City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, it is 7 o'clock in Gardner, Kansas. Call the meeting to order. Please rise, if you're able, and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Good evening, everyone.

We've got a good crowd tonight. I'm sure everyone is here for Councilman Wien's birthday today. So thank you for coming out for that.

I appreciate that. Or the sweet, sweet video. Or the sweet video, yes.

Or Monday night at the movies. Yes.

Let's do the, well is the video queued up? We're just watching the video. Yeah. Correct? Okay, yeah. So we do have a public officials liability training video we will start with this evening.

Oh, hello, Dan.

Congratulations on being elected as a council member. Thanks, Mayor. I'm real excited about attending my first meeting and being sworn in, although I'm a little nervous. Nervous? About what? You were elected by a landslide. Well, there are several things I'd like to accomplish, but I'll be the first to admit I have a lot to learn. I don't want to end up like former Councilman Smith. I want to have a successful term, but I don't want to end up being sued.

Hi, Dan. Thank you for joining us tonight.

Hey, Bill. Hi. I'm Margaret Taylor. I've been a council member here with the City of Cottonwood for 10 years and mayor for the last two. During my time with the city, we have made a lot of progress, but also a few mistakes. Certain members of the council have created messy liability situations that have cost the city a great deal of money, hurt our public image, and stalled important projects. And in some situations, elected officials have paid personal liability claims out of their own pockets. The purpose of this video and accompanying handbook is to help you avoid the mistakes that can lead to liability and identify best practices that will allow you to be successful as an elected or appointed official. SRSA presents In the Scope of Your Authority, Preventing Public Officials' Liability.

That's a lot of good information. Well, thanks, Bill. I'll see you tonight. Oh, Mayor, do you have a few minutes to discuss some of those past mistakes? Sure, Dan. Come on in.

Thanks. Have a seat. Thank you. he referred to Councilmember Patrick Smith. He promised during his campaign he would never allow Megamart to build a store in Cottonwood, and he was pretty vocal about it.

Stay away, Megamart! Stay away, Megamart!

I've had similar opinions about giant retailers, although I haven't been as vocal as Mr. Smith. Where did he go wrong?

Well, I don't think he ever accepted the fact that as an individual council member, he really didn't have the authority to act on his own.

That's why Smith was never able to get anything done.

He was pretty vocal about the few issues he was interested in, but rarely worked to build consensus within the council. Dan, pretty much everything we do requires collaboration within the framework of our council. Elected officials can't get anything done as individuals.

I see your point.

So the first lesson is to think and act in terms of we, not I. Apart from a few duties vested in the mayor, the laws that govern our city don't give any powers to individual council members. We've got a diverse council with a lot of different perspectives, and we can only accomplish our goals by working together. Now that you've been elected, your role changes dramatically. You're no longer an outsider promoting your own agenda. You now have to work with your fellow council members to accomplish the city's goals as a collective body.

Let me ask you more about Councilmember Smith. The Megamart deal, it was approved by the Council, although by a close vote. What problems did Smith cause?

Remember all of his anti-Megamart statements? When it came time for us to actually hear and act on Megamart's land use application, he should have recused himself.

So he shouldn't have voted?

That's right. He shouldn't have participated in the hearing or voted. Smith had made it well known that he was aligned with the Megamart opponents. When we're acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, such as when deciding on a land use application or liquor license, we must be fair and impartial. We can't do that if we've already made up our minds before the hearing. Councilmember Smith had made it clear that he opposed the Megamart application. He was not acting as a fair and impartial decision maker. Fortunately, the Mega Mart application was approved by a small margin. Otherwise, the city could have been accused of a due process violation.

Due process?

Yes, the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing as part of an applicant's due process rights.

During my campaign, I talked with a lot of my neighbors who are also anti-growth. I expressed to them my concerns about protecting our small businesses from giant retailers. Will that prevent me from voting on similar issues?

Well, the question is, if one of those big retailers comes before the council with a land use application, can you be fair? Can you make your decision based only on the evidence you hear and the requirements of our land use code? And can you set aside your previous discussions with your neighbors?

I can't ignore my neighbors. They elected me to represent them, not ignore them.

I'm not saying ignore your neighbors. But when an application is pending, you should not have discussions with anyone outside of the hearing. Our city attorney calls these discussions ex parte contacts. Your decision in a quasi-judicial matter must be based on the evidence presented. So when your neighbors want to speak with you about a pending application, explain to them it's inappropriate for you to talk about the issue outside the hearing. Suggest that they come to the hearing so their concerns can be heard.

Well, last year I called Councilman Miller and asked him to vote no on the pit bull ordinance. Did we engage in an improper ex parte contact?

No, that was a different situation. The council's consideration of a pit bull ordinance was a legislative matter. They were not dealing with the rights of a specific applicant under an existing law. The council was considering a new city-wide law, so they were acting as legislators. Lobbying and other ex parte contacts are acceptable in the legislative context, but when you're in a quasi-judicial role, you've got to think and act more like a judge and refrain from engaging in or allowing ex parte contacts.

It makes sense when you put it that way. It's important not to base my vote on my biases or prejudice and only consider the evidence presented at the hearing like a judge. Exactly.

The other thing to keep in mind is to make sure you have no conflicts of interest when you're voting. If you were appearing before a judge and you learned he had financial or other conflicts of interest, you'd expect him to recuse himself, wouldn't you?

Well, sure.

Well, people who appear before us in a quasi-judicial manner expect the same. To be unbiased decision makers, we must be free from conflicts of interest. If we do have a conflict, we need to declare it, recuse ourselves, and not participate in the hearing or decision.

I think I understand. I think I recall reading in the paper about another incident involving Patrick Smith.

Oh, that was probably the lawsuit involving our library expansion. The council had selected a very qualified contractor to manage the project. Smith was always hanging around the construction site, thinking it was his job to micromanage the project. Needless to say, Smith ended up in a verbal confrontation with the contractor. Things got personal, and Smith started talking to other council members about terminating the guy's contract. He also spread some vicious personal rumors around town about the contractor.

That wasn't very smart.

Did he get the contractor fired? No, but the contractor sued Smith personally for defamation. Our insurance company declined to defend Smith because it was alleged he was acting outside the scope of his authorized duties and acting in a willful and wanton manner.

So that's why Smith had to pay for his own legal defense?

Yes. He was not acting within the scope of his authority as a council member when he started those vicious rumors.

I heard he had to take out a second mortgage to pay his lawyers and a large settlement.

Smith learned his lesson the hard way. Being outside the scope of one's authority or acting in a willful and wanton manner will result in a loss of liability protections and insurance coverages.

That's good. Thank you.

Now, Patrick Smith isn't the only elected official who's gotten himself in some trouble. Our former mayor, Joe Appleby, put himself in the middle of a personnel issue.

I think I remember this case. Tammy Williams was the director of public works, right? Didn't she try to stop sexual harassment in the street division?

What do you think about wearing something like that to work?

You guys are jerks, idiots. Guys, I've told you about this before. You can't keep doing this. Bert, I need to see you in my office.

In trying to clean up the division, she fired the street supervisor, Bert Simpson. Mayor Appleby, who was drinking buddies with Simpson, was furious and made it his mission to get Tammy fired. And he succeeded. You know, your job can't be replaced. She brought a lawsuit claiming the mayor retaliated against her for trying to eliminate the harassment. The jury awarded her $150,000 in punitive damages that Appleby had to pay out of his own pocket. Wow.

What were the key lessons in this case?

First, don't act on the basis of personal motives. It was obvious Mayor Appleby wanted to fire Tammy Williams to get revenge for his friend Bert, and that was not in the scope of his authority. Second, we need to delegate personnel issues to the city administration. The council shouldn't be dealing with individual employees other than those who report directly to the council, like our city administrator. We should be focusing on the major legislative and quasi-judicial issues, and leave administrative matters to staff. And third, never retaliate against someone for exercising their legal rights. Not only is retaliation against the law, but these claims are among the most difficult and costly to defend. We also had another fallout from the Appleby litigation. The press learned during the trial that Appleby was telling a lot of inappropriate jokes and he was emailing them to the entire council. So the media demanded to see all of the council's emails over several years. Our study sure looked bad after the press got a hold of those. Well, I didn't realize emails were considered public records. Sure. While there are narrow grounds for not releasing them under some circumstances, the basic rule is that emails may be public documents that anyone can review. If you don't want something splashed on the front page of the newspaper, we need to keep it out of our emails. at least we're not the only city making these mistakes remember the scandal involving councilman arnold over in clarksville after he got stopped for speeding yes he was caught on television yelling at the police officer for stopping him i cringed when he shouted at the officer don't you know who i am talk about an abuse of power And that brings me to perhaps the most important lesson. As elected and appointed officials, we must use our powers wisely and with civility. To misuse our position is absolutely improper and is not within the scope of our authority. We shouldn't try to put ourselves above the law or try to get some sort of special privilege because of our position. Explain what you mean by acting with civility. Well, as elected officials, we're perceived as holding the most powerful positions in the city. Because of that perception, our words carry a lot of weight. A harsh or ill-considered comment from any of us, especially if made public, can be extremely harmful to our employees' morale, as well as our public image. I once heard Appleby refer to our female employees as the staff hotties. It was embarrassing. Also, we should not participate in or encourage staff bashing in public meetings. We need to keep the focus on issues, not personalities. And then during Tammy's lawsuit, some of the jokes the mayor told during executive sessions were made public. We took another bashing in the press for those. Negative behavior like that can affect our entire organization. If we set a bad example at the top, we can't be surprised when it filters through the entire workforce. I'm so glad we've moved on from those days.

This is eye-opening and a little frightening. Do we have any protections from liability?

Yes. Fortunately, we live in a state where our liability protections are strong. For one thing, we have an excellent Governmental Immunity Act. Our Public Officials Liability Handbook has a good summary of our liability protections. But to retain these protections, we must stay within the scope of our authority and not act in a willful and wanton manner.

