e [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] good morning Witchita and welcome to  City Hall we'll call this meeting to   order with us this morning is Minister  nah Shaw Woody to provide our invocation   following that invocation we will have the Pledge  of Allegiance and we ask that you please stand for both we do not have Miss sha Woody so we will ask   council member actually vice mayor  JV Johnson will provide the prayer let us all bow our heads and put us in in the  presence of God God please look over us all of us   who attend today council members and the audience  that we will always do your will whatever we ask   it may not be easy but we can get through it and  we know there's a reason why you ask us to do it   also let us pray for all the uh people  who are more unfortunate than us that   they will have the basic needs that  they that they need uh to survive and   hopefully eventually Prosper  all this we pray in your name amen IED Al to the flag of the  United States of America and   to the Republic it stands one  nation under God liy jce for all thank you vice mayor Johnston for  providing the invitation Mr clerk can   you please call the first item approve the  minutes of the regular meeting February 25th 2025 council members any items to be  corrected from the minutes I see none   I move to approve the minutes for the regular  meeting February 25th 2025 second motion and   a second any further discussion I  see none Mr clerk please open the role motion passes 70 Mr clerk  please call the next item Awards   and proclamations the proclamations this month   or this week are American Red Cross month  procurement month and women in construction week   May I please ask the members of the American Red  Cross Kansas to please come forward at this time good morning to all of you the proclamation  reads the city of witto Kansas founded in   1870 whereas American Red Cross month recognizes  the compassionate acts of people in Witchita and   renews its commitment to lend a helping hand to  Neighbors in need whereas Clara Barton founded   the American Red Cross more than 140 years ago  to bring out the best of humanity in times of   Crisis advancing this Noble Mission the volunteers  blood and platelet donors and supporters who give   back remain unwavering in their commitment  to prevent and alleviate human suffering in   the face of today's emergencies whereas the  American Red Cross shines a Beacon of Hope in   people's Darkest Hours by delivering shelter  food and comfort during disasters providing   critical blood donations supporting service  members veterans and their families saving   lives with first aid CPR AED and other skills or  delivering International Aid and reconnecting Aid   and reconnecting loved ones separated by global  crisis today the American Red Cross Works to   uplift our community and is made possible by  those who selflessly answer the call to help   now therefore be it resolved that I Lily woo  make mayor of the city of Witchita along with   the Witchita city council do hereby Proclaim  March 2025 as an American Red Cross month in   the city of Witchita and encourage all citizens  to reach out and support its humanitarian Mission thank you mayor woo and I would like  to thank you for coming to our Sound the Alarm   event too on Saturday and to the witcho  fire department for your partnership with   our free smoke arm program um our mission is  to prevent and alleviate human suffering and   we do that um globally um Across the Nation  and obviously in Kansas and right here in   sck County so I want to take a moment to thank  all of our volunteers our financial donors and   our blood donors for their commitment  to our mission thank you [Applause] thank you once again Shannon and the  American Red Cross team and volunteers   along with City staff who volunteer their time  throughout the year you can still get a free   Smoke Alarm by calling 211 and uh that effort  continues uh and it continued this weekend in   North Witchita by providing those free smoke  alarms I would like to now ask the city of   witch's finance department and purchasing  division to please come forward at this time good the proclamation reads the city of witch  Kansas founded in 1870 whereas the public   procurement profession plays an important  role in obtaining the greatest value for   each taxpayer dollar spent in the procurement  of goods and services whereas the purchasing   division at the city of wiah provides logistical  and Operational Support to all departments within   the city of wiah and works to ensure fair and  transparent procurement practices procurement   in compliance with applicable federal  state and local laws and regulations   whereas the purchasing division is committed to  providing highquality Services efficiently and   effectively strengthening supplier relationships  and promoting emerging and disadvantaged business   Enterprise program opportunities whereas  The Institute for public procurement has   proclaimed the month of March as procurement month  to further expand the awareness of the procurement   professionals role to government officials  the public business and corporate leaders now   therefore be it resolved that I Lily woo mayor of  the city of Witchita along with the Witchita city   council do hereby proclaim the month of March 2025  as procurement month in the city of Witchita and   encourage all citizens to recognize the role of  the procurement and supply chain profession within   business industry and government [Applause]  thank you mayor thank you for providing us   with this Proclamation today uh procurement month  highlights the contributions of our many diligent   and experienced proc procurement professionals  that make our organization successful really the   procurement professional has four objectives one  is to facilitate the achievement of departmental   goals by helping them purchase goods and  services everything from paper clips to sewer   treatment lift stations and everything in between  another thing that our procurement professional   try to do is we take this very seriously we  procure those goods and services looking for   the best value for the taxpayer that's very  important to us we also want to operate our   procurement division as efficiently as possible  and finally as the mayor noted in the proclamation   we want to do that within the parameters of the  purchasing policy and the many other regulations   that we need to abide by finally effective  purchasing would not be possible without a   very vibrant vendor base and we spent a lot  of time trying to develop our vendor base   we also couldn't do it without the many dep  departments that are partnership with us we're   grateful to them and finally we could not do it  without these support of the city council and the   city manager's office so I'd like to introduce  the members of our team here today Josh lber our   purchasing manager unfortunately could not make it  today but we have with us Jason Brogden uh you're   not in order but that's okay Chris Hazlet Tracy  Jordan lean Hendricks Valerie phow Rachel Carroll   Loretta is not here Loretta not and  Kyle becktor so mayor thank you very   much for recognizing these staff with the  proclamation today we really appreciate it thank you again Mark and the entire team in  the finance department really appreciate all   your hard work I do have to brag about the  finance department really quickly uh the   finance department just received the highest  rating uh or the city of witcha received the   highest rating for S SMP which allows us  to borrow money and it is at the Triple A   rating which is the high highest and the only  other city in our region that has that rating   is Oklahoma City so it is under the guidance  and Leadership of Mark Manning and the finance   department that this rating did increase so  thank you very much and your [Applause] team may   I please ask the nawc greater witch talk Kansas  chapter 12 to please come forward at this time good morning the proclamation reads the city  of Witchita Kansas founded in 1870 whereas   the greater witch Kansas chapter 120 has  distinguished itself for 57 years as the   voice of women in construction in Witchita  Kansas whereas the work done by the greater   Witchita Kansas chapter 120 has benefited  Witchita through Community Development and   educational programs as well as promoted the  employment and advancement of women in the   construction industry whereas the construction  Community represented by greater witcha Kansas   chapter 120 has been a driving force in  fostering Community Development through   renovation and beautification projects promoting  of skilled trade careers and a positive vision   for Witchita the greater Witchita Kansas chapter  120 has sought to achieve successful results in   our community in a Cooperative spirit with other  organizations this year women in construction week   the keys to the Future celebrates the strength  and knowledge of women and the vital role they   play in shaping the future of the construction  industry now therefore be it resolved that I Lily   woo mayor of the city of wood wiah along  with the Witchita city council do hereby   proclaim the week of March 3rd through March  9th 20125 as women in construction week in the   city of Witchita and encourage all citizens  to celebrate the organization on its many accomplishments thank you mayor wo and thank  you to the community for bringing awareness   to women in construction as especially this  week if you'd like to know more about us we   have a Facebook page LinkedIn page as well  as face um sorry a website and we would   love to have you join us in our mini events  that are taking place this week thank you Mr clerk please call the next item public agenda the public agenda allows for  up to five speakers to have 5 minutes each to   address the council no action will be taken  relative to items on the public agenda other   than referral to the city manager for information  as necessary speakers will please State their name   and address for the record a Time clock will  display the speaker's remaining time to speak   order and rules of the Quorum will be observed  the first speaker is LaFonda gray grants or donations good morning uh first of all i' like  to say uh good morning to uh mayor W councilman   Council women um representatives for wit talk  Kansas my name is leonda gray everybody calls   me Sergeant gray I represented uh post 273  American Legion here in witch talk Kansas   and uh I'm I'm coming to you because I've come  to you previously in regards to dealing with uh   um grants and and possible loans I was going to  read off this paper but I forgot my glasses and   so I'm have to wing it um I first of all I want  to I want to acknowledge councilman hoisel uh   for his support he he's ideal I mean questionable  unquestionable uh and and Mary woo as well um I'm   speaking for the veterans that can't speak for  themselves um I I fought in three Wars and uh   uh I believe that we were deserving of attention  to grants and Loans or possible donations to uh   the American Legion to keep it sound and the  structure up to up to par um um I I'm just   some Pro just some areas of of recognition that  that that American Legion represent our American   Legion is um I I I listen to that that amortal  words that mayor W said about the beacon of Hell   uh I you know I I can't state in place enough  emphasis on how important it is that that we uh   support the the veterans of wi talk Kansas it  it alleviates crime if we help them then they   won't have to go out and do and be pushed against  the wall and have to do something crazy and get   thems in compromising situation with the law um  we uh we represent the the the the mogram support   systems at the American Legion we bring in the  the big bus or RV that you want to call it then   the nurses of American Legion I mean the nurses  of witto Kansas come in and support that and get   that going every year American Legion sponsors  education to young people about citizenship   sportsmanship and fitness financial assistance to  American Legion raises money to help veterans and   their families during time of need as well as  underprivileged families in our community the   mental health aspect the American Legion offices  peer-to-peer resource and destigmatized mental   health support the American Legion emblem is  a badge of honor and symbolizes service and sacrifice the American Legion family consists  of the legionaires the son of Legions and the   uh auxilary we were founded in March 15th 1919  in Paris France en closing I'm asking you to um   please consider and take the time to look at the  veterans here in wit Kansas because that's what   we're talking about we're not talking about uh  um Boton RS Louisiana we're talking about our   city which Kansas now I've went around and I  D diligently um took time these are hundreds   of signatures here in wi talk Kansas or not a  thousand of signatures around here every page   is full every page and I mean I did what it takes  and I need to find out what and I need to do to   get these funds to where the American Legion can  substain themsel and not be uh headed to sanctions   or closing possibly thank you very much and y'all  have a blessed day thank you Sergeant gray council   member tutle thank you and and thank you for  being here and thank you for your tenacity and   coming back into seeing is I really appreciate it  um I mentioned um one of the other times that you   came to visit us that I'm a member of the greater  witch veterans advocacy board and I'd love to   connect you with that I also saw that you were  going to be coming to speak and so I happen to   know one of the past executive directors of the  American Legion at the national level um and he   also chatted with me a little bit one thing that  he did mention is that local chapters of American   Legions are not able to accept funding from City  or State um and so we may not be able to allocate   any funding to you but there might be some other  resources so um I'll make sure to connect with you   again and and make sure that you get with the  greater witch off veterans advocacy board and   then you know some other entities that might be  helpful to you yes ma'am thank very much thank you mayor we will continue with public  comment Mr clerk please call the   next individual the next speaker is  Cil stum city council not answering   her questions about why her house was torn  down and nobody was doing anything about it my name is civil strum I resided 326 North  Walnut I was not notified that the central would   come in and take my house my house was historical  landmark 1910 why went on the historical landmark   registry that's another question I want to ask  you my house was a safe haven for kids that were   in drug infected houses and alcohol houses I  had done things for the community like go uh   teach at Franklin Elementary teach at Allison  teach sometimes at West High I was not aware   that the central was going to come in my house  take pictures without my permission and then what   happened is my stuff was stolen my Victorian tub  was stolen my property was stolen that is not what   we're supposed to do I I mean how would you like  if someone came in your house without permission   and destroyed it I was upset I went to Brandon  Johnson Becky tutle and others about it I said why   why did you let this happen I was on 2909 North  Richmond when I got a call from one of my neighbor   s who was deceased he said that a guy came in  and just took pictures and I called Dave unre   about it I said hey somebody is in my house rans  sacking my house taking pictures what can I do I   informed the police department I am upset I  want answers that's why I come back here all   all I asked is why am I not on historical  register deal it was 1910 it was made by doc   Mr Sprat uh a plasterer yes it was underground  basement he did bootlegging but I was not I was   not informed of it and and I just think if  that's the way you want to play that's not   going to be good I heard about the crown up  Town Theater that's been there for a long time   and now it's going to be demolished how many  historical landmarks are yall going to take   I mean my house was a safe house for a youth  of America I was outraged I have a picture of   the house but that's beside the point it was a  place where kids would come to my house and sit   on my pores and say I can't do it I can't be  with a parent that's going to be taking drugs   I can't be with a parent that's going to be an  alcoholic I can't be with a parent that's going   to be angry and frustrated I need to come over  to your house even the police depart Department   brought him over in the middle of the night all  I ask is why why you all did not tell me about   it my stuff was stolen my Victorian tub which  cost 2,498 I don't know where it went they took it and I'm outraged I'm very outraged I've  been for the community I am always always   been for politicians but I am not going to  stand for it no more I need to know where   do people get off stealing things and not  getting in trouble for it I mean I've been   there I am really upset I have I'm going  through emotional trauma mental problems   and physical problems because the house I have  I'm fixing it up it was supposed to be fixed   up by the the Central and the Metropolitan  planning was bad too they were not involved   they were involved yeah they were involved  all these people were involved give me an   answer Give Me A Sign cuz I'll be coming back  here all the time thank you thank you syil we will continue with public comment which means  there are three individuals who can come forward   and address the council please state your name  your address and then you can begin your five   minutes good morning my name is author Stokes  and I'm at 2614 South topeko and I live in an   apartment I'm here to introduce myself and I'm  glad to be in I never really addressed and been   in a council meeting and I'm I'm really glad I'm  I'm enthused to be here you know why because of   the issue with the city uh housing and dealing  with uh black mole tonson okra tonson and uh it's   a serious issue in dealing with black mold and the  landlords for as tency and it matters because of   the the health hazards with uh the elderly people  like myself uh we we're coming through covid-19   and you know I was pretty Eed that I even survived  I had uh looking at the statistics on that hit   like uh in my family and all of my members in  Florida I lost two family members back to death   back to back and while one member was passing  away from covid the other member which was uh   her brother couldn't even make it to the funeral  because he had Co and he was in the hospital he   was never going to make it there dealing back to  the topic dealing with uh okra tonin it was in it   was in my apartment where uh my former apartment  that I lived and I had to be out of there because   uh I couldn't get anybody seemed like to take it  heart that uh this stuff was in there I couldn't   get I couldn't get maintenance in there to  help me I couldn't get the city or anybody   Cho seem like get on point with me on what was  happening in there actually the the bathroom I'm   I'm a tall guy the bathtub uh had cracks in it  and leaks is going to cause that black mold the   furnace uh got black mold in it which destroyed  the house you know I had to get rid of a lot of   the property in there you know so it took a while  after making I've call everywhere I could possibly   think of in here and everybody turned me down for  is getting apartment inspected so uh I finally got   an independent to come in here and every time you  talk to people about Mo you talking expensive you   ain't even talking normal you know man or you  know you you talking expenses with these people   so I got them in there and uh they had me to do  a test through a layup and I had like we normally   should be at 6% txin normally all of us in here  I was 17 and a half% and they found two txin in   there so uh that's pretty high then I had to hire  it that same team to to try to get me to a doctor   I went to one of my primary doctors at the VA  they didn't get me tested so it's like been a   battle just really trying to address this issue  I've been to the emergency room about 30 times   and uh they didn't treat me they kind of like  helped me they kind of like gave me a little   Band-Aid they gave me this stuff called uh a GI  cocktail and what that does it kinds like sues   my dig test the system down I still got a lot of  testers to go in I call attorneys to try to get   answers I couldn't even get anybody to uh address  this situation for me you know so the doctors   that deal with this they're not around you the  doctor that I was seeing on this I had to zoom in   with this man uh in Palm Beach Garden Florida the  medicines was expensive and I'm still taking medic   since I'm still going through further research on  the matter to uh try to find out you know what's   going on me it's it's it's been devastating you  know this has been a a battle you know I'm like   I'm coming out of Co and then now I'm dealing with  this I'm like oh my God I I'm I'm I'm asking for   suggestions I'm asking for the city council  to try to step up uh further in we we being   real slight with the little landlords we're like  we're tapping them on the wrist and stuff and they   getting away with the briefcase too man I mean I  need I I need you all to address this is for like   myself the kids if it were probably a kid in my  custody in my house that kid wouldn't be around   not when you got that much txin floating around  in the air and it gets into the system too thank   you thank you Mr Stokes council member heel uh Mr  Stokes sir um um I believe you are my constituent   um actually with your address that's where I grew  up so I'm pretty familiar with that area um we are   working on some additional ordinances right now  um to kind of combat some of the issues you're   talking about um I would love to I would like  to get in on the ground floor with you yes sir Ian please please contact me I can tell  you where we're at with what we're doing   and where we're going to go and some of the  um obstructions we have towards effectively   U meeting the the conditions that you're talking  about here so I'd love to have that conversation   and see what I can do for you council member  Johnson thanks mayor thank you Mr Stokes for   coming today I also want to share that uh we we  definitely are working on that and we've been   talking about it as a council uh hope hope  here in the next 60 90 days you'll see some   conversations about things we can do to address  that I appreciate you having the courage to come   up here and speak about it I continue to I I  hate hearing stories like that I truly hate   it and um me and a few of my colleagues have  been in spaces like the one you're talking to   talking about and we've seen the black molde and  we've seen um some really devastating things we   met uh a woman in district 6 who had been to  the emergency room nine times because of black   mode and her one-year-old child as well because  of that we have to do something about it and uh   we are committed to trying our best to address  that so thank you for being here council member   Ballard thank you mayor Mr soaks I just  want to Echo my other colleagues and tell   you we appreciate you coming we know and we  know that you're not alone my question for   you is how did the conversation go with your  landlord and is if you're in an apartment are   the apartments around you I assume there's mold  in there too is everybody trying to talk to the landlord this is uh a downtown complex that I live  in uh prior to where I'm at on the south side of   the city and uh there were other issues with other  tenants they just didn't handle it appropriately   with me uh they were like well we have to take  this out and that out hey you could have put me   in a little motail somewhere you know and fed me  until you did that you know you know excuses best   serve the person that makes them you know when you  getting that money from us we need you to do what   you're supposed to do as a landlord you know I  wouldn't be having this problem and ongoing issues   you know had that been addressed there are people  that they just had to move out and while I was   there there was a a young lady we had to move her  out but when it was when it was in my apartment   and it got into the furnace they just wanted me  out see and and that that that don't fix fix the   bill it just only escalated you know Newton says  for every action there is an equal reaction and   this is how I'm responding to it today I mean I'm  not really proud of of being sick and having to go   to the emergency room and take all of this stuff  and taking all of these medicines and you know but   I'm going to make the best out of it I'm going to  make it we will make it well I appreciate you like   council member Johnson said Having the courage  to come and tell us uh sometimes we don't know   things at specific places until people take the  time or send us an email or call us so I really   appreciate you taking the time to be here and I'm  I'm on board with the rest of my colleagues to to   try to help and see what we can do it's it's it's  a privilege to be here and you know there's times   y'all don't even I I can't even share that in my  spot is so much that I couldn't go no further than   my bed and my bathroom that's that's full as I  could make it that's how bad this stuff was was   was working on me they're saying that it's not  in there now but I've been back to the emergency   room again so it's it's saying you know my body is  they're saying we don't see in it but my body is   saying hey that does not even compute otherwise  I wouldn't be having to have a procedure coming   up on the 27th of this month colon oopy you  know and all of this stuff they got to check   everything you know it's a Miss council member  Johnson thanks mayor got questions I just want   to go on the record to say that I absolutely agree  that property managers and landlords should cover   the cost of moving someone out while they fix that  and you shouldn't have to pay anything sure amen   thank you Mr St Mr Stokes we will now continue  with public comment we have two more spots good morning Council it's uh Andrew crane  with guiding paw uh ICT and also citizen of   witch Kansas and a disability uh Community  um and and that um I am here today to talk   to you about the uh access and sidewalk  access and then also a big issue with   the bikes and scooters that are on the  sidewalk that are blocking um the uh   blocking the uh sidewalks and uh also the traffic  uh uh traffic uh hang [Music] on um uh traffic uh   s sidewalks also um at uh push uh walks uh walk  uh crosswalks and and stuff um that is a big big   issue in Witchita and I challenge you guys today  to uh really walk in the downtown area and see   the some of the problems because it needs to be  addressed to you guys and it needs to be fixed   um and and that and people in wheelchairs do not  can't get uh access and it's GNA it's going to be   a big problem you're going to see lots of disabled  uh people in wheelchairs here and you're going   to see a lot of blind and low vision folks here  um in in the in the chamber because we're we're   we're tired of getting uh denied and you know  not fixing the problem the city needs to wake   up here and start fixing the the the sidewalks  and start fixing the access access points I I   definitely encourage you guys to start walking  the the city streets I walk them every single day   and it's it's time to wake up here and officially  make the the city fantastic let's go any questions   please thank you Andrew council member Johnson  thanks mayor this question isn't for Andrew and   I know this is random because um this wasn't on  the agenda but I think our agreements um with   the scooter companies I think they're required to  have those scooters on the corner and not in the   middle of the sidewalk and there was an additional  fee that would have to be paid when they left them   there I can't remember if that was the initial  contract or this the new one but I don't know   Jennifer do you remember I I don't know I can sure  get that get back with you on that okay thank you   council member hoisel thank you mayor uh  thank you Andrew um I a couple questions   are you speaking mostly about like trip  hazards uneven sidewalk is that more what   your well there's the a lot of the scooters  that are getting left in uh crosswalks um   and up to the The Crossing are getting uh left  and and that and they're not picking those up   and you know the it's a problem if if you guys  are not if you guys are not going to pick them up   uh and and move them so folks can access the the  sidewalk and people in wheelchairs can access the   the sidewalks I mean it it's it's it's going to  be terrible and you know I'm going to be tripping   over you know bikes or or anything and it's it's  going to be a big problem hle and Council it it   needs to change we need to have somebody picking  those up and putting them in the right spot all   right well I appreciate you bringing this to  me uh we will look into this so I appreciate   the clarification thank you again Andrew we  have room for one more individ to address the council I I see none we'll bring it back you  can't speak twice unfortunately but you can   anyone else who would like to speak can address  the council all right we will bring it back to the   bench Mr clerk can you please call the next  item consent consent agenda items 1 through 13 council member uh Ballard is thank you  mayor I would like to pull I believe it's 4B yes 4 B any other items to be pulled I see none the board is still still showing Ballard very good uh motion to approve the  consent agenda without item number 4B second   motion and a second any further discussion Matt  council member Ballard oh it's on the board again motion and a second any further discussion   I see none all those uh please  Mr clerk please open the rooll motion passes 70 we will now  go to consent agenda item number 4B mam mayor city council John philb real  estate administrator for the city uh this   item concerns leasing a vacant space in the  Oldtown Cinemas retail and we presented a   lease with a new tenant uh it is set up is a  $19 per square foot triple net lease um with   three-year term and a two-year option and  I'm ready for any questions council member Ballard thank you mayor um Mr fber this is a  different type of lease than we have done in   the past correct this is a different lease  based on the discussion that we had in um   early February when we looked at extending a  couple of the existing leases um we had been   using a modified gross lease and based on that  discussion we're using a trip net format where   all the expenses are passed on to the uh tenant  as additional rent okay that's all I needed thank   you so much I have further questions regarding  triple net leases um so I'll start off with   according to this Green Sheet um the fixed  rate for this space will now be $10 but the   triple net itself will be $9 for a total of 19  so the space itself will be permanent for the   contract period but the $9 could change at any  point I read the the actual contract and so if   the property taxes go up um and we did not collect  enough then it could go up beyond that $9 but does   this contract allow for more than or only below  because according to the contract it seems like   only below um if we don't capture enough then  it doesn't appear that we could claw back and   ask for more um the way the contract is written  the way triple net leases work is is is how you   described it initially we do an estimate of our  expenses those are counted as part of the rent   at the end of the year they'll be in accounting  if the actual expenses are higher we will Bild   the tenant if the actual expenses are lower the  tenant will get a credit on ongoing rents and   then the next year we'll adjust to whatever  the then current expense levels are so right   now we're looking at about a $9 per square foot  triple net if expenses came in at 10 we would ask   for an extra dollar a foot from the tenant if  they came in at eight we would remit a dollar I'd also like to know according to the base  rent of $10 per square foot which is usually   what people first and foremost know it as they  don't necessarily talk about the triple net   portion they talk about the base rent is $10 fair  market value in that area or in a comparable area   um I know that I asked some tenants along ke uh  Douglas not too far away from there and their base   rent was approximately $12 to $14 um and I know  this is right next to a new uh or reinvigorated   movie theater and there's more activity happening  in that area so I'm just curious is $10 base rent   actually fair market well the base rent and we  have a subject matter expert here we have Josh   Turner who's president of land Mark commercial  that can expound further on this but the the   base rent is is basically what the landlord is  going to collect what tenants look at is their   total rent they look at how much they're paying  and if they're paying if it's a gross lease and   they're paying $19 you know all of that goes  to the landlord and he pays the expenses out   of it if it's a triple net lease in this case  they pay $19 and nine of it's a expenses we use   that for expenses and we get 10 but the what the  tenant looks at is they're all in rate not so much   their their bottom line it it's it's B base plus  triple net is what they look at they're that's   what they're concerned about is what they're  paying and and based on what we have heard from   landmarks seen in the market and so on um $19 is  approximating you know Market in this area may   even be a little bit above and if correct me if  I'm wrong but I know that you're saying $19 but   if for instance some expenses are lower really  that would be reduced so it would not be $19   say it's a $2 uh reduction in expenses in the  triple net part you're actually simply paying   $17 in this case and so is that fair market value  and is this competitive and so so maybe I should   ask the subject matter expert regarding that  question um what is the actual average around   that area and because people will look at you're  right the entire rent um but triple net is the   new method that uh we're fearing towards the  gross one was one that had less transparency   frankly this has much more transparency  and it allows the public to have a base   uh level conversation because that's usually  what other community members who rent spaces   all around the city talk about yes mayor the uh  base rents are affected by a lot of things one of   the things in comparing to properties on Douglas  because I looked at those as well um they have a   much higher traffic count even with the theater  and full activity the traffic counts in this   location have never been even close to Douglas  Frontage um other things that have ffect it our   expenses the expenses on this particular property  right now are very high so that affects your base   rent because ultimately the all in uh like Mr  Philbrook mentioned that's what everybody's   looking at is how much is it going to cost me to  occupy the space so you know we kind of have have   put together a plan to try and reduce the expenses  because they're they're they're pretty high um and   they they there's definitely lwh hanging fruit  that we can go for to reduce some of those   expenses which will allow us to in the in the next  couple of years increase That Base rent um we've   said you know by looking at the comps uh Clifton  square is probably the closest comp as far as the   layout and the traffic uh patterns uh and they are  in all they're all in there at roughly 15 um with   triple Nets and their base rents their base rents  are a little higher triple nuts are significantly   lower uh we feel that the target get all in  should be between 17 and 20 a foot and that's   kind of where these leases are falling we just  need to restructure them so that it allows for   the Triple net element to it because I agree  it's much it's much more transparency and It   ultimately creates a fair situation for everybody  involved thank you I have one more question for   you according to this lease um for instance the  AC in this space will that be the responsibility   of the landlord which would be the city of which  sign its citizens or would it be the tenant who   we're signing a lease with I believe it will be  a tenant responsibility item uh standard triple   net lease is typically put that on there uh the  biggest challenge we're facing there right now   with M uh maintenance is the Expansion Joints  in the parking garage have deteriorated and so   every tenant has leaks in their ceilings because  the roof there is the parking garage so um that's   the biggest challenge we're facing right now  so we're constantly changing out um you know   ceiling tiles and uh items in the ceiling to so  another thing that's driving up our our operating   expenses and that is a concern of mine I know  that we've been talking about Oldtown parking   uh Downtown parking and the Deferred maintenance  of parking structures and this is a structure uh   on top of these uh tenant Le spaces uh so my  question then goes back to the triple Nets um   will that take into account also these major  repairs that would still need to be uh considered   by the city and its citizens to pay in order  to not have leaking uh ceilings and all these   um major projects this is a unique situation that  you don't find all the time I would say typically   uh Capital level expenses of this nature would not  be something that would be included in triple Nets   that's typically a landlord's expense however you  could I would say you could reasonably allocate a   portion of the expense to maintain the the parking  structure immediately over these spaces as part   of the the maintenance on an ongoing basis but if  it becomes a capital level expense or it's a full   replacement or something that's typically not  something that you see rolled into a triple net   expenses thank you my question now will be back  to staff then what are we doing as a city City uh   to prepare for these Capital level expenses which  will be much more uh strenuous on the budget uh   when triple net does not cover Capital level type  of expenses um so mayor I'll try to maybe jump in   just making sure that we're differentiating as  it relates to capital outlay for these retail   spaces and not necessarily the capital outlay  for the parking structure associated with it   um the capital outlay for these retail spaces  again as the base rents come in those cover costs   associated with Administration and then there are  monies that are generally set aside for future   Capital outlay right if we're talking about the  parking structure associated with it that's kind   of a whole different strategy we're actually in  the process right now of getting an evaluation   there's an RFP out on the street right now to have  a better understanding exactly what expenses need   to be incurred and what improvements need to be  made when where why and how kind of wor them first   um as it relates specifically to the retail spaces  themselves the base rents that we receive will go   towards setting ass sign dollars for those Capital  outlays which is again back to my question is the   $10 going to be enough to pay for a kitty that  we're going to have to pay for Capital level major   projects and and this has been a conversation now  for months regarding deferred maintenance and how   we're going to pay for deferred maintenance and  so for me I'm trying to figure out how the city   will be paying for this deferred maintenance uh  when we have an opportunity here to capture fair   market um I still don't believe that $10 for  base rent is fair market but um again I'm not   the subject matter expert but I do believe that  when you talk about uh Capital level types of   projects they have to be um considered not just  right now they should have been considered years   in advance but we're we can't go back in time  so we can only move forward and this is a new   contract and one that we would be tied to for  the next three years two years or three years   three years three years so maybe I believe that  we need to have a further conversation regarding   the Deferred maintenance how we're going to pay  for it and I understand that right now there is   process to try to be more accurate on how  much deferred maintenance actually is uh being   accumulated in these structures because right  now it's 19 million is that right that was the   estimate initially 19 million yes that's correct  19 million was the original estimate for all of   our parking structures and lots all of our parking  assets uh and so that does not include again the   ret retail spaces that may be associated with  those right um we're not I'm not aware of any kind   of significant deferred maintenance in any of our  retail spaces any any anticipated capital outlay   in any of our retail spaces but we'll be more than  happy to kind of go take a look and investigate   that and put together a strategy sort of a three  five 10e plan on what we think and know and   understand with with regards to these uh retail  spaces associated with the parking structures again I'm having this conversation so that  everyone can see that this is a very complicated   subject and changing number one from a gross lease  to a triple net which is standard by Community   is number one step for transparency but also  number two making sure that when we have a base   rent we're also taking into account are we able to  pay for Capital level expenses over time and that   is the biggest concern when we have a structure  or any building maintaining over time has to be   part of a a savings account that we have to keep  putting into and when you have base rent that is   to me a $10 base rent seems low and I understand  people look at it as in whole the 19 but $10 is   just what the city is getting um and we're not  taking into account Capital future uh major   expenses it's a concern to me so I will not be in  favor of approving this um again I'm only one vote   though