City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

All right. I'd like to call the order of the Hutchinson City Council meeting for June 16th, 2026. Mary, call the roll.

Truen. Here. Garza. Here. Goss. Here. Fast. Here. Magers. Here. Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Tonight we have Pastor Charles Crumble from the New Resurrection Baptist Church to offer the prayer for us.

Thank you for this opportunity. Let us pray. Most holy and gracious Father, Lord, we come to you today, Lord, with an open heart and an open mind. Lord, we ask your blessing of wisdom, encouragement, and guidance on our elected officials today. Lord, we lift up our community, our city, our county, our staff, our first responders, all the way to our last responders, our managers, our clerks, police officers, fire department, all those in uniform and carry out the duties to make Hutchison a better place. Lord, we lift up the citizens of this community. Lord, we pray for unity, safety, and well-being of all residents. Lord, we ask you to touch those that are in need. Lord, those that feel like their voices aren't being heard, those that are vulnerable, those that are struggling, marginalized members of our community. and those who are ready to throw in the towel. Lord, we just ask you to give them wisdom and guidance. Lord, we pray for this meeting today. Lord, that the atmosphere be full of love, respect, open communication, and a productive collaboration to make Hutchinson and Reno County a better place to live. Lord, we ask you this in your darling son Jesus' name. Amen. Thank you.

Next item is the approval of the proposed agenda. Councilmembers, this time you can make amendments to the agenda, additions, removal, or reordering of the items. Is there anything you guys would like to redo on the agenda, I guess?

Move to approve.

Second.

Truin?

Yes. Garza?

Yes. Goss? Yes. Bass? Yes. Macy?

Yes. Next item, Mary.

Item number five, petitions, remonstrances, and oral communications from the audience.

This is part of the agenda. Any person wanting to address the city council shall first be recognized by the mayor. Come to the microphone and state the person's name, address, and the subject to be discussed. That is appearing in a representative capacity when the person represents more than one item. Remarks shall be limited to five minutes. Comments during the portion of the meeting shall relate to matters not on the agenda and within the business and jurisdiction of the City Council. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to other speakers, members of the audience, or city staff. Rebuttal statements back and forth and exchanges and debates are not permitted during general public comment. This portion of the meeting is for the City Council to receive public comment. The Council will generally not engage in the discussion or debate with speakers. To avoid repetitious presentations, the mayor will require a spokesperson for a group. Audience members may address items on the agenda when the items are taken up by city council, and comments relating to those items shall comply with the city code. If anyone would like to come forward at this time, come on up and state your name and address.

Christopher Weitrich, 33 Halsey Drive. First of all, I've got to say, that was pretty cool, what you guys did. I feel like I have to follow that now. So, first of all, I want to say I've got two of my board and committee members here, Joey and Abby Ward. Most people in town would probably know them through Hutch Connect. We are a board and committee of six people. And we just wanted to come in and talk with you and follow up with Smallville Festival on what we've been able to accomplish this year and what we're looking at going forward. So we fully became a nonprofit agency in February of this year. And with Joey and Abby's help, we formed a website in January to help launch the festival this year. And we had an exciting three days other than the weather Saturday night, which caused us to cancel our concerts. Everything went pretty smooth and it seemed like everyone had a great time. and i gotta say that my board and committee or absolutely amazing on tuesday we found out that the downtown convention downtown market was going to be canceled and in twenty four hours we were able to find a location put twenty five vendors that would not have come otherwise into the Baker Ballroom. And they were able to sell their products and promote their brands for two days. And many of them are from out of town and had to stay in hotels and brought their stuff to Smallville just to be a part of our event. So we were excited to be able to help them and glad they got an opportunity to show off what they do. So we've had this website for about six months. And we found, thanks to Joey, he did a little analysis on what we've been seeing in the last six months. So in the last six months, we have seen about 2,655 visits to our website. And I have handed you all a packet that contains all this information and a lot more. Our Facebook page is really the driving force for what we do. And over the course of six months, We've achieved almost 250,000 post follows or views on the page. So we just want to reemphasize the importance of this and how big of a reach it is. In this little study we have, which isn't even complete yet, we had visits from over 250 cities around the country and probably around the world to our site and our Facebook page. Most of those are local. Most of those are from Kansas. But we also had some from Kansas City, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Chicago, Denver, and they all showed interest in our event. And that is a great sign for the future of this event. We made about 100 posts over the last six months, engaging with about 130,000 people. which is a great reach and shows that people are interested in this event and want to participate. And people weren't just stumbling onto this because we mention it occasionally. They were searching for it on Google, especially during the event, which really shows that there's an interest in what's going on. And personally, I know of two couples that came up to me during our three-day festival who said they were just driving through town and wanted to see what's going on and wish they could have been here for the whole time but want to make it a point to try to make it again next year. We had another couple show up downtown in Batman and Batgirl costumes. And they had pinpointed us as a stopping point on their summer travels years ago, and they finally made it this year. They travel around the country, but they made sure to be in Hutchinson during our festival just to check it out. So we do have a very wide audience, and that audience is just going to get bigger because obviously this is our first year running this as a nonprofit and six months of a website going. So I want to talk a little bit about why this matters. Foot traffic downtown. We're getting people into businesses and they're spending money locally. Obviously this shirt was made locally. Our other shirts were made locally. We're supporting small business and the people that attend are supporting small businesses. And all the vendors and food trucks that we bring out are making money off of this event as well. So it's just a great collaboration between the community and outside of the community, honestly, to gather everyone for three days and have a fun time. And that's our first goal. Our second goal, though, is to really give back to the community. And I just want to touch on that real quick. So after the festival, we got together and looked at what we had, what we had done. Today we donated 300 pounds of food to the Reno County Food Bank. We will also be giving them a $750 check. We'll also be sending a $750 check to Disability Supports and New Beginnings this week. And we had a vendor and sponsor who helped run our carnival. that is also going to be donating $750 worth of toys to the Reno County Toy Run this year. And that's what we're all about, and we just hope to get bigger and better. And we've learned a lot this year and can't wait for next year. All right, thank you, guys.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Good evening, council. My name is Esmeralda Tobar Mora and I'm with Hutchin Harmony. Whereas the city of Hutchinson and Smallville and the state of Kansas have been shaped by generations of immigrants and newcomers who traveled from around the world seeking opportunity, safety, freedom, and the chance to build a better future for themselves and their families. whereas immigrants have played a vital role in the growth of Hutchinson by contributing to our workforce, supporting local businesses, strengthening our schools, serving in health care and public service professions, enriching our arts and culture, and helping meet the needs of a growing and evolving community. Whereas Kansas has long been home to immigrant communities from Mexico, Central and South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and many other regions in the world, bringing unique traditions, languages, skills, and perspectives that contribute to the strength and vibrancy of our state. whereas immigrants contribute significantly to Kansas' economy as workers, entrepreneurs, farmers, educators, healthcare professionals, students, and business owners, helping drive innovation, economic development, and community prosperity. Whereas immigrant families continue to demonstrate resilience, courage, and determination while contributing to the civic, social, cultural, and economic life of Hutchinson and Reno County. Whereas Immigrant Heritage Month provides an opportunity to recognize the stories, sacrifices, achievements, and contributions of immigrants while reaffirming the values of dignity, opportunity, belonging, and mutual respect for all residents of our community. Whereas the city of Hutchinson in Smallville recognizes that our community is strengthened when all residents are able to participate fully in civic life, contribute their talents, share their cultures and pursue their aspirations without fear of discrimination. Thank you for the opportunity to reflect on the many contributions that immigrants have made in Hutchinson, Reno County, and the state of Kansas. When we talk about immigration, we are talking about people. Families who came here seeking opportunity, safety, faith, work, and the chance to build a better life for future generations. Immigrant stories continue today in our community. They are our neighbors, coworkers, classmates, business owners, healthcare professionals, educators, farmers, volunteers, and community leaders. They contribute to our local economy, enrich our cultural traditions, and help make Hutchinson the vibrant community that we know today. I understand personally how powerful it is to feel welcomed and to know that your contributions matter. But this month is bigger than any one individual or family. It recognizes the countless people whose stories are woven into the fabric of our community, whether their families arrived generations ago or recently. Immigrant Heritage Month gives us an opportunity to celebrate those contributions while also reaffirming a simple truth, that our community is strongest when everyone has the opportunity to participate, belong, and thrive. At Hutchins Harmony, we have had the privilege of working alongside immigrant families from dozens of cultures and countries. Time and time again, we see the same values, hard work, resilience, service, faith, hope, and a commitment to making Hutchinson better for the next generation. Tonight, we celebrate those stories and the courage that it takes to start over. The sacrifices made for family and the contributions that continue to strengthen our city every day. May all who call Hutchinson home know that they are part of our shared story, and may we come together to work on a proclamation discussion that helps ensure that everyone feels seen and heard. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to come to the podium?

Hello city council members. My name is my name is only Jean Bergner. I am the president of a newly founded nonprofit organization quarter queer and trans equality resilience and I'm also here with the rest of my board and We would like to do a proclamation City of Hutchinson, Kansas, Proclamation Pride Month. Whereas Hutchinson is home to LGBTQ plus individuals, families, youth, elders, business owners, educators, healthcare professionals, faith leaders, public servants, and community members who contribute every day to the cultural, civic, economic, and social fabric of our communities. And... Whereas LGBTQ plus Kansans have long been a part of our state and city's history, helping build stronger communities through advocacy, service, creativity, leadership, and resilience, often while navigating barriers to equality, acceptance, and belonging. And whereas the month of June is recognized nationally as Pride Month, commemorating the ongoing pursuit of equal rights, dignity, safety, and opportunity for LGBTQ plus individuals while honoring those who paved the way for our future generations. And... Whereas communities thrive when all people are able to fully participate in civic life, access to opportunity, express themselves authentically, and feel welcome regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender presentation. And whereas Hutchinson is strengthened by the diversity of experiences, identities, cultures, and perspectives represented within our community, and our collective future is brighter when every resident feels valued, respected, and connected. And And whereas creating communities of belonging requires ongoing commitment, thoughtful dialogue, mutual respect, and the recognition that our differences are the sources of our strength and innovation. And whereas it is believed that fostering understanding civic engagement, community connection, and opportunities for all residents help create a more inclusive and thriving Hutchinson for current and future generations. Therefore, I, only Jean Bergner, President of the Board for Quarter, Queer and Trans Equality and Resilience of Hutchinson, Kansas, do hereby proclaim the month of June 2026 as Pride Month in the City of Hutchinson and encourage all residents to join in this observation and witness whereof on this date, June 16th, 2026. Thank you, Council Members.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Maddie with the NAACP Youth, and I wanted to start off. Maddie, start over and speak into the mic. Hi, I'm Maddie with the NAACP Youth, and I wanted to start off with a reading of our Juneteenth proclamation that we had hoped to receive from the city. Whereas Juneteenth is a celebration that commemorates the official ending of slavery in Confederate states, and whereas President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was issued January 1st, 1863, but news of the end of slavery did not reach the frontier areas of the United States, particularly in southwestern states, until June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved were free. And whereas African Americans who had been slaves in the Southwest celebrated June 19th, commonly known as Juneteenth Independence Day, as inspiration and encouragement for future generations.

And whereas we all acknowledge the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day to the United States and join the continued nationwide celebration of Juneteenth Independence Day to provide an opportunity for the people of the United States and learn more about the past and better understanding the experiences that have shaped the United States. And whereas Juneteenth is a day to remember the moral strain and terrible toll of slavery on our country, but is also a day that reminds us our capacity to heal, hope, and emerge from those dark moments with purpose and resolve. And whereas while we have come a long way in our efforts to promote equity and justice, there is still work left to do.

We would like to thank the County Commission for providing a proclamation in celebration of Juneteenth. For seven years, the NAACP Youth and College Division here in Hutch has been hosting their annual Juneteenth celebrations to commemorate the beginning of a new chapter in our nation's history, a chapter where our country finally began to honor the promises given to us half a century earlier, though then those promises were fulfilled for some rather than all. This Thursday at 6 to 8 p.m. marks the beginning of our festivities with the annual talent show, health fair, along with food vendors. The talent show is still open for anyone interested under the age of 25 with a grand prize of $250. That's a good deal if you ask me. The next day on Friday from 7 to 9 p.m., we will also have the community barbecue, complete with music, line dancing, and games. We would like to extend the invitation to everyone, especially to the city council. In previous years, we've been honored to have the official proclamation not only read during city council meetings, but at the start of our day one celebrations by former mayors Stacey Goss, Greg Fast, and former council member John Richardson. We can stand here and comment at every city council meeting about the importance of Juneteenth from here until school starts. But it is entirely different having the city formally recognize this milestone in the form of a proclamation, proving that this city not only recognizes and supports such an event, but also that Hutchinson can be anyone's home, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexuality. As we celebrate with community and friends, it's important to remember why we celebrate and remember just how far we have come as a city and as a country. And additionally, using it as a guide to see how much farther we have left to go. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Katie Link, 3506 North Lorain. First of all, I'd like to commend the young ladies for their courage to come up in front of city council. It's something that's difficult for adults to do, yet alone the youth. So I am happy to see that you guys were able to do that and your research. So I do commend you for that. For you form my inward parts. You knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works. My soul knows it very well. Psalm 139, 13 and 14. I am here before you tonight to petition the council to proclaim June as Life Month in Hutchinson, Kansas. Last year in 2025, over 20,000 unborn babies were brutally murdered in Kansas alone. I praise God that at least for now, Hutchinson is not directly involved in this grievous practice of embryo annihilation. But as a city, we can do more. On June 24th, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the unconstitutional and deadly decision of Roe versus Wade, removing the federal constitutional right to abortion that had been feeding in the murder mills of America for almost 50 years. It is with deep regret and embarrassment to us all that our great state of Kansas continues to allow this despicable practice of unborn genocide in astounding numbers with an average of 54 innocent unborn Americans being murdered each day. So what can Hutchinsonians do? I am asking that the Hutchinson City Council denounce the culture of death, turn away from the abomination of abortion, and proudly proclaim that June is life month. And we would not be the first to take this necessary step towards progeny protection. In 2025, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz introduced a resolution to designate June as Life Month. In his introduction, Senator Cruz stated, Every human life is worthy of protection, and it is especially incumbent upon Americans and lawmakers to protect the most vulnerable among us. Designating June as Life Month is a recommitment to the American principle that every life has dignity. And as we prepare to celebrate our great nation's 250th anniversary, let us not forget these crucial words from our Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This month, let us celebrate our fundamental right to life by celebrating Life Month in Hutchinson, Kansas. God bless America, and God bless Hutchinson.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If not, Mary, next item.

Item number six, consent agenda.

Council had a chance to look through the consent agenda. Any questions, comments? If not, I'd be looking for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda and authorize the mayor to sign. Second. Yes.

Garza?

Yes.

Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes. Next item.

Item number seven, public hearing. A, public hearing to consider condemnation of an unsafe and dangerous structure at 3405 East 4th Avenue.

I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. Second.

Truen? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes.

