STATE OF KANSAS
)
WYANDOTTE COUNTY
)) SS
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KS )
SPECIAL SESSION, WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2007
The Unified Government Commission of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, met in special
session Wednesday, July 25, 2007, with nine members present: DeSeure, Commissioner At-Large
Second District; Barnes, Commissioner First District; Murguia, Commissioner Third District; Mitchell,
Commissioner Fourth District; Kane, Commissioner Fifth District; Pettey, Commissioner Sixth District;
Cooley, Commissioner Seventh District; Ellison, Commissioner Eighth District; and Reardon,
Mayor/CEO presiding. Holland, Commissioner At-Large First District; and Miller, Commissioner
Second District; were absent. The following officials were also in attendance: Dennis Hays, County
Administrator; Hal Walker, Chief Counsel; Tom G. Roberts, Unified Government Clerk; Doug Bach,
Deputy County Administrator; Gary Ortiz, Assistant County Administrator; Jack Manahan, Chief
Financial Officer; Lisa Kearney, Budget Director; and various staff and department representatives.
MAYOR REARDON called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL: Murguia, Mitchell, Kane, Pettey, Cooley, Ellison, DeSeure, Barnes, Reardon.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City,
Kansas, to be held Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. in the 6th floor Human Resources Training
Room of the Municipal Office Building, 701 North 7th Street, for the purpose of a budget workshop
session.
CONSENT TO MEETING of the governing body of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas,
accepting service of the foregoing notice, waiving all and any irregularities in such service and in such
notice, and consent and agree that the governing body shall meet at the time and place therein specified
and for the purpose therein stated.
Mayor Reardon said we have set-aside tonight as an opportunity for commissioners to discuss
outstanding items that we’ve talked about and my hope is to reach some consensus about those items
that we feel need to be dealt with in this budget.
Mr. Hays said it is our understanding that tonight we will go through what is called the blue sheet,
which is a list of discussion points that came from all of you from recent meetings. The sheet has been
broken down into two specific sections. First is Operations Budget and the second is Capital Budget.
Operations Budget:
A. Sheriff Staffing Issues - $191,000:

3 Clerks (2 Provisional & 1 new from overtime Savings)

1 Sheriff Investigator
Mr. Hays said last week the Sheriff requested additional staffing. Doug and Lisa met directly with the
Sheriff’s staff to discuss the issues. Mr. Bach said we discussed the ability to work with some of the
vacancies they currently have in filling positions in the detention area where we could actually take three
positions, three FTE’s and the funding associated with them, and move those over to use as part of the
positions for the four positions they have requested. We think this works out to be a good compromise
with them and then we would create one new FTE from the overtime savings. By having three new
clerks in that department, that will account for the overtime that comes into that play, so we will from a
provisional type basis, you are not really increasing any of the FTE numbers or having any increase need
in funding, because as they rotate through that department you don’t ever fill out those position and we
probably would hit that level inside the next year to year and a half to make that an issue. We can fund
up to three clerks and satisfy that need immediately because as the Sheriff noted in their presentation
they could probably fill the civilian positions within a couple of weeks and start off setting the overtime
and the heavy demand on those positions coming into them. The Sheriff concurs with the scenario. Ms.
Kearney said $191,000 is the cost of the positions but that would be shifted over from existing deputy
dollars.
Commissioner Mitchell said does this lock us in a couple of years from now? Are we going to hear in
a couple of years that we don’t have enough deputies to command the detention facility so we have to
farm-out more? Mr. Bach said is it a potential this could come back next year when we go through the
budget process, we could have the discussion, but I would say it would be more like a year and a half or
two years out and I think there are other things we are looking at with the old jail operations that will
probably come into play far before this does.
July 25, 2007
Commissioner Barnes said we’re saying we are going to give them what they want, but it is still going
to be the same number of FTE’s and I don’t want to be set-up for an argument later on and if we do this,
I would hope that we could clarify that and not just be a move on our behalf and them not understand
what we’re doing. Mr. Bach said their preference was to give them new positions and allocate new
funding, however, recognizing that we don’t have additional revenue in the County General Fund, we
worked with solutions and utilizing that overtime funding, we did add one FTE and they recognize the
fact that this does give us an opportunity now to address the problem they are having with staffing in the
warrant clerk area and then when you get out there, there could be something we would have to come
back here to address two years from now, but this does answer our questions now.
B. Community Corrections:

Partial funding (40%) – Juvenile Surveillance Officer - $18,000
Mr. Hays said we thought this appropriate to put on the sheet to reconfirm because there is additional
cost in this particular item. The cost is $18,000 which is a partial coverage of a grant that had expired.
This will allow us to maintain the program activity of this position. The additional cost will be $18,000
from County General Fund to cover this.
C. Juvenile Drug Court Program:

$50k in 1007 - $150k in 2008

Transferred Prevention Program cost to Special Alcohol Fund
Mr. Hays said this is one where we have had a cut in outside funding, but have been able to identify a
funding source that we would believe to be appropriate. That alternate funding source is the Special
Alcohol Account. There is a Special Advisory Board and we believe we would have to go back to the
Advisory Board, consult with them, and would need their endorsement and support. In talking with the
staff that worked with the Advisory Board, we believe this is consistent with the mission and purpose of
these dollars and this would be an appropriate fix.
D. Additional Police Officer:

$60,000 per officer; City General Fund
Mr. Hays said the question was how much does a new police officer cost. We tried to roll it in so that
you have an average salary, average benefits, and the supporting equipment, uniform, etc. that is
required for an incoming officer. Anticipating the commission has interest in this particular issue, we
July 25, 2007
met with Chief Breshears and specifically asked the Chief if the commission was so inclined to grant
additional positions to the Police Department, how he would use them. The answer was that if one to
four officers were granted as additional FTE’s for the Police Department, he would place those in the
patrol division and would be assigned to district patrol status. Not a specific district, but they would go
into the district patrol status wherever the most urgent need was. However, if you fund five officers,
that would enable him to initiate the unit he spoke to you about when he was here being the Vice &
Narcotics Unit for alcohol and vice enforcement and for additional narcotic and drug activities. A
number of five he could hire or assign create the unit, which would comprise of one Sergeant and four
officers for the Vice & Narcotics Unit. The approximate cost using this estimate would be $300,000 for
five officers to create the new unit. If you were to go beyond that and add six or seven, he would have
five for the new unit and then take the additional officers and put into district status.
