City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

7 o'clock in Garner, Kansas. We'll call the meeting to order. Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, good evening, everyone. All right, so we are gonna start the evening with, we have two presentations, Matt, our finance director. First is a presentation of the 2025 Audit and Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. This is the 22nd year the city has prepared an annual comprehensive financial report. All 21 previous annual reports were award winners. In our continued pursuit of excellence, this latest annual report will again be submitted for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting with the Government Finance Officers Association. The city's independent auditing firm, Allen, Gibbs & Hulick, completed the audit of the 2025 financial records Staff is pleased to report the auditors have once again issued an unmodified opinion regarding the city's financial practices and reporting for its basic financial statements. An unmodified opinion is the highest possible opinion. Nathan Mole, Assurance Senior Manager of Allen Goodson and Hulick, is here tonight to present the completed 2025 audit to the governing body.

Thank you, Matt. Welcome.

Good evening. So I'm Nathan Moll with AGH. I was the manager who oversaw the audit this year. Brian Holst, I think, normally presents. He had a family emergency and wasn't able to be here tonight. So I just wanted to give a brief discussion of how the audit went, and then mainly covering the three letters that are included in your packet tonight. So one is the governance letter, or I think it's labeled as required communications letter. And then we have the auditor's report, which Matt just referenced to our opinion. And then also the auditor's report on internal controls. So I will walk through. Those items, so I'll start out with the auditor's report. I know that's usually the thing people wanna know is what the opinion was. So our opinion, and I think this was the last letter in your packet, but so the report includes standards we use for our audit as well as the opinion we issued on the financials. We issued an unmodified opinion again this year, which is the highest and best opinion. that we can issue, so that's good news. Everything went well, went smooth. Everything seems to be stated correctly. Next, I'll spend most of the time here going through slides that mostly refer to the governance letter, the required communications letter. So that should be the second one in your packet tonight. So on the first page of that letter, in the first part, it makes reference to our engagement letter and our planning letter. Both were dated in April, April 7th of this year. The engagement letter details what we were engaged to do and what management needs to do. The planning letter detailed the planned scope and timing of our audit. And so neither of these, there were no significant changes. That's the reason we reference this at the end of the audit. is in case there was any changing in the planned timing of our audit or scope of our audit and nothing changed from those original letters. Also on page one, under significant audit matters, we communicate any new accounting policies that were adopted or any significant unusual transactions. And so neither of those were present for this year, for this audit. There were no new accounting standards implemented, and we did not note any significant unusual transactions. Next, starting at the bottom of page one and then going on to page two, we detail significant accounting estimates that are based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. So these are basically things that aren't cut and dry, black and white, such as doing confirming bank balances. at year end, which is pretty straightforward. These require some estimation and subjectivity. So the first couple there listed are our OPEB liability and the net pension liability. So both of those were The city utilized actuaries to come up with those liabilities. As part of our audit procedures we got those actuary reports and reviewed those and made sure everything seemed to be correctly stated on the financial statements based on those reports. So those are largely driven by the actuary reports. The allowances for uncollectible receivables, that's historically based on historical collection rates, and that's how management comes up with the estimation for that allowance. Then moving on, towards the end of page two, or not towards the end, but on page two of that letter, we identify any audit adjustments. that we found during our audit. This year we had two audit adjustments. One was recorded, one was unrecorded. The recorded adjustment was for $86,000 in the electric fund, and it decreased inventory and increased expense. This was for an erroneous update made to an inventory item's costs that we came across in the audit. It was just one item that had a cost adjustment during the year that it shouldn't have had. And so that was recorded and corrected, so that's reflected in the financial statements. For the uncorrected adjustment, management concluded and we agreed with them that the item was immaterial to the overall financial statement, so it did not get recorded. But for that one, it pertains to accrued wages at year end, and it just resulted in an overstatement of payables and salary expense in the general fund of just 31,000. So again, that one was unrecorded. The next slide pertains to the auditor's report on internal controls. There weren't any findings or issues to report, but I did want to point out there are things we look at besides just the basic numbers in the financial statements. And so those items are listed here where we also do a review of significant accounting policies, accounting treatments. We look at the disclosures in the financial statements closely. We also look at the methodologies for developing accounting estimates. So this letter would normally detail any issues that we identified in internal controls or compliance, but we didn't have any, so that's a good thing. We didn't have any findings this year. Lastly, the last couple of pages of the governance letter details items that don't specifically apply to the findings of your audit, but are, let's see here, yeah. Last couple pages, they don't apply specifically to your audit, but they are items we include to draw your attention to. And I believe these are the same things that we had included last year that I believe Brian's touched on before. But first one, electronic fund and wire transfers. This is just an awareness, you know, risk of loss and fraud. It's a common thing that seems to continue to be happening Fraudsters will impersonate vendors and try and get electronic fund transfers or wire transfers, and even not just vendors, but that seems to be a common one that we've seen in recent years. And then also cybersecurity risk. Again, just our letter kind of lays out some information on things to be aware of and things to keep in mind with cybersecurity risk. And then lastly, in regards to comprehensive policy and procedure review, this just outlines something that can be done. That is something that our firm could help with too if there was ever a desire in the future, but in the letter it talks about what that review process would be. In closing, I just wanted to say that it was great working with the team. The finance team was very helpful. We know that audits take a lot of work and can take a lot of time for the staff. So we appreciate everything they did to make it run smoothly. And it really went very well. So we appreciate that. So thank you for your time. And if you have any questions, I'm available.

Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? We appreciate the work you do. And of course, we appreciate our award-winning finance staff as well.

Sounds great. Thank you. Thank you.

And then our next presentation will be the 2027 budget presentation. Matt, you're up again.

Tonight's presentation on the budget can be broken down into the following components. We'll quickly recap the budget process, highlight the general fund, go into the discussion about mill rates, fund balance and fiscal capacity, and the next steps. So the budget process is a very lengthy process. We started back in March 2nd. We started with a year-end financial report. On April 6th, staff presented outside agency requests and capital requests. On June 1st, we discussed 2027 budget highlights. And here tonight, we're going more into detail on the mill levy. And then on July 6th, we'll bring back a resolution if it's the direction of council to exceed the revenue neutral rate in setting a public hearing. This first slide kind of shows a breakdown of the 2026 revised budget versus the 2026 original budget. It shows an increase of $946,000, or 4.5%. Most of this increase is due to one-time expenditures. To recap some of the budget highlights, The city's current phone system will not work on new telecommunications infrastructure. We'll be forced to change the systems at some point in the future. This project is to get ahead of that forced change. $300,000 is a very preliminary number. We're still working on different options and see how we can get that amount down. In the finance department, the primary driver of the increase was municipal court, where we're looking to migrate our Tyler Technologies to the cloud. It's a one-time fee of about $23,450. Ongoing annual operating costs should remain relatively unchanged. In the police department, they're requesting 30,000 for the Peregrine platform for, it's basically a CJIS-compliant web-based law enforcement analytics platform, integrates data from a lot of different systems into a single searchable environment. They also received a grant for additional training. It's a two-year training grant, so that inflated the budget for 2026. And then they had a couple different pieces of equipment like a car grappler, tablets, then some software like Trackwire and Cortico app. Well, it's kind of totaled up to be about 41,500. Public Works is requesting new Kenwood radios that will continue functioning when cell towers are down. The city already uses the radios in the police vehicles. Other Johnson County municipal governments use the same system. Current equipment cannot reach all areas of the city limits or communicate effectively with police radios. We're also increasing on-call and inspection services. This is for traffic and stormwater, and this is primarily driven by development. And the public works department is also requesting a new tandem dump truck. Basically, a larger capacity means less trips back and forth transporting materials. In Parks and Recreation, there's $55,500 for pool repairs and pump repairs. And then also $44,000 for basically fixing up the old electric distribution building. The other half of that project would come from Fleet Services Fund. the plan is to move parks maintenance and fleet services into that old building the slide shows the 2027 budget it basically represents a 385 500 increase over the 26 revised budget or a increase of expenditures of 1.7 percent Here's some of the cost drivers that we've been dealing with on the 2027 budget. We're asking for a new street maintenance worker. There's about $403,000 in general fund's portion of merit and step, $330,000 for health insurance increase, then $220,000 for increased transfer from general fund to IRF, vehicle equipment and replacement fund. You notice these add up to be a lot more than the $300,000 here. This is basically between the 2026 original budget and 27 budget is an increase about 1.3 million or 6.3%. And that's kind of masked by all the one-time expenditures in the revised 2026 budget. Part of the increase from the original budget of 2026 to 2027 budget is internal service funds, IT services, fleet services, risk services. Those all together increase about $250,000. The VRF funds going up for kind of two reasons. One, we are updating our replacement cost estimates. We had old ones from before the pandemic. We now have several years of data, so we're updating our costs for determining calculation for transfers. And then two, back in 2024, we bought a street sweeper ahead of schedule, general fund paid for it, so we reduced the transfers from the general fund for the next two years, so they're artificially lower than usual. We've closed the May accounting period. We've updated our forecasts, and it really hasn't changed much. Our target fund balance is 30% of expenditures. Fund balance at the end of 2025 was 43%. It's projected to drop to 35% by 2027 and 18% by 2031. Today we received new valuation estimates from the county. We're anticipating a 5.2% increase in the total valuation of the city. If we went with a flat mill levy scenario, that would result in about an increase of $3.67 per month in additional property tax for the average single family home, estimated about 358,000 for the home. If we go with the revenue neutral rate scenario, the mill would drop by 0.881 mills. And keep in mind, a mill's worth about 388,000. Revenue neutral rate would limit the property taxes to the same dollar amount as the prior year, and also lower allocations of motor vehicle tax, county sales tax, and future budgets. So the question is, what are these different scenarios due to our fund balance? So the flat mill levy scenario, as I mentioned earlier, it ends at about 18% at the end of 2031. In the revenue neutral rate scenario, it decreases a bit quicker. It would decrease to 10% of expenditures at the end of 2031 with monthly savings of $3.02. Private tax technically is going up a little bit more for the average home still, just because residential's increasing at a higher rate. This average home's going up about 6.4%, while the city as a whole is going up about 5.2% in valuation increase. If we went with a quarter mill reduction scenario, The five year forecast ends at 16% fund balance. If we do a half mil reduction scenario, it ends at about 13% fund balance. Now we have another tax levy fund, the bond and interest fund. Kind of guiding budget policy over the last, like, four to five years, we've been trying to maintain a $10 million project capacity. And what that means in the Bond and Interest Fund, if we wanted to go out today and issue $10 million in principal amount general obligation bonds on a 10-year term, we want that kind of capacity to cover that debt service. Now that debt can be stretched out over a longer term, or if you use part of it in one year, then a couple years later you might have some capacity grow back, because revenues increase or other debt falls off.

But we're starting to dip into that capacity.