Good evening tonight, Council. Jason Lady, building official. So tonight is a consideration of a resolution ordering the raising or repair of an unsafe structure at 3405 East 4th Avenue. In the agenda staff report that's been provided, it's under the recommendation, it's recommended that that the city council consider adopting a resolution to establish an order for repair or demolition of the structure deemed unsafe and dangerous by the city building official at 3405 East 4th Avenue. The background of this building is that the building official has inspected the property at 3405 East 4th Avenue and determined the structure or structures on the property are unsafe and dangerous as defined in Chapter 21 of Article 7, Unsafe and Dangerous Buildings. of the Code and Ordinances as adopted by the City of Hutchinson. The structures inspected at the below address contain structural hazards as defined by Section 21701. The structures also present many hazards that affect the health and life safety of individuals who occupy these structures. Under the analysis, I've only provided a timeline. provided a complete timeline and we'll talk about much of that timeline as a broad overview in my presentation tonight but under the analysis I've only gone back to the March 3rd, 2026 meeting. It says the building official provided an update to the city council at the regular meeting on March 3, 2026. At that time, the occupant had continued to occupy and operate inside the building. The occupant was previously given 30 days to vacate the property, and on April 2, 2026, the building official extended the vacation order until May 2, 2026. The building was boarded up and vacated on May 4, 2026. During all this time frame, the owner appealed the building official's determination that a sprinkler system is required in the building, as well as the determination that the proposed remodel could not proceed through subsequent planned submittals or phase permitting. At the Building Trades Board meeting held April 8, 2026, the Board upheld the building official's determination on both matters. The Board upheld the denial of phase permitting by a vote of 7-0 and upheld the sprinkler requirement by a vote of 5-2. Since the April 8, 2026 meeting, that building trades bar meeting, the owner has provided no further plans or submittals regarding the building located at 3405 East 4th Avenue. Mr. Razor has been subject to orders to vacate since July 2024 and is not complied. Additionally, no certificate of occupancy has ever been issued for a current for the current occupant to lawfully occupy the building. No significant corrective work has been completed to date, and no current plans have been submitted for review by the city. At its regular meeting on May 5th, 2026, the City Council approved the adopted resolution 2026R16, setting a public hearing for today, June 16th, 2026. The purpose of this hearing is to consider evidence presented by city staff regarding the condition of certain structures as identified above and the justification for declaring the structures to be unsafe and dangerous. Public notices regarding this hearing were sent to the property owner via certified mail. At the May 5th, 2026 City Council meeting, city staff informed the governing body that the property owner continued to indicate that plans for code compliance were being prepared. However, no formal plans, permit applications, construction documents have been submitted to the city for review. During that meeting as well, Mr. Dan Razor stated that the engineers were still working on the project. and anticipated submitting a complete permit application by the end of week, specifically by Friday, May 8, 2026. As of the date of this report, again, no formal plans, permit applications, construction documents have been submitted to the Building and Neighborhood Services Department for review. Since that city council meeting on May 5th, 2026, Mr. Razor of Fed and Happy LLC filed a temporary restraining order against the city of Hutchinson on May 6th, 2026 to allow access for the feeding of the worms and removal of the product. The city agreed to the conditions of the TRO to allow Fed and Happy LLC to remove the product. Fed and Happy LLC has continued to remove the product to date, with approximately half of the product removed at the time of this report. And this TRO is set to expire on July 15, 2026. Since the building official's update to the City Council at the regular meeting on May 5th, there has been no significant conversations with the owner. Again, no plans have been submitted. No meaningful progress has been made towards correcting the conditions of this property. As the property sits today, the structure continues to be a blighting influence on adjacent neighborhood. The property remains in violation of adopted property maintenance and building codes related to health, safety, and habitability of the building. The structure continues to deteriorate and remains in severe disrepair. As tonight, staff recommends proceeding with a formal unsafe and dangerous building process, including proper notification to the property owner and consideration of appropriate enforcement or abatement actions authorized by the state of Kansas statutes and the city of Hutchinson ordinances, including demolition if necessary. So again, this is the public hearing procedure. Just want to go over this real quick. The staff presentation and recommendations. Take time for questions for staff. Owner representative presentation. Questions for the owner representative. Public comment. Close the hearing. And then under the ordinance portion of our agenda at a later time for a motion to propose the resolution for the city council. So the purpose of tonight's item, what council is being asked to do. So the purpose of tonight is to consider the ordinance to order or to raise or repair the structure at 3405 East 4th Avenue. Order would designate a timeframe for repair or raising. That timeframe in that ordinance was placed at 60 days. and then provides a formal due process to the property owner. So tonight is not about immediate demolition. It's about determining whether the structure remains unsafe and dangerous or whether an order to repair or raise should be issued. This action actually provides additional due process by formally established expectations and timelines. This has not been an issue that just came up. We know that. We've been through a formal process since 2024 on this. This is 15 plus years in the making. CO for the certificate of occupancy, discussion with fire back in 2021, the collapse on the south end in 2024. So another continuance doesn't create new rights or opportunities for the owner. By establishing this resolution tonight, it provides a timeline to the owner for the city to take action to support this. Continuous has been provided over the last several years and not over the last several months the resolution itself provides an extra 60 days so if adopted the owner has 60 days from the publication to the To commence repairs or removal and diligently pursue completion So the current situation We'll just go over the status of the property as it sits today. The structure was declared unsafe and dangerous in July 2024. Again, the property has no valid certificate of occupancy, nor has there been one for Fed and Happy to occupy the property at any point since they established it in 2019. Required repairs and life safety systems are not completed. Remind the council that at the meeting on May 5th, Mr. Razor stated that plans would be submitted to the city. That has not been completed to date. No plans have been, again, received at the time of this meeting and this report. So the building remains unsafe and dangerous. The issue before council is the condition of the structure itself. not whether the business operations are being conducted in or out of the building, not whether it has a valid certificate of occupancy, or not whether the product is being moved somewhere else at this moment. It's the condition of the building itself. So the conditions prompting this hearing have not materially changed. Removing worm beds or products does not repair the building's unsafe conditions or make the structure more code compliant. The core issues. The core issue is that this is a pattern. This isn't a single event. This isn't just the events of July 24, 2024, when the South End collapsed. This is an ongoing issue dating back some time, specifically to 2010 and some lack of documentation that's been presented to the city or maintained by the city, also as well as Also, as well as the documentation that was provided to Mr. Razor in 2021, that he was operating a business unlawfully and that the building needed a sprinkler system in it at that time, as well as the 2024 collapse. So this is a longstanding pattern, not a single event, repeated deadlines and extensions. Permits have been issued, not completed or inspected. We've had limited or temporary progress, again, followed by regression. A continuance, again, only extends an already lengthy pattern or delay without resolving the underlying issues of an unsafe and dangerous structure, as the building sits today. Quick timeline. And again, this is a broad overview on the timeline. This is talking about the 15 years of unresolved compliance. In 2010, fire and building requirements were established. No record of compliance or certificate of occupancy. There were letters provided and signed off on by... Eaton folks at that time stating that a fire protection system would be installed in the building no documentation of that stands today or That the at that time in 2010 I believe that the fire protection system self was placed out of commission at that time instead of being active So in 2019, Fed and Happy had an unapproved occupancy change from an S1 to an F2S2. In 2021, it was identified that the occupancy change was without a certificate of occupancy. In 2024, the building sustained structural damage. The building was declared unsafe. 2024-25, meetings were held. Deadlines were set, missed. Hearings continued. Permits expired. We had meetings ongoing from the time that I came on board as the building official in September of 2024. We had meetings with Mr. Razor just weeks later on this address. And his legal staff said at that time that he would begin to move the product, which he did begin to move the product, and that by June 2025 he would decide whether his operation would stay in that location or not. And so here we are in 2026, and operations were continued to be ongoing without compliance of the structure. Again, this process is to provide due process. Within this time frame, due process has been provided. It's occurred over years, not weeks. Again, it's a non-habitable space, non-working sinks, toilets, partial collapse of the building, limited to no electrical, no operational fire protection system inside the building. Mr. Razor has been provided a full list of the violations with no attempt to resolve them. Someone once described codes as being written in blood. They're there to protect the occupants of our building. They're there to exist because people died. Lessons were learned from these. They were a tragic loss, but they were incorporated into our codes to prevent future events from happening. Within these timeline, the owner has had been provided ample time to understand the city's concern and take these corrective actions. In fact, as pointed out by another staff member, staff has provided 210 days of continuation to Mr. Razor during this timeframe. City Council has provided 164 days of continuation during this time frame. That's a full year. 364 days of continuation by council and or staff to provide Mr. Razor the opportunity to repair this building. Again, the core issue Sorry, flip it to the wrong page. So again, there have been repeated opportunities for compliance, city actions to support the compliance. We've had multiple meetings between the city and the owner. We've had written notices with clear deadlines. We've had a vacate. The original vacate order was November 1 of 2024. The extensions were provided for vacation of the property. Permits were issued for structural repair and partial demolition. Those permits expired. Hearings continued multiple times to allow progress. The outcome of those efforts has been that the results have been limited and incomplete. The permits expired without completion or inspection. Required repairs were not completed. The structure remains unsafe to date. Materials and operations returned to the building after partial removal, and a full set of plans resolving the issues have not been provided. Prior continuances have not resulted in sustained compliance. The historical documents, the historical record does not support the conclusion that additional time alone will produce a different outcome. It's easy to see here tonight and the historical record demonstrates that previous extensions have not resulted in sustained compliance. Good faith efforts by the city. We've had efforts that have worked towards resolution. We've allowed extended timelines beyond the initial timelines. We've relied upon representation of work instead of the progress of work actually being done on site. We've removed it from the agenda in 2025 due to perceived good faith. We continued coordination between city and the property owner. The city has acted in good faith repeatedly. There comes a point where the city's obligation is to protect public safety and that outweighs the continuing delays. The city has demonstrated substantial flexibility and patience and at some point we have to proceed on with this process. So we're just gonna go over a few photos now, little then and now. So this is November of 2024. This is over on the southwest side of the building. You see in November 2024, there was some dirt piles over here. This is where they've churned a lot of their dirt to dry it out. And you see in January of 2025, all that dirt was gone. They were making some substantial efforts to remove product from the facility. And here we are in June 2026, and it's back again. I showed the May 2000 last month at the last meeting, which was about the same. But you can see that it's not just being removed from the facility, it's still being removed through an operational process. November 2024, again, these are some worm beds looking from the south to the north. You can see that there's no difference really between the November 2024 and the May 2026. These are some of the conditions inside the building that we went over in the last council meeting. Again, egress. The structural damage where the south end collapsed. It's an egress door that's marked as an egress exit and you're unable to get to those egresses or the doors don't function or multiple other issues. Again, this is some of the dirt over on the west side where they're currently drying it out. It's to the basement. These were extension cords running down to the basement for lighting instead of lighting being installed in those locations or working in those locations, I should say. These are areas where there should be guardrails up around these pit areas. Again, don't know how deep these are, but they're pretty significant and would require guardrail protection. This is some of that area over there. Again, that door that I showed just a little while ago, I believe is over right in this area right here, so you can see. They gotta walk through bud, buck, whatever, to get through the egress pass, and the egress pass are not clear out of this building. This was a picture taken back in, I believe this was taken back in March or May timeframe, but they started removing some of the dirt here This is some of the electrical hazards. They were open electrical hazards. You could see at the time that it was hot, but power's been turned off since then. Here's the conditions as far as June 2026. You can see that this is from the north looking to the south outside the building. There used to be worm beds all along this area right here, so there has been substantial progress. Like I said in my presentation, the TRO is set to expire on July 15th. They've moved about half the product that they have to remove at this time. This is it, looking to the north and where it stands today. And again, this is just some of the egress paths looking to the north and the conditions of egress and the availability of it to get out of the building. Here's the photos looking over on the west side of the building and the dirt that they're churning over there through the operational process to remove it from the building. Again, you can see the egress pass. They have to be walked through, clearly marked as egress pass to get out of the building. So here we are today, the conditions then versus now, as kind of shown in the photos, but a little bit more timeline. July 2024, where we were. No certificate of occupancy. The building was partially collapsed, ordered a vacation of the property, boarded the building, Unsafe and dangerous structure or substandard building was, and the occupants were notified at that time, it was unsafe and dangerous structure. The plans were required to remodel and to occupy, and then multiple property maintenance violations, code violations were also noted. Excuse me. Where we're at in June 2026, again, no certificate of occupancy. There's unfinished demo of the partially collapsed building. A vacation has been ordered of the property. The building has been boarded and an injunction was filed May 2026, which again expires on July 15th, so July 16th would allow for board up. Unsafe and dangerous structured substandard building still applies. Plans are still required to remodel and to occupy the building. Multiple property maintenance codes still exist today. And then there was a permit to shore up the building, which was completed. One-third of the new windows have been installed, roughly. Other than that, no significant work has been accomplished on the property to date. Key takeaways from this. are that there's been limited visible progress towards any structural repairs, any code compliance, any safe occupancy of the building, as well as no certificate of occupancy of the building. The issue before council is the condition of the structure, not the owner's business, not the owner's intention, because good intentions alone don't resolve these unsafe and dangerous conditions. Like I stated at the May 2026 meeting, we talked about the certificate of occupancy. A certificate of occupancy is required by Chapter 10 of the existing building code. to occupy the building as well as how it ties into the International Building Code in 111.1 and the change of occupancy which says a building or structure shall not be used or occupied and a change of occupancy of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy thereof as provided herein. So why this action is needed tonight for this resolution? It all boils down to public safety and compliance. This is an unsafe structure that remains occupied, the life safety systems are still not installed or operational, continued occupancy creates risk to occupants and responders, and then prior extensions have not resulted in compliance. Public safety concerns do not simply disappear because operations are being moved elsewhere. This is still considered an unsafe and dangerous structure by the city of Hutchinson Cove. What does this action do tonight? So this action for the order to raise a repair initiates a formal order by the governing body ordering the repair or removal of the buildings. This provides the property owner opportunity to protect public safety, requires the owner to act, and authorizes city enforcement. So the structure remains unsafe and dangerous. Council has an obligation to protect the health, public safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city of Hutchinson, Kansas. Formally, findings of the unsafe and dangerous structure. This provides the owner 60 days to commence repair or remove and diligently prosecute some work. It's authorized the city action if the owner fails to comply with the order. The owner's letter argues the owner submitted a letter today by their lawyer. We did not talk about that previously, but the owner submitted a letter by their lawyer today arguing that there was no opportunity for a cure. This resolution is precisely the mechanism that provides that opportunity. The order indicates to repair or raise. It does not foreclose the repair. It establishes the timeline and provides the owner another opportunity, which we've provided, to repair the structure and avoid any further city action. The pattern has been repeated. Again, deadlines have been set, time was extended, partial action stated, work has been stopped or reversed, and then unsafe conditions remain in the structure today. Another continuance simply repeats the same cycle that has existed with this building for years. The city must eventually move on from extensions to formal enforcement action. The pattern has consistently been notice, extensions, partial activity, work stoppages, unsafe conditions remain, and other continuance would just repeat that cycle. So staff's recommendation tonight and his recommendation... by the staff that the City Council accept and approve the resolution to order repair or demolition for the structures of 3405 East 4th Avenue in Hutchinson, Kansas, based on the extended timeline of noncompliance, the lack of sustained progress, and ongoing safety concerns. This recommendation is not based upon one missed deadline or a disagreement over occupancy classification. It is based upon years of documented noncompliance, repeated opportunities to correct these deficiencies, and the fact that the building remains unsafe and dangerous today. The request to continuance does not change these facts. Adoption of the resolution provides due process, establishes a clear legal framework moving forward, and allows the owner one final opportunity to repair or remove the structure while fulfilling the city's obligation to protect public safety. The question before council is not whether the owner intends to comply in the future. The question is whether the structure is unsafe and dangerous today. The evidence demonstrates that it is. Adoption of this resolution does not immediately demolish the building. Instead, it provides formal findings, establishes clear expectations, gives the owner 60 additional days to commence repairs and removal, and preserves due process while allowing the city to fulfill its obligation to protect the public safety if compliance does not occur. Tonight's resolution does not approve demolition because the owner failed to install a sprinkler system or because there is no certificate of occupancy. Tonight's resolution addresses whether the structure is unsafe and dangerous. If the resolution is adopted and the owner elects to repair the structure, the owner may submit plans and pursue permits in accordance with city adopted codes. The resolution simply establishes that an unsafe condition must be corrected or the structure has to be removed. I'll stand for any questions. Council, any questions?