You've used those terms before. What would be considered willful and wanton?

Well, the actual legal definition is found in the handbook. But basically, it's the kind of conduct that got Appleby in trouble. When he got Tammy fired, he was more than reckless in disregarding her legal rights, purposely trying to damage her career.

Do we have any other protections?

Sure. We have excellent personal immunities recognized by our courts when acting on legislative and quasi-judicial matters. But we do not have strong immunities when dealing with administrative problems. That's another reason why we need to stay out of administrative issues.

Got it. Let the city manager do his job.

And finally, we've got good insurance coverage, but that coverage only applies when we act within the scope of our authorized responsibilities and does not apply to punitive damages, as Mayor Appleby learned.

I see how these are all interrelated. Best practices, liability protections, and insurance coverages. And each area calls for us to meet certain standards of conduct. As long as we meet those standards of conduct, we should be okay.

I think you got it, Dan.

Thanks, Mayor. I really appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge so I don't have to learn the hard way. Thanks for your insights.

You're very welcome. And one of the other best practices we've put into place is liability training. We hold a session every year for our council members, boards, and commissions. We have a session scheduled next month. Great. I'll be there. Great. Thanks again, Mayor. Absolutely. Dan's a sharp guy. I think he'll make an excellent council member, as long as he follows these best practices. Think and act in terms of we, not I. When acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, be fair and impartial. Don't make up your mind before the hearing. Base your decision on the evidence you hear at the hearing and the applicable law. Don't participate in the hearing or the decision if you have a conflict of interest. And don't engage in ex parte contacts. Refrain from personal or retaliatory actions. Focus on key legislative and quasi-judicial issues and leave administrative matters to the staff. And maximize your liability protections by staying within the scope of your authority and avoiding willful and wanton conduct. I hope this video has helped you identify how to stay within the scope of your authority as an elected or appointed official, maximize your liability protections, and enhance your effectiveness as a civic leader. Good luck!

So that's the video. I understand it's dated. A lot of you have seen it several times. But the key principles in the video still stand true. Some Kansas-specific concepts that are touched on in the video, when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, That this video says there's just a prohibition on ex parte context that certainly makes it a lot easier to defend and that would probably be our preference, but we certainly understand that there are stakeholders out there in the Community who are going to reach out to you. And so, for example, there's a case that came down 1015 years ago. That says. like on planning and zoning applications, if you do have ex parte contacts, you aren't violating someone's due process rights if you make it known that you had those contacts as part of the hearing. So if you receive communications from proponents or opponents, when that planning and zoning application comes up before you, you might give the clerk a heads up that you have a declaration that you would like to make known on the public record as to ex parte contacts. And it can be as simple as I've had numerous contacts from proponents. or I've had numerous contacts from opponents. That generally is considered to be in compliance. So that was a new rule that, well, new for me anyway, that came down about 10, 12 years ago that the Kansas courts put in place. But otherwise, I think the training, that training video really still hits on a lot of key concepts that are important for you all. particularly in our form of government, about having the administrator handle administrative issues, personnel issues. So with that, we went over the body of the rest of the training segment in the last session, so if there are any questions, I'd be happy to try and field those. If not, we can get on with the business of our agenda.

Any questions, council? Thank you. We will move to the 2027 budget presentation. Matt.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. Thank you. Tonight's budget presentation can be broken down into the four components. First, we'll go over the budget process, very quick financial update, then into budget highlights, then next steps. So this slide shows the budget process. We kicked off the budget on March 2nd, the year end financial annual report. On April 6th, we had outside agency requests and also the capital improvement program project requests. On June 1st, tonight, we're going over what we call budget highlights. This focus more on the operating budget side and looks at what are the kind of major changes that we've seen year to year in budget or some of the cost drivers. Then on June 15th, we'll have a more detailed discussion on the mill levy. Then on July 6th, consideration of a resolution to exceed the revenue neutral rate and setting a public hearing. Then on September 8th, that's when the 2027 budget and revenue neutral rate hearings occur. This is kind of a quick update on the general fund and how it looks after we've modeled out all the capital requests and also operating requests. The graph shows basically expenditures and then the line is the fund balance and how it declines over time. We've already gone through multiple rounds of budget cuts while developing the 2027 draft budget in order to develop a budget that met target fund balance levels. The city has a target fund balance of 30% of expenditures. The fund balance at the end of 2025 was 43%. It's projected to drop to 35% by the end of 2027 and 18% by 2031. For years, we have been intentionally spending down our fund balance towards our target fund balance. As we approach it, we are taking steps to ensure that we come in for a soft landing. This means when we get to the end of the forecast, we want to make sure that our recurring revenues and recurring expenditures are structurally sound. Some of the budget challenges we faced, health insurance costs significantly for 2026 plan year. We won't know the cost for 2027 until October, November timeframe. After discussing with CBIS, we're assuming a 10% increase. Technology costs have increased over the years. We've added more to our cybersecurity. We've increased annual licensing, just that's FTE count, but also costs have escalated as well. We've added modules onto our ERP system, Central Square. These costs are now fully reflected in the 26 revised budget and the 2027 budget. Our vehicles and equipment replacement annual projections have gone up. We had a schedule based on replacement costs, and we had a small escalator of 2% each year. After the pandemic, the price of vehicles and equipment have increased considerably. So we went back and looked at basically how we determine transfers and how much we need each year and updated the replacement costs with more recent numbers based on the last couple of years. and it's increased the need basically for a higher budget for replacing vehicles and equipment. The general fund ended last year better than anticipated. The fund balance was 43% of annual expenditures. We had very strong one-time development revenues. We're off to a great start so far this year as well. That's all good news, but one thing we want to be mindful of is becoming too dependent on one-time revenues. Revenues like building permits and inspection fees look like most recurring in nature, but they can go from several years of great revenue to zero the next year. So we need to be mindful while we develop this budget and future budgets that we're not adding on recurring expenditures that are backed by one-time revenues. We're requesting a 3.5% merit pool for civilian employees and 4% step for sworn officers. What this works out to be is about a $403,000 impact to general fund and a $200,400 impact to other funds. We're requesting one new FTE, a street maintenance worker, This additional street maintenance worker is part of a, it goes along with a request for a new milling equipment machine, and the machine would be paid from infrastructure special sales tax. The new FTD would come from general fund. This is part of an expanded street maintenance program where we believe it's more cost efficient to perform certain repairs in-house rather than outsource them. Then also on the slide, we were recommending several promotions slash reclasses. We basically looked at these positions, did an evaluation of the complexity of their duties compared to other positions. We're recommending changing some of the prey ranges for those positions. So some budget highlights for the 2026 revised budget. Public Works is requesting an additional tandem dump truck with a plow spreader. The larger capacity truck will reduce the number of trips needed to transport materials, which is increasingly important as the city continues to grow and maintain additional lane miles of roadway. Public Works has also requested new Kenwood radios. They'll continue functioning when cell towers are down. The city already uses these radios and police vehicles, and other Johnson County and municipal governments use the same system. Public Works' current equipment can't reliably reach all areas of town, and they can't communicate effectively with police radios. The revised budget includes a one-time cost of $23,450 to migrate municipal court system operated by Tahir Technologies to the cloud. Any operating costs are expected to remain unchanged. The widget also includes 30,000 for the Peregrine platform for a police department. This technology is CJIS compliant, web-based law enforcement analytics platform that integrates data from multiple police systems into a single searchable environment. The platform consolidates CAD, RMS, acts on evidence, and digit ticket data into one system accessible from patrol vehicles, desktops, laptops, and mobile devices. The revised 2026 budget also, the IT services fund increased approximately about 153,000. A significant portion of this increase is funded through internal service charges to the general fund. That's why it's listed here. The estimated $107,000 reflects added costs for cybersecurity, expanded ERP functionality, increased software licensing fees associated with FTEs and escalations that are built into contracts. The revised budget also includes $88,000 for improvements to the former electric distribution building. The city plans to relocate parks maintenance and fleet services into that facility. The funding for this improvement would be split between parks maintenance budget and fleet services fund, and then the majority of the fleet services fund is funded by the general fund. An additional $55,500 is included for a pool and pump repairs at Gardner Aquatic Center. The budget also includes approximately $78,000 in increased costs for Public Works on-call inspection services. These expenses include on-call traffic engineering, on-call stormwater services, stormwater inspections, and inspections of aging traffic signal equipment. Most of these costs are driven by just development activity. The city's current phone system will not work on new telecommunications infrastructure. We'll be forced to change systems in the future. This project is to get ahead of that forced change. The 300,000 is a very preliminary number. we will work to find a solution that brings that amount down. Right now it's just a budget placeholder. Could you repeat that, please? Oh, that $300,000 number, that's the preliminary budget number, kind of a placeholder. We're working to find different solutions that can bring that cost down.

And the reason?

