project. Mr. Bredehoeft
noted that the project may require securing easements from the property owners. If these
cannot be negotiated, eminent domain process would need to be used for easements.
Brooke Morehead confirmed that the city has already spent $375,000 on this issue resulting in
no acceptable plan to address the problem.
Jori Nelson she had not heard what the neighbors wanted and felt a neighborhood meeting
should be held. Mr. Bredehoeft replied he has had significant conversations with the neighbors
and understands their desire to have the low water crossings remain.
Ted Odell asked why a $325,000 design cost was anticipated. Mr. Bredehoeft replied that the
design cost would be determined by the scope of the project and the design selected.
Mayor Wassmer asked what the cost would be for warning lights. Mr. Bredehoeft replied there
are several options with an estimated cost of $50,000. Signs would be placed at Delmar and
Fontana with lights similar to those at 83rd & Mission Road.
Dan Runion confirmed that the options proposed do not include any physical barriers.
Brooke Morehead questioned why the city paid for a plan that doesn’t work. Mr. Bredehoeft
replied that at the time it would have been funded but it would not have addressed all of the
problems. The plans were designed by the committee and met the neighbors’ objectives.
Terrence Gallagher asked how frequently this area flooded. A resident in the audience replied it
has flooded 4 times. Mr. Bredehoeft noted depending on the type of rain event, the water can
rise very quickly and go back down very quickly or rise and stay. Mr. Gallagher noted the
question is whether to resolve the flooding or the safe driving.
Mr. Bredehoeft noted the solutions on the table have been to address the culvert of to create a
cul-de-sac. The question is, do you carry the water through culverts or through an open
channel. The area does not have the necessary elevation.
Eric Mikkelson asked what Mr. Bredehoeft for his recommendation. He responded that the city
needs to do everything it can to make residents safe. He would like the city to move forward with
developing a new project to solve residential flooding and remove the low water crossings.
Eric Mikkelson made the following motion, which was seconded by Jori Nelson.
MOVE THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT PUBLIC WORKS TO CONTINUE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT DELN001 TO SOLVE RESIDENTIAL
FLOODING AND REMOVE THE LOW WATER CROSSINGS
Sheila Myers asked what liability the city faced with the low water crossing was not removed.
David Waters replied the city would have limited exposure with adequate signage if it was not
negligent in making sure the signage was maintained. Dan Runion noted the city’s liability would
be much less if action were taken to address the issue.
Terrence Gallagher if there are retaining walls in the area and if water has gone over them.
4
Courtney McFadden questioned how the city could not do something based on the video and
the recent incident.
Bruce Bower, 8332 Delmar Lane, a 16 year resident, noted that he has invested over $20,000 in
landscaping to address the flooding. He believes this is a drainage problem, not a traffic
problem. He noted the individual whose car went into the channel came to his house that
evening. It was dark. He was unfamiliar with the area. The water depth sticks were under
water and not visible. The man had to break out of his window to escape. Mr. Bauer noted that
a $3M project to address this issue is far better and a $3M+ lawsuit from someone going into the
channel. It is time for the city council to take on the legacy of resolving this issue.
Michael Buckles, 8333 Fontana, stated he was on the Ad-Hoc committee in 1996 that presented
7 options to the city council with a recommendation to solve the problem with the redesign of the
culvert to address the water flow from the north and west. This is a drainage issue. All the
residents at that time, but 1 was opposed to removal of the low water crossing as a significant
element in the character of this neighborhood and an effective means to slow traffic through
their neighborhood.
Sheila Myers asked if the recommendation from 1996 would be considered. Mr. Bredehoeft
replied all items are still on the table including the removal of the low water crossing which he
feels is the most important factor.
The motion to proceed with Option 1 - Direct Public Works to continue the development of
Project DELN0001 was voted on and passed 12 to 0.
Keith Bredehoeft introduced James Carney as the city’s new Field Superintendent.
DISCUSSION REGARDING DOG BREED RESTRICTIONS IN CITY CODE
Council President Ted Odell returned to the chair and noted that a lengthy public hearing was
held last week and additional information received by the City since that meeting has been
forwarded to the Council members. At this time, he would entertain discussion by the Council
on this issue.
Jori Nelson noted the two e-mails on the dais opposed to the ban and questioned why other emails she had received in support of the ban were not on the dais. Staff responded the e-mails
on the dais were the only e-mails that they had received since Friday.
