City Commission - Regular Meeting

put into place a permanent financing to which the party to which the city will not be party. There are two alternatives before you this afternoon. One, the governing body may approve the ordinance to enter into a deposit account pledge and security agreement between the city of Gardens and First Bank. Or two, the governing body may deny the request uh and the ordinance. Staff recommends the governing body approve the ordinance uh as presented. The fiscal note related to this item is that the city would be providing collateral for the construction loan. While the city would be identifying existing idol funds uh in CDs to serve as the collateral, it is necessary for the city to expense this money uh at the time of loan closing and then subsequently treat the return of the collateral as income when the loan is satisfied. acred interest in the meantime would continue to be a general fund income as it is with all idol fund CDs. Um with that I'm happy to answer any questions. We also have a member of the development team here and available if you've got any questions for them as well.

Any questions for Danielle or the development team on this? So the anticipated uh payback of the million-dollar funds will or the recouping of the funds will be what? How long? uh they're moving on the they've already broken ground and they've uh already started vertical construction. They're anticipated uh to uh wrap up with the project in middle of 2026. I don't know if Mr. Hanigan has uh any more detailed timeline to that. I don't want to get ahead of you uh in what I've seen.

Yeah. And so that it would be through construction and that at the end of construction we will convert from construction loan to permanent financing and at time of conversion into permanent financing. That would be the time to repay this loan and permanent financing would carry the entire project. It would take um roughly 12 months of construction which were a month or two in and there would be some need to get the um units leased up before we could convert to permanent financing. So we're estimating 18 months.

Yeah, that's what I thought. That sounds good. No, thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions? I move that we approve ordinance number 3039 2025. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Any other discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That item passed. Thank you.

All right. Uh we go back in order. We're ready for 6B. The governor body is asked to consider a request from Dan Bankhouser and Jerry Valdez on behalf of the property owner Lifelong Fitness LLC to wave section 18-10D of the code of ordinances and section 24.060 of the Garden City zoning regulations for 102 North 11th Street. Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioner Dan P. Howzer and Jerry Valdez on behalf of the property owner Lifelong Fitness LLC are requesting a waiver of the sidewalk installation requirement of section 18-10B of the code of ordinances and the physical fitness facility minimum parking requirement of section 24.060 of the zoning regulations for the property generally located at 102 North 11 Street. The property is zoned I1 light industrial district and the property owner was granted a conditional use permit by the Garden City Board of Zoning Appeals in July 2025 to operate a physical fitness facility. The Garden City zoning regulations require that when a new business takes over your property, it must conform to the current zoning regulations, code of ordinances, and building code. Because this property was previously a furniture store, Dane Thinker submitted the site and building plans to neighborhood and development services for review. During the review of the site plan, it was identified that based on the building plans, a sidewalk along 11th Street and additional parking stalls must be installed. Section 18-10D of the code of ordinances does not permit the issuance of a building permit with a valuation over $35,000 unless sidewalks are installed in accordance with the city specifications. Dan Pinkhauser and the property owner estimated that the building permit valuation will exceed $35,000 and as a result requires installation along 11th Street. There is currently a sidewalk along Fulton Street that does not require any work at this time. The requirement in the code of ordinances to

install sidewalks for projects valued at over 35,000 serves to improve the city's network connectivity and increase public safety while being mindful of fiscal barriers to the property owners by requiring installation concurrent with other construction work. This sidewalk could this sidewalk would continue to ensure that the city's pedestrian network is completed incrementally and separates pedestrians from vehicular traffic. A review of the properties surrounding this one found established sidewalks along the adjacent properties to the north, west, and south. While a gap exists immediately to the east, the networks resumed shortly after, indicating a clear pattern of sidewalk infrastructure in this area. Installing a sidewalk along along 11 street will provide a direct connection to the residential areas surrounding its property and to its neighbors to the south. Attached to this memo is figure one, which highlights the existing sidewalk within approximately 2 miles. Additionally, this re redevelopment requirement is consistent with the comprehensive plan which references sidewalk connectivity several times including in the parks and open space policy 1.1 and transportation policy 6.2. As a result, granting a waiver would interrupt progress towards establishing a complete sidewalk network and in this neighborhood and would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The zoning regulations require that a physical fitness facility provide at least one space for every 200 square ft of gross floor area plus one space for each employee. Based on the building's plans footprint, the property owner intends to use buildings. The property owner intends to use only the building's first floor, converting approximately 11,900 ft into a physical fitness facility. Based on that square footage and the number of employees, they must provide up to 60 parking stalls on the property. During the settling process, Dan Finanouser drafted a parking lot with only 41 parking stalls, including converting the dirt area along the north property line into parking stalls. While the applicant applied, excuse me, when the applicant applied for a condition use permit in July 2025, staff included the minimum parking requirement for gyms, estimating that the applicant may need at least 70 parking stalls based on the building

size. At that time, staff conducted a preliminary calculation and believed that the existing paved and unpaved areas would be sufficient to accommodate at least 70 stalls, which was also noted in the conditional use permit staff report. After an official site claim was submitted, the city engineer confirmed the results by conducting a site capacity review, which demonstrated that the property's existing dimensions are sufficient to accommodate approximately 61 stalls and meet the minimum parking requirements of zoning regulations. Oneway portion's parking calculation of one for one space for every 200 square f feet plus one space for each employee is supported by best engineering practices. Using calculations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking generation manual which calculates average parking requirements based on national data studies. The property would be required to install 60 to 85 parking stalls. Therefore, because this site has been verified to support the necessary parking installs, the code requirement aligned with best engineering practices and this requirement was presented to the applicant before they purchased the property. Staff conclude there is no hardship necess necessary necu staff are aware of any recent similar requests to wave the sidewalk permit or the minimum parking standards considered by the governing body. If the request is approved, staff will work with the city attorney's office to prepare an ordinance outlining the specific sections waved, which would be brought before the governing body once again for approval. There are four alternatives in front of you. The governing body may approve the request to the sidewalk requirement of section 18-10 of the code ordinances and the physical fitness facility minimum parking requirements of section 24.060 of the zoning regulations. Two, the governing body may approve the request to wave the sidewalk requirement and deny the request to wave the minimum parking requirement. Three, the governing body may approve the the request to wave the parking requirement and deny the request of the sidewalk requirement. And four, the governing body may deny both wave requests. And

staff recommends the governing body deny both w requests. Uh Dean Penhauser and the property owner are here and I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys have. Any questions? Did they indicate the reason they wanted to weigh the sidewalk requirement? Was it because of simply because of cost or just because of the the amount of the area? I believe so. That's what they discussed with us is the cost of the sidewalk.

So, if it's waved, then basically you could never hold them to putting a sidewalk in. Is that what you're saying? If you wave it at through this this um through an ordinance, then we would never be able to hold them accountable for or any any of business for putting a sidewalk in. Is that what you're saying? Uh for this I think it would depend on what what you as the governing body decided. Do you want to wave it at this specific uh instance of a building permit um and allow for the future business if there's one at this property? Um I think that would be left up to you and you could specify any

and my last question is so do would they qualify for I know we have sidewalk funds available. Would they qualify for any sidewalk funds that they could use that? Is it no interest? Is it no interest loan for the sidewalk funds or because they're commercial business? I didn't know if that was just residential or if it was also commercial. I don't know for sure that's not in the program. I think Mike can answer that. Oh, okay. Yes, commissioner. The sidewalk program that the city of Garden City has is for residential only, not commercial. Yeah. Now, for a driveway that we do have funds for a driveway that covers under commercial, but not the sidewalk. Okay.

Any other questions? So, my question is, so on our packet, it says that the engineer said that there's space for 60 parking lot stalls, 61 parking lot stalls. Then when I look at Mr. Fankhauser's drawing, I kind of struggle visualizing how those parking lot stalls would fit 61. Could you kind of explain how that would exactly look like essentially because I was wondering if if it's going to block out one of the two entrances or that was kind of the plan or how exactly it would fit.

In um from what we had discussed, it would not impact the either two entrances. Okay. Um the city engineer in my understanding went with a different layout than than what Dan has proposed. Um which would uh reorientate some of those southern parking stalls um to to the other direction um and then put additional ones along uh the dirt that is towards the north of property line. Um so it's just a different layout that that our city engineer used to calculate that capacity review. And then on the sidewalk, just want to make sure I'm correct. So directly to the south, there is no sidewalk. That's where the railroad c crossing is. Then it would be the city substation, city parks building. But then after that, there's no more uh sidewalk. Correct.