Telecommunications infrastructure has been changing and they want to switch us to the newer infrastructure which our old system is not compatible with. So at some point we're gonna be forced to change. Do we change it now on our own timing or do we wait till we're forced to change? Moving on to the 2027 budget, as I mentioned earlier, we had a request for a new street maintenance worker. We have the merit, that was 3.5%, and then 4% step system. Works out to be a $403,000 increase. We're estimating health insurance increase to be about $330,000. The transfer from general fund to VRF is an increase of $222,000. And to go a little bit more into detail on that, the VRF fund budget increased from $465,000 to $676,800 in 2027. Approximately 60% of that VRF budget comes from general fund. The estimated transfer in 2027 from general fund to VRF is about $410,000, which is significantly higher than the $188,000 transfer in 2026. And the increase is driven by two factors. One, the increased cost that we mentioned earlier. Then the other one is it goes back to 2024. If you remember, we had to replace a street sweeper and had a very long lead time on it. So we asked council, even though it's not scheduled till 2025, we wanted to order it early. Under Kansas law, if we have a contract to basically order it early, we record that entire expense in 2024. There was no money in the VRF fund for that, so General Fund paid for it. So General Fund paid for something that the VRF fund really should have been paying for. So then in 2025, there was no transfer from general fund to the VRF fund. And then we reduced the transfer in 26 from general fund to VRF fund to compensate the general fund for that early purchase. So now it looks like we're going up $222,000 in the general fund transfer, but it was returning back to a more fair allocation when the previous years were reduced due to that early purchase. And then finally, general funds getting a little bit more impact from the risk services fund, mostly due to workers' comp increasing. Some other budget highlights from other funds. We're expecting bulk water costs to go up about $575,000. There's $150,000 for a new trailer jetter for line maintenance, $75,000 for a new dump truck for line maintenance. If you remember, we had increased wholesale electric costs last year of about $1.8 million. We're expecting that to only increase in the future. That $1.8 million has no offsetting revenues, so that was just directly coming basically out of fund balance. Between that and the debt service that we'll have coming online for all the planned capital projects, the electric utility will need to consider raising rates in the near future. Staff is recommending a new electric rate study start this year. $200,000 to replace a vacuum excavator for the electric utility. And then the previously mentioned new milling equipment coming from infrastructure special sales tax fund at $378,000. The next steps, I'm looking for direction from Council on the budget highlights we discussed already, or if there's any other kind of budget items that you want to talk about in the future, please let me know. Then on June 15th at the next meeting, we'll have a more focused discussion on the mill levy. And after that, it kind of depends on Council's direction on how the rest of the Budget moves along, but right now, July 6th would be the R&R discussion, and then September 8th, we'd be looking for approval on the budget and R&R.

Thank you, Matt. Council, did you have any questions this evening? No? Okay. Thank you, Matt. All right, no public hearing tonight. Do you have time for public comments? And if you are here to speak regarding the data center, we will open it up for public comments when that item comes up here in a few minutes. But if you have other items you'd like to talk about, You're welcome to use this time to make comments about city matters or items on the agenda that are not part of a public hearing. If you wish to come forward, please limit your comments to five minutes or less. There is a five minute time clock on your left. With that being said, come forward, state your name and address for the record, and the podium is now open.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you all for your service. It's appreciated by myself and I think everybody in the room in the city of Gardner. I think you do a very nice job. You have some tough decisions ahead as we continue to grow. I've stood before you. I'm sorry, can you say your name and address? I'm sorry, Frank Bannister, 19815 South Gardner Road, Gardner, Kansas. I've stood before you numerous times complaining. I try not to be a complainer, but the intermodal trucks continue to go down Gardner Road. I live on Gardner Road, so I see them every day. and I did a count, a literal count, and projected that out for a year, and I gave those numbers to the previous police chief, and I came up with a figure of 4,000 trucks went down Gardner Road in 2025. I asked the chief how many tickets had been written for those specifically stopping intermodal trucks, She said 60. And that is a very, I just told her, I thought, well, that's a very, very low count. In my opinion, intermodal trucks going down Gardner Road are not a very high priority just based on the data. And I know that our police officers can't be everywhere all the time, but I live out there and I see them, how often they come down Gardner Road and go on 199th is not very often. And yet trucks just stream up and down there. Now the exits that are closed right now at the bridge construction project, that has diminished some of the trucks. But there is no doubt in my mind as soon as the bridge is completed that traffic flow is going to start again. I have asked Johnson County a couple times. I have asked Gardner numerous times. to please try to address this some in some way I suggested to the previous chief if you just put a truck put an officer out there and do a sting operation at random and start giving a lot more tickets the trucks would stop because they talk to each other and I've noticed that when one truck comes down if a policeman is a police car is anywhere in the neighborhood I don't see any more trucks until that police car's gone. Then I see the trucks again. So they talk to each other. But somehow we need to, I think, increase the enforcement and have some sort of plan to address this. It's a real issue. I spoke to the wife of the man that was killed on the motorcycle a couple months ago at the exit there at Culver's when you come out and go south on Gardner Road, and there was a motorcycle accident there. And, of course, she's all, you know, about right now the trucks, they come out by Culver's and make a right, and they're going over the sidewalk and in the grass and then tearing up the grass and the sidewalk and knock down her memorial to her husband. And so I told her that I would be here tonight and mention, I think, You know, I don't expect you all to take action to prevent this from happening. I might suggest to her that she move her memorial back or, you know. But anyway, I think if there could be a sign there at Culver's to not let trucks exit, come out of there, make a right-hand turn, or just don't even exit, go up to the light, The next light north would solve that issue. They can make a turn into Culver's if they're headed north, but they cannot make that turn, and they're going way over on the sidewalk, and it's creating a mess. I don't know if you all have seen the mud and the mess. I'm assuming you have, but it is a mess, and that probably ought to be addressed at some point. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Banshee.

Okay, my name is Carrie Schmidt and I live at 30125 West 187th Street in Gardner. I'm here today because you are discussing a moratorium on data centers tonight. Seven out of ten Americans are against constructing data centers in their local area and it comes as no surprise that I'm one of the seven. I know that some of you only like to talk in data and facts. Actually, I've been told by one of you that city council doesn't deal with social issues and solely focuses on data and facts. I've also heard that someone wants to postpone the discussion on a moratorium at least 30 days tonight because they want to research and find data on what a moratorium does to a city. Well, there is no real study on that. How do you study a pause, a timeout? You can't. However, the work that is done by city staff during the moratorium would create data for you. That data created during the moratorium would then help define data centers in the city codes. The city cannot continue to work under an interpretation of the code. So if you vote against a moratorium or you table the discussion to a different day because you need time to research the effects of a pause, you are actually voting or delaying the city coming up with data. I am sorry, but respectfully, that makes no sense to me. You want data, then vote in favor. Sorry, it skipped. then vote in favor of a moratorium. In my opinion, voting against the moratorium is a vote against data and facts, period. I am kindly asking those of you who prefer to think in terms of numbers try to get out of your comfort zone during your discussion tonight. This isn't just a black or white issue. You are dealing with people in your community who have major concerns. If you are worried that businesses will leave Gardner if you vote in favor of a moratorium, then you are focusing on the wrong thing. You are putting money over the health and well-being of your neighbors. A moratorium is a common planning tool cities use to manage growth and responsibility. Hitting the pause button to address immediate challenges within our zoning codes and environmental standards would allow Gardner to have a better long-term outcome. Let those businesses go. I can pretty much guarantee that if you vote against a moratorium tonight, then you're probably, maybe, possibly going to lose your seat when it comes to re-election. That's not a threat. I'm just your wake-up call. Residents in Gardiner want a moratorium on data centers so we don't have to worry when the next hyperscale data center is going to come, try to come to town and railroad the city because you don't have any definitions or specific codes for data centers. This is common sense. It is my understanding that Gardiner is a residential and retail community and not an industrial community. We may have some industrial, but that is because we made a deal with Olathe to de-annex land and they came to Gardiner. We are surrounded by industrial businesses here, and if you haven't noticed, Gardiner is not equipped with any brown sites for hyperscale data centers to go. Did you know that cities can define data centers within the zoning code and clarify that data centers are not listed for permitted or conditional use within the city? I'm so sorry. City Council members, I am formally requesting that during your moratorium discussion, you direct staff to amend the zoning code to, one, create a formal definition of data center, and two, specify that data centers are neither permitted uses nor conditional slash special uses in any zoning district unless and until the code is later amended again. If you can prohibit nude strip clubs in Gardner, then you sure can prohibit these industrial size hyperscale data centers from our residential and retail communities. This is the most responsible way to move forward. Let Gardner be known for listening, caring, and protecting people's health, people's land, people's animals, people's air, and people's drinking water. Gardner could be the envy of Americans in other cities and states across the country, all because you listened to what your community was pleading for you to do. Please vote in favor of placing a moratorium on data centers in Gardner, as well as direct staff to come up with a definition within the zoning code that would prohibit data centers That's all I have. Everything's in your hands now. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, if you'd like to talk about data centers, why don't we go ahead and open it up right now. So feel free to step up. Want to do consent agenda? We'll restart it.

