Kevin Straub Comedy Hour (or 15 minutes anyway)

I just knew I could count on Councilmember Kevin Straub to liven up last night's meeting.

Let's set the scene. It's the end of the meeting when council members can bring up items that are not on the agenda. So, Straub decides he has an item which needs immediate attention.

He pontificates that with a budget crunch going on that the council itself needs to curtail its spending. He cites a budgeted amount of $45,000 for trips. He indicates that council members need to cut their trips from 3/year to one a year. The only way he visualizes a councilperson going on a 2d or 3d trip would be with preapproval from the council as a whole.

The trips he was referring to are like the recent National League of Cities trip to Washingto DC.
Now these trips do provide certain benefits. Education for our elected officials via classes and seminars. Various opportunities to meet and greet individuals that can provide positive input for business and economic growth for the city, etc.

Naturally, as in the past with other issues, Straub wanted a vote right now. No studies, no nothing. Most of the other council members indicated that with current budget presentations being scheduled that it would make more sense to analyze this item when it comes up at the appropriate budget meeting. Gee, now that makes sense. Naturally Straub got what he wanted, in that he can say he asked for a vote to cut council travel and got shot down.

One of the council members even accused Straub of grandstanding. Well, that observation is probably correct. I have obtained the figures for the council's trip to DC for the NLC conference.

Guess which city council person had the highest dollar expenditures? That's right, Kevin Straub, at $2,675.35 incurred the largest expenditure for this conference of all the members attending. The next highest was $2,328.42 and the lowest was $1,572.44

The average expenditure was $2,017.84 for the 8 individuals (Mr Goode did not attend).

Mr Straub recorded the highest dollar amount spent on lodging at $1,282.40. The next highest was $1,117.52 and the lowest was $512.96. If anyone is interested, the average lodging costs for the 8 individuals was $877.32.

Grandstanding? This man is in the left field bleachers. Maybe that is why there was a $55.95 internet charge to his expense report. The only individual that had one of those.

So We Don't Forget

We must never forget

CLICK HERE

When you go to the first page, scroll down until you can click on the continue button

Another Election Cycle

Ahhhhhhhh yes. It is coming soon.

Presidential
Congressional
Various state offices

Do not fear, there will be commentaries posted here.

Probably one of the first ones will be regarding the Dennis Moore/Nick Jordan Congressional race.

5/12/08 Council Meeting

Quiet night. Meeting lasted not quite an hour and nothing really exciting happened.

No major discussions, and everything seemed pretty routine.

Pflumm Pfails, Again

This was an unbelievable evening at the City Council. Early in the meeting the election of the Council President took place. The Council President fills in for the mayor when the mayor is absent, and, in a tragic situation would become mayor.

For whatever reason, Dan Pflumm allowed (or encouraged) Kevin Straub to place his name in nomination. Frank Goode seconded the nomination. He was rejected by the council 4-3.

Now, let's look at the background of this situation. On April 1, Pflumm ran against Jeff Meyers for mayor and lost. But, there were also four council members up for reelection. Pflumm actively recruited challengers to run against those four sitting council members. Challenging for public office is good. But is it smart for one council member to actively attempt to unseat four of his colleagues? Then, when all four are returned to office to think that they would want him to be their council president? The only thing that probably saved him from being defeated 5-3 is that one of the four councilmembers so challenged was absent this evening. The other member voting aginst him is not up for reelection until 2010 (just like him, Straub and Goode)

The questions that now beg to be answered are:
1. Can he be effective for his Ward I constituents?
2. If he chooses to run for reelection what chance does he have? In the mayoral election he lost in his own ward by approx. 60% to 40%.

His sanctimonious, arrogant attitude is going to continue to hurt him. But he can't see that.

Dawn Kuhn, of Ward III was nominated and was elected to the position.

Video at 11, or actually by scrolling down:

Fox4's Reporting of Meeting

Fox4 had a reporter and video cameraman at Tuesday's meeting

Read their report , and click on the "Live" box under video (in the center grey square) for the video.