Commissioner Murguia said knowing those numbers, did staff look at the budget to see if there was
any possibility to move things around to create funding for additional police officers? Mr. Hays said
yes we have. There are alternatives. There are cuts we can make in the budget, there are other pools
that we could go to for funding in reducing other initiatives and what we had hoped to do is tomorrow
bring to you a recommendation on how to fund. What we’re hoping to hear from you tonight is what is
the commission’s goal, but we have a wide range of options including cutting in the City General Fund
other activities or looking to other funding tools where it wouldn’t actually be a cut, but could postpone
other activities. If you want additional officers, remember we already have four additional officers
already projected in this budget, and in the presentation the Chief made ten days ago, we spoke of our
ability to add substantial numbers of new officers in future years when we have new revenues on the
horizon. If however, it’s the commissions direction to add additional officers on top of the four we’re
adding this year, how many? We would go back to figure out how to fund those and share that with you
tomorrow evening.
Commissioner Barnes said my only concern kind of reverts back to the conversation we were having
with the Sheriff, I just don’t see how we can put a formula together to put more officers on the street and
not deal with the results of putting more officers on the streets which equates to more people in our jails.
What we do on this side affects the Sheriff and the farm-outs so I think we need to take a real good
analysis of what the overall affect of putting more officers, and I’m for that, but I think we need to come
up with some type of formula that gives us the overall costs and what is it going to add to our farm-out
July 25, 2007
costs. Have we done Performance Measures in the Police Department? Mr. Hays said yes sir. I think
there is one important point to make. The notion that there is a direct correlation between police officers
and the number of individuals incarcerated is a quick conclusion and it seems to make reasonable sense.
A challenge that the Chief and others have brought forward is particularly who we’re investing in SRO’s
and some of the prevention programs, we’re actually in some ways preventing additional crime and
solving it before it happens. While that is a reasonable conclusion to jump to, the Chief pointed out that
in many ways when we’re dealing with prevention, we’re dealing with avoiding crime from crime
occurring, we’re actually preventing folks from going to jail because we don’t arrest them and we
intervene in advance. I’m not aware of any specific correlations or data that show what that intervention
rate is and how we can reduce that. The Sheriff and his staff pointed that out, the more police officers
you hire, the more jail space you are going to need. I think it’s more complicated than that, but we don’t
have that data to share with you. Commissioner Barnes said I think sometime in the near future, we
really do need to look at what we can do to reduce the number of farm-outs. Mayor Reardon said I
agree and I will commit and direct staff that before next years budget that there is a full analysis of the
prospects of future jail space needs and the ability for us to move forward within the county to address
jail space needs as an alternative to farm-outs.
Commissioner DeSeure said I believe being proactive is so important and I would applaud the
commission for supporting Items B & C because of our juveniles because if we get them at an early age,
we’re being proactive. My comments on additional officers, and I’m very supportive, I would like to
know with the five new officers that would create a Vice & Narcotics Unit, would we be able to capture
drug seizure money with that? Mr. Bach said it’s a possibility. You couldn’t use it for staff, but there
could be some offset for equipment purchases.
Commissioner DeSeure said I would be very
supportive of increasing, not taking decreasing or taking from our current Transient Guest Tax, but
using that as a source of funding. Mr. Hays said a viable funding source will be on the horizon to
increase that amount. We know that dollars dedicated today that are in place are committed to CVB
growth and expansion, but an additional charge could create additional funds for programs of that
nature. Commissioner DeSeure said I would be supportive of additional officers with the Transient
Guest Tax and if we could get a dollar figure on the possibility of the Vice & Narcotics Unit, the trading
out of funds for equipment, what that might generate. Mayor Reardon said I brought this issue up
amongst others at the beginning of the budget and first of all I do want to say I think this commission
has done an absolutely phenomenal job and remain committed to public safety. We added 25 new
July 25, 2007
police officer positions to the force in three years and I think the numbers that the Police Chief showed
us on the Nighttime Community Policing Unit, which has only been in existence since mid November of
last year, are persuasive in the fact that when we have given more opportunity for the police department
to go out and try to keep the neighborhoods safe and public safe in their homes, they have been effective
with the resources we’ve given them. I agree if you look at a lot of the crime that goes on, and crime
continues to be a major issue for our citizens, and I think if we look at the major issues we want to
address for the long haul for our community, public safety and crime is at the top of our list collectively.
If you look at the commitment that has been made, I think it has been significant, but if you look at the
crime that we seem to see and the issues that we see, so much of it is involved with narcotics. I
personally would like for us to try to add the five officers for the Vice & Narcotics Unit. Certainly we
would need to hold that to performance measures. We’ve got to see the delivery of that on the street, we
owe that to our citizens, but I also think it does address that challenge that we all see with respect to the
kind of crime that is in our community. I would direct staff to show what that means in this budget. The
budget is tight, we’re at the end, there are all kinds of issues in the budget, but if there is enough
consensus just for us to take a look tomorrow night as to how this shakes out, to put five officers and
create this Vice & Narcotics, to at least see that for what it is and how it affects the rest of our budget, I
would like to see that tomorrow.
E. Community Opinion Poll:

$5,000 by mail $25,000 by telephone survey:
Mr. Hays said this has to do with conducting a survey on critical issues.