Frank Bannister, 19815 South Gardner Road, Gardner, Kansas. And I pretty much echo what the previous speaker said. I'll just share a little story. I attended the Edgerton Planning Commission meeting last month, where as you know, they're dealing with the same question that several of our surrounding cities are dealing with, and so it came time for a vote, and they're voting on whether or not to approve, recommend a, Moving forward with the data center and the city attorney before they took the vote gave an instruction to the Planning Commission Quite frankly confused them to a point. They didn't know him how to vote didn't even know how to make a Recommendation and they sat there for literally 20 minutes and didn't know what to do and I thought I felt sorry for the Planning Commission and But finally, they voted to table the issue. And two reasons that they gave why they tabled, and I thought that was reasonable, is they had asked, once the public comments were over and they were discussing among themselves, they asked the data center company, who was from Saudi Arabia, What will be the decibel level when the standby generators run for the temporary time that they run, because they have to be exercised, I think, monthly? They did not know that answer. In other words, they didn't know how much noise was going to be presented when the standby generators were running. The other question was, What happens, where will the water that is going to be refreshed in the cycling system, what happens to that water because it's treated water and you can't untreat it to make it okay to dump into Bull Creek or go down to Hillsdale? They couldn't answer that. So when you all... I hope you vote in favor of the moratorium. When you get into the weeds and you start looking at definition ordinances, make sure that you require these data center companies to provide specifics on noise and light pollution, electricity consumption, water discharge, and things like that, and it's not okay, it's not okay if they tell you, well, we'll meet all existing codes. That's not good enough, because what happens is, they go ahead and build a data center, they say they met the code, but they don't meet the code, so what are you gonna do? That's a difficult thing, so build detail and specifics, if you vote on the moratorium, build detail and specifics in your criterion, and that will save some headaches later down the road. Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Michael Dressler, 217 West Colleen Drive, Gardner, Kansas. A moratorium, I think is a great idea. It's something that should definitely be considered by the council. We've spoken at the Edgerton City Council meetings there as well and doing everything we can because the one that they're talking about putting an intermodal is every bit as close as the one that has been proposed out here. Moratoriums are not unpopular. This is something that several states are now putting into place. Georgia, Maryland, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Maine, and Michigan already currently have moratoriums on data centers. Phil Czarnecki, who is running for governor, and Stacy Rogers, who are running for governor, are also already calling for moratoriums for at least a five-year period in the state of Kansas so that we can get more data on these things before we start just okaying them and rubber stamping them on the way up. additional just examples of moratoriums that have been put into place. St. Charles, Missouri has put in more moratorium on data centers for the next year. Three counties in Indiana have suspended developments on them. Fulton County has enacted bans on data centers. DeKalb County in Georgia has also followed suit, as did Swain County in North Carolina, Yosplante in Michigan, plus 19 other communities in that state. Locally here, Spring Hill has already, as you know, told them that they don't want it down there. Osawatomie has been fighting it down there as well. Festus, Missouri voted out four incumbent council members after they approved a $6 billion data center out there that was known as Project Cumulus. Peculiar, Missouri reversed zoning to block a $1.5 billion project for a 504 acre facility. Independence, Missouri had two more city council members that were ousted after that. Pacific, Missouri had a mayor that lost reelection after it and Forestel, Missouri blocked a rezoning effort there. So it's not like we're a unique thing. What we're asking for is just something that is, I think being echoed across the country and just something that it doesn't mean that it's like a never thing, but we just need more information. A moratorium would be a great way to just pause so that we can get more data so that we have a better understanding of what these things do. A lot of these data centers are talking about closed loop systems and the reality is that closed loop systems just do not exist. They have to do a blow down for all of the water that is in those facilities. That water is treated with chemicals and biocides and other chemicals that are essentially forever chemicals. Once they get put back into the water system, the local treatment plants are not capable of getting those chemicals out of the water system. Once that goes down to Hillsdale, then it's circulated throughout the rest of the county. The Hillsdale, as you know, the watershed for that services 144,000 square acres in parts of four counties. So it's not just a minute little thing. This is something that's fairly significant. It will affect all of our drinking water. It will affect the well water for all the local farmers and things like that, which obviously was going to affect their cattle, their livestock and crops and things like that. I don't think that that's something that we should be putting on any of the crops and local and putting into our local livestock and things like that. It's just something that really should be considered. I hope you guys give a consideration to putting a moratorium in place on this and appreciate your time. Thank you.

Good evening, Council. I'm Kristin Schultz, 32335 West 166th Street. First I'd like to thank again council members ween and Johnson for stepping up early on and hosting an informational meeting for the community creating space and public discussion Shows real leadership and I know many residents appreciated having an opportunity to ask questions and feel heard because ultimately that's what most people want right to be seen and heard and to know their voices mattered in the process and We elect leaders to speak for the community, not at the community. I understand the pressure that comes with public service. I've been there myself. And sometimes elected officials are required to make difficult or even unpopular decisions. That responsibility comes with the leadership role. What's unfortunate is that we are here now reacting to decisions that were already made at the state level through the approval of tax incentives that helped attract these projects here in the first place. Now our community is left trying to fully understand the long-term impact after the fact. I also understand that some members of this council may still carry the weight of opportunities past leadership chose not to pursue, like the intermodal project. and the feeling that Gardner missed out on economic benefits because of it. That concern is valid, but this decision should not be made out of fear of repeating the past or pressure to make up for previous choices. Every project deserves to be evaluated on its own merits, risk, and long-term impact on the people who live here now. Unlike the state, you still have both the time and opportunity to slow this process down and carefully evaluate whether a data center is truly a safe, responsible and worthwhile addition to the community. Nothing is preventing this council from conducting its due diligence, listening carefully to residents and ensuring that the public genuinely feels heard before moving forward. You have an opportunity to show the people that public input still matters. and that growth does not have to come at the expense of trust. For what it's worth, I support tax incentives when projects genuinely invest back into the community. I support union jobs, economic development, and responsible growth. For projects of this scale should earn the trust of the people who will be most directly affected by them. That is why I'm asking this council to adopt at minimum a 24-month moratorium on new data center approvals while the community Excuse me. Experts and local leadership fully evaluate the long-term impacts, infrastructure demands, environmental concerns, energy and water usage, emergency preparedness, and overall compatibility with Gartner's long-term vision. A moratorium is not an obstruction. It's not fear-mongering. It is responsible governance. It's taking the necessary time to gather information, ask difficult questions, and make thoughtful decisions before committing this community to something that can shape it for decades. Thank you.

So we'll close public comment for now. And again, if you'd like to speak after new business item one is addressed, you're welcome to. We'll move to consent agenda. Is there an item on consent agenda council would like to remove? Is there a motion to approve consent agenda?

So moved.

Second. Motion McNeer, second Deaton. We approve consent agenda. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Abstain? CONSENT AGENDA PASSES. NO PLANNING AND ZONING CONSENT, NO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, NO OLD BUSINESS, NEW BUSINESS ITEM. NUMBER ONE, CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION IMPOSING MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OR CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR DATA CENTERS. MR. PRUDE.

The proposed resolution is to establish a six-month moratorium on data center applications to give staff time to further study the issue. Our current zoning and development standards may be inadequate to address unique characteristics, demands, and potential cumulative effects of these data centers. The six-month time frame will give staff the necessary time to bring recommendations to the council on potential revisions to the Land Development Code and other standards related to data centers. If a consensus is established on this issue, I recommend adopting Resolution 2193, imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications relating to the establishment or expansion of data centers in Gardner. Thank you, Jim.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Council, I'm gonna open it up to council.

Council President, do you wanna go first?

I wanna go, no, I'll go last. You'll go last, okay. I'll say a few things. Regarding the data centers, obviously, it's a lot of information out there. And about six weeks ago, I actually went out and drove to some of the hyperscale data centers to actually physically be in front of them, see them, what they were like. So I went to about four different data centers, North Kansas City, Omaha, and Iowa area. And they're big. They're very big. But as I walked around, I couldn't hear anything. Most of them were surrounded by berms. You couldn't really see too much. The only one I did hear, one, was when I went to the front of the gate and got out to take some pictures and was approached by security. They didn't appreciate that. And so as I was standing there waiting for them to go through all my credentials, finding out who I was, I could hear some humming coming directly down the line between berms from one particular building. So there was some. It was daylight, so I don't know what the light factor was. And obviously, I don't know the pollution. I wasn't there measuring that. But from just appearance-wise, I would say they didn't look anything different than the logistics that we have surrounding us currently. But, again, that doesn't eliminate legitimate concerns, but I think it reinforces the importance of evaluating the data centers based on facts and not, you know, assumptions. And I would encourage everyone, if you get the chance, to go up there and tour some of these. I think, you know, we've talked a lot about the negative effects of the data centers. We haven't really had the opportunity or the chance to discuss any positives for the community. And obviously one of the big positives is going to be the financial aspect. And, you know, we talk about incentives or not incentives, but even with some incentives, these potentially have potential for millions and millions and millions of dollars in revenue. It's not just hundreds of thousands, it's millions of dollars. I mean, it's, on our budget today, you know, you look at our budget, I mean, it's a significant portion of our budget. But money's not, of course, the only important thing. And also, not so much a benefit, but I think we also need to be cognizant, and I think Ms. Schultz mentioned, you know, things we've done in the past that didn't work out well. And I was kind of dating myself, but I was on the council during the intermodal, And there was a lot of outcry against it. Well, not a lot. There was outcry against the intermodal. And what I felt like we did was we stuck our head in the sand and hoped it would go away. And it obviously didn't. My support was there for the intermodal at the time, and I was outvoted. And obviously, you see it's in the same place, and it's under education control now. So I think we have to be cognizant that if we establish a moratorium or if we say no for 24 months or however long it is, that does not stop any city around us or any community around us from building. And we have the same problems without any control. But again, I know data centers provide many unique considerations. There's a lot of opposition. I don't want to rush anything, and I don't want to put citizens in any kind of harm. I know you guys are going to discuss moratoriums on here. Personally, though, I think if it's something we did go with, I would think six months is plenty of time. And during that time, I don't want to just say, no, we're not going to do data centers. But I would like... us to direct staff specifically on staff i know we're going to look at the land code but specifically on what items we we need to see what's important economically development standards community compatibility but most importantly environmental at least for me environmental impacts sound light pollution all those things i think they can be mitigated i think there's ways to do it but i'd like to know what direction we should go to find that out. If we're going to have studies done, I think the developers should pay for those studies. But I'd like to know at least what we should require if we're going to go that route. And then if we do, how do we monitor that? How do they monitor that? What kind of third party monitoring? And then if we find that there's issues after they've built or while they're built, what kind of enforcement procedures can we establish? Now I think we could do that with or without a moratorium, and I think that could be done in a relatively quick amount of time just to get a general idea of what we would expect, I guess, if a data center came. So I'm going to turn it over to the rest of the council. You guys can discuss this. But I know there's a lot of important information out there.

I do. I have questions, and I'm trying not to cough, so forgive me.

That's fine.

Sorry.

Excuse me. We can go.

It's OK. I just needed to cough. I have some questions. I've heard from several people. This time, I've only heard from people in support of a moratorium. I have not heard anything from residents who think that we should just not. My question is kind of the flip side of yours. Is six months really long enough? When I was doing my own research a few weeks ago with the proposed, when we were looking at possibly having that application come through, a lot of the research that I found is traced back to either a proponent or an opponent of data centers. I found very little, I don't think I found any, that's just peer-reviewed neutral research. And so because of that, I think I would hesitate to say, yes, let's move ahead with not having a moratorium because I think we need that neutral peer-reviewed research to be able to tell us what long-term effects might be. This particular area of technology is changing very, very quickly. And even right now with what might be built into a data center now, 18 or 24 months from now may be entirely different. And a lot of the issues that are being raised by people and by opponents of data centers might be mitigated given that amount of time. I don't know. if six months is long enough to find neutral peer-reviewed research because these data centers are growing so quickly and coming in so fast. So did you have something you wanted to add?