councilman Rich J uh vice mayor Johnston  thank you mayor I appreciate your concern for for   maintenance of it but right now this is an empty  space so right now the city is paying the triple   net they're paying $9 we're losing $9 a square  foot on this right now because it's empty uh if   we fill it then somebody else pays that $9 plus we  get the rent of $10 so I'll very much be in favor   of this uh I'm familiar with the market rents in  there and I think it's fair um anytime you have   empty space it costs you money because you're  paying the triple net I would we in favor of this with that since council member Ballard  pulled this item thank you mayor I'd like   oh actually sorry I apologize I think we  changed it uh last year so there is now   public comment regarding this I don't believe  there's any further questions for staff so we   will now open it up for public comment anyone  from the public would like to address this matter I see none we'll bring it back to  the bench and again vice mayor or sorry   council member Ballard thank you mayor I'd  like to take the recommended action approve   the lease and off not authorize  the necessary signatures second   motion and a second any further discussion  question I see none Mr clerk please open the rle motion passes 61 Mr clerk please call the next  item Board of bidden contracts dated March 3rd 2025 good morning mayor member of city council  Jason Bren Department of Finance uh board   convene yesterday March 3rd  for the following bids uh   third in W bash storm water improvements  recommend Barkley Construction LLC for $ 47,49 water main improvements  12 12 in water main along 167th   Street West from Harmony Street  North West 1/4th section to serve   Cypress Glenn second edition recommend me  Construction Incorporated for $ 117,000 $495 water distribution system  and sanary Sewer improvements   to serve nrd Edition tide recommend n  construction Inc for aggregate total of $422,000 25 we have for purchasing liquid  poly electrolyte recommend poly Incorporated   for estimated use annual usage of $11,800  we have pool chemicals contract change   order for a change to the original  contract Amendment for to $ 57,8   188.50 we have janitorial services for  various buildings contract change roosting   Building Maintenance this is adding our service  treatment plants into it uh adding group 21 for maintenance contract for a minute cost  of $226 7 we have one Bobcat model uwv   u56 toolcat utility work machine for ducon  Bobcat North America Incorporated for $ 84,3   a49 we have GSI aerial Imaging subscription  renewal for near map us Incorporated for $588 we have wonderwear AV V software  support renewal for logic Incorporated for $8,600 have snow and ice removal contract  change for airport for SML Inc doing business   as suburbian Landscape Management amending the  contract to $55,500 uh for the airport we have   nec phone system service agreement for Comm  link ICT Incorporated for aggregate total of   $108,000 we have the paging system Assurance plan  electronic contracting company for aggregate total   of $133,200 this is how to become a vendor with  the city of wiah this is our purchasing calendar   we have some upcoming events the purchasing  either hosting or participating in with our   small business associates this is our current  open public opportunities and I will try to   answer any questions and recommend you approve  the bo the board of bids questions for staff I see none I move to approve the  board of bids second Motion in a   second any further discussion I  see none Mr clerk please open the role motion passes 70 Mr clerk please call the   next item amendment to ordinance 52 629  sidewalk repair assessment for 1314 North Avenue good morning mayor City Council Members  Paul gunselman Public Work can utilities for   the record the item before you I do not have a  PowerPoint but however when the um it was noted   that when the the statements were to be mailed  nailed out we came across an error within the   ordinance with the U address of 1314 North Oliver  Avenue that is the address of the United States   Postal Service there at um 13th Avenue just south  of the intersection there and the United States   Post Office is exempt from special assessments so  we are removing that item from the ordinance to   clean that up I will stand for questions questions  for staff and so because the US Postal Service is   exempt does that mean that the citizens of which  SH now pay for that sidewalk yes and that was uh   $93.60 I believe mayor and can you remind us  whose responsibilities are sidewalk repairs   that is the uh adjacent property um who fronts  the street betac some property along the street   so not the citizens of wiah uh as the city of  Witchita can you explain that further okay sorry   the um yes the uh properties's uh any Frontage  along arterial streets it is the responsibility   of the citizens that own that property we do  have some exemptions um as noted today as well   as um at the intersections or Corners um City  witchta pays for for um those outside of the   property lines as they intersect as well as any  city-owned property then the city would pay for   those as well and in front of city of wit toop  Parks Parks fire stations police stations Etc   yes but if it it's again a property owned by a  private citizen that citizen must pay for the   repairs of the sidewalk correct that is correct  yes thank you council member Johnson thanks mayor   can can any of these funds be used to restore  service to neighborhoods they've taken service from I'm dismissing okay thank you no further questions for staff thank you we   will now open it up for public comment  I see none we'll bring it back to the bench I will move to approve the proposed  assessments pass the ordinance as amended on   second reading and authorized necessary  signatures second motion and a second   any further discussion I see  none Mr clerk please open the role motion passes 70 Mr clerk please call  the next item Financial advisory Services contract good morning mayor members of city  council I'm Mark Manning with the Department   of Finance uh today I want to present to you  for approval the financial advisory Services contract uh we use a financial advisory service  organization or what we typically call our   financial advisor or sometimes you'll even hear us  call it our fa uh we have a contract with our fa   they assist us with our note and bond financing  uh that's a very technical process and we have   a uh several experts that help us in that field  and our fa is one of those uh they help us Market   bonds they also help us review refunding  opportunities and they provide us a lot of   strategic guidance on our financing methods  uh the costs that we pay them vary based on   the amount of time we use them which is  measured by the principle of our note and   bond uh serieses that we issue so uh the cost  depends on how active we are in the capital   markets so our contract expires uh here soon  uh so we issued an RFP several months ago and   we receiv received five responses we formed a  selection committee composed of staff from the   city manager's office finance department Law  Department Public Works and utilities and the   airport uh we actually interviewed three of the  firms after we'd shortlisted and our selection   criteria included things like the qualifications  of the firm the proposed scope of services and   the price the uh committee selects recommends  Piper Sandler as our fa and the contract terms   that are proposed are one-year contract with three  or with four one year renewals and that's pretty   consistent with what we've done in the past  so the recommended action is to approve the   proposed contract with Piper Sandler company and  authorize the necessary signatures and that is   the end of my presentation I'd be happy to answer  any questions thank you Mark questions for staff   I see none we'll now open it up for public comment  I see none I'll bring it back to the bench I will   move to approve the contract with Piper Sandler  and authorized the necessary signatures second   motion and a second any further discussion I see  none all uh Mr clerk rather please uh open the role motion passes 70 Mr clerk please call the   next item multi- agency Center  lease and operating agreement honorable mayor members of Council Troy Anderson  assistant city manager um so I won't belabor you   all today with sort of how we've gotten to where  we are um it's been a process uh but this is the   culmination of this idea of creating a multi-  agency Center that multi- agency Center which   um is focused on achieving functional zero as  it relates to homelessness um also responding   to folks with mental health so substance abuse  um consists of not only a congregate shelter but   a non- congregate shelter a navigation Center  and ultimately a housing component so we have   secured property we have begun Renovations um  we're currently in the throws of an emergency   winter shelter that is now winding down as that  contract is set to expire March 31st and so the   next step in the process is to hire that operator  uh so what we're presenting to you to do is a   lease an operating agreement um with a new 501c3  that has been created to serve specifically to   satisfy this function of leasing the facility  and operating the facility as a multi- agency   Center uh again covering governance management  fundraising and that agency is known as Mac board   Inc you'll hear me refer to that throughout so  just really really high level I'm going to run   through through these um while all obviously not  all inclusive right this does touch on some of   the high points within the lease and operating  agreement um it is for leasing the premises   uh which includes not only the building  but the ground surrounding the building   uh and addresses uh the request of uh service  providing operations for the Mac the term is 25   years with renewals and extensions upon Mutual  written consent by both parties the rent is a   dollar upon commencement and a dollar each year  thereafter each party's responsible for their   respective Insurance the operator is responsible  for routine building maintenance and repair the   city's responsible for structural maintenance  and repair operators responsible for maintenance   of grounds upon substantial completion cities  responsible for maintenance of grounds through   substantial completion operators responsible for  utilities upon substantial completion and cities   responsible for utilities through substantial  completion so just to kind of summarize those   last uh four right that this project is is under  renovation as we continue to um make longterm   investments in the property uh there are um  Remodeling and additions being contemplated   so throughout that process until such time as  those Renovations rep are substantially complete   again City will be responsible for maintenance  of the grounds and the utilities and then upon   substantial completion we'll sort of turn over  the property in its entirety to uh macbor Inc   and that that point in time they will then be  responsible for the maintenance of the grounds   and utilities Financial considerations city  did allocate $5 million in arpa funding for   operations back in December the cost associated  with ongoing maintenance and utilities through   substantial completion is anticip to be about  $123,000 law departments reviewed and approved   the agreement as to form and it's recommended  that city council approve the lease and operating   agreement and authorize the necessary signatures  we do have representatives from Mac boarding here   to answer any questions if you have otherwise I'll  stand for questions you Troy we will begin with   council member ho Heisel thank you mayor uh thank  you Troy you guys have been putting in a ton of   work on this so I appreciate all the providers  here as well and everybody on the Mac board I   just had a couple of uh quick questions of some  clarification on the contract and whatnot um so   you talk about um it's our duty to maintain  the premises until substantial completion um   you know page six on here talks about it'll be  the operators uh Duty after that when do you   expect substantial completion to be finished so we  are aggressively trying to uh obtain substantial   completion by uh the uh by year end by the end  of 2025 that very M that very well may bleed   over into sort of q1 of 2026 um depending on some  of the final determinations of what improvements   additions alterations modifications are made to  the building but we are working feverishly to try   and turn over the property as quickly as possible  okay um so it is the plan that are we going to   have public works or parks and recck help maintain  the property until then we have that plan figured   out yes okay um uh what is what do we have any  idea what the first phase of construction is going   to look like what are we going to tackle first or  is that still being worked out so I can tell you   right now that uh the project is still currently  under renovation um probably the easiest lowest   hanging fruit that we are currently the process  of trying to address is the twostory part the   old schoolhouse part of the build because there  is sort of no access and no use of that part of   the building today um that's been the primary  focal point uh additionally probably the other   significant improvements that you'll start seeing  are improvements related to the grounds right we   are doing some utility relocates um some utility  extensions into the property um we're going to   start constructing that north wall here in the  very near future uh and so there's you're also   going to see sort of a flurry of activity in  and around site related improvements those are   the two things that we're really primarily  focused on right now um we've been working   with uh Mac boarding and the service providers to  better understand exactly what the final sort of   footprint and and building layout is going to look  like uh feel like we have a pretty good idea where   that's going and so we continue to fine-tune that  uh we've been engaged with the contractor and our   development partner throughout um pushing them  to sharpen their pencils and make sure that we   can do sort of more with um with less um and  uh we're we're actually really excited about   kind of the direction that that's going okay and  um on the sheet they gave us about timeline they   talked about some providers getting in there  on the 1st of April do we have any idea um   what providers we can get in there I will defer  that to the operator for their response thank you good morning council members so to answer  your question um we will be working to to get   a full-time shelter operator in there April 1  that is key primary most important because the   key thing on April 1st is we do want to make  sure that there is a 365 day a 247 shelter   continuing operation April 1st now until we get  this agreement signed we are not able to sign an   agreement with a provider that is top priority as  soon as this piece of the puzzle is finished uh we   are on ongoing um discussions with several folks  that are already currently operating in emergency   winter shelter such as humankind mental health  of America um and several others at this point   in time so we are having ongoing discussions I  think we'll be ready to do those things it's just   a matter of one step at a time I appreciate that  um one other or one of the other questions I has   pertain to uh it's on page 10 of the contract uh  confidentiality and it says that when we get the   information we're going to comply with the Kansas  open records act and produce um upon written   request documents pertaining to this agreement  other than those uh covered by Express exceptions   to disclosure listed in this act um what other um  exceptions do we have to that is there any barrier   that you guys for seee with that you answer  that so I was looking around for maybe private   information of people no so I was looking around  for our legal council to weigh in but so long as   we're not in violation of any other federal  state or local laws um again obviously we're   going to try to protect the the confidentiality  and the safety and the security of the patrons   and clients frequenting the Mac but again just  making sure that nothing that we're going to do   is in violation of any federal state or local laws  otherwise okay so when we uh request information   there's a 72-hour turnaround that we are expecting  did I remember seeing that in the contract 72 okay   um all right the last I guess the last question  I do have is sorry I get into the weed here   sometimes um the city of witch will not conduct  oversight of the operator except as oversight as   authorized for the city pursuing to this agreement  or any other agreement between the city and the   operator uh do we have any other agreements that  we're not aware of here or is this justce document   so this lease and operating agreement goes kind  of hand inand with the funding agreement right   so there's a slew of other reporting and and other  requirements that are specifically laid out in the   in the funding agreement so the two in conjunction  with each other really cover the breadth of our   agreement with mboard Inc for funding Leasing  and operating the facility as it exists today   okay well I appreciate it that's all I have thank  you guys council member Ballard thank you mayor I   have a lot of questions um first of all I just  want to thank everybody um so many different   groups group of people that have been working  really hard on this um but I have to be honest   I'm struggling with a lot of it um maybe that is  because I feel like as a council member I'm the   closest to it um our adjacent property owners  have been so kind to put their app on my phone   with their cameras so I get to see everything and  more that I want to see that is going on and that   was one of my main concerns is I need to know  what is going to be different on April 1 because   I stood up in the front of room at the advanced  learning library I said there would be no   loitering there would be no trash there would be  not this this this and all of that is happening   and I know it's extremely overwhelming but  it's unacceptable and we have to do we just   have to do better and I'm happy to go pick up  trash I have myself I want to be a good partner   as I know you guys do too but there's just some  things that absolutely have to change absolutely   and appreciate that and so we'll start with a  couple of things we're doing currently before   we take over April 1st start yesterday we had a  great meeting with WPD to discuss what are some   of the issues that they're seeing how do we you  know work together to address issues like people   getting um you know on based on disciplinary  action being kicked out of the of the building   currently we have created some some dialogue  around that uh we will be looking at some of   the ways that we can better reduce you know issues  with inside the building that will cause people to   be pushed out into the neighborhood one of those  is deescalation can we create a space within the   building to uh help work on deescalation that's  also bringing in training for staff members how   do we work more on deescalate you know the  situation before having to have somebody   ask them somebody to leave the building uh we  talk about trash we've been in contact with   United Way um Outreach team one of the things we  realized is that as we work with other community   partners that are doing Outreach they have better  connections with this current popul popultion of   people than we do we'll be working closely hand  inand with those people I've already had meetings   with the folks over breakthrough uh to talk about  um opportunities they may be able to help us with   as well um and so as we continue on over the  next month we have I have board meetings with   several other providers coming up to discuss  ways that we can address a lot of these issues   we understand that the loitering piece um you know  it's Public public health issue it's public safety   issue that was part of the discussion we have  the police department again we don't have any   concrete plan U because that is going to be work  in progress but what we do understand too and I   hope you understand in this agreement there's  a little difference we did agree to take over   the entirety of the grounds um so that you know  some of the trash issues are things that we will   be responsible you know working hand inand with  the city to get trash picked up and things like   that we are also making inroads and Outreach  to other uh say faith community folks as well   you know can you help us here's what we need help  with here's what we need assistance with but what   we do understand is that from a priority ation  standpoint the trash and the and the um folks   wandering around disrupting businesses is high  high on our list of things to tackle immediately   um I have a couple other things if you want um  so I think we are also currently holding U weekly   meetings with emergency winter shelter provider  humankind again to do analysis what is working   what's not working what do we continue what do  we have to change because again currently we're   operating an emergency winter shelter um in all  of our discussions it has been very clear that   we switch the flip the switch April 1st and say  this will now be a shelter right we still want   to maintain operations we still want to make  sure people are housed people are fed but that   it's it's we're no longer in that emergency cold  situation and there are a lot of things that we   will start to do a lot of that is going to be  very very dependent upon construction schedule   and so part of that is as well um what spaces in  the building are available to us what spaces in   the building are available to our providers will  change over time as construction is ongoing um   and we'll have to adapt and we understand that and  we're we'll be getting prepared for that as soon   as we get that construction schedule clarified so  we know what happens when and what we're going to   have to maneuver around awesome um two more things  uh really quick can you talk about um what will be   different with um emergency services and you know  all of that as far as like I think there's been 466 requests for service at the emergency winter  shelter as far as EMS fire and all of that how and   I think uh 67% of those were just transported  to the emergency room so sure we were talking   some serious money and I'm not the expert in the  room but to me it makes sense to bring somebody   to the shelter and I know the purpose of the  emergency winter shelter is just keeping people   alive and fed and so I totally understand that but  there's a lot of visits from from EMS over there   totally appreciate that and I agree right and we  understand that so I believe we have two separate   meetings set up one this week with County and EMS  and other health care providers some of which are   currently already working in that space to really  address that issue how do we be more proactive   how do we provide some level of of medical service  without we can't operate a clinic in the building   but can we provide some sort of medical service  currently I know U my understanding is that EMS   has a unit that is fairly clo station fairly  close to the winter shelter so it reduces uh   call time and whatnot but really the goal will be  over the longer course of time is how to address   some of those issues um within for the citizens  or the persons in the shelter to prevent having   to call an ambulance to go to the ER right whether  that that is some sort of respit care dealing with   chronic conditions dealing with um you know the  normal everyday kind of cough cold kind of stuff   so we do have meetings set up to address those  we're going to work that out we should have we'll   have an answer before the end of the month and  my last question is security sure I think we've   talked about um several times about potentially  maybe needing more security um for the safety   of everybody around the neighborhoods the people  using the shelter and staff correct and so again   one of the things that does change um Council has  approved a very generous budget for us right so   very different when we talk about the funding  we have versus the funding that the emergency   winter shelters had um that budget is was fairly  constrained pretty tight and with a high number   of users that have been in the building this year  that budget is is going away quickly we understand   we've got a little bit more of a Runway and we  understand that if we have to address that on   a staffing basis whether that is working with  provider or uh hiring those folks separate so   we can train them that's something we're working  on currently right now but we do understand that   security is what in our top three priority pieces  because that is also a choke point for getting   into and out of the building if security is called  off to go deal with an issue there's nobody there   to let people in the door so we understand that  and we also look you know forward to uh figuring   that piece of the puzzle out fairly quickly thank  you so much you're welcome council member Glascock   thank you mayor thank you um my questions are  probably more for staff at this point but I   probably do have some for you as well regarding  the term of the lease under uh sub item 2 25 years   seems pretty extensive for organization and I have  full confidence that the organization is going to   manage the property well but 25 years seems like  a long length period for organization that's up   and coming right now what's the justification for  that given that we're going to have to update this   agreement after Renovations anyway uh given uh the  end of the agreement uh sub Point 13 so on both   sides of um one of the first things we heard uh  with regarding the length of the term was making   sure that there was sufficient runway for Mac  boarding to stand up and run right so commitments   from um from Community Partners investment from  other folks who might want to make investments in   the property or into the operations they needed to  know that this um had a fairly long Runway right   um maybe not 25 years but at least probably more  more than five probably at least 10 right they   they wanted to see an initial period and term  that um if they were going to make significant   operational changes if they were going to make  significant financial contributions that there   was a long enough Runway that it wasn't just a  one or twoyear lease on the other side of the   term right is the uh are the termination Clauses  associated with it right so there's nothing that   precludes both parties from mutually agreeing to  terminate the agreement there's also termination   Clauses for convenience right if for whatever  reason the city no longer wants to do this or   there's a termination Clause specifically for  the city party that if we want to terminate for   convenience we can do so there's some there's a  timeline associated with that but we can terminate   for convenience at any point prior to the 25-year  term additionally the the the operator can also   terminate out of convenience given a certain  time period in notice so we have the we have   the back stops for terminating the agreement if  necessary but we also wanted to sort of balance   that with giving them enough Runway to make sure  that it's this is a long-term investment um we   also think about things like 15-year terms  for things like housing right that there's   it's got to be a 15-year investment in things  like housing and those kind of so that's why we   continue to kind of push the term out if we need  to reduce the term I I think both parties may be   amendable to that um but those are the things  we wanted to keep in mind with having a longer   term but making sure that we could terminate for  convenience if we had to okay I'd just be intered   to hear probably the discussion on the council  um 15 years is substantially different than 25   years I would be 5 years old and this would just  be coming up before the council again so a lot   changes uh since I was five to now um so I have  questions about that maybe still um regarding let   me see uh item number six the city including any  authorized representative and agents reserves the   right to enter the least premises who is the  determinative of authorized is that from the   council is that under the manager's discretion  who is authorized who's not authorized could   one of us show up to the shelter and be able to  enter could a public works employee show up who   determines the authorization so I think that that  is mutually shared right to your point everybody   you just named is potentially pre-authorized right  uh you're right we're going to have to get into   the building to do things like maintenance and  repairs right there's going to want to be site   visits right uh there's compliance measur me  that will need to be made we as you heard from   the operator ma uh that there are going to be  law enforcement individuals um EMS individuals   right that there's going to be a whole host of  folks that are going to want and need to have   access to the facility and so we that language  if you'll notice is narrowly interpreted right   we want to make sure that it's not just an open  house um but at the same time um I believe that   through our conversations we both mutually agree  that there's are folks who are going to need to   get access to the building to to do the things  that they need to do so they're theoretically a   subsequent document that talks about protocols you  know my only concern we're trying to balance this   with security of the individuals there and also  confidentiality is let's say a city employee walks   up and they just flash a badge or they just going  to be admitted in or is there a list of who can be   aded not so as we we develop well as the operator  develops those policies and procedures we're going   to be coming alongside them sort of every step of  the way you notice there towards the end of the   lease agreement uh there's a requirement that  we meet regularly right and we meet routinely   so we're going to be coming alongside that  throughout the process to make sure that the   city's interests are communicated and incorporated  into those policies procedures Etc we also have a   representative the board has been expanded from  five members to seven members um the mayor sits   on the board as a representative of the city as  well so we feel like we have a pretty good conduit   of of communication and correspondence to continue  to make sure that the city's interests okay are um   that will dub tail I have about four three or four  more questions regarding the city's representative   on uh the board that would be determined I  would presume by the board's bylaws correct not yet so we have expanded the board  to seven we have not changed the bylaws   we invited mayor wo to join the board we will  be as we get through transition period and we   review and revise bylaws we will be looking to  create a specific rolled position for a person   from the city um probably the mayor but we  have not yet made that final determination   the vote that we did make was to invite  the mayor or not invite the mayor invite   um mayor woo to join the board uh to help  facilitate communication okay um so it's   really the determination obviously of the  board but the city's making a significant   capital investment in this project and I have  full faith that you won't kick off the city's   representative from the board but unless that's  codified theoretically could happen and then the   city's making this large capital investment as  the landlord of the property without a guarantee   that there's a long-term representative from  the city on the board to dire direct policy so   question of her staff would it be appropriate to  codify in this agreement if the city is operating   as the landlord of this lease facility that we  have a representative that's codified in the   agreement not just in a bylaws that the city can't  determine that could be changed without the city's directive I think that's a conversation that  we would probably have to have with the other   party to see if those terms and conditions how  that language is drafted um I don't know if I   can't necessarily commit the operator at this  point that's really sort of their call um to   your point could that language be added  to the lease and operating agreement yes   any language could be added to the lease and  operating agreement the question is whether or   not that language is amendable to both parties  well the and these questions aren't indicative   of macbo ink or anything else I just know in  the past the city has had complications with   certain contracts that we don't have I think  the clawbacks that we need and also the um   I don't know the safety for the citizens and the  taxpayers in and so I'm just trying to this is not   reflective of you all I think you're going to be  great operators but it's more reflective of City   Contracting making sure we have certain standards  in place so so let me address that question and I   understand where it's coming from and I appreciate  that what we are asking today is for approval of   this particular contract mainly because of time  constraint the the contract is very clear we have   opportunity to amend the contract at any point  in time and can do that we've had a really good   working relationship with both City staff and  City legal we understand that there are certain   things that may not be in here all you know all  everything that everybody wants um however we also   understand we've got a very very finite time frame  to get things done um as Troy said we are always   open to comments suggestions and thoughts if that  is something well we don't want to is derail um   getting this agreement done because if we derail  that today that puts everything else we're doing   and further and further behind um we do have to  get an operator agreement with an operator for   the shelter so we have that ready to go April 1  so I you know I would have no problem you know   again we have everything in here it says we can  amend this contract upon a mutually agreed two   pieces of both parties and we're always more than  happy to open of those conversations additionally   I might just jump in we know that we're going to  have to revisit this in really short order right   there's a project three we've been talking about  right that's the housing project we're going to   have to revisit this agreement in the very near  future because um there's going to be terms and   conditions that are going to be associated  with project three that need to either be   incorporated or excluded from this agreement  right and so we know that we're going to have   to revisit this in in short order the kind of  thoughts and suggestions that come out today I   I think are certainly things that we can uh talk  about introducing in the next iteration of it we   know we'll have to revisit it but this also  is a 25e contract and so theoretically both   parties still have to agree to any revisions in  the future as well so those are things that I'm   just struggling with I the board's full so I'm  going to I have two probably quicker questions um   one of the main objectives and we discussed this  in macbo Inc is the fundraising component corre   um though also in this agreement listed under  the responsibilities and we're looking at   item the operations within the least premises  which is item number 10 a through L it doesn't   mention anything necessarily about fundraising  unless I skip past it and about the importance   of that though that is in my view one of the  primary objectives of Mac boarding against   the fundraising so can you elaborate on that as  well absolutely and I think that that's a really   great question uh what I would say is that  again from an operating agreement standpoint   um that is really our responsibility we know that  inherently because we are going to say if we going   to we're going to have a 25-year contract it's  our responsibility to find the money right we   understand that whether that comes from public  private philanthropic uh donations that is a   huge part of what we're going to be doing as soon  as we get some of these like blocking tackling   things out of the way one of the other pieces to  the puzzle is we understand that we have urgency   in hiring an executive director that is part of  the work we'll be working on starting tomorrow at   our board meeting tomorrow is what type of person  do we want to have to be our executive director   what skills and talents do they need to have uh  fundraising is going to be very very top of the   list second piece of the puzzle that's really  important to that role is operations right we   have to have a really good operations person  we understand that that may be two different   people right and so we understand that not only an  executive director but potentially either a chief   operating officer or a fundraising person of some  sort we have already or in the process of securing   grant funding from Kansas Health Foundation to  help with some of the fundraising pieces of this   especially as a startup organization so that is in  the works has been approved by their board we're   just finalizing some details we can get started  on that piece as well so yes we do understand that   every minute that we spend fundraising is going to  help us on the backside of the agreement I think   one of my primary fears would be the expectation  or the I think false expectation that the city   would come in and subsidize the entire operating  cost just because it's not codified it's not in   an agreement say we have 25 years I don't want it  to come back back and four years and say hey well   it wasn't in the agreement and so this is on you  to be able to maintain the operations the facility   and not on the operator Mac boarding so that would  be one of my concerns the last question I have on   this would be for City staff and not for you again  thank you for everything and I'm excited about a   potential partnership regarding our agreements is  it this and this is a overarching question about   a lot of our contracts specifically this is it  the leaser or the operator that's presenting us   a contract and having us sign it or did we write  this contract and present it to them to have them   sign it I know obviously you're in consultation  but who is the primary writer of this agreement   so this started several weeks ago I mean it's  been probably six to eight weeks now that we've   been trading papers right um we had legal counsel  on our team representing the city going through   that um the operator had legal council on their  side of the table negotiating it the I want to   say the original draft came from their attorney  and then immediately we reviewed that and added   language terms and conditions that we wanted  to see into the agreement and then there's an   evolution and that arrives at where we are today  this is unlike this is a lease and operating   agreement probably unlike we have ever SE so it's  not as if there's a template out there that we   can pull from right this this was something  that we kind of had to build from scratch   knowing and understanding what we were trying to  accomplish um it was a mutual effort between both parties council member tutle thank you and I  will have more um accolades during the comment   section this isn't as much a question but just  an observation um two thoughts last week we had   meetings with um Mr Dixon and and also Misty  Brookner from wsup ppmc is very helpful lots of   questions I also took a tour yesterday so I got  to see you know firsthand some of the concerns   that council member Ballard had regarding  um people outside I thought yesterday um   was well managed um because but the weather was  really good and it was you know probably just a   different scenario one of the comments that I made  during our meeting and I just wanted to reinforce   the importance of it again is when the Mac Inc  board is deciding membership I I do think it's   important to have someone from city council  district 6 on on the board that's my opinion   because they're the ones who is going to hear  the most feedback I also think that it would   be extremely beneficial to have someone from  the neighborhood association adjacent to the   multi-agency Center emergency winter shelter  be a part of the board so that way they feel   that they have a voice actually let me  rephrase that they will have a voice and   their concerns can be heard directly so those  are just two suggestions that I have and and   as I mentioned I'll have more accolades after  public comment thank you thank you vice mayor   Johnston thank you mayor I'll do my accolades  now I want to thank the board very much for   the hard work and uh which do state senator  I appreciate that I do have a question for Steve Steve do you have an idea of what the  annual budget will be to run this so I do   but I'm going to bring James up to talk about  that because he is has this nailed down to the   the te and I prefer to have somebody that really  knows it explain it to you okay vice mayor James   Roberts with the public policy and Management  Center the there are really sort of two budgets   that have been created at this point in uh August  and September a group of providers that were   familiar with sort of the operations necessary to  execute a facility like this were brought together   to sort of do some initial estimates on what it  would take the the benefit of that timing was that   the facility was somewhat known right the purchase  of the building had taken place but there was no   real understanding of what sort of operational  limits would be from inside the building or   otherwise at that time um the budget was put  together and estimated an annual operating budget   about 44.5 million right now that was designed for  full shelter plus navigation center with all the   facility and needs around it um that includes  no offsets no um no reduction from Personnel   coming from other