There. So yes, correct. Uh directly south is um the railroad tracks and then um further south than that, I believe, is the uh the parks building where there is sidewalk um along that frontage. Um, and then it would be housing that has no sidewalk. Correct. That would be housing without sidewalk. And then to the north it would be sidewalks for about a block and then no more sidewalks after that block. Correct. For that block right after the one directly north, there's no sidewalks. And then further north, I believe that there are sidewalk again. Gotcha. Thank you.

I mean, I do believe a sidewalk. I mean, I'm I I think the having a a fitness facility in that area is going to be incredible. I do think sidewalks, you know, add the additional ability to be able to get to the the fitness facility. I mean, the parking I understand it's a come and go when you're in the fitness, you know, you have your peak times and I I think only when the peak time, but you know, having sidewalks in that area, I think would really greatly enhance the availability to walk through the site. And I also think it would also encourage that whole area to be again to to build sidewalks. And I know that's a an important part of our community. So, I mean, I'm leaning toward waving the parking requirements, but not the sidewalk. I mean, just to be transparent. So, I think to kind of I think to kind of follow along the guidelines of our comprehensive plan, though, you're I mean, your parking is there. It's it's just a a different way of laying out the parking lot line. So, that's to me that's kind of a easy fix. the sidewalks. However, um I'm in agreements with we have to we we need to do something especially in this area that's um that's connectivity to all of the city and

I know we get a bunch of push back from the community members on we don't do anything on the on the west side of of town, you know. So,

um it's not our choice. I mean, we do give choice for uh citizens to come to the city commission and ask for waiverss like this, but I feel like this is a strong need to keep that in place for future accessibility to um to people coming and going to that facility. So, it's to me I don't I'd rather put the sidewalk in um for connectivity purposes. Any other questions? Entertain a motion on this item then. So I'm not sure which one of the or which one of the alternatives. So, I um would like to approve the request to wave the minimum parking requirements uh but deny the request to um uh to wave the sidewalk requirements. I think it's option three if I'm if I'm correct. That's

so approve the request to wave the physical fitness facility minimum parking requirements of section 24.060 of the zoning regulations and deny the waiver request of the sidewalk requirements of section 18-10D of the code of ordinances for the property generally located at 102 North 11 with a caveat. I'm excited about a new business in that area. So So you're waving both? No, just the one. Well, you said to deny Oh, deny the waiver. Deny the deny the waiver of the request for the sidewalks. Yeah, sorry. That was a very complicated. So, there's a motion. Is there a second to that motion? Wait, that was Hold on. We might need to repeat that cuz I heard it two ways now.

Yeah. You wave the wave the minimum parking requirements and deny the waiver of the sidewalk. And that's number three, option three. I second. There's been a second. Any other discussion on that item? None being all in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. I. That passes. Thank you.

Item 6 C. The governing body has asked to consider a request from Dan Fankhauser and Virginia Ramirez for a waiver of section 18-10D of the code of ordinances for 701 East Fulton Street. Dan Kenhauser and Virginia Ramirez are requesting a waiver of the sidewalk installation requirement of the code of ordinances. This property is zone C2 general commercial district and the building is used for auto glass and general repair. The property owner intends to demolish the awning west of the existing building and replace it with a garage. This require requires plans from a design professional which Dan Finhauser has submitted to neighborhood and development services for review. During the review process, staff identified that the garage would require a setback variance from the west property line to which the garden city board of zoning appeals will consider in January. Additionally, it was identified that there is no sidewalk along North Second Street. Section 18-10b of the code of ordinances does not permit the issuance of a building permit valuation over $35,000 and that sidewalks are installed in ordinance with city specifications. Dan Bowser and the property owner estimated that the building permit valuation will exceed $35,000 and as a result requires installation along North Second Street. There is currently a sidewalk along Folton Street that does not require any work at this time. Um this requirement in the code of is said serves to improve the city's network connectivity and increase public safety while being mindful of fiscal barriers. This sidewalk would continue to ensure that the city's pedestrian network is completed and uh separates pedestrians from vehicular traffic. A review of the property surrounding this one found established sidewalks on the adjacent properties to the north, west, and east. While a block gap exists further north, and to the south, the network resumed shortly after, indicating a clear pattern of sidewalk infrastructure in this area. Installing a sidewalk along Second Street would provide a direct connection between the residential areas to the north and the businesses along Fton Street. Attached to the memo is figure one which

highlights the existing sidewalk within approximately 2 miles. Additionally, this redevelopment requirement is consistent with the comprehensive plan which references sidewalk connectivity several times. As a result, print waiver would interrupt progress towards establishing a complete sidewalk network in this neighborhood and would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Prior to today, staff are unaware of any recent similar requests considered by the governing body. If the request is approved, staff will work with the city attorney's office to prepare an ordinance which will come before you uh at a later date. There are two alternatives in front of you. The governing body may approve the request to the sidewalk requirement of section 18-10B of the code of ordinances for the property located at 701 East Fulton Street or two the governing body may deny the waiver request and staff recommends that the governing body deny the waiver request. Dan is still here and I'm happy to answer.

Any questions? So the sidewalks on the south, those were were those part of the sidewalks that were redone back in 2018, I think, when they redid Fton Street. When they did re Yeah, when they redid Fulton Street. Well, I can't remember the year, but it's Yeah, I'm not that project. I didn't say that. But I mean, there's sidewalk there,

correct? I mean, I'm excited about a new business and I mean, obviously, I mean, she's going to be successful. So, but again, this idea of sidewalks, I think not only do they increase the betterment, they're also in our city plan and it's also an idea of safety. So, for me, sidewalks are something I would hate to wave. So, any other questions? Entertain a motion on this item. I'll make the motion to deny the request. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second.

There's been a second. Any other discussion on this item? None being all in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. That item passed. Thank you. Thank you. Item seven, uh, report of the city manager. Um, we have a number of staff reports. If you have any questions on any of those, uh, be happy to try to answer those. A lot of good information. There's a lot of information. A lot of good information on the goals section, but uh, I'll highlight in plainments again. We're over 30,000. So, we'll see what December brings us.

Yeah, that's Christmas. So, yeah. So, fly local, please. Any other any questions or other comments? All right. Meetings of note. Hey, meetings of note is uh filling up. Um you uh I know they moved the the the chamber breakfast. I got a notice on that from the Clarion to the refiner. Yeah, the December 17th one on ours says the Clarion in, but that's uh tomorrow morning. And that is uh actually at uh the refinery. Mhm.

All right. Any of those requiring RSVPs, if you'll get in touch with the city clerk's office, be great. Um item nine is the appropriation ordinance. If approved, uh, the appropriate motion would be to approve appropriation ordinance number 2601-2025A. I move to approve appropriation ordinance number 2601-2025A. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Is there any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay.

That item passed. Thank you. Item 10A. The governing body is asked to consider and approve a resolution of the city of Garden City, Kansas, authorizing the execution of the amendment number one to the power purchase agreement, Grand River Dam Authority power supply project number two between the city of Garden City, Kansas, and the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency. Mike,

yes. Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. Uh on December 14th, 2024, the governing body passed resolution number 2145-2024 authorizing the execution of a power supply agreement with the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency for 9,000 kilowatts of capacity and related energy from the Grand River Dam Authority, GRDA. Uh this agreement did not require any transmission study system improvements to deliver the power to the to Garden City. Um, at this time an additional 6,000 KW was available to the city from GRDA. However, transmission impact study would be required to determine if any transmission system improvements were to be needed to wield the power to the city. The governing body directed staff to complete the necessary study and report back after the results had been obtained. KMA on behalf of the city submitted a transmission impact study to the Southwest Power Pool in January of 2025. And in November 2025, KMA was notified by the SP that no transmission system improvements would be necessary for the additional 6,000 KW to be delivered to the city of Garden City. This resolution, if approved by the governing body today, would amend the power purchase agreement between the city and KMEA for an additional 6,000 kW of capacity and energy from GRDA for a total of 15,000 kW. And the length of that is from May 1st, 2026 through April 30th of 201. For alternatives, the al the governing body may approve the resolution as presented or the governing body may choose not to approve the resolution as uh as presented. Staff recommends that the governing body would approve this resolution as presented. And there's no fiscal impact to this particular resolution. I'm happy to stand for questions.

Any questions? What's the resolution number on this one? 3213. 3213. Okay. Any questions for Mike? No questions. Entertain a motion on resolution 3213-2025. I move to approve resolution number 3213-2025. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second.