This is the link: http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6371051&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1

Cell Phone Discussion II

Well, we tried. Tuesday's Public Works and Safety Committee meeting put a stop, for now, on a possible cell phone ban in Shawnee.

My primary concern was texting, particularly among youth. Councilmember Sandifer pointed out that last year's number (19) of accidents attributed to cell phone usage (2%) was low. Mathematically, he is correct. Chairman Sawyer agreed with Mr Sandifer as to how low the number was, but added a caveat ".......it's low, unless it's your kid. Then it's a big number."
Mr Sawyer's observation was right on.

Side note: Which city council member appeared to be using his cell phone/PDA to email/text or read some during the committee meeting? Guess it had to be pretty important stuff that it couldn't wait the one hour the meeting lasted. Or maybe the unit was on vibrate and he just wanted to see who called?

Cell Phone Discussion

Some of you might remember that a few months back I addressed the council and asked them to consider restrictions on the use of cell phones in Shawnee.

At that time one of the council members asked that staff research it.

Well, staff has finished and the info is being brought to the Public Works and Safety Committee Meeting on Tuesday, 4/22/08 at 7PM.

For those of you who are concerned about this item, may I suggest showing up next Tuesday evening. Especially if you are concerned about our youths who have a tendency to use text messaging features while driving.

Is Commercial Development Really Helpful?

Much has been discussed recently about property taxes, commercial development and other related items.

That is why I find a recent article in the KC Star to be very interesting. The article can be viewed at http://www.kansascity.com/318/story/559888.html

The item I found interesting was that Lenexa homes are valued at approximately 13% more than homes in Shawnee. Now, in the article that is appraised value, but the assessed valuations would have to follow the same pattern. On top of that, homeowners in Lenexa are also paying a higher mill levy than homeowners in Shawnee.

There are other interesting things to consider. Lenexa’s population is considerably less than Shawnee’s. And, it has a larger municipal work force.

Now here is the irony to all of this. Just drive anywhere in Lenexa and it appears that they have quite a bit more commercial development than Shawnee. So, why are its citizens paying more in property taxes with all of that commercial development? Could it be that tax abatements are actually hurting the city? Could it be that all of that commercial development in Lenexa is not carrying its share of city’s expenses so it is falling back on the home owners? Most of those businesses do not generate income (read that as sales tax) as retail expansion would.

And yet, there are certain infrastructure costs which have to be covered and which will increase as more commercial buildings are added. A Shawnee resident, Paul Cunard, wrote a very interesting letter to the Shawnee dispatch about this subject. It can be read at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2008/apr/01/growing_costs/

Is it possible that commercial expansion could actually hurt rather than help the city?
Or, does the emphasis need to change as to exactly what kind of commercial development would be best?

What Happened Last Week?

As we all know, the incumbents in the Shawnee municipal election were returned to office.

Now, folks are going to offer a variety of reasons for this. So, I will offer my opinions.

The challengers all seemed to target the same issues. So, let's look at the three issues that appeared to be their primary focus:

A. The previous 17% property tax increase: While 17% is an extremely large number, when it is looked at in real dollars, is it really that significant? If I, as a high school drop out could see that the actual dollars were low, then apparently the more educated majority of Shawnee's citizens could also see that. The 17% amounted to approximately $8-$10 per month for the average homeowner in Shawnee. The average homeowner is paying approximately $60-$70 month for city services. Apparently, the majority of voters did not feel this was a major issue. Maybe, just maybe, they thought it was a fairly good deal.

B. Commercial development: Shawnee has been increasing the percentage of its tax base dedicated to commercial properties. Was this an issue? None of the challengers came up with any new ideas to increase or accelerate the trend that has been taking place. Even the KC Star made mention of that.