Yeah, that's not a random time period, and Ryan can explain why we landed on six months.

So the case law on moratoriums, there's US Supreme Court case law and then there's some Kansas Supreme Court case law talking about moratoriums. And what they generally say is that you can only have them in place, in this case, long enough for you to study and implement whatever it is you're studying, and to get appropriate regulations in place. If you go longer, like people are talking about 18 to 24 months, in my opinion, you're just trying to prohibit development at that point. That's beyond the pale, further than is necessary to study this issue, because like what you're saying, technology changes, but that's not what we're doing. We're looking at a proposed use as it currently exists and trying to develop regulations in six months from now as compared to if somebody filed an application today, what we would want in place. We're not projecting what technology's gonna do in five years. We're just hitting the brakes for any applications of the use as it exists today and what we can do to put in place appropriate land use regulations. I think six months is, to me, an appropriate place to start. The cases that have, one case involved a wind farm. I mean, they were very controversial when they first came out. out in Waubonsee County. They had put a moratorium in place, and the staff studied them for a while. They needed some more time, so they would tack on a few more months to do some more study. So this doesn't say, hey, if we get into this knee deep and we figure out we do need more time, we can't go get it. But the flip side of that is, If you adopt a moratorium that really isn't just geared towards studying the issue and trying to adopt appropriate land use regulations, what you're really doing is trying to prevent development, then you have a constitutional taking. and that could subject the city to paying out monetary damages for taking somebody's property rights. So that's why I made the recommendation I did. Taking into consideration on that, and this is referenced in the council action form, I mean, Dave and his staff and whatever outside consultants are gonna have to do their work, but then This has to come through the regular text amendment process. And so that takes, Dave, how long does that take from publication to planning commission to getting up here?

From the time it would take for us to actually get something drafted as far as ordinance amendments, you would be going through a process very similar to a development application at that point. So you're in the two, I would say two to three months in that process. So you're in that 70-day range or longer depending on what playing commission wants to do and looking at the text amendments as well. So that's where it would become an interesting case because we would have to publish public hearing just like we do on a development case. We have to go through that same kind of process. because it is a text amendment that's originating from the city. So that requires us to follow that process. Within that process, as Ryan indicated, if we had to go to outside consultation or something like that, there would have to be a discussion regarding where budget comes from, how we do that, who we're looking for, and the expertise that we'd be looking for on those things. Um, so that could add time to even in this first six months.

That answers my next question then, which was just going to be six months to me just seems like really fast. Cause I look at, you know, I was sworn in in December and it's already June. And I feel like that was just a week ago. Um, so I know six months can fly, but as long as we have that option to come back, if we're knee deep in it and we're like, we're not quite ready to make that yet. We can extend for whatever time city staff feels like they would need to be able to present. good information, then that's fine.

Yeah, in fact, the case that went up to the Kansas Supreme Court, the Waubonsie County case, they extended two or three times. So that's perfectly within your purview. Again, I think if you put a time out there in, say, 18 to 24 months, that's, to me, I mean, we've rewritten land development codes in that time, and we're looking at an issue within the land development code.

Any more, Kelly?

No. Okay, thanks.

I have a question for you. if we were looking at this as a moratorium and maybe also ryan you as well what are we really looking at here are we looking at nobody no nobody can put applications in during that timeline uh we're looking about looking at ordinance changes uh procedural changes what are we looking at as far as what do we need the six months to be able to

So it would be no applications, and we would look at some of the unique characteristics, the sound, the water usage, the electricity use, just things that we've heard from residents that they're most concerned with. And I think, I'm not sure who said it, but there's a lot of misinformation out there. So we would have to weed through everything and try to get, you know, some verifiable information that we can bring back to council with some recommendations.

Chair Greg Musil. Jim, as you know, I've done a lot of research on this in the last year. What I will say is this, there's a lot, you're right, there's a lot of misinformation and disinformation around this subject. And the things that I'm starting to understand is it could take 20 years before we know one way or the other whether it's harmful or not harmful. The only thing that, you know, right now with these centers, the way they operate, we're not going to know the long-term effects of them until they've been around for 20 years because we had nothing else to compare that to. Also, we started the evening, this evening, with the training video. And one of the people that, one of the reasons the city got sued, the individual got sued, was not being able to deliver due process. And that having been said, we don't know what kind of incentives or what kind of things or what the other side of this looks like.

And also, I've heard from a couple of business owners and players in town.

And what I will tell you is this. In their minds, Gardner is looking pretty unreliable after Bill went away, after they withdrew, and we withdrew our incentives, we never did really get to understand what a development application or agreement would actually look like in the end. The whole process kind of stopped in the middle of the road, and we don't know for sure what's happened. What I am hearing, though, is that other communities very similar or very close to that site are looking at doing the very same thing. The high voltage lines don't move. The general area is attractive to them. And what I'm concerned about is our safety as a community in that if we stop trying to make progress with this, or because this one terminated, we didn't terminate, but because the situation for the application stopped, it doesn't mean that the developer of that data center wants to just hang it up and go somewhere else. What I'm very concerned about is I'm hearing rumblings that Olathe and other communities are entertaining that very same data center opportunity. And if you look at where Olathe has land and could do it, it dumps into the same watershed. It dumps into Bull Creek, which dumps into Hillsdale, which dumps into our water supply. And now, just like the intermodal thought of 25 years ago, or 20 years ago, I'll be nicer. But my wife and I were residents in the area at that same time. What happened was, in the end, all the things that they said were negative things and all the bad things that could and would, could happen, did happen. The problem is, we have no control over that. We have no leverage on that. And we have no revenue from that. All we ended up with, in the end, was all the problems. That's also why Waverly Road, between 175th and Intermodal, is not paved and will never be paved. Even if Gardner said, well, we'll pay for it 100%, editors would say, no, you ain't paving it. So we've got to be very careful when a process like that falls apart. Olathe, for example, has demonstrated to their citizens they don't care about anything. They don't even care about their own citizens. They're going ahead with that cold storage thing right across from Nottingham. So if they're not caring about their residents, you can be rest assured that they're not caring about our community, our water supply, our safety. And we have worked, many of us have worked long and hard to make sure that that a lot of the negative effects were mitigated to the best we could. And I never just got to see the light of day. So I'm very concerned that if we stick our heads in the sand and even go with a moratorium, I think we can study the benefits or the risks and the zoning and right way to do this without having a moratorium and keep going and be very careful and diligent as we go on down the road. Last thing I wanted to make as a comment is we have to be very careful that we don't run our business community off, that we look at revenue, that we look at taxes, that the expenses are going up. I counted $3 or $4 million here tonight of new spending. Where's that coming from? And I look at this and go, there's probably some things that needs to really be taken very close look at. And I just feel like that whole process ended before we had a chance to really understand from a positive or negative perspective what we needed to do. And I think we need to run the full course the next time around. We need to have the stamina to run the full course of the process and give the process its due. So that's all I really wanted to say tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Steve. Councilman Weed?

First a question. So we're saying there would be a moratorium on the acceptance or processing of application or permits. Is there a hypothetical where a data center wouldn't need one? would be in an area that's already zoned for industrial. And I understand that plotting for power or whatever may still be a factor, but maybe it's small enough. I think my ultimate concern, and I can get into it, I don't know if you have any thoughts on that first, if there would be an instance that a data center or a smaller one would not trip the permit or application phase.

can't think of any I know at one point the Coleman building was under consideration but couldn't get power there okay so and then we have panettone but I don't think the scale is what they're looking for and the moratorium is drafted it's all type of permitting so even the building permits to improve the space okay because I also I mean I

They can't skip all of our permitting. I think the concern I have is ultimately a business goes into Coleman, let's say, and they have a server room component of it. And we say, oh, no, you can't because that's whatever. Maybe that's not. and and to the point of oh hey we we do 24 months that means that i understand somebody's in coleman already or or whatever uh i'm just concerned about a a smaller business who i mean mark and i work next to data centers in our building that we don't even know we're there um I don't know if there's...

I'll just quickly comment on that. There's a difference between the principal use data center and what I would call an accessory use type data center. So, you're correct. There are a lot of different businesses out there that have servers and storage elements to them that they'll even refer to them sometimes as a data center or an operable data center for their business. that would be a differentiation in the accessory part of it versus a principal use. What we're probably talking about mainly here is that principal use data center where it's a single use facility designed to have storage and server components that are serving those corporations that are accessing that equipment. And they're basically leased to different corporations.

So you don't think that this moratorium would impact those applications?

We would look at the principal use first of the building and then see what kind of minor role or what the facility is actually doing, and that would be an interpretation we would look at. I think I'm going to clarify a little bit, and Ryan, if you want to, you know, if you disagree with this, go ahead and tell me. We're always receiving phone calls and inquiries on things. We encourage discussion before application to understand fully what the use may be. what their components of uses are. This moratorium would not prevent somebody from calling us and saying, hey, we're thinking about doing these things. Staff would likely still sit down as a resource with them to walk them through the code, have them understand the conditions under which we're in and what they're trying to do. So we would still have exchanges. And that's where we would determine whether that application would fit under the parameters of the moratorium or not. So it would be an individual case by case. You know, there's nothing here that says I can't get a call from, and we get calls from people wanting to do all kinds of interesting things, right? So our job at the staff level is we have to entertain that call, but yet set the context in which to understand whether that may be viable or not be viable.

Yeah, section two of the Moore term speaks to the primary versus accessory use issue. And so the facility, the primary use has to be kind of the data processing.