Mr. Ortiz said the
commission was contemplating possibly saving money versus third partying this. The Mayor indicated
that we have quite a capacity in-house to do simple community surveys. We looked at the cost of that
possible savings. After meeting with Lew Levin he feels fairly confident that he could put together a
survey of this type of some candidate topics that were discussed being possibly banning smoking,
banning fireworks, possibly funding the DOT promise which is a promise of higher education help for
high school students throughout Wyandotte County. Another possible topic would be surveying the
community as to a recreation center and storm water management plan. Lew said we could conduct a
survey of this type at a level comparable and accuracy to the companies that do this outside for no more
than $5,000. It would be a significant savings over what we were discussing previously.
July 25, 2007
Mayor Reardon said I think the preferred method would be the in-house method given what we’ve
heard tonight and that the budget should reflect an expenditure that would allow that to occur.
F. Diversity Program Implementation/Incubator

$50,000 in existing 2007 budget
Mr. Hays said this is a restating of what we heard in the lengthy discussion on this issue. The funding
is in place, staff is responsible for producing an implementation plan and funding mechanism and we
will come back to the commission for final decision and additional discussion. This is what we took as
clear guidance and direction. There is not a budget impact but we were directed to make sure this shows
up on our follow-up sheet. Mayor Reardon said the only point of clarification I would make only
because we’re making this statement in the 2008 is that I would like to hold you to a timeframe that
would be before 2008 that you bring forward those two things, but it’s not implied that these are
activities that would occur in 2008. I would say you need to present this to us in the fall of this year.
Commissioner DeSeure said I’m not sure the comment was made strong enough. I would like to take
more of a firm stance saying the Unified Government is committed to the implementation of an
Incubator Program in the future. Mr. Hays said we will put together a suggested program and a funding
mechanism and we will be working with the folks at Kauffman. Mayor Reardon said I think if
commission approves this budget with a statement like this, we’re directing staff to bring this back to us
so the commitment is that we allocate dollars in our budget to do this kind of work and then to bring us
back an implementation for us to consider. Commissioner Barnes said to make certain that everybody
is on the same page, if staff needs more clarity, maybe we need an up or down vote individually.
Mayor Reardon said staff will prepare an implementation program and funding mechanism for
commission consideration. By that I mean commission would consider and take action or not take
action.
G. Special Project Review:

Compensation for Elected Officials
Mr. Hays said the commission is spending more than 24 or 25 hours in budget workshops and the other
evening we spoke about up to two weeks of time that the commission may have to spend in reviewing
proposals. I know there have been issues raised regarding compensation for elected officials regarding
this additional time that would be committed to those projects and the additional time is well beyond the
July 25, 2007
anticipation of the charter ordinance was put into place ten years ago. We don’t have a specific
recommendation. This is one we heard clearly from the commission and others that this was not the
intent and in fact the demands on today’s commission are much greater than originally anticipated. I
don’t think anyone envisioned the level of policymaking responsibility and the level of time required.
We are looking for guidance and direction and consensus. Mayor Reardon said I think the reality is
that we spend a lot of time in this budget and last year we spent an equal amount of time. This fall staff
tells us they anticipate between 8 and 12 proposals that will come to us. By the nature of the state law,
and what we put in place, all of them will be proposals for developments in excess of $300 million.
We’re called on by the state to consider planning and zoning for those items and also to consider
whether this government, as elected officials, endorse one or all of those proposals which means all of
them will have to receive our careful consideration for us to do our job. I think having the discussion in
an earlier session where we acknowledged that and to try and figure out a way to fairly compensate for
that, I think we need to consider that as well as for our planning and zoning appointees. I do think we
need to set in place going forward some opportunity for us to consider commission pay overall and
compare that commission pay to other local elected bodies in the metropolitan area and the state of
Kansas. Everyone knows that under the charter that was created, the commission pay was set, and the
commission pay has never been changed. I think we need to figure out a way to at least investigate that
and take a look at it for the future. I look for staff to tell us how we could start to consider that going
forward.
Commissioner Pettey said we can’t just look at cities; we need to look at counties also. Commissioner
Barnes said if you look at what $12,000 would buy in 1995 and what $12,000 would buy in 2007, you
would have a really good comparison. My sense of the whole process is how can you take a $12,000
city council job, combine it with a $45,000 a year commissioner job and save $12,000 a year. I spoke at
that time when they were putting the plan together; one of the responses I got was is that we don’t want
salary to become an issue when it comes to people voting for consolidation.
We need to upgrade
ourselves in more ways than one. We have to deal with tough issues such as this. Commissioner
DeSeure said my comment would be I thought Carol was grossly underpaid and I think Joe is grossly
underpaid and I think our salaries need to be looked at also. Mayor Reardon said it’s not something
we’re going to solve in this budget, but I would ask for commission to give some consideration as to
how we might ask staff or others in taking a look at this issue. I will note that one of the things that’s
different between my pay and commission pay is that under the charter this position receives a cost-ofJuly 25, 2007
living increase, a percentage that is based on non-union pay. We owe it, as a governing body, to take a
look at it and maybe even appointing someone outside of ourselves to take a closer look at it. Dennis, is
there, in this budget, the ability to compensate additionally the planning and zoning as well to the
commissioners based on the workload of proposals for gaming? Obviously, we wouldn’t be able to
consider what that is within the context of approving this budget, but would we have the opportunity to
do that after the budget? Mr. Hays said yes we would.
Capital Budget:
A. Turkey Creek

Continuation of Turkey Creek Project?