There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That item passed. Thank you. Um, that item is a close cousin to item 12D. While it's fresh in our mind, do we want to uh skip over? Yeah, let's go to 12D. Uh, so the governing body has asked to consider and approve amendment number one to purchase power agreement Grand River Dam Authority Power Supply Project number two between the city of Garden City, Kansas, and the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency. Mike.

Yes. Uh, mayor commissioners, the language in your memo is exactly the same as the previous one I just read. So, uh, I'll just I won't do that. I'll save a little bit of time. The, uh, alternatives are the governing body may authorize the mayor to sign this amendment number one to the power purchase agreement or the governing body may choose to not authorize the mayor to sign this amendment. Staff would recommend that the governor body authorize the mayor to sign amendment number one to the power purchase agreement with Grand River Dam River Authority and the fiscal impact to the electric department budget under wholesale electric. It is expected to increase by 1,313,000 starting in May of 2026. The amount approved in by the governing body for our 2026 electrical department budget is $17,500,000. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on that contract. Any questions for Mike? Entertain a motion on this item.

Move that we authorize the mayor to sign agree uh amendment number one to the power purchase agreement. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Nay. That item passed. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. All right. Let's go back to 10 C and I'm going to do a numbers check with Corey. The resolution that we have passed in 10 A I have down is resolution number 3213-

2025. Okay, that would make uh well not yet. 10B is a joint resolution. Those are un unnumbered between the board of county commissioners of Finey County and the city of Garden City adopting the first amendment of the immediate urban growth area of Finey County. Danielle,

good afternoon again, mayor and commissioners. The governing body and board of county commissioners entered into an interlocal cooperative agreement on November 5th, 2024 that established the rules and responsibilities related to planning and zoning services for the city and county. Additionally, this agreement established an immediate urban growth area. At the November 17th, 2025 board of county commission meeting, the board of county commissioners expressed interest in expanding the immediate urban growth area to accommodate continued growth and annexations along Highway 156 and East Kansas Avenue. The joint resolution must be adopted by both governing bodies to take effect. The board of county commissioners did consider and approve this joint resolution. uh at their November or at their December 15, 2025 meeting. There are two alternatives before you this afternoon. The first, the governing body may adopt the joint resolution expanding the immediate urban growth area. Or two, the governing body may not adopt the joint resolution expanding the immediate urban growth area and provide staff with alternative direction. Staff recommends the governing body approve the joint resolution as presented. And there is no fiscal impact. uh and for your uh packet we've also included the map of uh what would what would be uh included in that immediate urban growth boundary and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Danielle? So just so when the agreement was decided was so I know there were there was a joint task meeting task force meeting that decided these boundaries and these is just an expansion of those. Yeah. So we had uh originally in our agreement that we signed uh we had an original immediate urban growth boundary. In that agreement, we indicated that every year we would take a look at what that boundary would look like. Um, and so this year, uh, with some anticipated, uh, growth that we've had or some of the annexations that we've had, the county was interested in expanding that urban growth boundary, uh, a little bit more. And so that's what you're seeing. That's what you're seeing here today.

There wasn't a task force or anything associated. This is effectively the county's request to have us um u have the uh planning and inspections for uh any any change in use or any development go through go through our office and be constructed to uh the city's code designs rather than the county's code design. that's their intent with this urban growth area, which I appreciate that because I think it's a wise decision, but

it doesn't necessarily mean that we need to maintain the county roads up until those properties are developed and incorporated into the city until until the city limits moves out to because you can see the city limits, you know, clearly marked, but I'm like you. Yeah, we don't want any additional. But this also this was part of the uh agreement that we had for the neighborhood development agreement between the county and the city when the two departments kind of when we created two departments instead of one. So any other questions? Entertain a motion on this item. I move to adopt the joint resolution expanding the immediate urban growth area. There's been a motion. Is there a second? A second.

There's been a second. Any other discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. That item passed. Item 10 C. The governing body is asked to consider and approve a resolution declaring the boundary of the city of Garden City as of January 1, 2026. And if approved, this would be resolution number 3213-2025 14 because we just did one three on the on 10 A. Correct. Okay. 3214-2025.

All right. Kansas State statute requires when a city has either annexed or excluded territory city limits, the governing body by resol resolution must declare the entire boundary of the city. The city must adopt this resolution by December 31st, 2025. This action has come before the governing body due to the annexation of properties known as the Kansas State University Extension Center, city utility stations, and other privately owned land. Attached is a map showing the new area, the new areas annexed into the city limits and there are two alternatives in front of you. The governing body may approve the attached resolution or two, the governing body may not approve the attached resolution. and staff recommends the governing body approve the attached resolution and there is no fiscal note impact there is no it's going impact to the city by approving the attached resolution happy to answer any questions you have

any questions I move that we approve resolution number 3214-2025 there's been a motion is there a second I second

there's been a second discussion on this item none being all in favor say I oppose nay that item passed thank We completed 10D earlier, so we're ready for 12A. We completed 12D earlier, so we're ready or 10D earlier, so we're ready for 12A. The governing body is asked to consider and approve year-end transfers from the general fund to the capital improvement reserve for selected 2025 programs, capital projects, and equipment purchases not completed by year's end. Jared,

good afternoon. City departments operate on an annual budget that is approved in September for the upcoming year. These budgets include projects, equipment, and program expenses which relate to those departments. If these expenditures are not complete in the current budget year, the funds set aside would become an unanticipated cash carryover heading into the next year. Due to unforeseen circumstances, there are times when departments are unable to complete complete what has been set out for them near merely 18 months earlier. It is recognized that these projects, programs, and capital are an important part of the department's budget. So instead of waiting for another budget cycle, the commission has the opportunity each year to consider a transfer of the money into the capital improvement reserve fund. From here it can be spent for its intended purpose in a subsequent year. The attached schedule of transfers is proposed for 2025. The alternatives before you today are that you may approve transferring the funds from the cap the current year to the capital improvement reserve as presented. The governing body may approve transferring the funds from the current year to the capital improvement reserve with modifications as presented or the governing body may not approve the transfer of the funds and staff recommends the governing body approve transferring from the current year to the capital improvement reserve as presented. As a fiscal note, the 2025 transfers from the general fund total $758,150. I'm happy to answer any questions, especially if you have particular questions that I need to be answered.

Any questions for Jared? Entertain a motion on this item. Remember that we approve the transferring of the funds from the current year to the capital improvement reserve as presented. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being all in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. That item passed. Thank you.

Item 12B. The governing body is asked to consider and approve 2026 property and liability insurance coverage for the city of Garden City, Kansas. The city currently has property and liability insurance coverage provided through travelers insurance. It's with agent brokers provalue insurance that expires December 31st, 2025. The city retained independent third-party insurance consultant James Charlessworth to assist in the renewal for 2026, which the city has done since 2002. Through consultation with Mr. Charlessworth, the city opens its renewal process up to competitive bids. This occurs on average every 2 to 5 years, depending on the market. The city last went out for proposals for the insurance year 2025. This year, the city received three proposals. They're in the chart below. Uh the agencies across the top, broker agencies across the top, Provalue Insurance, uh proposed travelers insurance uh policy as shown below. Total value 1,460,368. ICI the agent in column 2 proposed um EMC as the underwriter. Total cost of that premium $1,21,686. Gallagher uh proposed CHUB uh but only proposed two uh categories, the property and the inland marine. There's a subtotal of that, but it's not really an applesto apples comparison. Um there could be the possibility of a hybrid if the commission were to choose the travelers policy brokered by provalue for everything but property inland marine and then substituted in the Gallagher property and inland marine. Uh that has been subtotaled or that has been totaled

uh in the in the chart below uh as 1,61,262,852. The detail and analysis of the 2026 proposals by James Charlesworth is attached for the governing body review. The proposals are not identical in the coverage provided. The material difference in the actual cost of certain claims would depend on the scope and nature of those claims. But in general, however, each proposal has some strengths and weaknesses in its coverage. Based on premium price alone, the lowest cost proposal is from EMC serviced by local agency ICI at 1,21,686. The second lowest proposal would be the hybrid of the travelers insurance proposal through local agency proving their property and inland marine policy for CHB's proposal serviced by a non-local agency Gallagher. That total premium cost is 1,262,852. The highest premium is the full uh traveler's policy renewal by local agency prov. 14 million. Uh alternatives are the governing body may approve the bid from EMC uh through local agency ICI for the price previously uh mentioned. That's a remnant piece. The traveler's piece at the uh in the second sentence of that alternative uh should be ignored. That's a remnant piece. Um the alternative two, the governing body may approve the bid from travelers through local agency provalue with the exception of the property in inland marine coverage which would be awarded to CHUB through uh through Gallagher for a total premium of 1,262,852. Uh, alternative three, the governing body may approve the bid from travelers through local agency prov total premium amount of 1,462,368.