The first project would be the 175th Street and Clare Road improvements. Overall, we're hoping development revenues will pay for most of this project, but there's a timing issue. The project's gonna cost around 16 million, On this slide, you can see different revenues we're expecting to get at the front end to help reduce how much we have to issue. So the principal amount we're looking at is about $9.4 million. We plan to issue a 15-year geo bond based on the life of the asset. But we do expect additional revenues to come online over the years to help rebuild that capacity. And the bond interest will essentially be carrying those costs until those revenues From our CIP, we have several other planned projects that would also use this capacity. I-35 and US-56 interchange reconfiguration in 2029. Basically, the local match for that project would be about $5.2 million, and we'd be looking at issuing a 20-year bond. And then in 2030, construction on it with the arterial maintenance program projects, the reconstruction of 167th Street from Kill Creek to Waverly. We're applying for a MARC grant, but we would expect the local match to be about $4 million, which we'd stretch over 15 years. So stretching out that debt and basically those three projects over the five years, and then also different pretty long or longer terms on that, we can afford to do those projects, but it uses most of our capacity. In a flat mill levy scenario, we'd have about 2.5 million left. Keep in mind, we always like to keep some in case special assessments go delinquent on some of our benefit districts. So it's good to have some room basically to cover that. If we did a revenue neutral rate scenario where we left general fund alone, but only lowered bond and interest, we basically wouldn't have any capacity left and we couldn't afford the three projects I just mentioned. If we did a quarter mil reduction scenario, we'd still have about 1.5 million in capacity. And if we did a half mil rate reduction in bond and interest, we'd have about $500,000 capacity left. Those are some of the general budget highlights and some scenarios regarding our tax levy funds. Here tonight, I'm looking for some budget feedback or if council has direction on a mill levy to include in the resolution that will be brought back on July 6th.

Thank you, Matt. And I do want to point out that Council Member Mark Wien is attending via Zoom or... zoom okay and council member deaton was unable to attend this evening so we do have quorum uh but with that uh i would open it up to council if you have questions right now or comments mark just because we always exclude whoever's on the phone sure are you with us uh yeah so i think the only question i have is uh we're talking about a flat and you're saying that flat would be 17

And currently, our mill levy is 18 and some change. Is that correct?

No. Basically, there's a process when we set the mill levy. I think we were targeting a flat mill levy last year in August or September when we set the budget. But then final valuations aren't done until November. and we had some large pending tax appeals that didn't end up getting processed that year, so they went back on our valuation, which then lowered our mill levy down to 17.814. Okay, thank you.

We got almost .3 mills reduction because of that.

If I could interject really quick, is that something on a year-to-year basis we need to consider?

It can happen. It almost happens every year, but it was rather large last year because the one that was pending was just massive, and it just didn't go through in that year.

Councilman Wien, did you have further discussion?

No. No, I'm interested to see what else is coming out from everybody else on the council.

When we say savings are an expense of $3 per month per family, that's just Gardner's portion of the taxes, right? Yes. And we don't know yet what Johnson County is proposing or thinking for their portion of property taxes? No.

No.

Matt, I want to make sure that I just understand. If we go back to the screen that shows the effect of raising or lowering the levy the same. Go back to that one.

I think this is the one you're looking for, right? Right.

What I'm looking for is what it does to us financially. I think the neutral, I think, had us with zero bonding capacity left. Is that correct?

It depends. So I presented two different kind of trains of thought. One, if you reduce general fund to get to the revenue neutral rate, and then one, if you go to bond and interest and go for cuts there. So if you target only bond and interest for cuts, that would result in no capacity and can't even afford the projects we have in our CIP. Now, I mean, that's just one option is to go for bond and interest reduction. There's also the general fund side.

Is it wise to keep our bonding capacity up as high as it is? I mean, utilization of bonding capacity, I'm a little concerned about. It's sort of like maxing out your credit card.

Well, I do want to clarify, this isn't our legal authority. You have higher legal authority to issue debt. When I talk about project capacity, that's ongoing revenues in that fund to support new debt service. Because the state otherwise will assume you'll raise property tax to make whatever your debt service is. But this is basically without any kind of tax increase, what can we afford? And $10 million... was a number we set only because we were a growing community that was targeting some infrastructure to spur on development, and that's what these three projects are basically using.

And what was the general fund? What's the property tax expected revenue on that again?

Are you talking for the city in general?

Yes, sir.

We're expecting basically a 5.2% increase. I'll tell my head I'm trying to remember what that was. I guess the value of a mil is about 388,000. And to go to revenue, net neutral is 0.881 mils that you're losing. So it's, I mean, less than $388,000. So it's probably around $340,000, $360,000.

And what's our general fund spending for next year that you have projected total?

$22.5 million.

Thank you.

So you've got two pieces, obviously, general and and bonding capacity. General, the most important thing, at least in my opinion, is police. Obviously, you have to keep the lights on and everything else has to work. And then on the bonding capacity, that's roads. So I don't think we want to touch anything with roads. We literally have projects in the pipeline, number one. Number two, we wouldn't have any opportunity to do a further project, which hurt you in the long run for development. So I don't think nixing anything in the bonding capacity should be on the table, which means you're only looking at general fund. Last year, we kind of haggled over a quarter mil reduction. We ended up getting about 0.3-ish for free. So we basically did that cut, if you will, for the fact. The real kicker is I think you're probably going to have to go flat this year, kind of like we did last year, and have a small increase to basically absorb the valuation. Because the real problem is not next year. I mean, it's not great, but it's the out years. And realistically, what this body has to figure out what we are going to do is how we're gonna bring in more development revenue that isn't just another housing development. Because every time we bring more people in, which is great. You have more infrastructure for said people. You have more police that you need for said people. You have more roads for said people. Said people want more stuff. They need more parks and rec facilities. They need more community development, which is good, but at all costs. So this process of bringing in more people, and that's our only increase in revenue, is, as you can see, going to lead us to bankruptcy. So that's the biggest takeaway. If we are voting tonight, I would say you go flat in the general and in the bonding capacity as well.

MARK MCQUEEN. Mark, I tend to agree. And I think one of the things that we need to really start taking a hard look at is how can we increase the commercial and industrial base in our tax base, because residential or rooftops The assessed value is 11.2%, whereas with commercial and industrial, the assessment rate is 25%, a much bigger number. And so if we're concerned with the out years, then we should be probably trying to figure out in the three or four years between now and there, how do we attract commercial and industrial, start making up some of that difference. What do you think?

I think those are valid points. I think we also have a retreat scheduled. Right. In a few weeks. We can get more detail on that. Mark, Wayne, did you have anything else additional?

No, I think I agree. I mean, I understand the increase, what we're talking about in an industrial environment, And other developments other than housing, I think we just need to be smart about where that is in the city. I know we've had a couple of projects on the potential docket and one that was on the docket that we could have went forward with and we didn't. But sometimes we have to be smart about where those are going to go and we can't bring ourselves in warehouses or factories or whatever. We just need to be smart about that as well. But I would agree that I don't see any reason to impact our bonding capacity or our general fund at this point in time. We are going to have to figure out what's going to happen in the future within the next couple of years.

Okay. Any other discussion, questions at this point? Okay. So next step, Matt. will be July 6th. Yeah, July 6th.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Okay, thank you everyone for patiently waiting out there. I know you're here for some other stuff as well. So we do have a time for public comments, and members of the public are welcome to use this time to make comments about city matters or items on the agenda that are not part of a public hearing. So if you wish to come forward, please limit your comments to five minutes or less. There is a five-minute time clock over to your left side here. With that being said, come forward and state your name and address for the record, and the podium is now open.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Katrina Robertson. Here is president with NAACP Johnson County, 8826 Santa Fe Drive, Overland Park, Kansas. And we just wanted to take an opportunity to thank you for being a Silver Life member and appreciate the partnership. I am also here.

Can you speak up a little bit or close the microphone?

Okay, is that better?

Yes, thank you.

Good. I am also here with our first vice president, Sherelle Simmons. I just wanted them to also stand. And then our membership co-chair, Wanda Minor. And so we all work on getting memberships and staying in touch with all of the cities in Johnson County. It took us some time to get here because we represent all 19 jurisdictions in Johnson County except for Olathe and even tonight some of us had to be at Prairie Village and some had to be at Roland Park and so a few came here and so we hope to be back but just most importantly I just wanted to thank you so much for being a Silver Life member with most of all of the other cities in Johnson County.

Thank you, Ms. Robertson.

Thanks. And whom should I leave this with?

With the chief, I believe.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Hi, good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Taryn Owen, 28977 West 150th Street in Gardner. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here tonight. I'm here on behalf of Gardner Edgerton High School's project graduation. to request your continued financial support for the upcoming graduating class of 2027. For those of you that may not be familiar with Project Graduation, it's a longstanding tradition that provides graduating seniors with a safe, substance-free celebration on graduation night. which is statistically one of the highest risk nights a year for teens. For nearly 50 years, communities across the country have hosted project graduation events to provide graduates with a safe way to celebrate after commencement. The program helps reduce opportunities for impaired driving, accidents, and other preventable tragedies. The evening includes food, games, entertainment, prizes, and activities that are selected with input from the senior class. The event is free for all students and is made possible entirely through the support of our local community, volunteers, fundraising efforts, and all of the community support. We set a goal at this time last year to raise enough funds to create both an event and prize incentives that would increase participation for the graduates, knowing that every student that chooses to come to our event versus a party are important to our community. I'm happy to share that this year we had 266 seniors choose to attend project graduation, which represented 61% of the graduating class. And that's the most participation that that I found looking back over prior years. Following this year's event, several students took the time to write personal thank you notes to the organizations and community members who helped to make Project Graduation possible. So I'd like to share a few of those because I believe they capture the impact of your support far better than I can. The first, thank you for supporting Gardner's teams and for keeping us safe tonight. Thank you for contributing to one last memory with our senior class. Thank you for donating to a great night with great prizes, and thank you for helping keep me and my friends safe. Finally, due to your kind nature, I was allowed to have a fun and safe night with my classmates for the last time. Project Graduation is completely volunteer-led and community-funded. We have incredible support for Project Grad from the community of Gardner. Over 50% of the funds that we raise are raised through local fundraisers supported by our local businesses and community organizations. 17% are from Gardner businesses and community donations. And then finally, 16% is donated by parents and families. Every dollar raised goes directly toward providing the event for our graduates. In the document that was provided to you tonight, there's a breakout of the key expenditure categories, which include event entertainment, event night prizes. And in 2026, we were able to give $100 to every student who came for the entirety of the event, which we believe was a key factor in being able to drive increased participation. We're anticipating a class of 434 graduates in 27 and a further increase in participation and attendance based on some of the grassroots efforts that we have underway. Hosting an event of this size requires significant community support. We respectfully ask for your consideration of a $10,000 contribution toward Project Grad in 2027. Your support sends a powerful message that Gardner values its students and is committed to their safety. Thank you in advance for your consideration and your continued partnership and your investment in our youth.

Thank you, Ms. Owen. And I don't know, are you, if you stay around, usually after the primary business, we will have discussions. I don't know if you'll be around.

I'm happy to stay.

There may be some questions.

Great. Thank you. Okay.

Any other comments? I guess it's me. All right. Come on forward.