Mr. Hays said Mayor had directed this to be under discussion tonight. We call the commission’s
attention to Tab 31 of the Answers to Questions. The Mayor asked us to put together a scenario and that
scenario is one of what is the level of funding and what will actually be funded. In sequence of time,
those dollars that are committed in 2007, those dollars scheduled are 2008, and what would be in 2009
and beyond and the memorandum from Bob Roddy dated July 25th, you can see schedule in progress
today is the tunnel, funding is in place. The 3.8 Bridge Replacement, Notice to Proceed will be Fall of
this year; U.G. funding required is $1 million. That is currently budgeted and in place. The contracts
have not been let yet. Walled Channel between Bridge 3.8 & I-35 Exit Ramp, scheduled for summer of
2008, U.G. funding required for our portion of that component would be $1 million. We have additional
dollars in the range of $9 to $10 million for completion of the project which includes the 4.4 Bridge,
Upstream channel, Levee System, Mill Street Bridge and a number of Hillside Interceptors that lays up
and down the slopes in the Rosedale area draining into Turkey Creek. That’s the sequence of staff’s in a
non-engineering very straight forward simple version for commission consideration tonight. In Bob’s
memorandum there are two specific options presented tonight from the staff perspective. Option A,
continue the current obligations as are currently made. Option B, recommendation would be continue
the funding, this is what Bob advocated for the other evening, in sending a continued message to federal
government and other partners in this project of continued efforts on this project, continue to fund those
dollars in place for 2007 which would be the funding for the 3.8 Bridge. Option B also includes a
direction from the commission to have staff report back to the commission in the fall of 2007 a detailed
review of future funding alternatives. This list would include possibilities such as benefit district, sales
tax for infrastructure, drainage district, and an on-going commitment of General Obligation Debt. Point
3 in this particular recommendation or option for the commission to consider, only after this report, a
July 25, 2007
specific direction from the commission would staff be permitted to proceed with the 2008 expenditures
and commitments.
Mayor Reardon said I think every commissioner here knows, and I’ve been on record, as previously
supporting funding for Turkey Creek and for this project I voted for the agreement that is in place today
and I believe today, after listening to the great dialogue, I think we must continue to remain committed
to the project. I think it directly benefits business owners in our community and citizens in our
community. I think it is important to ensure the viability of this part of our county and our city.
Certainly, there are public safety issues that we need to be, as we are in all places in our county,
concerned about and making sure that we’re taking care of. I think for me it is a matter that we need to
keep our promise. We said we were going to commit to this project, we have made commitments to the
project, our staff has worked on the project, and we need to continue to do that. We’ve formed a very
positive relationship with Kansas City, Missouri on this project and they are a participant and I want to
keep that relationship as strong as it can be and build upon it for future opportunities that cross our state
border. Do we want to find other funding and all those good things, absolutely. I think the issue for me
is not whether we should do it, we should do it and it needs to be in this budget. The issue that has been
raised, that I’m respectful of and I do think we need to consider more, where do we get the money to pay
for it. Right now it is coming out of General Obligation Debt principally, but for the future and I think
this has been raised by a couple of the commissioners, are there other places we could look for funding.
Those questions can’t be answered tonight and those are policy questions that deal with fundamentally
how we finance large projects. This is probably the largest Capital project that we have on our books
right now or at least at the top of the list. In parts of our community right now we do have alternate
funding mechanisms, we have drainage districts in three parts of our community today where the
affected businesses paid additional tax to deal with those issues and that has been raised by some
commissioners as perhaps a funding source for paying for Turkey Creek. I will note just as recently as
yesterday in the Kansas City Star there was an article in the Johnson County edition talking about
Turkey Creek. There is an independent drainage district in Johnson County that draws funding from
residents in parts of Shawnee, Merriam and Overland Park and according to The Star, its chief
responsibility is to control flooding and erosion from the Turkey Creek Channel.
Even in our
neighboring, apparently there is an alternative funding mechanism. I’m not here to tell you I’m for or
against that alternative funding mechanism. Up until now we said we would take it out of General
Obligation Debt, however, I do think that’s a legitimate policy issue that with more time we could more
July 25, 2007
adequately discuss, as a commission, to figure out if there is a balance here or a different way of
approaching funding.
My message tonight, for purposes of the budget, I think staff’s second
recommendation makes sense. We need to make clear in this budget that this Unified Government is
committed to moving forward with Turkey Creek. The dollars are in our budget and have been devoted
to that, but that we’re going to hold a session in the fall of this year where we sit down and find out
within our own boarders within our means if there is some other source of revenue or is there a different
way to share in the cost of this. I think staff is making it clear that we don’t have to make that ultimate
policy decision tonight.
Commissioner Barnes said I would also agree just as long as we have that conversation real soon and
look at the options. I have some disappointment as to how it has been presented to us from the Corps of
Engineers and having a project that really doesn’t offer any guarantees in saying this will help remedy
the situation. I would hope when we have the discussion that we would have a list of options to the
project itself and let us know what percentage of control we will have when it comes to flooding in that
area and I think all affected parties should be involved in that process.
Commissioner Murguia said this Turkey Creek Project is primarily in my district and although other
commissioners may not have received this information, I have received over 35 emails just yesterday
from residents that reside in the Rosedale area that are concerned about this project. I appreciate the
commission’s reaction saying they are committed to this project and that they want to see it move
forward. As far as to looking to additional funding alternatives, I personally offered to work with staff
in seeking other alternatives. The number of people that have come tonight and the number of emails
I’ve received, it seems the public has been in favor of the way that we currently fund this project and to
date I don’t think we’ve had anyone show up at meetings or send emails saying they’re not in favor of it.
Commissioner DeSeure said I’ve had the opportunity to vote twelve different times on Turkey Creek
and every year we supported the project. The scope of the project has changed and we’ve finally got to
the point where we are seeing the reality of Turkey Creek. I’m very excited about taking the initiative of
looking at creative methods on how to fund it.
Mayor Reardon said it sounds like we have consensus around staff’s recommendation and that is what
we would expect Option B to come back to us tomorrow night for consideration.
July 25, 2007
B. Xspand Delinquent Tax Collection/CMIP District Discretionary Funding Alternative:
Mr. Hays said this deals with funding available for district discretionary funding. Mr. Manahan said
the first thing I would point out a note in the memo is that we have done an estimate of the delinquent
tax revenue that we’re currently receiving and that we’re going to be receiving in 2008. Those dollars
are in this budget already supporting those expenditures that are in this budget. However, the Debt
Service Fund, I believe, that we could probably shift about an additional $800,000 either existing things
in the General Fund to the Debt Service or what I was hearing in the discussion that people are looking
for ways that they could do additional Capital expenditures specific to districts. Those would be very
easy to finance through those funds in the Debt Service Fund and still leave a sufficient fund balance.