organizations or offsetting the  Personnel needs there today what we're what we   know and and I think the question is what part  of the question is what is the budget for the   balance of this year and for next year that budget  is a larger scale than what anybody's anticipating   for this year or next year just because of the  transition the cost the construction timeline and   what's necessary so it's not quite an Apples  to Apples okay what what's your estimate of   remainder of this year and in 26 um without  agreements right which is I think as Steve   mentioned a difficult thing to do the the  most approximate cash flow analysis now would   be about two to 2.2 million for the balance  of this year next year uh it's I would not   feel confident saying without knowing what the  construction timeline's going to have I think we   have to spend that $5 million next two years yeah  abolutely sounds like you're going to do that no   problem yes I believe it will thank you further  questions for staff or mboard Inc I have a couple   um and for full disclosure as it's already been  said I am on the mapboard Inc um board and just   got on board in the month of February so I was  not privy to the first round of the agreement   so I am coming at the tail end of this um and  because of that and in consultation with law I   did not vote as a possible voting member on  the board and abstain from the actual vote   regarding this agreement so that I could vote on  the behalf of the citizens of wiah in my capacity   as mayor of the city of Wichita so um that has  been uh agree uh advised by law that as long as   I did not vote as a board member for MAB in  I would be able to vote as again an elected   individual mayor of wiah so my questions are now  regarding backboard Inc um council member Glascock   uh asked the question and I want further emphasis  on the role of Mac boarding so number one mboard   Inc is actually a 501c3 can you first address  that you are an official 501c3 and how do you know   you're an official 501c3 absolutely yeah we have  an IRS determination letter in our possession that   states that mboard Inc is an official 501c3 entity  um that has housed with ppmc and so yes we do have   that as final piece of the puzzle or a piece of  the puzzle and I I'll do a follow-up question can   you tell me when that was received approximately  um because in order to fundraise uh as a nonprofit   organization you must be an official 501c3 cor  therefore you couldn't uh fund raise prior to that   can you address address the time frame yeah James  I think you know that date sure the organization   was established Incorporated in October the IRS  determination letter was received in February   thank you very much and I appreciate that um I  will have comments regarding the timeline in a bit   my second question is back to the macbo Inc role  um council member glassco asked is fundraising a   major component of macport Inc um I do believe  that that is the main role U so can you address   again um we have a lot of funding gaps as you've  heard uh or you've mentioned which means that it's   still not going to cover everything correct which  really means either people are going to donate uh   provide in-kind services volunteer their time uh  to provide for all these different expenses that   are still incoming absolutely can you address  again what what the main role of macbo Inc is   in regards to fundraising and what steps are you  taking to make sure that fundraising Remains the   number one uh priority absolutely so I think  first uh first answer to that question is   again hiring an executive director right that  person you know whether that role is either as   Chief Operating Officer or as executive director  fundraising that's the the outfront point person   for fundraising second piece of that is we are  in constant communication with provider partners   to see again what kind of in kind Services  can we receive in the Mac um we have had a   lot of conversations about meals and I believe  we are getting closer to actually increasing the   number of donated meals that'll be coming into  uh the facility um again those are we are also   working with several other Inc kind I just had  a conversation today about um some additional   services that could be provided by others  within the in within the building once it's   complete but that is our mission is number one  to look at what exists providers you know can   come in and provide services that then are either  cost free or at reduced cost second piece of the   puzzle is we also understand that we've got to  go out to our business Community we've also got   to work with the county uh we understand that  budgets are exceptionally tight and things are   changing constantly all the time we know that in  order for this project to work we will continue   to seek every funding opportunity part of again  the um Kansas Health Foundation Grant is really   specifically designed to help us find new  revenue streams possibly even external to   the city meaning the city of wi not the city  uh Council or the city budget but externally   even to the city of Witchita what other kinds  of national local grants can we go out and go   after one of the things that we want to make sure  we do is we don't want to pull funding from the   existing infrastructure right we don't want to  pull funding from our existing Partners they are   partners of ours they we are relying upon them  to help us provide services within the building   we don't want people to say hey I was funding this  organization over here I'm just going to shift   that $110,000 over to Mac board right that's not  right that's not the way we should operate so we   have to look at what are the externals and what  are the ways that we can accelerate fundraising   the the grant will help us a substantial amount  with that as well thank you so um one last   followup to this uh individual that you are going  to hire an executive director can you share that   time frame of when an executive director who would  then be managing the actual operation correct of   um this facility so that mboard in can focus their  time on fundraising absolutely so in our current   timeline we are we will be working again to get  description done first we have to get consensus   among board as to you know what it is we're going  to be asking this person to do that will hap start   happening this week secondary to that we will  then go out start start looking or put posting   you know we're looking for an executive director  here are the job descri here's the job description   here's the pay rate all those things um hopefully  there are great qualified candidates here within   the city or within our region we don't know yet  because we haven't posted that so we hope that's   the case but our commitment to not only Council  but also to the our provider Partners is that   we are not going to settle you know just because  somebody's local uh we want to have a plus player   in that role we understand this is a very very  important um project for not only the city but   for our entire citizen citizenry of Witchita we  will hire an A+ player our timeline right now is   we'd like to have that person in place by the end  of Q2 or end of June we are willing to go a little   bit further out if we have to in order to get that  A+ player to commit um perhaps potentially move we   don't know what that exactly looks like um but  again our Target date is end of June you Steve   you're welcome now I'll ask questions so I asked  about fundraising which again this is a 501c3 that   the city of Witchita is going to provide which has  provided $5 million for 2025 and 26 but there's   still a funding Gap and that funding Gap will  require people donating Services in-kind Services   uh volunteering their time uh picking up trash  even at volunteer um opportunities so that's my   ask um is can you please make sure that the entire  Community knows that there are opportunities for   them if they can't donate financially they could  donate time absolutely and collaboration is the   key to this whole fundraising of a CommunityWide  shelter uh that would be available for the city   no I I agree and appreciate that because this will  take a community effort and everybody has either   Time treasure or talent that they can contribute  um this is again we we've hired a Communications   team as well our consultant I would say it's  not we're not they're not our team they operate   independently how part of what their job will be  what their roles is to help get website up get   name uh finalized so that once we get this Rebrand  done we can get website up we can start really   communicating out we do have a very uh clear and  concise communication plan we realize that one of   the things as we've been working on the nuts and  bolts is that you know talking about agreements   and funding agreements and things like that is  not very exciting for most people to read about   but now that we are getting ready to really  take on the role of what is it that we're doing   we can start to communicate to people on a very  consistent monthly basis out to General Public to   our providers on a very consistent basis uh we  are going to step up the game on communication   significantly over the next starting now um but  throughout the next several months year because   we do understand that people have to understand  what it is we're trying to get done and what their   role can possibly be thank you again Steve and  thank you for reminding the community that they   can donate Time treasure or Talent absolutely so  my second question um in big question is about   operations the city of wiah is not in the business  of operating a shelter therefore this agreement is   so that this new entity called backboard Inc will  be the operator of this entity corre can you talk   about uh number one um how that transition process  right now is occurring um because it currently is   an emergency winter shelter that will end on March  31st with a temporary shelter that's operational   247 that will then move on as correct part of back  so can you share what's the transition period for   the operations absolutely and and I appreciate  that question and so our intent currently again   pending finalizing agreement today we will be  able to move forward rapidly again in a lot of   the conversations we've already been having  with providers our initial goal is to secure   um a shelter provider an operator um for the  building that will take continue either continue   operations or takeover operations April 1st in  addition to that we are also working with several   other entities we talked a little bit about uh  medical we've talked a little bit about WPD we've   talked a little bit about um food so all those  conversations now if we have operating agreement   in place we can now go and say we're ready to go  we're ready to move let's get started the other   part of this puzzle course is again construction  what parts of this building will be available to   whom by when and again size and space makes a big  difference uh one of the big issues we've talked   about with WPD yesterday was trying to find ways  to do deescalation within the building right we   have to have a quiet space we have to have some  trained staff that can actually go in and work   with folks that are maybe struggling a little  bit more maybe having some uh behavioral issues   that are not really great to have a group setting  um we also are working going to be working with   folks on finding things for people to do right any  of you that have been on tour understand that in   an emergency winter shelter there's really not  a whole lot of space to do much um so a lot of   folks are in day room and there's you know some  activity um but it's really we want to work with   additional providers to bring stuff for people to  do to get them uh you know more active than just   sitting around you know at a plastic table in  a chair and again that's part of the transition   and again today is March 4th right and March 31st  is right around the corner um so I wanted to know   again back to emergency Sheltering um really is  back to just the very basic basic needs making   sure that people don't freeze and they have a  place that's warm to seek shelter as well as   food um and so I know that humankind Ministries  who is the operator has been doing a fantastic   job trying to make sure that the basic needs are  met correct um and so they have been operating at   either capacity or near capacity um so starting  April 1 though um it won't be an emergency winter   shelter can you explain how again some of these  individuals who um not all of them have been   there since the opening which would be November  29th but some have been there for multiple weeks   how are you transitioning them to Services even  right now so that again April 1 you don't have   200 plus individuals there correct and and so I  think a lot of that goes to mindset right we you   highlighted this mayor is there's a big difference  between emergency winter shelter of you know   survival versus shelter right and and the goal of  Mac long-term and starting April 1 will be how do   we start to get people involved in housing and  and focused on housing and housing plans so one   of the first key pieces of the puzzle is how do  we bring in additional providers to start looking   at housing options and getting people that have  been potentially there since November stared to   focus on building a housing plan and getting them  out of the shelter into something more stable more   current now again large big picture that's the  Mac we all dream of and hopefully is finished   by the end of this year or q1 of next year um we  will have a lot more space to do that but we'll   be working with providers again to highlight those  folks that have indicated they are ready to move   or at least start the process uh we'll be talking  to additional providers on bringing in additional   uh Services into the building again we have a  space right now for for providers to operate a   little bit we'd like to bring in more and we like  to have that space bigger however there are some   additional priorities we have to look at as well  again getting back to um impact on neighborhood   how do we do certain things that are taking care  of the guests submit to make sure their experience   is is different but then also we still have to  remember that Focus always is going to have to   be on housing housing first housing second housing  third uh because this is not a permanent place of   residence this is a place for people to come in uh  get whatever Services they need whatever whether   it's a driver's license whether it's a social  security card whatever that is with the goal to   help them move into permanent housing successfully  may I ask one more question followup I know that   there are some providers in the community  um because I've received the email um one   in particular Union Rescue Mission is a men's  shelter um they are willing to be in the space   even now to connect individual men correct uh to  get them out of the emergency winter shelter into   transitional housing which transitional housing  are three-month programs or one-year programs um   may I ask how will that be incorporated  once this operating agreement is signed   absolutely that is something that again as we  get the agreement signed um I've David and I   have been in communication um already and that  will allow us to again allow the board to have   those conversations and typically what happens  there mayor is I go make presentation to board   of that partner so that they understand where  we're coming from who we are what we're planning   on doing and I asked the question what how do you  see your role what would you like to see and again   as we work together as partners um as long as we  don't have any conflict of values or conflict of   um the way things need to be done uh we're we  want anybody and everybody but Union Rescue   Mission will be an integral part of this uh going  forward absolutely we understand that thank you   Steve council member Ballard thank you mayor Steve  I just have one quick question how will you guys   streamline the process for getting providers in  the door I know there's been some trouble so far   with providers being allowed access in side and  that's a great question I understand I we've had   that comment from more than one person um and that  is something that again as we are meeting with um   current provider humankind right now that's that  is part of our ongoing conversation because we   do understand that the more people we can get  in that are providing services to these this   particular group of guests um the better off we're  going to be the faster again that we can get them   in stable and into permanent housing the better  off we're going to be so that is a on going and   be uh we will have a as we finish up policy some  procedures we will have an answer for that for sure thank you very much Steve James  and Troy for answering questions from   this bench um I think we might still  have some lingering um questions or   comments but at this time we will open it  up for public comments so you guys can sit   uh tight but now we will have the public  anyone can address this specific subject   the operating agreement of mboard Inc um  and you will have up to five minutes per person it appears no one wants to talk  about this item so we will bring it back there appears to be one individual  who would like to speak on this [Music] matter I apologize operating and funding uh  something that we need to truly serve our   neighbors but this agreement it's so lopsided it  honestly appears to have been written by a seller   of swampland and public Bridges it has Eerie  similarities to the ballpark de development   agreement which many of you know how much that  cost us in both time talent and treasure to defend   fact the fact that it was a lousy agreement and  it's going to have repercussions years down the   road some of those similarities are Anonymous  principles we have no idea who's on the board   uh it's on page 12 we have one or two names and  uh those may or may not represent everything   the registered address of this organization is a  witda state po. box now I understand we don't have   offices yet and maybe they'll establish a public  public facing office in the Mac down the road but   right now that violates the IRS transparency rules  uh I've only had there's a form called the IRS 990   that every nonprofit has to have in the world I've  only had two organizations in SED County ever deny   access to an IRS 990 the Chamber of Commerce and  another public private partnership under former   ownership Botanica refused to show their IRS 990  we have to make sure that people have a physical   address where they can show up and say I want  to see last year's 990 and actually by RS rules   they have to have the last three they've also  seemingly inherited a transparency attitude from   the homelessness task force the homelessness task  force web page right now is missing their fourth   quarterly report from Q4 last time I checked  we're in q1 that report should be online they're   also missing their meeting notes and their  uh presentations from all of 2024 that's got   to get cleaned up and we expect to have public  documentation available you guys can steal my   thunder any day the week when we're on the main  mindset of accountability for Kansas open records   act or even registration with the IRS I will  publicly apologize for making a comment privately   to someone yesterday where I said I can't find the  IRS paperwork I must have been searching under the   wrong thing yes computers misbehave for Vince to  it happens uh just so I will you know I always   send you comments afterwards so I will have both  the Kansas Secretary of State's ID which is dated   October 11th 2024 so that you guys know that and  the IRS uh EIN number which was granted January   24th 2025 so in both cases they have registered  exactly like they're supposed to I do believe   that we should have the Articles of Incorporation  and the bylaws made publicly available on the city   website on page four section B we write to them  that we they we want them to establish bookkeeping   to document income and expenses nowhere in this  agreement that basic income and expenses going   to be made publicly available that just seems  like Common Sense we do have a quarterly report   of emergency incidents but no other quarterly  or annual reporting of their finances we ask   that they uh take that back we do have an annual  report of outcome measures and monitoring of the   programs but not of the inflow and the outgo that  doesn't seem quite right to the previous point we   are exempting the backboard from uh the booking  requirement uh they're being exempt from Kora   because we're designating them as a non public  agency that's just like our CVB and you've heard   issues before about our convention and visitors  bureau is a public private partnership and they're   not accountable to Kora that's not right we  talk about confidential data that should be   communicated in writing it basically allows them  to declare anything they want to as confidential   information and then that won't be publicly  disseminated un like uh we've already gotten   that one a former unhoused friend of mine does  believe that there are a lot of people in this   town getting rich from providing supposedly  nonprofit Services I think we should have   accounting and accountability and as a certain  president taught us we need to trust and verify   so I hope this works well I want to make sure that  we've got some good transparency I'll stand for   any questions council member Tuttle I'm sorry  I don't have any questions my name was on the   board for comments after I thought public comment  was over we'll continue with public comment thank   you anyone else from the audience who would like  to speak on the operating agreement with mbard   Inc AC see none we'll bring it back to the bench  or council member comments council member Tuttle   thank you sorry I pushed it too soon I didn't  see Vincent coming down to join us um I just want   to take an opportunity to thank some folks that  definitely need the accolades um I want to thank   Sally Stang our director of housing I remember the  first time that you came and presented to us and   said the mac and I thought oh my gosh I've missed  a brand new acronym what's going on um so thank   you for being Forward Thinking for being tenacious  and and bringing a concept such as this to us um   also thank Troy our assistant city manager I  can't even imagine the amount of hours you've   put into this project I know it's been aate labor  of love for you so thank you I want to thank and   congratulate the newly 501c3 recognized Mac board  Inc um you are community members you are people   who just care this isn't in your job jar there's  no expectation for anyone to do it but you are an   excellent example of what Witchita is where we  stand up and take care of each other I wish you   nothing but the best I'll offer advice if I can  but please please please no or you are appreciated   and supported uh also want to thank humankind  as I mentioned I was there yesterday um it was   probably one of the most humbling experiences I've  had in a long time and I realized how different my   life is from so many and you know it but until  you see it and you see people and you see true   human suffering and I have never seen such care  and compassion offered to the res that were there   so thank you for your partnership and all that  you do it's absolutely not lost on me I also want   to thank the mental health and substance abuse  Coalition board um we kind of have been muddling   through this and then kind of passed the Baton  to the homelessness task force so for all of our   Community Partners who have been involved in this  process thank you um I did also want to um say to   Mayor and Steve you stole my notes because one of  the things I wrote last night and when I did my   tour is that donations are needed needed not just  from public private Partnerships for funding but   also for food for clothing items hygiene items  so no matter what you have if you can throw an   extra tube of toothpaste or you know grab an extra  blanket or pair of socks whatever I saw the need   when I was there and people requesting materials  so everybody who is a witchet and hopefully will   will step up and be a part of the success of this  project and then finally I just wanted to make   a comment last night when I Was preparing for my  notes I went to the city of Witchita website and I   saw the Fantastic Mac um website and it's going to  be exciting because we'll update it now and one of   the things that it said is who's going to operate  the mac and it said we're still not sure we know   now so kudos to all those involved good luck and  I'm very excited to be supportive of this today   thank you council member Ballard thank you mayor  well Becky stole a lot of my comments but um as   she said I just want to thank everybody that has  put so much hard work into this it has literally   taken all of us um to get to this point um I would  just like to highlight the words collaboration and   communication we can't just say those words we  have to mean those words be good neighbors and   be good communicators we're all super busy but  we can send a text message or an email and um   always know that I'm on the other end more than  happy to help and and do whatever I can um and   whenever it's time for emotion I'd be happy to  make it council member Glascock thank you mayor   um I have some final comments um I will be voting  for this today because I believe that we need to   move forward with the implementation of the Mac  board agreement I do believe that the city has to   do Contracting better I'm a landlord and the idea  that my tenants would write the contract and then   I would sign the contract is counterintuitive  and so in the future I think we need to make   sure we have a responsibility to taxpayers and  I know that we have a lot of good operators and   I think that mbor knowing the individuals that  are serving will be some of the best operators   of this program but even with the best operators  we have a responsibility the taxpayers to make   sure that we have guard rails in place in our  Contracting um again I'll say from the record I'm   concerned mostly about not having board members  as part of this agreement and that I do trust   the organization is going to include the city  in their decision-making process but there are   some bad actors that you can't trust when we're  writing contracts and so in the future I would   like to see those agreements speaking directly to  mboard Inc um Stephen Misty and the entire board   um hopefully congratulations of this pass us today  I know that this has been a universal support from   this Council for this Mission I know that's going  to continue as well I speak on behalf of everybody   but we will be supportive we will move forward  and I do want to thank humankind as The Operators   of the shelter right now you're doing incredible  work um you're not just talking about Jesus you're   showing Jesus to individuals in our community  and you're being the hands and and feet um as   well and so thank you for the work you're doing  I'm excited and I'm thankful that this community   has come forward on this project and I think it's  a testament to the citizens of Witchita that this   been a priority not just of the council but I  think of all citizens in our community as well   see no further comments so I will add a couple  more in addition to what has been said first and   foremost for full transparency so that everyone  knows who the Mac board members are currently they   are Kent meracle who just got added on at the same  time that I got added on as number six and number   seven to the board uh also Robin Chadwick Jason  Gregory Moji rosson Gary Schmidt and obviously   Steve Dixon did I leave anyone out Robin Chadwick  yes I got everyone so seven individuals and again   um I am really grateful that Kent and I got added  on in February and again um back on this bench in   December I asked for at the very least having some  representation from either the city of witchta or   one of the seven elected individuals and the  Mac board chose to provide an opportunity to   the mayor's seat and then providing an opportunity  to someone with lived experience so I wanted to   commend the Mac board for adding uh quickly to  additional seats um I also wanted to say thank   you to Senator Moran's office because Senator  Moran's office helped the mboard Inc expedite   the IRS um uh application process for 501c3 um  granting um and so I wanted to personally say   thank you as that got passed in the month of uh  January towards the end uh last but not least as I   mentioned in the questioning uh portion this will  require a lot of fundraising from this community   fundraising whether it's through volunteer  time through actual Financial dollars and   I know that there are many organizations in our  community that want to do great work with helping   individuals living uh in homelessness right now  but the Mac is supposed to be that one onstop   location where services will be provided so that  they can connect to the resources that are needed   whether it's uh for mental health substance use  or uh just a quick hand up and I know that that's   the intention of the Mac the intention of the Mac  is to be a temporary Sheltering space to connect   an individual to resources that are available  in the community and then then launch them out   of homelessness and so being a good Community  partner with organizations like Union Rescue   Mission humankind Ministries as well as many other  providers in our community will be crucial for   this to actually work and so while there will be  more uh changes to or amendments to the agreement   moving forward this agreement as it stands right  now is the best place to be in order for it to   transition from emergency winter Sheltering to  Temporary Sheltering and wraparound Services um   and last but not least a reminder that the city  of witchta is making a significant investment in   operating a solution Not the Only Solution but a  solution towards homelessness here in the city of   Witchita and that should speak volumes on the  collaboration on this bench of all of us seven   most of the time saying we're moving this together  despite some of the differences or despite some of   the uh further clarifications that we need so I  will be supportive of this uh as the mayor of wab   because it is one step forward towards helping us  get towards true functional zero homelessness in   the city of witcha but I will give the honors  to to council member Maggie Ballard where the   Mac will reside at the former Park Elementary  School thank you mayor uh I would like to take   the recommended action approve the lease and  operating agreement and authorize the necessary   signatures second motion and a second any further  discussion I see none Mr clerk please open the role motion passes 70 thank you very much  for all the hard work Mr clerk please call   the next item request to set a public hearing  for the community improvement district for Oldtown honorable mayor members of council again  Troy Anderson assistant city manager um so this   is a followup to uh our discussion late last  fall around implementing a parking management   Strat stry uh you'll recall back at uh the end of  December Council approved option a smid um but as   part of that approval uh Council gave Property  Owners 60 days to submit a valid CID petition uh   that CID petition needed to include at a minimum  uh a request for approval of a 2% sales tax and   to increase all other non- retail payment in L of  parking work agreements to $15 per space per month   as you will call as you will recall currently that  is set at $7.50 per space per month the idea was   that the revenue uh that is generated by this c c  CID would Finance the operations the maintenance   security and enforcement of time limits in Oldtown  for both on street and off street parking in the   public parking lots and structures so under  state law there's a couple of benchmarks that   uh are necessitated in order to to obtain a valid  C petition obviously a legal description of the   proposed District boundaries must be submitted a  certified ownership list from the title company   for all properties located within the proposed  District boundaries must be provided and then in   this case the CID petition executed by owners of  at least 55% of the land area and owners of more   than 55% of the assessed value of the land  and then obviously locally we require a CID   application for $5,000 uh in accordance with our  local policies and procedures okay so as I said   state law requires petition to be signed by 55%  of the owners by both land area and sest Val value   our local policy requires petitions be signed  by 100% of property owners within the district   so with that being said a wave of our local policy  would be required as part of any consideration of   this okay so on February 13th within that 60-day  window that was provided to them Property Owners   did submit a c petition we immediately went in and  started evaluating whether or not that that was   going to be a valid petition so they did provide  the legal description um they did provide the   property owner list um they did provide signatures  and so we started going through sort of signature   by signature and we have calculated that owners of  approximately 78% of land area and 79% of assessed   value have signed the petition so a little bit  of background there are 181 unique properties   within the boundaries of the district that's  being proposed 31 of those properties are owned   by the city for infrastructure purposes and so um  under state law we remove any of those properties   that are owned for infrastructure purposes so we  reduce that total number of properties used for   calculating ownership percentage down to 150 of  the 150 properties there were 95 unique Property   Owners so just to clarify um this is different  from the 109 property owners that were identified   by the petitioners as several of the 109 Property  Owners either included the city of Witchita or   the same property owners were listed multiple  times so as you see here 31 of the properties   are owned by the city for infrastructure purposes  there were actually three properties owned by the   city that are not for infrastructure purposes  and so those have to be used as part of the   calculation even though the city didn't sign  as a property owner as part of the petition of the 95 unique Property Owners there were  actually 56 unique what I'll call signatur   with some signatur signing on behalf of multiple  property owners for example a signature might be   the managing member of multiple llc's right  and so um it was helpful for us to kind of   understand the representation of the ownership  as it relates to the signatur so the following   is a list of the top five signatur and their  respective ownership interests so you see there   the top five signatur the percentage of the  overall acreage that that signature and the   respective either llc's or corporations or  actual property owner uh title holder what   they represent as it relates to the acreage  and as it relates to the value of the property   um as well as all other ownings all others  owning 2% or less the totals of those and   then as you can see there the subtotal again  about 78% of the acreage and about 79% of the value so with that being said the cad petition  has been determined to be a valid petition   under state law a waiver of the local policy  requiring the petition be signed by 100% of   the property owners will be required as part  of this to establish the cad the city council   must first adopt a resolution which sets a  p a date for a public hearing on the matter   that's what we're doing here today is uh this  is the resolution that sets the public hearing   uh given the statutory process for notification  and um postings and time associated with the same   the earliest date of public hearing may be held  for this project is April 1 2025 at which after   closing the public hearing the city council  May adopt an ordinance establishing the CID   so something that we wanted to at least just  make everybody aware um the CID petition did   include some terms and conditions that are not  necessarily covered by the CID act for example   there was a a requirement in the CID petition for  the establishment of an oversight board pursuant   to a development agreement between petitioners and  the city um it's a little nuanced in the context   of so for example in a development agreement a  development agreement can only be entered into by   property owners who sign the development agreement  right so if we were to enter into a development   agreement in that scenario we would have to  obtain every single property owner um there's   not a provision by which a development agreement  can impose sort of conditions on property owners   that don't sign a development agreement a little  bit different under the Community Development law   under the C act right um the other kind of  nuance of the cad petition um we drafted an   initial petition to provide to uh the property  owners that petition language was revised by   the the petitioners and the petitioners struck  language from the petition communicating the   city's ability to unilaterally terminate the  district and replaced it with language that   limits termination to specific conditions um we've  been in consult with uh bong Council we have some   concern about this not really sure that that this  is truly representative of the council's Authority   Under the CID act that uh councils can terminate  these districts they can repeal the ordinances   as they see fit and as they see appropriate um  so we just wanted to make sure that we kind of   highlighted some of that stuff for you all here  today so with that being said uh review of kind   of the financial considerations as it relates  simply to sort of today and the resolution to set   the public hearing uh this is a a pay as you go  City will not issue debt for the project again the   process the proceeds will be held by the city and  used to finance operations maintenance security   and enforcement of time limits in Oldtown for both  on street off street parking in the public parking   lots and structures there's no Financial impact  today by setting a public hearing law departments   reviewed and approved the petition and resolution  as to form should city council want to proceed   it's recommended that city council wave the local  policy requiring the petition be signed by 100%   of the property owners accept the petition and  adopt the resolution setting a public hearing for   consideration of the establishment of community  improvement district and authorize the necessary   signatures with that being said I'll stand for  questions thanks Troy we'll begin with council   member hoisel thank you mayor um Troy okay the  termination agreement um do we feel that that   is legal by State Statute to agree with that or  tamper with that and what happens if it's not does   that just change um the contract or this agreement  here language within the agreement or what would   happen if like the state comes back and says no  that's not uh valid valid part of a c so I'm going   to be really careful here I do have Bond counsel  here that can probably better answer that question so thank you uh Mitch Walter with Gilmore and  Bell we've been assisting Troy and his team   in the process of evaluating the the petition  and um the the resolution for consideration for   the governing body today so to answer  your question council member H Heisel   um it's black letter law that in the state that a  governing body cannot bind the hands of a future   governing body with respect to a governing body's  ability a future governing body's ability to take   legislative action and the governing body acts  through an ordinance or or a resolution but an   ordinance is the the governing body's legislative  action and so a provision in a petition that's an   extra statutory provision I should add a provision  that doesn't need to be in the petition for legal   purposes that the governing body could not  terminate the CID um probably doesn't pass   muster under state law as being enforcable in  a petition I think that's probably the best way   that I can most succinctly put it is that limits  on termination would function as a limit on the   governing body's ability to pass an ordinance and  exercise its legislative Authority in the future   so what what does that do to this petition does  it mean does that would make just that section   invalid or does it put the whole petition at  risk great question um I will add that this   is a little bit of a gray area in terms of extra  statutory Provisions in a petition it's a valid   petition and then it contains the items that are  required to be included in a petition for the CID   act the question of the extra statutory items um I  don't think I'm prepared to answer on record as to   what the city may or may not be agreeing to if it  indeed creates the CID with those extra statutory   Provisions so it is a valid petition I think what  the city and the governing body wishes to do about   some of those extra statutory Provisions in the  petition is certainly an item that will need to   be discussed um either now or in context with the  public hearing that's would be set for April 1st   all right I appreciate that um now this oversight  board that they have set up is that do do we have   any other CS that something like this has happened  with or is this pretty unique as far as um the Cs   go at least through the city yeah so we've been  digging into some of the history of some of the   cids I know there was a question that came out  Friday about whether or not we've ever had a CAD   that's been approved um that is less than 100%  property owner I we've yet to come across one   right we continue to dig um and the reason why  I said to answer your question is no we don't   generally have an oversight committee because the  petitioner is number