And I'm going to expand a little bit on what Jim has said about these situations too. In the case of our industrial zoning, we have very little land as a percentage of the overall community that is actually zoned industrial, M1, M2. We have already made an administrative interpretation as to where data centers fit that they would have to be in that M1 or M2 category based on our interpretation of the code and similar uses. that we see as components there. So that element of it is intact as well right now. Anybody who would call me up, I would say, you're going to have to have industrial zoning. So what Mr. Pruden is talking about is in those existing situations like Coleman and there where you have an existing building, The likelihood is that they would come in with their request. We would look at that request. They would likely also have to have some sort of deviations from some of our site planning and other elements which would trigger a public hearing process potentially in those land cases. In the Panettone case where they do have some land, they already have a preliminary development plan. And I know Councilman Baldwin knows this because every once in a while we go through what does that mean. The current preliminary development plan is the regulatory plan for that. So if they came in with different building footprints, a different arrangement from what they had, sizes and scales that are a greater percentage, I think the threshold is 15% or greater than what was there before, that triggers having to come in with a revised preliminary development plan. So it would go back through a public hearing process. So that land area in industrial as well as other things, I would agree with Mr. Pruding on it that we have a situation here where it's not likely that something could happen as a principal data center use at the scales we've been talking about where they would not have to go through some type of public review process and public hearing.

Go ahead. No, so I think to all of that, and I thank you so much, Dave, for that. that it makes sense for us to arm city staff with this information, data, whatever you want to call it, so that we are working from the same sheet. When those phone calls do come in and somebody does ask what are we going to allow for, we've asked those questions. We've taken it through the process. And we've gotten comment. Updated the the land use we've done everything that we feel like we need to do and I I guess I feel like This time period is not is a good use of that To let us know what we need to do. That's the comments that we received Not and I understand they we've had two years 18 months and I think that forcing us to do it in the time frame that we need and forcing staff, sorry, to come up with something in six months is the right pressure we need to put on to have and to continue down this process to understand what it should be. So if we have to extend it after the fact, that's fine. I think just continuing to have that discussion and understand what we would want or demand for this type of development, I think is a useful case.

So if I can just very quickly on that, and I just want to make a comment on a couple things. Essentially, it's so critical when we have these discussions as well as when you make decisions about land use cases, when we get those phone calls, that policy directive, those elements that you bring to the table as concerns, those are things that we convey in that process ahead of application as well. So we're trying to give them a read of the current feel of the community and its leadership so that that applicant can make a judgment as to whether they want to move forward or not So that's why these conversations and sometimes your decisions, when you disagree with staff, when we make a recommendation on a land use case and you go a different direction, similar to the short-term rental that we had not too long ago, right? Well, that feeds us for future applications. We let them know what your thoughts were. We let them know your decision-making because they're looking to understand how are you viewing these things at the decision-maker's level. So that's what's critical in that element. So I just wanted to share that so that you understand that's why staff, when we're listening to your discussions, even when it's an off-agenda item or it's a council update, those concerns enter into our discussions usually that we have with applicants ahead of time.

Can I ask another question real quick? If we were to not do the moratorium and not go that route, would that research and possible revising of codes and ordinances, would that still be happening?

Yes. Yeah.

Even if we didn't do the moratorium, you would... Correct. It wouldn't... Sorry, I know city staff is like super busy. It would still be a priority. It wouldn't just get shoved to whatever is more important right now.

Correct. You have the opportunity. I'm sorry, cutting you off. But you have the opportunity to direct us without a moratorium. And if you want to put a timeline on that with that direction, that's fine too. So either way, Jim's absolutely right. We're going to follow that directive whether the moratorium is there or not.

I had a couple more things. I had misplaced some notes. If I could, please. One of the things that came up out of this discussion I think was good to hear is that not only should we be looking at things like data centers, First off, I don't know how much the general public knows, it's something I've just learned in the last year, that commercial, industrial, that kind of stuff has an assessment rate of 25%, roughly two and a half times what a rooftop does, and much greater value in per square foot of the use of the land that that's a massive increase in revenue and offload the responsibility of the load on the residents so you know it is in our best interest as a community from a revenue point of view to have commercial and industrial development now Where is that? Where does that need to be?

And I think if we are going to direct staff, I would very much like to see the consensus of the governing body.

Do we want to be part of that determination of what land use is? I think we should. Have a direct input with staff in some kind of working session or something. I mean, what do you guys think?

Okay, but there is a statutory process for that. I understand. It has to go through Planning Commission with the recommendation up here.

For codes?

No, for the land development code.

Oh, yes, it absolutely does. The thing I'm kind of wanting to get out here is data centers are a big boogeyman right now. And And as I thought about this, if you break it all the way down to the very basics, personally, I think data centers are not a good idea. I like them.

I'm not a fan of them.

However, at age 70, I do remember what it was like before then. I think as a society, we have some decisions we need to make. If we don't like data centers or don't want data centers, that's a great thing to not want. But if we don't want data centers, then we should also realize that social media, web browsers, Google Eats, mobile meals, shopping experiences like Amazon, all those kinds of things, data centers are what make that magic happen. So if we don't want data centers, And as a society, we need to make a decision to give up all the smart applications that everybody loves or thinks they love. I can remember over half my life, we didn't have them. And I can tell you, I do not miss that. That having been said, we are where we are. And other things that fall under this thing are things like nuclear power plants, power generation, oil refineries, cracking of oil. These are all things that are necessary things to have in our society because of how we live. But nobody, and nobody wants them in their immediate area. And I asked one person this week, so it just needs to be in the right area. What is that right area? And what is the right area for all this stuff?

I think those are things we could look at as we go through.

Thank you.

Mr. Vice President?

So I know a lot of what we're looking at in the moratorium a lot of times gets covered in the development agreement.

Can't hear. Can't hear.

Is this any better? So a lot of what we're looking to cover in the moratorium already gets covered in the development agreement. And this isn't just industrial developments, but even neighborhoods. We require certain things, street studies, environmental studies, drainage studies, all sorts of things. And we, in the development agreements, can kind of mold those to each specific circumstance. If we were to write very specifics in our land development code, would that take away any of our flexibility when we're writing development agreements for particular projects that might have unique circumstances?

Go ahead, Brian. Let me just jump in. I mean, let me say this about what a moratorium does and doesn't. A moratorium, if we don't have a moratorium, if somebody comes and files an application for a data center, we've got to fit them in under our current code. What does that mean? Well, moratoriums, when they came in, everybody was doing, hey, you're just going to rezone to a specific district. Back then, almost nobody did planned zoning. Almost nobody did zoning with stipulations. That is the rule anymore. So any requirements that we want to put on it, no one's rezoning from an ag district to a straight M2 district, and they can do whatever they want to in an M2 district. Through this planning and zoning process, Dave's going to do whatever studies he needs, and quite honestly, the piece that, if we put the moratorium in place versus we have an active application, with an active application, we're gonna have a funding agreement where the developer is going, they don't get to tell us who to hire. We hire whoever we want and they pay for it. We're gonna have to do all this work on the city's own back here. And I don't, to be candid with you, I don't know that you're gaining anything. I mean, you all, You're the legislators. You do what you want. But I don't know that you can't achieve anything you want to through stipulations, through planned zoning that you could have by doing this in-depth study with a more torn in place. That's my candid assessment. But the one potential benefit to the developer, but again, I don't think it's anything you can't fix by putting appropriate zoning stipulations and planned zoning conditions in place. You can set berming. You can set setbacks. You can set ongoing monitoring. You can set all that in the development agreement. Um, you know, now we're going to go out and study, um, and, and do it kind of in a, in a, an unknown context, because we don't know the nature of what the next data center is going to be, whether it's air cooled or water cooled or whatever it may be. Um, but, but the way I see it, those are the pros and cons of having a moratorium in place versus waiting for the next application to come. And I know Dave and his staff. We don't have an application right now, I don't think. But they're not going to stop working and figuring out what's best for the city in the interim. And if they want to bring forward amendments in that meantime, he's going to tell you you should do that.

So I'm gonna piggyback a little bit on what Ryan is talking about because of our planned development districts. And not only because of that, but because of the nature of our code, we're also a form-based code. So we have not only the traditional land use elements like Ryan was talking about, where it was typically what zoning does this fit into? That's part of the process. But we also do have design criteria and design guidelines based on building types and sizes and what they're used for. And so when we start looking at that, there is a whole variety of elements already built into our code on buffering and sound elements. What the plan district allows us to do is sometimes exceed those elements. So we may be looking at something that is a particular use where sound is a concern, for instance. That distance buffering or the size of that buffering and the way the buffering is handled in the planned development process, we can stipulate and go ahead and put conditions on there that are actually greater than what our code allows at this point in time. What's nice about that is we can look at this thing as a case-by-case basis and the context in which those things are placed. I can share that as we were formulating with this application before the process got to the point that it did, I can share that we were looking at sound elements of this thing and setting decibels for DBAs as well as DBZCs, and we were also looking at monitoring those things and setting up monitoring stations. In many ways, we were beginning to look at it as staff There's a similar situation as to what they do with quarries where they have seismographs set up on site to monitor the activity of blasting at those quarries, but we were looking at it from sound monitoring so that we could look at actively what was going on and if there were violations to the planned development process that's on them the developer is paying for that monitoring process they're paying for all of those elements to make sure that happens if we get reports that are showing that it's via in violation they have to make improvements or they risk losing out on that approval for that planned development so there's elements of this that we were already looking at that i would say without that specificity in the code gives us great flexibility to when technology does change. We were even asking questions about what happens when these data centers at this scale become obsolete because technology has changed that that amount of server space is not necessary anymore. Now what do I do with that building and what do I do with that land? So those were elements we've already been starting to look at as a basis from this application. Can't talk to specifics tonight, but I can at least tell you that that was the element of the planning review process that we were going through.

You guys both very thoroughly answered my very poorly worded question, because that was basically what the moratorium, to me, feels like is what we already do with a development agreement. And by these discussions and by feedback from citizens, we know that if an application comes in, what the expectation in this community is, and we still have the flexibility to go stronger, to require more. and to make sure that the developer is paying for a lot of that research. If we pay city staff to do so much research and never get an application for another data center again, Is that the best use of taxpayer dollars? When making sure that we have community feedback and council feedback on what we expect when any business comes in, whether it's a data center or any type of business or development, what we expect and we put that in the development agreement, I'm not sure what the moratorium changes about our current day-to-day operations.