Commissioner Ellison said the discretionary funds would be used only for bricks and mortar and that is
on top of the early CMIP programs. That could work two different ways. I think it would cause
competition within the commission. How would you apportion it?
Commissioner Pettey said there has been a lot of discussion about having some discretionary funds
within district. It seems this allows us to do some different innovative things. We’re looking at this
only for one year.
Mayor Reardon said I think we also need to be concerned about how we move forward with district
projects, but at the same time keeping our eye on the community as a whole. In this example, as Pat
said, it is a one time revenue source and when you look at it as a percentage of our CMIP Projects, it’s
pretty small. Our CMIP process continues on. We’re not changing the character of the way we look,
focus and do our projects.
Commissioner Barnes said I want to make it very clear that I do support this. Every district has its own
personality and in some areas you have alleyways that need to be paved, vacant lots need to be cut or
whatever needs to be done, but this gives flexibility to somewhat address some of the situations. That is
why it is discretionary, because it’s up to you where you use it. As long as the dollars are distributed
equally amongst the districts, then what happens inside the district is up to the person making those
decisions. Mayor Reardon said the other point I would make that is good is that we are saying it has to
July 25, 2007
be in Capital. Also, that we also don’t get in the position where you would have individual groups that
have very worthwhile projects or on-going cost within their non-profit and they’re not coming to each
commissioner saying they need money to continue.
Commissioner DeSeure said I knew we were going to have additional dollars in delinquent taxes that
was being collected, are you making the statement that has already been used up in the budget by staff.
Mr. Manahan said as we estimate our revenues in all the funds, we don’t hold any back, we make our
best estimate of what those are going to be and those are put in, in this case the General Fund, and they
are basically supporting the budget that has come to you. Commissioner DeSeure said it was my
understanding before we started the budget process there were additional dollars that we collected in the
delinquent tax that was going to be coming to this commission to have opportunities to deal with and
I’m hearing now that option is not available because it has already been plugged into the budget. Mr.
Manahan said as we do every year. Commissioner DeSeure said you have made the comment that
you have already budgeted the anticipated and the over generated revenue dollars collected.
Mr.
Manahan said we were directed to look at ways to fund additional Capital. Mayor Reardon said I will
take responsibility for part of that because in our Retreat we talked about the idea of this concept being
Capital. Commissioner DeSeure said I support this.
Commissioner Murguia said I want to speak about the vacant lots and the number of them and lack of
funding for them. I think if we’re going to start raising the standard in our county, with all the initiatives
going on in the city, we need to not only raise the standard by mowing our own lots, I think we need to
be more aggressive about mowing the tax delinquent lots and cleaning them up. I am personally big on
performance and I think if the money is spread out equally and everybody uses their money wisely or
figures out ways to leverage that money, and that can be done in a lot of ways, each individual
commissioner has the capability in the position they are in, to go out and leverage dollars for their
district and that means fundraising.
The other option is working with their local Community
Development Corp. or another entity that it is their forte to raise money. Mayor, you made a comment
about Operating and I hear what you say that you don’t want money spent on paying staff dollars, but as
a person who has done a lot of fundraising, I think it is our point that you don’t want all these dollars
that are given to these partners that we have spent on paying peoples salary, but I also think we need to
look at when those not-for-profits are seeking out funding, they need to be really good at raising money
for projects, but in this city people don’t want to fund Operating. I think what is more important to me
July 25, 2007
is that we have, I’ll use CDC’s as an example, or not-for-profits that perform. How they spend their
money should be of little interest except we should have performance, benchmarks and standards for
that. I think that is much more important and they should be able to leverage the dollars. Mayor
Reardon said my thought on one time dollars, let’s say you were able to fairly evaluate the non-profits
in your district and fund their on-going Operating, right now it is a one time thing. If we were going to
talk about how we can support the on-going Operating budgets of high performing CDC’s, then that is
something we should look at and certainly I think CDBG Funds are supposed to do that to a certain
extent, but I would think of it as a different kind of program and approach then one time dollars that we
allocate to each district.
Commissioner Cooley said I don’t support it. These are city funds and only half of my district is
Kansas City, Kansas so would I get an equal share or do I get half a share? I personally feel it’s going
back to the days, and I wasn’t on the Council, when the Council members had discretionary money and
they got nickel and dimed out and there were political payoffs. I think you are running into some
dangerous territory if you start doing that again. We have a list of CMIP Projects that we never do fund.
We have a green sheet that has two that was put into the unfunded category. Let’s take this money and
put it where we already have things identified. Mayor Reardon said my interns did a little research on
this. Other governing bodies all over the United States do these discretionary funds, but there is a level
of criticism and our staff has looked at some of this too, in those areas particularly where these
discretionary funds are large amounts and there are no guidelines on how to use them. At times there is
a high level of criticism about the use and expenditure of these funds. If we were to proceed forward
with this, it’s going to be tough for us to draft a policy that makes sure there is some integrity in the
spending. The reason I focused on Capital is because the highest level of criticism comes is when it is
used for anything. If we do it in the context of Capital, I think there is some insurance of the ability to
show that we’re doing something physical in the district. The other thing I have seen is a weakness in
other communities where in the discretionary fund; there is no check and balance. In other words, the
district commissioner can literally direct those funds to whatever the project is. Here the integrity would
be that you would work on a project with staff, but it would have to come to the full commission as a
whole for them to review and approve. Commission action would have to be taken in order for the
expenditure to occur.
July 25, 2007
Commissioner Ellison said the administration and guidelines of it and how it is handled is important.
I don’t want my telephone ringing from neighborhood groups, and each one not understanding the
process, that it has to be bricks and mortar and it has to go through the administrative handles of the
commission. The safety is the approval of the total commission for any projects in any commission
district.
Commissioner Kane said I agree with Tom that we have two projects that aren’t funded. We could use
this money there.