one generally 100% of the   property owners right and so they themselves are  somewhat of their own oversight committee right   number one number two IE we have an oversight  Committee in this case that is the city council   right that is the city right that is governing how  the funds are being expended um kind of oversight   of the revenues and those kind of things and so  um I think this one is not only unique in the fact   that it has some of these additional requirements  that have been baked into the petition um we're   not aware of any other cids that have this type  of oversight committee now if those petitioners   have created a pseudo order oversight committee  amongst their own sort of corporate policies   and procedures we're not privy to that do we  think this is legit in the eyes of the state as well thank you it's not so much a question of  whether it's legit in the eyes of the state   I think the the question to Grapple with is  what does the governing body want to create   in connection with the creation of the CID if  that's its um choice so whether you agree to   create the CID with the oversite board or with  all of the contents of the petitioners petition   is a question or whether you want to explore  creating the CID just based on the statutory   information that needs to be in the CID and  the ordinance creating the C and so that's   certainly a question that that is more policy  driven than legal um but the the the request   for the creation of the oversight board and  the request for uh some sort of development   agreement between the petitioners in the city  while perhaps difficult or um needing to be   adjusted in terms of functionality does not  render the petition invalid under state law   um so the last question I have is on CS we usually  put 10 10% aside for uh P public good public use   anyways um does that get wrapped into since that  we're essentially going for public parking here   does that mean 100% of Revenue goes towards  parking yeah arguably to that point you're   rather than just 10% going to a public purpose  in this case 100% is going to a public purpose   okay so yeah there's no special little sidewalk  or anything it's just strictly parking correct   okay thank you council member Johnson thanks mayor  thank you Troy um I did have some questions about   numbers on Revenue generation which I'm sure  you probably would present at the hearing but   um now I have another question well two other  questions so on the percentage since the city   owned a couple properties is that why we wouldn't  get to the 100% or would we even count in the 100% so coming back to the numbers right so we included  the acreage of the three properties that are   within the boundaries of the district that are not  infrastructure related right and like that's the   the cinema retail strip center that we talked  about a little bit earlier today uh the city   arts building and the museum down there right so  those three properties would actually be subject   to the terms and conditions of the cad I.E the  sales tax generation that would be associated   with that and so we have to include that acreage  in the overall total acreage as that acreage and   value is determined right but then because the  city of wit didn't sign the petition right then   that goes against the overall so theoretically  I maybe to answer your question would we ever   get to 100% unless the city signed it no but if  that percentage was call it 3% right if we ever   got to a if there was a 97% threshold with the  city the city council acting and approving the   CID is in essence arguably probably signing the  petition if that makes any sense yeah I was just   wondering on that um I do have concerns about this  language that you just brought up um do you have   any idea if that was a requirement on behalf of  the other party for this to be approved by Council   like would they be supportive of it without that  language binding a future Council from making that decision um I was not aware of that no that that  was a condition that they would require that was   not a condition that the governing body back in  December that you all had put on um that 60-day   window and developing a cad petition um and so no  I have not I was not I didn't anticipate nor was   I aware that that condition was coming um would  they be amendable to removing it that that I don't   know either so I apologize no no problem um I just  have great concerns about that um I believe at our   last meeting council member Ballard even mentioned  seeing if this would work Revenue generation wise   and I've had some concerns about how this may  generate enough revenue and if that is required   language in the future Council that may see this  not working effectively that may want to dissolve   it wouldn't be able to which it doesn't sound  like legally that might work anyway but I just   have concerns about that and it's really kind  of making me question even supporting having a   hearing on it because if that is something that  they are demanding this is a different type of   CID than anything else that that we would have and  then that type of language um is concerning for   me so I'm definitely happy to hear more from my  colleagues but I do have some real concerns about   that being an additional requirement and you not  knowing about that coming to you too like that I   don't know if we're all trying to work together  towards something that is a compromise and this   gets dropped on there that that's a concern for me  I'm going to go out of order really quick because   it's a follow-up question to that um so when  the city provided the language for the C these   individuals then modified that language so it  goes back to the conversation we just had with   the previous business item about contracts so I'm  concerned and and it has been a concern ever since   you pointed this portion out that then it gave  the leverage to the individuals who wanted the   CID to say well this is in the best interest of  us the C folks not the best interest of the city   of Witchita uh which is the citizens of Witchita  so that concerns me so again can you just again   point out when did you give the C language to  these individuals and then when you received back   the petition uh it was modified from the original  city of witcha language so if if you'll recall we   immediately following sort of the December action  by city council to adopt option A smidth and gave   this 60-day window um the shot clock so to speak  started ticking we we engaged outside Council   started working through exactly sort of how this  would work right in the context of the provisions   of the 2% sales tax and then the special  assessments as it related to the obligations   for those businesses and residents that were not  collecting sales tax right how do we how do we   frame that and couch that within the CID act um  hence the special assessment part of that so we   started drafting what we felt was uh an amendable  petition that could then be provided to the   property owners uh for their review and approval  and signatures throughout that process I just want   to make we're not obligated to do that right under  the under the statute the petitioners can form   whatever petition they see sort of fit as long as  it meets all of the criteria of the C act um we   were simply trying to kind of go above and beyond  the Call of Duty and actually trying to draft some   amendable terms and conditions in a a draft CAD  petition whether or not they chose to use that or   not was entirely up to them that was entirely up  to their discretion um they could have hired their   own Council and drafted their own petition so we  weren't necessarily beholding them to the language   in the the petition that we invited them um again  it was kind of our effort to try and go above and   beyond we do not draft petitions for any other  applicants right we were just simply trying to be   um a good Community partner and we drafted what we  thought was going to be aable terms and conditions   and then at that point in time we turned that over  I I don't know exactly what date that was turned   over I'd have to go back and pull that up but yes  are there follow-up questions to that before I   move are there any follow-up questions to this  you may have you may have thank you mayor you   may have answered my question um or not that would  have been a followup did it so it wasn't that they   sent back language they maybe struck something and  they didn't tell us as a way to sneak in language   is it that were they forthright and these are  the changes we made to the C petition that was   or was it just hey these are the changes or  we're just signing the document as is so this   is where it gets a little nuanced right in the  context of we received the petition on February   on Valentine's 13th right the we received the  petition on February 13th we immediately went into   analysis right and as we read through the P the  language that was provided to the petitioners in   consult with our outside legal council these were  the things that kind of rose to the top of wait a   minute this language looks slightly different than  what we had provided them originally so what their   intent was I can't speak to right what I can  tell you is when we received the petition on   uh February 13th right this is what we received  this is just our analysis of the information and   the petition we re discovered the language  change yes was this the only language change   that was a part of it so I went and did sort of  a Redline version of the language that was added   or language that was stricken there's some other  changes that were made to the petition um again   we just kind of highlighted the couple that we  wanted to make sure that Council was privy to   okay but there are other changes we'd more than  happy to share sort of that Redline version with   you all if you wanted to see it yeah great thank  you so again the petitioners did not openly say we   changed the petition language staff discovered  there were changes to the petition originally   submitted to them and you have a redlined  document is that correct so I was not told of   changes prior to us receiving the what I'll  call the revised petition it was as part of   our analysis did we discover that the language  in the petition didn't coincide with the draft   petition that we provided them and so we took  it upon ourselves to do kind of the side-by-side   comparison we prepared a Redline version of that  just so we could see what language was added and   what language was stricken that was just all  part of our analysis thank you council member   Ballard thank you mayor I have lots of questions  for you um so when you say we got 91 signatures   out of 109 when you read that it appears that  you mean we got 91 different signatures and   that is not correct right that's correct okay  so well let me make sure if I say this correctly we didn't get 91 different signatures we received  56 unique signatur right so for example if I   represent if I were the managing member of five  different llc's right I would sign on behalf if I   were the managing member on five different llc's  each of those five llc's are arguably different   Property Owners which is the difference between  95 unique Property Owners yes there are 95 unique   property owners and we received signatures  representing all 95 unique Property Owners   of those some of them are duplic correct correct  if you could go back to the other slide so for   example the top five um Property Owners St  they count for many of the signatures the   majority correct correct so like Mr if I added  that up 30 33% three four five six 60% if I'm   doing rough math so it appears that there's  a couple voices or the majority speaking for   the majority will say they have managing interest  in those property ownerships yes next question   is um and I know this is a little redundant it's  just kind of looking at it through different lens   the signatures are from the property owner or the  actual doing business in the facil the building so   the signature has to be rep representative of the  property owner um so there could be an individual   who owns a condominium unit and that property  owner signed on behalf of themselves right um for   an LLC right it is somebody who has authorization  to sign on behalf of that LLC or that Corporation   or whatever that they might be one in the the same  right the the business might be one and the same   as the property owner or they might be different  but under the C act it has to be a signature   signature of the property owner if the business  is separate than the ownership then no we would   not accept a signature from the business owner as  a tenant representing the proper and the reason   for asking that is because the 2% is being put on  the burden of the business or the customer correct   that maybe the business didn't have a say so in if  they are renting that's a possibility okay um the   other thing and I know that's not exactly what  we're discussing today but my biggest concern   is with the c the way that it's written today  we are not allowed to capture liquor sales and   and in the original projected numbers we didn't  know that or that wasn't part of the conversation   so I'm worried about meeting the Benchmark even  doubling the $750 per space to $15 and the 2%   CID that only opens the Gap up a lot more I would  assume because there's significant liquor sales in   Oldtown so I'm worried worried about signing up  for 20 years and I know I mentioned last time I   don't know what the number is maybe it's 3 years  we re-evaluate make sure that this is working but   knowing right now that we can't capture liquor  sales makes me extremely nervous to ride out of   the gate commit to something that likely is not  going to meet The Benchmark of a million dollars   correct yeah we yeah we don't know we've um we've  been trying to kind of dig in the state's been   great to work with we continue to try to work with  the state to try to get a better understanding of   what this area generates in annual sales that a  2% sales tax on top of would also be applicable   too um it's just hard to kind of really zero in  and and know exactly what that number is going   to be to your point and maybe count can better  answer this but no an additional 2% sales tax   cannot be added on top of liquor sales but I'll  let somebody else speak to it better than I yes   the C the imposition of the CID tax follows the  Kansas retailer sales tax uh liquor is taxed under   a different statutory scheme so the CID tax just  follows um the again the Kansas retailer sales   tax act the question of whether the city could  add a 2% tax on liquor sales I can't answer that   definitively certainly off the cuff but highly  doubtful that could be possible well um I believe   it was January was local government day in toeka  and I did visit with some people in TOA about is   there an appetite for that a conversation that we  could have and they did remove that restriction   for the Chiefs and Royals projects but it's not  something that they have talked about which would   be great because we have a ballpark that you know  we could use um this the F the liquor attacks in   in our CID there as well so I know that um maybe  we could have that conversation and you know I've   talked to to Marley about it already um to see  but I just am really worried and I know we're just   talking about um the percentage today um of the  businesses that have that are okay with exploring   this but I'm really worried um because right now  we know that we can't do that and everything with   the state is a heavy lift and so I worry about  signing us up for something um and being difficult   to get out of knowing that we already can't  capture what we anticipated to start with so I'll   let some other people ask some questions but I'm  very concerned council member tutle thank you so   much um my questions are probably going to be more  balcony down and maybe asking you to editorialize   a little bit or get your opinion of someone who  is an expert in Economic Development and also been   working on this for a long time um just to confirm  I just want to make sure that um I know we are on   the page but anybody who's watching or or with us  today this isn't action taken today this is just   setting the public hearing correct that's correct  okay just want to make sure so let's say that   today we said we're going to move forward it does  pass and we set the date for a public hearing okay   what happens if this doesn't go forward if the  CID doesn't if we if we vote it down at that   point today we're not voting it up or down we're  just voting up or down to go to a public hearing   what in your opinion and you and I talked a  little bit what in your opinion would would   happen to the city like what would be the next  options so if you'll recall This was um part of   the motion back in December that we were moving  forward Council approved moving forward with the   parking management implementation strategy option  a smid right and so everything that goes along   with that if the CID is not approved then Oldtown  is part of that smid and we would continue with   implementation of the parking management system as  it was contemplated and presented back in December   okay and I know I should know the answer to this  and I think I know the answer but I just want to   confirm in my mind so if this moves forward and  weide a public hearing and let's say that it the   CID was approved um would the Oldtown owners  still pay for parking stalls in a on top of   the CID I can't remember so the way the the way  it's broken out there's kind of either or right   either you are a retailer retail establishment  that you're bound by the retailers laws of and   you're adding that additional 2% sales tax on top  of all of your receipts that's that businesses and   subsequently Property Owners contribution to  parking and parking management if you are not   a retailer right if you are a an office or if you  are a resident right and you're not a retailer and   it's a little more nuanced than that there's  some really good language in petition that's   really what I would refer you to for the exact  language but again balcony esque type of respon   the folks who are not retailers not contributing  the 2% sales tax we would we would apply a special   assessment annually against that property owner  based on how much parking is otherwise required   based on the use of the property that's  that payment in lie of parking provision   agreement and it would be increased right now  the anticipation is the increase from $7.50 to   $15 per space so for example if I own an office  building and under the under the zoning code I'm   required to provide 100 parking spaces I don't  know I'm just making up a number right um under   the new C if it were approved that office building  that property owner would be specially assessed   $15 per 100 spaces per month for the entire  year I think it's $180 per spay so my math   is not working in my head right now but that was  what would be assessed annually if you're not a   retailer so the way that the petition was drafted  and provided to us right if for whatever reason   now you got to kind of reverse engineer this a  little bit right if we're going to apply $600   per space per year for operations management  enforcement Etc right the difference between   the sales tax that is generated within the  district whatever that Delta is gets respread   amongst all of those special assessments so one  year it might be $15 per space the next year if   sales taxes are down it might be $25 per space  whatever that balance is in order to achieve   that cost recovery for the parking management  Etc so just want to make sure that we clarified   that okay thank you um and I know some people  are probably wondering why are we asking all of   these questions when today we're just deciding  if we're going to have the public hearing but I   think some of us have concerns of if it even  needs to you know go that way so um I I just   have two more questions um and just so so I can  make a decision of if we should move forward with   having this go to a public hearing what would  be the benefits of the city of having the 2% CID so I'm GNA try to answer it this way yeah  right and I'm asking you to editorialize I   understand what whether whether the city is  constituting implementing parking management   strategies within the smid within Oldtown whether  those revenues come from the end user plugging a   meter for lack of a better term right or whether  that Revenue comes from a sales tax or special   assessment right the goal and the objective is  to implement parking management strategies right   um and so it's a shift to answer your question  it's a shift right of who's paying for those   parking management strategies that would be the  benefit okay and then what would be the risk to   the city the risk to the city um would be the  recovery of those revenues right if if all of   a sudden um it's it's somewhat cyclical right  that if sales tax is up hey great if sales tax   is down as businesses move in and out  of the district right we're having to   somewhat totally recalibrate this and there's  admittedly there's probably an a significant administrative not burden but there's a cost  associated with administering something like   this again because every year we're going to  have to sort of recalculate and recalibrate   as businesses move in as a business expands as a  tenant space changes from you one use to another   all of those factors are going to come into play  every year in calculating sort of who's going to   be responsible to pay what okay thank you very  much council member hoisel thank you mayor uh   just one question came to mind after um is this  this C proposal is this what we would be voting on   if we set the hearing like this exact language or  if between now and then maybe okay we understand   some of the concerns around uh the termination  agement would it be would they be able to change   it or is it just strictly this that we're going  to be hearing in a month if we pass this set   the hearing date so we have wrestled with this I  might look to legal counsel to kind of advise on very perceptive question um you have  a valid petition the you know set the   hearing uh to to discuss the actual  creation of the CID when it gets to   the point if you do set the hearing and  and actually consider the creation of the CID it would be my legal position that you could  create the C without uh necessarily explicitly   agreeing for the extra statutory items that are  in the CID I think whether you want to do that as   a matter of policy is a question is a different  question to be answered at that point in time so   just for clarification you're saying we can alter  the agreement to to match kind of feelings or or   the thoughts of the public as the governing body  you have the option to create the CID upon such   terms and conditions is is you see fit that's  your legislative prerogative and the over 55%   signatures would still be valid I would you're  earning your keepy today here man I would say   material changes to the petition and the proposed  uh CID as created as a matter of policy probably   would be beneficial to discuss ahead of time  or at least uh have discussions with the iers   I I think again I I don't want to venture into  policy here as it's not sort of our purview but   um understanding what the petitioners are asking  and what the city is being asked to create and   if those two are materially different things then  it's just I'm going to use a non-legal term a bit   messy okay I think I hear where you're going thank  you council member glassock thank you mayor I know   we've had a lot of questions um I won't duplicate  any I just have one probably quick question that   I don't think was addressed let's say we move  forward with implementing a CID let's say that   there is a property owner in the district that  they had plans to implement a Cid in the future   does this preclude them from doing that yes and  then continuation of that um I imagine I don't   have evidence to support this claim that there's  been a c in this District before at some point   even if it's expired CID is there any period after  C expires to implement a new CID or you could have   c c c yeah under the current CID act no there's  no Pro you're not precluded from creating another   C in fact you would have to imagine right that if  this is the city's long-term solution to parking   management particularly in this area you're  probably going to have to add another C 20year   petition on the backside of this otherwise once  this expires then there's nothing in place to back   stop that if that makes sense the idea would be  that yes you would have to continue this process   sort of imp perpetuity so long as the statutes  allow you last question probably for legal um if   we were to let's say set a public hearing and  it's the intention of this body to not include   the extra statutory items and we still wanted  to get above the state's threshold is there a   scenario where the petitioners could recircle  the petition in a week or whenever by the time   we set a hearing that they could still obtain  the needed signatures with a new petition that   addresses the concerns of language that we have  that would be following the public hearing I'm   sorry leading up to the public hearing so let's  say this body determined today that we were   not supportive of the extra extra statutory  items and we wanted to make that clear that   the extra statute items wouldn't be acceptable  by the body at a vote of the hearing would the   petitioners theoretically it would be a quicker  time period but could they still obtain or submit   a new petition before that hearing at 55% or is  this set of hearing with the petition that we're   given today not any adjustment of the petition  today thank you I understand the question now   uh yes to answer your question there would be  uh the option to do that because you have ex   uh received a petition and you're sing a public  hearing on that petition there is certainly the   possibility that the petition that you received  could be amended in that interim time period so   the petition as it exists at the time of  the public hearing could be different than   the form that it takes today so long as it  still uh has the the statutory requirements   that have to be in all the ID petitions  okay thank you vice mayor Johnston thank   you mayor uh question for Troy the the the $600  per space that includes the enforcement and the meters for for for for downtown  right now is at the $600 and and   the parking garages and everything  the meters are all included in that   so the $600 per space per year is the is a  benchmark of what systems parking systems kind of   similar in size and scale to what we have in our  inventory of what they're expending on operations   maintenance security and enfor and enforcement  Okay so as we previously presented um last fall   back in December right yes that included meters  as the vehicle by which the city recovers enduser   costs revenues to pay for operations maintenance  security and enforcement knowing that that $600   per space per year is The Benchmark for about  what a system can expect to what an what a system   should expect to recover in revenues and what  a system should expect to expand in operations   maintenance security and enforcement that's  where that $600 comes from yeah I understand   that so I'm going to take from that if you don't  need to purchase the meters and you don't have   as robust enforcement that $600 figure would  probably go down don't need to spend the money   the the cost of am I am I correct there or yes the  cost of the equipment in sort of that conversation   is is not that significant in the cost if I  said man if I had a number I'm gonna I'm G to   avoid throwing a number out just for right it's  it's not a large percentage right and but again   you still have operational maintenance security  and some might argue that your enforcement costs   actually go up right because if I'm enforcing time  limits in time zones right I'm now having to not   only pass once to sort of audit and catalog when  vehicles are where they are but now I'm having   to Circle back a second time to determine whether  or not somebody has exceeded those time limits or   not some might argue that actually enforcement  without things like meters and that kind of uh   strategy can actually be more expensive so it's  there there's maybe a tradeoff there so regardless   industry standard we kind of use that 600 as  The Benchmark as I I appreciate that um as the   city gave the original contract um would that  provide that the city could just raise arbitr   IL raise that say we don't have enough money need  more money to do this we're going to raise that   from 15 to $25 a spot is that is is the proposed  language the city put there is allow that is that   why excuse me is that why the group put that  other I'm just trying to sure get in people's   minds we when we drafted the original petition  that we provided just as kind of hey here here's   here's a petition that you could use that would be  representative of the city's terms and conditions   we included in there that it was based on that  $600 per space per year and that there was a an   identification of a number of stalls so we we put  in the original what that number of expected sort   of and anticipated revenues would be each year  there was an escal in there right that given   inflationary adjustments based on the CPI Intex  right um consumer price index that those would   go up incrementally year after year but no the  original petition I think was pretty clear in   the context of what we're trying to recover is X  based on the number of stalls and that we would do   that calculation each now if all of a sudden the  city eliminated a parking lot right and we struck   150 spaces from the district then obviously that  would reduce the obligation and that calculation   would be adjusted every year again also with a CPI  index so I what I understand from that is the city   could do that could raise it if they got rid of  a parking lot or something had to spread it among   less stalls the only way the city could raise  it right is if all of a sudden the city added   parking stalls right if the number of spaces  went up then you would see an increase in the   obligation again if the number of stalls went down  there would be a decrease in the obligation it's   that metric of how much should be recaptured and  how much should be generally expended per space   per year that number was not sort of open to  interpretation do you view that $600 as a total   system including downtown and Oldtown or just in  this case just Oldtown being being looked at in   an individual basis so in my kind of personal  professional opinion it's both right in the   context of and again I caveat that 600 number  with other parking Management Systems right of   other assets we have a mix of assets we have  a a mix of parking structures we have a mix of   parking lots we have a mix of structures lots and  on street parking it's a pretty good Bland right   if if we could say that the percentage was I'm  just going to make something up 33 33 33 of those   three right that's a pretty good blend of assets  that we need to we need to manage obviously that   blend is different than other cities it might be a  small city of 30 5,000 and they have a parking lot   and that's all they have yeah their cost recovery  and cost is probably not $600 per space per right   but in the blend in the scale of what we have  I think Oldtown is also representative of the   larger system there are two parking structures  in Oldtown there are a number of parking lots   in Oldtown there's a number of on Street spaces  in in Oldtown so I would say actually Oldtown is   sort of a microcosm of the larger system and  so yes I would say that that $600 per space   per year is not only representative of the city  the downtown smid system but it's also probably   representative of Oldtown I think this get gives  way to fear before that deleno and Oldtown might   be supporting right a new parking garage for  the biomed center right yeah we we need another   million dollars to pay the note on the biomed  Center so we need to to tax those districts more   to pay for that parking garage so maybe that's  why they put the language in there yeah I don't   know okay I appreciate it thank you council member  Ballard thank you uh just to quick questions um if   the C passes or even if we sent it to public  hearing set a public hearing that means that   no one else within the Oldtown District is able  to use that tool for 20 years or for the length   of the CID yes that's our understanding is you  can't layer okay a c on top of a c particularly   because the C that's being proposed here today  expands that 2% sales tax threshold okay um shoot question I forgot sorry council member  Glascock promise last question so I'm   looking at the map on the last page of  the packet we're given I don't think it   was in the presentation from I saw um  it's kind of hard to distinguish but   there's yellow green and red which is  what there's not a key associated with it so you're referring to the boundaries of the  District correct so the best way to describe   this is that map illustrates the boundaries in  the context that the district is bound by Third   Street Avenue Third Street North on the north  um Washington on the East Douglas on the south   and the railroad tracks on the west so all of  the properties that you see highlighted there   in some sort of color is a representative of  the entire District so colors don't matter in   terms who signed the petition who didn't sign the  petition I'm not sure what the colors represented   um we went through the petition the petitioner  provided the sort of petition language the title   report that showed sort of every single  property owner and then the signature page   associated with that respective property owner I  don't know if it necessarily oriented it to what   the color on the map was if we were to set  a public hearing could we have a map so we   can see which of um the property owners  supported the project which ones didn't   I'm interested to see if it's in one region  of this District versus another region of   this district and let's say that someone wants  excluded from the CID but they agree to cover   the cost of whatever their lots are they want  completely excluded from the CID because they   want to invest in a Cid in the future they want  excluded from this but they're willing to pay   the cost to their parking is that possible  or is it not based on the petition that was submitted so again kind of gets tough of we  have a petition and we're kind of processing   that versus I would just say that the petition as  amended um names could be taken off and properties   could be taken off uh as far as submitting a  petition that meets the statutory requirements   again it it it it seems to be more of a policy  Choice whether the city would want to consider   the creation of a sort of a patchwork CID that  perhaps had certain properties omitted based on   their future uh plans to perhaps create a CID  or not from a legal standpoint it just has to   pass muster of having 55% of the owners of the  specific District requested to be created and   55% of the assess valuation so that that goes back  to my question of the Geo geographical boundaries   so let's say the GE geographical boundaries are  contiguous and someone wants excluded because   they have future plans for a c as long as they  make their parking self whole in our agreement   so then they could Implement their own Cid in the  future as long as the contiguous properties are   fine with it so that's why I'm just interested  of where these properties are what that looks   like on a map to see if there's even a possibility  of excluding you know it's piece m in the middle   that's probably much more different than if it's  you know at the end of it excluding the property   so to answer yes we could work on a map and both  of them would have to do with policy changes at   the council whether or not we accept 100% or  whether we move forward with excluding part   of it in an application both both would be policy  determinations from this body that would be um not   set in precedent of what this body has determined  in the future but there's no legal considerations   for it's just policy and what the will of the  body is understanding correct I see naughty thank you council member Ballard thank you mayor  sorry I remembered can you speak to if the C   passes there's been a lot of conversations about  that money would stay specifically in Oldtown can   you speak to that pleas thank you so um under  the CID act the the costs that are identified   right and the revenue and the projects that  are associated with the district are generally   limited to the area within the boundary of the  district there are ancillary what I'll call   ancillary improvements that those dollars can go  to outside of the boundaries of the district but   generally speaking Yeah that's correct so the  CID act part of one of the statutory items that   has to be in the petition and in the ordinance  creating the CID is a description of the capital   P project so the description of the capital P  project basically limits the expenditures that   the revenues from the CID can be expended  on so for all intents and purposes yes the   the revenues of the CID have to go to pay all  costs associated with the the parking operations   maintenance repairs etc etc within the defined  CID so it wouldn't just go into the parking fund or it would but like yeah it would there would  be somewhat of an audit trail of that yes if if   the as the revenues came in and we knew we  had matching expenses associated with them   we might use the parking fund because we're  paying one contractor right to do that but   it would be a proportionate share based on  the volume of their work within the district   boundaries and not the work that they're  performing outside of the district boundaries yes vice mayor Johnston thank you mayor TR  now I'm confused okay because I think that's   different than the answer you just gave me as  far as that fund could be used for the whole   parking system including downtown said it could  be now now we're saying it just can be used in   that District so which one so let me see if I can  differentiate the the response to your question   was a holistic question around the cost annually  per space on just general revenues and expenses   right so my responses to you were holistic in  the context of well yes Oldtown probably does   require approximately $600 per space per year in  Administration operations maintenance enforcement   Etc right if the CID is not approved those costs  don't go away it's Blended within the larger   parking fund parking management system within  the smidth those costs don't change the revenues   don't change okay if the cad is approved right the  revenues and the expenses don't necessarily change   what changes is now I have to be a little more  accountable in knowing that I have an operator   and that operator is managing I'm going to make  up another 8,000 spaces right the proportionate   share of our management agreement based on the  number of spaces within the district that's all   I can use from the revenues from the CID sales tax  and from the revenues from the special assessment   I can only pay a proportionate share of that  contract oblig ation right but the maintenance   costs I can specifically attribute to yep that's  a a maintenance cost directly attributed to that   lot or that structure the the enforcement of  time limits can be specifically attributed to   that particular parking space in that particular  sort of District right we can get really granular   on exactly the the expenses and the revenue  associated with where those dollars come from but   that's the distinction between whether or not the  cad is approved or not and the responses that I   provided to you have just holistically about $600  per space per year do that help it does I'm still   confused okay um because I brought the example of  deleno and Oldtown possibly playing for a parking   garage for the biomed Center okay I got the  impression that that could happen from you is that   incorrect when you're looking at an entire parking  management system right all of the costs and sort   of all of the revenues are spread across the  entire system right um um I mean we do that sort   of in local government right I mean the costs of  property taxes that are received right are spread   across the entire city we don't specifically  allocate more Revenue to an area that generates   more property taxes it's the same kind of concept  right as part of a system there is a blended   revenue and a and a blended expenses across the  entire system so whether the CID has created or   not now we just have to do a little more auditing  of what that actually looks like right but that   that spread doesn't change we can only allocate  those revenues to expenses within that District   which is why I also kind of suggested that it's  probably a microcosm it's representative of the   larger District we're going to see comparable  costs in Oldtown now in regards to like deleno   and Oldtown contributing right you also have  to understand that those we'll call them subd   districts right also benefit from improvements and  revenue and expenses associated with areas outside   of their subd districts you can't look at each  of those districts in a vacuum none of them will   really support themselves in of of themselves  it's it's like a real estate portfolio right   you're going to have some properties that perform  better than others those that don't are subsidized   by the entire portfolio I mean it's good to have a  a picture in a portfolio of what any one property   or subdistrict is doing from a performance wise  right but it's all part of a management system as   I understood from the Bond County in this case a c  you would have to allocate it not among the whole   system you'd have to allocate it in that area  that's correct correct that's correct y but