Eric Mikkelson stated the city has heard good people on both sides of this issue. When he was
approached by residents to consider this, he had no strong feelings either way. He has two
criteria on which he bases his support. First, what do the residents want and second, what the
experts say relative to public safety questions. At the public hearing the ratio was 30 to 1 in
opposition to the current ban. A majority of the e-mails (4 to 1) received have also been in
opposition to the ban. Only three cities in Johnson County have a pit bull prohibition in place.
Unlike 30 years ago, expert testimony suggests that there is no valid reason to treat pit bulls any
differently than any other large dog breed. He noted than 20 national organizations, including
the American Bar Association, support breed neutral legislation. Based on what he has heard
and read, he feels the city would be safer enforcing tough breed neutral legislation proactively
addressing dangerous animals and unfit or abusive owners.
Eric Mikkelson moved the City Council repeal ordinance 2-106 effective December 1, 2016, to
enact simultaneously significant improvements to the existing animal ordinance making it safer.
Jori Nelson seconded the motion.
5
Ms. Nelson stated that over 20 professional organizations believe that breed specific legislation
is not the answer. She also added that State Farm Insurance, the largest national insurer,
believes that all dogs can be great dogs regardless of their breed, if they are properly cared for,
loved and trained. State Farm determines risk based on a dog’s bite history rather than breed
and does not exclude insuring household solely based on animal breed.
Ms. Nelson stated that she contacted 12 area Police Chiefs regarding this issue asking them
nine questions. She read the following summary of their responses:
Do these dogs pose a greater danger to citizens or the police department?
Gardner: Not in my opinion. Like I tell everyone I meet owning a pit bull, they have to follow the
rules more than ever other dog owner in the city, due to the fact that they have a bad reputation
and all their neighbors will be watching and will report activity by a pit bull more then they will
with any other breed of dogs.
Topeka: There are no absolutes. Cats and dogs of all breeds can exhibit anxious behavior
when out of their environment.
Olathe: No, I do not have information to support that. They are not a dog with a lot of human
bite reports. They do however count for a quite a few of dog v. dog bite reports.
Lenexa: Any dog deemed “dangerous” and is allowed to live in Lenexa, are required to follow
strict stipulations. If you are specifically referring to pit bulls, we have not experienced a greater
threat from these types of breeds.
Merriam: No.
Do these dogs bite at a greater rate than other dogs reported?
Lenexa: Not that we have seen.
Gardner: No, I don’t believe you can say that they bite at a greater rate than other dogs. 22 of
298 bite cases in the last decade do not support that. Also, these are just the reported cases.
Many small dog bites go undocumented, while almost all big dog bites get reported.
Spring Hill: I have not experienced any increased reports of aggressive or dangerous pit bulls in
our city.
Basehor: Since removing the restrictions for pit bulls or other potential vicious breeds, we have
had no issues or complaints.
Edwardsville: Council recognized that there are some breeds which have a propensity for
aggressiveness; however, believed any dog could be either good or bad, for lack of better terms.
Since 2009, we average 2 cases per year (16 cases) involving dog bites and only one case in
that time frame involved a pit bull mix.
Bonner Springs: We have not had any dog bites involving pit bulls or bully breeds since BSL
was removed from our Animal Ordinance.
Mission, Roeland Park, Westwood, Fairway: Animal Control Officers have not investigated any
“pit bull” bites in any of the cities NEACC serves since the end of 2014.
Mission: I think that any dog can be aggressive in certain circumstances, regardless of breed.
Olathe: No.
Merriam: No.
What is your opinion
opinion about BSL and “bully breeds”?
Lenexa: Animal control’s response: from talking to ACO from cities that have a BSL, pit bull
bans are hard to enforce and don’t believe they are effective. Animal control needs to have
discretion when handling any dog case. A solid Dangerous Dog ordinance should allow for any
aggressive/dangerous animal to be impounded and returned to the owner with stipulations,
euthanized, or removed from the City as deemed appropriate.
6
Gardner: I am not in favor of breed specific laws. There are bad dog owners that can make any
breed of dog bad. We do city tags off of the veterinarian’s paperwork on the dog. When the city
of Gardner did have a pit bull ban, one of the two vets in town liked pit bull breeds and word got
around and everyone who owned a bully breed would visit her and walk out with paper work for
a boxer or mixed breed canine. I do not want to argue in court against someone with eight years
of vet school that I know the breed of a dog better than them, but with a well written report I can