Commissioner Pettey said I do think if this moves ahead and if we decide this is the route we want to
go for this one year, I think as this is being drafted we should also look at how does this end so that if for
some reason you don’t extend the fund, it would go back into the Capital expenditures.
Commissioner Barnes said two years ago we had a list of unfunded CMIP Projects and that list totaled
over $28 million at that time and so I was wondering why the list was so short this time because I have
two very large projects in my district that has been unfunded and is not even a conversation. If we truly
had an unfunded list, it would be a whole lot longer than two projects. At one time we kept track of how
many unfunded projects.
Commissioner Murguia said I thought it might be interesting to know that million dollars in the Third
District, Richard Ruiz was the Councilperson at the time, and he did amazing things with the million
dollars and we are still reaping the benefits from that money because he invested the money.
Commissioner Mitchell said if we have this, it will be easy to fine places in my district to use it. I’m
not for sure that I want to be the one to make the decision. I’m still a little unclear, because it sounds
like the money is really not there. If we took no action on this, the budget is going to be the same. In
essence, it would dwindle down and we are talking about fund balance. I’m trying to wrap my mind
around how you were responding to Don. If we did nothing tonight, how would our budget be different
in regards to this or if we each claimed a piece of it, what would our budget be like. Mr. Manahan said
this $800,000 is in fund balance in the Debt Service Fund. If you pass the budget as recommended and
as it’s been published, it will be that fund balance. Our thinking was with these Capital Projects, if they
were projects that were legitimate ones for temporary notes, it does not really result in an expenditure
July 25, 2007
during 2008. It results in a later expenditure. We issue the notes, we could then simply pay them off,
but it is in the fund balance and the idea was Capital Projects and the kind of things you are talking
about is street, sidewalks, and sewers. Commissioner Mitchell said if we paid as we went, paid cash,
didn’t do any temporary notes, and then in essence this would lower the fund balance. If some of it
could be pushed off, it still lowers the fund balance; it’s just now or later.
Mr. Hays said to make sure we’re all on the same page, we may have confused you, in your mind go to
the City Bond & Interest Fund. We’re not talking General Fund Balance; we’re not talking the County.
We’re talking Bond & Interest Fund. If we had a specific levy for that fund, we have through the
Capital Improvements Plan, scheduled a maximum payment of about $20 million a year in debt service.
Because of the Capital Improvements Debt Service payment, we have in that fund balance account,
because we don’t have to pay it off right now, we have $800,000 in fund balance that is available that
could be used to buy down additional debt or prepay which is always a possibility or two, the challenge
question was how might we be able to fund a discretionary pool. We identified this and said this money
does not come from the General Government Fund, Fund Balance, you heard me speak of this the other
night, I would not recommend that to you. The Bond & Interest Fund is strong enough that if you took
this amount or lesser amount out and dedicate it for this purpose, that fund will remain healthy and we
will be able to meet all of our bond payment obligations without any risk. Commissioner Mitchell said
does that fund have a reserve or a balance? Mr. Hays said yes, it has a fund balance. We have to
maintain a fund balance. We have to build that fund so we can honor our debt service payments over
time. Our fund balance there is strong and it will carry itself into the future to meet all of our obligations
even if we pull out this amount from that fund balance to divert for an alternate purpose. It does not
affect the City General Fund, it does not affect the County General Fund and this is only Bond &
Interest on the City side.
Commissioner DeSeure said that is why it has to be used for bricks and mortar. It has to be something
that will out live the expectancy. If you were issuing bonds on a 20 year project, will that project still be
around and in existence when those bonds are being paid over that 20 year period of time.
Mr. Hays said Commissioner Barnes talked about weed cutting. I want to be real careful, we were
asked and we presented this in terms of bricks and mortar that is our recommendation. I want to offer a
caveat. We still have a few items that are lease purchase in the General Fund. We could pay lease
July 25, 2007
purchase items from this with cash in the Bond & Interest Fund because they are equipment purchases
and they are eligible, thus freeing up some dollars in the General Fund. It is possible that we would give
a couple hundred thousands dollars that may not have the brick and mortar restriction. I want to share
that so we are being totally open about this, but we don’t have $800,000 or $500,000 for those that we
could allocate in that method and come up with a $500,000 pot to cut weeds or do discretionary
programs that you are talking about. There is a way, but it would not be applicable to all districts and by
the time you dibbed up the money we had, you all might get $5,000 to $10,000 for weed cutting, but it
wouldn’t be the full kitty that would be available for those type of purposes.
Mr. Hays said the weed dollars that are in the General Fund Operating Budget are allocated on the basis
of need, not on the basis of districts.
Mayor Reardon said I suggest that staff evaluate all these issues and bring it back tomorrow night.
C. Grind and Overlay:

Commission Discretion of District Grind & Overlay Fund
Mr. Hays said we have a communication from our County Engineer. Very simply, it’s a policy matter
and the commission can set that policy and we will carry it out. I think we simply said in the past, you
had increased the amount of money going into grind and overlay. We think it has served you and the
community very well. If you decide to go an alternate route, so be it.
Commissioner DeSeure said I like the observation that was made by Fred Backus. It is a policy and if
we chose in the future to direct it towards curbs and sidewalks, a portion of it, and back off on the grind
and overlay a little, I like that option. We don’t need to make that decision tonight, but I would like for
it to be something that we look in the 2008 area before we come to the 2009 budget next year.
Commissioner Ellison said I agree with what Dennis said. They do a good job in my district as far as
overlay and most of the streets on a scale of 1 to 5 are 2’s. I try to spread it equally. Fred always calls
me in wanting to know if there are any areas in my district where I think need attention. Fred does a
good job.
July 25, 2007
Commissioner Barnes said my only concern would be the schedule. I think, based on what we’re
doing right now, and has gotten us to where we are right now, I certainly wouldn’t want to mess up a
good system that has gotten us closer to normal.
Mayor Reardon said I agree with Don and Nathan. The ideal situation would be that we stay as
aggressive as we’ve always been on streets, but that we find some new opportunity to afford curbs and
sidewalks so we’re not having to make this choice and maybe having staff take a harder look at this with
respect to the rest of our budget so it might give us another opportunity outside of the context of 2008.