Is the owner here or the person representing him, anybody here to represent?

I do not know if there's anybody here to represent tonight or not.

Do you have any questions for Jason? Not at this time, no.

I have a question. The permit to shore, when does that permit expire?

The shoring's complete, so the south end of the building is still shored at this moment, yes.

And then that included, you said about a third of the windows were fixed. Was that under the same permit?

Yes, before we stopped work. Okay.

Thank you.

My question is, under the TRO, no permit can be issued, correct? Yes. So if they came with a full set of plans or plans for partial repairs to be done, after that TRO expires, how can the city issue a permit, or would we? After the TRO expires and they come with a full set of plans, would we be willing to submit or... entertain that permit at that point or no.

So this is kind of a twofold line right now. I mean, we're dealing with the temporary restraining order, right? And that expires on July 15th, 2026. So we can technically board the building back up on July 16th. And so during that timeframe, that just, that temporary restraining order just allows him to go in there, feed the worms, remove his property, do those types of things. We still have this process that we fall into. with the resolution here tonight, which provides the additional 60 days to be able to provide plans and documentation to get that permit. So, yes.

So once that TRO expires, they could basically go, here's the full set of plans. We review those, because I know they're under review right now.

There's nothing under review. Well, no. Not by us. Yes.

Not by the city, but I know they're under review. And so the question is, that's my question. If they come with that after the TRO expires, then we can review those plans and proceed forward at that point if they come with all that information.

Yes, we would. Because we'd fall under this timeline, not necessarily the timeline of that TRO. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. I guess I need to understand where those plans are and who's reviewing them.

Yeah, that was my question. It seems like you have information that the rest of us don't, Scott. So can you share what plans you're referring to?

I think that would probably be something Mr. Razor would have to tell us about. Yes.

Okay.

Any further questions for me?

I don't have anything at this time.

Thank you.

Good evening. Good evening, sir. As my understanding, each of you have read the request from Attorney Ben Carmichael on behalf of Hutchinson Building LLC. We have not, Dan. No.

I've not seen that.

No. All right. Paul Brown told our attorney that it had been sent to each one of you and had been read.

Paul Brown did not. Well, where is that? I don't understand. I've got one. Yeah.

In the loop here. So regardless, I am here to formally put that on the record. I only have one copy in front of me right now.

You can give it to the clerk and she can share it with council.

Yeah. Is there any way somebody could go make us some copies?

You can have my copy. No, I think we can probably just look over that as Dan shares what he has.

If Evan Happy has paid for a complete plan to be – Fed and Happy has paid for complete plans to use the building as a worm farm. They were not submitted due to the TRO and restrictions on any construction. They have also been additionally submitted by our engineers for independent review of that work. The building department had previously made it clear that there is no urgent need to complete the work during a prior hearing. Work has already been paid for and we're ready to get started. Missing from tonight's presentation was the city's insistent for no construction at the TRO hearing. With that, there's currently an order barring all repair as demanded by the city of Hutchison. The due process is absolutely barred currently. Over $500,000 has been spent related to the building, most of which would not have been spent if approval was not going to happen. 2010 continues to be brought up, but 2010 was a very active process. It was approved by city council and full compliance within the city of Hutchinson. City staff was involved regarding the project on a daily basis. Former city manager has provided email regarding this as well. Related to where we're at, we're currently mitigating destruction costs of the worms and castings, but this still is happening at significant rates. Our process of moving to a new facility for the worms is in process with three different groups, none of which would be within Hutchison. We expect agreements from all three in the next 30 days. With this, a significant amount of time and investment has gone into the 3405 building based on the July 2025 staff report and direct feedback from council members. This money would not have been spent and instead the property would have been sold to one of the multiple suitors during the summer of 25 or the former KMS building would have been bought for expansion. Preliminary financing was already in place for the purchase of the building. But the corresponding new product sales were not quite in place at the time, and given the likely approval from staff, it was decided that the additional financial risk in expanding operations in Hutchinson wouldn't be the best use of resources at the time. The decision was solely based on the reliance of the City of Hutchinson. If approval was not going to be granted, money spent would have stopped and other options would have commenced. The removal agenda was based in July of 2025, was based on likely approval from the staff. When submitted, it was denied. The code footprint did not materially change from February of 25, June of 25, which was then presented to council in July, and then again when it was denied in March of 26. Since this process has started, our business has radically changed. Shipments of medical worms have started and a medical grade worm casting will start soon with additional processing commencing once we have a location figured out. Existing product on the existing it is for an existing product already on the market with consistent sales The order will add 15 jobs very via various entities at multiple buildings near worm castings to complete Our new agriculture blend performed very well in a hard wheat season corn acres are already showing strong health And we're doing this with less water nitrogen pesticides and herbicide than standard all resulting in healthier soil for both the farmer consumer ENVIRONMENT AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY ARE IN. New beds have not been built since 2024. The area that moves that has been shown in pictures that has changed in size is a staging area. We are limited on our exit from the building on one small garage door. We place the material in a staging area and then move it outside from there. During this, there were prior agreements that did not require additional requirements to destroy more worm beds until very recently. All egress doors were working and had been fixed. Egress paths have currently been blocked and not unlocked by the building inspector as court order provides. The egress plan that we had was submitted to the state fire marshal. Given the prior reliance, we're requesting 60 days delay in this action while a non-worm plan can be submitted for approval or the property can be sold to another developer. During this time, we will continue to remove worms and products.

Where are the plans at and who's reviewing them and why?

So they were ready to be submitted when the TRO, the city came to the hearing and demanded no construction during the TRO period. And so that put everything on hold.

So are you saying after the TRO, you'll submit these plans and then they're going to be approved by the city or? What? I mean, I have no idea if there'll be approved or not, but who's approving them now. Are they somewhere that you're having? So are these plans different than the other?

We are having them. So they are added to, they are, um, Laura England previously did the electrical. Um, we had to have an additional engineer go and complete the, the changes that the building department wanted. So that was completely done. Those are stamped. Um, The plumbing drawings were done, building drawings. So those drawings are done. They are being reviewed by an independent third party that our fire engineers had recommended.

And when are those going to be submitted? At the end of the temporary restraining order on the 16th?

Or, I mean... We're kind of feel like we're kind of in limbo on that aspect right now. I mean, without the construction, no construction, they would have been submitted when we said that they would have been submitted by the May 8th.

Can I ask a question for clarification? So the TRO, you're saying that the city requested no construction happen, but what you're saying is that you're not able to submit plans during this temporary restraining order period, which those aren't the same thing. So which is it?

The TRO calls specifically for no construction. No work can be done.

You can submit plans tomorrow. What's stopping you from submitting? The TRO is not stopping you from submitting the plans. Is that right?

I was advised to just hold on it given that the TRO called for it.

But not by the city. The city didn't say don't submit plans during the TRO. The court didn't say don't submit plans during the TRO. Is that correct?

It is not specifically in the TRO for no submissions.

So the TRO is shortening the timeline, but not in the same way as what you're describing. Because if this action moves forward and creates a 60-day period, that starts today. And the TRO is a totally separate timeline, which expires on June 15th.

Right. So if it starts today... We can't even, if there was an approval tomorrow, we can't actually do anything.

You requested the TRO.

Well, the city requested no construction. We requested access. The city demanded the no construction.

And you have access. The presentation and your letter both state that you've been removing stuff.

We have been removing.

And working to that. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify that those two things were very different. I felt like they were being misrepresented, so thank you for clarifying.

When did the TR go in place again? I'm sorry.

I believe it was May 6th.

Okay, so I had conversation, I don't remember who it was with, prior to that, that plans were going to be submitted on that Thursday or Friday, whatever day that was.

It was basically the same day.

So that's my question, the same thing as Council Member Goss, is like, okay, you have these plans. I think if it was my best interest, those plans would already be here. Like I would have submitted them already, so if I want to move forward, here's the plans. As soon as that TRO is gone, we can go to work. I mean, to me, that's the most logical thing I could do if I really want to move forward. So to answer my question, are the plans, are they done? They are done, yes. Full set of plans. They are a full set of plans. So are they, I mean, how long does the review take? Because it should have been done a month ago, if not farther along.

And I believe it will be within the next couple weeks. But I don't have a final. I mean, it is independent. So I don't have a final.

I hate to be that guy, but it's always another couple weeks.

I understand that.

And I mean, that's the whole thing. It's like I thought you would come tonight and go, hey, here's where we're at. Full set of plans will be submitted on this date. We're ready to go. But now it's just still. I'm just asking a question.

My question is, do you intend to do this?

We spent a whole lot of money expecting to do it and would not have spent that money if we didn't think that there was a likely approval. We're now working from a very different aspect than we were a year ago when the code footprint did not change. We have spent the money and have continued to spend money and had people lined up to do the work. I mean, fabrication costs for the structural, part of those fabrication costs were already incurred and have been paid for. So the answer is yes.

Scott, I have a question for you. Who were you communicating with about the plans? Because we were all instructed to not participate in exportate communication.

I was not talking with Dan. I can't remember who I was talking to, but I was not talking to Dan.

A staff member or was it a party from?

Probably would have been, I'm trying to remember.

Like someone from his?

No, nobody from his organization. I just, I got the information, I don't even know where I got the information, but I thought it was something due diligence on our part to follow up on it to go if it was actually a legit if there was an actual legit company working on this project. I couldn't even tell you how I got the information. But I followed up on it. They said yes. And so that's why I assumed we would have plans like a month and a half ago.

I do think that I believe I saw an email from one of our engineers, Tony Karam. I believe he sent an email to you that he'd completed.

That might have been. It's been a minute, so I can't remember 100% how that played out. I just assumed that's what you were coming tonight with.

I believe the engineer sent a direct.

I do believe. Stacey, I did hear from a contractor recently that stands to do a lot of work and make a lot of money off of this deal.

I mean, I don't know.

Council, do you have any more questions for Dan?

I guess just I'm just trying to clarify, Dan. So you have all of the plans, but they're under review to – because you had fire engineers That said you could do it one way. The city says it don't work that way, but you've got an independent one that's reviewing that, right? So that's what I'm. Okay. So then after that is done, do you intend to submit those to the city? Absolutely. Okay.

With their reports.

And I know how it is when you're engineers and this and that may take a while, but I mean, it's not just one stamp that we've received on this.

It's been multiple stamps and they've been denied and going back to 2010, I was there. The approval was given. It was in the city council minutes. Uh, chief Forbes was literally at that site every day. Um, He watched the concrete being poured at almost midnight for the backflow valve. And this was not something that was contentious like it is now. John Deardorff and Chief Forbes were incredibly involved. The only one that wasn't involved, I would say, would be Building Inspector Fairbanks. And part of it, I believe, is because he knew that Chief Forbes was there every day inspecting.

I have something that I would just want to point out. So I don't have any exhortation to report about this, but we did as a council. I believe all of council was included on this. I know I've gotten at least one email from somebody asking us to vote against condemnation tonight, which is the next agenda item. But I want to take a moment and speak to that, which I believe if we're separating the validity of the business that's contained in the building and the status of the building, I do understand that there's a valid business being run within the building, regardless of your intention to move it or not. And I believe that it's a benefit to the community. I think the Olive Council was enlightened during our I think it was summer of last year meeting where people from the agricultural community came and spoke in support of Fed and Happy. But the question really comes down to whether or not the building is safe to be operating within. And when we separate those two issues, holding you accountable truly is just for the condition of the building. So in your letter, you state Fed and Happy request the city continue the June 16 hearing and any resolution date for at least 60 days or to another mutually workable date and direct staff to provide a written itemized statement identifying goes on to identify a handful of items here. Sorry, I have your copy, Paul. But, I mean, that's essentially what this is doing, is this is finally putting the 60-day, starting the 60-day clock and saying, okay, now we're moving forward, and at the end of this, there is potentially consequences, which we've been through this process multiple, multiple times. So, I mean, moving forward and saying, And voting yes on the condemnation in the next couple of agenda items is essentially granting what you're asking for in this letter. You're asking for, and I don't know if all of these things are reasonable or not, but you're asking us to identify the work that you need to do, which that's not quite our job to do because that comes down to building code and fire marshals inspections and it doesn't all fall on city staff. It's your job to draft the plans and work with the fire marshal and all of that. It's our job to inspect and in the end give the certificate of occupancy. So I feel like You're asking for leniency verbally, but in your letter you're asking us to grant the 60-day period.

So the letter was from a legal analysis based on where some other items sit. It was from his analysis based on paperwork he had, not from... me asking that that was based on where he believes legally things that from asking for that 60 days as well. So, um, cause currently there is no repair that can happen for the next 30 days. Um, and no, I didn't ask for that to, to be barred.

I'm going to say that, you know, number one, I'm, I'm not, I wish we as a council would have got this letter ahead of time. And also, I wish we would have been notified that Mr. Razor's attorney was requesting a continuance on this for at least 60 days before we have another hearing because one of the things that I was thinking is we're under legal action with the temporary restraining order. I'm not sure. I'm concerned about taking action on this at this time. There is no problem with taking action, council member. The court herself said her order has nothing to do with the demolition proceeding before the city council. I just think if there's stuff, litigation going on, I don't know why we couldn't have gave them the 60-day extension.

Well, and I don't know why we weren't informed that a part of that temporary restraining order was I mean, you're, it's a stretch for me a little bit, Dan, here that you couldn't have submitted plans, but I had no idea that you couldn't work on the building. I mean, I would figure you got plans and I mean, I don't know why we would have put that in a temporary restraining order.