First of all, I wish to thank the City Council for even allowing me to speak, because what I'm going to talk about is something you don't want to hear.

You can say your name and address for the record.

My name, I'm about to say that. My name is John Allen. I live at 830 South Sycamore Street. which is a Plum Ridge subdivision. Within my subdivision, within two miles, there are seven ponds. What you're not aware of is that the mosquito is the most dangerous creature on the face of the earth. Last year, they caused 100 million deaths. They caused 700 million people going to health facilities for care. 65 years ago, my own father, who built subdivisions, recognized that his own son had a problem with the tumular area, which causes swelling of the body when bitten by a mosquito. He built five subdivisions in Flint, Michigan, and one of the subdivisions had a pond in it, and he filled it in at his own cost. He said, I will never be responsible for this type of a problem to happen.

to anyone who buys a home in one of my subdivisions.

Now what you don't know about me is I am in polymer chemistry, and I am very familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency. What you probably don't know is that the Washington Division of the EPA has just recently announced a country-wide investigation of all the problems associated with mosquitoes. I'm familiar with the EPA because when we had spills, I had them on my back door for DuPont until we got everything cleaned up to the point where we had to stop all production, totally stop it until the spill was cleaned up. So I'm more than aware of what they can do. So I'm telling you, if you decide to refuse to do anything about this, I will call the EPA in Washington. I don't know if I still know anybody there. And then I will send them a letter and tell them that the city of Gardner has actually acted like a possum. They are just going to lay over until whatever they think the problem is blows away. before they get up and do anything else. So I am prepared to go quite a ways with this, as you're probably aware of. Now why am I so adamant about this? My own son-in-law, who is 57 years old, has been bitten by a mosquito and can no longer hold a job. He was the COO of a huge corporation. His bonus for the year before he was bitten was $50,000. Now he can't even hold a job. I don't want any of your children or your grandchildren or any of your relatives or any of my friends bitten by another mosquito. I have been bitten three times already this year. Once the temperature reaches 75 to 80, they proliferate. And I mean they just multiply like you cannot believe. With these seven ponds that we have around there, there are two of them that are so stagnant that geese won't even land in them. This can be fixed. Two of them are very small. One is next to the Mid-America Bank. The other one is on the west side of 183rd Street. And it's just a collection area. I've got solutions on the back of the sheet that I showed you that will tell you what you can do. But here's what I'm telling you what you should do. You should have those two areas filled in with dirt so you don't have to spend another dime worrying about them. The larger areas, one of them is in Johnson County. And when I send the letter, I will include that as Johnson County with respect to the city of Gardner. That's all I have to say. If you have any questions, by all means, ask. No questions?

We usually don't do questions at this point. So afterwards, though, if we have questions at the end of the meeting, we will.

Well, I want to acknowledge the police chief because he has done what I've asked him to do, and he can only go so far with what he can do. So I mean no disrespect to the chief, and I want to make sure that you understand that. He has done everything he could to try to help me solve this problem, including giving me these letters of what he has done. Now it's up to you to follow up, not up to him. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Amy Morris. I am at 26170 West 199th Street. We annexed into Gardner several years ago and we were on the fence about it, but there was a debate going on about the truck traffic on 199th. When we annexed, we were told that we would be protected by the city, like we can bring our chief of police force out there and we'll patrol the streets and pull trucks over this and that. Um, it was very, uh, exciting for us. So we annexed, uh, initially we saw quite a, you know, quite a, um, excitement about that. They were out there getting the trucks pulled over and, um, Well, the truck traffic is back up. Bicycle traffic is also up. I don't know if anybody goes out to 199th. But it's pretty dangerous out there. Anyway, I have two points. One, I would like to possibly propose a bike route out there. It would help with truck traffic. It would help with the bikes. Maybe do a little two-fer there. But the other thing I would like to encourage you guys to do as elected officials is to continue protecting your citizens. I know that you declined the moratorium for data centers. So I'd encourage you guys to keep doing research on what actual hyper-skilled data centers are actually doing to home values in the area where people are surrounded surrounding these data centers. I just keep thinking about what happens when and if a 300 acre data center actually goes in down the street from us and we can't sell our house anymore and we're stuck there, so. Anyway, just thought I'd bring that up, bring it to your attention, and encourage you guys to continue doing your job of protecting the citizens that you are elected to protect. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Morris. All right. Seeing no other comments, we'll move to consent agenda. there an item on the consent agenda council like to remove three do I hear a motion to approve items one and two second motion Baldwin second Johnson we approve consent agenda items one and two all in favor aye all opposed One and two pass. Consent agenda item number three, consider authorizing the execution of an agreement with retail strategies for retail market analysis and retail recruitment services.

Mr. Baldwin. Jim, can you just give us an update on how things went last year and benefits to sticking with them again this year?

So this is a different company.

Switch it.

Yeah. We switched. And the mayor and I, we made the decision to propose the switch after we went to ICSC. We were set up with meetings that had no chance of success. We had talked to retail strategies last year. and they're they take a different approach the retail coach is kind of a identifying handoff these guys are more brokers that will actually bring business and they've already made connections um through the brokers that are working with grada that we didn't even see last year so um

icsc was great we made some great connections but i think these these guys will do a much better job with what we're trying to accomplish okay thank you i will move that we approve as president second motion baldwin second johnson we approve consent agenda item number three all in favor aye aye all opposed consent agenda item number three passes uh planning and zoning consent Would anyone like to discuss that? Is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second.

Motion, Baldwin. Second, Johnson. We approve planning and zoning consent. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. All opposed? Abstain. Planning and zoning consent passes. New business item number one, consider approving an amended ordinance raising the permit fee for fireworks sales and establishing times for the sale of fireworks in the city of Gardner.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. This is a housekeeping item, the purpose of which is to correct an omission in the most recent ordinance adopting the Uniform Public Offense Code regarding items related to the sale of fireworks. At the May 5th, 2025 City Council meeting, the Council approved an ordinance raising the permit fees for fireworks sales to $1,500 and establishing sale hours of 7 a.m. through 11 p.m. from June 28th through July 4th. These changes were based on recommendations from an ad hoc committee tasked with reviewing the city's ordinances governing the sale and discharge of fireworks. On February 16, 2026, the council approved an ordinance incorporating the Uniform Public Offense Code 2025 edition, or UPOC, into the Gardner Municipal Code while making various additions, deletions, and amendments to the UPOC. During the course of this adoption, the references to permit fees for fireworks stands and sale hours were inadvertently reverted to their previous wording, leaving out the updated sales times and changes to permitting. The proposed ordinance before you tonight reinstates the updated sales hours and permit changes as suggested by the committee and updated in May 2025, while also incorporating the addition of the REC zoning district as approved at the June 1st, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you. Is there any public comment for this item? Council, do you have any questions? Sounds like housekeeping. Pretty straightforward. Okay.

Do I hear a motion? I move.

Second.

Motion, Baldwin. Second, Johnson. We adopt Ordinance 2880, an ordinance amending Section 9.05.030 of the Gardner Municipal Code, correcting the permit fee for fireworks sales and reestablishing times when the sale of fireworks is permitted in the City of Gardner.

City Clerk.

Council Member Wayne.

Oh, yes.

Council Member Johnson.

Yes.

Council Member McNair.

Yes.

Council Member Baldwin. Yes. Ordinance 2880 passes. Thank you. New business item number two, consider an ordinance levying and assessing special assessments on certain lots, pieces, and parcels of land liable for such special assessments to pay the cost of improvements in the city of Gardner, Kansas as authorized by resolution number 2140 of the city Lone Star Prairie Special Benefit District.

Mr. Wolf.

Lone Star Prairie is a multi-phase residential development that will have approximately 191 single-family homes at full build-out. The attached ordinance levies 1.005 million for the benefit district improvements for the offsite sewer. The cost of the improvements will be assessed 100% against the improvement district and 0% against the city at large. Staff recommends adopting the ordinance.

Is there any public comment for this item? Council, do you have any questions?

This was accredited, is that correct? What was that? The project came in under estimate or under funding?

Yeah, I think the original estimate was higher than that.

So this is a credit to the?

the development or no this is a benefit district we're about to issue bonds like um so basically we did there's a off-site sewer project um once it's completed we issue bonds and then we're going to love you special assessments against the properties okay so the 2500 per lot is a special assessment for 20 years i don't know the exact number per lot i don't have the orange in front of me um there's about 25 34. sounds right

It's a 20-year period?

That's correct.

So that'll show up as a special assessment on the tax statement, is that correct?

It should go on the tax statement, yes. Thank you.

Do I hear a motion? So moved.

Second.

Motion ball, but second Johnson. We adopt ordinance 2881, an ordinance levying and assessing special assessments on certain lots, pieces, and parcels of land liable for such special assessments to pay the cost of improvements in the city of Gardner, Kansas, as authorized by resolution number 2140 of the city Lone Star Prairie Special Benefit District. City Clerk?

Council Member Johnson. Yes. Council Member McNair.

Yes. Council Member Baldwin. Yes. Council Member Ween.

Council Member Ween. Yes. OK. Ordinance number 2881 passes. New business item number three, consider adopting a resolution authorizing the offer for public sale of certain general obligation bonds and notes of the City of Garner, Kansas.

So the city is scheduled to sell approximately 5.095 million in taxable general obligation bonds, series 2026A, approximately 1.005 million in tax-exempt general obligation bonds, series 2026B, and approximately 940,000 in principal amount of general obligation temporary notes, series 2026C. Series 2026A bonds are being issued to basically reimburse ourselves for costs associated with gas turbine unit two. It's an electric project. We already completed the project. We cash funded it temporarily. Now we're issuing bonds to reimburse ourselves. Series 2026B tax exempt bonds is a permanent financing for the Lone Star Prairie Benefit District. We'll use that to retire the 2024B temp notes. Then series 2026C temp notes. Those notes will provide temporary financing for Madison Street infrastructure improvements associated with the Hilltop Ridge development project. The developer will construct the improvements and the city will reimburse the developer for a portion of the costs available from no proceeds. Reimbursement will be limited to the amount of proceeds remaining after reimbursement of city incurred costs, funding of capitalized interest, and payment of financing expenses. The proposed resolution authorizes all preparations to facilitate the sale of bonds and notes. Staff recommends adopting the resolution.

Thank you, Matt. Is there any public comment? Council, do you have any questions? Do I hear a motion?

I move.

Second.