Commissioner DeSeure said I think that’s perfect. I think if we could figure out a way to do just the
curbs and when you do the grind and overlay, if you redid the curbs at the same time, the life expectancy
would be far greater than just doing a grind. That was my whole concept in trying to think where do we
go in the future so maybe if we did half the amount of grinding and did curbs and grinding at the same
time, the life expectancy of that street is going to far outweigh having to come back 15 or 20 years later
and grind it again because we didn’t do curbs.
D. K-7 Corridor Study:
Mr. Hays said this relates back to the Chambers proposal, the need for consideration. The Chamber
communication was attached. This item was also presented to standing committee and we have the
history on this particular item. This is really a matter for your direction. Mayor Reardon said I
received correspondence from the Chamber dated July 19th with a schedule of costs and I believe
everyone received it.
Commissioner DeSeure said I know we asked the standing committee to
approach the other cities that would also be a part of this study and maybe look at funding options to
help fund the study other than just coming to the Unified Government to do that. I feel a little
uncomfortable moving forward without having all the facts before us to make that decision. Mayor
Reardon said I believe the letter is somewhat responsive to that request. I like a lot of what staff is
saying which is that staff needs to work with the Chamber. What I struggle with on this issue is good
planning leads to good results. KDOT has spent a lot of time and effort telling everyone what needs to
be done to the K-7 Corridor and what needs to be done to the highway itself and then they come back
and say we might be able to fund that 20 or 30 years from now. Part of what KDOT says is that our plan
calls for, what’s called reversed frontage roads, which are the frontage roads that are actually pretty far
away from the highway itself and so KDOT direction to us ultimately in this plan is that you need to set
July 25, 2007
aside right-of-way for these reversed frontage roads as development occurs.
My problem is that
development is going to occur far sooner than 30 years from now and I’m anticipating this governing
body or a future one having a great development project come forward and said we can’t do this project
with the reversed frontage road. The only thing we will have in our tool kit to say is what KDOT told us
to do based on a commitment to fund it maybe 30 years from now. We need to be doing some of our
own planning so when that moment and time comes and that development comes to our doorstep, we
can have a response that is reflective of the efforts that we want to have happen in Wyandotte County
and furthermore, be able to go to KDOT and say this reverse frontage road is a great idea but we can use
this study as leverage to say you need to come forward with a commitment a lot sooner than you are
saying because our study leads us to believe that development is coming a lot sooner than your reverse
frontage road.
Commissioner Cooley said since it is in my district and I have been involved with the K-7 Corridor
Study group and I’m also involved in the Secretary of Transportations Strategic Plan throughout the
whole state and Dennis is to, they are all trying to put something together so they can possibly fund
some of these projects or go to the legislature to say this is what we have going. I support this, but I
don’t support it from a standpoint that it be funded solely by Wyandotte County money. The reason for
that is this K-7 Corridor goes into three counties, Leavenworth, Wyandotte and Johnson County. The
overall study continues with all three counties and multiple municipalities.
It is the various
municipalities that have the control of the land use and those respective master plans and comprehensive
plans which include a transportation plan.
My suggestion is that funding this type of study for
Wyandotte County portion of the K-7 Corridor study should be funded by the cities which would
include Bonner Springs and Kansas City, Kansas. I think Bonner Springs has a strong vested interest in
this and they should be willing to pay for their portion of the study. Obviously I’m the one from time to
time that has tried to treat those two cities, Bonner and Edwardsville, fair in budget processes and
various aspects of the budget making sure they pay their share and we pay our share and one doesn’t
overlap. I think they should pay their share. I don’t think we should depend on Wyandotte County
funds to pay for that study. I don’t know how you would prorate that.
Commissioner DeSeure said the comment was made during the standing committee to seek other
funding from other communities that benefit from the study being done. During the standing committee
meeting, I cannot recall that we talked about any other funding source to help pay for the study.
July 25, 2007
Mr. Hays said we’re hosting City Manager’s from Leavenworth County and surrounding areas
tomorrow and we can put this on the table for discussion for potential inclusion of others than just
Bonner Springs.
Commissioner DeSeure said my suggestion would be, and I would like to see staff do this, I think there
is some clear direction from this commission that it’s something we are interested in and I think there
has been a lot of voice about making sure there is funding from other cities and other counties to support
the project and I have also heard that there should be some interest in trying to see if there is any other
outside funding other than government funding, we can do a budget revision. I think once we have
those things in place and brought to us, I think then we can make that decision but I think there are some
things that we clearly asked for about having joint county and cities co-opting into funding of the study
and you have that opportunity to start that tomorrow. I sense support for it, but I sense also the support
that we don’t want to be the only ones funding the study.
Commissioner Cooley said it needs a little more information for us to come to a conclusion. I don’t see
it as any great emergency or urgency at this time. My suggestion would be to see where some of the
other municipalities are, see if they are willing to participate and then if not, maybe there is some way
we can do it with some in-kind service or maybe pay a little this year and a little next year, not all at
once.
Mayor Reardon said I think we decide we’re not going to make a commitment in the budget, I really
think staffs recommendation is that our staff, planning and public works, start to work with the
Chambers committee on this, is essential and if we believe that this planning is important at some point
in the future, then I don’t think it is just the Chambers responsibility to go to Bonner Springs to see if
they will participate or not. We need to go to directly to Bonner Springs and say this corridor will affect
both of us and it is important to work together.
Commissioner DeSeure said I would be more than happy, and I think Tom would too; to meet with the
group that meets with the other elected officials in the other communities. Mr. Hays said we will
introduce it tomorrow and the commission’s concurrence will follow this recommendation under the tab
in terms outlined. Mayor Reardon said it will be looked at as a funding for the 2009 budget year or
July 25, 2007
2008 Amended. Mr. Hays said in the fall of 2008 we can come back with next years amended, get the
Chambers support and come back with a joint recommendation on it.