That was requested by the city of Hutchinson. That was not from us. I mean, that was the motion that was sent to the judge request.

I mean, these are things that make me curious. And now, now you can't do anything until July 16th anyway. Um, if you had your plans in hand right now.

So, I mean, I think that puts him at a little bit of a disadvantage because then... Well, and also, I mean, we rejected his plans, so now he's having them reviewed by an independent. I mean, that's going to take time.

But that's the responsibility of any business owner who's building a building or repairing a building. That's not a unique circumstance to him or to this building. I mean, that's not something special about this situation whatsoever. And the process that we are going through right now is granted to us by state statute. It is completely separate from the temporary restraining order. Right.

I just think if they were going to, you know, and I know they've been multiple continuances, but They're having their plans reviewed. I feel like we should have been aware of this and looked at at least continuing it for 60 days. I don't think that was going to hurt anything.

So what I'm hearing you guys say is that a 60-day continuation would be starting today, but then really if... what Mr. Razor is saying the contents of the temporary restraining order is, then the clock doesn't start until July 16th.

You didn't hear me say that.

When are we starting the... I mean, when are we...

When do we expect him to... Well, I mean, I would be in favor of of giving him an extension until July 16th.

This can be extended, though. We move forward on the next agenda item, the actual resolution of condemnation. That can also be extended.

Council, I don't mean to interrupt the deliberation at all, but I would request if Cody, our assistant city attorney, could step in and advise a little on this. I think it could be helpful for you all. All right. Thanks. Okay, Cody.

Well, real quick to respond to a couple of things. With respect to the letter, I believe we just received that this morning. So this wasn't something that the city was sitting on. And I think this has been a pattern, Mr. Razor, of waiting to the last minute to try to do something before a council meeting. Additionally, to be clear, Council Member Goss brought this up, but the TRO absolutely did not bar any type of plans being submitted. It was only for the construction, the actual construction, because it was a safety issue. The court wanted him to focus on getting the worms out of the building, that that was the primary consideration at that time. And with respect to the argument that he spent money, I don't believe the city has any documentation that any money has been spent on this property. So I think at this point it's hard to believe whether or not those statements are accurate. But with respect to the continuance, Mayor and Council, I mean, staff strongly urges you not to grant that. It's not a case where the owner has been surprised. This is not a case where the owner has just learned what the city's concerns are, and this is not a case where 60 more days is likely to change the condition of the structure. The record shows exactly the opposite. The city has been dealing with code, occupancy, fire protection, and structural safety issues at this property for years. The current use has never had a certificate of occupancy. The building has never been identified as unsafe and dangerous, or it has now been identified as unsafe and dangerous. There's structural hazards, life safety issues, and the owner's been told repeatedly that the building cannot continue to be occupied and operated in this condition. He's had time. He's had notice. He's had meetings. He's had attorneys, multiple attorneys now. He's had permits. He's had extensions. He had an appeal. He lost that appeal before the Building Trades Board, and after all that, the city still does not have a complete current approved plan to bring this structure into compliance. That matters because a continuance is not supposed to be a reward for delay. When we have continuances in court, there needs to be some evidence shown to the court in order to grant that continuance to show that it's going to have something productive with respect to the case. And here we're not seeing anything productive with respect to this case with the continuance. It's just the same request that's been made over and over again and yet nothing has been done about it. That matters. Additionally, because it would simply add 60 days to a history of missed deadlines and incomplete action. With what his ask is just give me more time, but the record shows that more time has already been given for several years now. The problem is not that the city has failed to give him an opportunity. The problem is that all the opportunities that have been given thus far have not produced any compliance. As far as due process goes, there is no due process reason here to continue this matter because I believe Council Member Goss stated it today is the due process hearing. The owner is here. He's had the ability to appear, present evidence, explain his position, and show cause why the structure should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished. That's what these hearings are for. The city puts on its evidence to show the structure is dangerous, and then the owner comes up and shows evidence why it's not. That's not what we have here today from the owner. We have here basically an acknowledgment that it needs to be fixed, yet he still hasn't done it, and he hasn't even produced any plans to get to that point. If council adopts a resolution tonight, additionally, that does not mean a bulldozer is going to show up tomorrow. The dangerous structure process itself provides that reasonable time for repair and removal to commence. So what staff is asking council to reject is not due process. Staff is asking council to reject basically these indefinite delays. Because at this point, for staff, that's what it seems like. We've continued this over and over again. He's been given multiple chances to show some semblance of progress, and we continually don't have that. I believe at the May 5th hearing, the owner said he would have the plans within five days. Well, where did they go? Why don't we have the plans yet? It's just the same story over and over again. And the problem with this, because we're dealing with a dangerous structure, is it's putting the city in a position of liability. Because we are fully aware that this structure is dangerous. Yet at this point, it seems like we're prioritizing profits over the safety of people. His concern is I'll lose money. But the city's concern is people could lose their lives. There's another building next to this building. If something happens with this one in terms of catching on fire, that building catches on fire, which, by the way, that building is fully compliant with the law. How fair is that to that building owner to lose his or her property and possibly the people in their lives to be put in danger simply because we have an individual here that just is worried about his profits? The fairest thing the council can do tonight is to proceed, hear the evidence, make the findings, set a reasonable compliance period in the resolution, and require the owner to finally do what every other property owner in these positions have to do. There's going to be some other ones tonight. Are we going to set a standard or precedence to allow them to get a continuance over and over again? Because I don't think we've practiced that in the past. And so, again, we get an issue of fairness. Are we giving this individual special treatment compared to everyone else? So for those reasons, staff is recommending denial of the continuance. Again, it's not saying the building is going down, but we need procedurally to have the council approve the resolution that's coming up so that we can really put some teeth into making sure we move this process forward and we don't continue with the indefinite delay. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a couple of things that I was planning to say and now I don't have to say them. One of the things that I do want to point out that I think kind of turns this situation and makes it harder for us to separate the company from the building issue is that the company was operating within the building, albeit without a certificate of occupancy, and then the building was made even more unsafe and structurally unsound because that south half of the building that south wall collapsed. And that truly was the catalyst for this building because that's what drew a lot of attention to it. I mean, it was an eyesore from driving by. Anybody could see that half this building had fallen in. And I think that is really the jumping off point. But if we flip the narrative and if that building were empty in its current state, Mr. Razor or anybody for that matter we're coming before council and saying hey Here's this building and I want to open up a business in it and it's in this condition Points of egress issues electrical issues no working bathrooms at least Recently that I can recall you would probably stay here and say absolutely not this building is not fit for people to be in let alone for Somebody to open up a business where they have other people coming in on their payroll and etc so I encourage council to think about it in that way because for me that's kind of the perspective that I think changed my mind in thinking about this because we are holding all business owners, all property owners to the same building code, to the same standard. It is the same for everybody. And although I know at one point last year something that came up was what's council or what's the city's liability in allowing the business to continue operating in such a substandard condition. And we were told that essentially that there would be no liability to council or to the city. But I think just moving forward, that becomes more questionable. I just finished a book called The Radium Girls about workplace conditions, and there's a real... life safety issue here. And I know that that has been brought up multiple times by Mr. Lady in all of his reports. And for a while, it was easy to kind of say, well, maybe there's an argument to be had that progress is being made. But at this point, and we're now months and months deep into this conversation, I don't think 60 days is going to change that conversation. There's still a life safety issue. And for me, the condemnation is clear and needs to occur.

All right. Council, any more comments? Any more comments from the public on this agenda item? Okay. If not, I would just need a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Next item.

Item 7B, public hearing to consider condemnation of unsafe and dangerous structures.

I'll make a motion to open a public hearing.

Second. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Good evening again, City Council, Jason Lady, Building Official. So before you tonight is a five residential hearing on five residential structures. So it's recommended that the city council consider adopting resolutions establishing orders for the repair or demolition of structures deemed unsafe and dangerous by the city building official at the following locations. Those locations, as presented to you tonight, are going to be 315 Justice Street. 1701 East 3rd Avenue, 300 North Town Street, 2700 Leonard Avenue, and 1500 West 12th. Each structure has been listed and has been determined through the inspection and code enforcement process to present significant health, safety, and structural hazards and remains in violations of applicable city codes. Formal adoption of these resolutions will authorize the city to move forward with full enforcement actions, including demolition as necessary. At its regular meeting on May 5th, 2026, the City Council approved a resolution, 2026 R17, setting a public hearing for today, June 16th, 2026. The purpose of this hearing is to consider evidence presented by City staff regarding the conditions of certain structures as identified above and the justification declaring the structures to be unsafe. Public notices regarding this hearing were sent to each property owner via certified mail. The structures in question have been subject to ongoing property maintenance issues, including but not limited to structural deterioration, roof and wall instability, open and unsecure access points, code violations that are related to health, safety, and haveability of the structures. We'll get into the slide presentation as it sits before you tonight and get into these properties, the 315 Justice being the first one. Again, with recent activity, staff has made attempts to contact the owner with no response to date. Staff mailed certified letters for enforcement of this hearing. The property condition as it sits today, the residence has currently been vacant since 2018. PMC was opened in 2-27-2026 on this. Building permit for siding windows and framing were reviewed and approved, but they expired with no inspections on 4-15-2026, but this also didn't address the condition of the structure itself. There was fire damage to this structure, so this structure hasn't been addressed fully as it is. There's 12 property maintenance violations since 2018. It was boarded up in 2025. There's no active utilities on this structure since before 2018. And the reason it says since before 2018 is documentation in our current system only goes back that far. So if we look at when the shutoff was, we could tell in the system it was shutoff prior to 2018. And the property taxes on this are current.

Can I ask a question about this? Yes. About justice. So under recent activity, it says that staffs made contact, made attempt to make contact with the owner, no response to date. But then there's a building permit from this year. So who would have submitted the building permit?

The building permit is from the PMC was open this year. That building permit is RR20. That was actually a 2020 permit.

Oh, okay. So you guys, so the...

It expired and, well, I'm going to take that back. That would have been a 2024 permit. Sorry, that's, or 25 permit. That's a typo. But it did expire in 4-15-2026.

Okay, so is it that none of that work was completed or you guys were just never alerted that it was completed and asked to come do an inspection?

We've never been asked to come do an inspection. And when we've never been come asked to do an inspection, the work's been completed with no inspections. The building permit obviously has been issued. They know the inspections have to happen. We haven't done those. And there's been no other... conversations except for the work's been completed. And we know that the work's been completed just visually, not through contact with the owner.

Right, because that looks like new doors and windows.

Yes.

Okay, thank you. I was confused on that.

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate that. So our next one, 1703. 1701 Eastern. So staff met with the owner on site to discuss plans for the remodel on June 2nd, 2026. Plans were received on June 9th, 2026 for initial review. There is not a permit today. They were received by myself. I made contact with the property owner and the property owner made contact back with me, submitted some plans for review, asked if these plans would be acceptable for review. There were some further things identified at that time, and the property owner has intentions of completing this project. But the point is that even though they state that they have contractors and subcontractors in place to perform the work, no permits have been submitted to date. And as such, we still hold the property as an unsafe and dangerous condition. And when we get the plans, it goes through the review process, it goes through the construction process and the remodel process, and we complete the work and it comes off that list. The resolution is really just, again, hold the owner accountable to making the repairs or it continues to stay on the demolition list until there's a work stoppage, permits expire, and we go forward with the condemnation.

Question. That house is still delinquent on property taxes since 23?

Yes, it is. It is. And I just checked that on Friday. Okay. So the residence is currently vacant. PMC was opened on this one in 5-19-2025. There's a current PMC on this and our current files of 227. That's the day it was changed over from old system to our new system. There are nine property maintenance violations on this since 2018. There's a board up in May of 2025, and then there's been no active utilities on this since 2019.

I have a question. Can you go back to the one on third?

Yes.

Do you know the, um, the current owners, how long they've owned this property?

They just brought about this property this year, this year.

Okay.

Yes.

Cause the, I just pulled up that tax report and it showed a different name on it. So I was wondering why it was. Yes.

They bought that property this year. Uh, when we submitted this over to, for title, um, This is everything that it came back with. Thank you. 300 North Town Street. Staff again has made contact with the owners with no response to date. Again, certified letters were mailed for this hearing. Again, the property is currently vacant. There was some conversation with the owner prior to the hearing dates, but at this point there's been nothing at this time. And then there's no activity on the utility since May 13, 2026, and this was owner initiated. So I believe it came up on the condemnation list. We set the hearing, and then the owner shut off the utilities. There was some discussion in the past, and I don't know the extent of the discussion fully, but my understanding of the discussion was the owner had no intention on completing a project at this residence, and that was the reason for the utility shut off. and that they're okay with the city going forward and moving forward with condemnation on this property. Can't speak to that fully, but that was my understanding of a previous conversation. And taxes are delinquent for 2025. The last one, 2700 Leonard Avenue. Actually, the next last one, 2700 Leonard Avenue. Staff again has made multiple attempts to contact the owner with no response to date. Staff mailed a certified letter for enforcement of the hearing, and they've been returned. So there's been no contact with the owner. The residence is currently vacant. PMC was opened in February 27th of this year. There's been 11 property maintenance violations since 18. It was boarded up in 2025. There's no active utilities again on this since before 2018. Delinquent since 2022 on the property tax, and there's also abatement fees on this property in the amount of $5,512.08. Any questions on this one? And then the last one, 1500 West 12th. This was dismissed from court in December of 12th of 2025 and reopened as a condemnation. There was no progress being made through the municipal court system with this property. We requested the judge remove it from any proceedings. The judge did, and we proceeded forward with the condemnation process. Staff has made attempts to contact the owner again with no response to date, mailed the certified letters. They have been returned for this property as well. The residence has been vacant since 2022. It is believed that the owner may be possibly living there at this time. There's fire damage to the interior of the structure as of May 2023. There was a PMC open on this property in September of 2023. The current PMC in our current system as that's been rolled over is 227-2026, and that was just to provide the case information there. Property maintenance has had 14 violations since 2017. There was a board up in May of 2023. We also completed a second board up in August of 2023. There's been no active utilities on the structure since 2022, and taxes have been delinquent since 2024. I'll stand for questions on any of these properties.

The West 12th property, do you know, it looks like they have a fairly new roof on that property. Do you know when that was pulled?

I do not know when that roof was put on there. I did not see any active permits or any permits in the system. So it could have been done without a permit.

Stacey, you took about 1,500 West 12th? Yeah. I don't know about the roof, but I can tell you the inside's terrible. Yeah.

So I wouldn't know what the date of that roof is, whether it was completed with a permit or without a permit.

Yeah. But I know sometimes that's indicative of somebody intends to do something inside because, of course, you're not going to do anything inside if it's not sound on top. So maybe that's not the case here.

Council, any more questions about these five properties? Yes.

I was going to say the only one, the one that just got new owners.

Yes. I was checking to see if there's anybody here to speak on that, on any of these properties, I guess, to start with.

Well, I guess my concern is, do we want to leave that one on this list, or do we give those people, I mean, they bought it June 9th, or you talked to them June 9th. Do we give them, before we just vote on that one, do we? Give them more time and work with them.