Or item four, the governing body may reject the proposals and provide alternative direction. Staff recommends the governing body approve the bid from EMC through local agency ICI and the total premium amount of 1,21,686. uh fiscal note. Um the premium for uh the uh the insurance policy that's concluding was 1,252,48. Uh the proposals for this year approximately uh 16% higher than 2025 the incumbent policy I should say. Uh the in this year's budgeting cycle, departments were advised to budget for a 25% increase in costs anticipating u a rise in premium and actually premium uh increase that has been uh reflected in the past uh 3 or four years uh with which there's another table in Mr. Charlessworth's attachment that gives you uh a little bit more uh a little bit more detail. So, with that, if there if you have any questions, James is here.

Wow. I could have had you read that. Yeah. Gosh darn it. Now, you'll read your memo. No, no, that was a long one. It's a little bit longer. But please, if you have questions, I would especially encourage you if you have questions in the difference in policy coverage. James uh can best uh best describe that to you. And some of these answers are going to be it depends. Uh, but he's going he could characterize those it depends questions and answers better than certainly I could. James, do you have anything to add? And

uh, no, Matt, that's uh, you did a fantastic job. I think really the primary differences in the programs um, is really the the wind hail deductible for property. Uh our current deductible is 3% of the affected building value with a minimum of 250,000 per occurrence. Um the Gallagher option through CHUB is a 2% with a $100,000 minimum and the EMC is a flat $250,000. So the depends mention that uh Matt had is if we have affected properties of under 12.5 million in one event, the $100,000 deductible is going to be better for us. Uh if it's over that, then the 250 is better for us. Um you know, you're not a huge community. Uh hail storms, wind storms can be quite sizable. Uh so it is plausible to have multiple locations damaged in one event. Uh but I can't predict the weather or or the weather's path. Uh besides that, the programs are all excellent. Uh I have nothing really to to say negative about any of them. I will say Travelers has been a valued partner for the city for many many years. Uh they are probably the gold standard for insurance of cities this size and above. Uh EMC equally has a longstanding history of municipality insurance. Uh they have declined in the past because of your size, but uh they have opened up their eyes that this might be a good size of a community to begin insuring. So um the other thing that is not mentioned in the report is that EMC does provide a dividend program. It's not guaranteed, but over the last 5 years, the dividends

have ranged anywhere from 8 12% to 11.8% of your premium as a return dividend. That's not guaranteed. That's based on their overall profitability of the EMC book of business. Um, you really can't make a bad decision. It's a financial one. But uh yeah, if there's any details you want me to discuss and how to do so. So, so as far as our claims, I mean, I I appreciate I think you know the the insurance company is only as good as their claims department. You know, anytime you have that. So, the EMC since we don't have a lot of um a lot of history with them. So, can you comment just a little bit on their claims process and how your experience with them paying claims and the ease of being able to file claims is?

Uh, sure. The claim process can be very similar to to now uh reported through your agent. uh ICI uh then report to EMC. EMC will sign an adjuster and contact the city number four. Uh as far as the history, uh to be blunt and honest with you, um most the cities that have EMC are smaller than cities I typically work for. Uh so I don't personally have a lot of experience. However, uh they have a very good reputation. So I've never heard anything negative. Uh but I personally have not worked for them a whole lot. No, I appreciate that. Any questions?

How important is the rating? Um, just looking at that piece, the A++ through Proval and the ICI with an A, you know, 14. Does those play a pretty significant role in making these decisions? Once you get into the B's, that's when you're you've got a challenge. Um, I would rate I mean A++ is obviously as good as it gets. Um, anything a A minus or better considered excellent. Uh I I don't uh in the size 14 versus 15 uh you're talking u hundreds of millions of dollars in reserves and and capability. I wouldn't consider that.

Did our fire department or a new or a new addition of a new station. Did that make any difference in in the premiums or did they indicate that? I don't think it changed your ISO ratings, but it's something I'd have to check into. It doesn't hurt. That's for sure.

No, that's Yeah. Any other questions? Entertain a motion on this item. I move that we approve the bid from EMC through the local insurance agency ICI in the total premium amount of 1,201,686. Alternative one. There's been a motion. Is there a second? I'll second that motion. Any discussion on that item? None being. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. That item passed. Thank you very much.

Just make one comment. Yes. Um I want to acknowledge u seen and staff for all the work they did on this. It's a lot of work. Also the agents for their hard work on this as well as Benn from Proval for her years of service to the city. Thank you very much. Item 12 C, the governing body is asked to consider and approve the 2026 community grant and art grant applications.

Good afternoon again, mayor and commissioners. The community health advisory board and the arts grant committee are responsible for reviewing grant applications and recommending award amounts from the social funding line item to the city commission. With the 2026 grant cycle rapidly approaching, CHAB has updated the community grant application and evaluation criteria as attached. The community, the CHAB, developed these formal evaluation criteria to ensure applicants receive transparent and consistent consideration throughout the review process. The requirements are organized into five broader topics, which uh each board member will use to score how well the applicant meets the stated expectations. Staff will then use total will then total these points to provide a comprehensive summary of all the applications for the board's use. The criteria template will be made available online with the grant application. Once the governing body approves these applications, staff will push them online and begin accepting submissions. The application deadline is January 23rd, uh, 2026. The community health advisory board and arts grant committee are scheduled to review the applications and provide their funding recommendations in February. These recommendations along with the agency's application and CHAB's detailed evaluation scoring are planned to be presented to the city commission for final approval in March of 2026. Following the grant award, the recipients will be required to submit reports detailing the use of funds by December 31st of 2026. There there are two alternatives before you. One, the governing body may approve the 2026 community grant and art grant applications. or two, the governing body may not uh approve those applications and provide staff with alternative direction. Staff recommends the governing body approve the 2026 community grant and art grant applications. Uh and the fiscal note associated with this item is that the

city commission has already budgeted $21,400 in social funding for 2026. um that leave that it will be uh $21,400 for the community grant and $6,900 for the art grant. Uh and the community health advisory board uh and the art grant will provide the city commission with award recommendations in early 2026. Uh with no distribution decisions uh being asked of you at this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for Danielle? only a comment. I know that, you know, the evaluation is really important and it creates a lot of transparency. I do like it when they include um any type of feedback whether you know and I I think it's it's always really valuable on cuz comments when they make these applications I know people work really hard on them and sometimes when the committee makes recommendations or they have those that feedback, I think it'd be good to include it. Um but again, I think that's something that you know it just would be valuable for the commission to help make a cleancut decision. So, Any other comments or questions? Entertain a motion on this item.

I move that we approve the 2026 community grant and art grant application. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. That item passed. Thank you. Thank you.

We've done item 12D, so we're ready for 12E. The governing body has asked to consider the Garden City electric department to be the electric service provider for two properties annexed into the boundaries of the city of Garden City by ordinance number 3027-2025 and ordinance number 303025. Mike,

good afternoon again, mayor and commissioners. On October 16th, 2025, the governing body annexed real property into the city boundaries with ordinance number 3027-2025, which was the south half of the Mary Street ride ofway situated immediately north of Chapel Heights residential subdivision. Again, on November 4th, 2025, the governing body annexed real property into the city boundaries with ordinance number 3030-2025 known as the Lewis substation, an electrical substation owned by the city of Garden City, located at 2840 North DFW Road. Both properties which were annexed into the city were within the certificated territory of the retail electric supplier, specifically Wheaten Electric Cooperative Incorporated. Pursuant to KSA, the state statute KSA66-1 column 176, the city has an obligation to negotiate for the issuance of a franchise agreement pursuant to KSA 12-201 with Wheatland since Weatland is the retail electric supplier holding a certificate within the annex area. On December 1, 2025, Mr. McVy, Mr. M, excuse me, Mr. Jim McVey, assistant general manager and general counsel to Weedland Electric, notified the city via an email to me, Mike Mirhead, director of public works utilities, that Wheatland would not be requesting a franchise agreement to serve the property annexed into the city ordinance by city ordinance number 3027-2025. And in addition, on November 26, 2025, Mr. Jim McVey, assistant general manager and general counsel to Weatmanland Electric, also notified the city via an email to Mike Mir, Ed, director of public utilities, that Wheatland would not be requesting a franchise agreement to serve the property annexed into the city by ordinance number 3030- 2025.