Motion, Baldwin. Second, Johnson. We adopt Resolution 2194, Resolution Authorizing the Offer for Public Sale of Certain General Obligation Bonds and Notes of the City of Gardner, Kansas.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Resolution 2194 passes. New business item number four, consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 15, Chapter 15.50 of the Gardner Municipal Code, further amending specific sections of the International Residential Code for one and two family dwellings, 2018 edition.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Title 15 of the Gardner Municipal Code was last updated in fall of 2020. Approximately every six years, staff reviews the latest version of the IRC and IBC and other building-related codes, as do most of the communities within Johnson County. It's a rotation that most of the communities agree to. It helps with the contractors and builders to keep them on the same versions of the code at that period of time. Typically staff would be bringing forward recommendations for updating title 15 using the 2024 version of these codes later this fall. Uh, with the recent passage of Senate bill four 18 by the state of Kansas staff has expedited its review of the 2024 IRC and I'll differentiate here. The IRC affects single family homes, both both attached and detached. So the IRC is what we're focused on tonight. We will still be looking at the IBC and several of the other codes later this year for 2024 updates. And we're recommending an approach that retains the currently adopted 2018 IRC as amended in 2020. So our base is what is already in our code with the addition of the amendments that are outlined in your packet tonight. So that's what we're suggesting or recommending. These recommended amendments are recommended to take effect on June 30th. of 2026 so that they are in place before the effective date of Senate Bill 418, which is July 1 of 2026. So we're trying to avoid any confusion about what the status of our codes are before that state law takes effect on July 1. Given the length of the draft ordinance, we provided you with a red line version of the recommended amendments. And that's in your packet as well. I'm going to just do a high level summary. Michael Flickinger is with us tonight. He's the building official. And if you have technical questions, he can answer those technical questions. But I'll give you a quick overview of this. Essentially we have two groupings of these amendments. One is really oriented towards what I call elective elements of the building process. So when you think about the electric vehicle charging systems, auto lifts, swimming pools, and the energy storage systems, those are not typically part of the standard single family home that's built. They're usually options that are brought on sometimes in customization, They may come after the fact, so they're aftermarket processes and things like that. So that's one grouping of these amendments are those elements there. So when we talk about adopting those pieces of the code, it would only affect when those types of systems are being brought online in the house. In regard to the typical standard housing at the single family level, there's several groupings of the amendments that are there. One is the fire prevention and separation requirements. This affects things like the drywall requirement with JIP board between the garage and the livable area of the unit, the under stairs element, again, the JIP board being added to that, and then the electrical disconnects and panels that are talked about in the amendments. The second grouping or the second item would be the HERS rating, which is a rating regarding the energy efficiency of the home itself. We're suggesting bringing that rating score down to 70 or less. Most of the builders are currently doing that. We have a few instances where they're not meeting the 70, but that would take some minor changes to get to that point. The third item would be storm shelters. What we're recommending here at this point is that storm shelters be required for single family structures that do not have qualifying basements. So a structure where a basement's being built that qualifies under the standards of the current code would not be affected by this recommendation. And then the final one is the copper clad aluminum wiring, and this has to do, prohibiting this has to do with the mixing of components. With that, I will leave it to questions.

Thank you, Dave. Are there any questions from public, public comments?

What does the Senate bill actually say? Go to council. Oh, sorry. That's all right.

So Senate Bill 418 is an interesting bill. What's really forcing us here is they've differentiated between single-family homes of 2,500 square foot and less or 2,500 square foot and more. 2,500 square foot less housing is considered houses by right or by right housing, which the state bill said has to be dealt with using the 2018 IRC as adopted by the community. So instead of us trying to do a dual code where we would have the 2024 code with amendments for 2,500 square foot and larger and the 2018 code, we've decided to just stick with the 2018 code as a recommendation.

Councilman Johnson, do you have any more questions?

No, sorry. I didn't mean to cut off public comment.

Councilman Wien, are you there? Do you have any questions at this point?

No, nothing for me.

President Baldwin? Yes, I had some questions. particularly as it relates to the energy storage systems and some of the garage, some of the construction of barricades and garages, just the whole 327 section. I would be okay with this ordinance as written if we take out the section 327 and review that later. You're saying 302.7? 327.1 through 327.11. There's a lot of things in there that actually don't line up with a lot of the manufacturer's specifications on Battery storage units some of the things I'd just like to have before we jump into this.

I'd like to have Maybe delve into that before we notify it Mr.. Not because that's something we could come back to or is this Or is that something?

Let me let me say this so Senate bill 418 goes into effect July 1 And so you're either required to give the option of going under the 2018 version of the IRC as is effective on July 1, or you can go with your local amendments that are in place as of that date.

So the potential problem of waiting

is that our code won't be amended and updated off of the 2018 version where if we circle back to this, it could be subject to challenge because we adopted these amendments after the effective date of the legislation.

Or we could also, again, create that duality where it would only apply at a certain standard.

Sounds like we're going to hash it out right now.

Sounds like it. And I don't know, Michael, if you want to speak to some of the concerns on that.

Well, good evening, Mayor and Council and fellow staff. The changing or bringing it in, it basically updates the energy storage system from what was listed in the 18 code to what's now in the 24 code. In fact, it is the 24 code being moved over. Codes are made based on tragedies, deaths, injuries, so on. And they've updated the energy storage codes immensely because of some problems. Off gases, fires, sometimes just pure luck. By updating it the way I've got it written right now, which is the 24 code, it will bring it in line with the 2024 International Fire Code, which has the same language in it, and the 2023 National Electric Code, which has a lot of the duplicate language. It doesn't get as much into the safety of it as much as it does the structure in the electric code. But there's been enough problems that they felt that they need to put a little more legislation on it or more codes on it for safety.

I'm trying to find a couple of places where I made some notes here.

One of them has to do with batteries.

It has a maximum kilowatt hour rating of 23.0 in your documentation.

That's per unit. For battery. And you can have multiple units.

On the market today, there are multiple manufacturers, 23.3, .6, 24. A lot of them are installed in Gardner already. And what I have a concern with, Mike, is outlying stuff like that on the market. that is being sold that has specified manufacturer specifications as far as, and the other thing we had is a three foot separation between batteries. The industry standard for, let's say, EG4, for example, is seven and a half inches. They do not recommend, and I agree with your half inch gypsum board,

Probably concrete, in my home we use a half inch concrete board as a backing because it's fireproof.

So we met or exceeded the codes at the time and the problem I've got with this, Mike, is that we are legislating a lot of things that we haven't really let the market catch up to or the market's ahead of this code as far as capacity. We're outlawing probably 40% of the marketplace right now by this code the way it's written. All I'm asking is time on this particular part that's not gonna affect probably less than 5% of the builds till we have time to really kind of dig into it and understand what we're taking as far as options for people that want to do these kinds of projects.

Okay, let me speak on a couple of things that you said. One is the separation of the batteries. it that's the standard separation unless the manufacturer listing allows you to be closer didn't say that it does say it in there and it allows the manufacturer in every case in a code manufacturer specifications overrule the codes okay so that is that where it says the

to be installed per manufacturer spec, is that what you're talking about? Absolutely.

So if the manufacturer says it can be two inches apart, that's fine. If it doesn't say, then we go to the code difference.

Okay, that's where I didn't catch the explicitness of that.

Okay, the other thing I want you to understand is they go through a lot of code hearing processes. Right now they're doing a lot of the processes on the 27 codes as we speak. And I can assure you, the battery industry was there with their lobbyists and understanding. And they're watching the codes as well. So if we limit it to 20 kilowatt hours per section itself, and you're able to do multiple sections, they are aware of it. And they're going to adjust their product accordingly as well. I mean, they're not getting caught off guard. They are there. They know what's going on. They're watching the codes because their life depends on it or their business depends on it.

Well, Mike, that specific issue of the 23 kilowatt hours, I've had installed, and your people approved my installation, I've had 23.3 kilowatt batteries, two of them, installed in our home for two years.

Okay.

And that would prevent me from adding a third.

Yes, it would. if I remember the code right, unless you move it outside or into the garage.

Well, then I may have to put barriers in my garage and everything else.

Yep. But the other thing, too, please understand, because you made another statement that kind of bothered me, is that we're not outlawing anybody's existing situation.

I understand. It's already installed.

It's just moving forward any new installations.

It would prevent me from putting a matching battery additional in my home.

Is there a reason that it's 20? I mean, what's the difference between 20, 25? I mean, are we talking?

No, what we're talking about, Mayor, is specific 48-volt batteries that have a 23.3-kilowatt-hour rating on them as far as storage. And what's on the code is 23.0. I would not be able to, I nor anybody else that uses an EG4-type battery,

which is the industry leader, would not be able to install those batteries in their homes. Is 23 a standard?

23.4 is, or 23.3 is a standard.

So if we move that, I mean, is there a big difference between a 20 and a 24?

Now they have 25.4s.

Well, but let me just clarify.

What he's recommending is from the 2024 code. that went all the way through the process, the hearing process, which is a multiple-year process at which the industry leaders are there, like the battery companies. So pretty much every other state in the country or municipality will end up going to the 2024 code at some point. We're dealing with this now because we have legislation that says we have to use the 2018 code for homes of 2,500 square feet or less as amended. If that legislation hadn't passed, I mean, Dave's staff report says we would have been moving to the 2024 code along with the rest of the country. So whatever's in the 2024 code, which we're adopting here, is probably going to be what the rest of the country goes to.

I guess, guys, I'm good with everything on here except this energy storage section. I think that we are severely limiting, by going to that code, we're severely limiting the market, the available market to our people.

Mike, in 327.5, what Steve's alluding to, what – Explain the line ESS installations exceeding the permitted individual or aggregate rating shall be installed in accordance with section 1207 of the International Fire Code What's 1207 of the International Fire Code saying about this?

1207 is basically talking about the size of the system and the protection so Concerned about failure and off gases if I'm correct. I did not bring that the fire code with me to look it up and read it directly, but when I did look at it earlier, it's basically backing up the reasoning why, which has to do with the safety factor. Okay.

So I'm looking at this, Mike, 327.5. If I understand this correctly, what you're saying is batteries cannot be contained within the living space of a house or garage without basically parking lot barriers. four-inch parking lot barriers. Or you can't even put them in garages. Or storage spaces, outdoor storage cabinets with one-inch gypsum fire doors. It just boggles my mind.

Okay. Basically, when I read through it, I did not see anything about outside storage accessory structures with gypsum board, but they do have to be more than five foot away from the main structure. They are limiting to 40 kilowatt, basically two systems within the utility closet basement or storage and utility spaces. Once you pass that, then you can go up to 80 kilowatt hours if it's in the attached garage, detached garage, or an accessory structure, or on the exterior of the building, or on the grounds.

I'm looking at this and it severely limits the homeowner in what they can do. Again, what is installed in my home actually right now as we speak is 46.6 kilowatt hours of storage.

Okay.

In the form of two batteries.

I think the point, though, here isn't what has been out there or what you could have done.

It's in my basement. Mark, what they're trying to say is they're really limiting where you can put it to almost where you're going to have to put it outside in a storage container where it's not secure and can be easily stolen.

Well, you can put 80 in the garage. I mean, I think the issue is that they don't want 40 in the house because of safety issues in the house.

Well, but then you look at the restrictions on the garages, what it says in there. The point is, all I'm asking is that we take this section out. I don't think we're going to have a lot of compliance issues with that in the short term.

Take a long look at it. I disagree taking it out. Because I see the numbers. If you want to go to 23, you're going to limit yourself in the next line and say you can only put one battery in your basement. Because you can't put two because you're going to be over the 40.

That's right, Mark. That is correct. And right now, my home would be out of code.