Neighborhood Groups loss of funding:
Commissioner DeSeure said I got some information today that added fuel to what my initial thought
might be going on with CDBG Funds and my request of Kansas City Neighborhood Alliances
involvement and commitment to the Unified Government with the $33,500 that we’ve given them to
leverage for additional dollars for grant funding for our neighborhoods groups. If you look in 2005,
2006 they provided $66,000 in grants to our neighborhood organizations and in 2006 & 2007, it was
$28,000 along with the other services. We found out today that sometime within the next month or two
KCNA will no longer be in existence. That means we are going to have a loss of resources to our
neighborhood groups. I tried to put a little spin to it and what those services might cost if we had to pay
for those services. We have over 125 active neighborhood groups and they seek this funding, and it may
be as little as $50 to $500, but that actually made their existence throughout the year sustainable. Those
dollars are no longer available and will not be available in 2008. It leaves a shortage of anywhere from
$70,000 to $100,000 in my estimate that we were able to leverage for that $33,500 that we were given to
Kansas City Neighborhood Alliance so there is a shortfall for our neighborhood groups in the future. I
wanted to bring that to the attention of the commission. That $33,500 has to stay in CDBG dollars. I
don’t know where we could come up with the $100,000. My suggestion that we use the excess from the
delinquent tax isn’t there anymore. Can we figure out a way to fund it for one year? They are limited to
the number of copies they can make at the NRC because of resources.
Commissioner Pettey said I’m a little cautious about the increase in the amount for copying because
one of the issues that came about in the past from NRC was that some groups used it a lot and used it to
what could be considered excess and some chose not to use it at all. The copy issue, there is availability
there for everyone and it is just what amount you want to provide them with. If in fact the KCNA is
closing shop, then it seems to me that we do have a fund that was going to them and could be looked at
to go to the NRC for grant funding. At this point, because we don’t have a clear picture, I would be
cautious about increasing that amount.
Where is the information coming that they are closing?
Commissioner DeSeure said I talked with Wendy Wilson who is a Board Member and she told me they
are closing the doors.
July 25, 2007
Commissioner Mitchell said where was KCNA getting their funding? If we were funding them some,
we have control of that money. Are there other places that we can go to? I want to try to maximize
other dollars as much as we can. Commissioner DeSeure said these are your neighborhood groups who
have gotten funding from KCNA to help make their existence, to help make things work in the
community. Those dollars aren’t going to be there, so how is that going to impact your neighborhood
groups and where are they going to leverage those dollars from now. Commissioner Mitchell said I’m
not saying don’t fund it. I’m saying don’t ask me to say yes or no until I know where the money was
coming from last year. I’m saying I don’t know where KCNA got their money from.
Commissioner Murguia said I have also been informed that KCNA is closing. The reason KCNA is no
longer functioning is a long one and if you want to know it, I will be glad to tell you what I know
happened over there. It is sort of like other businesses and the way they run. When you are in the notfor-profit world, which I am, you are very familiar with what is going on. I will say this is a significant
loss to neighborhood groups.
They are not going to have that money anymore to make small
incremental improvements to their neighborhoods and that money usually is what gets people to come
together to solve problems in their neighborhoods and if we don’t have those people coming together to
solve problems in their own neighborhoods, we’re going to need a lot more than five cops. Right now
those neighborhood groups are actively doing a variety of things that help us in the way of public safety
in our community. They get their funding all over the cities. They receive money from Hall’s, Kemper;
they receive money from a variety of banks, lending institutions that fund all those not-for-profits. I can
provide you that list. I don’t know if they will fund us. Most of the ones providing funds reside in
Missouri and only one-fourth of the dollars that community gives out comes to Kansas City, Kansas.
Mayor Reardon said if we don’t have a commitment that they would leverage our dollars then the real
easy answer that I would have is that we ought not to allocate any dollars to them. If we don’t have a
commitment from them and don’t believe they are going to be in existence, we’re not giving them any
money. I would suggest staff come back tomorrow and say if we don’t allocate dollars to KCNA, then
is there a way for us to figure out, under our current funding, that we could use those dollars. My
preference would be first for the grants and then if we have to figure out how to fund some more photo
copies, we will try to do that later, but the grant program we would want to try to fully fund. Ms.
Kearney said the dollars we have allocated to KCNA right now are coming out of the General Fund
budget. Mayor Reardon said so we could use those directly for grants. Ms. Kearney said correct.
July 25, 2007
UG External Attorneys and Lawyers Expenditures:
Commissioner Barnes said I think my question was how much of those dollars spent were spent with
minority firms or individuals and how much of the Pubic Works dollars were spent with minority firms.
Even though we got the numbers, I didn’t get the breakdown, which is another example of the point I
was trying to make. They gave in 2006 under CMIP we have a total of $4 million spent, how much was
spent locally and with women and minority would sure make a difference in our community. I would
still like to have the breakdown, and if we’re unable to get that, that tells us how far we have to go in
order to achieve those numbers. Mayor Reardon said I would like to see that data too. Furthermore,
and I don’t need this tomorrow night, but under the Disparity Study show us where we are but what the
Disparity Study would tell us is the range we should be shooting for minority and women participation.
Transient Guest Tax:
Commissioner Mitchell said if we’re going to look at potentially the Transient Guest Tax as a possible
pool for whatever, I would like to be clearer. In the first version there was a cap at 2%, but we have the
right to go 6 and Overland Park is as high as 9. I would like to see more than one other place. Mr.
Manahan said the number that seems to jump out for the most part is 6%. It is not unusual to have it at
20%. Mayor Reardon said I would like to see that also. Mr. Levin said Bonner is 4%, Leavenworth is
7%, Lenexa 6%, Olathe 6%, Sedgwick County is 5%, and Wichita is 6%. Mr. Hays said we will get the
information for tomorrow.
MAYOR REARDON ADJOURNED
THE MEETING AT 8:20 P.M
______________________
Tom G. Roberts
Unified Government Clerk
dt
July 25, 2007