we're   not going to go out and hire a separate operator  does that make sense could you could but it would   be more expensive you're presuming that but it it  could be could be yep could be cheaper you never know okay thank you I see no further questions  for staff we will now open it up for public comment I see no individuals who would like to  speak on this item we will bring it back to the bench I'll add a couple of comments um I now we  have more I'll I'll start off by adding um this   subject regarding parking and Downtown parking  Delo downtown Oldtown um has been obviously at   the Forefront of the conversations um over  the last year um when it comes to Oldtown   specifically and when I saw this scen sheet  with the verbage that then does not um Bode   in the best interest of the city of wiaw which  is its citizens all of its citizens not just   one little area area um I was concerned and so  I immediately um started asking questions to   Troy um and it's still after all this discussion  it just further proves that I'm still concerned   about this um petition in addition the petition  that the state uh requires for a threshold is   55% but the city of witch's threshold is 100%  which has not been reached by this petition um   so it has met the state threshold but it has  not met the city threshold and so with that   um I will not be supportive of this vice mayor  Johnston thank thank you mayor uh I would like   to set a public hearing for it doesn't mean we  have to pass it at the public hearing but I'd   like to learn more about it um possibly take that  language out of it if have a conversation with the   uh the petitioner to see if they be willing to  take that language out of that uh that you're   not comfortable with but I think it give us  more opportunity to uh to talk about it and stuff ccil member Glascock thank you mayor I'm not  comfortable with the current petition as presented   I do believe that we should give the applicants  the opportunity to present a petition that could   be heard and could be accepted by this body so  I'll be voting to set a public hearing again my   concerns regarding uh are the extra statutory  items uh that are mentioned um I'd also be   interested to see based on the map if there's a  way you could get to 100% of petition owners and   allow others to carve them themselves out that may  not be possible but I would need to see changes in   the petition for me to support this at the public  hearing council member hoisel thank you mayor um   like yourself I have a lot of concerns with the  language here I don't think this goes far enough   in terms of protecting the city um especially  in the future I don't think I'm going to be   supportive of this because I think we could spend  time actually working on something that we can uh   come to some sort of agreement to a little  later on so um just I'm not supportive of   this one I just want to give an explanation  council member Ballard thank you mayor um   um Oldtown is in my district and so I have had  many many many conversations um bless try's   little heart I bother him all the time with all  the questions too um for me it's not so much the   petition although it's a little bothersome that  a few people have such a large voice for me the   problem is the numbers just don't work I mean they  it would be a stretch for the numbers to work if   alcohol was included and that is a huge heavy lift  to work with the state to get them to allow us to   use the liquor tax and I don't even know you  know what that would be pulling the liquor tax   money from um you know whatever they use all of  the liquor tax money from I don't know what that   would be pulling from programming or what whatever  that might be so for me it's more about the number   I don't want to get us um in a position right  out of the gate knowing it's not going to work   all of this could go away by just doing paid  parking um and that doesn't mean we have to   put um parking meters in front of everybody's  spaces there's plenty of other communities that   do you know kiosks or a sign that says you're in  this Zone in this space or whatever it doesn't   mean we have to saturate our beautiful downtown  with parking spaces everywhere there are other   options this is getting way too complicated for  really simple issue um so for that I will not be   supportive council member Johnson thanks mayor um  I am actually surprised I came in today supportive   of this uh going forward um again as we were  trying to work with folks in Oldtown but um the   language is something that I am really concerned  about and as it's been explained the the petition   was signed by every individual with that language  in mind so more conversations would have to happen   um and just even hearing the legality of of that  um I just have a lot of concerns about that I had   concerns about Revenue generation coming into it  um going forward and if there were any gaps but um   hearing the discussion today and looking at the  proposed language that would potentially again   the intent I think was to potentially tie the  hands of the council in the future I just have   a lot of concerns about that going forward I  do appreciate um the comments of council member   Ballard it is true with this parking plan you  can't have Ki set up so you don't have to have   a part parking meter in front of every space  but I just have um more concerns now than I   did previously with going forward with this so  I will not be supportive today either council   member Tuttle thank you I appreciate everyone's  comments try may ask you one more question I agree   with vice mayor and other council members that I  think that we should move forward right and and   at least have a hearing but before I make my final  decision if we vote today to have a public hearing   it doesn't have to be this that comes before us it  can be this addressing the concerns that my very   thoughtful and wise council members have brought  forward is that correct if we have to have or do   we have if we vote to put it on public hearing  it's this document with nothing else uh to the   response of um and the reinforce legal council  sort of know right in the cont know in that what   has been presented to you today could be amended  by the petitioners okay that's what I thought I   just want to make sure so if we're voting today  if if we vote in the if any of us vote in the   affirmative for and I'm just going to go on record  I have concerns with this but I have hope that it   could come to something that could that could  be good um it was our original intent so but   that doesn't mean if we set do get to set a public  hearing if that passes that I will be supportive   when it happens I need to see the significant  changes that have been discussed so I just want   to go and record that I will be voting to have a  public hearing so that we can pursue options thank you this resides in council member Ballard's  District but she voted in the negative already   or spoke out loud so vice mayor John stun uh thank  you mayor um I just want to be clear Troy if this   gets voted down that does mean we will have  paid parking in Oldtown is that correct this   means that if you do not approve the resolution  today setting a public hearing then we can't have   a public hearing and you can't create a c that  tells us that we need to Mo move forward forward   with the original option a SS smid smid there was  approved back in December was option A approved   or per this option or this option per this option  then this option's gone so it's it's approved then   is that how you view it so back in December the  council approved option A smid which is the option   A parking management system system within the  boundaries of the smid remember we excluded deleno   there was an offramp so to speak right for Oldtown  if they were able to obtain and and get a CID   approved that had the terms and conditions that  Council set forth right to achieve cost recovery   associated with parking management that that  would have given Oldtown the off-ramp if Oldtown   if the CID doesn't get approved the underlying  parking management implementation strategy   exists and has been approved by Council that's our  interpretation thank you council member Glascock   mayor with a motion to set a public hearing for  consideration of the establishment of community   improvement district and authorize the necessary  signatures no we have council member he can if   anybody wants a second and I'll second second  so we have a motion by council member Glascock   and a second by council member Tuttle we have  now discussion council member hoisel thank you   mayor uh Troy so understanding the question that  you just uh answered would it be possible for   us to extend that deadline that we passed with  option a council policy to extend a deadline to   come back with a another CIP essentially that  we extend it to like April 1st the April 1st meeting um I mean you can kind of do whatever you  want right that you're you're the the legislators   you can guide and direct us however you  so choose um every day that kind of goes   by right that we're not out there implementing  the parking management system that was approved   back in December we're kind of on hold until  this gets worked out right because there are   implications associated with bringing back an  amended agreement with the car park um there's   implications associated with what equipment do we  buy what equipment don't we buy right so um again   we we'll follow the lead of city council this is  this is certainly within your purview to qualify   this however you see it was the target date  for that beginning of June or beginning of July   so back in December when we told right our goal  was to try we took into consideration sort of   this 60-day window um we were going to try to  do a soft launch June 1st with sort of a hard   launch fully integrated Implement to July 1  um it's going to be pretty tight to get us   to that at this point so with this push back  the date on the entire parking plan I would   say yes because again at that point in time we're  not sure what the final resolve is for Oldtown and   so we're sort of sidelined a little bit of just  what equipment do we buy when we're now when do we   bring back an amended Car Park Agreement because  when we bring back an amended Car Park Agreement   right we're going to need to know what does that  look like in Old Town what does it not look like   an old town and those numbers may change slightly  depending on whether we've got a C in Oldtown or   not okay I appreciate that legal Jennifer M  oh thank you mayor um Council mayor glas I   apologize I didn't hear all of your motion did you  read all of the recommended action no I excluded   part of it there's um part that said accept the  petition I have concerns about the petition as   submitted and so how do we handle that language  I think given the will of the body the petition   or given the conversation view the as presented  will not be accepted I was just not questioning I   just didn't no you're good I just didn't know if  I do I have to do the words accept the petition or to that outside Council speak to that specific  question without explicitly accepting the petition   as presented I think it's proper to acknowledge  receipt of the petition by the governing body   okay so I will change the language of my  motion then um to consider waving the local   policy requiring a petition to be signed by 100%  of the property own or I move to consider waving   the local policy requiring the petition to be  signed by 100% of the property owners receive the   petition and adopt the resolution setting a public  hearing for consideration of the establishment of   community improvement district and authorize  the necessary signatures second [Music] so Jennifer just to be clear would that  still be the original even though it was   modified Language by the council member who  presented the motion which was seconded by   council member Tuttle or would it be now Nolan  void and restart the motion process it was just   an informal amendment if I or clarification if um  that's the will of the motion or in the second or   that's my intent council member title okay so  we have a motion by council member Glascock a   second by council member Tuttle and we still  are in conversation so mag uh council member Ballard no longer on the board I will just add  a clarifying um we keep saying December December   I just want to be clear that on December 17th  at the witch City council meeting the Downtown   parking plan implementation strategy option A  smid was approved by a majority of the council   five to2 with two no votes mayor woo and council  member hoisel so while we say the council it was   a majority of the council with still two  that said no to a smid even at that point   so we have a motion and a second any further  discussion I see none Mr clerk please open the role motion does not carry with four to three we it is 12:45 almost uh  we will take a 15-minute break   and come back into council chambers to  continue the council meeting thank you yeah same here e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e because now this has trajectory of back in December 17 next item  202 we need a point of clarification   voted approval 5 to2 regarding the Downtown  parking plan so can you please now address   how it will be moving forward given  that the petition will now not move forward so mayor m a council so you know our  interpretation our understanding of the council   action back in December majority of the council  to implement a parking management system um   throughout from self-supported Municipal District  SM the sort of option a model I don't have that   stuff here today happy to share exactly what like  in December when Council approved that there was   an exception there was was able to create a c that  we would not management system to do throughout   the REM the rest of downtown that we would employ  slightly different management strategies to   your point without a CID that underlying parking  management strategy based on the vote today tells   us advises us that that's the direction that we  need to move forward is the option A smid parking   management strategy so can you please address one  more time with option A smid which was approved   Again by the majority of the Council on December  17 2024 and because this new petition that was   brought forth did not move forward you are going  to implement despite um despite a majority of   the council saying they wanted paid parking in  downtown and Oldtown back in December 17th of 2024 I guess I don't understand the question you  said will there be paid parking now in Oldtown   yes that's our interpretation and understanding  of the action that Council took back in December   from the actions taken on December 17th 2024 or  based off the actions today just on the petition itself both so if you'll recall Back to December the city  council meeting the motion was to approve a   parking management implementation strategy  that was option A which included metered   paid parking we shared sort of the hours of  operation we shared the rates Etc that that   was the underlying basis that if a CID were  not implemented in Oldtown that that parking   management strategy would be employed so we're  combining both the action that took place in   December and the action today that gives us  the guidance and direction to proceed with   some of the next steps that we need to take to  continue to Implement option A smid so back to   the petition and this uh option A smid voted on  December 17th I have a question regarding how   we're going to implement this because currently  they're still paying $7.50 correct which were   rates from 1990s uh that's qu that's Point number  one correct they're still paying for 1990s fees   so now moving forward what would happen in front  of this Council to R talk about the negotiations   regarding the parking fees which in the petition  it said it would increase to 15 but without the   petition what happens with those specific p uh  those parking spots gotcha gotcha so there's at   least two there actually a couple more that might  be coming as well things related to Towing and   those kind of things but as it relates to  the operators agreement with the car park   we know that we've got to bring that back right  so that is an amendment that will be coming back   in front of city council we knew that they had  to come back regardless so we have an amendment   with the car park that has to come back and if  meters are going to be installed in Oldtown one   of the other things we're going to need to do  is go amend the zoning code right to to strike   those requirements associated with or amend those  requirements associated with parking and parking   demands associated with uses and Zoning in Oldtown  there's some language in the zoning code that has   to be cleaned up regarding parking and parking  requirements so I because that was the impetus   for the payment in lie of parking agreements If  you eliminate the parking requirements there's no   reason to have parking in lie of payment parking  a payment in Lee of parking agreements so we're   we're going to need to bring back an amendment to  the zoning code to sort of eliminate the driving   force behind those so through the amendment  and through those amendments to the zoning   code that clears the way for a arguably a July one  throughout the entire smid including Oldtown The   Meters not necessarily individual meters heads  they could be kiosks they could be mobile app   type signage right we want to be very sensitive  to the proliferation of things like meter heads   the proliferation of signage right we're working  through all of that right now for the remainder   of this mid for the remainder of downtown that  July 1 none of those businesses would need to pay   those payment in Li of parking agreement contracts  anymore they for vulture virtually become no one   void council member Glascock thank you mayor based  on the clarification you offered that meant the   majority of this body uh voted to just implement  the paid parking as similar to downtown correct   correct so to give this body another chance I'm  going to reward and offer a different motion um   so we can have this so I move that the city  council wave or I move that the city council   set a public hearing to consider a petition if the  petition is signed by 100% of the property owners   and adopt the resolution setting a public hearing  for consideration of the establishment ofunity   Community improvement district and authorize  the necessary signatures may I ask a question   of legal really quick and and please correct me  when I'm wrong I just before we proceed it's my   understanding that the only time a decision can  be changed reversed is if the prevailing party   addresses it and unfortunately we and I didn't  mean to say we weren't in the prevailing party   so the the four one of the Jennifer correct me  and I'm wrong because I usually am but we've had   this situation happen before and I just didn't  want us to go down a rabbit hole no you're good   I I guess my understanding would be I'm not  uh bringing up the same motion I'm bringing   up a different motion and that's kind of what the  way I see it I think you know you're absolutely   right council member thank you for thinking of it  that is something I had thought about there is a   process for motion to reconsider that has strings  on it I think Council if your intent is that this   is not the same motion my intent is it's not the  same motion and it is not in my mind either it is   not reconsideration but it's a good question to  ask so I don't think it's reconsideration of the   same motion I think it's thank you can you repeat  it please yeah I'll I'll simplify it it'll still   be a different motion than the first one but I'm  going to use the recommended action from staff   for this one just for clarification for everybody  because it is a different motion than I originally   presented the original motion was to receive  the petition my motion now is uh that the city   council wave the local policy requiring petition  to be signed by 100% of the property owners accept   the petition adopt the resolution set a public  hearing for consideration of the establishment   of community improvement district and authorize  the necessary signatures so what's as presented   here it would just allow us to have a public  hearing regarding this um whenever that is to   be determined by uh staff second what there's  clarification when there's 100% I adjusted when   I repeated the motion this time that we I think  that's the will of the body based on what we're   saying right now but right now it's just a set of  public hearing the applicant could probably listen   to this Council and determine a path forward for  them or not and remind us one more time Troy so   right now this current one only has 77 not even  77% correct it has about almost 60% of the acreage   has said yes to this petition because the all  other owning 2% or less than 19.65% they signed   it yeah so in total 7 about well specific 77.93  per of property owners representing the acreage   signed the petition 79.2 7% of property owners  representing the value of the their property   in the district signed the petion so it exceeds  the 55 it exceeded the 55% but did not meet the 100% with this motion that council member Glascock  has in front of us would it then uh have would   then the petitioners have the burden to B the  100% based on the motion I presented no uh member   I guess could offer an amendment to require the  100% of based on the motion I offered the second   time it's a little bit language than the first  time when uh before council member Tuttle had   comments so I'm just or I moved the recommended  action on the Green Sheet which is different than   what I had done previously I don't know so I will  offer the friendly amendment that I would second   this if it was 100% of the petitioners can't get  I would say it's not a friendly Amendment I think   that's a substantial amendment I mean it's up to  you to accept it but I think it's substantial I   think that's probably the will of the body  given the conversation we've had now and so   if they can't get to it then I don't think it's  viable so I'll second it and I think we need to   clarify your your Amendment so my amendment is  for 100% of petitioners to sign this in order   to move forward and it's a substantial Amendment  right so it would require a second yes it would   Troy's going to speak to that so clarification  100% of the property owners not necessarily 100%   of the petitioners I know it's a clarification  but 100% of the property owners would have so   I'm a little confused so the distinction between  the mo before the break was to wave the local   policy acknowledge receipt of the petition and  adopt the resolution and your motion now is to   not acknowledge receipt but to accept my yes my  change is the breaching okay can we accept if   we don't have 100% correct you'd have to wave the  policy yeah I don't know how we can I may confused   I don't know how we can accept the petition  mayor as is if we don't have a 100% as to your friendly so in that that situation because right  now not 100% of property owners have signed would   that give the opportunity to the petitioners to  go find the remaining so that they can't get to   100% And I wish Bond sorry Bond Council has  left and I'm going into a gray area here um   I don't know the answer certainty I guess you  could say if you wanted to to come back to your   you're not accepting the petition because the  petition doesn't have 100% ownership based on   the amendment so you can't necessarily accept  the petition because it doesn't have 100% but   you could acknowledge receipt of the petition  you're not waving the local policy anymore   you're acknowledging receipt and you're setting  the public hearing hearing giving the property   owners the next 30 days to go obtain the rest  of the owner's signatures clarification if it   if the mayor's Amendment um as she withdrew the  amendment we would still have this debate if we   set a public hearing so this conversation could  still happen we could still determine whether or   not we want 100% And that could be determination  at that meeting instead of a requirement of a motion I think the answer is yes sorry  the question is can we still discuss at   the hearing whether or not we want to accept  the petition at 100% for something else we set   the public hearing but we could still use that  as a factor discussion yes as a discussion it's   for you to decide whether at that time so the  body can still make the determination at that   hearing if we don't have 100% that we still could  deny the permit or we could we could deny the CID   or accept the CID I believe that could be a  factor that again pushes it back to the date   that has already been determined which is April  1st is that correct I don't know what April 1   that's the date on the resolution we got to  we just have to set up date so the resolution   specifies the date so if you want to choose a  different [Applause] date the earliest it can   be held is April 1st it can be after April  1st but while he's looking at that I just   want to make sure I understand how your motion  now is different than the motion made before   the break so my motion before the break was  that we would set a hearing to consider and   then receive the petition my motion now is  that we will accept the petition I thought   that's what it was and I thought it started to  change again and okay yeah so we'll accept not receive so you have a motion  mine does not have a second so   goes back to the original motion is there a second I seconded it we have a motion and a second now  discussion council member Ballard I just want   to go on the record we're still I know what  we're talking about today but no matter how   many signatures we have we still are not going to  the ultimate goal is to collect money for parking   this does not accomplish that I just for the  record let tax or not we are still not we're   still not there we're not getting there doesn't  matter how many signatures we have we can still   have the conversation but we are a long ways from  talking to the state getting that accomplished to   be able to uh collect the liquor tax money we are  not there regardless how many signatures there are   this is not fixing the problem just by having the  the public hearing so just for what that's worth   we're still not collecting a million dollars  we are far from that regardless of the hearing   council member hoisel thank you mayor um Jennifer  what what is materialistically different from the   staff's recommended action as compared to a  council member glasscock's um motion from his   motion before break or from staff's recomend  recomended action I think right now you he is   making St taking staff's recommended action  this motion so this motion is taking staff's   recommended action and that's that was different  than what we voted on before the break it is okay um all right yeah thanks I might  have a question here in a minute   council member Tuttle thank you  I voted for the public hearing I this is my seventh year on Council and  I've never seen anything like this happen   before and and I think we're we're word  smithing just to change a vote and and I   think that's a precedent that is very scary um  I am disappointed that what I voted for didn't   pass but I'm not sure we should manipulate the  system in in this way and and I'm leaning into   legal and I I believe you but I just this and I'm  getting tons of emails from and texts from people   saying this seems like a manipulation of a  system I just want to go on record saying   that Jennifer my question then is if the motion  that has been made and seconded seconded passes   then we will go back to having a public hearing  that's correct okay vice mayor John St thank you   mayor um Jennifer to to address Council person's  uh Ballard's concern could the petitioners go back   and cuz the city staff set the number to start  with not knowing that liquor tax would not be   included at at least at this time uh could the  petitioners go back and change that from $15   to $20 or to make up that difference wasn't  their fault City staff gave them the number   to come up with the language if the petition  can't surely change the talk and the amount   of of dollars raised hold on just but in terms of  the 12 or 15 I don't know where that comes from I   I technically I don't know that I just know that  the the statute requires petition St substantially dollars give me the sales tax will that get us our goals of cost recovery whatever the sales tax is created whatever whatever has sales that needs to be  spread across all of the property you're yes we're not sure to your point whether or not consider so what I'm hearing saying is they may have  known that Liquor's not included is that what I'm   hearing and they're they gave you the projections  and they did the research on the sales in that area who who did the research and said this is   the sales sales and the sales  tax in that area did you do it have sorry we have done some internal  evaluation analysis of other cids to try   to understand whether or not those projections  are in include those anticipated sales or not   compared to our other cids and which are a known  entity of square footage and mixture of uses and   the sales taxes we're receiving from the state no  those are not consistent and that's why there's a   there's a thought that maybe those original sales  tax projections included alcohol sales and that's   why there's a a concern that it may fall short  we don't know that we don't know that and what   I'm hearing you say is and when we don't know  that it could include could it could not include   licker sales we don't know that since they did  the research yeah and we won't and we won't know   that until a year almost a year and a half after  it's stood up and we're actually receiving sales   tax now what I'm also hearing and correct me  if I'm wrong is I'm hearing if it does come   up short you will spread that among $15 parking  feet people the ones that are $15 you you'll go   back to them and say okay we need more money get  meet our projections maybe it's because litter   sales weren't included so instead of 15 we need  20 is that is that correct yep so we will come up   with the money one way or another theoretically  yes yes okay okay just want to make sure   council member Glascock the only final comment  I have is uh that there is a clear difference   between the word if I accept something and I  also just acknowledge receipt of something so   I just want on a record verified from legal  that's two very different motions it's not   trying to change system there are two very  different understandings of both words and   I just want that on the record and again this  motion is to as recommended which is to wave   the local policy requir IR ing the petition  to be by 100% the substance of council member   hoisel thank you mayor um man I think there's  a lot of confusion and a lot of uh things going   different ways right now I wonder what the  appetite of council would be to extend maybe   for another two weeks their deadline for a c  um proposal to be presented to council um that   way they can work on a better CID we can get  a number of these questions answered um what   does that process look like like try do you  think two weeks would be enough for them to   kind of got to love the evening meetings right  uh we could go April 1st as well I'm just trying   to be mindful of any potential um deadlines that  we're pushing back in regards to the overall par   so I just offer that for discussion and  then also curious as to what that looks   like on our fire if that's doable if we think the  applicant could do that within two or three weeks I can't speak for the applicant um the pushing  this out right two weeks you're right March 18th   is because there's no meeting next Tuesday so  the next meeting of the council is March 18th   at a minimum if you do that we're going to have to  bring back an amended resolution which for alls is   okay right because the the date of the public  hearing is in the resolution so we'll have to   amend the resolution specifying what that new  public hearing date is because that's going to   have to get pushed out as well because of the  advertising and the notification process right   there there has to be a number of days since the  resolution is approved by city council so pushes   the process out right and again I I can't speak  for the petitioners though on what they can or   are willing to do so okay I offer that just for  discussion at the bench and see what everybody   else thinks ccil member tutle thank you um I  know I'm being redundant and I know I disagree   with legal but again I just this I asked the  question during the discussion before if this   doesn't pass Troy what happens and Troy said  we had paid parking that's what we would do I   wanted to have the hearing so that we could have  continued discussion again my phone is blowing up   with people saying this is the least transparent  thing they've seen so I I still want the hearing   if it comes to that I will vote for it but I  want to absolutely go on record that I do not   think this is an appropriate action of this  Council I think we're finding a technicality   or a loophole somehow and that really really  bothers me because we have made all of us have   made a commitment you know to follow the system  to follow our policies to follow our processes   and to be clear and transparent to the community  and and again I'm sorry I'm being redundant but   I just want to go on record and I do not approve  of the way this is going forward councilman brick   Glascock I'd be interested in what blowing up  means because I think we probably have different   definitions of that um regarding councilman  hoel's comments um revisiting the petition by   April 1st or revisiting the petition by March  18th the applicant can still revise a petition   they can still bring that forward by April 1st and  so we're actually giving the applicant more time   to revise the petition by April 1st then we will  by March 18th in that meeting um in regards of a   delay we need action the first time we debated  this since I've been on the body and this was   been a discussion a lot longer than that was  January 9th so we're a year and two months into   this the community needs an answer they want us  to move forward if this motion fails today then   we will have paid parking in Oldtown I think the  community wants an answer and if that's the will   of this body I'm willing to accept that if this  motion fails and that'll be implemented but the   community deserves an answer instead of just  continuous pushing down the road and I will   address both council member Tuttle and council  member hoel's concerns as I mentioned the two   biggest concerns I had with the green sheet  was specifically language that was added by   the petitioners without the city of witch's um  consultation and had it been pointed out by the   petitioners instead of hidden that would have have  been much more transparent rather it was staff who   had a a sheet that compared it to their original  um language and they redlined it saying these are   the changes so that was number one concern number  two concern was the one that I brought up last   Friday which is are we setting a precedent when we  are supposed to have 100% of petitioners sign and   are in the past that has not happened uh in this  this case yes the state is 55% the city of witch's   ordinance says 100% And in this situation not 100%  of petitioners have been consulted or have given   their feedback so if if voting in the formative  to council member glasscock's motion will allow   for the petitioners to go back to their Community  Oldtown and ask more individuals if they're for   this or against this and to sign the petition  and now that we have the language that is um   not part of a c that that would they would strike  that from any further signatures then I would be   in the affirmative in this situation given that  council member hoisel has said he wants to hear   how the petitioners can change it before the  council yet again again we have a date April   1st which would would give them even more time  to try to modify the language may I just jumping   in I don't know if we accept the petition  I think the petition can't new signatures   can't be added at this time if the motion is  to accept the petition it is the signatures   there are what's on there and the language as  is Will Stand including the information on the   last paragraph CID petition includes terms  and conditions that are not covered by the C yes so again it was language that was not brought  by the petitioners to our attention as the city   of wiah but rather it was staff who then said we  gave you a petition now there's a modification to   the petition and you didn't even point it out so  I do believe that that's not transparent and so   that to me says that had staff not pointed it out  it wouldn't have even been on our Green Sheet so   that's deceptive to community members vice mayor  John Sten I was just going to point out that   it's going to be impossible to get 100% because  there three the city owns three partials unless   we vote to vote an affirmative for those three  partials we can't get 100% there's also the the   theater there wants a c a of their own so they'll  never sign it so it's imposs possible to get to 100% council member Johnson thanks mayor um as  I've listened I act I do as agree with council   member Tuttle now in the sense that the wording  is different but it's essentially a second vote   to have this hearing and I have never seen that  um and there's a ability to change your Motion in   a way that would allow for that but essentially  the majority of the council has already answered   this and said that um there wouldn't be another  a public hearing for this so I'm voting against   this motion um because the majority of the  council's already kind of decided that but   I don't know if anybody else will maintain  their votes but it does now sound like um just   a second opportunity to have a public hearing  to allow for some changing of language that   was submitted deceptively initially um to the  city of wiah council member Glascock call the question we have a motion and a second any  further discussion council member Tuttle   thank you I'll be voting in the affirmative  because I thought we should have the public   hearing before but again I I Echo what  council member Johnson said this isn't   the way that this should be happening  so I'm not voting because I believe in   the this motion I'm voting because I want to  have the public hearing motion and a second   any further discussion I see none all those  uh sorry uh Mr clerk can you please open the rooll motion does not carry 4 to three   Mr clerk please call the next item child  care licensing Grant application and award good afternoon mayor and council members  Gary Jansen Public Works and utilities um the   first of two items I have before you this  afternoon is the request for approval of   the annual child care licensing Grant uh just  some background for you the Kan Department of   Health and environment contracts with the city  of witto for the provision of childcare license   and educ educational services for all of sck  County payment to the city is made via grant for   which the city must annually apply and the reason  why we're here today the city has received annual   grants and provided related services for more  than 40 years the city's contract responsibilities   include providing an orientation sessions for  all prospective providers conducting initial   and subsequent annual surveys for all license  providers providing consultation as requested   uh complaint plan investigation and Performing  clients compliance checks uh that are needed and   providing professional development training  uh we have a really wonderful staff Adrien   lad leads our group has done so for a long time  and they do a lot for public Outreach including   an annual training event uh the next one that is  this coming Saturday fourth annual training Pala   um again on March 8th from 98 900 a.m. to 5:00  p.m. and Adrian told me this morning that this   is full just as I think it was last year other  engagement that our staff uh does a really good   job with and advocacy or things like the Early  Childhood advocacy day which was early February   of this year at the Kansas state house uh staff  along with council member Tuttle and others met   with lawmakers to discuss the importance of  early childhood programs and legislation uh   also currently working on some local ordinance  issues with law and the planning department uh   there's a recent ordinance change allowing up  to 12 children and family Child Care Homes also   uh through the zoning code we are currently  exploring an ordinance change that presently   requires that providers live in the home where  care is provided these efforts are especially uh   looking to provide more child care opportunities  for the community the current Grant award uh that   expires this June is just over $416,000 we expect  the the same amount for the grant award for State   fiscal year 2026 the adopted 2025 budget includes  just over $228,000 for expenses exceeding the   grant allocation these General funds are partially  recovered via fees charged for services provided   uh we will be undertaking a fee analysis in  2025 to Encompass potential legislative changes   that are on the horizon now uh that could impact  the fees that we are able to charge and recover   with that staff recommends that city council  approve application and acceptance for the   kdh Li licensing grant for State fiscal year 2026  and authorize the necessary signatures and I'd be   happy to stand for any questions questions for  staff council member hoisel thank you mayor uh   thank you Gary I just a quick question I think we  need to ask this uh with every Grand opportunity   nowadays is any of this Federal like pass through  Grant or is it just straight from kdhe as far as   I'm aware it's straight from kdhe okay thank  you