And typically the property maintenance violations, they continue with the owner regardless of ownership. Right.

But if you just purchased it, you know, it's going to take a little time to get it going.

Sure. And we've had conversations with those owners to say we're still going to present this at council. And they understood that we were going to present this at council with the understanding of, hey, we're submitting plans. Right. City staff is going to continue to work with us. As Cody alluded to earlier, if 60 days is up, we're not showing up with a bulldozer the next day. If a resolution is approved tonight, we're not showing up with one tomorrow. We're continuing to work with individuals to move through that process. We've got 20... Well, with the ones that are going to be coming at the beginning of July, we'll have 20 condemnations for residential properties here. And those are going to take time also to go through that process, to actually go through the demolition process, not just. So if someone were to come forward, and I would say this process is working in the third set, no, in the second set. that are brought to council, we have four that are actively pursuing, out of the five, we have four that are actively pursuing getting remodels done on the property. So I would say this is working, and that's what we need. I mean, we have 1,000 units throughout the county that have been identified. We need 1,000 units, and that includes our existing housing stock. So if we have this existing housing stock and we're going through this condemnation process and we have these orders to either raise or repair, then it's producing results. If we condemn 40 properties throughout a year, just throwing a number out there, if we condemn 40 properties throughout a year and 30 of them get fixed, we're adding to that housing stock with what we already have in the city. So I think it's working, and we've had conversations with these owners, and these owners understood that that would continue to be on the condemnation list, and then if any time work stopped, permits expired, we'd have that conversation again. If they couldn't get anything in place at that time, then they understood that we would move forward with the condemnation.

And Darren, I think from a policy level standpoint, it gives staff a clear understanding that we expect these to continue to be monitored because if we do take a parcel off of the list, just like we did with the worm farm, for instance, then I think that's where... council's expectation becomes a little muddied of, okay, so does council want staff to move forward with accountability? Do they want a 60-day timeline to still be held, too? Or is there a different timeline or a different expectation? So for me, I agree with Mr. Lady's assessment that leaving these properties on gives staff a clear direction of, how to proceed, and I think it also removes some of the question from the owners, too. If I were an owner, you know that you have a very formal condemnation to work with.

Thank you. Any other questions from council on these? Any comments from the audience?

No? Okay. I move to close the hearing. I'll second it.

Truman?

Yes.

Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes. Bass? Yes. Magers?

Yes. Next item.

Item 7C, public hearing regarding Meadows on Monroe.

Need a motion? I'll move to open the public hearing. Second.

Druin? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes. Good evening, Council. Matt Williams, Director of Community Development. The development agreement and related SPD resolution associated with this development plan for the meadows on Monroe RHID are still being finalized by the development team in coordination with our bond council and our legal council. And so we're going to be asking you to continue this hearing to the next meeting on July 7th tonight. So that's our recommended action. So moved.

Okay. I'm here to close the hearing.

Okay. To continue the hearing?

Yeah, to continue the hearing until next week. Until, what did you say?

July 7th. July 7th. Continue until July 7th.

I'll second it.

Druin?

Yes.

Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes.

Can we take a break?

Yes, let's take a, if we take a five-minute break, a six-minute break, we're back at 725.

Mr. Magers, we need to close the hearing.

I move to close the hearing. Second.

Truing? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Magers? Yes.

We don't need to close the hearing.

. . Thank you.

All right, I'd like to call the meeting back to order. Mary, next item.

Item number eight, ordinances and resolutions. A, consider a resolution regarding condemnation of unsafe and dangerous structure, 3405 East 4th Avenue.

Jason, are you speaking on this again or? I'm just asking if you have any more to add on this item. You had a lot on the last one, so I didn't know if you still had something.

No, I have nothing to add to it, unless you have any specific questions before you vote on the resolution.

Not the next one, yeah.

Council, any more questions on this item? No.

Anyone from the audience have another comment on this item? The resolution on 3405 East 4th? Okay. If not, I guess I need a motion.

I move to approve an ordinance regarding condemnation of unsafe and dangerous structure 3405 East 4th Avenue and authorize the mayor to sign. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, that's the one I meant to read.

I just need a second if there is one. I'll second that.

Druin?

No.

Garza?

Yes.

Goss? Yes. Bass? Yes. Magers?

No.

Item 8B, consider resolution condemning unsafe and dangerous structures within the City of Hutchinson, 315 Justice Street, 1701 East 3rd Avenue, 300 North Town Street, 2700 Leonard Avenue, and 1500 West 12th Avenue.

Do you have anything you'd like to add on these, Jason?

No. I have nothing to add at the moment. No.

Is there anyone in the audience like to speak on these items?

No. No.

Good evening, council. I have the owner for 315.

Justice, I just met her. She did not know what the paper was stating because she needed it translated. And so I'm asking the council in the city of Hutchinson to provide the option to have information disclosed in Spanish in a language that they understand so that they can move forward and understand the process.

So I think we probably should probably pull this one off so they can get the proper documentation so they understand.

Mayor, which property does this involve?

This is the one on 1500 West 12th. Is that it?

315 Justice. Sorry, 315 Justice.

That's what I thought it was.

Respectfully, I disagree. I think that we should move forward with keeping the property on simply because of the condition of the property. I believe that the language barrier does create an additional burden on our part, which I believe we can accommodate. But I feel most comfortable keeping the property on the condemnation list simply so that staff is able to track progress in the same manner that they're tracking the progress for all of the other 40 properties. And you can take your time to explain that.

She said she's been paying taxes in the water bill as well. She said she's been paying taxes in the water bill as well. Not the water bill. ¿Cuál era? ¿Eléctrico, gas?

No, la luz sí se paga.

Electricity was being paid, not water.

Pero sí entiende que la razón por qué quieren dejarlo en la lista es para que puedan comunicar con usted en español lo que se necesita y requiere para poder seguir adelante, para no condenarla.

They said that they pulled permits until August, but then they received this letter. And so then they are concerned as to what was needed or if they can continue to work on it with that permit that was pulled that they have until August.

Can Jason come up and speak to that and you can translate back? Would that be okay?

Sure.

Okay.

So the permit in the system shows it expired on April 15th, 2026. So that's what we have currently in the system. So, it expired.

So, it expired. She was told that this one had expired and then they had continued to work on it and receive an extension until August.

Her daughter called the city and that's where she received that information until August.

Okay. Do we know who her daughter spoke with?

She said the person that pulls the permits at the city. She is unsure.

Yeah, and staff's direction is to not extend any permits without my authorization, so I don't know why it would have been extended. It doesn't show in the system that it's been extended. There was no update into the system, and usually when there's an update in the system of an extension, then staff puts that in there and Makes the extension known. I mean, we still have in this course, we still have the due process. They still have the 60 days. They still got the capability to come in and talk and walk through it. And we still get to the end result the same.

And she agreed.

Either way in this case, you know.

I explained, I translated what Stacey, what Councilwoman Stacey said and She's okay with that. She understands the reasoning for continuing it. I'm keeping it on the condemnation list so long as there's communication to be able to understand the process.

Okay. Jason, how many staff members do we have that would field that call? We have... I just want to make sure nothing's slipping through the cracks, I guess.

No, I agree. And I'm not saying nothing slips through the cracks. But four that could, I mean, you've got the two code compliance officers that could extend something like this, but typically not. They would send it back up front to Christy and have her do it, being the permit technician. But I think it would go back up front to permit technicians. And so, I mean, I would narrow it down to one, but not saying that there couldn't have been more involved in the process, yeah.

The other thing I've got to say, Jason, you said not to blame them. They understood. Did you have a Spanish-speaking person to them out there when you talked to them about understanding

I do not know that answer. I was not there. I was not present.

The daughter called in, right? Yeah. So I assume that's what you thought they understood by, right? Right?

The daughter did.

Yeah. So her daughter was supposed... Maybe her daughter said she understood, and maybe she's supposed to tell her mom or dad... You understand what I'm saying?

And it sounds like that contact was made over the telephone? Yes, correct.

And again, I think just with communication, it should be with adults, right? Because if we have children translating, things get lost and interpretations or misinterpretations. So I think just that piece of it is important.

So I just, for myself, I just want to make sure it's clear she understands what's happening tonight and completely. Okay.

So the question I have, do they intend... to work on it because there has been no work over there for several years.

And that's the new one. She's saying, is it demolished after this meeting? And I said, no, correct?

Yes, it's not.

No, there's a 60-day. Did we put a 30 or 60-day? I think we put a 30-day in this one.

Do you have that resolution in front of you? My apologies.

There's no date.

But there's still a 30-day process for them to come in, and there's a time frame in the documentation which says come in with the next 30 days and present plans and all that, and we'll help walk them through the process completely.

Okay. Dice que aunque pasa aquí en esta lista de condenación, no quiere decir que la van a demoler. Quiere decir que tiene 30 días de hoy para poder hacer algo en la casa. Le van a dar pasos y dirección para poder hacer lo que necesita hacer si quiere salvar la casa.

Pero, por ejemplo, 30 días, pero si no puedo en 30 días, ¿qué pasa?

She's asking what would happen if she couldn't do it in 30 days.

It's not that the construction would have to be complete within 30 days or the work would have to, we just need that communication, a set of plans and then start having that discussion and then there would be a reasonable expectation that if They did pull a permit. They have 180 days from the time they pulled the permit. And if the permit expires again, then we would have the 30 days from that time frame to demolish the house if they could not continue.

And Esmeralda, it would be worth sharing too that we've placed properties on the condemnation list in the past. And if they've made substantial progress or like real good faith efforts, we've pulled them off. And so just for her comfort in knowing that we're going to work with her. So if she showed progress, we'll work with her on that.

I would further say, why don't we just pull this off? There's clearly an ongoing problem with Spanish-speaking folks and the interaction they have with our city. I think that that would be a better thing to pull it off and revisit this with the next batch if there's no progress.

I would agree, because I was under the impression that these were 60 days, but this one is 30 days. All of these are 30 days.

Yeah, let's just put that on hold, put it with the next batch, and see where we're at. I think the intentions are good, and I think it's on us to be sure we're communicating properly.

What I wanted to say is that even if it's on the list, it doesn't mean that there won't be progress. If you see progress, there have been times when they take it off the list and you can continue with the construction. It doesn't mean that in 30 days it has to be finished. But right now what the FAST member just said is that he wants to take it off the list so he can have that communication with you. para que no se preocupe por eso hasta que tenga la oportunidad de ofrecer plan y comunicar con ellos lo que va a hacer con la casa.

Sí, nosotros ya habíamos empezado a trabajar en la casa pero se nos complicaron las cosas porque My daughter was diagnosed with cancer in stage 4, so that's what stopped us. And also because we live in Colorado. But it has always been our intention to repair the house, but if it's not possible or they have another option, Okay.

Okay.

She stated that because they are in Colorado, they have every intention of working on the house. And then their daughter was diagnosed with stage four cancer. And so since then, they've been working and trying to ensure that they could facilitate not just the conversation, but being able to uphold the house and bring it to a standard that is livable.

Jason, what's their next step? I know that permit expired. What would they need to do to get that permit reinstated, I guess?

Or how to have it inspected to show that the work was completed.

Whatever would be the next step, I guess.

Yeah, I mean, the next steps would just be submitting for a permit and then completing the work and having the inspections done in the meantime. Okay.

And so the permit that expired in April, is there a way to have that permit inspected?

That's in our old system. We would just put it... I mean, we would still inspect the windows and make sure that they're compliant and... you know, the things that were already installed because it's siding, doors, windows. There might have been a little bit of framing done inside, but I'm sure we can...

So they can have that permit inspected without having to pull another permit?

No, they'd still have to be able to pull another permit within the new system because this system is no longer, these permits are no longer accessible to us as of July.

It's not July yet?

It's pretty close. And I don't think we're going to have to work.

I mean, it was eight weeks ago. You don't have, we don't have a record of what permits we issued eight weeks ago.

No, we have a record of what permits we issued eight weeks ago, but the stuff that needs to be done to this house to make it compliant would not be compliant with the inspections that we're going to complete. So be better off just to pull the new permit and the new system and then go through the entire inspection process.

And the plans that were used for that permit that was pulled in 2025 can be resubmitted if she has access to them?

There probably was no plans. I mean, the work is pretty minimal for the most part. Okay. I mean, as long as it's prescriptive methods of the code and framing and the work that's being done, then the inspectors would just go out and inspect it as long as there's nothing structural that an engineer needed to do.

Okay. Esmeralda, can you ask if they live in town currently? Okay, so I would recommend that you have a meeting with city staff before you leave town, like this week, so that you can understand how to move forward and what work you need to get started on.

Ella recomiende que platique con alguien en la ciudad, como el señor aquí, antes de que se vaya. ¿Va a estar aquí esta semana o cuando se va a ir de regreso a Colorado?

She's able to meet tomorrow morning with someone if someone would be able to communicate that process to her.

Yeah. Yeah, a vowel in the utility billing department is bilingual. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thanks, Esmeralda. So let's remove the 315 justice. All counsel is okay with that?

Yes.

Okay, then I would just need a motion on that, excluding 315 Justice. I'll make a motion to approve a resolution condemning unsafe and dangerous structures within the city of Hutchison at 1701 East 3rd Avenue, 300 North Town Street, 2700 Leonard Avenue, and 1500 West 12th, and authorize the mayor to sign.

Second. Second. Truen? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes. Next item.

Item number 9A, consider approval of development agreement between City of Hutchinson and Takako.

ANGELA RICHARD, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTCHISON AND TACACO. THEY WILL BE EXPANDING OPERATIONS AND ADDING MACHINES TO THEIR FACILITY AND THEY ANTICIPATE TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 15 NEW JOBS. These jobs will start at a minimum of $18 per hour and include multiple benefits, including health insurance. According to our job incentive policy, they would be eligible for $1,000 for each job created. The development agreement would expire in 2031. I do also want to note that the Director of Strategic Growth is going to work on revising our job incentive policy policy like you had requested and he will likely be reaching out to the chamber for guidance as well. So that is in the process. But this agreement reflects our current job incentive policy. The chamber as well as a representative from Takako are here tonight if you have questions.

Council, any questions? I don't have any questions.

I would have hoped that this request came after We had a chance to discuss changing the incentive packages. I think, I don't know, in March we talked about, or I mentioned that it would be nice to change our incentive package, and it was mentioned that the the county and the chamber would need to be in on all of it. And we just haven't made that happen yet. I think the bar is set pretty low when we consider Alice wages in the community. And I want our residents to earn a living wage and then some. I think the benefits package in this is nice, but at $18 an hour, when you consider taking out benefits and taking out dental and vision and health insurance and all of that, it adds up pretty quick and it eats into your budget really quick. It makes it hard to raise a family on.

Well, I think that we've had a company come and ask us to use a policy that we're currently using. I don't see any reason not to grant that. They're going to have 15 new jobs. I understand. But, Stacy, these things could take months to work out. I don't know. Has the county even done anything with theirs yet?

They did not approve Superior's last one.

Yeah, I know they didn't approve that one. They have a letter of intent.

