CITY OF SHAWNEE
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Chairperson Thomas called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Committee Members Present
Chairperson Thomas
Councilmember Meyers
Councilmember Carlson
Councilmember Roche
Councilmembers Present
Councilmember Boettcher
Staff Present
City Manager Montague
Assistant City Manager Gonzales
Public Works Director Freyermuth
City Engineer Wesselschmidt
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Fire Chief Hudson
Finance Director Meyers
City Attorney Rainey
Police Major Morgan
Members of the public who spoke were: PHIL JORGENSEN, Key Properties, 12483 S. Alden
Circle, Olathe (Item #1); ANN JORDAN, Jordan Real Estate (Item #1).
The meeting began with the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
1.
DISCUSSION OF ELIMINATION OF REVERSION CLAUSE IN A RIGHT-OFWAY CLAUSE VACATION AGREEMENT FOR 63RD AND GODDARD WHICH
WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 28, 1996.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that the City has received a request to waive the
requirement placed on the vacation of right-of-way that took place in 1996. He stated that
this requirement was for property in the area of Shawnee Mission Parkway and Goddard on
the southwest corner. He stated that this property contains a parking lot with the entrance
off of Goddard and the frontage road. He stated that this property currently contains a box
culvert which runs under Shawnee Mission Parkway and the parking lot. He stated that the
City has had a very deep right-of-way on this property. He stated that, in 1996, the
property owner requested that the City vacate a portion of this right-of-way. This right-ofway was obtained by the State when Shawnee Mission Parkway was widened. He stated
that this right-of-way was vacated in 1996 in order to allow the property owner to complete
property improvements. At the time the vacation took place, City staff was not able to
determine that this was definitely excess right-of-way. He stated that staff did not
recommend that the City vacate the right-of-way as excess. He stated that the City Council
did vacate the right-of-way with the stipulation that the City could obtain the right-of-way
in the future if improvements were necessary. It was agreed that there would be no cost to
the City and any improvements would be removed at no cost to the City. He stated that the
request before the Committee is to eliminate the clause stating that the property would
revert back to the City and that the improvements would be removed.
PAGE 2
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
Councilmember Carlson asked if there is any reason why the City would want to maintain
this property or if there are any liability issues if this clause were removed.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that the fact that the City does not know for sure
whether access to this property would be needed is an objection. He stated that the City
obtained this property approximately 25 years ago.
Councilmember Meyers stated that, at the time of this agreement, the reasoning was clear
to everyone concerned. He asked who is requesting this change.
City Manager Montague stated that the request is from Stuart Stine, a current property
owner.
PHIL JORGENSEN, representing Key Properties and Key Financial, 12483 S. Alden
Circle, Olathe, stated that he is attempting to purchase the property in question. He stated
that if the property were ever reverted back to the City, it would leave only 1.6 parking
stalls per 1,000 square feet of building in the parking lot. He stated that the developers are
prepared to make significant improvements to the property. He stated that the investors do
not want to purchase the property as long as the reversion clause is still in place. He stated
that an easement would be acceptable and that there would be no problem for the City to
work in the area if necessary in the future. He stated that the buyers informed the seller
that they cannot invest in the property knowing that the City could take the property in the
future, leaving them liable for the cost of removing the parking lot. He stated that this
reversion clause would accomplish nothing. He stated that a portion of the property is
owned by Johnson County, which was obtained for a State highway project. He asked if
committee members were interested in reviewing the plans for the area.
Chairperson Thomas stated that this was not necessary and that this is a legal issue. She
stated that the committee would rely on staff for a recommendation. She stated that the
City is not unreasonable and does not seize property for no reason.
PHIL JORGENSEN stated that the likelihood of the City needing to take over the property
is very small, but he cannot subject investors to this additional risk. He stated that this
property has not performed as well as it should in the past. He stated that the investors
could not make this purchase if the clause is left in effect.
Chairperson Thomas stated that the reason for not reviewing the plans for the property is so
the City can make this determination without being influenced by the plans.
PHIL JORGENSEN stated that the City has plans to improve the entrance to the property
and he is providing the plans with this in mind.
Chairperson Thomas asked staff what the City’s policy would be in a case like this.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
PAGE 3
City Manager Montague stated that this is a unique situation. He stated that the fact that
there are box culverts and past flooding problems on the property might make it necessary
for the City to make future improvements. There are no plans for improvements at this
time. He stated that this is a major concern for the City.