make a case that a dog is acting in a vicious manner and that it would be in the city’s best
interest if that dog was asked to leave town.
Topeka: We don’t have breed specific ordinances and we enforce current ordinances as
deemed lawful by the legislative body.
Olathe: I am very happy that the City of Olathe is not breed specific. Olathe allows all breeds
not only pit bulls but other breeds that in years past were thought of as dangerous. These would
include Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, etc. In the eleven years that I have been with
Animal Control I have not noticed that one breed bites more than others. I find that it is not
really the dog but how it lives. For example is you keep a dog chained up, it will have a
tendency to become more aggressive. Depending on how the dog is brought up and if it is a lot
of detail and information that I’m sure that you have heard, in my personal experience, the worst
bite I have seen was from an Akita, and second was from a weimaraner. Because we have had
a dangerous dog ordinance rather than a specific breed ordinance we can pursue compliances
on dogs that have bitten and caused harm rather than on an entire breed.
Merriam: We have not had any instances of pit bulls or bully breeds acting aggressively. Well
trained and treated animals rarely act aggressively.
Sheila Myers stated she was neutral on this issue when it was initially raised; however, after
significant research she strongly supports retaining the existing prohibition and noted that cities
that have repealed such legislation are considering reenacting the legislation. She has read
credible studies and reports from people who have treated victims of bit bull attacks. There are
too many tragic stories to be ignored. The pit bull was created by selective breeding and is the
breed of choice for animal fighting. They can attack without warning. She believes this is a
significant safety issue for residents giving them the comfort of being able to move freely
throughout the city.
Jori Nelson questioned the data presented by Mrs. Myers particularly the identification of the
animal involved as a pit bull stating that the only certain way to identify a pit bull is by DNA
testing. Mrs. Myers countered with additional information and was again questioned by Ms
Nelson.
Council President Ted Odell asked Council members to please remove the emotion and discuss
this issue calmly respecting all individuals and comments made.
Ashley Weaver stated that the members of the Council have all heard and read the information
and would like to vote on the issue and move on.
Sheila Myers referenced the case of Ohio vs. Anderson. Ms Nelson challenged this ruling as
being out of date with new research being done since that time.
Mr. Mikkelson endorsed Ms. Nelson’s comments. He would like to see full discussion with a
vote taken and the questions taken up before the City Council. Mr. Mikkelson restated his
motion. He acknowledged there have been animal attacks in Prairie Village and there will be
more demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the animal regulations. There are tragic stories
involving many animal breeds. The issue is responsible animal ownership vs. irresponsible and
abusive animal ownership and he feels this is where the city’s limited resources should be spent
7
– not seeking out and trying to determine pit bulls. The shelters are overfilled with pit bulls that
they are unable to adopt because of bans. He asked what right the Council has to determine
the breed of an individual’s pet. He urged the Council to follow the lead of State Farm Insurance
who does not restrict its coverage of animals based on breed.
Terrence Gallagher called for the question. There was no second. Council President Ted Odell
adjourned the Council Committee of the Whole meeting at 7:28 p.m. for the scheduled City
Council meeting stated it would be reconvened after the City Council meeting. The adjournment
was challenged and upheld. Mr. Mikkelson stated he would be bringing the breed ban issue up
under Old Business.
Ted Odell
Council President
8
Prairie Village Arts Council
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
5:30 pm
Prairie Village City Hall – 7700 Mission Road
Multi-Purpose Room
Minutes of Informational Meeting Regarding Website, People’s Choice Award
Voting, and Jazz Fest Booth
As the meeting started, Dan Andersen and Julie Flanagan alternately demonstrated
features of Wayne Wylkes’ new website artspv.org. They introduced members to the
functionality of the website and elicited “broad stroke” suggestions regarding style and
content. In attendance were: Julie Hassel, Al Guarino, Stephen LeCerf, Ada Koch,
Shelly Trewolla, Betsy Holliday, and Art Weeks.
All members were very impressed with Wayne’s work. They were excited that individual
council members would be able to make contributions to the website directly.
Suggestions for changes and improvements were: Art Weeks observed that the
wording “on display every second Friday” was misleading, and suggested a change to
“reception every second Friday.” The group agreed that the large white space for “Get
In Touch” “your name” “your email” “subject” and “your message” should be deleted;