Again, pursuant to KSA66-1 comma 176, the city is obligated to pay Weeden Electric for the expense of retiring Weatland facilities on the property, as well as twice the previous 12 months annual revenue. Uh there are no existing electrical services being served by Weatland on either of the properties that were annexed into the city. Uh therefore, the city is not required to compensate Weedman Electric for services uh it is not currently providing. However, KSA 166 comma 166-1 comma 176 requires the governing body to consider a minimum of 11 factors when making the selection of the electric service provider. These factors are but not limited to the following. A public convenience and necessity. B rates of various suppliers. C desires of the customer or customers to be served. D economic development of the suppliers. E. Economic impact to the customers of the suppliers. F. The suppliers operational ability to serve the adext area. G. Avoiding the wasteful duplication of facilities. H. Avoiding unnecessary encumbrances on the landscape. I, preventing the waste of materials and natural resources. J, proposals from any retail electric supplier holding a certificate in the annexed area. and K whether the selection is in the public interest as it relates to all the factors considered by the city. It's okay Mr. Mayor and Commissioner, I will not read all of the factors that Legal Electric chose not to have franchise. So there no need to compare the two. Uh I will get to the end the alternatives. The governing body may further discuss alternative number one. The governing body may further discuss the 11 factors and consider findings of fact and conclusions about selecting a retail electric supplier at a subsequent

meeting. or alternative two, the governing body may choose to ask for additional information for consideration to make the selection of an electric service provider. Staff recommends that the governing body further discuss the 11 factors and consider the findings of fact and conclusions regarding the selection of a retail electric supplier at a subsequent meeting. Under the fiscal note, if the government if the if the Garden City Electric Department or another provider is selected to serve the property pursuant to KSA66-1, 176, 8.5% of gross electrical energy sales revenue obtained from the property will be paid to Weaten Electric on an annual basis for a period of 10 years. After 10 years, the payment to Weaten Electric will automatically stop. And with all of that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for Mike on this item? So, it's not based upon the on the amount on the at the during the time of the annexation. So, if there are organizations or businesses or whatever, then we have to actually pay Wheatlands or whoever, we'd have to actually pay them something. But right now, we pay them nothing because there's nothing there. There's nothing there. So, we don't have to pay the two times the two years lost revenue. Okay. Anything that would be built on these properties over the course of the next 10 years, then you would gross revenues, we would have to pay 8 and a half%. Okay. I was hoping it was an extension. One of them is a road and the other one is a substation. Okay.

Yeah. Any other questions? Entertain a motion on this item. I'll make the motion um that that the governing body further discuss the 11 factors and consider the findings and facts and conclusions regarding the selection of a retail electric supplier at a subsequent meeting. There's been a motion. Is there a second? I second. There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. That item passed. Thank you.

Item 12 out. Item 12F, the governing body is asked to consider and approve the first amendment to the Finny County law enforcement occupancy agreement between the city of Garden City, Finey County, and the sheriff of Finey County.

Good afternoon again, mayor and commissioners. On October 15th, 2024, the city commission approved an occupancy agreement between the city of Garden City, Finey County, and the Finey County Sheriff for use of the existing law enforcement center. The intent of the agreement would was to serve as a temporary agreement while the city identified an alternative location for the Garden City Police Department. While the county went through the process of planning for a new jail and remodeling the existing law enforcement center. Since that time, a location for the Garden City Police Department has been identified at 1210 Fleming Street. And through modifications to the project, that space will also accommodate the Finny County Sheriff's Office to allow both departments to continue to loco co-locate in the same building to the extent possible. The original agreement anticipated that the Garden City Police Department would vacate the existing law enforcement center by December 31st of 2025. While significant progress has been made in the past year, it is anticipated that the Garden City Police Department will need to continue to locate in the existing law enforcement center for another 10 to 12 months. The amendments allows for the Garden City Police Department and Finey County to continue to operate under the Finey County Law Enforcement Center occupancy agreement dated September 12th of 2000 with most recent amendments being July 5th of 2016 until December 31st of 2026. This will maintain the status quo for an additional year while the remodel of 1210 Fleming is completed. The agreement is another example of the continued partnership between the Garden City Police Department and Finy County Sheriff's Office to identify opportunities to work together on this complex and difficult challenge. The board of county commissioners did consider and approved this agreement at their meeting uh yesterday morning. Uh there are two alternatives before you. One, the governing body may approve the first amendment to the Finney County law enforcement occupancy agreement between the city of Garden City, Finey County, and the sheriff of Fitting County. Or

two, the governing body may not approve the first amendment to that agreement. Staff recommends approval of the first amendment. A fiscal note associated with this is that we will maintain the status quo for an additional year and the cost will continue to be paid for out of the Garden City Police Department operating budget. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have. Any questions for Danielle on this item?

So, on the agreement underneath the number two, the term, it indicates that it's shall be a period of 3 years to commence on the 1st day of January 26 and end on the 31st day of December, 2028. Is this a three-year agreement or is this a one-year agreement extension? Um, so it the term of the agreement shall be for a period of one year to commence on the first day of January 2026 and end on the 21st day of the 31st day, excuse me, of December 2026. This uh does allow us to uh renew uh should we need to should we need to do that. And I don't know, Jennifer, if you want to add anything add anything else to that. No, other than um Karen and I just the idea behind this was we were trying to make it as simple as possible without creating a third agreement um for the period of time and we both landed on this was the easiest and cleanest way to do it. Um and then uh depending on what happens next, if we have to create something else, we will. But we thought at the time that this will be sufficient until we move out of where we are and we move into the temporary facility and then cover us during the temporary facility. So, so the term just basically covers us if we needed to extend a further.

Okay. That's just because when you read the the memo, it just indicates that it's a year term. So, I wanted to make sure that that's pointed out that we have an agreement with them and the understanding that it could be extended within this agreement. Okay. Yes. Correct. Absolutely.

And this agreement is just based on the Garden City Police Department moving our location. Is that correct? Uh that is that is correct. Um so we anticipate uh the completion of that happening in the next uh 10 months or so, giving us a couple months then to move all of our all of the things and all of those uh additional things that kind of come with that. Um so the goal will still be to be out of the existing law enforcement center by the end of next year. Um and the intent is for the Thinny County Sheriff's Office to be able to make that move with us. uh they're going to be doing the remodel to that entire building. Um but for the purposes of this uh as soon as we get out of that uh the existing law enforcement center, we'll kind of move to that agreement that we originally had in place about a year ago.

Any other questions? Entertain a motion on this item. Then I move to approve the first amendment to the Finy County law enforcement occupancy agreement between the city of Garden City, Finey County, and the sheriff of Finey County. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That item passed. Thank you. Um item 12G. The governing body is asked to consider and approve the bid for the east side pedestrian improvements project. Mike.

Good afternoon again, mayor, commissioners. I'd like to invite Adam Shark to come up. Adam is the uh he serves as a city engineer with Wilson and Company. Adam did a tremendous amount of work for this big project that covers pedestrians and sidewalks on the east side of the city along with Tyler Patterson the uh public works operation manager and obtaining the necessary rideway etc that was needed. So it's okay with you. I've asked Adam if he would present this uh since he did all the work and if you have any questions happy to answer them. We'll

put him in the hot seat. Thank you, Mayor Commissioner. Um, so in October of 2022, the governing body approved a grant application to the Kansas Department of Transportation's cost share program uh for this east side pedestrian improvement project. The project consists of significant pedestrian sidewalk pathway extensions connecting the Tally Trail down at the the college um across the bypass up Jenny Barker Road down Spruce Street up Jenny Barker Road and ultimately connecting with the Kansas Avenue trail extending the Kansas Avenue trail um and connecting to the Chapel Heights neighborhood. Um there are some maps attached to the uh to the agenda item as well. Uh Kat awarded the city 1.5 the city's $ 1.5 million request um maximum available through that program and issued a notice to proceed in October of 2023. The project was you know went through design and everything the rightway acquisition. Then the project was advertised for construction bids on October 16th of 2025 and bids were open November 19th right before Thanksgiving. Two bids were received from Lee Construction of Garden City and Michael Isaac of Ulisses. Um, so you can see the bid amounts there. Uh, Lee Construction 2,688,147. Michael Isaac 3,62,196 and change. And then our engineers estimate at bid opening was $2,722,000. In reviewing the bids, Michael Isaac's bid was found to be non-responsive for failure to meet the bid security requirements or bid bond as we often call it. Um, so therefore, lead construction bid is the only responsive qualified bid. The original total project budget was set at 3,655,000 utilizing the $ 1.5 million KAT grant and $2,155,000 of city funds. Uh below in the memo is an updated estimated project budget breakdown based on that bid and the