PHIL JORGENSEN stated that this could possibly be covered with an easement.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that there were two concerns discussed when this
determination was made. One was the box culvert. The other concern dealt with the close
proximity of the frontage road to Shawnee Mission Parkway. He stated that the widened
lanes on Shawnee Mission Parkway increase this concern. Future accident patterns could
possibly create traffic problems in the area. One solution to this problem would be to
move the frontage road to provide more stacking distance between Shawnee Mission
Parkway and the frontage road. He stated that the potential problems with the box culvert
could possibly be handled with an easement, but this would not alleviate any problems
with the frontage road. He stated that there are currently no accident problems in the area.
He stated that it would be very costly to everyone concerned if the City removes the clause
and then has to obtain the property in the future.
Councilmember Boettcher stated that he has appraised this property in the past and is
familiar with the situation. He stated that this would be more of an issue if the property
were on the north side of Shawnee Mission Parkway. He asked if the City foresees any
extra traffic stacking at this intersection.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that there are no current plans to make
adjustments to the intersection, however, there is no guarantee that there won’t be
problems in the future.
PHIL JORGENSEN stated that a portion of the property is owned by Johnson County. He
stated that the frontage road could be moved to this area if necessary.
Councilmember Boettcher asked if any work was completed on the frontage road when
Shawnee Mission Parkway was widened.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that studies were completed in 1989. No
suggestions were included for making changes to the frontage road, so very little work was
completed.
Councilmember Boettcher asked if there is comparable right-of-way ownership on any of
the other three corners.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that this has not been determined. He stated that
the culvert runs underneath the frontage road.
Councilmember Boettcher asked how this situation is different from the vacation of rightof-way at Pflumm and Shawnee Mission Parkway.
PAGE 4
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that staff felt that there would be no reason to use
this right-of-way again and, therefore, was able to vacate the right-of-way.
Chairperson Thomas stated that City Attorney Rainey could clarify the issue of a portion of
the property being owned by Johnson County.
City Attorney Rainey stated that Johnson County might have owned right-of-ways on the
property, but this has been reverted to the City.
PHIL JORGENSEN stated that he is not asking the City to vacate the Johnson County
portion.
Councilmember Carlson stated that there is a sentence in the documentation which states
that the reason for possible right-of-way in the future is because the drainage system
adjacent to the property has proved to be insufficient. He asked how long the City has
known this is insufficient and why this issue hasn’t been addressed.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that a study is in the process of being completed
for the SMAC program that will determine the extent of this drainage problem. He stated
that there may be no cost-effective way to make proposed improvements at this time.
Councilmember Meyers stated that the expansion of this parking lot was a unique situation.
He stated that the only reason this took place was due to the fact that the City would incur
no cost or liability if work were necessary in the future. He stated that this was made very
clear to the owner at the time. He stated that the Council and the owner of the property
satisfactorily agreed upon this stipulation. He stated that the Council must rely on staff
recommendations and not create a situation where the City would incur costs in the future.
ANN JORDAN, Jordan Real Estate, spoke on behalf of the current owner. The owner
could not attend the meeting due to the Jewish holiday. She stated that the owner is very
interested in changing this reversion. She stated that the owner fully intends to sell this
property. She stated that the only way that this can be accomplished is for the City to
change the right of reversion. She stated that the property owner has discussed this issue
with City Attorney Rainey.
Councilmember Meyers stated that the owner understood that this reversion clause would
have to be included as part of a sale of the property.
Councilmember Boettcher asked about the impact of the property value if the parking lot
were lost.
PHIL JORGENSEN stated that the value would decrease by more that one-half. He stated
that building is currently 30% vacant. He stated that the parking lot is crucial to the
success of the area.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
PAGE 5
Councilmember Boettcher suggested extending the region to include the entire property. If
the City needs the parking lot in the future, the owner would receive fair market value for
the entire property.
Chairperson Thomas stated that the City would then become a real estate investor.
Councilmember Boettcher stated that the removal of the parking lot would decrease the
value of the remaining property. He stated that this suggestion wouldn’t cost the City
anything at this time and there would never be a cost to the City if no work needs to be
completed.
Councilmember Roche stated that previous owners would receive the economic benefit
from this.
Councilmember Boettcher suggested excluding the portion which was purchased as rightof-way and pay the property owner for the remainder of the property.