And maybe that's OK for you. But I don't know that I want to go forward saying, everybody else, you're OK having a lot more battery storage in your basement. when the international standard is saying no.

I guess to the city attorney's point, they've gone through this process for the 2024, correct? And this is what they've come up with. All the people are at the table.

I think they had to draw a line in the sand somewhere and they came up with a number that they thought was one, probably a a little back and forth with the manufacturers, but also that they thought was safe. They don't want you to have a megawatt sitting in your living room. So they had to pick a number somewhere and they just happened to pick this one. I don't know the etymology of it, but it is what it is.

I had another question actually about the, Required storm shelters on new builds? I mean, that seems a little excessive to me.

So the reason we brought this up to you, it was actually up in the 2020 when we had the revisions at that point in time or the amendments at that time. What has happened between 2021 and 2025, and we wanted to make you aware of this, is we have much more slab-on-grade housing being built in the community than was at of the case in 2020, so we felt as staff we needed to bring that one up to you for your consideration. Over that four year period, approximately two thirds of the new single family homes that we had permitted, about two thirds, a little over two thirds, were actually slab on grade, which means about one third of the houses during that four year period were having basements that would qualify as storm shelters. That's quite a difference than what it was in 2020. And so this has been brought on by the diversity of the building community that we're now facing here. In regard to thinking about that with the community justice center being a designated community shelter, things like that, just recognize we would have more and more people that do not have storm sheltering capability in their homes. So that's why we brought this up.

So what does that do to floor plans, available space, and cost of these units? We're trying to keep costs down to where affordable for the average family.

It depends on the type of shelter. Obviously, there are. I know there's shelters that are made for in the garages that can be above ground or below ground. I know that can happen. I know there may be ways to build one part of the house, like a bathroom or something, to a storm shelter capability. So there are options in those, but it would add costs, yes. That depends on what kind of sheltering.

I will say I did a brief search this evening And there are some aftermarket basically set in modules or pods starting just under $5,000. And they are ICC 500 rated and meet the NSSA requirements. So what it might cost is, like Roush Coleman or some of these others, because garages seem to be getting so small, I don't know if cars fit in them anymore, they may have to make a little bit larger garage for them. Or if they go in the ground, they could put a patch.

Or would they be in the ground?

They can go under the garage floor.

OK, so I'm an 80-year-old lady. I got my car parked over my storm shelter. I got hail coming out here. So I'm going to back my car out in the hail and get blown away in the wind potentially just to get into my underground shelter in my garage.

Or you're going to drive to a community shelter in that event.

Okay. The other thing I would say as the plans reviewer as well, that if I see one come in the center of the garage where the car would park, I would argue with the contractor to get it off to the side in a walking path or an accessible location that you don't have to move the car out because you're right. By the time they move the car out, shut the garage and get back. Yeah.

And so that defeats the purpose. And I agree with you. There's very good storm shelters out there for $5,000 to $6,000 to $7,000. The problem is they take about a third of a stall at one side of the garage, at best. And for people that have usable garage space or usable space in their house, they're going to have to incorporate that square footage additionally into the home, plus the cost of the shelter, plus the cost of the margin on that. So what we're looking at, we're probably looking at a $50,000 addition to the price of a new home.

How did you get $50,000?

I don't know if $50,000, but I tend to agree it's going to certainly increase the cost of the home. People are aware when they're buying houses that they can choose to

There's a lot of folks out there that can't afford some of the houses that have the basements. That's what makes Roush Coleman so appealing is they're a little bit more affordable, but they lack some of the safety features.

Yeah, this is America. You make choices. Some, you choose less safety so that you can have a cheaper home or you can live on the fourth floor of an apartment building. Your choice. Sometimes you're forced a little bit, but your choice. So, Why would we not want to have safer homes for our residents, regardless if it costs $10,000 more?

Well, that's your point that you just made, Mark. The marketplace should be allowed to choose that.

That's great. And they can still choose that by not buying some other property. We don't have enough places for these people to go. And if the new development right across from the high school gets hit by a tornado, there's not going to be a single thing left. Those people, I don't care if they're getting in their car or they're outside being blown away, they're gone.

But that should be a consideration that those people make when they purchase that home.

Well, it is now. But should they not have access to a safe space?

But should we be requiring them to do that, compelling them to do that?

Why can't we use old wiring, too, though, and gas lamps in the house?

I mean, what about Conestoga? Yeah, they've got a problem.

I was going to bring, and I forgot to bring them tonight. I was going to bring in some pictures of Elkhorn, Nebraska, where we had lived in Nebraska. Bramblewood subdivision, which is probably 300 feet from where we lived, standard split-entry homes. Nothing left but dirt. Nothing. Not even the basements, not the block, not the nothing. An EF5 just flirted with dirt. So I think what people... What I would say would be a reasonable option would be for builders to offer that as an option in new construction to the homeowner and let the homeowner decide, do I want to buy this or not?

We can't get developers to do that if we don't put it in the code and tell them they have to do it.

Exactly. And you still have... I'm a big fan of the market dictating things, but they still have that choice. They don't have to buy a home with a basement, which is more cost than putting in a $5,000 to $10,000 storm shelter under their slab or part of their slab. So they're already making a choice, and that's fine, but they should have an access to safety when we can't provide it to them.

I agree. I think unless we're going to somehow provide more spaces like the Justice Center where people can go so that we can accommodate all the people who don't have shelters at their house, or unless we're going to require that, say, developers build a neighborhood shelter for each development that they put in, someplace for people to be able to go so that our residents can be safe. in tornadoes. I mean, we live in a state that has multiple tornadoes a year. This is not, this is not like, you know, what if we have volcano damage someday? And this, you know, it's really a small risk. We're living in Tornado Alley. So unless we're going to provide some other option, I think requiring shelters to be in houses still gives people a choice as to what kind of shelter they want, if they want a basement, if they want one of the pods, if they want something that's in between. Unless Gardner is ready to provide that some other way, I think the lives of our residents are worth looking out for.

Again, Kelly, the thing is it gets down to, like Mark said, this is America. We should be able to make choices. And if I want to buy a new home, I don't want to have to pay for a storm shelter or take half a garage to do it or whatever. I should be allowed to do that. And the point is that we should be allowing people to make choices. And I am very on board with requiring builders to offer that as an option. So if the homeowner wants to purchase that, they can do so. And thereby, they can make a choice for their own family in the purchase of a new home whether or not they want to have that feature. Just like anything else.

I mean, what about if a new mobile home park wanted to come in? Let's clarify that.

So this says all residential structures. Any differentiation for a commercial structure like an apartment complex?

Yes, that's under the IBC and not under the IRC. So it's a differentiation there because we're in the IRC at this point. So this affects just the attached and detached single-family homes.

Right. So a mobile home park or an apartment complex are not part of this conversation. So we don't require that? We don't care about those guys.

We don't care about those guys. I mean, that's what we're saying. We can change that code tomorrow. Should we? Well, and I've never seen a tornado in the world that isn't happy until it gets a mobile home park that makes the news.

What I'm saying is you still have your choice of where you want to live. You don't have to move into a place that has a basement or a storm shelter if you don't want to. There are apartments. There is a mobile home park. But if you're going to, we allowed 500 homes to come in basically on grade in the last five years.

I'm not going to back off on this, but where I'm coming from on this, from a free market perspective,

I wouldn't have flock cameras. I wouldn't have a license plate and all sorts of stuff. Absolutely. 100%. But I do. That's another discussion we're going to have very soon. I do.

Is flock cameras and Raven sound detection in the AI world that's being created about that.

But, I mean, I guess to Steve's point, I agree with Steve that, I mean, they have the choice. They have the choice to buy a house without a basement. They have the choice to move to an apartment. They have a choice to move to a mobile home. I mean... I feel like we're picking, only people who live in a house have to, are we concerned about, and they have to have a basement.

So what I will add to that a little bit is, if we were doing this under the normal rotation, we would be bringing this up with the apartments, with all that, because we'd be looking at the IBC as well as the IRC. Part of the problem, again, comes to the constraint we have with the state legislation, where the IRC, we have to do some of these things now if we're going to get in under the effective date of that rotation. state legislation that's why the irc is separated the philosophical discussion applies to all we're going to come back with the 2024 ibc and we're going to be recommending storm shelters probably for multi-family as well but again it'll be your discussion your choice at that point in time it's just a matter here to try to get all of those codes under this kind of timeline was just too difficult for staff to do so we focused on the irc situation that's what the state legislation is really dictating to us now having said that I will say we have at least one community to the south of us and probably several others that do offer it as an option they do require that it should be an option versus actually requiring a shelter itself the other option could be that a community shelter of some type has to be provided in the neighborhood or in that community. Right now it's limited in here that it has to be within 50 feet of the structure, whereas you could make an adjustment say that or provide a community shelter of some type. Now having said that, not all these developments have clubhouses, not all these, so you're gonna add cost anyway to the development even if you go under that option. So it could be spread out amongst the development, it doesn't go to one structure. But those are options that are out there, but it would have to be a rated building to qualify as a FEMA shelter. So it can't just be concrete block and hope you have a door that shuts.

That's the problem I have with letting the market dictate is that if we do that and it's only, we mandate that the option is there. And then 80% of people in a neighborhood don't choose it. Ten years from now, after they've came and gone, and there's new people moving in, they have a smaller selection of homes to choose from that have this feature. So they didn't get the choice. Or they get to go to somewhere else specifically and say, I don't want it, right? But why would we, unless we're going to put in something that also says, hey, 20% of all the homes in a in a development have to have it or something, we can't guarantee that anybody adds one. Then what happens when the tornado actually comes?

Okay, so Mark, I got a question for you. Why don't we, while we're at it, why don't we just mandate that every house in Gardner has to have one installed at the current owner's expense? Why don't we do that?

Because you're grandfathering people. We don't force anybody to do that. No, no, no, no, no, Mark.

We're talking about

mandating personal safety. I'm completely, is there any way this could be written to where that would be a required option?

That they offer the option?

Yes, sir. At a specific price?

You can't control the price if you market to control it.

Okay, just that you have a choice of this shelter or this shelter if you so choose to buy, and this model of home is this much, this many dollars. Can we do that? That's something that's available?

I don't think we could. And the reason I'm saying that, and I'm trying to understand exactly what you're getting at, but I don't think that we could specifically call out certain types or options. I think that's better off left to the builder or the developer as to how they want to address that. Because as these things change, new things come up, you know, Years ago, there weren't some of these options as sheltering elements. They came about because the market responded to places like Joplin, places like Oklahoma, and more in those areas in what you described.

So going down the road, if someone was maybe...

So if we just pull out specific things, that could change, and then we've got an out-of-date code, which then... creates a conflict for us because...

So like the battery thing, so if somebody goes down the road on something like this and says, well, I'm going to file for a permit to add a room or add a deck or add this or add that, all of a sudden they're going to be required to add a storm shelter for their safety.

But that could be...

The storage section of this applies to anybody adding it to their home later.

Yes, that part does.

So what's the stopper from that?

So some of that has to do with non-conforming rights and grandfathering of elements that are already in place.