current estimates of the other project costs. So we have the bid at uh just under 2.7 million, design at 417,000, construction engineering at 129,000, which will actually be the next agenda item. Um preliminary work, uh we ended up doing some actual physical work out there kind of ahead of the project. I came in at 61,800 right away. um mostly wrapped up and that should come in around 120,400 and then some utility relocation and hookup work for 35,000. So kind of skip over the contingency based on our original budget of that 3,655,000. Um that leaves $23,653 which we kind of left over in our budget for contingency. Um which amounts to 5.9%. Uh typically when when we bring a bid to you with the budget, we try to hold at least 5% for unknowns that come up in construction and whatnot. And so we're just a little bit above that which is a good place to be. Uh once awarded the project is scheduled to start between March 1st and June 1st of next year and will be complete within approximately 7 months. So the alternative for you are to award the bid of le construction for $2,688,147 and authorize the mayor to execute the construction agreement upon receipt of the required bonds and other documentation or you cannot approve the responsive bid received and provide us other direction. Our recommendation is that the governing body award the bid of le construction for $2,688,147 and authorize the mayor to execute the construction agreement upon receipt of the required bond and other documents. Uh fiscal note, the cost for this agreement will come from the GI code shown there. The city will issue general the city issue general obligation bonds to cover the city's portion of the project. The city's funds will be used to fund it and then it'll be a reimbursement where we request those funds back in K. Now I'll stand for any questions.

Any questions? It's a great project. Yep. Entertain a motion on this item then. I move that we award the bid to Lee to Lee Construction Incorporated for $2,688,147 and authorize the mayor to execute the construction agreement upon receipt of the required bonds and other documentation. There's been a motion. Is there a second? A second. There's been a second. Any other discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay.

That item passed. Thank you. Item 12H. The governing body is asked to consider and approve the east side pedestrian improvements CRS task order with Wilson and company. Mike.

Yep. Good afternoon again, mayor, commissioners. Uh, in October of 2022, governing body approved a grant application to K Department transportation, the cost share program for the east side pedestrian improvements. The project consisted of uh significant pedestrian sidewalk pathway extensions connecting Tally Trail to US835400 bypass Judy Barker Road connecting to the Kansas Avenue trail and Chapel Heights neighborhood. K dot awarded the city 1.5 million requested and issued a notice to proceed in October of 2023. Construction bids were open November 19th, 2025. Lee Construction being the low bidder. The commission just awarded that bid to lead construction. Staff intends to utilize the city's in-house public works infrastructure inspector for a majority of the day-to-day inspection and contractor oversight duties. A task order with Wilson and Company has been prepared to provide construction related engineering services including professional engineering oversight of the inspector, submittal reviews, site reviews, KO coordination, and construction contract administration. Wilson and Company will also provide the day-to-day inspection services for the pedestrian bridge portions of the project, which there are two. The task order for this is $128,560. Uh the amount is based upon the assumed schedule for the bridge construction of the whole larger project. So, your alternatives today are approved task order number GC25-00009 with Wilson and Company for the East Side Pedestrian CRS services in the amount of $128,56046 or do not approve the task order and provide staff different direction. Staff recommends governing body approve that task order as presented. Fiscal note, the cost of this agreement come from the same GL code that Adam spoke about, which is the city had issued general obligations bond to cover the city's

portion of this project. And the city funds will be used to fund the project and reimbursements will be submitted to KO for their commitment to get the $ 1.5 million back. And I'm happy to answer any questions on that. Any questions for Mike? So the fee type, the cost plus net fee, that means we're not there's no cap, correct? I mean, we can go over that number. We could if we had to, but you're just approving the 128560, so if there's a change order, we'll have to bring that back. Okay. Yeah, that's Yeah, that was my next question. Thank you, Mike. You're welcome.

Any other questions? Entertain a motion on this item. I move to approve task order GC25009 with Wilson & Company for East Side Pedestrian CRS services in an amount of $128,56046. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. That item passed. Thank you. Thank you.

Item 12 I, the governing body is asked to consider and approve a notice of acceptance for the infrastructure for Chapel Heights fifth edition.

Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. Uh before you today for your consideration is the acceptance of infrastructure for the Chapel Heights fifth edition. Uh Chap Lights fifth edition LLC uh has completed the construction of their infrastructure on November 18th of 2025. The infrastructure was inspected by the city of Garden City to ensure that the work was done in accordance with the requirements of the city and the development agreement. Maintenance of the improvements required the subdivider/developer to maintain all required public improvements in the subdivision until the improvements are accepted by the governing body. The subdivider/developer is required to maintain the infrastructure for one year before the city of Garden City takes over the maintenance of the infrastructure. The notice of acceptance is the city to acknowledge the completion of the infrastructure. This will start the one-year maintenance period before the city takes over ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the infrastructure. Alternative number one, the governing body may approve the notice of acceptance for chaps fifth edition. Alternative number two, the governing body may not approve the notice of acceptance uh chaps fifth edition and provide staff with an alternative direction. Staff's recommendation is the governing body approved the notice of acceptance for chaplife's fifth edition. In the fiscal note, the ongoing maintenance responsibilities that occur after the year maintenance period will be incorporated into the city's operating budget for street maintenance.

Any questions for Trent? No, I did want to say thank you to John Chapel for continuing to build in Garden City and please build build many many more. But I no I just want to I want to approve the notice of acceptance from Chapel Heights fifth edition. There's been a motion. Is there a second? I second. There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That item passed. Thank you. 12J. The governing body has asked to consider a request from John Chapel regarding maintenance of storm water detention pond located at the entrance of Chapel Heights. Danielle.

Good afternoon. One more time. Mayor and commissioners. Mr. John Chapel has requested that tract one of the attached map is maintained by the city of Garden City. Uh it is current it currently serves as a storm water solution for a portion of the subdivision. The current agreement between the city and the developers indicate that this area is to be maintained by the developer. This area has served as open green space for the development since the since being built out and is often used for recreational purposes. If the governing body is willing to take over maintenance of the space, city will begin uh to mow and take over those mowing and maintenance responsibilities. There's not anticipated to be additional amenities added to the site. However, it may be possible uh for practice as a practice location for some recreational programming. There are other areas within in the subdivision that the city is already responsible to maintain per the development agreements and those are denoted uh in green on the map that is attached. And I want to just clarify that when we talk about maintenance responsibilities, it's to maintain and to mow that area. Uh so it's related to the mowing maintenance. It's not related to how it functions from a storm water perspective. uh if there are improvements that needed to be ma made uh for it to function appropriately as a storm water solution that would still fall uh to the developer to do that portion of it. We're really just talking about mowing that space to allow it to be used for recreational purposes. Uh so two alternatives before you. The governing body may approve the request from Mr. Chapel and direct staff to begin mowing tract one of Chapel Heights. Or two, uh the governing body may not approve the request from Mr. Chapel. uh staff has no recommendation. The fiscal note associated with this uh is that there would be staff costs associated with mowing of this area. Um and that would fall to our uh parks and recreation staff. Um so with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may

have. Have we done this before for is is this something brand new or is this something that we've done before? I can't remember if we've ever done it, but so we do we do all we are already out at Chapel Heights maintaining a portion of um a portion of that property. So they've got quite a bit of green space that goes with uh the trail along Mary. I've done the same for any other any other subdivision that's been built. Have we done this same for a storm water? As far as the maintenance like this, I would say no. Most of the other storm waters are built with steeper walls. Um, this one took up a lot more square footage. They uh and made it shallower so that there could kind of be a value ad to it

as a green space

rather than um you know some that may have uh you know block or tapered walls where they get their cubic feet um in uh or their volume through depth. This one got its volume through breadth uh of space. Uh now it's kind of a mixed bag around town. The uh um subdivisions that would have drainage solutions that have uh a city role and those that are are the private developers responsibility. I would say most of the modern ones, it is the private developer's responsibility to uh maintain uh the functionality of the storm sewer, but then if there's also any overgrowth or something like that, uh that they would take care of that. Um some of the walls are though like concrete or or block and so they don't grow. Um but uh you know this one's a little bit more like a uh like Howerin Park um which is a drainage area uh and um you know in a storm event it's going to be it's going to have substantial it'll have standing water in a storm event even with with grass area but it'll be uh quickly evaporated out

cuz I know we denied a request um from a commercial a commercial development but that was commercial so I just want to make sure that we weren't um you know uh giving saying no to one person and saying yes. I mean I I appreciate that in space. I you're saying no to one and saying yes to another. I think there is some differentiation commercial res

um and the nature of it. Uh it's not a uh you know it's not like a sheer wall uh exclusively storm water function. In this instance I don't think we want to be involved in the maintenance of its functionality as a storm water but Also, there's not much outside of gravity uh in this one that could that could go wrong. Um, but in the event that there is something that blocks that or or messes with that, uh, it would be it would still be the uh the chapel team

because I am looking for a way to say yes to this one just because I mean I do think it is a value ad, but I just want to make sure that we weren't contradicting ourselves. So the the agreement at in question here is that for the blue and the purple, can you kind of identify which cursor? The red is the red is what we're talking about. Okay. I was looking at the legend trying to identify. Yeah. Track one. I'd have to zoom in, but then I'm probably fighting this the rest of the That's okay.