Councilmember Roche stated that, if improvements are necessary in the future, the City
would be responsible for the costs involved.
Chairperson Thomas, seconded by Councilmember Carlson, moved to deny the request to
eliminate the reversion, and to forward this recommendation to the Council. The motion
carried 4-0.
2.
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO TITLE 6 OF THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ANIMALS.
Assistant City Manager Gonzales reported that four different issues are involved in this
proposed amendment. She stated that the City has received the annual update from Animal
Haven, which includes a significant increase in fees. She stated that this is currently the
only alternative for the City. She stated that there are possible future alternatives. She
stated that the new fees will be in effect October 1. She stated that, in order to pass this
cost on to the people picking up their animals, the City ordinance must be amended.
Councilmember Carlson stated that another shelter, Loyal Companion, might be an
alternate facility. He stated that the Board of Directors and staff of Animal Haven have
changed.
Assistant City Manager Gonzales stated that the City is forced to live with the decisions
made by the Animal Haven board. She stated that the second portion of the proposal
originated in the City Clerk’s office. She stated that people applying for a pet license are
currently subjected to the City’s schedule. She stated that it is proposed that the ordinance
be amended to work on the customer’s schedule, based upon the dates of vaccinations.
This proposal provides for a year of transition with no penalties. This is a positive change.
Chairperson Thomas stated that this might motivate more people to license their pets.
PAGE 6
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
Assistant City Manager Gonzales stated that a question was raised by Councilmember
Carlson regarding an increase in the license fees currently being charged. She stated that
staff completed a survey of surrounding cities. She stated that there is no record that these
fees have ever been increased. Fees are currently $5 for spayed or neutered animals, and
$10 for unaltered animals. She stated that the purpose of licensing is not to make money,
but to cover costs. She stated that approximately 20% of licensed animals are unaltered.
Chairperson Thomas asked Councilmember Carlson if the current fees are acceptable.
Councilmember Carlson stated that the current fees seem to be in line with other cities. He
stated that an increase might be considered due to the increased cost of sheltering animals.
Chairperson Thomas stated that she supports the current fees. She stated that there are a lot
of pets that aren’t licensed.
Councilmember Carlson asked if any of the committee members would consider increasing
the fees to $6 and $11.
Councilmember Boettcher asked why the fees should be increased.
Councilmember Carlson stated that an increase would assist the City with the increased
costs of sheltering animals.
Assistant City Manager Gonzales stated that the sheltering costs are passed on to citizens
who pick their pets up from Animal Haven.
Chairperson Thomas stated that it isn’t fair to the citizens who actually do license their pets
to be responsible for the increased sheltering costs.
Councilmember Carlson stated that one resident’s animal was placed at Animal Haven two
separate times. The owners paid the fee one time, but could not afford to pay it again the
second time. The animal was adopted out to a different owner.
Assistant City Manager Gonzales stated that Animal Control tries to contact owners of
licensed animals before placing the animal at Animal Haven. An increase in fees would
penalize the people who license their animals. She stated that the fourth issue deals with
the leash law. She stated that most of the other cities in the area require leashes at all times
the animal is off their property. She stated that in the City’s ordinance, the animal is
allowed to be within voice control, but this is difficult to prove. She stated that staff
supports eliminating the voice control phrase from the ordinance, requiring a leash at all
times off premises.
Chairperson Thomas suggested that the ordinance should include language so it is not
illegal to be in an off-leash area of a park. She stated that Shawnee Mission Park has an
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
PAGE 7
off-leash area. She suggested that exceptions should be included, allowing no leashes at
off-leash areas of a park or a dog training exercise.
Assistant City Manager Gonzales stated that Overland Park’s ordinance contains language
that could be used. She stated that the off-leash park areas are addressed in a different
portion of the ordinance. Currently, leashes are required in all areas of all parks within the
City. She stated that this change could be made in the future if an off-leash area were
added to a park. This would require an amendment to a different section of the City Code.
Councilmember Carlson stated that the City would want to make sure that any off-leash
area is clearly marked.
Councilmember Roche, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, moved to approve the
proposed amendments to the ordinance and forward to the Council with a positive
recommendation. The motion carried 4-0.
3.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL
CODE, CHAPTER 2.04, GOVERNING BODY.
Councilmember Carlson stated that this proposal, if approved, would be added to the Code
of Conduct. He stated that there is nothing unusual in the proposed changes and additions.