Anything further? Council President?

So, yeah, obviously staff's already been looking into all of this because we had an application on the table, right? So, you know, Dave alluded to the DBAs versus DBZs. I met with Beale. I said I want DBZs. Why? Because DBAs roll off, right, if you know anything about the way that that's a bandpass filter, essentially. So there are things that we can put in there And then you can also have hooks in the development agreement that say, if you don't do this, there's this fine, or you lose a conditional use permit, or whatever. I mean, literally shut them down. Millions of dollars a day, poof. They're not going to let that happen. We literally... What I kept getting during this entire process, before the moratorium conversation and just deal, a lot of people were upset about the possibility of a data center. But the real question is, what is a data center? We literally had the data center, it would be an accessory use, in the bottom of Queen Mary of the Plains for 40 years. That's why the county couldn't sell the CenturyLink building for five years, because the basement was filled with data center equipment. It was old, it was antiquated, nobody wanted to move it. If we say we don't want any data centers, what if one comes in the size of McDonald's and you don't know that it even has data in it? You don't want it? What is it that we don't really want? Well, what that comes down to are the concerns that people have brought up. Noise, light, just adjacentness to certain property. Water usage, water effluent, electricity usage. So what the public didn't get to see, you never got to hear the pros, because we never got to a development agreement. But I can tell you that we were discussing all kinds of things to mitigate everything. Everything, right? I would get an email that says, you know, you're gonna ruin the water. Before they even walked in the door, we said you can't cool it with water. Off the table. Never was going to happen.

But that's pros and cons.

You're not going to cool it with water. What are you going to use? That's a better medium to cool things. But you've got to use, now, air. So you've got, essentially, your car radiator, closed-loop system, and you've got to have your chillers and your air conditioning units, essentially. What about the blowdown or the blowout that they're going to do every once in a while? We already had basically said, hey, you're going to truck that out of here to a disposal site. It's not going back into Hillsdale. We care about our water. We all live here too. Half of us have kids that are still in town. None of us want that. So we were looking at that. We can talk electricity, but it's not on Gardner's grid. So you know what? We had a huge benefit for that. Literally, it's on the farthest point in town from anyone in this town. Farthest corner we could put the darn building. buildings and then we're gonna pluck out of the air from 345 KB lines and then we're gonna get paid to do it and we didn't have to pay provide them that power what a wonderful treat right we get paid to not do anything that that is huge you're talking about dollars people It's not just about property taxes. There's IRBs. There's franchise fees. There's sales tax. There's all kinds of stuff. Yes, there's sales tax exemption with the state right now. You have to compare and contrast the pros and the cons. All the cons can be mitigated. Now, would they have done it? I don't know. We never got to that point. We picked and chose a winner and a loser in this case. We never should have done that. We should have let this go through the public process, should have been a public meeting, should have went to planning, should have came up here, and then we go, you know what? Still not coming. Or yep, we'll take it, because they met our development agreement that we don't have today. We are not supposed to be in the business of picking winners and losers. And we 100% did that. And if you do a moratorium, you're essentially doing the same thing longer. You're saying, data centers, you're a loser. Don't come here. And the fact is, they probably aren't going to come here again anyway because we just gave them the finger. We threw that in their face. They're probably going to look at every fringe location they can and be like, I'm not dealing with Gardner if I don't have to. So there's no reason we should spend a single cent on any research that is extra, i.e. studies, that aren't paid for by a developer. I mean, just the cost that Matt brought up, and I know we have different funds here, so bear with me, but it was a little over $4 million. That's, give or take, a little over 10 mils. Does everybody sitting out here want to raise their taxes 10 mils? And that's just for what we did here. That has nothing to do with any other changes, right? You have to have industrial to sustain the residential, okay? We have to have a balance. We have basically zilch for industrial. It gets, like Councilman Menear said, it's taxed at 25%. Our houses are at 11.5%. Okay, there's a big number difference here. You want to take those dollars and use them to make things nice for the residents. Parks, roads, police, new cars for our employees to be able to do their jobs, dump trucks. We heard two of them, right? We can't do that if we go, hey, the only way to get more money is to bring in a thousand more houses, which also requires more, oh, roads and dump trucks and police. It doesn't work. So a moratorium doesn't do us any good. We're already doing the research. We're going to continue to do the research. More importantly, I don't think and I know we're not supposed to be picking winners and losers. And actually, I kind of hope that somebody out there says, hey, let us be the ones to craft the great Guidelines. That's what I was hoping we were doing with the last one. And say, hey, here's what you gotta do if you wanna play ball in Johnson County. You gotta meet these criteria. Gardner set the standard. Instead, we're gonna let somebody else do it, possibly two feet across the line from us. Okay? No thanks. Right? We did that with the intermodal. I don't think the moratorium gains us anything. And more importantly, it's people are talking the development community is talking we probably set ourselves back 10 years by saying that we you know throwing it any it could have been anything this could have been a Walmart we threw it in their face that's that doesn't show that Gardner wants to play ball with any development and if we want to use the excuse that it was because of abatements or incentives. We literally had a project eight months ago with zero incentives that we also threw in their face. It wasn't quite 11th hour. So what is it? We just don't wanna grow? Or we just wanna grow in a way that people think is that they want a new neighbor but no industrial because it's unsustainable. You have to be growing both to sustain. So that's my two cents.

Thank you, Council President. Well, I think we've had a pretty good discussion. Unless anyone has anything further, I would entertain a motion.

Either way. I would not. have a motion and just let it die.

I have another question, hopefully not a long one. Where is the line with what we can ask in a development agreement or put in a development agreement if the code is limited as to what it says before a company can come back and sue us because now we seem like we're just making it difficult for them to do business here.

I'm going to clarify something very quickly and then give it to Ryan because part of this is a legal question as well. What I want to clarify is there's a very different, there's a difference between a development agreement and the planning process and planned development. Very different things. So what I'm talking to are those conditions and stipulations that become part of the planning process recommendations and potentially adopted by the council as part of their decision making. Those elements there, we do have to be conscientious of how far we go, but yet we are always going to be pushing that envelope for what's best for the community from that land use perspective, context that's around that land use if we're going to make a recommendation of staff that requires stipulations that does not mean that that applicant is going to agree with those stipulations or conditions what it does afford them though is the context before the Planning Commission and before you to assess that recommendation of staff and to look at that and say we can or cannot make that work under the due process requirements of the planning process They get that opportunity to state why they cannot publicly, what's going on there. Then it's up to the Planning Commission to make that recommendation and you to make those decisions as to whether that's acceptable or not, to remove a condition or to make a condition even more strict than what staff is suggesting. You can go either way with that. That is the role of the Planning Commission and the governing body. And Ryan, I'm going to let you talk about development agreements, because I just wanted to clarify, because people have dropped in development agreement, which is different than the planning process and what we do through the planned development.

Yeah, and so to add on a little bit to what Dave said about stipulations to zoning, I mean, what you're looking at there is what do we have in our code? Um, but then you're also looking at what are referred to in Kansas as the golden factors. Um, you know, I'm looking, we've got that list of criteria in our code. There are about 10 factors that you look at that you as a body are supposed to look at on every zoning decision. It's supposed to guide you as to how you make your decisions and you're supposed to limit your decisions to those 10 factors. Factor number six would be the relative gain to economic development, public health, safety, and welfare by the current restrictions on the applicant's property and the hardship imposed by such restrictions on the property. So everything we've been talking about with data centers, water, power, economic development, that's all fair game. And so when you're talking about stipulations, The challenge from the developer, if we put a stipulation they didn't like, they'd have to prove it's not consumed by one of these golden factors. Good luck, they're real broad. And they'd have to say that your decision was unreasonable to place that restriction on them. And good luck with that too. Courts are very deferential to bodies like you. So I think you have a great deal of discretion in what you do as part of your zoning stipulations.

Development agreements.

wide open right it's a contract it's contract you're offering tax incentives or tax breaks really we're foregoing the opportunity to collect money typically and you can pretty much negotiate anything you want to right Jim Kelly just

We can do anything when a development agreement or even a land development, neighborhood development comes before us. If there's something we don't like about it, we can send it back down to Planning Commission or staff or both. So we do have, as Brian was telling you, we do as a governing body have a tremendous amount of influence, power, and decision-making capability right here on the dais. So you're empowered.

One other thing I'm going to quickly add to this is that I have the ability prior to application as director under the LDC currently to require or request additional studies as we deem necessary. Those studies can cover a variety of things. I also have the ability through the review process once an application is made if that study isn't part of it, I could consider that application as incomplete. Because if I've directed that in a pre-application meeting, a formal requirement of the application process, that is considered an element of the application. So in that first five days when we do our completeness check of the application, if that study is missing and is not there, that application is not accepted. It's considered and deemed incomplete at that point in time. It can also go into the staff review process where we might identify something because we're getting into greater details in that formal review process that at that point we may come back to them with a review comment that they need to do an additional study at that point in time and provide that to us. Sometimes that causes delays in their application, but they understand that. On a rare event where an applicant would say, we're just not going to do that study. Well, guess what's going to be a condition or stipulation that's going to be heard in front of the Planning Commission and everybody else? And they're going to have to stand up publicly and justify why they're not doing that. And that's up to the applicant at that point in time. And if those reasons are not good enough for the Planning Commission and for you as a governing body, you have the right to deny those things under the golden criteria as well as under the recommendations that have been provided to you through that process.