We have a letter or they have a letter?

The county has a letter of intent.

With Takaka, from Takaka.

Okay. Any more comments from council? Questions? Questions or comments from the audience?

Good evening, Smallville City Council, for tonight at least. My name is Lauren Storm. I'm with Greater Hutch Economic Development Partnership for both City of Hutchinson and Reno County. And we've worked closely with Tocco and with city staff to develop this agreement and just wanted the opportunity to give you a little more background and context. With me, I have Bill Coonsey, Vice President with Tocco America Company, Inc., And while starting wage might be at 18 an hour, the jobs that are added can range up to 22 plus an hour. Their hiring process kind of accounts for that entry-level wage, a vetting, kind of a viability period, and then quickly moving and assessing those employees up through possibilities and potentials through their company. They are growing very quickly and have a need for these positions, so they've already actively started hiring. The Chamber admitted a letter of intent both to Reno County and to City of Hutchinson on April 1st. And so we look forward to those discussions about wages and kind of assessing that against the growing needs of our economy and our workforce as it is. But I'm not going to take all of Bill's thunder. He is the expert. But I wanted to just let you know that Takako America Company has had its U.S. headquarters in Hutchinson Since 1990, yet another great example of a longstanding company and an exporter in our industrial makeup. And they were the first in the world to mass produce component parts for axial piston pumps to be provided to OEMs or the original equipment manufacturer. And in addition to Hutchinson, they have locations in Singha, Kyoto, and Vietnam. So to talk a little bit more about benefits provided and some of their plans and growth right now, I want to pass it over to Bill.

Thank you, Lauren. Thank you, City Council. I do want to address Stacey's thing. $18 is actually what's in your agreement, policy, correct? And we actually start higher than that. Our minimum wage right now is 19 to start. And we have a very aggressive race schedule at our place. We do start people out as temporaries to vet, as she said. And within 90 days, if they've proven they're capable of doing the job and doing it properly, and sometimes before that, we hire them onto our payroll. After the first month, you get a 20 cent raise. Second month, a 20 cent raise. The third month, a 20 cent raise. And every three months after that, you continue to get an automatic 20 cent raise. So after your first year of starting, you're already making $1.20 more an hour than what you started at. And after two years, you're $2 more an hour than what you started at. Typically, bring a man at 19. Up to 24 25 depending on what skill level they're at. We typically hire When we put them on our payroll anywhere from 50 cent 50 cents to a dollar more than what that original temp wage was And with the turnover nowadays, i'm sure anybody in here can attest. You just don't know what you're getting. So you really have to See if the person is really dedicated to doing the job and then we reward them according to what they do um talking about our our um Health insurance, there is some of that that comes out of the employee's pocket, but we pay 80% of it. We cover eye, we cover dental, health, prescriptions, all that type of stuff. We carry life insurance on all of our employees. It's a double indemnity. We have short-term, long-term disability. We have eyeglass program. We have shoe program. That company pays almost all of that for them. We have a 401 matching that's dollar for dollar up to 6%. So it's not all about what's just happening right now, it's about what can we do for you in the future. And we've had literally people retire there that are millionaires from working on our shop floor after being there over 25 years. We do have for 12 paid holidays a year. We have seven normal, and then we have five floating holidays that we provide. I'm sorry, six floating holidays for our employees. So they get the whole week of Christmas off. They get all of Thanksgiving and then all the major holidays. What else we got? And that's about it for right now, but. I do appreciate you guys entertaining this and hopefully entering into an agreement with us to do this. We are in dire need of employees. We can use 10 to 20 right now. As she mentioned earlier, we've already hired some. We put four onto our payroll last month. We've got two or three more that are going to be coming onto our payroll next month, and it's just going to be a progressive process until we get all the positions filled. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions, council?

One question. Is your people, the people he called people, the one coming to apply for jobs with you, do they have to have some kind of skills or will you train them?

We train, completely train from scratch. We can take, no disrespect, we can take a fast food worker that doesn't know anything about manufacturing and train them from ground floor up. We have a very extensive training program where there's many documents that they have to go through, as well as actual on-the-job training and prove proficiency to their trainer and then to the supervisors.

Well, I just have to say thanks for the investment into our community. We really appreciate that. If there's no other questions, then I'm looking for a motion.

I move to approve. development agreement between the city of Hutchinson and Takako and authorize the mayor to sign.

Second. Truin? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes.

Magers? Yes. Thank you all. Thank you. Next item.

Item number 9B, Woody Seat Update.

Evening Council. Cecil Weibel, Director of Public Works. I've got a Evan Patterson and Brian Shores with us from JEO. We're going to do a quick update on what's been going on with Woody's Seat and what we're expecting in the next couple weeks. So just a little bit of background. The Woody's Seat project's been going on now for a while. Phase one originally started construction in 2023 and was completed in 2024. That phase, we were doing a mill and overlay from... Just south of the Arkansas Bridge to Avenue C Bridge was the city's portion of that. We were doing that in conjunction with Reno County. They were doing an overlay and repairs on the actual Arkansas River Bridge. That part of the process, the city's part, that was a split between Reno County and the city on different parts. It was about a $4 million project for Phase 1. Phase 2 scoping of that project was... A bit bigger. That was the phase in which we were actually tearing out the bridges at Avenue B, Avenue A, putting in the new roundabout, tearing out the on and off ramps, and pretty much changing the landscape in that neighborhood. That's when you could really start seeing differences happen. That project was about $3.6 million overall, and we had been doing that project now. We are pretty much... complete with that project as of February 2026 of that phase. There's still some small things, planting grass and seed going into that, but for the most part, that project's done. The final project on this part of ours is the Woody Seat Avenue C Bridge, which had to be done separately from the other two due to timing issues and getting some stuff worked out right away with the railroad. We had to have all that in place before we could actually start construction on the bridge. And after we got that going, the other project was already in place, so it started a bit later. But we are currently working on it now, and we are still projected to be complete by the end of this month. With that, I'm going to kind of turn it over to Evan to take us where we're going next. Sure.

Evan Patterson, city engineer. Back on May 21st, our construction inspector identified a problem, some surface defects with the concrete overlay on the bridge of Woody Seed. So that afternoon, city staff and the engineer of record, Brad Shores, met on site to review the conditions and assess what the city's options would be. We then set up a meeting It was the Memorial Day weekend so we didn't manage to meet until Tuesday the following week when we met with wildcat the contractor for the project to discuss the status of the overlay and Hear their proposals for remedying the problem they had proposed a a high weight high molecular weight methacrylate crack sealer as an alternative to milling the concrete overlay back down and re-pouring it. So after that, we met with our engineer, Brad Shores, and began collecting information from industry experts, the manufacturer's representatives, other people in the profession to understand what are the normal responses to a problem like this.

Brad can talk the specifics about what we collected.

Yeah, so this was a pretty unique situation. I do want to say that Wildcat has a good reputation. I mean, I've been doing bridges for 26 years and Usually when they get a job, you feel real good. And they're embarrassed. They've acknowledged that to me twice personally about what happened. And they have been a good partner, in my opinion, through this process. So maybe real quick, what is an overlay to a structural engineer? The concrete overlay is, for the users, it's the driving surface. But for us, it's one layer of protection to our slab and where our reinforcing and our rail structure is. So it's less structural. It's more protective. As Evan said, this is very unique. We've got guys that have inspected bridges for 30-plus years. They've never seen anything like this. I believe Wildcat, when they say they've never had one do this in 50 years. So we did a lot of talking to a lot of different people to kind of figure out what the path is here. And in addition to that, a combination of JEO and city staff chained the deck. That's an acoustic technique where you can pick up hidden delaminations, and we've sounded the entire deck, the entire overlay, and it's sound. We're not picking up any delaminations. Our initial conclusion was that we have a sound overlay that looks like crap. Pardon my language. And it was just not finished properly. And there's an explanation the contractor gave, and it was kind of basically the laborers did not do their job right. So we have evaluated a number of options, and we are recommending, because we believe we do have a sound overlay that does not look good, that was not finished properly, we're going to add, and Evan's gonna talk about the cost, the cost is zero, to the city, the contractor's going to add another epoxy overlay on top of this. So the finished product, from a driver perspective, when all of this is done, will look very good. You can go look at the Frank Hart Bridge, and actually you can go look at the woody seat over the Ark River Bridge. Both of those have the same kind of epoxy overlay on what was a much sounder concrete surface underneath. But we expect the finished product will look very good. You're actually going to get... a additional layer of protection. Instead of one, you can have two. And when we had kind of reached that initial conclusion, we knew we had one more opportunity for kind of a go, no-go decision here, which is part of the prep for that epoxy overlay. They do what's called a shot blast that's even heavier duty than a sandblast. And that was done yesterday. Very recently, I put eyes on it this morning, and that has kind of validated what our sounding of the overlay showed us, which is that we believe it is a sound overlay. It did not reveal hidden problems. We were fairly aggressive, had the contractor be fairly aggressive in the shot blast, and so we do even have more confirmation that we have a sound overlay. and that we have a good path forward here to do the multi-layer. I think Evan's got a little bit more and then we'll stand for questions.

So we had basically four options. The first option I usually call option zero which is you do nothing. The problem isn't serious enough and so you accept it as is. We immediately ruled that out because in this case having the kinds of voids on the surface that were still there would have been a massive issue during the freeze-thaw cycles in the winter. So we ruled out option zero. Option one was the first option proposed by the contractor, the high molecular weight methylcrylate crack sealer. I have to look at it every time because it's a lot of words. So we talked about that quite a bit. Brad actually talked to the technical people at the manufacturer of that. We realized that it wasn't quite appropriate for this application, so then we went to consider a much more common application, like Brad mentioned, the multi-layer polymer, which we do have a number of bridges around here. And then the fourth option is to mill it back down and overlay it. So after we had lots of feedback, we confirmed that the last two options, the multi-layer polymer and milling and re-replacing the concrete were both technically viable. We would get an acceptable product for both of those two options at no cost to the city. So then we began to look at any other differences between those two options. With the multi-layer polymer, we do have some temperature constraints, so we were a little worried about getting the work done in June. So we've actually scheduled some of it to start at 10 p.m. tomorrow night in order to stay below the temperatures that are the upper limits of when you can apply this material. But it looks like it has a fairly fast cure time, and we still think we can meet the original schedule of completing the work in June of this year. If we choose to mill an overlay, unfortunately, that presents much more of a schedule risk. The contractor, Wildcat, doesn't have their own milling equipment, so they would have to go and find a sub who could come and mill for them, and we'd be at the mercy of whatever schedule that subcontractor would have. There's still no cost to us, but we would be faced with the unenviable choice of either having to open up the bridge with a not great-looking surface and then wait until we were able to partially close it later on or leave the project closed beyond the deadline. So especially when we talk through some of the additional components measures that the contractor was going to take in the application of the material, we felt confident that the multilayer polymer was the right choice. So we provided the direction to the contractor back on June 3rd, and they've been proceeding along that route. As Brad mentioned, they shot blasted yesterday, and we achieved the desired roughness. And then they began laying the first set of material into the voids today. They stopped fairly early because it started to heat up. So they're going to continue that work tomorrow morning. There's also one longitudinal crack that we noticed in the bridge. And they're going to apply a low viscosity sealant to that crack, I believe, tomorrow as well. And then we'll be ready to do the final layers. Because I think there's two layers on the entire deck for the multi-layer polymer. Wednesday night and Thursday morning. So with any luck, we'll be able to see it finished Thursday. So to conclude on the remaining work, We have the work that I just discussed on the overlay itself. Now, we are a little short-handed in engineering. We're down to one inspector. So we do have J.A.O. providing a second inspector during the night work to make sure we have coverage if it goes a little longer. So we will have two inspectors on site through that work. And then we have a number of other items we need to wrap up. We need to finish some of the striping on the bridge itself. So once the overlay is done, we'll do the striping on the bridge. We have some guardrail we need to finish there as well. We should be able to open up the bridge. We still owe the completion of the multi-use path around the woody seat and then some landscaping that's in the scope of this, and we should be able to claim the project's complete after many, many years. So with that, do you have any questions?

Warranty, same, better? Oh, okay, so yes. Are we getting a better product? It was mentioned. Maybe this could even be a better thing.

I'll let Brad talk about the quality, but the warranty originally on this was for one year, plus the possibility of extending for another year if we found defects. So any defects that we discovered during the first year, that would get a year after that to identify any problems with the fix for the defects. So now we have a two-year warranty with that same possible extension of one year. When we talk through the failure paths for the multilayer polymer, a lot of this has to do, at least early on, with the failure of the material to bond to the concrete overlay, and that typically shows up in freeze-thaw cycles. A full two-year warranty gives us two winters. As we know, sometimes Hutchinson's winters aren't that cold, so that gives us an additional year to get the kind of cold weather that would expose the sorts of problems that occur with this product. And then we'd have a year after. If we had to patch anything on that, we'd have a year after it. The life of the material is about the same as for the concrete overlay. We're looking at probably about 10 years from what I understand. And Brad can talk about the quality.

Yeah, so are we going to end up with a better end product? I would say full transparency, that's been a debate. I think what Evan said earlier is a good way of putting it. We felt like when we narrowed it down to those two options, we had two good options. um we the the maybe the kind of the final decision for me was is it warranted to remove something that is sound but you know was not finished properly we're we're going to get an additional player protection quote-unquote for free um i will tell you just being fully transparent that there have been uh if you ask multiple bridge engineers we'll probably get a uh Kind of an even split on the answers there, at least in my anecdotal data. That's what we got. So that's just me trying to be transparent. I have recommended that we accept and move forward with this solution. I think it is a good solution. I think it's a reasonable solution for what happened.

And I would add, when I looked at the bridge deck for myself, I probably sent their blood pressure through the roof because my initial knee-jerk reaction was we should probably tear that out because it's not what we paid for, just based on the surface. But after having detailed discussions with Evan and the team on that, I did feel very confident in the engineering judgment that went into that. And it... My... Reaction at the time was, are we trying to preserve the schedule over what we paid for? And I certainly didn't get that in my conversations with them. So I have appreciated the resourcefulness and the engineering judgment that went into that.

I will say we got a little lucky. I think it was the day after you met us on site. You were at a bridge conference in Missouri. So Brad had at his fingertips a bunch of experts that he could actually ask quite conveniently.

So that was nice. Why didn't we spec it this way to begin with? Because you said Frank Hart Crossing is that way and you said the Ark River Bridge is that way.

Well, because that's extra cost. I mean, it was already an expensive project. So if we expected that way from the beginning, now you're going to pay for a concrete overlay, and you're going to pay for a brand-new multilayer polymer, the epoxy overlay. It's got a long KDOT name that I usually use. So there's a cost. There's also concerns and a debate that exists, as I understand it, within KDOT right now about when you put this on, a beautiful new overlay, they can peel up in some sense because ours is so rough that we're going to get a better grab on this epoxy overlay. So in KDOT's dream world, at least for Summit KDOT, who does a lot of these, so I'm citing KDOT, they would actually prefer you build the overlay, wait a year, maybe wait five years, come back and put on your epoxy overlay. But there's a huge traffic hit when you do that, so that's why it's not done. That was kind of a – I like it better when I'm not – I'm speaking of stuff I'm not doing for a living because I can keep it simpler. But there's reasons why we didn't do it. It was an option we could have, but there's cost-benefit stuff we're thinking about.