He stated that information is included from other cities. He stated that the only original
idea stipulates that the Council be duly informed in a timely manner of any agreements or
endeavors undertaken with outside agencies. He stated that this would eliminate surprises.
He stated that Robert’s Rules of Order have been revised and the existing statute doesn’t
reflect these revisions. He stated that another addition provides for a two-thirds majority of
members to waive rules which currently exist. He stated that new rules are proposed for
the Code of Ethics. These ideas have been taken from other cities. He asked if the
committee members want to study the proposed changes.
Chairperson Thomas stated that she does not support these changes.
Councilmember Carlson asked why she doesn’t support the changes.
Chairperson Thomas stated that the proposed changes take away the powers of the Mayor
to negotiate or develop proposals to bring to the City.
Councilmember Carlson asked why she believes this is the case.
Chairperson Thomas stated that the Mayor would not be allowed to discuss or negotiate
without prior approval of the Council. She stated that these changes would eliminate
discussions until the Council approves them. She stated that this would limit offers and
ideas received by the City. She stated that the Council has the final say on every proposal
which is discussed or negotiated prior to the Council being aware of the ideas. She stated
that using a two-thirds majority to change the rules will not work. She stated that limiting
the power of the Mayor to negotiate is in violation of the City’s charter.
PAGE 8
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
Councilmember Carlson stated that there is no language in the proposed changes limiting
the Mayor from entering into outside agreements. He asked if the committee knows why
this is important.
Chairperson Thomas stated that Councilmember Carlson is trying to tie these ideas to a
specific project.
Councilmember Carlson stated that this is correct. He stated that Council approval should
be required for anyone to enter into an agreement on behalf of the City. He stated that he is
not opposed to removing the two-thirds majority clause. This was taken from the codes of
other cities.
Councilmember Meyers stated that a situation has arisen which has caused disagreement
on processes to be followed. He stated that he does not support this proposal. He stated
that the Mayor or City staff should be allowed to conduct meetings and obtain or provide
information without being subject to reprimands by not notifying the Council. He stated
that this restricts what can be beneficial for the City. He stated that he foresees problems
with these suggestions.
Councilmember Carlson stated that there is no specific language stating that the Mayor
cannot enter into meetings. He stated that the Mayor would not be allowed to enter into
negotiations or agreements in situations that would have to come before the Council for
approval.
Councilmember Meyers stated that the proposed changes cannot reasonably be followed by
everyone involved. They would make it difficult for the Councilmembers to carry out their
duties.
Councilmember Carlson stated that there are only three original ideas in the proposal. The
remaining changes are from the codes of other cities. He stated that the city of Tulsa,
Oklahoma levies fines for Council misconduct.
Chairperson Thomas asked if the other cities outlaw being able to campaign for city
council.
Councilmember Carlson stated that this was an original suggestion and was included due to
questionable campaign practices witnessed in the last election.
Councilmember Roche stated that he agrees with Councilmember Meyers and that these
changes are not necessary at this time.
Chairperson Thomas, seconded by Councilmember Roche, moved to reject the proposed
changes in the Code of Ethics. The motion failed 3-1, with Councilmember Thomas,
Roche, and Meyers voting “nay,” and Councilmember Carlson voting “aye.”
4.
CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
PAGE 9
City Manager Montague stated that current project updates are available. He stated that the
City of Lenexa and City of Shawnee staff will be meeting on Thursday, September 20 at
6:30 p.m. to discuss the Fourth of July celebration, street projects, and legislative issues.
He stated that the Tour de Shawnee is scheduled for 8:00 a.m. Sunday, September 23. He
stated that the BBQ contest is the following week. He stated that the City has acquired all
of the houses on Gladstone. The Police Department is using these buildings for SWAT
exercises. There has been one complaint from residents that has been resolved. He stated
that the right-of-way maintenance ordinance passed by the City does not allow the
inclusion of telecommunications companies. He stated that other utility companies have
complained about this and asked the City to delay the implementation of this ordinance
until some of these issues are resolved. He stated that the ordinance takes effect October
1st.
City Attorney Rainey stated that the utilities are arguing that they shouldn’t have to pay if
the telephone company is excluded. He stated that he has discussed this issue with the
utility companies.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Roche, seconded by Chairperson Thomas, moved for adjournment. The motion
carried 4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Trisha Bunting, Recording Secretary
Approved by:
________________________________
Carol Gonzales, Assistant City Manager