but good question and I appreci appreciate   you asking that we're trying to be very cognizant  of that too any further questions for staff I see   none thank you Gary we'll open it up for public  comment I see none we'll bring it back to the bench council member Tuttle thank you Gary for  the presentation and Gary I just want to give   you um also just a Kudos since you've been Public  Works director you've really become keenly aware   of child care and child care licensing and I know  the staff really appreciates that I want to thank   Adrien and her team for all you do above and  beyond um I've been on ride alongs I've seen   you interact with child care providers the most  important thing we can do to address the child   care issue which essentially is a Workforce  issue is to make sure that people go into the   field of being a child care provider and stay  in the field of becoming a of being a child   care provider and you and your team Foster and  nurture anyone who is interested in that process   like no one I've seen so I'm extremely grateful  for that you are making sure that our our city   builds planes and teaches kids and fights fires  and all the things because they have child care   for their children so thank you for what you're  doing um I truly am grateful and appreciative   and I will be incredibly supportive council  member Tuttle I know that you're an advocate   for this which would you like to make the motion  I would thank you very much I truly appreciate   that I would enthusiastically move that the  city council approve the application and   acceptance for kdhe licensing grant for State  fiscal year 2026 and authorize the necessary   signatures second motion and a second any further  discussion I see none uh Mr clerk please open the rooll motion passes 70 Mr  clerk please call the next item restoration of the utility late fee mayor and  council members Gary Jansen again uh this item is   a request for restoring utility late fee this is a  followup uh from our meeting late in 2024 when we   talked about um utility rates at the time and had  a request to increase the late fee as a result of   that uh we're coming back here for discussion of  what that late fee currently um is not in place   and request to restore that so I've got a lot of  information to share uh I'll try to be efficient   and and I'm sure there'll be some questions  at the end or or as we need to but I'm going   to try to get through this as quickly as I can  so some background in prior to January of this   year the water the witw water utility assessed  a 1.5% late fee to all pass du water sewer and   storm water bills in December of 2024 staff  proposed increasing the 1.5% late fee to 5%   to improve cost recovery and better align with  peer utilities the city council the city council   declined the increase at that time and the formal  action eliminated the authority to assess late   fees entirely staff is now requesting the  authority to assess a 1.5% late fee uh be   restored so following up to that December 3rd  council meeting uh the primary focus of this   item is for restoration of the late fee Authority  we also had uh discussion on other items during   that council meeting so and so so I want to come  back to some of those a highlight of key topics   is included in this presentation today including  overview of our billing and collection guidelines   and statistics particularly related to shut off  for non-payment payment arrangements and fee   waivers comparison of which to late fee percentage  to peers and local utilities and Outreach efforts   for our two Assistance programs our current ordin  requirement for delinquent accounts uh I'm going   to provide you a summary of what the ordinance  says and then we'll talk about what's actually   in place the utilities is required by ordinance  to issue a delinquency and termination notice 5   days after a bill is due the notice is required  to State the service will be terminated in 5 days   if the bill remains unpaid this ultimately gives  customers a 10-day grace period before service is   disconnected in practice we do not do that service  is not terminated within within 10 days of the   initial due date and I'll explain to you why and  what the thresholds we have set at this point in   time we have over 12,000 delinquent Accounts at  any one time including right now and so to provide   ample advaned notice and extend the opportunity  um to avoid shut off additional procedures are   in place from a resource standpoint over the  course of time we have made a determination of   the what we can handle related to again 12,000  delinquent accounts um at any one time overdue   notices are provided regardless of the amount due  to the current resource limitations an overdue   balance must be at least $400 and account must be  at least 61 days past due before being scheduled   for shut off so again that's considerably past the  10 days by ordinance we couldn't we couldn't make   that happen if we tried we're trying to work with  our customers uh we're trying to be diligent and   balance uh what it is that we're doing uh to help  them out but also be diligent within the processes   of of running the business that we've got to  keep going here uh based on 2025 rates some low   volume users may not reach this amount this $400  amount for as much as six months so again we're   not following the current ordinance uh trying  to be lenient and ultimately that could have   some negative consequences but I want to talk to  you about where we've been and the value of what   this uh L Fe has done for us in the past so to  look at this from a a little bit different angle   what I just covered with you will kind of walk  through the process from left to right so when   a bill is sent payment is due within 25 days and  there's a three-day grace period after uh four   days after due date at the time that the late fee  was in place the 1.5% late fee was applied to the   outstanding balance 10 days after the due date  a postcard encour just contact with staff and   offers help and I'll show you what that postcard  looks like in a moment because we have changed it   since we spoke with you in December all bills that  anyone receives from that point will show current   and overdue balances and those postcards continue  monthly as does the late fee until such time that   the the balance is paid off as I mentioned 61  plus days pass due shut off is scheduled when   balance reaches four $400 staff calls and emails  again based on our resources uh 400 accounts per   week warning that shut off for non-pay is two two  business days away so if you do the math 12,000   accounts uh we are able to call an email 400  accounts per week that takes us 30 weeks uh to   be able to catch up to all 12,000 right it's what  we can handle it's what we've been doing I think   works fine but there's a long period of time here  uh that we're stretching out the time value of the   money um the late fees continue to be applied  each month and that's necessary to continue to   recover our cost for everything that we have to  uh manage here and process to keep this going in   the absence of a late fee this could really  uh you know these numbers could really grow   and and that's one of the reasons last time  we actually were suggesting it was part of it   with the cost recovery and and something I'll  talk about here in a little bit is to incentivize   making payments is why we were asking at that time  about consideration of even a higher late fee but   if nothing else we definitely want to request  reestablishment of the 1.5% today postcard that   I mentioned uh looks like this I just want to  highlight the one thing that we've added since   the last time we spoke with you in December  this past due notice uh says that you've got   a payment uh that's due if not uh will be subject  to disconnection we did add that payment options   or assistant programs May assistance programs  may be available that was not on this postcard   in the past this is the first thing that people  see outside if they happen to call later in the   presentation I'll show you a little bit more about  what we've done to promote this information so   that people know we have Assistance programs  everything as out there that is available for them so we had previously talked about payment  arrangements I want to provide more details on   how the payment arrangements work as set up by  our staff customers are allowed three payment   arrangements in a rolling 12-month period they  must owe at least $400 the same thing we talk   about that is from a resource standpoint uh for us  to be able to manage these payment arrangements we   have thousands of payment arrangments each year  I'll show you more data on that in just a moment   so uh a customer again has allowed three payment  arrangements in a rolling 12-month period period   Arrangement number one they're required to put  down 25% Arrangement two is 50% and if they have   a third that's 75% we are trying to protect our  customers as much as possible and not let them   extend even more and more debt because we don't  feel like that's going to do either side any   good uh so to look at other guideline information  written guidelines were first drafted in December   of 2018 last revised in February of 2023 includes  the information that you're looking at here year   payment expectations must be realistic and based  on the customer's needs after the down payment   the customer is given up to 11 months to pay the  remainder and income limitations do not apply so   if somebody calls if somebody reaches out and says  I want to be able to get on a payment plan we will   set them up on a payment plan uh I don't have  all of the the details right now a lot of these   payment plans are broke if you look at the numbers  over time most people don't stay with them very   long but they do get started down that path path  we do offer that I think our staff does a really   good job of working with people as much as they  possibly can and I just want to reiterate again   income limitations have nothing to do with this we  will work with anybody who asks uh looking at late   fee waivers so some examples of when late fees are  waved and then I'll talk about how this is done   from a staffing perspective uh we will provide a  onetime courtesy for customers who typically pay   on time anytime an error is made by the city and  that can be a variety of things sometimes related   to technology when a leak adjustment investigation  is pending if a customer on a fixed income and   they have not received their check by the due  date of the water bill we will wave a late fee   in that case when an account is in collections the  late fee may be waved as part of the settlement   negotiation I'll talk about collections more here  in just a moment when an account is delinquent   the late fees may be waved as an incentive for the  customer to make a payment we recognize that each   situation is unique and so Frontline and staff is  empowered to wave late fees and other fees up to   $75 in reasonable circumstances the supervisor  approval is required to wave fees above that   and any fees related equipment damage and all fee  waivers pass through at least two staff members so   I think we've got a good process in place we're  trying to be nimble we're trying to be flexible   uh we want it to work with folks as much as we  can uh and allow fee waivers when it makes sense   fees are intended to recover costs from the  individuals generating them when fees are   waved the expense is ultimately passed  on to the rest of the customer base the   utility strives to maintain a balance between  helping individual customers and protecting   the customer base overall as I mentioned before  with over 160,000 accounts it's impossible to   capture every potential scenario in which a fee  waiver might be requested but I think we're in a   pretty good place and we've seen a lot of things  over the years uh to to be as consist consistent   as we can throughout this process we talked  before about late fee comparison with other   utilities what you what's on the right is what  we showed you in December uh our I35 Corridor   peers ranges from 1.5% Oklahoma City and Tulsa  were the same as us at the time up to 10% in   Fort Worth uh the question was asked about our  wholesale customers and the late fees that they   charge so just so it's clear we also charge a  1.5% late fee to our wholesale customers what   they charge beyond that is up to them and we  have no control over but as you can see uh on   on that list it ranges from 5% all the way up  to as much as 18% 5% being the low uh there's   some variability throughout but that would  show you what all of our wholesale customers charge and again I just would mention that's  beyond we 1.5% to our wholesale customers if   they're late whatever they do beyond that does not  impact us that's just what they do with their own   customers so looking at a delinquency rate going  back to the 12,000 accounts that were passed due   in January of this year and then talking about  some numbers related to shut off and payment   arrangements at the end of 2024 almost $23 million  was pass due of those 12,000 accounts just to give   you some idea of what our customer base looks like  like 90% is residential 8% is commercial 2% is   wholesale and other other generally includes fire  protection lawn services retail volume contracts   internal water utility accounts and Industrial  Extra Strength type accounts we do have a full   list available in our annual report U moving  to the upper right when we do get to a point   well beyond that 61 days but at least starting  at that point shut offs for non-pay payment uh   or been around 11 to 12,000 per year over the last  3 years 2024 was down as shut offs were suspended   for a significant portion of that time due to  the Cyber event just to our lack of of ability to   communicate with folks and and to be able to move  forward um the payment arrangements I mentioned   before was about 20,000 of them over the course  of three years not all those stay in place uh   but I do think they have provided value to many  of our customers and we want to keep that going   I wanted to show this as a a particular item to  give you some idea of how we look at Cost recovery   and break costs down uh and this is related  to the the actual cost of shutting someone off   for non-payment um this is not covered by the  late fee uh but it is covered as a direct fee   that doesn't mean we always get people to pay it  but this is a direct fee not related to the late   fee we looked at over 12,000 work orders were  averaged a determine amount of time it takes to   staff to perform a shut off uh and we came to  a $40 $42 fee I won't go through every one of   these in detail but I do want to show you that  we do get very granular with this and we look   at our actual time our average cost to do this and  because we want this to be as relevant as possible   we look at 10 minutes of administration time  is just under $8 uh we even break down vehicle   time in fuel is only $264 per each one I think  we're probably being generous but that's okay   uh we we've looked at this again on average  of over 12,000 work orders the the materials   needed is $8 this comes to grand total of $42  costs associated with the multiple postcards   emails and direct phone calls from staff providing  customers advanced notice that their services at   risk of disconnections are not included here but  are included with the cost recovery that we need   to realize that I'll show you in just a moment  so talk about collections uh when services are   provided but not paid for the utility attempts to  recover the cost through a collection process when   collections are unsuccessful the amount becomes  a bad debt expense which negatively impacts the   utility's revenue Bond debt coverage ratio and  is ultimately passed on to paying customers   through future rates uh that is you've heard  me mention that several times that's one of   the reasons why we think it's so important to  keep a late fee in place to do everything we   can to incentivize payments costs that were  recovered through collections from 202 22 to   2024 averaged about $800,000 a year however we  also have averaged $2.4 million in unrecovered   cost expensed as bad debt and this is one of  the places that we feel that the late fees need   to help offset at least some portion of that uh  looking at direct costs of managing late payments   outside of the bad debt uh there's multiple items  here Printing and postage uh staff time to manage   the shut off for non-pay batching referrals to  collections processing revenue from collections   managing payment arrangements which we talked  about is a considerable cost and their collection   agency fees is almost $350,000 a year so if you  keep in mind uh those two numbers the $2.4 million   of bad debt the $350,000 a year the average  annual late fee Revenue when we were at 1.5%   is is $1.2 million which we need for cost recovery  for a lot of the reasons we've been talking about   that fully recovers the $350,000 cost of managing  late payments and partially offsets the average   bad debt expense of $2.4 million so all in we've  got $2.75 million of average cost each year and   a late fee revenue of 1.2 so similar to tiered  rate structures that promote water conservation   which we have in place the application  of a late fee by any business like ours   is an effort to influence customer behavior and  this is something we talked about last time the   awwa has a manual called principles of water  rates fees and charges and it states that a   late payment charge can be an incentive for prompt  payment this charge recognizes the time value of   money and other added costs we have talked to our  utility Finance uh Experts New Jen about this too   and and they Echo that this is common across all  utilities to at least have some level of late fee   for comparison the case C C's billing standards  for regulated water Gas and Electric utilities   call for a 2% late fee on all delinquent balances  so across the utility industry public utilities   typically have a higher late fee than private  utilities which are limited Again by these KCC   regulations so you know for what it's worth if you  look at what gas companies and electric companies   do and the others on the private side or can be  considerably higher uh and sorry I said that the   wrong way because that's capped at 2% let's move  on then to assistance programs overview uh and   we talked about the sum before but I wanted to  summarize for you again the water utility offers   two Assistance programs both programs are funded  by customer donations and a on10th of 1% Water and   Sewer rate Revenue uh that has been in place as  directed by the city council since 2015 customer   donations more than doubled after introducing  online giving options in 202 24 which has been   a really good deal uh and I'll talk about on the  next Slide the utility does not have the means   to verify income eligibility thus it relies on  Partner organizations which are already verifying   the same for other programs two programs we  have is the H2O Program help two others it's   administered by sener of hope they provide a $100  credit on the water bill once per calendar year   and that must be passed due income eligibility  is less than 125 125% of federal property level   adjusted for family size and it is available all  year uh I do know that Center of Hope Has works   with other programs the Salvation Army and others  and when customers reach out to them uh they also   what we've been told and we've seen they're able  to provide additional assistance the rate relief   program which is administered By Us by the witw  Water Utility with data from ever's LEAP program   for the uh income eligibility offers a $50 credit  on welder Bill once per calendar year past du is   not required uh income eligibility is less than 15  % at federal poverty level this is available all   year long we actually made a change to that from  the last time that we talked because I think it   makes sense so between these two programs each  customer could receive uh from City available   funds up to $150 a year in relief just looking at  a quick summary the top three lines are the H2O   program numbers from 2022 to 2024 bottom three are  rate relief um we assist 4 to 500 C customers a   year anywhere from $25 to $40,000 that bottom line  that extended rate relief in 20123 was a one-time   deal requested by the council that offered up to  $36 uh to help those who were eligible private   donations in 2023 I mentioned were only just  over $4,000 for the whole year because of how   we changed the ability to do that in additional  Outreach this year we received almost $99,000 just   as of July 31st we've already doubled that just  in half the year so it's going to be additional   assistance funds available okay so I'm getting  close to wrapping up here uh we talked before   about Assistance programs Outreach this is where  we were prior to December uh when I talked to you   the first time Outreach efforts have grown over  the past several years they now include um uh   direct link on our website Direct customer contact  with City staff signage in City Hall uh the annual   contract with assistance agencies we've provide  flyers for those promotion at everes uh leap   events and website connect leap events and website  promotion at the dcf's leap events uh we had staff   participated in the united ways navigating utility  bill assistance lunch and learn added in 2024 we   had Outreach at community centers um and we  plan to extend that to all of them in 2025   using Lessons Learned from that we've we've we've  extended the Outreach especially based on your   input in December um so the following activities  have been completed or scheduled with the city   comms team since that time promotion at all witw  libraries promotion in the community resource   guide we do show this now in our water bills we'll  be mentioned it will be mentioned annually at   the mayor's media briefings when discussing water  rates and quarterly posts on social media so we've   taken some extra steps to make sure everybody  understands what available for them uh for the   assistance programs uh and everything else that is  that we do so to recap the authority to assess a   1.5% late fee was eliminated with the most recent  water rates ordinance if restored late fees will   resume April 1st of this year with that staff  recommends that city council approve the 1.5%   late fee and place the ordinance on first reading  and'll be happy to answer any questions thank you   Gary questions for staff I have a question for you  regarding the 1.5% versus 2% knowing that we're   not fully capturing all of the 2.4 million doll in  bad debt do you think that 1.5 is enough or even   the Kansas Corporation of commission actually has  a agreement that 2% should be the number for their   late fees well if you if I just throw the numbers  at you again 1.5% in an average year uh generates   $1.2 million in Revenue collectively between the  late fee management fees um and the bad debt were   at 3.75 million so even if you went to 3% we're  only recovering and I know you didn't ask that   miror but I'm just running some numbers real quick  even if you if you doubled that and went to 3% uh   we would still only be at 2.4 million as far as  cost recovery so splitting that somewhere would be   if I can do my math 1.8 million  probably is where we would be at with 2% my concern with this is simply that this is  passed on to all water customers when bad debt is   not collected um so to me the rest of the citizens  of Witchita if they do pay on time with then at   some point because we do have to raise the rates  and I know that's just one of the factors that   then everybody else is paying for the mistakes of  few that is our concern too mayor and I mentioned   that a couple times throughout the presentation  and the reason why we think it's so important   to try to keep these late fee in place and that  was the reason why we started down this path of   looking at even a higher rate because we are not  recovering um the the what our costs are and even   close to any part of that bad debt and it is being  passed on to those who are paying their bills on time are we setting a tone in the city of Witchita  that we are okay with um having delinquencies to   the point of 2.4 million if we don't get that back  up to the proposed which was 5% I don't know if I   can speak for that uh for others for what we do  um and I you know again I can't speak across the   organization we have 160,000 customers we have a  large utility um some of the things I talked about   throughout the presentation um we have to wait  until we get just because of our resources and   that's okay um because we're trying to balance  here right we don't want to add more staff and   just add to the cost burden but uh I believe and  one of the things we talked about before if we set   the late fee at the right spot our hope is that  we are going to incentivize a lot more people   to pay on time and we could start to see some of  these numbers coming down if we can stop them from   getting to that point to begin with it's likely  it's hopeful that we don't end up with as much bad   debt that needs to be collected that would be our  hope um I can't speak for other communities but   if you look at the others we are as low as anyone  and and I don't know what their success rate is   but I think it has has to be a factor I just want  to ask you said the right spot so what is staff's   recommendation on the right spot I think based on  what other since you asked mayor I think based on   uh what other communities are doing uh and trying  to look at uh the balance between where we need to   be with Revenue collection to offset those costs I  would go back to our recommendation from December   and say that we think 5% s the right place to be  and then last but not least on the Green Sheet I   know you didn't put this uh in the presentation  but in the Green Sheet it does specifically say   a customer consuming 3700 gallons would pay about  6244 per month based on 2025 rates with a 1.5%   late fee on the $624 that late fee would be 94  correct but if it was the 5% 5% would be $3 $310   sorry $3 yeah because of that do you think that  that would help with curbing the number of late   and delinquent um accounts um I would speak for  myself I can remember and I I I don't offer this   as as trying to sell you on something but I know  there was a time when my wife and I struggled to   pay bills and and it would have made a difference  Val you know trying to look and see what late   fees are that that's just a personal reflection  nothing more than that but we believe uh based on   what we've looked at other communities have done  what we've talked to new Jen about um and I think   the 5% just makes more sense I think it's more in  line with uh where a lot of other communities are   and and probably is still within expectations the  94 cents does not feel like a lot of incentive to   necessarily pay a bill when the average bill is  $60 thank you so it's staff staff's recommended   percentage which was presented to us in December  of 5% despite the fact that currently we're just   trying to reinstate it back to the previous late  fee of 1.5% correct uh correct and hoping not to   push my luck uh we just wanted to come back  to you to where we had been but wanted you   to show the numbers because I didn't have all  this for you in December and where we were at   I think 5% still makes sense um but we would I  would ask for whatever the council would like to   do thank you very much Gary I see no further  questions we will now open it up for public comment I see none we'll bring it back to the  bench I will I see no one else um making a   motion so I will move that the city council  approve a 5% late fee place the ordinance   on first reading and authorize the necessary  signatures second motion and a second further   discussion council member Johnson thanks mayor  I'd like to offer a substitute motion that the   city of which to approve the 1.5% late fee place  the ordinance on first reading and authorize the   necessary signatures second motion and a second on  a substitute motion now further discussion there   are two on the list council member hoisel yeah  I'll speak to this a little bit um also being   in a position where uh we've had to count change  before to kind of pay our bills um I don't think   5% deters anybody I think most of the time that  this comes up it's it happens this isn't people   trying to gain the system for the most part it's  poor people who this kind of struggle to pay their   bills sometimes and are a little late sometimes  so I feel like this passes that down on on the   people who are struggling also so it's a little  extra tax a little extra rates again I understand   it's a couple dollars here and there but um we  would be raising this as opposed to continuing   our past policies so I I will be supportive  of the substitute motion we have a substitute   motion and a second any further discussion I will  just add my comments of why I will be voting no   I know that staff took a long time in coming up  with the 5% back in December and I believe that   cost recovery has to be part of the city of witto  sole responsibility because if not it will then be   borne by the entire system and in this situation A  5% increase on a bill that's $62 would be about $3   um with a 5% and again when we're looking at  the system and the biggest thing that caught   my eye is that the expense of the $2.4 million  in bad debt would then be passed on to the   rest of the customer base through rates that  concerns me and so I think that the 5% that   staff originally recommended um is reasonable  and it would discourage people from not paying   full their water bill as well as sewer bill as  this is utilities vice mayor John Sten thank   you mayor a question for Jennifer now having been  through a rote once don't want to do it again if   if the substitute motion is defeated and then the  motion it goes back that's correct is defeated oh   where we at it goes then you have no action  today AC got to do it for another meeting a   completely new motion could be made at that time  today or mean right now this is to place on first   reading so first reading okay okay thanks council  member tutle thank you and just ask a clarifying   question mayor woo did make the original motion  of the staff's recommendation right she did 5% okay stop recommended action in December was  5% but staff's recommended action today is   1.5% gotcha thank you for the clarification  um I I have had significant conversations   with Gary and his team talking about because  of the drought this is also another factor in   the utility um will be impacted significantly  this spring unless we see significant amount   of rain so I am not going to be supportive  of the substitute motion I think that um   I hate to make an increase or have fees or  anything that could be burdensome to our   community members but we're looking at really um  potentially you know um chaotic situations in the   future with drought and so we need to think about  the entire utility and all of our users thank you   council member Glascock thank you I will be  supporting the substitute motion um I'll Echo   the same comments of councilman boisel this is to  get people in compliance this is not to make money   or close debt we'll still be losing it on that and  um so I'll be supporting the substitute motion we   have a substitute motion and a second any further  discussion I see none Mr clerk please open the rooll motion passes 4 to three Mr clerk please  call the next item extend interim controls for HPC 20251 hello good afternoon Scott wle from the  planning department here to present this item   so this item is uh it's not a zoning case uh  this is an item to consider whether or not to   extend the interim controls which prevent a  demolition permit from being issued for the   demolition of the Crown Uptown Theater uh the  recommended action is to take action as deemed   necessary by the city council uh this item is  being presented today because council members   have inquired about the status of the demolition  permit and also the interim controls and so this   is an opportunity for that discussion uh in  terms of the process the process for this   one is outlined in the municipal code I know  when we talk about historic preservation we   talk about sometimes the Federal Register  sometimes the state Register well in this   instance of interim controls we are talking just  solely about the city of witcho process so it's   in the municipal code so uh for this process  uh demolition permits involving undesignated   historic uh resources are routed to the planning  department uh from mabcd the preservation planner   then may Place interim controls on the property  prohibiting any alteration or demolition for up   to 30 days and the city council May extend  the interim controls for up to 180 days and   that 180 days is counted from the date that the  application was submitted to uh 180 days out so   it's not an additional 180 days on top of the 30  days in terms of the property background um it   the Crown Uptown Theater at 3207 East Douglas  was constructed in 1928 it is not listed on   any a register of historic places so it's not a  national state or Witchita registers however it   is identified as an undesignated historic resource  by the city of witcho so here is the aerial here's   an image I'm guessing from around the 1950s  60s somewhere in there and here's a more recent image so in terms of the uh overview of the  process to date in September 1998 uh the   city council approved the undesignated historic  resources list that's the list that includes the   Crown Uptown on it on February 5th the applicant  submitted a demolition permit that same day the   preservation planner placed interim controls on  the property on February 13th the preservation   planner sent an email and certified letter  to the property owner notifying them of the   interim control period that shall end no later  than March 7th for the municipal code during the   interim control period the preservation planner  shall work with the property owner to provide   alternatives to demolition or if demolition is the  conclusive alternative staff shall document the   resource with photographs Andor measure drawings  on February 20th the preservation planner sent a   letter to the applicant requesting thoughts  and feedback on alternatives to demolition   as of this morning the applicant has not  formally responded with any thoughts to   that letter or those alternatives on March  7th the interim controls are scheduled to expire the interim control period uh extension if  approved can provide opportunities to continue to   explore alternatives to Demolition and  to determine if the property should be   listed on a historic register if the  property was to be listed on a hisor   register then a review process would be  required for Demolition and the demolition   may be denied this is a similar process as what  uh we've gone through with a couple of cases uh recently again the recommended action is take  action as deemed necessary by the city council   here are some photos of the crown and surrounding  properties just kind of go through those pretty quickly here's the interior back to the aerial  so in terms of uh city council action uh staff   would recommend that you accept public comments on  this one because it's not a zoning case um also uh   again you've got a number of options so one of  them includes extending the interim control up   to 180 days which would be August 4th another  option is to do nothing and then the interim   controls would expire on March 7th of course  there are other options but those are two that   are highlighted and so with that I'll Stand for  any questions questions for staff beginning with   council member glascott thank you mayor I have  a lot of questions this is just regarding the   rest of the process to I know on a lot of zoning  cases there are factors that we have to consider   we could factors that we have to make a decision  based on based off of are there the same factors   we have to consider now or what factors can we  consider I will I'll address that and then I'll   look to lot of correc if any but um no there's  not so the golden factors do not apply to this   one because it's not a zoning case and because  this process is outlined in the municipal code so   we can consider any factors when it comes to this  um and I will look up the code on this one just   to ensure give me just one moment and I'll look  to the code I would concur there are no golden   factors to be considered that's Scott that's  acceptable now okay thank you further questions   for staff I have several so first and foremost can  you tell me is this a public or private property   uh this is privately owned privately owned um  during the time that it has been privately owned   has an applicant has the owner of the property  come forward with wanting to put their building on   whether it's the local registry the state registry  or the National Registry I can tell you uh to   my knowledge not this present owner um also I've  heard in some discussions that there may have been   a previous owner who had attempted that we reached  out uh to that individual and unfortunately we   unable to get in touch with them so we tried to  leave a message but their voicemail was full so so   currently this property which is privately owned  is not on a local a state or a National Registry   that is correct can you tell me the process  for local state and National Registry um applic   and does it require a private property owner to  comply or request okay um I'll answer the second   question first because I think that's an easier  more subin one uh for me to address which is uh   the process is slightly different so for uh the  national I can tell you that if the owner objects   to the nomination then uh it does not proceed at  the state level uh we believe that that is similar   uh receed this question in advance and we're  still reaching out to the state to confirm but   I believe it's the same as the national process  if the owner objects the application for State   listing does not proceed with the witcha register  it is um slightly different and we've had some   dialogue going on uh among staff in multiple  departments on this one because there is a uh   portion in the code in the municipal code that  indicates that if an owner objects to it then   it changes the vote requirement uh at the city  council level just a moment I think I've got   it requires a three4 majority I believe let me  check that out top of my head I believe that's   right Scott but sorry we've I've got multiple  codes just in case different questions came up ah um here we go yes uh sorry it's 2third sorry five out of seven  now um you should you should know that there's   been pretty extensive dialogue just in the last  couple days among staff about this one because   it refers to uh the when individuals are owning  more than 30% of land property or area within   proposed witchar register historic district  when they object in writing and file with the   city clerk in person or at public hearing then  a two-thirds majority vote is required and so   there's some of the language that we were looking  at the current interpretation is that um if the   owner of a single owner of a single property that  is being proposed for uh listing on the witchar   register should object then it would trigger  that requirement further questions regarding   the registry um how long does it take for local  state and National Registries um to determine   if a property is going to be listed historically  sure um well as far as the national and State uh   in looking at the online resources available for  both of those uh those websites indicate that uh   applicants should expect a 12mon to 18month uh  process in order to determine whether or not   it will be listed now um that of course that  that listing process requires an application   that requires some historic information I would  say we have some of that is is available for   the crown but perhaps not all of it so in some  ways you get a little bit of a jump start with   this property but I don't believe that it will  shorten that up by much the Witchita register   is a different process and for that one uh  apparently we have not had one uh a property   get listed solely on the witto register since  uh I believe staff told me since 1995 so it's   been quite some time we don't have a recent one  to go back to uh but I would estimate that that   the witto register process could be done uh  within the six-month time period and possibly   even four months and here's why I speculate that  that is speculation on my part it is because uh   there's a nomination form that is submitted then  the historic uh preservation board holds a public   hearing there requirements for public notice  prior to that hearing um 15 days for mailed   notice uh 10 days for a public sign uh then  there's a complete application that can be   submitted uh depending on the result of that  uh public hearing then it goes to the Planning   Commission uh then there is another round of  public notification and then it goes to the city council couple more questions sorry sure what   are the benefits of being on  the national state or local registry well um some that I can think of right  off the top of my head is number one you get the   recognition of having a historic building um  so you can have this plaque on there you can   get that type of recognition this the second thing  is at the federal level you're eligible for uh tax   incentives at the state level that is also true  there are uh tax incentives at the witcha level   um they're not to my knowledge there's not the any  witchat tax incentive however there are historic   loan programs which I believe property would be  eligible for can you explain further the historic   Loan program o uh other than all I can address at  this time is just to say that we do have one I'm   sorry I'm not very well versed on the specifics of  that program I think it would be important to know   um because there are only