C. Smoking ban: Again, it would appear that a majority of Shawnee voters seemed to approve of the ban that went into effect. Some die hard opponents of smoking seemed to want to include those establishments that received exemptions under the new ordinance. Heck, virtually all "family friendly" establishments are currently covered. The "watering holes" are the ones that can apply for exemptions. Oh, and those that are concerned about the employees, it is just possible that most, if not all of the employees in the "watering holes" are smokers themselves. Was this an issue?

As in most elections, those that didn't prevail will sit around and try to determine what happened. Some will attempt to blame others. Some will attempt to analyze what they could have done differently. Did they zero in on the appropriate issues? Did they come up with new and innovative ideas? Did they come up with specific plans?
Why was the voter turn out low? Voter apathy? Voter satisfaction with the current situation? Low turn outs tend to favor incumbents. What was or wasn't done to excite the voters?

Looks Like the Incumbents Won

Looks like the 5 incumbents that ran for office were reelected.

Jeff Meyers, mayor, and council reps Cheryl Scott, Neil Sawyer, Dawn Kuhn, and Mickey Sandifer will all return for another four years.

Agendas & Special Interests II

Back in July of 2007 I posted a comment about these two terms and how they are misused, by just about everybody.

Agendas: Everybody has an agenda. Would a voter really want to cast a ballot for someone who didn't have an agenda? Don't voters want to know what candidates for office have in mind? Why is having an agenda a negative? Let's use the concealed carry law that went into effect here in Kansas. By letting folks know where they stood on this subject then the voters could vote for/support those candidates whose agendas were in line with the particular voter.

Special Interests: Same thing here. Using the concealed carry issue, those organizations that supported the idea also supported politicians that thought the same. And, the reverse is true. Organizations that were against the idea supported politicians that thought like they did. Both types of politicians were supported by special interests.

Rather than use these terms as negatives, use them for information.

KC Star Endorses Meyers

In an editorial today, the Kansas City Star has endorsed Jeff Meyers for re-election.

The article can be read by going here:
http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/547902.html

The article is also copied below:

"Jeff Meyers deserves second term as Shawnee mayor

Two experienced elected officials face off Tuesday in the Shawnee mayoral race.
Mayor Jeff Meyers has made a strong case that he deserves to be re-elected in his contest against City Council member Dan Pflumm.

Meyers, a teacher and head football coach at Olathe East High School, previously had served on the City Council for almost 10 years before his election as mayor in 2004.

Pflumm, president of a company that sells hardware and software to manufacturing facilities, has been on the council for six years.

As mayor, Meyers has not shied from controversial decisions. One of his toughest came in 2006, when he broke a tie on the City Council and voted to raise property taxes.

The increase, strongly backed by the city staff, was necessary to pay off Shawnee’s debt and to keep a strong general fund balance for unexpected expenses. Pflumm voted against the tax increase.

Meyers and Pflumm both say it’s necessary to aggressively work to attract commercial development. While Pflumm criticizes the incumbent for not doing enough to woo businesses, Pflumm’s remedy — using public subsidies — isn’t exactly a bold idea. Shawnee has used tax abatements and other incentives in recent years.

Overall, Meyers has provided strong and stable leadership for Shawnee, especially with his backing of programs to maintain infrastructure. He deserves re-election."

I'm Confused

I went to last night's candidate's forum at SMNW HS.

Was confused by some comments made by two of the council challengers, Imgrund and Weigel.

Both seemed to want to control spending but could not or did not say how, or what they would cut. The answers were along the lines of they had not studied the info completely and/or they did not have the info that was available to the council.

First, copies of the budget are available to all.

Prior to the budget being approved, various presentations were made to the council committees and the council. The info is available in minutes of the meetings, and on CDs. Also, if someone had attended the meetings they could have gathered the info live, and even asked questions.

What info isn't/wasn't available? That's why I'm confused.

Challenger M.I.A.

Yesterday the Shawnee Dispatch held their first on line chats with candidates.