I appreciate the report, and I appreciate you allowing us to have another hearing tonight about bridges.

So I have questions. So I've been actually talking with KDOT inspectors about this bridge specifically. Why? And so from the way I, in talking to them about how it was done, it kind of seems like, well, there was, I don't know, some sort, I don't want to say mistake, but the concrete didn't, I guess they couldn't get it.

It was a mistake. Wildcat has acknowledged it was a mistake.

No, and I know that. And I know, so the, I was trying to figure out how to say that, but I had the conversation with similar happened in another town and it wasn't as bad as ours. And so my concern is they said, okay, we can do this overlay, which they say usually you don't see anything happening until year three. Well, we've been given a two-year guarantee, so we get to year three, we start seeing pothole damage, stuff like that, because of the freeze-thaw. And so that's the concern I bring, because I went up and looked at it, too. And I'm like going, yeah, that's a bad finish. And I get that. And you guys have done your testing, stuff like that. But I'm like going, so say we get out three, four years and go, oh, no, we have problems. We have potholes forming. So that comes back to us and it's going to cost us more. So I'm like going, my question is, Wildcat, and I'm not discrediting them because I know they do good work and things happen. But is this just a Band-Aid to fix a problem? keep us on schedule. I'm asking questions because I want to make sure for our taxpayers we're making the right decision. And if the right decision is to go back and mill and overlay the thing, I think that's the right decision. But again, I'm relying on the experts that work for us and consult with us to give us the best, this is the action you guys need to do.

Yeah, and believe me, we're feeling the weight of this because it's kind of sticking our neck here and making a recommendation. In some sense, the easy trigger to pull is mill and overlay it. Again, feel like it's sound. We're putting this epoxy overlay on. I have been trying to – I have my own data about how long – These have multiple failure planes, multiple failure paths, epoxy overlays, and I appreciate you talking to us about this.

And they say they both have about the same length of time for the actual longevity of it.

There are examples where these come up very quickly. Now, Reno County had one that came up 14 months. So we felt pretty good about getting a two plus a one warranty. We were going to go through two freeze thaws. I am not aware... There's another agency. I don't want to call out another agency, but they did some in-house, and they pulled up very quickly. So I have a number of data points where these, if they're a Band-Aid that peels off very quickly, it is very quickly within a two-year window. So that's the time frame that I've been operating under because that's all the data that I have. Did that answer your question?

Yeah, I mean, I just had two very lengthy conversations about this bridge in regards to that. And I'm like, okay, if they can come up with a reasonable solution to fix this problem, fine. But I want to go, okay, that warranty should be extended out more than two if we might be seeing issues in three and four. to protect us in our investment. I mean, we've invested a lot of money into this project, and we don't want to be three years down the road and go, oh, we have potholes now. So that's just my concern.

Are you sure you haven't been sitting in on our discussions that we've been having internally? Well, you never know.

Mr. Scherz, would the original product have been warrantied any differently than 2 plus 1? Yes, it would have been 1 plus 1.

So we have an additional year. An additional warranty.

And some of this is tricky, too, because... At some point, you have to allow the contractor to be relieved of the obligations of the warranty. I mean, ideally, we'd get a lifetime warranty on our products, but at some point, that's not realistic. We're talking about failure curves. It seems like this particular product has a bathtub failure curve, which is something where you see a lot of failures happening in the first portion of its life, and then it's mostly reliable. There's some loss, interestingly enough, there's some loss of, it has some anti-skid properties, which are really great for people in Montana, probably not as important for us. That stuff fades out pretty quick. But then it's a reliable product until it starts getting towards the end of its life, and then you see the failure rates by a couple of times. So it's really the question is how many years do you need to cover that initial part of the bathtub curve? We can ask Wildcat about extending it to three. We'd actually talked about that a bit internally. And I don't think that's something I'd have an issue asking them. I mean, if they're really confident in the product, maybe that's enough. But then if they say, hey, that's too much for us, I still stand by our decision to go with the multilayer polymer. Does that seem reasonable?

Well, I mean, if you get a three-year, because, again, they say that's when you start seeing the actual, from the freeze-thaw, the potholes and stuff like that developing. And so if we get, like, a three-year, I'd feel more comfortable with that. It's just… We've invested a lot into this, and I don't want to see something in three years go, gosh darn it, we should have done that, and we made a mistake, and then it comes back on us, and we have to pay for it again. So that's my concern.

We would, and we did talk quite a bit about, okay, so when we start seeing failures in this product, because it will happen, whether it's in year three or year 10, what do we do? And it sounds like, if I remember correctly, we don't have to redo the whole thing. It's really just a patching exercise.

Yeah, well you can patch and then ultimately you can do the epoxy again but at a lower cost than having to do the concrete again.

One of the important things too is that some of the failures that happen with this product don't happen with the product itself. It's when the concrete underneath it starts to spall or delaminate. And that is a failure path that here we're pretty confident we're not going to see it because we did a lot of checks on the integrity of the concrete itself. And I think we're pretty confident.

And another data point there, like, you can imagine we have been very scrupulous with the contractor on making sure we're following all of the procedures for putting this new Evoxy overlay down. So there's temperature requirements, there's roughness requirements. The kid loaned us some forms to measure that. There are moisture requirements. We did that test today. They're going to do this overnight, you know, so...

And I am not questioning the integrity of what they did. I'm just the surface is what I'm mainly after. You're asking good questions.

Absolutely.

I have a question about the temps that you mentioned, the temps for the application. Is that the air temp or the surface temperature?

Both. Yeah, yeah.

And you think that they'll both be within range tomorrow night? Because it's like 101.

It will.

Well, if they won't, sorry, if they aren't, we won't do it. It'll be done another night.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it's 90 is the limit for the actual surface. Air temps, maybe 95. I think it might be a little higher. But there are slight differences between the KDOT spec that we normally go by and the manufacturer's cut sheets, and I don't necessarily remember which one's which.

And you probably mentioned what, but I maybe wasn't listening. There was a lot of jargon that was way over my head. What is your, like, cutoff date that you're... If the temperatures and the humidity rates and all of the things aren't falling into place, at what point are we saying that we're not opening at the end of the month and we're going to have to push it back another couple weeks until things are...

I mean, I think if everything goes to plan, we should be fine. But if we notice problems with the pull test, which is basically it's when we have these little samples of the material to the side and we have a little thing stuck in and we literally pull on the material to make sure it's stuck to the bridge as much as we want. If we have issues with that or with any of the other items that the inspectors are going to check, we're going to have to consider what we'll require, which may be at that point talking to them about either reapplying it or milling it down and re-overlaying it, and that would probably have an impact on the completion of the project.

And Wildcat has done a lot of these epoxy overlays. So if they think they're going to hit temps, and they're very aware of the temp requirements. So if they think they're going to hit temps when it's supposed to be 101,000 degrees tomorrow, if not, based on the 10-day forecast we see, we're going to find a day where we can get to the temps needed to hopefully still hit the June timeline.

And it doesn't take long to cure, which is the best thing about it.

Right.

You made a comment that what are the two bridges did we put this on? Three.

Three, and why? Well, the county put them on. So Frank Hart was put on 15 years ago, Frank Hart of the Ark River, just by Cary Park there. And there's two spots where that's come up. That's held up incredibly well. So that's the dream scenario there. And then the one on this road over the Ark River, So Cecil talked about the very first Woody Seat project that was a joint city-county, and the county's portion put one of these on that bridge.

Also fifth over the Harsha.

That's right. So the city did do one fifth over the Harsha two to four years ago.

We also did, the state did Woody Seat over F when they replaced it before they gave it to us.

Oh, okay. I didn't, okay. So even Woody Seat over F, so that's four. Okay, thank you.

And I don't know if we saw any issues on 5th over Harsha, because that would have been the one we would have been checking. The other ones would just be... No, 5th over Harsha is in very good shape. Other than the part where the car drove on the rail.

All right, that's all my questions. Council, do you have more questions?

Council, I've got one last thing to go on to this as well.

Once this is all done and we have an opening date, we're going to be working closely with the contractor to get all this stuff done. But once we have an opening date, we are going to host a little event before the streets actually open. We welcome the public to come out to that. We welcome all of you to come out. And we'll have the first... first cars across the bridge to be complete. So once we have a date with that, I will get back with you and Enrico and we'll set that up and we'll make sure everybody has a chance to come out and look at the bridge for themselves. So we want to make sure the public understands exactly what we've got going on with this. And by all means, if anybody in the public has questions about this process any farther, just have them call down to Public Works and ask for myself or Evan.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Any questions from the audience? Okay. Mary, next item.

Item 9C, consider bid results for 2024 water main replacement project.

Good evening, Council. I'm City Engineer Evan Patterson. This project involves the replacement of about 1.5 miles of 6-inch water line located generally between 9th and 17th Avenues and from Maple and Cochran Streets. These water lines are... Some of them over 100 years old, dating from early 1920s to early 1960s. And we've had a lot of main breaks in the area, around 80 in the recent years. So these are a high priority for us to replace them so that we can reduce some of those expensive operating costs. The project is anticipated to begin mid-summer, and that's based on material availability, and has a substantial completion date of April 30th, 2027. And the City of Hutchinson engineering staff and JEO Consulting Group jointly designed the project. We received four bids that were opened on May 26th, and the low bid was submitted by Ward Davis Builders in the amount of $1,061,317.25. And this is below the engineer's estimate of $1,459,952.00. We reviewed all the bids that we received and the Unicots, and we found that the submitted prices were in line with market expectations. We believe we have a very favorable and competitive bid for this project. Ward Davis Builders has worked with us on multiple projects for quite some time, and they currently hold our concrete maintenance project. They're based out of Hutchinson, and all the major subcontractors are based out of Hutchinson as well. They have diverse experience, and along with their subcontractor, Thai Contracting, have ample experience to perform this work. We're excited that Ward is moving into another sector of work for us. He's done lots and lots of concrete stuff. This is his first water line, so we're really excited about that. And we recommend that the council approve the low bid and award the project to Ward Davis Builders in the amount of $1 million. $1,061,317.25 and authorize the mayor to sign. Do you have any questions?

I have a question. So you wrote, or not you, but somebody wrote this SRF in 2023. Yes, yes. And our estimate then was 1.4 million. Correct. And so I guess my question is, like there's such a swing in the dollars that are in this presentation. And it's like three years later. So how did we get, and now Ward Davis is saying they're going to complete it for just over a million. Yes. Which is a lot cheaper than we thought it would be even three some years ago when we applied for it. So why is there a difference here?

I think that's a very good question. I don't know if Ward wants to talk about it. At the end of the day, his prices, while lower, weren't way out of whack with what we were seeing. And I don't remember what was the basis of the original decision. The original SRF. And it may be, some of these are weird because of the years that we use on the project names. I don't know if we actually applied for SRF in 23. I think it may have been 24 or 25.

It says the loan application was approved by the city council October 17 of 23. Oh, okay. Approved by KDHE. Yeah.

I do not know what was in the original estimate. I could take a look.

I mean, being half a million dollars under is a good thing. I just wanted to ensure that the scope of the work isn't changed and we're not, I mean, in runaway inflation times, we're not.

I don't think we've changed it. This is one of those legacy projects that I haven't unfortunately spent enough time digging into, but I don't think it changed from what we had back then. I mean, some of what we learned has made it more expensive, too, especially with the BABA requirement, so it does surprise me as well. But I would have to take a look back and see what they'd used. depending on who was doing the estimates. It may also be that the 1.4 includes contingency, whereas we don't include that in this, so that may be on top of that, but I would have to take a look. Wow, that was a long time ago for the application.

Council, any more questions? Comments from the audience?

Okay.

All right. Thank you. Of course. I guess I would just be looking for a motion.

I move to accept the bid of Ward Davis Building for the 2024 Water Main Replacement Project in the amount of $1,061,317.25. Authorize staff to issue the notice of award and authorize the mayor to sign.

Second.

Truin.

Yes. Garza.

Yes.

Goss. Yes. Fast. Yes. Tragers.

Yes.

Item 9D, consider bid results for C-clip resurfacing K61 from US 50 to 17th Avenue.

Good evening again, Council. Cecil Weibel, Director of Public Works. This is very similar to what you just heard about the last project, but this is a C-clip project. It is going to be resurfacing K61 from US 50 to 17th. This is doing the opposite of what we did last with K61 project. We're doing, I believe, this is doing the northbound lanes. We did southbound last time, I believe. So... There again, with this process, our initial engineering estimate came in at $550,756.01. I don't know where we get the one cent sometimes, but we only had one bidder come in on this one, and it was APAC of Kansas. There again, a known entity that's been working with us for years. They came in at a bid at... $437,617.41. So, affordable and well within what we had estimated. Our recommendation is to move forward with this bid, and no surprises to come from this one.

Okay, Council, any questions on this bid? I'm shocked you only had one bidder.

I believe we had a second that came in late, but they were after bid had closed. Gotcha.

So you don't look at them at all?

Nope. All right. No questions. Any questions from the audience? If not, looking for a motion.

I move to accept the bid of APAC Kansas for the clip resurfacing K61 from US 50 to 17th Avenue in the amount of $437,000. $437,617.41 and authorize the staff to issue the notice of award and authorize the mayor to sign. Second.

Druin? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes. Bass? Yes. Magers?

Yes.

Item 9E, continuation of proclamation discussion.

Cody Smith, Assistant City Attorney. Council, we're here to discuss the proclamation policy again. I presented briefly at the last meeting essentially a proposed policy that was proposed pretty wide and encompassing just to primarily give you all an idea of options that could be included in this type of policy. So at this point, I would just, I guess, open it up to the council to provide feedback as to the policy parameters it wishes to include in a policy and just provide direction about your policy choices. I can make any revisions or changes as necessary and then hopefully at the next meeting then bring a final or at least close to final version for you all to vote on.

Comments on this council? Questions?

We do not have a copy of it in our packet, right?

It was in the last one, yeah.

I recall, speaking to the process, that it felt like this shouldn't fall on the city manager to be the one to essentially take them in, process them, vet them, and determine their... worth, if you will. It seems like that's a more administrative task and I suggested it may more appropriately be assigned to the HRO. And then the other point within the policy that I recall taking issue was that the policy essentially creates a tiered system of the proclamations and the city is establishing worth of the proclamations by saying some will be read, some will be published online only, some will be signed and sent back and not read or not published, et cetera. So I take issue with the different levels of status, if you will, that are in the policy. And I understand that the policy is not obviously our final draft, but... It's there for us to dig into and tear apart, and those were the things I took issue with.