I mean, Granny can survive being hit by a 20-kilowatt system. She can't survive 23 1⁄2 coming across. It just is what it is. It's a line in the sand.

But that line in the sand was drawn four years ago, three years ago. And the marketplace has completely evolved beyond that. And what I'm trying to point out is, as being a realtor for 25 years and just recently retired, I'm a big property rights guy. And having that option for homeowners to have that. I think it's a good option to offer for a new home. Every new home should have that option available to the purchaser of that home. And if it's important to that individual family, then they should be able to do that and make that free will choice on their own. But mandating it to everybody is not a, I just don't think it's a good idea.

Real quick, Dave, the 2024 code has safe rooms as a matter of course, right? Correct. So the code that most recently was recommended has safe rooms, right? We're looking back to the 2018 code, and we're only doing that because of this legislation in Kansas.

And the 18 code, when we adopted those amending elements, we amended out of that section of the 2018 code.

If you want market to dictate it, why would you even want an option that the developer has to tell people? They can go out and buy an additional one from a third party today and have it installed in the back yard.

I agree.

Let's go there.

I'm just saying, why would you force it in here?

That's a middle ground. I agree with you 100%. Why not just let them do that on their own?

Well, I mean, I disagree, and I agree with Steve. However, in the interest of time, I mean, I think we've got kind of a consensus the other way. So, I mean, if there's further discussion, any other discussion on the rest of the codes? Do you want to call a motion? I move to approve.

Second.

Okay, so there's a motion to approve or adopt ordinance number 2882, an ordinance establishing, amending, and creating code procedures and policies for construction related to the International Residential Code for One and Two Family Dwellings, amending Chapter 15.50 of Title 15, Buildings and Construction of the Gardner Municipal Code, and amending or repealing applicable portions of all ordinances or regulations not in conformity herewith.

Yes Yes No Ordinance 2882 does pass And just for clarification that's with an effective date of June 30th of 2026 so building permits that are in file and things that are on going ahead of that date are are still under the code as it is today. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We're going to move to council updates. Let's start with Chief. You may have a few things.

I don't have anything tonight. Okay.

Unless you have any questions. 199. I know various areas we do step up patrol at different times.

We did. And I've also... directed them to put themselves out on the radio because I'm trying to capture time spent, which has been hard to capture, but we're doing that now so I can look at tickets issued and then the amount of time we're spending on patrol just to kind of try to find two things for precision policing. But I'll continue to push that we need to be out doing directed patrol on 199.

Yeah, go ahead.

My understanding is

It is. They have to be deliberate and intentional where they stop them. Right. So the message shouldn't be to the residents, we're not doing it because there's not enough room. It's going to be deliberate and intentional about where we do it at. Okay.

I see you guys out there, and I see people being pulled over.

Sure.

But not trucks, and it's a no-truck route, right?

Correct. Correct. Absolutely. So we're trying to, again, the tickets and then the amount of time they're spent out there. So we'll keep working on it.

Thank you.

You're welcome, man.

Thank you, Chief. Appreciate that. City clerk? I have nothing. Matt, finance? I have nothing. Congratulations again on another well-done audit.

Amy? Nothing, sir.

Nothing for me.

Jason?

Nothing for me.

Dave?

Nothing more for me.

A few meetings ago, we had somebody approach us about potentially leasing the old police lot for a fireworks stand. So we never reached a consensus. We haven't done that in the past. So I'm looking for, we do have an application. I'm looking for consensus on whether we're gonna do that or not. And then we tried to find out specifically what other places are leasing their property for. And it's anywhere between four and $10,000. Anecdotally, we do have one that we know that was off the main thoroughfare that was four. So my recommendation would be from $6,000 to $8,000, but that's up to council on whether we want to do it in the first place. Because if we do this, we're probably going to get requests to do the property behind the police station and other city-owned property. But we just need to know whether we're going to process this application and what we're going to charge them to lease the lot.

Jim, what are you and staff thinking as far as doing it or not doing it?

I don't like setting that precedent. The lot's not great for it because of access. Now, they're indicating they do have permission to share an access with the neighboring property. It's just pretty tight. to be in there, and on 56 Highway, I mean, there's a lot of traffic going up and down there. But for me, it's just the precedent of leasing city property. I mean, we're gonna get not only this, we're gonna get other properties, we're gonna get other occasions where people are gonna try to lease our property. Besides fire extinguishers.

Are we opening ourselves for legal action or lawsuits or any other kinds of things if we set that precedent and go there?

I have some concerns about how it is if we have competing applications, how it is that we decide who we're going to give it to. It's on a first-come, first-served basis. I'm less concerned. But if you say, well, we want to give it to the Methodist Church, wants to do it for fundraising, but then next time some other organization that is, it would be distasteful to us to lease it to, and now we're picking winners and losers based on. Yeah, that was my, Ryan, that was exactly my question. Yeah, based upon their viewpoint. So I would have concerns if, if we set it up where we weren't doing it on the first come, first serve.

Because I could foresee the situation where potential tenant A says, we lease it to them, and somebody else comes up and says, well, you won't lease it to us because then we have, you said distasteful or something like that. Now we have a situation of rights, and it goes downhill from there, so. I guess I'm of the opinion we just kind of shy away from it.

You're looking at me? I lean away from it also because a couple of reasons. One, what you were just mentioning with picking winners and losers. Unless we had just a straight up first come, first serve scenario, Because I would not want to get into that business of having to choose between people. This year in particular, I have concerns about the traffic down Main. Because with the exit closed and extra traffic coming off of I-35 at 175th. Excellent point.

This year in particular, we have more traffic than usual.

And they're not really... There's not right turn lanes, left turn lanes, you know, for people to be able to safely navigate without having to either slam on their brakes or stop traffic moving down the road. So generally, I lean away from it. This year specifically, I lean far, far away from it. That's my thought.

Councilman Wayne, did you have any thoughts?

Yeah, I think the conversation about it setting a bad precedent is valid, and I think those are good points. I think I would lean against it.

So, yeah, we don't want a bad precedent. I agree with that. I think we would probably want to look forward at what selection process for any property, how we lease the property would look. In the essence of time for this being time sensitive Personally, I think this is a good usage of Vacant property that you know, it'd be great if the government had known it in the first place But we can bring in a few dollars to help offset other expenses We have an applicant that evidently has already Dave is in the process of at least, has talked to Valero and Wally's about getting permission for the parking.

So I have no confirmation on the Valero. What they indicated at the end of the week was they were going to make contact with Valero and they were going to get back to us on that today. We did not hear anything back on the Valero side. We did get a handwritten indication from the operator of the liquor store that they were willing to share that parking with this use.

Okay. So I hear what you said, Kelly. I don't think that applies as far as the traffic issue because we're literally going to have a stand across the street. So kind of picking winners or losers if we're saying, well, traffic's okay on that side of the street but not on this side of the street. So I'm not as convinced by that argument. To me, this doesn't hurt anyone. It brings in a few dollars for the city. It lets –

applicant make some dollars any other discussion on it I do like the idea of having just some extra funds coming in I mean that's a nice perk I wouldn't mind looking at it and, you know, looking at all of the city-owned properties and saying, hey, here's a list of the ones that we think would be good for this that we would be willing to rent out, you know, and have a list and have specific, like a policy for how we decide who gets to rent space, whether it's first come first serve or whatever it is that we decide we need to do to have an established policy. I don't know that getting that done before this year's 4th of July fireworks sales is possible to get all of that done.

I agree with you. I think there should be some sort of policy going forward. In this case, because of time, I think they've gone through the steps that development has put forth, and, you know, it It's kind of like the gentleman that had the HOA that didn't want him to have the short-term rental. If you can get through all the steps, more power to you, bud. So, yeah.

I do wonder if, I don't know who the applicant is that we have on file right now. I do know that I was speaking with someone just this past week who said that their group had expressed interest and had already been denied by the city for that same space. So that made me go, if we already turned somebody down, can we take another application?

As far as I know for that parcel, as far as I know, there's only been one applicant for this. They did submit an initial site plan. Actually, they submitted about three versions of site plans. We had issued, gosh, has it been a week now? Somewhere in there, a week or so ago, We did issue a denial of the site plan that they were showing. There was some misinformation on it regarding the size of the lot and some of the other measurements that they had. But we felt we had to give them a decision to get off center. So at that point, we issued a denial of that application. They came back with a revised site plan. So as far as I know, it's only been one application.

And is that the same group who they had a gentleman who spoke a month ago or so? I believe so. OK. So it may just be that the person who was talking to me isn't up to date with where that stands. OK.

So just one other consideration. So if we lease property, currently that property's tax exempt. If we lease it to a for-profit entity, which is why I didn't bring it up because I think the applicant in question is a not-for-profit entity, but if we open it up and lease it to a for-profit entity, we are jeopardizing our tax-exempt status, at least for the portion of time that that's up there and operating.

I think it needs more research.

Mark, I'm not opposed to it as such, but I think right now we're just pressed for time. It really, I mean, it stunk for the applicant just coming up as late as it did a month ago. Now it's really up against the wall. I feel for the applicant on this thing.

Amen.

it sounds like there is consensus though to not move forward with that mark wayne do you i guess i'm i'm open to the idea of moving forward with this applicant with the hope that after this we would quickly come up with a policy to figure out how to how to do this on a more ongoing basis i understand that the tax exempt status would be something that we would have to sort out. And maybe the portion of whatever lease agreement we come to covers that portion of the property tax that we have to pay for that period of time. And maybe that's the reason why we say it has to be eight grand for our lease. I think I'm okay with that if we want to do it this time. this applicant with the idea that we quickly figure out within the next you know six months or so uh how to do how to answer this question more appropriately going forward would leasing the property even to a not not-for-profit affect our tax exempt status um as long i mean they should be

legally committed to use any revenues that they generate for... They are a charitable organization. Yeah, for their taxes and purpose.

Right, I just want to make sure that us bringing in money on that wouldn't affect...

Right, I'm not concerned about this user. I'm just mentioning it for the future.

Brian, are we setting ourselves up for a precedent here?

Well, I mean, I think I've kind of expressed my concerns about that, so... that there's a possibility out there. If we want to continue to do this moving forward, I've expressed kind of what my concerns are on that.

Yeah, I guess I 100% agree that we should look at this. This is the first time it's been brought up, and we should spend time coming up with something that sounds like a great Amy activity. She's excellent at these things. And then we can vote on something later. But in this particular case, it seems like somebody brought it up. It fits.

I guess, Mark, I'd like to maybe just kind of go back through everybody. If we are talking about this specific applicant for this specific situation, that's one thing. If we're talking about long term, that's a whole different scenario.

I think we all agree that long term we need to look at it. Yes, absolutely. But in the short term is what we're talking about for this. Right.

For this applicant at this time, backed up as they are. I could be convinced to let them go. Let them do it.

Is there enough time that, say we did move forward and say, okay, yes, we'll move forward with this applicant this year. Is there enough time in the next, how long do these things take to process? The next three weeks, two weeks for us to get five more applications on five other city-owned properties that are vacant right now?