The first two scheduled were the Mayor, Jeff Meyers and the challenger, Councilmember Dan Pflumm.

Surprise, surprise........Dan Pflumm didn't show for his. Add that to his attendance record at council and committee meetings and one wonders would Mr Pflumm really be able to have the time for the mayor's job.

Torquemada Revisited

Last night's council session got real heavy at the end.

Kevin "Torquemada" Straub again went on an inquisition with the Parks Department.

And again, the mayor had to remind Mr Straub what the function of the council was in a Council/City Manager form of government. Confirmed by the City Attorney, the mayor advised Mr Straub that he was coming close to acting contrary to Kansas State law. Mr Straub apparently feels that as a councilman he can act with impunity and do whatever he wants.

Details? My fingers couldn't handle all the typing. Read the minutes when they come out. Better yet, get the CD and listen to it.

Does Candidate Shoot From the Lip?

I’m really confused by some of Ward III challenger Bob Dyche’s recent comments to the Shawnee Dispatch.

One of his suggestions for financing a western aquatic center/pool would be to partner with the school district. That would be the DeSoto 232 District wouldn’t it? Well, just scroll down to a previous post “Pflumm’s Pfantasy” and look at residences C & D. These are in the 232 area. Their school taxes are almost 3x higher than the city’s taxes. Would the district really want to expend funds for this? This from a school district that has been unable to pass bond issues intended for building expansion, etc. I don’t understand the thought process here. Maybe that is one of the reasons why the voters in 232 did not elect Mr Dyche to the school board?

Another thing that makes me question his thought process is this statement of his:

“Dyche said the city needed the revenue from taverns, and a total ban could drive them out. But he said he doesn’t approve of using food sales percentages to discern what businesses can have smoking as in the current city ordinance. He would rather taverns be defined in some other way, set apart as places patrons visit specifically for drinking alcohol, unlike Chili’s or Applebee’s”

Needless to say I am not in favor of smoking restrictions. What I question is Mr Dyche’s wanting to use another method other than food percentages to differentiate between taverns (bars) and restaurants. Apparently he hasn’t done his research. All establishments that serve alcohol for on premises consumption must also serve food, by state law. The magic number is 30%. The city ordinance says, less than 33% in food sales then it can be a smoking establishment . Personally, I would have preferred to see 35%-40%. A low food sales percentage would indicate a primary drinking establishment where food is a side item. A high percentage indicates a dining establishment, where alcohol is a side item. The fact that he doesn’t offer an alternative is what concerns me.

His comments can be read at:

http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2008/mar/18/ward_iii_challenger_doesnt_approve_tax_hike/

More Misleading Info

Ward IV council candidate Frank Imgrund is following in the footsteps of Dan Pflumm in misleading voters.

In various media interviews he keeps harping on the 17% property tax increase. Please see the info in the post below "Pflumm's Pfantasy" to see what that translates to in dollars.

Also, in the below post we talk about commercial development. Do we want what Lenexa has? More and more non-revenue producing commercial development which in turn has made Lenexa's mill levy higher than Shawnee's? Do Shawnee residents really want that? Apparently Imgrund and Pflumm do.

Then, they go on and on about how low Overland Park's mill levy is. Well, golly gee, look at the revenue producing properties that OP has. The retail (and not just restaurants), the hotels, all producing revenue. Sure OP has office building and techie type companies...........but they sure as heck have loads of sales tax generating businesses.

I sincerely hope that Shawnee residents (especially in Ward IV) do not fall for the bovine scatology being bandied about by Frank Imgrund, Dan Pflumm and the rest of the Pflummbuddies. If they were to get elected, we would have, as another individual once said, an idiocracy in our city government.

Pflumm's Pfantasy

Dan Pflumm and his Pflummbuddies keep harping on the 17% increase in the city’s mill levy. What he is failing to do is to translate that percentage into actual dollars.