this function was duplicated in “become a member.” In discussing the Community and
Events section, Shelly Trewolla asked if a photo of two young girls in this section had
received a parental release. Since it had not, the group recommended that it be
deleted.
Dan Andersen then referred the group to the distributed copies of the July 6 th and July
27th meeting minutes, and asked that they be reviewed. Both sets of minutes were
approved.
In a brief discussion of the People’s Choice award voting, Dan said that people would
be able to vote by holding their smart phone up to their choice of art for best in show.
This will be available for the October 14th State of the Arts event.
At the Jazz Fest this year (Saturday, September 10 th from 3:00 to10:30), the council will
have a large (possibly 30’) booth. Al Guardino and Julie Hassel are working on
Roasterie Coffee and a car raffle; Julie Flanagan will do a “make and take” for children;
Dan Andersen showed several “I heart PV” items for hand-outs and for sale($5) and
Ada Koch suggested a 10’x3’ banner with a collage of photos from different events
made by Fast Signs. Shift assignments will be decided at the next council meeting on
Wednesday, September 7th.
Shelly Trewolla will work on inventory and appraisal of city-owned art in preparation for
the December exhibit.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
May 11, 2016
5:30 PM
Taliaferro Park
Minutes
The Parks and Recreation Committee met at 5:30 PM at Taliaferro Park for the annual park
tour. In attendance: Terrence Gallagher, Chair, Sheila Myers, Vice-Chair, Diane Mares,
Carey Bickford, Dianne Pallanich, Kellie O’Toole, Peggy Couch, Kevin Letourneau, Lauren
Wolf, and Matt Geary. Staff: Quinn Bennion, Nolan Sunderman and James Carney. Two
members from the public were also in attendance.
Mr. Gallagher called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
Public Participation
• There was no public participation.
Consent Agenda
• The minutes were unanimously approved from the March 9, 2016 meeting.
Reports
1. Public Works Report
Mr. Sunderman introduced James Carney as the new Public Works Superintendent.
2. Recreation Report
Mr. Sunderman discussed the on-going registrations for various recreation programs
including pool memberships. Very few complaints regarding the new membership
systems have been received. The Track & Field program held in late April was
successful with over 300 children signed-up. Many positive comments were received
following the event. Work is finishing on the Park Passport program which will go live
on July 1 for National Parks & Recreation Month. Mr. Sunderman also discussed the
many pool improvements including the concession area, cameras, and general
maintenance for the pool. Harmon Park will also host the Class 6a State Tennis
Tournament on May 12 & 13.
3. Chairperson’s Report
Mr. Gallagher provided an update on recent discussions at the City Council meeting
including an update on Meadowbrook Park, proposed new Fire Station near the Prairie
Village City Hall, and a scout project on May 5th where mulch was placed in Harmon
Park. Mr. Gallagher also discussed his future goals for the Parks & Recreation
Committee which included development of park amenities for seniors, connectivity of
trails in Prairie Village with trails in the metro area, develop the next four year park
project plan, and review the recent change in the pool pass structure to determine if it
was successful or any changes need to be made.
New Business
• There was no new business discussed.
Old Business
• There was no old business discussed.
Information Items
• The next meeting is scheduled for September 14, 2016 at Prairie Village City Hall.
Adjournment – Following a tour of Taliaferro Park (renovated in 2015, new playset in
2016), Windsor Park (renovations in 2016 including a new playset), Porter Park
(renovations in 2016), and Bennett Park (renovations in 2015/new playset in 2016), the
meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Council Members
Mark Your Calendars
September 19, 2016
September 2016 Gary Cadwallader & Jodi Harsch in the R.G. Endres Gallery
September 19
City Council Meeting
September 22
Shawnee Mission Education Foundation Breakfast, Overland Park
Convention Center, 7:30 a.m.
October 2016
October 3
October 8 – 10
October 14
October 17
State of Arts in the R.G. Endres Gallery
League of Kansas Municipalities Conference, Overland Park
State of the Arts Reception in the R.G. Endres Gallery
November 2016
November 7
November 21
November 24-25
Jeff Foster, Jonathan Crabtree & Louanne Hein in the R.G. Endres
Gallery
City Offices Closed for Thanksgiving Holiday
December 2016
December 5
December 9
December 19
December 26
Chris Willey in the R.G. Endres Gallery
Mayor’s Holiday Volunteer Party
City offices closed for the Christmas Holiday
L:\ADMIN\AGEN_MIN\WORD\Council\monthly documents\Mark Your Calendars.DOC
9/19/2016

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL

Transcription

Similar documents

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS

2016 MW Alliance Raffle - Manitowish Waters Alliance LTD

HERE - Perfect Shots Photography

2016 Sponsorship Prospectus

Annonce S1

CREATEng

Brochure - Strasburg Rail Road