In regard to fireworks stands, today is actually the cutoff date for getting applications in, and we have no new applications at this point. So in regard to fireworks stands, you would not get a rush or something like that.

As far as this application and this time, I'm okay with it.

Are we good with 8,000?

I was going to say, let's come to a consensus on a... Mark you through the 8,000 out there.

Yeah. And I would say I'm good with it for this time. And I think that in the future, I mean, I guess it's a terrible problem for us to have, to have somebody who wants to lease that piece of property for multiple periods of time over the next couple of years. I mean, I'm starting now to lean towards the other way that we should, we should have a policy in place that allows it, especially at eight grains of pop. All right.

Staff have direction. All right.

Thanks.

Thank you, everyone.

Anything else? No, that's all.

Mark Ween, we can start with you. Council updates?

Yeah, so I guess if we want to talk about the project grad, I will throw out there, I mean, obviously you guys have seen my presentation in the past. I've looked at the numbers that I had. I haven't seen the 2026. I didn't ask Matt for that. But, you know, the fun that we were having Using for the project grant donation, we moved it over to the excise task tax, basically the alcohol and drug fund. That portion of the sales tax that fund and maybe Matt can chime in is well over 200 grand. At this point in time, I mean, I understand the apprehension that we've had in the past. I will say, you know, we continue to get citizens who come forth. I did have a conversation with a parent and a recent grad this last round in May and asked the child or the young adult, the 18-year-old, what they thought, and they were surprised. Ma, which I thought was a thumbs up, rousing success. The parents were super happy about the event and continued to express their desire that we continue to support it. So I'm in favor of the 10 grand as I have been in the past and would ask for consensus on it. I can't see everybody else's body language, so I don't know how everybody else feels about it. But again, I don't think it impacts that fund at all. And any money that we get back would be more than that fund impacts the general fund today.

Matt or Chief, do you know what our balance is in that fund, roughly? It was significant, though, right?

Yeah. Several hundred thousand.

And it's used for drug and alcohol. It's specifically designed. I mean, has that use required, correct?

Yes. I think the other item we use it for is a co-responder. What?

Co-responder. Council, any thoughts, questions? I mean, to me, that seems like a very viable use. I like the format that they have set up where they're basically bribing them to be there, which is fine, giving them $100 as long as they attend the whole thing, right? They have to be there.

That's right. They don't get it until they leave the event.

It seems to be working. The percentages are going up each year.

Where are we at currently? What did we do last year? 3,000. 3,000? So we're looking at a 300 and some percent increase.

We also, I mean, yeah, but they also, I mean, continue to have bigger numbers. They do it at the high school, is that correct?

Yeah, we did it at the high school this year, the year before it was at off-site. We asked the students this year where they wanted to go.

You can step forward if you want to, if you don't mind.

We asked the students where they wanted to go, and they voted on having it at the school, and it allowed us to put more funds toward the incentive to come stay for the event.

I would probably be good with 150% increase, which would be $4,500.

So I'm going to start my soapbox.

Well, 150% increase, which would be $4,500. So it would be 150% of what we spent last year.

And I would say we've been at three grand for any number of years and not seen an increase for whatever inflation or whatever we want to say. And again, you know, if you look at the numbers and what's in that fund, it's really not going to impact what's in that, that color of money.

So Mark, would you be on board with a 4,500?

No, I, I don't think it should be anything less than 10.

Okay, I understand.

Mayor, council, I looked it up. We started the year with $262,000 in the fund balance.

Okay. And none of that, I'm sorry, one more thing. Sorry, Mark. None of that is spoken for, I mean, except for the co-responder, which is roughly ballpark.

It looks like we're projected to end the year at $287,000. So, I mean, we're bringing more money than we're spending.

Okay. So, look, I like the idea of project grad. But, as I've stated in the past, I don't think that this entity should be spending anything on it. Not because there might not be merit to it, but because of all the things I'm about to list. So... Even with home rule, we're not authorized to give public money to private parties without a governmental function. So who primarily benefits here? A select few graduating seniors, not the public. Is the city performing a function? No. We're not involved at all. Is this police power, not other than them normally covering the streets, right? This... is completely incidental to anything city. So we shouldn't have anything to do with this. This would be no different than a group saying, hey, we don't want kids to get in trouble on any other day, so let's send them to the movie theater. And if you want to get into the stats on that, it's correlational, not causation, as to where Project Grad has been impactful. Maine started it. It is a 501 organization by parents. And the year that they implemented, early 80s, you can't prove that Project Grad was the determining factor or the fact that they went to a zero tolerance for alcohol and they stepped up enforcement. So I looked up some stats. We already know 16 to 19 year olds are three times more risky than adults driving any day at any time. The month with the highest count of deaths is October because of homecoming, not May. Even though there is an increase from 33 to 40 percent of chance of death on graduation, the actual time period that is the most dangerous for kids of this age is Memorial Day to Labor Day, not graduation night. And then there's also some stuff with Independence Day and New Year's Eve. But what we're really talking about then, if it's not primarily a safety factor by the city, is that we're paying for a party. And when we switched from general funds to the special alcohol fund, I started digging into that. And I think we actually have more problems using that fund than we did the general fund. Because while the school district can use, can provide programs, okay? I'll quote it, designed to assist pupils at all grade levels in the identification, examination, prevention, and resolution of alcohol and drug abuse problems. School district could do something like that, but we can't because we're not tied to the program. There's a portion in the mandate from the state that says, monies in the special alcohol and drug programs funds shall be expended only for the purchase, establishment, maintenance, or expansion of services or programs whose principal purpose is alcoholism and drug abuse prevention and education, alcohol and drug detoxification, intervention in alcohol and drug abuse, or treatment of persons who are alcoholics or drug abusers or in the danger of becoming alcoholics or drug abusers, which is why it comes from if you buy more alcohol, you get the tax. But the words only and principal purpose are my concerns. And Ryan, you can jump in here, because I don't even play an attorney on TV. So how are we satisfying the principal purpose?

I understand your concern. I mean, you're reading the statute.

I mean, I think that we should not be supporting this the way we are. If the school district wants to do it, that's one thing.

Hold on, Mark. You asked Ryan. Now let me jump in. So you said the principal purpose, what was it founded for?

Say that again?

What was it founded for? What was Project Ground founded in response to in Maine?

To have a safe party.

A substance-free event.

Right, which is a safe party.

A substance-free event. They were in response to the issues that they were having at graduation or after graduation. The parents came up with this. It's a 501c3. So it's principal need, and what it's been there for, and what we're saying it's for as well, is for this purpose.

Hold on, Mark. The principal purpose isn't the purpose of the organization. It's the principal purpose of KSA 79-41A04, which is to basically treat drug abusers and alcohol abusers and prevent. This doesn't prevent any more than any other night saying, hey, kids.

But that's anecdotal for what you're saying. That's just based upon we're just believing you. It's the statute.

You can look it up yourself.

We also brought this up the last time when we moved the money and we said we should do it out of this fund. We had agreement that that was okay. Now, the fact that we've moved it over there and now we're saying, oh, well, but if we make it 10, that's a bridge too far.

No, it's not about the dollar amount. I told you that before.

I know for you it is always been you don't want to support this organization. That's fine.

It's not the organization, Mark. It's the fact that 80-year-old ladies shouldn't have to pay for some kid to have a safe party when their parents who are running the party can make sure they have a safe party without taxpayer dollars.

which is, again, why we said it was okay to move it to this other fund. That 80-year-old lady who may have gone out and bought herself a case of beer helped pay for this party then.

She didn't know that. That's true. This is only counting. That's true. A portion, yeah.

So a third.

I think we wouldn't want to find out if there was ever a problem tied to this and someone died and there was a lawsuit. I don't think I want to be involved with that.

We said that tied to this, there had to be an education portion Now, if we want to regulate that or if there's now a disagreement with the fact that we don't think that we can use that, maybe we need to go readdress that. Right.

Someone I mean, an opinion, I mean, we're in the right ballpark.

Yeah, I mean, it's not. It's not square down the middle of the plate that you're giving money to a true substance abuse program. It's adjacent. So, that's about as good as I can do.

We would be happy to partner on any kind of education at the event that would, help satisfy the needs to utilize these funds, we'd be happy to partner and do that.

If we're worried about one night, not even the most dangerous night, I'd be more willing to pay overtime for the officers to patrol the streets and have everybody on duty that night. I mean, it just, you know, you mentioned that the number's going up and the budget's going up and everything else. Yeah, it's true, and you could cut 86% of it if you just don't pay them to show up.

Well, I mean, you're right, you could. However, then our 5% is inconsequential. I mean, I just, I mean, anecdotally, it's been a while, but I remember the, you know, it's a thing. I mean, when you graduate high school, I mean, there's a certain percentage that it's what they do, and it's a thing. Sure. If this, you know.

Just like when they got home this year and they were peeling out of the parking lot as I was awake for it, because I live across the street from my school.

I hear four blocks away.

OK, so it's not like Just because you throw one party doesn't mean everybody changed their thinking. First off, it's their teenage brains. And secondly, it doesn't change behavior. We just paid them for a little while to stay away from whatever they could have been doing then, which is great in the sense that they didn't do it then. It doesn't mean they won't do it the day before, the day after, six weeks from now, two weeks before.

That's true.

And we don't give any credence from a safety perspective of any other night that which tells me it's back to being about a party. Hosted by parents.

Mr. Wien?

Anything else?

I've said my piece. I would say it's hosted by taxpayers, and taxpayers who continue to come in front of us and ask for additional funding for this event. I mean, I can't... I guess when the taxpayer comes before us and says, hey, can we fund it this way, and it doesn't impact the general fund, I guess, or on the opposite, it impacts the general fund in a positive nature, I guess I don't understand the continued fight.

I don't see what the point of if that fund has money in it or not matters. Are you telling me that we wouldn't even entertain it if that fund was zero? Or is it not special and safe at that point?

No, I think we would continue to entertain it. I think it should just make the argument easier. It should make it less of this fight that we have every couple of months when we bring it back up. Which, I mean, I'm happy for the discussion, and I'm happy that you're standing by your convictions as much as I'm standing by mine. And maybe that we'll agree to disagree on this particular action. I think it's fairly consistent where I, you know, I think that I am, I've had two children recently. go to this quote unquote party, seeing the benefits of it. I've talked to multiple other parents and had people come and talk to me about it and say that they appreciate it and how much it matters to them that we support it from a city council function. So I guess I've said my piece. I presented the idea that any sort of monetary benefit bribe that brings those students there. The fact that if they spend $1 in Gardner of that money, we see that hit the general fund. Now, it's not much, it's a penny, a penny and a half, but it's more than that money just sitting there. So I guess whether it's, you know, three grand or 45 I feel like they're asking for 10 and that's We're gonna see that benefit come back That's completely That it's a small it's a small amount I don't disagree with you it's not a huge It's not gonna see it the movement, but it's more than it does today, which is zero What's the stop because you're a hundred bucks at the end of this

Pardon me?