the time. Track track one is the the is the is what we're talking about. And I can walk through the legend a little bit for the folks who may be uh not able to pull it up on their screen. So um the red portion is what we're talking about. Uh the green that you see in there is what the city is already responsible for. Um all of the orange is what the property owners are responsible for. Uh the blue uh will be the city's responsibility once we accept infrastructure. You all have just done that. Um and then the purple is what we anticipate um being the city's responsibility in the future uh as we do our pedestrian improvements. So um a lot of different colors on the map. What this item is really focusing on is the red area.

Well, yeah, red, green, and purple will be ours. Blue will be ours, but blue is going to be a road, right? It's going to be right away. Yeah. And I think it's landscaped now. So with rock and um high heat landscaping, right? Exactly. Um so the red then that would be undeveloped property. U Yes, that's correct. Cuz that's where the the drainage water drainage goes into. So yeah, can't develop. Yeah.

Yeah. Can't develop in that area. Okay. Guess I mean if you fill it in probably but yeah I guess my concern is kind of going back to commissioner enrew I mean we haven't done it before for one does this open up right I just where we start something a process where I mean if we do approve it that's a question

I mean I do think it has a value and I think you know that as far as the location and in this in in the subdivision I do think it has a value for practice fields or at least a place for you know people to gather. So I I do think it has some value that way. And if we weren't already maintaining everything around it, I I wouldn't go for the developer here and he if he if you want to come up and say something about this. Yeah. Uh I guess you know you're are maintaining the one at the other end. The city's you know agreed to maintain this was apparently an oversight on our part that that wasn't put in like for the city to maintain on this one also. Okay.

But we but you already are maintaining the one to the south end which is probably a little bigger than that but same same type of scenario. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I move that we approve the request from Mr. Chapel and direct staff to begin maintenance of track one of Chapel Heights. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. Oh, Commissioner Ortiz made the second. Any other discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Oppos? Nay. That item passed. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Item 12K. The governing body is asked to consider and approve the appointment of Joseé Chan as the alternate to serve on the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency board of directors.

Yes. Good afternoon again, Mayor Commission. City of Garden City is a member of the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency, KMEA, and serves on the KMEA board of directors. A certificate approved by the governing body is required to confirm who is entitled to vote on behalf of the city of Garden City. Myself, uh, Mike Peter, head director of public works and utilities currently serves as a primary board member for the city of Garden City. And if approved today by the governing body, Jose Chan, director of electoral operations, will serve as the alternate board member uh for the KMBA board of directors until April 30th, 2027. So your alternatives is you may approve the appointment of Jose Chan to serve as the alternate board member on the KMA board of directors until April 30th, 2027, or you may choose not to appoint Jose Chan. and staff recommendation is that you recommend Jose to serve on that serve as the alternative as on the board of directors for KMA. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Mike on this? Entertain a motion on this item. I'll make the motion to approve the appointment of Jose Chan to serve as the alternate board member on the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency board of directors until April 30th, 2027. There's been a motion. Is there a second? A second. There's been a second. Any other discussion on this item? How long till you'll make him run for an office with that? I'm just kidding. All in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. That item passed. Congratulations. Thank you.

Item 12 L. The governing body is asked to consider and approve an appointment to the Hulk Garden City Finny County Area Planning Commission.

Dante. The Hulk Garden City County Area Planning Commission is a n member board that consists of four garden city members, three county members, one Hulcom member, and one outl member. Deborah Oiler, who has resigned at the end of this year, serves as a city member, and her term expires on December 31st, 2027. The appointment to this position must be a Garden City resident and be able to serve the remainder of the unexpired term. The following residents, in no particular order, have applied and expressed interest in serving on the planning commission as Garden City representatives. attached are their applications and an updated planning commission member list. There are two alternatives in front of you. The governing body may approve an appointment to the Hulcom, Garden City, Penny County area planning commission where the governing body may not approve an appointment to the planning commission and provide an alternative direction to staff and staff recommends that the governing body appoint one of the three applicants to serve the remainder of the 2-year term on the planning commission. I'm happy to answer any questions you guys have.

Any questions? Entertain a motion on this item. Is are any of them here or no? No. Okay. Yeah. I move that we appoint John Griffin as um a member of the planning commission. There's been a motion to appoint John Griffin on the planning commission. Is there a second? I'll second. There's been a second. Any other discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That item passed.

Thank you. Item 12M. The governing body is asked to consider and approve one appointment to the zoo advisory board. The zoo advisory board is a seven member board. has one member, Blair Leving, who is stepping down early. His term will end June 30th of 2026, but he is stepping down as of now. The zoo advisory board received and considered three applications from Randy Baker, Joseph Connor, and Kelsey Prior. They recommend the appointment of Randy Baker to fill the remainder of Blair's term. For your information, the other members of the board and their expiration terms are listed. the alternatives before you. The governing body may appoint Brandy Baker to the Z advisory board. The governing body may appoint one of the other candidates to the Z advisory board. The advisory board recommends alternative one. The governing body appoints Randy Baker to the Z advisory board. There is no fiscal impact by this action.

Any questions? Entertain a motion on this item. I'll make the motion to appoint Randy Baker to the zoo advisory board. There's been a motion. Is there a second? I second. There's been a second. Any discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. That item passed. Thank you very much.

Item 12 in is an executive session. We don't anticipate any action taken following that executive session. Um so if we want to move on to the consent agenda, uh the appropriate motion, provided you don't want to pull any of those items off, would be to approve consent agenda item 13A through 13P. I I just had a question. This I don't want to pull anything off. I just had a question. I know that um I I've heard lots of compliments on our judge um Linda Loier and I'm just curious about how that's been working for the court and how that's been working for her if anyone has. Very well

from my perspective. Yeah, really well from my perspective too. Linda and I actually get to work together um here in Garden City and then we she's also the judge up in Scott City. She's also the judge in Hulkcom. Um so and I'm the city prosecutor in those three places. So um we have a really good relationship. Obviously, that doesn't mean I get any sort of favoritism. She she's still very difficult on me. Um she but she does a really nice job in the courtroom and I think both sides uh are happy with the way my perspective as defense attorneys and uh the prosecutor have been happy with the way she handles things and Daniel can speak to the clerks. Yeah, she works really well with the court administration team. So, it's it's been working really well.

I've heard that this the operations has has become so smooth and it's just very very well well done. So, just wanted to make sure and ask for a quick report on that. Thank you. Any other questions on this? Anyone from the public here for any of the nuisance items on the consent agenda? None being entertain a motion on the consent agenda 13A through P. I move to approve consent agenda items 13A through 13P. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Any other discussion on this item? None being. All in favor say I. I opposed. Nay. That item passed. We'll go on to commission reports. Commissioner Langraph.

So, I just want to start saying it was a really good premeating that we had talking about automation. Really, it's really neat seeing how we currently are using automation, all the different city departments and also looking planning towards the future as well. Also, just want to say it's great to be able to celebrate so many employees for their years of service. It's great. It's really great having so many employees who have been with the city for so long. I think it really speaks to the city's relationship with the employees to have so many that are being celebrated as well. I was able to attend the youth and governance showcase. Heard a lot of great presentations for ideas for the city of Garden City from some tremendous student leaders at the high school. All of them, I think, did amazing jobs and also I greatly appreciate the time and effort they put into their presentations because they offer a unique perspective that we as city commissioners might not see. So, it's really good being able to have their input. Then also was able to attend the mayor's Christmas party and it was a tremendous time.