financial incentives  at the national or the federal sorry the national   and state levels that at the local level there  are no finan incentives um I have heard that   this if it would require the time frame how  how the property owner would be compensated   if the process would either require them to shut  down or or not be around for some time how would   they be financially compensated if they chose  not to operate no procedure for that mayor so   the historic loan program would not be able to to  pay for that know about the historic Loan program   I I I would comment that the historic Loan program  just based on my uh small knowledge of it is that   it's generally for improvements or enhancements to  the property re refurbishment to the property uh   not for operating expenses um furthermore I would  just add to that that uh the discussion today   is about whether or not to extend the interim  control period uh the inter control period just   uh refrains the owner from pulling permits for the  city from issuing permits for Demolition and for   um modifications uh that might have an adverse  effect to the property it does not prevent them   from operating the property similar to other  de demolition reviews the city does there's   there's no procedure for compensation during that  period thank you for the questions regarding the   three different registers and also how to what  would be um an incentive council member glasow   thank you I have a few additional questions since  February 13th when the planner had made this   designation has anyone in the community started  a petition to add either to either registry I   am not aware of one so we haven't been made aware  of a movement to add something to registry no and   and I guess I would I would add to that too  that um we have not received an application   for listing either um what is the penalty for  demolition so if the applicant decided just to   demolish the property tomorrow regardless of  what vote we take what is the penalty um I'm   going to consult the municipal code and see if  there's anything in the historic section on that   I think what he's looking is would it be it would  be demolition without a permit and I I don't know   the penalty but there needs to be a permit for  demolition yeah so someone just demolished the   property without a a permit yeah that's something  we'd have to research I I mean I'd be interested   in that before I vote today if we can try and get  that answer if there's a criminal penalty if it's   just a fine what the fine is if it's nominal or if  it's a significant fine I think that contributes   probably to this conversation as well um while  we're looking at that answer the next one um would   be on page well you don't have to do it um what  benefits does them I'm trying to pull the exact   language the undesignated historic resource offer  but why would someone put their building on the   undesignated historic resource and I I don't know  if that's done uh electively by Property Owners I   get the sense that that is uh done by the city  council in recognition of historic significance   that is a property that is not to the level that  it's been through the action and get it listed   um I think the sole benefit of that in my mind  besides having a little bit of prestige is that   um it raises these questions I believe it was the  way that the municipal code is written I believe   that the intent was to flag properties that are an  important resource not listed and should they come   up for demolition in instance like this that there  will be a reev there's possibility of a review   process I think in the future there's a fear of if  there's that level of designation and then there's   another another level of designation another level  another like what do you have to achieve to be   able to have this conversation make it easier  maybe for applicants in the future because I   I don't know the difference between this so I  imagine a lot of other people in the community   don't know um regarding um is there anything in  a code that would allow for the preservation of   the facade solely the facade of the building so  let's say if the applicant wanted to tear down   structure is there anything any termination  to save the facade of the building Captain   to look into that I not aware a preservation for  just a facade I think we'd have to I just don't   know okay yeah and ecd may know that yeah I I  don't know that when it comes to a demolition   permit um whether there is the ability for the  city to impose additional cons conditions beyond   the property owner simply checking the boxes of  disconnecting utilities and going through the   correct process now if a building is listed I have  seen this in other communities where that can be   a mitigating factor to that the property owner  will preserve the facade but that is something   that comes up through the historic preservation  conversation not not familiar with the process   through the demolition permitting process okay  I believe I probably have two more questions   you said the applicant hasn't answered the  letter dated on oh gosh I can't find February   20th regarding the five options and we have not  received a letter or an email that I'm aware of   um the applicant is here today okay um the last  question I have regarding is really regarding   precedent so my home was built 1920 theoretically  if we were to offer a stay on this demolition   permit could anybody theoretically also without  my will put my house on historical registry start   the process where than I'm prevented in the  future from using my property how I would see   fit according to the municipal code it is possible  that there could be an application submitted but   um let let me cover that real quick because  there are only certain people who can submit   an application for the property to be placed on  the witcha register again with the knowledge that   at the federal and the state level if the property  owner objects the application does not go forward   so for the witchar register who can nominate it  it's Property Owners or a minimum of 50% of owners   of a of a district um the second one is a majority  of the historic preservation board the third one   is a majority of the city council and the fourth  one is other if accompanied by consent of the   owner so in order to not have the consent of  the owner to initiate this process it would take   either a majority of the historic preservation  board or a majority of the city council so   theoretically we could prohibit any person in the  community and designate their property without   their will from this body current codes uh it  would it would initiate the process it doesn't   mean that it would be added that ultimately it  will take the historic preservation board the   Planning Commission and then finally it will come  to the city council for a decision about whether   or not to list it okay last question I have um  one of the rationals for extending the interim   control period actually the interim control period  is regarding documentation measuring drawing the   schematic side of the preservation of the building  so let's say if they move forth demolition we   can at least record the historic nature of the  building correct yes sir how long one has that   process begun and two how long is that process  uh that process has not begun uh in the sense   that we've not collected any additional photos  or documentation beyond what you've seen in this   PowerPoint today um how long would that process  take I I don't know we have not uh done that in a   very long time so I don't have an estimate for you  today I have some heartburn that maybe we didn't   start moving forward with that when the demolition  permit was applied for because then automatically   we have to extend it if the goals the preservation  of the historical nature of the building the   drawings and the schematics why that wasn't  started when we denied or that we held a stay   on the demolition permit so that's just a matter  of I think um in the future making sure that we   cross all our tees thank you I think that's all  my questions right now just going to add a couple   of things uh the applicant or sorry the property  owner did email all of us yesterday at 4:29 p.m.   and it was sent to All council members um it  had so it does have a response to the letter   from the witcha Metropolitan Planning Commission  um dated February 20th so there is a response from   the app or the owner um and as you mentioned the  owner is present today um I do have a couple more   questions maybe these might be for the owner  um if the owner is willing to come forward Hi l wanted to know if you are interested in  allowing the city or in this situation the   historic preservation board or the council to put  your property your private property onto the local   state or national Registries I am not and second  question are you would you consider selling your   property anything can be for sale so any Community  member we've heard a lot of feedback from this   community wanting to preserve it uh but we keep  reminding them this is not a public property   unlike Century 2 or the former Central Library  which are public properties this is a private   property and so it would be back to the private  owner to decide whether or not he would want   us want his property on the register as well as  whether or not he would want to sell his property   correct if there are members of the community  who are interested in buying your property whom   should how can they get a hold of you info@ kismi  concerts.com I have a question actually and and it   and it may be for uh scottt the process for you  guys to arbitrarily take private property and   put it onto a landmark status in Witchita is it  that you need all three of those things to happen   that you need 50% of the owners in is that in the  entire District which would be district one so you   need 50% of the people that live in that District  to vote to do it then do you need a 2third of the   city council and then there was a third hurdle  do you need all three of them or one of the three so uh one question was about who can nominate  it and the reference to a district is actually   for a proposed historic district it's not for  a council District so in this instance then   the property owner or uh if it's a district  of multiple properties 50% of the owners of   those properties so um I think that was one of  the questions the other one was about the vote   threshold is that right right I'm just curious is  is is if you've got three hurdles there right so   one of them is 50% of the people in the district  right and and that's the historic district corre   should I go ahead and address that okay so uh  in terms of a hurdle this is just simply who   can submit who can nominate it let me simplify  for you Scott so you said that under ordinance   public comments are directed only to council um  if you have questions you can converse but they   should not be back and forth between speakers  I believe we're still in the questioning phase   have not started public comment is that right you  can conduct it how you wish um we will ask if you   have a list of your questions Scott will be able  to answer again because we're in the questioning   phase of um it's the council members that are  questioning and I did ask you specific questions   um I will direct that specific question so that  Scott will have the opportunity to respond I'll   I'll Repose those to you so first is is the  Crown Uptown Theater in a designated historic district go ahead if you don't mind sure listing  all your questions and then Scott will be able to   answer all the questions at once so uh if it's  in a historic district is the vote of 50% of   the people that are in that historic district  business owners in that District just exactly   who votes and in what district if that is the  case is it the fact that you're going to take   so let's say that 50% of the people in whatever  District we're trying to identify that we're   going to vote in they vote Yes to to hold us up  or Landmark this building then does it have to   come to council then does it have to go somewhere  else or does it any one of the three will put this   building against our will which is basically  a take and controlling the asset without our   without our permission or or want are those your  remaining questions that's for now yeah so I   will ask Scott Those Questions because I believe  that this is only for the Witchita register not   for the state or the national register and because  Witchita has a specific ordinance regarding this   and you reminded me that the Witchita register has  no Financial dollars that are tied to it like a   tax credit at the state level or a tax credit at  the national level here it's just for recognition   purposes and the possib ability of applying for  a historic Loan program but there's no other   Financial incentives to be on the witto register  to my knowledge that's correct and I will confer   with staff when I get back to the office and then  provide you an update if I find out otherwise but   that's correct because the state is able to offer  a state tax credit because of the nature of how   they collect their finances the same thing with  the federal at the local level there's just not   that mechanism and so now last the question  that the property owner asked is to apply for   the witcha register it would require either or  all number one the property owner or the historic   preservation board or H city council by um  majority vote which was super majority vote right   five out of seven in this instance I do not uh  believe that that super majority counts for just   the nomination the nomination is just getting the  process started for the final vote about whether   or not it actually goes on the list if the owner  objects then yes it does trigger that majority   super you know extra majority vote that's needed  so so I think to address uh Mr Brown's question is   that um yes there are there are certain hurdles  and thresholds that need to happen at different   stages the first one to even get the ball rolling  is to nominate the property and in this instance   because it's a single property it can either be  just the property owner a majority of the historic   preservation board a majority of the city council  or another entity or organization or person as   long as it's accompanied by the consent of the  owner so so so that one is one hurdle and then you   go through the process of so that's the nomination  then it goes to the historic preservation board   and they're going and consider it then it's  going to go and there's going to be a public   hearing there so it'll be public com you know  invited and advertised then there's a complete   application submission so an even more in-depth  form needs to be completed and submitted then it   goes to the Planning Commission they're going to  weigh in on it and then ultimately it comes to the   city council for a final decision thank you Scott  council member Glasco thank you mayor the only   comment I want to mention is I did not receive  the email from the applicant yesterday my uh email   address was spelled wrong and so uh councilwoman  Ballard forwarded me that so I could review his response any further questions for staff  I see none we'll open it up for public comment hi I did prepare speech but I'm going  to address a few things that were brought up   during the uh when Mike Brown was up here and  also um Dalton what you asked about setting   a precedent about your personal property I also  live in a home that was built in 1917 so I feel   that I would not want my personal property just  added to a National Registry without me enacting   that as a property owner however I do think that  a public building that has been cherished by so   many members of the community is vastly different  than both of our private properties and or even   a different commercial property that has not had  the same significance to our community so that's   the first thing I wanted to address secondly um  Mr Brown came up and said absolutely no he would   not consider adding the property to the historical  registry however I would encourage you to go back   and look at publicly recorded um meetings that  we have all been at where he has stated during   his occupancy increase that is something that he  would be willing to do so I would wonder what has   changed his mind so vastly and to be so hards  set on that no when he had originally said yes   that would be something he would be willing to  be look into I believe that was at the last uh   building meeting that was hosted about his  occupancy increase now I will read uh I am   speaking today on behalf of myself my husband  Steven Hull owners of the building directly   connected to the crown and residents of College  Hill Robin van hus art Davis owners of multiple   College Hill commercial properties Trish Hillman  with the College Hill neighborhood association   and Arthur Allen with the Hillcrest along with  404 signers on change.org a protest that has not   even been actively advertised to save the crown  on top of hundreds of social media comments so   that was also asked is there a petition there is  one kind of going around but I think in general   the public is also confused as what we can do  to help promote to get this onto the National   Registry um we would like to urge Council to vote  to enact the 180-day waiting period regarding the   demolition permit filed for the crown theater I  still wholeheartedly believe this is a strategic   tactic by Mike Brown it is my firm belief that  this delay is crucial to safeguard a significant   piece of our community's history it seems to me  that Mr Brown's intent behind the demolition per   permit is to exert undue pressure on the council  to concede to a capacity increase such tactics   should not influence decisions that have long-term  repercussions on our community's architectural   Heritage regardless of its formal designation  the Crown Theater holds immense historical and   cultural value for Witchita and more spefic  specifically for the College Hill Neighborhood   as we move forward with the overlay plan for  College Hill one of our primary objectives is   to maintain the area's architectural Integrity the  Crown Theater is representative of the historical   narrative we wish to preserve well I'm a property  owner and a staunch supporter of property owners   rights these rights must be balanced with the  collective interest of the community zoning   laws serve as a testament to that fact that  property rights are not absolute as stward of   historical sites we have a duty to protect these  landmarks from in IR reversible changes allowing   the demolition of the crown would undermine  efforts to preserve our City's Heritage which   the council has prioritized byest investing in  the colge hill overlay plan demolition of the   crown is not just the demolition of a building  it would be the demolition of cherished memories   and symbolism to Wi attends whether it's the  memory of attending children's theater with   your grandparents or engagement pictures or  brothers memorials or fun nights with friends   this building is more than a building it's the  symbol of memories and many witton's first or   only experience of the Performing Arts to allow  demo of the crown would be the demo of History   culture and Nostalgia for our community I urge  the council to Li to deliberate thoughtfully and   act in favor of preserving the Crown Theater let  us protect a cherished symbol of which toss past   for future Generations thank you for consideration  and dedication to our community's heritage thank you we will continue with public comment goodness it's afternoon so good afternoon  I'm surprised that there are only two of   us here speaking to see that this building be  preserved I came representing 200,000 people in   wiah probably more these are the artists who  have participated at the OR at the um I call   it Orum at the Crown Uptown until the current  owner bought it I before he bought it I was   there dozens and dozens of times for everything  um recital dance performances theater movies   shown by Tall Grass Memorial services and so  on I haven't been there since I do know that   the capacity in that is no way that anybody  who walked in that building would know that   you couldn't possibly put 2,000 people in  there without dire physical consequences   I I know of a building in wiah that was torn  down that had three designations local state   and federal it doesn't necessarily mean that it  will be preserved I'm talking about the real the   the value of this building as an architectural gym  as a viable venue which is desperately needed by   our community we really have missed it because  we we were not allowed to go back in when the   new owner came along and cancelled contracts with  local companies and we miss it we need this size   of a building and new need this size of a of a  venue for performances and all the other things   imaginable that will that could fit into that  lovely place um one of the reasons it hasn't   been designated yet is that if a building has  historic preservation you can't make an alteration   on it and I know until quite recently when J  Basham owned it he got a grant to put a new   Marquee up and I think he I don't remember the  amount of money he received for that but it was   in the six figures Grant to put a new Marquee he  could not have done that had it been on a registry   so that's one of the real reasons that buildings  and owners are reluctant to put it on a registry   until or unless everything is already done that  they need to do to maintain these magnificently   built and beautifully constructed and I mean  constructed for permanence it will stand there   as long as we allow it to I don't know what else  I can say but I'd be happy to answer any questions   thank you please please please let us keep this  building whatever you can I beg you thank you thank you we will continue with public comment good afternoon mayor council  members I made a few notes here um I also own a building in district one just a  few blocks down from the crown of town I recently   purchased it it's in disre disrepair and I'm  very proud of the fact that we're able to make   that part of this beautiful Town look a little  better than it is right now I'm here as others   have said that I'm concerned that we're putting  the crown of town in danger um potentially losing   something beautiful and loved however I don't  believe this is a real issue at hand the issue   we need to address is allowing the new owner Mr  Brown the option to run his his building and his   business as he sees fit the city has provided  alternatives to the proposed demolition permit   unfortunately ignored on those Alternatives is  the original request for increased capacity is my   belief that government entities and small groups  of individuals should not have the power to make   such a significant impact on the way an owner  is allowed to conduct their business decisions   made on the crown today have the potential to  either allow the crown to become an even more   thriving Center for art or potentially fall into  disrepair potentially even be even be removed as a   responsible Community we should welcome Innovation  and be prepared for challenges to our status quo   this is how wonderful cities like witcha flourish  and grow the Douglas Design District and College   Hill residents often talk of plans to improve the  Commerce prosperity walkability and overall pride   in this beautiful part of witcha the crown was  built in 1928 with a capacity of 1500 the current   capacity number was was my understanding was  reduced by the prior owner only to mitigate tax   liability due to the fact that taxes are or were  assessed based on capacity it could be assumed   the prior prior owner was not able to maintain  necessary cash flow or profitability otherwise   that owner wouldn't have attempted to avoid this  tax which would entail a sacrifice of Revenue and   ultim ultimately could not afford to maintain the  business my recommendation is to allow the new   owners of the crown to make their own decisions  with this historic building let them make the   crown a place people want to be I know many of us  have fond memories of visits to the crown however   I would challenge all of us to consider the last  time we bought a ticket for a show I know for   myself it been about 40 years meanwhile I always  enjoy seeing the The Marquees shining brightly on   Douglas during my commute to and from my office  downtown also many people don't want to accept   this but businesses must make money otherwise they  cannot stay in business they cannot pay taxes main   maintain jobs resources and in this case provide  entertainment and as a business owner Mr Brown is   trying to make the rational business decisions to  make money so that building can maintain in good   operation let's also keep in mind that no one is  forcing people to buy tickets to these events I   believe the capacity issue will resolve itself  based on how willing people are to buy tickets   buying a ticket will be a decision based on on  many factors one factor is ease of access the   city is is walkable especially the College Hill  area which also offers a variety of options for   private in public transit most importantly it  will come down to the quality of the product the   new owners of the crown can deliver we seem to be  eliminating that ability by delaying the proposed   capacity changes I believe delaying Mr Brown to  continue with his plans is unnecessary and would   be an irresponsible overstep by our community  government enties should encourage Innovation   and partner with owners to progress and develop  too much wasted time will kill anything let's stop   wasting time on this issue meekly threatening  the owners with failure by delaying important   decisions that is not not strong leadership and  does not reflect well on our city lastly I am   far from entertainment or far from an expert in  the entertainment entertainment industry I don't   believe there are many in this town that are Mr  Brown is an expert and a successful owner in this   industry let's allow him to do what he does best  and move on thank you just state your name for   oh I'm Sor the clerk please Matt Jackson thank  you thank you we'll continue with public comment I see none we'll bring it back to the bench and  we'll start with council member glasa thank you   mayor I just have a more a few more follow-up  questions for Scott um number one is the 180-day   hold there's two possible objectives number one  is it to prevent the Demolition and give the   public the ability to add this to the registry or  number two is it preserve the historical history   in line with the historical American Building  survey uh so yes one is to consider whether or   not to list it the other one is to consider  alternatives which can include uh doing that   survey and historic inventorying of the structure  going back to the follow-up to my questions that   I had previously regarding penalty did we  figure out what the penalty of demolition   is if they were to demolish it tomorrow it is not  clear because it's deep into the um IBC and the   IBC codes we're just not confident we can say  that there are penalties we believe it's it's   it's just a violation of a code so it would be  okay you're here okay so uh yes councilman uh   Chris laam metro area building and construction  department so our penalty in this case based   on the code would merely be an increased fee  for not getting the the permit in advance so   that the permit for a commercial demolition is I  believe $50 so that would increase his fee to $150   uh the main objective is to ensure that it was  properly permitted and then that the demolition   was inspected so uh and and that it was left in  in the proper State at the end of that so really   any penalties um associated with that would  be anything that a historical uh significance   was placed on the building the the code would  really not much of a penalty given that it's   not a historical building Mr Brown could take a  wrecking ball to it tomorrow for 150 bucks and and   the only penalty that would be the only penalty I  as the as mabcd would have at my disposal at this   point it would come down to any other legal or  historical uh planning violation of another city   ordinance or code so let's say we still decided to  put 180-day interim hold on this today he could do   that tomorrow that that would be a possibility  I assume council member so once we noticed that   was taking place we would Levy a stop work order  on the property and and to stop the demolition   so that would be a factor okay and then the  last question this was probably for Scott uh   regarding the schematic question too um did we  consult to see maybe how long it would take to   uh do the historical American Building survey  H ABS yes I uh have not been able to because   uh I really think that that's something we would  have to hire a consultant to help us out with uh   there are historic preservation Consultants who  have experience doing this um and so that would   be the Avenue that I would look to for that um  you know it's just a matter of contacting them   and asking what their estimates would be for  a structure of this size thank you before we   continue with comments are there any questions  left I have one question for you Scott um one   of the public comment individuals mentioned that  this is a public building can you address if any   public dollars have been used to renovate or in  any way way um help this structure be in existence   oh I uh I'm not aware of any but my knowledge to  that is is not very broad or very deep so but I'm   personally am not aware of any so again this is a  private building one more time it it is privately   owned and so one of the questions I have received  over the last week people have compared it to the   orfium theater which is a nonprofit and that is a  building owned um by the orfium board but in this   situation this is very different while they're  similar in the building structure they're very   differently owned one is nonprofit this one is  privately owned and again over what we would be   doing from this Council according to what is being  presented would we be overstepping as a government   into private property rights since there were no  public dollars used to build this [Music] building   I'm going to take that as a question and I I  believe that that's that's the reason why uh   this process works the way that it does that  it comes before the city council is Prim is to   answer that question and so it's I I I think it's  it's a question for the city council to determine   what's appropriate and in the best interest of the  community but again no public dollar unless you   find that information there have been no public  dollars so taxpayer dollars to renovate or create   this building again uh not to my knowledge uh  but again I would only know about it if it was   brought to my attention we uh besides providing  some input in the witch do historic Loan program   we we generally are not involved in public funding  for uh private structures thank you very much we   will now continue with comments from the bench  beginning with vice mayor John stun thank you   mayor uh this is just information only uh Celeste  ret is my appointee for the historical board   and she passed on some information today that is  interesting uh there's a Senate bill it's from her   there's a Senate bill that was passed moving now  through the house that would expand historic tax   credits to 45% so a possibility for State historic  tax credits so just information only from Mr Brown are there any further questions because it  seems like that was a comment with some sort of   and I would be curious to ask the property owner  if that has changed your mind in allowing your   property to become a historic property look the as  I reiterated in my letter to all of you and d and   I apologize for misspelling your name I don't  know how I could have done that um it's very   common not un commmon name there but uh look we  we never intended to have any other plan for this   building other than arts and entertainment and for  it to be a part of this community for the next 100   years only until such time that we had the issue  with capacity uh that that arose that and then   we got to this point where we are we've been to  two Planning Commission meetings the Planning   Commission has approved this request twice you  guys sent it back once you voted it no the second   time all knowing what the outcome would be and I  covered this in my letter as I stand here today in   my heart I don't want that building to go away  but as a fiduciary responsibility to myself my   partners and my family as that building sets the  way that it is restricted in use is not feasible   now if you guys want to come back to the table  I I I and and it's like I've not reached out to   the community I haven't done all of these things  I reached out to Chris last week we had lunch uh   at a fantastic place that I thought only had  sandwiches but they had killer meatloaf um   old meal tasty shop I'm going to give him a free  spot there it was fantastic um you know and and up   until I walked in here to the last council meeting  we were literally emailing each other trying to   get to a solution to how we can get around the  bureaucracy that is stopping this building from   doing what it needs to do you know we've in  my letter I covered the comments of you know   College Hill is a fantastic neighborhood Witchita  is a fantastic place I've been up in Witchita for   almost 30 years you know and I've shared this with  all of you I work for Jack at Candlewood I came   back and did the buildings down at the Scottish  right place I increased capacity there with   no issues that building is you know constructed  completely different with no real fire protection   safety so if we're really talking about a life  safety concern it doesn't exist I spoke with   Chris Dugan who was your fire marshal yesterday  confirmed again that he has no real issue with   life safety in that building and I would encourage  you to ask him personally the issue that he had   when you asked him last time we were here if he  approved my request to increase capacity and he   said no that was because he thought that you were  asking does you improve it as it was written for   him to be solely responsible for him making the  decision and that he did not support he does not   have a life safety issue with the number of people  that I'm asking to put in this building so what I   would come back to you guys is I only went looking  for other alternatives for this site after we were   restricted from operating it as we felt that we  should have been none of this information showed   up in the title work uh and quite frankly the  your your historic process of picking properties   out by driving around in 1991 and saying they're  historic without the property owner knowing there   are a lot of things and a key word that I want you  guys to remember is taking and I'm sure that your   legal office knows what that comment will mean  but but pay attention to it as I said in that   letter I'm open if you guys can get around your  capacity restrictions and the fear mongering that   is happening just like with Andy's custard there  was going to be a huge traffic issue we had all   you had all of these complaints there was going  to be crashes and runs that restaurant's been   there I don't know how many traffic accidents have  caused because of a backed up drive-through line   just like I sent you Drone footage when we had  almost a we had a full house surface Lots open   People parking on Douglas people standing out in  the middle of the streets taking photos traffic's   not a problem walkability is not a problem people  aren't parking in the neighborhood directly   behind the crown or near it because the Surface  Street this the street lots are full anyway from   residents by the time it gets to the evening  so if we can get around all of the anxiety and   of change and help witch grow and let me generate  tax dollars we've got four or five other assets up   here we'd like to develop but the push back from  the city and the community to developer I mean   if you're an outside developer paying attention  to this and I know a lot of them and they pay   attention to what we do why come to Witchita  with with all of this effort and work when you   can spend your cash somewhere else I mean I want  to be here we've made a ton of friends up and down   Douglas from Belmont to fiorito the guys at AR  coffee in your District I mean the it's a great   it's a great City but this type of restriction  back to developers that aren't doing anything   that's not a code issue this is a code issue it's  not an emotion issue it's a code issue not today   it's not but the reason we're here so if you guys  want to come back I think these guys have gotten   to the math looking at the architectural drawings  we can get to less than 2,000 and I'm agreeing to   it to 1750 I'll put the building on the national  register I'll put it on a local Landmark status   but if you guys get the capacity do you have the  ability to vote for it today and we can just end   all of this and we can go forward otherwise  you can you can restrict my ability to operate   a private piece of real estate and a private  business shun me away from ever coming here again   to do business and probably a few people that I  know which that's not a threat it's just a reality   when you when you like somewhere and you're  treated well you'll come back I think we can do   a lot for the city I want to be here I I I think  that it's a it's a sad day I mean I've never torn   down a historic building I'm a preservationist  every building that we've developed in the past   is historic and being preserved that's all I  have for you guys but if you guys anybody have   the ability I don't know legally if they can make  a motion to do our stuff here today but I'm glad   to you know you know do something and and one  thing that we've did is I anticipated you guys   holding us up so when you see content happening  in that building over the next six months it's   it's not that I was bluffing or that you know I I  don't have intentions to redevelop that site it's   that I need to mitigate my losses that I've been  experiencing every day there by not being able to   operate the building to its fullest extent thank  you for your time I hope that we can resolve this   and again we cannot do any of that from this bench  uh that would be taking away from the process that   actually is already in existence so to answer your  question the answer is no uh Council C council   member Johnson thanks mayor uh before I say what  I was going to say I would encourage everyone to   go back in the record listen to Mr Brown say  um that they've had nearly what and he stopped   probably going to say nearly a thousand people  capacity is 850 so that Drone footage is probably   from over capacity facility I was actually  going to make a motion and I moved that the   council extend the interim control period  to a total of 180 days which is August 4th 2025 second we have a motion and a second  discussion council member Glascock thank you   mayor the the reason I asked the question about  schematics which we didn't get an answer in terms   of the preservation for hbas that should be the  decision this body is making of how do we preserve   the historical nature of it if the property  owner uh chooses to uh demolish the property   and so without that knowledge I can't vote to  extend it arbitrarily 180 days I believe that   property rights are Universal whether that be a  local guy or not estate guy or a good guy or a bad   guy property rights are Universal and I believe  and it has been articulated this is a private   building whether that's commercial or residential  it's still a private building owned by a private   operator and I believe that we have rights to life  liberty and property I think the Fifth Amendment   the due process clause protects that and when  I took an oath from this bench was to uphold   the Constitution and regardless of my personal  feelings about the preservation of the building I   do want the building Pres I'll say that on record  I hope that you do not tear down the building it   is part of the fabric of Witchita it's part of the  history of this community I've attended numerous   events there my parents have my grandparents  and as a witchin I'm urging you not to do so um   however I don't believe that as a council person  I can direct you to save it in this capacity um   and so I'm not doing this for you I'm not doing  this for the applicant I'm doing this because I   think all of us have personal property rights and  that those should be protected um I don't know   where we stop I don't know where the collective  uh history has greater stake than an owner and an   individual owner at one point and at what point  does that sway what levels of feelings does a   business or does a building have to give someone  for then us to be required to keep the building   I think that's arbitrary and can be interpreted  differently per different people and so again I   struggle with this I love the building I want the  building preserved I want to keep the building but   I also can't in this capacity force you to keep  the building building I can just ask you to do   so um and I would hope that our historic board  and the historic preservation board proactively   works with the consent of the owners to add other  buildings in this community that are part of our   history and integral to this community proactively  to the board so we don't have this conversation   again so when a future individual purchases a  building they know what they're getting into   instead of retroactively adding this and so I  that's why I can't arbitrarily support the 180   days um and I don't think a few of my questions  again regarding the schematics were answered but   please do not tear down please be a participating  member of this community and preserve the building   I will add a couple of comments and it really goes  back down to I know that the very first individual   who spoke talked about