I'm going to add to that. I think I'm speaking for everyone. But I feel like people kind of felt like they were on islands during this last bit here. And some of that's because of coma. And we can't all be chatting. But utilize going to gym and share your concerns that people are bringing to you. Because then we can get it into the development agreement. And it's a contract. You can write anything you want. We could be like, hey, all of this is a pain in our butt. I want $500 million. Why? What fee? There isn't one. I just want it. Write it in the contract. If they sign it, done deal. It's not gonna happen. They're gonna turn that down. But we can put things in there. So I brought up the DBZ study. Things like, hey, yeah, you're gonna have to monitor the sound We're going to choose the consultant. You're going to pay for it, right? Not we take your study and you doctored it. No, right? Those type of things. So we can put in those details, but Jim has to know the concerns that he's getting that are, hey, we gotta address X. We gotta address Y, right? So, you know, like I went to Jim. Hey, if they violate, we need to have something for sound, and if they violate it, we have to have a hook, a big hook. Shut them down, okay? We have to meet this kind of a DBZ level, right? That'll take care of these people. But if we don't do that, and we just assume it's all happening, there's a chance that it doesn't. Now, we're eventually gonna see the development agreement, and then we have comments and concerns, but a lot of times, by the time it comes to us, Jim's already done all the heavy lifting, so sometimes we gotta give him some feedback. That's just a comment for all of us. This one, I think there was a lot of input from the public. But a lot of it was, here's the data, and don't you know this is so bad? Yeah, I do know that's so bad, and I know that it's 85 dB inside the building. It has nothing to do with what it's going to be across the street. And if we stipulate that it can't be more than 45 across the street ever, or, oh, well, the laws already state X. EPA states non-emergency backup generators can run 50 hours a year. When we were in the meeting with Beal, it's like, hey, how about 15 minutes a month? 50 hours is a lot of time, right? No, that's too much time. You don't need to run that much, right? So that was to cut down on particulates and so on, right? They said they would use tier four generators instead of tier two. We were going to put in the development agreement, it has to be tier four, even though non-emergency backup generators don't have to be tier four, right? EPA rules, right? But we can put it in there. It's going to be. So it's just like things like that that we can control.

Agreed. All right. So we've still got any business item number one. There's a motion otherwise.

So moved.

Okay, without a second, it dies. So, resolution 2193 will not be discussed. Thank you, everyone. We'll move to new business item number two. Consider adopting an ordinance amending section 10.35 of the Gardner Municipal Code relating to appropriate zoning for fireworks stands.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Very quickly, this is an item that came up as part of the last city council meeting. There was discussion regarding the potential or an inquiry regarding the potential of placing a fireworks stand on the county fairgrounds area. As we looked at it, our initial interpretation from the city perspective, city staff perspective, is that that would not be allowed in the Uniform Offense Code. It is outlined what zoning districts Fireworks stands are allowed to be placed in. County fairgrounds are zoned to REC, which is a recreational zoning district. Within the CAF, you've got an explanation of what that allows as well as what the purpose and the intent of that zoning district is. From that perspective, This is a ordinance that merely would amend the, uh, uniform offense code is adopted to include the REC zoning district as a, as a district where you could allow fireworks stands. It does not waive any of the other requirements. So they would still have to meet all of the performance requirements that are required under the uniform offense code. So that means they would have to go through the permitting process, they'd have to go through their site plan review and make sure they're meeting all those performance requirements. With that, I'll leave it to questions.

Thank you, Dan. We will open this up to questions or comments.

Public comment?

Public comment.

Okay.

Council, do you have questions or comments?

No, I appreciate staff looking into it and bringing it back to us so that we can make this work for other people.

I will, I'm just going to add to this and make it complicated a little bit, but just so you're aware, this is the only property that has the REC zoning district at this point in time. There is a portion of that map that is owned by the Unified School District as well. The only concern we would potentially have, I think it was raised at the last meeting, was what if we ever zone other properties REC, so we're going to have to be cognizant of that as we move forward if you choose to approve this.

Is there a reason why this is the only parcel that's zoned rec? Our parks aren't zoned rec.

If you look at that intent statement, you know, for the district, it seems like it was carved out specifically for something that has multiple outdoor kinds of functions and uses. And really, when it comes to a park, you're finding that you have facilities that are typically what you would find in any park at a community or a neighborhood level. Here, you've just got so many activities, different types of buildings, different types of arenas, if you will, or, you know, where they conduct different activities outdoors. So I want to say it's partially because of that.

I think years ago they just said, that doesn't quite make something for it. Yeah.

Now, there is a portion of the fairground area just adjacent to the pool that is zoned R1 that's sitting in there, but that's why it's that way, I couldn't tell you. Yeah, right.

So I walk by this area quite often. Any concerns with it being kind of surrounded by residential? I mean, obviously they still have to meet all the fireworks guidelines, but it is really surrounded by a lot of residential.

They'll have to meet the separation distances that we require from residential uses. This is not as unusual as you might think. A lot of the properties that are zoned commercial that are along Main Street, They have adjacent residential behind them and things like that. In this particular case, to the west, I believe it's R5 zoning, and to the east is R2 zoning, so it's a little bit different than a single-family neighborhood per se. It's a little more intense as far as that residential. But again, we'll be able to work if the location that they're thinking about is where we're at, we'll just be assessing all of those site parameters, and they'll have to meet those site parameters.

And currently, the way that it's zoned, if a food truck wanted to go there, would that be allowed or not?

Food truck permit is what they would need. Okay. They need a couple. So they would have to go through a temporary use permit or a conditional use depending. So if they wanted to make it more permanent, You might recall a few months ago when Mooses was going through that process, they had lost their lease on the personal property that they were on. They were going to the fairgrounds. We were allowing it as a temporary use for a short term, but if they would have become permanent, they would have had to get a conditional use permit under the current zoning, so.

This basically only just allows fireworks to be sold, that's it.

Or whatever that week period, basically.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dave.

Thank you.

No more questions, right?

So moved.

Second.

Motion, Baldwin. Second, McNair. We adopt Ordinance 2879, an Ordinance Amending Section 10.35C4 of the Gardner Municipal Code relating to appropriate zoning for fireworks stands.

Council Member Lee.

Yes. Council Member Johnson. Yes. Council Member McNair. Yes. Council Member Baldwin.

Yes. Council Member Lee.

Yes.

2879 passes. All right, that concludes regular business. Move to council updates.

Chief, want to start us off? I believe the gentleman left. I'll get with him to follow up on the 990. We did do an update here recently where I asked the team to please put themselves out on the radio specific to this special enforcement so we can help the kind of day, other factors that go into that, not just the tickets, because that helps me get an overall view of trying to be efficient with our time and get the best use of it so that we can hopefully get even more. So I'll get with them and follow up on it.

Great. Thank you. Renee?

I have nothing tonight.

Matt?

Nothing further tonight.

Amy?

Nothing tonight.

the attorney you've got to speak a lot tonight yeah nothing further from me okay david if you'd like me to talk longer pretty well i have nothing tonight kella nothing tonight nothing tonight okay uh councilman mcnear

I just want to say thanks to staff and the rest of the people . I thought we had a very good discussion. And yielded an outcome I probably would have not guessed. But it was excellent. And Matt, thank you for your diligence and presentation on the budget for next year. Dave, appreciate the excellent input. Go ahead. Thank you.

I just want to say thank you to the people who came and spoke tonight. We always appreciate hearing from everybody who comes. So thank you for doing that. I also want to ask real quick for an update on Gorney Park. I know we were shooting for Memorial Day for that. How's that coming along?

A little delayed with the weather. Probably about two weeks from now.

Father's Day. Father's Day.

Are we planning a celebration?

That's all I've got because I'll start coughing again.

Councilman Wien? I do have a couple things. Thank you to everybody who spoke tonight. I appreciate the discussion. It was, you know, needed at this point in time as we continue to have these discussions. And it sounds like we'll see what the future brings. We've had quite a bit of rain. And I didn't know if we wanted to get out ahead of our mosquito issues in the south side of town.

Nice.

You're welcome. I got to do something for my birthday, right?

Might as well bring up mosquitoes.

Just something for us to think about. Also, it being June, I want to wish everybody a happy Pride Month. Go out and celebrate as you see fit. Otherwise, thanks.

Dean?

Since nobody else is going to say it, I'd like to say happy birthday to Council Member Wien. You know, sometimes as elected officials, we don't spend our birthdays with our family, but our governing body family. So I wish you a happy birthday.

And watching videos.

Yes. Riveting movies.

Thanks, Mark, for holding that off.

I'm so sorry.

Also, congratulations to the girls softball team for winning state. I heard you come back in. I was at the senior center and heard the sirens and looked out and that was really exciting. And I also believe we sent at least one golfer to state. So spring sports, go USD 231 and congratulations to all those students. And that's it.

Council President, I'd just like to encourage Everybody, we have a lot of things that come up, and data center is just a great example of it, where it's multifaceted. There's lots of concerns. Some of them are relatively simple. Oh, well, if it's on this, it's not possible. Or if we do this, then that's not possible. But what would be great is I love seeing everybody show up. And, but please share with us, um, what your real concern is, right? So like if I get a form letter, I can get the gist of it, but I've already gotten it 10 times. So tell me what specifically you are impacted by or you're concerned about so that we can address that, right? Because we don't know what your concern is. We know what the gist of everything overall is. But what's your concern? What's your concern? So if you do that, then we can work through all that. And obviously, you know, we can take that to staff and it comes back to us and so on. So just keep encouraging everybody to do that. That makes the process work better, right? And we can turn out. solutions to complicated problems that are the best. Rarely is it going to be perfect or horrible. Somewhere in between. And the best we can make it for everybody is the goal. So I just want to encourage everybody to stay involved. That's all.

And along those lines, again, I think any decision we make, we all live here and we all have to abide by decisions we make as well. So we don't take them lightly and we do our research. Sometimes it goes through iterations, but ultimately, we're trying to do what's best for Gardner and what's best for our citizens and everyone else. Also though, thank you, or I'm sorry, congratulations to the Gardner softball team. Personally, a woman that works with me, her daughter has two players on the softball team, so congratulations to the Walkers, Chris and Dee. It's just an amazing season, and it's exciting that they represent us the way they do. So that's all I have. I'll take a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

Motion to make a near second. Deaton, we adjourn. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Abstain?