Commissioner Enri, he's pretty wild at this point. I'm just kidding. So, I just want to say congratulations to everyone. Uh, you know, years of service, I mean, really says a lot about our city and so I'm excited about the years of service. I do want to highlight uh Ronald Fly, Ronald Fry, the 30 years of service. That is quite a milestone. and I loved it that his wife and daughter were here. And so I think it's exciting um just about how many people continue to make Garden City um not only their place of employment but also the best place to live in Kansas. Um I do I um also want to uh I was curious about this idea. I love the the um the pre the pre-ervice or the premeating. We're talking about the automation and I understand that automation is the way it's going and I and I really the one thing I really appreciated the most was is that what we are doing with automation is really paying attention to customer service and so it wasn't just about automation and you know basically you know we're giving you to an 800 number to call you know for anything but more this idea that we're figuring out ways to make customer service really our number one priority and so you know and that that's the one thing I fear about automation um is that you get shoved to something you could be talking with AI and you would never know half the time. But the thing is that we just continue to work and we work on customer service and making sure that people understand that we are here for them. You know, I know a lot of people I I love the response of our of our city staff whenever issues come up and you report them. I mean, they're really right there with phone calls, sometimes several phone calls to get everything taken care of. So, I do want to say I'm excited about automation and just with a caveat, I thank you for taking placing a focus on community service. I did want to say I I read an interesting article about I know Emporia got a bid for a small nuclear reactor and I I think we would be really great um out here. I don't know if that's something that we would be in the running for. So Mike, you know, over the next couple of years, you know, if that's something you can take care of, but I did think it was interesting that they did choose Emporia

as a place to start that. I mean, I know they are w some somewhat water intensive, but I do think it would be an opportunity to, you know, further develop out here in western Kansas and also help Yeah. with our energy our energy needs out here. Um, finally, I just wanted to say there's lots of going on, lots of Christmas Eve services. I know that you could be absolutely something every single night. So, do what you need to do to take care of yourself, but also just really enjoy the season. And I encourage you to to attend one of the Christmas Eve services here in town. I know people put a lot of work into those. And it's just really a great time to be with family. And with that, just uh merry Christmas and uh thank you for an incredible year. Commissioner Ortiz.

Yeah, I think u with a lot of new technology, the premeating was pretty pretty interesting to see all of the new technology that comes out and how it plays a role in city infrastructure. So, very interesting to hear um with that. Yeah, I don't know about nuclear stuff, but robotics is is is here already. So, um I'm sure like Pivot, you know, Pivot Robotics here in town, they're they're on the ball with some getting some of those moving forward, but um talking about mowers and and things that can be remotely um accessed is pretty cool. I kind of talked about um RACR, which is remote accessing your clocks at home to re to, you know, re reset. Like that's that's something we got to look into too because my wife is always ah the clocks we have to reset the clocks now that the power went out. So if we can get that that's that that would help me out at home. So

yeah that button. Yeah. Yeah. Work on that. No, but I mean it's it's very exciting to hear about though too, you know, just all of the new technology coming out. But uh speaking of that, I did hear that the new siren. Can you kind of talk about that, Mike, on what that capability is and and and are we going to see others like that around town?

Yes, Commissioner. We uh we have like 23 emergency sirens in town and some of those are was made in the 1950s. So, in the process of changing that, we we purchased a new one. It's a state-of-the-art that has actually a voice activated system and there's I think we have seven different recorded voices that will come out over the speaker when they're activated. So yesterday during our normal noon test of all the sirens, uh it was supposed to just do the regular, you know, noise, but it didn't and it activated the first uh voice activation that said attention, attention, attention. This is not a test. This is an actual

Oh, wow. take shelter immediately. So, it got and it's located on the east side of town. So, it got everybody, you know, pretty excited, which we understand. We tried to immediately get some data out to let people know that was that was put out in error and luckily the weather was nice and but yes, we we intend to start replacing all of the sirens eventually with this new style. We'll put one more in in 2026. Okay. Uh, we did apply for a grant that may come some point in time and if that would happen, we put them in faster, but hopefully that answers. No, that's great. Thanks, Mike. Yeah, I've I've been getting questions on it so I thought, well, I'll ask Mike. He knows it all.

Um, so yeah, I think, you know, with new technology, things are things are happening and I think it's for the better. So, um did attend the youth government governance uh meeting there at the Central Cup on last Friday and and those kids they're they've got a you know amazing imagination and creation that that could benefit any city. So, um I look forward to seeing their presentations come to life and fruition in the futures. Um so, if there's any partnerships that we can do to kind of help them move along, I'd definitely be behind them. Um so, They just had a lot of great ideas that were were impactful and and heartfelt from from their personal experience bringing it forward from them from their point of view. And the struggling part for them is is their uh their language barriers sometimes is kind of hard to get it out in the public and and you know presenting that information in English. So because it's not their first language but u but they did a really good job. Um, so I look forward to kind of helping helping in that capacity if I can in the future. Um, now that my term has ended, this is my last commission meeting. So, um, it's been a it's been a great year. It's been a wonderful uh, journey, 6 years being on the commission. So, uh, thanks to all the staff that has been, um, putting aside their time to give us information to look make us look good. Um it's all it's all the city's job and the um city manager's job that gets all the information to us so that we can present it and we're well equipped to present that efficiently to the community. So thanks all around to everybody um for for doing that and uh yeah I look forward to my next journey. So, um, congratulations to the new, um, commissioners coming on, Deb Boer and, um,

um, Karen Karen. So, she they're going to do some great jobs and carry on, you know, the questioning that that needs to happen up here in the collaboration. And so that's I think that to me I think that's one beneficial uh um thing that I got out of it is just asking questions, be collaborative, and then being open on discussion. So it's it's hard sometimes, but it's been great being up here. So thanks to everybody and I wish everybody a merry Christmas and happy new year. Um yeah, it was a great premeating. A lot of good information. And you know, one of our goals was uh how to automate and make things more efficient. So, a lot of good information, a lot of information on kind of where we're at, but then also kind of what, you know, how we're going to move forward with adding additional automation into our community and services. Um, again, like what Commissioner Enru said with focus on service and customer service on on all of those. Um, a lot of great information today, especially congratulations to all of the uh, staff that have years of service. It's always good to see and promote staff. Um, especially with years of service, you know, it um, retaining employees and and retaining good employees for uh, uh, many years is is always a nice thing to have in an organization and and celebrating those years of service is really good. Uh I didn't I couldn't make it to the uh youth event because I was at a state meeting. Um but I did hear that it was uh a lot of good ideas uh brought forward on that. Um, a lot of this meeting was uh quite interesting cuz um like what we talked about when we were at the high school with the kids, every meeting you always do things and uh you know we always move

the the community forward and you know establish things and set things in motion and that's what we did on a lot of items at this meeting as well. you know, anywhere from energy to uh housing development and uh everything a little bit of everything in between. Uh just wanted to comment. I always comment comment on employments which I did before, but uh over 30,000 employments. So that speaks volumes that we're really becoming or are the regional hub of transportation in western Kansas. Uh just wanted to uh say that I did attend the mayor's Christmas party cuz I'm the mayor. But uh great event. Also just want to say um uh shop local uh this uh season and fly local if you are flying local during the holidays. Again, merry Christmas and have a happy and safe New Year. Thank you very much. And oh session,

um we have an executive session and we're not going to shut down the broadcast. We're going to leave the broadcast up, but there will be a blank screen that indicates we're in executive session. And when we come back, we'll uh make sure that the broadcast is back on and operational. Uh and then um at that point in time, anticipate no action taken. And then the uh mayor then you'll gavvel out. In the meantime, the executive session that's listed on there, I think uh if uh we had 10 minutes with uh myself, uh public works and utilities director Mirhead, Deputy City Manager Burke, and uh city attorney Cunningham. That would get it.

You said 10 minutes. Yes. I move that we uh move into executive session pursuant to KSA75-4319B6 pertaining to preliminary discussions related to the acquisition of real property um for 10 minutes including city manager Matt Allen, uh director of uh public works Mike Mirhead, uh deputy city director and Daniel Burke, and then city attorney Jennifer Cunningham. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's been a second. Any discussion on that item? None being. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That item passed. We'll

see. See you between now.

We just move our mouth. Mhm.

We're out of executive session. Uh, meeting adjourned. Oh, no binding action taken. Meeting adjourned. Thank you everybody.