property rights and the  other portion that you talked about was being   a public building and unfortunately according  to staff there were no public dollars to prop   up this building and as also a p of attending  events at the Crown Uptown and as a longtime   witon I do believe that it is a historic piece  of our Witchita history but because a private   property owner did not have that opportunity prior  to knowing that it was going to be either forced   upon him or um not even at this point he's he has  previously said he's not willing to uh go through   the the process to put it through the national  state or local registry at the moment as is I   don't want to overstep government's role here and  so I actually will have a substitute motion rather   um The Substitute motion will be similar to the  180 days but I would shorten that um if that would   allow staff time to uh whether it's the community  time to uh have this discussion further so I will   provide a substitute motion to for the council  to extend the interim control period for up to 30   days from the date of receipt so an additional  30 days um and today's receipt would be March 4th a second so this would allow time for the  property owner whether to talk to community   members about selling the property or  any further discussions regarding how to   preserve it um because again from hearing  not only from Community we want and we're   asking that you preserve this building but  it is this private property owner's right to   determine what he would like to do with his  property and as someone who stepped up to   the plate and said he's also a preservationist  and does believe in preserving these beautiful   historic buildings we are urging asking  that you would work whether in selling   the property or talking about how it can be  preserved so I'm asking for 30 days and that's   my motion is there a motion oh sorry I have a  motion and a second for the substitute motion   council member Glascock yeah my question  again thank you mayor would be for Scott I know I've asked this previously if  this motion were to pass today could   we have at whatever disposal were able to  the historic preservation board go in start   a survey to record the historical Integrity of  the building so if the applicant still chooses   to move forward with demolition we' at  least have the history captur for the   building um yes we can we can make efforts  towards that at a at a minimum with the   permission and cooperation we can have staff go  in and photograph it uh to the level at which   a historic survey is necessary uh we can also  reach out to Consultants to find out what that   would take in terms of financial resources  and time question for the applicant then would would you in good faith work with the city  to allow city planners to go in and record the   historical nature of the building within  the next 30 days I'm not going to commit   to anything today um what I will do is that in  the 30 days I'll be glad to sit down with you   to discuss it um but I don't think good faith  has been presented on my side and if you want   to accuse me of breaking the law again I think  you better be able to prove it Mr Johnson thank   you um but uh look again the the solution to  this is sitting down and working with fire and   planning department and letting us get to the  capacity that's really it that's the savior of   the building beyond that I don't know what  else to tell you I would say I would also   encourage to Quorum From the Bench as well um  and mayor I don't think I can support that if   the applicant also will isn't willing in good  faith um to allow us to record the historical   Integrity vice mayor John stun thank you mayor  uh with the app Mr Brown would you be willing   to sit down with the residents in that area and  tell them of your plans for and said I you know   as we go forward with our development plans um  they'll be made public say that again please as   we go forward with development plans they will  be made public okay I think it's important to   have a conversation with the neighbors too  I encour I would encourage that I'm going   to ask one question I think it was regarding the  demolition of this property again the only current   uh penalty is $150 if the applicant chooses just  to go ahead and demolish so and yes mayor so that   would be according to our code based on that  permit so if they were to begin that without   a permit they would incur a fee that is as per  code as per current ordinance with that note that   we would also stop that demolition as soon as we  noticed that it was occurring uh we would have to   get the building to a safe condition the property  to a safe condition based on whatever progress had   been made then any any other penalties associated  with that would have to be based on other city   ordinances they would not be addressed by our  codes there's nothing that prevents the property   owner um even if the council votes on 180 days  which is the current sorry the previous motion   the one that I have presented is 30 days whether  it's 30 days or 180 days that property owner is   would not have any um repercussion other than $150  penalty for Wrecking this building and to clarify   mayor he so we would not be able to issue a  wrecking permit for the building so that includes   utility uh shut offs in this case is where for  example there's a shared wall so that's one reason   we require a contractor to demolish these kind  of buildings and they would have to produce a   plan with that Etc so that that of course would  would not be in place um and would have to be   rectified um if the owner was to proceed without a  permit so but yes accepting the fact that uh th th   that situation the fact that we cannot uh issue  a permit um there's there's no specific penalty   within the building code and the mabcd codes uh  for removing a building council member Johnson   thanks mayor um I would just encourage the  property owner to go back to this meeting   on YouTube and watch the entirety of this item  um and maybe there's a different interpretation   of the language that was used but that's  all I'm sorry I know that there are others   that want to speak but once public comment has  ended it does come back to the bench and only   questions can be asked of Staff or the owner  so we currently have a substitute motion of   30 days same language just a reduction in the  time it's been seconded any further discussion   regarding the 30 days I see none we will vote on  The Substitute motion Mr clerk please open the RO motion fails 4 to three  we will now go back to the   original motion which is 180 days  any further discussion regarding 180 days again I will say that that was  the Compromise I was willing to make   with the 30 days but um the next one  will now be regarding the same exact   motion but it's a change in time  which is 180 days we have a motion   and a second any further discussion I  see none Mr clerk please open the role motion now passes 61 180 days passed Mr  clerk please call the next item con 2024   247 conditional use request in the city to  allow short-term rental in the sf5 single   family residential district generally  located on the west side of North baton   Avenue and within 350 ft south of  East 2 Street North 227 North baton Avenue good good afternoon Scott wle from the planning department  again uh for this item so uh for this case the   applicant is requesting a conditional use  for the of this property for to use it as a   short-term rental this case is being heard  today because the district Advisory board   and the Planning Commission have both recommended  denial there have been protests submitted against   the application and the third reason is because  the applicant has appealed the decision of the   Planning Commission in terms of the subject site  as you can see here the subject site is located on   baton Avenue between first and second streets the  property address is 227 North baton it consists   of one ownership parcel the site is developed  with a single family house and garage and it   is zoned sf5 as you can see here on the map the  white color is sf5 in terms of the requests the   applicant has indicated they would like to utilize  the property for a short-term rental in terms   of context properties surrounding uh this site  are zoned sf5 and developed with single family   dwellings in terms of the staff report the staff  report for this item contains information on the   review process C for short-term rentals a history  of the previous administration administrative   permit application to allow short-term rental  is also included in terms of review on January   23rd the Planning Commission uh held the public  hearing for this item and recommended denile in   support of the motion the Planning Commission uh  Commissioners indicated that the short-term rental   could be detrimental to neighboring properties  the Planning Commission also uh indicated uh or   cited the number of members of the public who  spoke against the application at that meeting   five members of the public spoke in opposition  at that meeting citing concerns of safety and   the transient nature of short-term rentals there  were no members of the public who spoke in support   of the request other than the applicant who was  present on February 3rd the district Advisory   Board reviewed the request and recommended denial  of the application in support of that motion the   board cited uh golden Factor uh believing that the  short-term rental would be detrimental to nearby   properties multiple members of the public  spoke in opposition to the request at that   meeting citing concerns over safety and again the  transient nature of short-term rentals 10 protest   petitions were received uh against the application  with six of those representing properties within   the protest area uh those equaled 33% of the  protest area which exceeds the 20% threshold so   therefore a super majority uh vote six of seven  votes would be required for any of approval on   February 5th the uh applicant uh filed an  appeal of the Planning Commission decision   and that appeal is included as an attachment  to the staff report in terms of recommended   action this recommended the city council adopt the  findings of the Planning Commission and deny the   requested conditional use and authorized necessary  signatures that would require a vote of four of   seven just a simple majority on that one in terms  of alternatives an alternative is to override the   Planning Commission adopt alternative findings and  approve the conditional use that would require six   of seven votes because of the protest petition  and as always you can return the case to the   Planning Commission for additional consideration  uh again requiring just a simple majority for that   in terms of process city council policies at the  public hearing for planning agenda items occurs at   the Planning Commission meeting according to the  policy the city council does not typically receive   public comments on zoning items so with that I'll  take you through some of the images and graphics   so again here's the zoning map showing sf5 as the  predominant zoning in this area here's the aerial   showing uh single family use as as a predominant  use uh in the surrounding area uh this is the   map from the comprehensive plan it uh recommends  residential uses in this location here's a site   plan that was submitted as part of the application  here's a protest map again uh it was 33% so over   the 20% threshold and here are photos from the  area looks like it was a little snowy that day and   uh here's the subject site with the application  signed in front so with that I'll stand for any   questions questions for staff I see none and  I know that these are um items that do not get   public comments so we will keep it right here at  the bench this just council member Glasco sorry I   just have two quick questions what is the density  of already approved short-term rentals in the area   um you know that came up during the Planning  Commission meeting and it's my recollection   that it was somewhere around uh seven or six  seven or eight of them uh in this particular   area like in the uh uh it's uptown uptown area so  within the Uptown area there's Crown Heights I'm   sorry the recent case as a [Laughter] westsider  um okay and is has have any of the other ones been   denied in this areaa um uh interesting question  uh the answer to that one is that again for the   short-term rentals there's a process where there's  an administrative permit that could be applied for   that's generally the first step and uh if uh more  than 50% of the ab budding and adjacent Property   Owners protest that then it's a denial of that uh  this property uh went through that process and was   denied based on protests that were submitted  those are just that's described in the staff   report I didn't provide that as a verbal overview  um however there is a property that is just on the   same block but across the street that in a similar  fashion was protested to the amount that it too   has been denied and is the owner is now pursuing  we understand a conditional use application what   percent of our short-term rental applications  are denied in community as a whole it's very   very small um uh We've I I venture to say I think  the number was close to 300 that we've processed   and only a handful I'd say five or less have  been denied because of that protest and again   I can get you I can get you finite numbers  but that's just my recollection at that's   close enough the followup to that would be  out of those five denials theoretically out   of 300 approximately have all five of them  been denied by mapc as well uh this is the   first one that's gone through this process to  this degree so any further questions I see none   council member Johnson District number  one thanks mayor uh there was a lot of   robust discussion about this at the district  Advisory Board as well um and the property   owner just seemed to struggle to answer some of  the questions and talk about what was initially   communicated with the neighborhood um versus what  ended up happening um looking at the fact that   both mapc and the district Advisory Board denied  it um I would move that the city Council adopt   the findings of the mapc deny the requested  conditional use and authorize the necessary   signatures second motion and a second any further  discussion I see none Mr clerk please open the rooll bless you motion passes 6 to1 Mr clerk  please call the next [Music] item con 2024   4282 conditional use request in the city to allow  utility major in the sf5 single family residential   district generally located on the north side of  East 21st Street North and within 1 Half Mile   West of North Oliver Avenue good afternoon Scott  wle again um so for this one as you heard uh the   applicant is requesting a conditional use to allow  utility major this case is being heard because the   District Advisory board and the Planning  Commission recommendations for approval   have different conditions and I'll describe that  in a moment in addition there were also protests   that were received against this application about  the subject site uh the subject site is located   at the northwest corner of Fountain and 21st  Street so generally to the north and west of   21st and Oliver a subject site is approximately  1.2 acres in size it consists of one ownership   parcel it is currently undeveloped and is zoned  sf5 single family the applicant in terms of the   request the applicant has indicated they would  like to utilize the property for an internet   exchange Point facility the applicant has stated  that the development of the site for the internet   exchange facility is part of a Federal Grant  and is a collaboration uh with WSU based on the   information provided by the applicant the internet  exchange Point falls under the use utility major   in the zoning code that's why uh you see that  term coming up and a site plan was in included   as part of the application material submitted by  the applicant it shows the proposed building and   related infrastructure such as parking lot and uh  air conditioning units the applicant has indicated   that the building will uh not be occupied most of  the time of the time and that the air conditioning   equipment is similar to systems for residential  buildings uh not the larger scale systems   typically use for data centers in terms of context  the subject site is surrounded on all sides by   sf5 single family zoning uh properties to the  north and east are developed with single family   dwellings the house directly to the north is in  use as a short-term rental property to the South   across 21st Street is developed as part of the WSU  uh campus and the baseball complex and property   to the West is developed with a fraternity house  for WSU students in terms of the staff report the   staff report for this item contains information  on landscaping and screening in terms of review on   January 23rd the Planning Commission held a public  hearing for this item and recommended approval   with uh some conditions and I'll read those  their vote was 9 to Z two members of the public   spoke in opposition uh to the conditional use uh  application at that meeting so the mapc conditions   include that the site shall be developed and  operated in compliance with all regulations   two that the development of the site conformed to  the site plan uh that gets approved and three that   if there's any violation uh that they can lose  their conditional use these are fairly standard   conditions on February 3rd the district Advisory  Board reviewed the request and recommended   approval per the Planning Commission but with some  additional conditions and uh that vote was seven   to one with two extensions so 712 uh multiple  members of the public spoke in opposition to the   request citing concerns of traffic uh safety and  how the development would affect property taxes at   the additional conditions that the dab recommended  uh consists of the following that one that the   exterior shall reflect the residential character  of the neighborhood to the north and east of the   subject site two that any subsequent buildings  on the site would be located to the west of the   original building uh which is shown on the site  plan and attached as part of this staff report and   then three that there should be a 70 foot setback  from Fountain Street or I should say Fountain   Avenue there we go um five protest petitions  were received uh and four of those properties   are within the protest area and they accounted for  39% of the protest area so that exceeded the state   uh 20% threshold and so any approval requires a uh  super majority or six of seven votes in terms of   recommended action it's recommended city council  adopt the findings of the Planning Commission and   approve the requested conditional use with mapc  conditions authorize necessary signatures and   instruct the city clerk to publish the resolution  after approval again requires six of seven votes   Alternatives include that you can override the  Planning Commission adopt alternative findings   and approve the conditional uses recommended by  the dab that would require six of seven votes   uh you can override the Planning Commission adopt  alternative findings and deny the conditional use   that would require five of seven votes because  it's an override or as always you can return   the case to the Planning Commission for additional  consideration that requires just a simple majority   of four of seven votes and just a note about  the process the public hearing of cares at the   Planning Commission and the city council typically  does not receive public comments on zoning items   with that I'll take you through the uh graphics  and photos so here's the zoning map again it's   it's colored in the white color because it's sf5  zoning here's the uh aerial again showing it's   undeveloped at this time here's the map from the  comprehensive plan showing it's recommended for   new residential development here's the site plan  uh that was submitted it shows the entrance coming   off a fountain and the small parking lot the  structure itself and then the chilling equipment   oh and uh I would also point out that it shows  landscaping materials as well so existing trees in   proposed uh this is the protest map again showing  39% and then uh again rather snowy with this one   but these are properties across the street uh  across the street this is the subject site and   with that I'll stand for any questions questions  for staff beginning with council member Glascock   thank you mayor I like those that new graphic  you're putting to show which direction the ey is   going oh we try um it's helpful um I just have one  quick question because it's addressed in one of   the letters um and I just want Comfort regarding  that one of the uh protest petitions said that   they were concerned about potential environmental  and health risks um they mentioned the long-term   effects of transmission or emissions from a  facility uh with close proximity residential   homes given that it's close to 29th in Grove as  well are we confident about the risks I imagine   studies went through and I imagine mapc took in  consideration when they were voting I just wanted   Assurance of that as well um yes uh I guess what  I would add is that uh from the dialogue that was   shared at the Planning Commission meeting and even  a development review application meeting uh before   that and at the dab meeting uh my understanding  is that this is a prefabricated building that is   built to very substantial standards within that  building essentially what is happening is that   fiber optic lines and data connect connections are  being made so they're being brought up uh so it's   not introducing any kind of chemical process or  any kind of uh engine other than a generator that   would be at the site for emergency purposes so  it's very low intensity in terms of uh producing   any emissions or chemicals from the site that was  never a concern of Staff uh no it's not based on   the description that we've received and in fact  um our biggest concern was about the chilling   equipment based on what we've seen in other areas  and to know that this has been described as more   residential scale air conditioners and not the  industrial data uh Center uh that has alleviated   I think a lot of the concern that staff had of  integrating this in the residential area thank   you any further questions for staff this resides  council member Johnson's District district number   one again today is district one day um there  was substantial conversation about this is dab   as well uh many in the neighborhood speaking  about it and some concerns about placing this   in a residential uh neighborhood um with those  discussions and and really taking into account   what was said at the district Advisory Board and  going through mapc I think the fact that this is   adjacent to an arterial kind of alleviates uh  a lot of those concerns um so I do not have a   problem with moving forward with it there was one  request from the dab that I do not agree with so   I have a different motion than the dab motion  and that is that I moved to override the map   C approve the conditional use with the mapc  recommended conditions with an additional   condition or conditions that I'll get to in  a second place the ordinance on first reading   authorize the necessary signatures and instruct  the city clerk to publish the ordinance after   approval on the second reading the additional  conditions is the Landscaping shall be one and   a half times the requirement of the witch  Landscaping ordinance and the subsequent   additional buildings on the site will be located  to the west of the original building which is   shown on the site plan as part of the application  there shall be a 70ft setback from Fountain Street   and in support of this I offer the following the  additional conditions will help reduce potential   negative impacts to nearby properties I also want  to encourage the property owner to develop the   site with drought tolerate plants and to model  the Landscaping of the wonderful work that's   being done at the Barton building on wsu's campus  second motion and a second any further discussion   I see none Mr clerk please open the rooll  motion passes 70 Mr clerk please call the next item public housing section 18  disposition application for group 3C good afternoon mayor council I'm C Bert  I'm the assistant director of the Department   of Housing and Community Services um in 20  17 the wh board approved a rental assistance   demonstration application to HUD to convert its  entire portfolio as two projects the multif family   senior properties 226 units at Greenway Manor  mlan Manor Rosa grag Garden Apartments and Bernice   Hutcherson apartments and then single family  homes 352 units scattered across wiah wh was   successful in securing securing a tax credit  investor Hud loan and GAP financing for the   multifam senior buildings wh was not successful  securing financing for the rad conversion of the   352 single family homes in May 2021 HUD convened  a national panel of repositioning experts to   evaluate options for the single family homes  they determined restricted rad rents would not   support debt service needed for requisite repairs  a tremendous expense of managing and maintaining   single family homes made a rad conversion  infeasible and recommended disposition this   is group 3C that we're talking about today and it  is comprised of 137 single family homes and seven   non-housing properties comprised of 10 Parcels  to go through them 29 housing units at Arnold   and matthewson in District 1 28 housing units at  Murdoch and Grove in District 1 two non-housing   properties of Ash Park and one non-housing  vacant lot at 2607 North Patt in District 1   one non-housing vacant lot at 2312 random Road  in District 1 45 housing units at hydraulic and   Burkley in District 3 35 housing units and two  non-housing vacant Lots comprised of five Parcels   at Central and ridge in District 5 and one office  building at 332 North Riverview in district 6   the original plan was to submit the remaining  units for disposition under Huds section 22   voluntary streamline conversion after the  portfolio dropped below 250 units per the   regulations on September 6 2024 the director  of Huds special application center informed   the Witchita Housing Authority that Hut would no  longer approve section 22 disposition applications   due to a federal lawsuit on September 10th 2024  that director informed wh in writing that they   would accept a section 18 disposition application  for the remaining units with a scattered site justification this disposition under Section 18  of the H is under the Housing Act to be sold at   fair market value through either the city's office  of real estate Andor the MLS by Contracting with a   real estate broker Andor auction firm properties  will have no future affordability restrictions   though preference will be given to owner occupied  use proposals and or for investors who maintain   afford affordability for future tencies we  are requesting tenant protection vouchers for   existing residents and residents are provided  relocation counseling and relocation costs are   paid by the project there were some environmental  issues identified all occupied units were tested   for Radon and each tested below the HUD threshold  the occupied units are scattered and satisfy all   HUD Ron testing requirements 10 properties in  the 1400 to6 00 block of East Arnold have been   identified as having asbest containing materials  the asbest containing materials does not present   any health hazards unless the site that tested  positive is Disturbed I.E during Rehabilitation   work buyers of these properties are provided  and operations and maintenance plan developed   by Spectrum EnV environmental services and while  HUD does not require abatement of this aestus if   someone were to rehabilitate one of the houses  that had that they would need to follow the guide   in the plan no additional mitigation is required  20 properties are located within a HUD and FEMA   defined flood plane those are the 22 to 2500  block of East Murdoch the 800 block of North   popper the 2100 to 2200 block of East random these  do not impact the ability to sell the properties   and the Housing Authority would be required to  con continue to carry the flood insurance on the   properties until they're sold if Federal funds are  used in the acquisition of any of those properties   a restricted covenants would be placed on that  property additionally two properties at 838 North   Grove and 828 North popper had Vapor intrusion  tests that exceeded HUD standards for Benzene   elevated Benzene levels is not consistent  with what would be found in a chlorinated   solvent plume Benzene levels can be elevated  by emissions from burning coal and oil benzene   waste and storage operations motor vehicle  exhaust evaporation from gasoline or other   solvents and tobacco smoke those same two  properties at 838 North Grove and 828 North   popper had Vapor intrusion tests that exceeded HUD  standards for Benzene neighboring properties had   test results with no contaminants above  HUD threshold limits Vapor mitigation   systems were installed in both properties but  subsequent test results still exceeded standards   full unit cleanout and additional Vapor mitigation  systems are being installed as recommended by   Spectrum environmental and approved by Hud  and once testing shows successful mitigation   the properties then can be sold wiah Housing  Authority has completed or has underway the   following activities as required by section  18 of the Housing Act appraisals residents   consultations resident relocation counseling home  ownership resource counseling local government   consultations an environmental review the  authorization use Grant funds is expected   to be received from HUD any day the application  cannot be submitted to the special application   center until the authorization to use Grant funds  is received sales proceeds total apprais value is $3,374 12,583 th000 of that is the 137 housing  units with an average of 91,8 47 per unit   $670,000 of that is the office building  at 334 North Riverview and then 121,122 of low income housing as approved by the witcha  Housing Authority board there are some of those   units that would be uh built in conjunction with  a multi-agency center HUD will not permit proceeds   to be used for any other purpose including  affordable home ownership there's no impact to   the general fund which at our Housing Authority  will request that HUD allow net sales proceeds   to fund Section 8 rental projects and other  activities to increase the supply availability and   utilization of low-income housing in accordance  with HUD notice P 2020-2023 the law department has   reviewed and approved the resolution as to form it  is recommended that the city council approve the   resolution and the submission of the inventory  removal application and section 18 disposition   addendum to the US Department of Housing and Urban  Development for 137 single family homes and seven   non-housing properties comprised of 10 parcels  from the public housing authority and authorize   the necessary signatures and I stand for any  questions which I may or may not be able to answer   I have staff in the room that may be able to help  me questions for staff beginning with council   member hoisel thank you mayor uh Sally could I ask  you a question honestly I oh you walked in she has   sat here and waited literally s hours today for  this item so I would feel horrible if you don't   get a chance to say something no problem um now  these houses now that we're putting them out uh   for sale like this dispositioning um a lot of  them are grouped up like we talked about the   45 on South Hydraulic so this does provide an  opportunity for us to look at maybe some group   plans or some um affordable housing plans centered  around a lot of these houses are a group together   could you just chat a little bit about that kind  of for the Public's sure benefit here uh under   the section 18 disposition applic HUD will have  no more restrictions on the properties but that   doesn't restrict us from imposing our own if  we chose to and so the 45 units in what we call   South City down at um hydraulic you know that is a  grouping there's there are actually 13 units there   where we've already rehabed them significantly and  we deliberately transferred our largest families   families with S 8 9 10 11 12 family members  into these newly rehabbed homes because we   knew if we issued them a voucher they would be  really challenged to go out into the private   Marketplace and find a unit to use that voucher so  it's our intent that that grouping to be able to   sell those as a group as an investment opportunity  um these families have agreed to this which allows   them to take their tenant protection voucher and  project base it so that is one an example of one   project that we know we're going to move in in  that direction with 13 of the 45 units down in   South City um that leaves the remaining you know  37 unit or 30 I got to do the math in my head 31   32 units down there um could be made available as  a group because you know developers see economies   of scale with this we have also have the group  at Arnold and Matthews it's another grouping   of properties where it might make sense for um a  developer who wants to come in and maybe leverage   other funding resources like tax credits or  home you know other funds to be able to have big   impact in neighborhoods uh Country Acres is the  next one 35 units over at Central and uh it Ridge   highly sought after uh another opportunity to come  in and make a whole neighborhood turn around so if   there's a developer out there or a community  partner who would look at this and would like   to invest in this and come up with some sort of  a plan to address again affordable housing um   what does that process look like well once we  get permission to um dispose of the properties   and right now I'm like I said on Friday uh I don't  have high hopes that this is going to move quickly   through the HUD systems this is our largest group  more than double the size of any other um you know   we expect two to eight months for them to approve  this we'll have some time to be putting together   um information and and evaluate potential  opportunities going forward before we get   because once we get approval then we have to issue  tenants 90-day notices before we can sell too so   we absolutely know these groupings are likely not  to be made available for actual purchase till the   end of the year or early next year um we do  have a a listing an email uh list serve for   developers who are interested and there's over 400  developers who've who've indicated that they're   interested in finding out when these properties  become available and we will be reaching out and   sending notices through that list serve okay thank  you you're welcome any further questions for staff   I see none we'll open it up for public comment and  there's no one from the public so we'll bring it   back to the bench um I will go ahead and move this  item um I will move that we approve the resolution   and the submission of the inventory removal  application and section 18 disposition addendum to   the US Department of Housing and Urban Development  for 137 single family homes and seven non-housing   proper properties sl10 Parcels from the public  housing portfolio and authorize the necessary   signatures second motion and a second any further  discussion I see none Mr clerk please open the role motion passes 70 Mr  clerk please call the next item council member appointments and comments  we'll begin with appointments council member   appointment beginning with council member  Johnson thanks mayor I would like to reappoint   to the district one Advisory Board Abby bolman  Katie broek and Joseph sheeper council member   Glascock thank you mayor I have a few different  appointments uh first I would like to appoint   superintendent Dr Justin Henry to a full term  for the ethics Advisory Board in addition Jerome   Castillo for the land bank James William for  the sustainability integration board I would   also like to reappoint um my eligible members on  the district Advisory Board including Stephanie   joerger Jonathan Walden Alan Oliver Wally Bell  June Johnson jentry th Alex Garcia Vio Harry   Willis Gage hunt and John Whitmer council  member sorry uh vice mayor John Sten thank   you mayor I would like to appoint Randy timsh  reappoint Randy timsh to wishah sustainability   integration board board and reappoint dab members  Rachel Thomas Stacy wski Dennis Clary and Grace   coin I see no further appointments I move to  approve the list of appointees second motion   and a second any further discussion  I see none Mr clerk please open the role motion passes 70 we will  now have council member commment council member Johnson thanks mayor um I had two  things um one I've talked to Scott wle about this   but just some of the concerns around short-term  rentals as we continue to look at our policy I'd   like to request staff look at Best Practices and  policies from comparable cities or other cities   in general to continue to improve our practices  going forward and also how we address address   short-term rentals in our comprehensive plan and  Zoning that's one thing um but I did talk to him   earlier about that and then two regarding the um  Crown Uptown I would like to request staff work   to draft a resolution or ordinance to start the  process that would nominate the crown of town to   be placed on the local witch historic register for  Council consideration council member hoisel thank   you mayor um I've had a chance to talk to all of  you about the this um we have an issue with um   kind of Hotel licensing permitting kind of some  of the rundown hotels especially in my district   and Out West as well um so I'd like to take a  chance or take this opportunity to um request   that staff put together a workshop to look at um  doing away with hourly rates at motels and hotels   and also potentially uh permitting as well so  just letting us know what all options are on the   table and uh see what direction Council chooses  to go in vice mayor John stun thank you mayor I   would like to invite everyone including council  members to the reopening of West link Library   it'll will open on the 24th which is a Monday kind  of soft opening however if you want a early look   at it you can have breakfast at our District  5 breakfast Saturday the 22nd at 9:00 a.m.   also have Stephanie wise there who also say a few  words said you kind of commissions invite all of   you to come uh it looks nice on on pictures and so  we'll go in and see it can have tours and things   too so what what do you serve for breakfast my  wife is fixing cake casserole oatmeal casserole   I'll have bacon okay orange juice and coffee I'm  going to eat the bacon council member Glascock   thank you uh residents should be getting their  cedra County appraisers office notice just a   reminder to all residents that they can um  appeal the value or the classification um   I know that I've gotten a lot of calls about this  so far I want to remind the public that we do not   have any to do with the appraisal process that's  the county and the state um my home personally   increased 17.3% um the rental property I have  increased uh nearly 23% so I imagine there'll   be a lot of appeals in this process as well  I just want remind citizens they have the   opportunity to do so see no further uh comments  I will just add one uh again an invitation to   the state of the city address which is open  and free to the public on Sunday March 16th   at 5:00 p.m. at the former Central Library doors  open at 4:30 again it will be live streamed like   any other meeting and it is the state of the city  address and inviting the entire public to attend   and now before we can actually adjourn we have to  read uh this so we are not done yet sorry council   members I there was an email all right so I  have to read these verbatim I move that the   city council recess into executive session for  10 minutes to receive information on mediation   in a lawsuit pursuant to KSA 75-43 19 B2 for  legal consultation with the city attorney which   would be deemed privileged in the attorney  client relationship pending litigation and   legal advice the executive session is required to  protect attorney client privilege and the public   interest in addition I also move do I have to  do it separately it' be better if we could do it   separately thank you okay I'll start with this  one that requires 10 minutes I have a motion   second motion and a second any further discussion  I see none Mr clerk please open the role we say   no motion passes 70 now I have another motion  actually there are two more motions everyone I   move that the city council recess into executive  session for 15 minutes to receive information on   another lawsuit pursuant to KSA 75-43 19 B2 for  legal consultation with the city attorney which   would be deemed privileged in the attorney client  relationship pending litigation legal advice the   executive session is required to protect  attorney client privilege and the public   interest second motion and a second any further  discussion I see none Mr clerk please open the role motion passes 6 to one one more oh okay  70 all right one more more I move that the city   council recess into executive session for an  additional 10 minutes to receive information   on a civil action to collect debt pursuant to KSA  75-43 19 B2 for legal consultation with the city   attorney which would be deemed privileged in the  attorney client relationship pending litigation   legal advice the executive session is required to  protect attorney client privilege and the public   interest second motion and a second any further  discussion I see I see none Mr clerk please open   the rooll motion passes 70 so in total we will  have 35 minutes for executive session and we do   need a tiny break can we begin the executive  session at 4:15 sure with the additional 35   minutes sorry so 45 we will return from  to the city council to adjourn we'll be