He is apparently relying on the following:
1. Many folks may not really look at their entire tax bill, and/or
2. Their initial reaction is to relate that percentage to the entire bill

Now, 17% does sound high. But let’s look at real numbers. Please keep in mind that homeowners pay higher property taxes for the school districts than they do for the city. When you add in the school bond issue taxes, those become even much higher. The “others” are JoCo, state, library, etc

Here is the info on 6 specific properties (these are real numbers). Property tax info is available online at the JoCo website if you have misplaced your copy. Check yours, and see what I am talking about.

Property A

Appraised & Assessed Value: $354,900 & $40,813
Total property tax: $ 4,586.62
City of Shawnee: $ 1,006.12
School Dist 512 : $ 2,076.62
Others: $ 1,503.88
If there was a 17% reduction in the city’s portion that would be $171.04/year or less than $15/mo. Did this homeowner get hit with an unreasonable increase for what our city provides?

Property B

Appraised & Assessed Value: $234,600 & $26,979
Total property tax: $ 3,062.77
City of Shawnee: $ 665.09
School Dist 512 : $ 1,357.12
Others: $ 1,040.56
If there was a 17% reduction in the city’s portion that would be $113.07/year or less than $10/mo. Did this homeowner get hit with an unreasonable increase for what our city provides?

Property C

Appraised & Assessed Value: $224,300 & $25,795
Total property tax: $ 3,652.36
City of Shawnee: $ 635.91
School Dist 232 : $ 1,797.39
Others: $ 1,219.06
If there was a 17% reduction in the city’s portion that would be $108.10/year or approximately $9/mo. Did this homeowner get hit with an unreasonable increase for what our city provides?

Property D

Appraised & Assessed Value: $244,600 & $28,129
Total property tax: $ 3,899.93
City of Shawnee: $ 693.45
School Dist 232 : $ 1,964.18
Others: $ 1,242.30
If there was a 17% reduction in the city’s portion that would be $117.89/year or less than $10/mo. Did this homeowner get hit with an unreasonable increase for what our city provides?

Property E

Appraised & Assessed Value: $236,400 & $27,186
Total property tax: $ 3,085.57
City of Shawnee: $ 670.19
School Dist 512 : $ 1,367.89
Others: $ 1,047.49
If there was a 17% reduction in the city’s portion that would be $113.93/year
or less than $10/mo. Did this homeowner get hit with an unreasonable increase for what our city provides?


Property F

Appraised & Assessed Value: $156,600 & $18,009
Total property tax: $ 2,074.69
City of Shawnee: $ 443.95
School Dist 512 : $ 890.61
Others: $ 740.13
If there was a 17% reduction in the city’s portion that would be $75.47/year
or less than $7/mo. Did this homeowner get hit with an unreasonable increase for what our city provides?

He keeps saying he wants more commercial development to take the burden off of the homeowner. Wow, is that why Lenexa with all of their commercial development has a higher mill levy than Shawnee?

Or could it be that the tax abatements given to commercial development put a strain on the homeowners to cover infrastructure costs. More commercial development means, among other things, more wear and tear on strets, more fire and police protection, etc etc.

Now, when that commercial development is non-income producing (no sales taxes generated) and they have abatements, it makes it worse for the homeowner. Are think tanks, research companies, and others that generate no sales revenue really that beneficial? They’re nice, they’re upscale, but do they help the economy of the city?

The city needs revenue generators, not fancy non-revenue generators.

A Memory Chuckle

This is regarding the posting below about Dyche.

The night that Straub tried to emulate Pflumm and jam the OP oridinance down everyone's throat somebody pointed out an interesting item to him. Without an in depth review it appeared that one part of the OP ordinance could prohibit a certain annual event held by the Knights of Columbus. Straub in his wisdom, picked up a pencil and said something to the effect of "Well, we'll just cross that section out". And he "x'd" through the copy he held. Now, he and Pflumm wouldn't want any interference with those events, would they?

Anyway, there are blog entries here that are contemporaneous with the events when they happened.