I said that these kids get $100 at the end of the night. What's the stop on the next day when they're handing everybody off to go get a case of beer for them the next night? With the money from Project Grad.

They'd have to get someone to go get it for them, I guess.

I guess I look back when I graduated from high school in 1975, and that dates me. I had a fast car, had money in my pocket from a job, and I was 18. It was legal in the bars and liquor stores.

There was another party on graduation night, and we had 266 of our students choose to come to Project Grad. We have parents that are running this event. I personally do not have a senior in the 2027 graduating class and I'm continuing on the board because it is such an impactful event that I want to continue to provide this for the community, for our students and continue this tradition. We have many board members that do not have students this year. that are staying on to make sure that we are able to raise the funds to provide an event to again get more than 266 kids to come next year and choose this event over the party that's five miles outside on a country road.

If it's not about the party, then you could have parents agree to take the $100, $150 in exchange they keep their kids at home that night.

then it really gets difficult with the alcohol.

What alcohol's gonna be happening with the parents then, right?

There are a lot of parents who cannot provide this kind of support. I mean, we have many students who are getting prizes, who are getting $100, who have never seen a $100 bill before, and are getting prizes that they wouldn't otherwise get. We do have families that are not able to afford to give the type of event and prizes that we are able to do with the support of our community.

Totally understand that, but this is taxpayer dollars that wouldn't be going to a different charity. Why would we be doing it for this on private property?

Because it's related to the alcohol.

Yeah, adjacent.

Okay, let's – why don't we move forward with yay or nay and then –

Yeah, I agree. I think 10,000 is a good number. I think, I didn't say much earlier, but I agree with everything Mark Wien was saying. I think the, not to say I think we need to spend the money because it's in the fund, but we do have the funds available, and I think that this does fit the requirements of that would need to be in place for that fund. And I think that the benefit to Gardner, both in safety for students and community goodwill and in whatever incidental amount might come back, you know, when the teens spend it here, I think those are the benefits are good. So yes, I think 10,000 is a good number.

And Mark Wien, you said your piece. I said my piece. And then Councilman McNeil.

I think just after listening to this thing tonight, I think Mark brings up a very good, Baldwin brings up a very good point that statutorily we shouldn't really be doing this at all.

Mark, do you know? I agree with Kelly and Mark Wien. But do I have consensus in something like this? I don't know.

Not an official vote, I guess, right? No, but I mean, basically I think you'd be asking Jim to use his spending authority to do it. Which he has the ability to do.

So we have three for the 10.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Wait, I'm still doing council updates, right?

Yes, yes.

Sorry.

No, you only get, unless it's anything longer than that, then you don't.

No, no. I want to say thanks for allowing me to be 2,000 miles away. I am much more animated this far away, so I apologize for that. Thank you, Renee, for setting this up and the rest of the council for putting up with me being this far away again. And since this is the last council meeting before Independence Day, I hope everybody has a safe Independence Day, especially celebrating 250. Please remember to have fun, but to be done before 11 p.m. on the 4th of July.

Thank you to the people who spoke tonight, to the ladies from NAACP, to Ms. Morris, if she's still here, Mr. Allen. I always appreciate hearing from people. So thank you for coming to do that. Just this past week over Memorial Day, as I was reading emails about hometown heroes and banners and things like that, it just really struck me again that we've kind of kicked off a season, summer, of not just celebrating the birthday of the United States, but of celebrating everything that it means to be free, the price that has been paid for that, and all the holidays that come up with Memorial Day. We've got Juneteenth this week. We've got Fourth of July. So I am truly grateful for that, and I just want to wish everybody a happy Juneteenth and a happy Fourth of July. Stay safe. Have fun. Stay air conditioned if you can. I just got back from scout camp. I appreciate air conditioning more than I probably ever have in my life. But yeah, I just hope that everybody has a wonderful summer and enjoys the freedom and their celebration. And we'll see you all in a couple weeks. Oh, and thank you for the scarves. I don't know where they came from. Thank you to the chamber for the scarves.

A couple things. First off, I want to echo what Kelly was talking about. I remember well 1976. That was the 200th birthday of our country. And I had just graduated from high school. Actually, I was in the Marine Corps boot camp at the time. And yeah, the United States is a tremendous once in the history of the world experiment in freedom and choice. We talked a lot about freedom of choice tonight. And the other part of it that I really appreciate is the fact that five or six of us can sit up here on this dais and have vastly, vastly different and passionate debate, but still agree to be reasonable and respectful to each other at the end of that night. That's a tremendous thing. I think only in this United States of America do we get that. And dang straight, I'm proud of 250 years. This country, the best is yet to come. I still believe that. And that having been said, I wanted to maybe Share something that really caught my attention on the 10th of June. I sent out to everybody on Governing Body a link to a CFG post that was put up on the 10th of June. And the person who put the post up was kind of ragging on our police department for harassing this kid. And Chief, your people do a tremendous job. And thank you for the way that officer handled that interaction, by the way. Thank you. They did a great job. And the thing that was remarkable about that, absolutely remarkable, there's probably well over 100 comments on that post. And the vast majority, I'd say 90% were in support of our police department, in support of common sense, in support of parents taking responsibility for their kids. and wanting some rules and regs around these scooters that are out of control in our community. And I wanted to see if there is a consensus on the dais to see if we could direct Jim and staff to maybe take a look at putting some kind of an ordinance in place to put some rules and regs around these scooters and e-bikes. electric-motored vehicles so that we don't have things going out of control. What my concern is, is that every one of us has seen it, these kids that ride, like, they don't have a brain. Somebody's going to get hurt. Somebody's going to get killed. And I think it's up, I think we need to, I'm hoping we can build a consensus on the dais, the direct staff to take a look at that.

I mean, I think what you're asking for is either making them motor vehicles or adding something new to the ordinance that spells out stipulations for them.

Is that correct? Well, part of the responses on there, and I thought it was excellent, was there were several of them that had pictures of the motorized vehicles on the trails.

Right, but right now, they're not deemed as motorized vehicles. What's that? Right now, they're not deemed motorized vehicles.

Well, I think anything that has an electric motor more than the low-class, low-speed electric assist on an assisted bike or e-bike, what is it that drives the wheels, Mark? A what? Electric motor?

So you do want them to be listed as motorized vehicles?

I think the department was listed in that and said that you've introduced some guidelines along that way, too, like a 17-mile-an-hour speed limit or something like that. Is that correct?

So let me jump in here. We've looked at this twice before. I've come back with proposed language under Kansas law, e-bikes, electric assisted bicycles, and scooters are considered under the same law as bicycles. So e-moto, which is they have very little pedaling function, they are motorized vehicles. So if we were going to look at adopting a new ordinance, it would be to restrict One or both of those from sidewalks and or greenway, we could be very specific, but they're already classified correctly under Kansas law. Unless you want to put e-scooters and restrict them above and beyond what you would a normal bicycle. But under Kansas law, that's how they're doing it. So what is it exactly you're asking for?

What I'd like to do is ask staff to do just a first cut of this thing. And that would be Olathe, Overland Park, I think Lenexa and Shawnee. I'll just extend it to all Johnson County communities. Find out what kind of ordinances they have on the books today because that was referenced in there as well. I'd just like to understand what other communities are doing around most particularly the e-scooters. E-bikes, that's a whole different story. There's multiple classes of those. But I think some of these kids that ride these things and run people off the roads, off the trails, run people off the sidewalks, cross intersections that don't even look, somebody's going to get hurt. Somebody's going to get killed.

OK. But regardless of what the other cities do, what is it that you want?

I want to see what other communities are doing and then to take a look from the dais and evaluate whether or not we want to put a directive to staff to construct an ordinance around scooters in particular.

Like Jim said, we've already looked at it twice.

I just want you to understand. The e-scooters, we've looked at twice? Yeah, just so you understand, over the last couple years, the state legislature stepped into the space legislatively, and the last two sets of uniform public offense codes that we've adopted have adopted all types of regulations around exactly what you're talking So, I mean, the... What are those regulations, Ryan? I mean, I'd have to pull up the UPOC. There's several sections that deal with this subject.

We approved them. We adopted them. Yeah, the UPOC.

Do we have restrictions? I guess I'm asking what is it we want to do additionally?

The League of Kansas Municipalities UPOC. You can find it in our code.

So do we have restrictions on these scooters currently? Certainly. Mark, what I'm saying is we need enforcement then.

Do we have signs on our trails that say no motorized? I mean, I saw pictures, but then I saw people who were saying.

It's been posted for years that way.

But remember, an e-scooter is not a motorized vehicle. It's not a motorized vehicle. It has a motor, but it's not a motorized vehicle.

Wait a second.

Per what we have adopted, we specifically state it is not a motorized vehicle. To be clear. Just because it has a motor doesn't make it a motorized vehicle in code.

I guess I would not have brought this up tonight had we not had 100 comments on this very issue. The vast, vast, vast majority is in support of enforcing some kind of containment on this issue. That is from the public in the city of Gardner. Or members within the CFG community.

I do have a...

copy of some some regulations and suggestions i think it was from mark uh that i could forward to you if you want to take a look at that first and then maybe come back that's fine i i just want to understand hey ryan can you send out to all of us just what the what the regulations what the state has approved so far so we have an idea there i guess what i'm saying is i don't want to see something right away what i'm wanting to understand is what's reasonable, what are other communities doing in regards to this, and to come to some kind of a consensus of, A, do we want to, A, and B, if we do, what do we want to do?

Yeah, well, let me forward that to you, and then as you read through that, if you see some specific things, like, I guess, to look at, whether it's helmets or speed or those kind of things, which may not be... Can you send me a copy, too?

I'm sorry? Can you forward that to me, too?

Yeah, I'll forward it to Jim and he can... Yeah, absolutely.

I'm not trying to be hard to get along with here. I'm just trying to... I see a problem. That post hit me. And it just stopped me in my tracks because I thought, and then when I saw the response from the community on that, there is support in our community for this type of action. Huge support, 90% of the people that responded out of CFG, believe it or not.

I would say be aware of what you ask for. Because I think the vast majority of what they asked for was for somebody to do something, which should be parents.

I agree, Mark, but how do you legislate common sense in being a parent?

You don't. And so then the next question becomes, well, then you have to enforce it. How easy is it going to be to enforce?

How do you enforce it?

The kids can go here with it with a helmet and not here without a helmet. Are we going to get the radar gun out and make sure they're only going 60 miles an hour? I agree. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's a whole other thing how easy it is to actually enforce it.

But when we have kids get killed in the car, how do we undo that?

Let's start with that first. I'll forward it to everyone. It breaks things down. It breaks down e-bikes and assists and everything else. So it's got some good information. And we can go from there.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Thanks. Appreciate the consideration. Thank you.

That's all I have. Everyone have a safe and happy Independence Day blowing up a whole bunch of stuff. And don't forget to pick up your mess.

Thank you. I agree. I have nothing further. So I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved.

Second.

Motion McNeer. Second, Johnson. We adjourn. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye. We're in adjournment.

Thank you, everyone. Thanks. Thanks, Mark.