Yeah, and I would just say on that tiered system, I mean, the primary purpose of having those options available is, again, to showcase that it is government speech, it's not private speech. Those would absolutely be concerns if we were talking about You know private matter or private speech matters like for example public comment trying to put those types of limitations on it But but what something like that does and again totally obviously up to the council to decide what that looks like but I do recommend that In the policy, we show meaningful control, government control over the speech so that we don't open up the argument that we've created some type of limited public forum, which then First Amendment issues would attach to. So as long as we have enough in there showing that this is government speech, the city is deciding what to say, how to say it, that would keep us away from those First Amendment issues. But to the extent to what that looks like, that's what I want to hear, I guess. As far as the HRO, I think I think that makes sense for some of the types of proclamations that are issued. I looked at 2025. There were 27 total proclamations issued. And I've looked at some of those, the actual proclamations themselves, but I was counting about six just according to the list, the names that would relate to discrimination-related HRO-type matters. If you decided to go that route, I mean, that would incorporate kind of other subject matters into what the HRO is reviewing. I would just say something to take into consideration because the HRO position is created by city ordinance and it sets forth what the HRO's powers and duties are, so to speak. So this could potentially be expanding that a little bit. But there are certainly some proclamations in there that fall within that subject matter that the HRO works on a day-to-day basis.

Could we have these once a month possibly in your new policy that you're going to write instead of every week? Or what would be the council's preference?

I think as long as there's a consistent policy adopted, that if we're going to read them or whatever, have them on the agenda on the first or the second meeting, let's say, of every single month, and there's not a first Tuesday meeting, then it would naturally fall to the second one. So if the policy were written so that they would naturally fall to the next one and not be skipped for a month, I think that would make sense because if they were skipped inadvertently, I think someone in the future could feel slighted by that.

You know, if we canceled a meeting because of... Yeah, yeah, yeah, I see what you're saying.

We couldn't have a quorum or holidays or what have you.

No, I think it's a good idea. We have a policy in place to, I guess, parameters. But I also think I would kind of be in agreement, too, on the month. But if they don't fall in that month, then they can transfer to the next month so they're not skipped.

Number one, who writes the proclamation? Who... Who writes it?

Well, the way the policy is set up is the city receives suggestions. So someone could theoretically draft the entire policy and submit that as a suggestion. However, it is important that the city have some type of review process and have full editorial power over that in terms of what it says. One, to make sure, again, that it's... Government speech that we're just not kind of blank checking so to speak these statements and then that would open up the argument that well It's it's not really government speech if we're just letting who whoever you know wants to say whatever and we just you know stamp stamp our approval on it and then to it gives us that extra Review process just to make sure there's nothing in there that could create a legal issue for for the city so And then I guess I would add to that a third one to make sure we are recognizing that the time that is dedicated to these meetings is important with respect to addressing city business. And so, of course, if the city receives a 10-page proclamation, it's going to be my advice that we cut that down to, you know, a page or, you know, basically to respect the city's time in conducting its business. So to answer your question, suggestions are submitted. They don't have to be a full proclamation. They could just be a paragraph. This is what I'd like a proclamation to say. And then city staff could work on creating that and then presenting that to Believe the way that policies written to the mayor is kind of the the figurehead so to speak but there is a process there if There's a situation where you know Maybe the vice mayor someone else would want to read it instead or if they want to read it Or if they want to issue it by letter I mean again just it keeps the options open primarily to to showcase that it's government speech because it's deciding what to say and how to say it and

In GARS, I would offer that we've done that on a few proclamations in the past already, where we just kind of help tweak the language.

Like, hey, can you help us with this?

It's our first time doing it. And so, I mean, we do that already.

Any more questions from council on this item? No, I think you've done some good work on this, Cody, and I appreciate this because I think it's something very important that we need to address and have as a part of our community and our council meetings. So I do appreciate your time you've put in this as well. Anybody in the audience like to speak to this?

Yes, sir. Chris Link, 3506 North Lorain. So what are proclamations? To me, from listening to Assistant City Attorney Cody Smith, it's an official announcement of the entity proclaiming it. It would be official speech of the city, so it sounds pretty official to me. Although, along with my wife, I would like to see life celebrated instead of the sin of pride, it is not the proper place of the city council to be approving and proclaiming contradictory proclamations. We saw that tonight. I don't know if they would be approved, but we saw contradictory statements that could be coming out of our government's mouth each month. Secondly, as we saw tonight, the city is not needed for proclamations. The people can do it. We have this forum. You guys have given it to us, and we appreciate that. And if they don't feel comfortable doing it during this meeting, they have representatives you council members, that they can come to and communicate through. And you guys have your time at the end that you could make a proclamation if you agreed with it, that you could make a comment for. I don't think it is necessary for the city government to get into the business of making a lot of the proclamations that would be coming through. Lastly, the purpose of the government is to be impartial in enforcing justice and ensuring that people's rights are protected. The rights that were given to us by our creator, Jesus Christ. Lastly, I'm sorry I said lastly last time, but our strength does not come from our diversity. It comes from the Lord. Psalm 27 says, some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else?

I'll try to make it quick. We're all hungry over here. So, Council, I just wanted to, Hutchin Harmony, Esmeralda, Leaveney-Sherman Street. I emailed all of you a copy of just consideration to staff and some recommendations. Proclamations are, historically speaking, they speak for our community members, not just who are celebrating one event or another. It brings our communities together. Last year, 29 proclamations were actually read before city council. And those were proclamation honoring Pastor Darrell Peterson, Hutchinson Community College Blue Dragon football team when they won. I know that wasn't something that we could have all said, could have thought that was going to happen prior to it. And so then when it did and it came up at the following meeting, that's when we celebrated them. The first responders, Week of the Young Child, Child Abuse Prevention Month, Crime Victims Rights Week, Arbor Day, National Public Safety Telecommunications Week, Building Safety Month, Child Care Provider Appreciation Day, Mental Health Awareness Month, Motorcycle Awareness Month, National Public Works Week, Immigrant Heritage Month, Juneteenth Independence Day, Pride Month, Smallville, Kansas, the home of Clark Kent, Emancipation Day, Parks and Recreation Month, Antique Tractor Day, Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, National Hunger Action Month, National Recovery Month, Fire Prevention Week, Disability Employment Awareness Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Cyber Security Month, National First Responders Day, and Community Foundation Week. I think that when you look at those 29 proclamations, they encompass a lot of factions in our community, thinking of KLC language here. And when we take a moment to look from the balcony and say, what kind of community do we want? That's the type of community that I want. One that celebrates and honors and respects, even if we don't all agree, like, Tractor Day, it's kind of not my thing, but I'll honor it because it is somebody else's, right? So these recognitions, they foster civic participation, community pride, and belonging. But I'll just go through the recommendations that I emailed all of you quickly. Establishing a clear public proclamation policy, one that also your constituents know. If they don't know, then they don't know. Encourage early submission, obviously, recommended 15 to 30 days prior. However, previous deadlines that we have followed as Hutch and Harmony has been the third Friday of the month before the first Tuesday City Council meeting or Friday at noon prior to the first or third Tuesday City Council meeting. Benefits include adequate staff time review. We have worked with a lot of organizations that work with our HRO in the past, and being able to write that has been just wonderful so that obviously it's not a 10-pager, but one that can be read within three to five minutes. Providing a standardized template would be helpful for people to look at so that they kind of know how to navigate that if they want to do it themselves. Recommendation four, designating one recognition meeting per month. I think that that would suffice so long as there aren't 20. If there are, then maybe adding a second one. Establishing presentation guidelines as stated before, organization representation, having a designated spokesperson per proclamation. They may accept it and offer brief remarks. This preserves the celebratory nature of the recognition while also maintaining meeting flow. Recommendation six is encouraging broad community participation. We maintain an inclusive approach to proclamation requests. Rather than evaluating whether one is more important than another, considering what should be focused on is community relevance, positive civic impact, connection to Hutchinson residents, of course. and compliance with submission requirements. We believe that when residents, student groups, nonprofits, businesses, faith communities, or civic groups take the time to prepare and submit an application or a proclamation request, that they're participating in civic life and should be encouraged to do so. Publishing annual proclamation guidelines, that way if they do change, people know. They can go back to the website and say, okay, this changed. We will be able to adjust as needed. I think that it's also important to ensure topics that aren't typically considered are commercial advertising or product promotion, matters primarily benefiting a private individual without broader community significance, political campaigns or endorsements, requests submitted after the deadline unless special circumstances exist and we win basketball games, you know. I THINK THAT MAINTAINING THE MAYORAL PARTICIPATION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE, AGAIN, OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE. SO THOSE WERE JUST SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS SENT TO ALL OF YOU. I HOPE YOU TOOK SOME TIME TO LOOK AT IT AND CONSIDER AS WELL BECAUSE ON A STATE AND A LOCAL LEVEL, THEY ALL MATTER. PEOPLE HAVE FELT SEEN AND REPRESENTED BY PROCLAMATIONS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ONE THING THAT I THINK IS clear from the public comment section from even just looking at this evening is that the community enjoys the proclamations, whether they are for a cause that they support or for a cause that They don't support, they enjoy hearing the ones that they do support. And I think this is one of those don't yuck my yum situations. And this is a tradition that we've done for a really long time. And there was something else I was gonna say. I'll think of it in a minute.

Any other comments? All right, next item.

Well, I've, so are we hoping to, come to a conclusion with this at some point?

Yeah, I think that's the conversation Cody's been having with us is about coming to a conclusion. Wanted to see if there were any modifications, changes made with this draft, and then I guess we'll come next time with final details or whatever, because I picked up some more things, too, that I think would be some good things in there that Esmeralda brought to our attention as well, so...

Yes, if you think of anything additional, just feel free to email that to me, and then I can incorporate, you know, revisions into it. If there's kind of different versions, I'll try my best to give different versions, you know, for options. But I will say a lot of things that were mentioned, the policy, the original one, does contain a lot of those. And I would also add, because I didn't touch on it, but it does set forth in this policy the nature of ceremonial items and basically describes what a proclamation is. And it's honorary and ceremonial only. It's not legally binding. And does not constitute city sponsorship, funding, approval, or endorsement of any private person, organization, event, cause, belief, viewpoint, product, service, campaign, or activity. So again, while yes, it is government speech, it's a ceremonial thing. It's not government speech in the sense of you're passing a resolution or ordinance with it being official action. It's just ceremonial nature. That's what all proclamations are intended. So I think there's kind of two sides that, no, it's not really the city saying that they are, in fact, supporting your cause, but at the same time, you know, it's not opening up to private speech. It's somewhere in the middle of that. So... That's why I felt like, and I agree with some of the comments, it's important that the public is aware of what proclamations actually are and then what the city's requirements are to submit suggestions and how those suggestions can become a proclamation.

So in, I guess, the absence of a proclamation policy, I was invited to read last year's Juneteenth report

proclamation at the third Thursday event is that something that I am allowed to do I mean I would say if you don't have a policy in place then it's it's a little more open-ended but if you do have a policy in place in terms of in this in this situation it would essentially put that on the mayor being that because that's generally under Chapter two of the code the mayor has that ceremonial role in general, but it also sets forth in there if the mayors are not available for whatever reason, then the vice mayor, and I think it could even open up to other council members could then be, if a council member did feel strongly about it, I mean, again, it wouldn't be advocating for that particular matter, but... doing so in a ceremonial nature would be fine. But again, we'd want to probably make sure the policy allowed for that.

Well, we don't have a policy. We won't have a policy by Thursday at 6 o'clock.

Oh, you're saying for this? Yeah. I mean... the way things have been going is to be it's basically in my opinion this kind of been unofficial I mean they're really it seems like from and of course I haven't been here for very long so I'm going off of just information that's been relayed to me but it's kind of been more so on the mayor's a ceremonial person but I don't see any reason why something like that couldn't be designated to another member of the council, especially due to unavailability or something like that. And as long as that proclamation has proper language in it.

It's a repeat performance of the one I read last year.

Okay. I may have looked at it. I'll take a look. The ones that I saw, I didn't have any concerns with. So I'm thinking there's probably no issue with it. But I'll be sure to look at it again tomorrow just to be sure. But I'm sure it's fine. But as long as, again, it's not saying that the city is promoting anything or anything like that, then it should be fine.

Do you have any objection to me reading last year's?

No. I mean, if Cody says there's no, I mean, it's fine. I mean, I think it's something good to read, so I don't have a problem with it.

Greg? I have no problem with it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else? Next item.

Item number 10, report of city officials. Council?

Who wants to be the lucky contestant number one?

Well, I will, and I don't have anything.

Next. No, I'm just looking around, just waiting for the next one to jump on.

I went to this county meeting yesterday, and it was pretty interesting on the subject that didn't matter. Very interesting on data centers. And knowing what I learned from there, I learned a lot from data centers and how people in this town on data centers. It's changed my mind quite a bit. I used to... I don't know whether I should say what I think. I don't know. To tell you the truth, I slept on this thing, and it was a pretty, pretty something different meeting than the data centers yesterday. I learned some new stuff. I learned some stuff that was already there. And I think, for me, I think have we decided what we're going to do next on the data center, where we're going? Are we just going to let it sit out there or what? I don't know. what we're going to do. As far as I'm concerned, I don't know, is it legal to say what I think we should do or what? Because what happened yesterday, we don't need it here.

We don't need it in our council.

And they did a good job. The county commission did a good job. But it just, what I witnessed, we need to do something.

And I think, as I was thinking yesterday,

my position on it, I think we should decide to do what Mr. Goss did one time, is do a monetary monitoring Not unless you guys think we should need more information, but I got a lot of information when I sat there. Me and Mr. Truman over there, we were sitting next to each other. And I think you can't, you can't, I thought about us doing, going out for bids, not bids, voting it out. But I come to find out it's going to cost us $40,000 to put it on the ballots. So that's not a very good idea. I thought about banning it. We can't ban it. Found out just by listening yesterday, we can't ban it. We'll be in trouble legally, that I know of. You can state on that if you want to, but that's what I learned from their lawyer. So I think we should do mandatory, I don't know, I can't even pronounce it. And this is when I read your draft a little bit deeper, that she had a draft at one time. And mandatory just makes it, and I think we should do it for 10 years, mandatory. Because we cannot, the people that we do have data centers in our town right now, the little ones, we don't want to put a problem on the data centers we have in town now. I suggest we get on top of it, and I would suggest we do a mandatory amount of them. But that's a discussion for all of us. And I've had a lot of people call me that are for them. I've had a lot of people call me that are against them. And everywhere I go, they tear me up on them. Because I'm going to tell you the truth. At one time, I was for them.

One time, I was against them when I find out more information on it.

And I'm just a human being just like everybody else. I went and found out on data centers. I did some research on them. And there's research saying that everybody's saying about the water and the air pressure and all air system on that. But I've learned to find out that I learned is that there's new modern stuff out there saying they're not going to do it.

They're not going to go that, how they use the water and so forth.

But here I am as a city representative, and I always tell the people, I'm for the people, by the people, and of the people. And other people have told me they don't want them. But we can't just do it. We have to have a certain way we're doing it. You can't... You can't put it up for election because it costs us too much money. You can't, why did I say that? I can't, what do you call it, kick it out.

There's a lot of rules of the system, man. And I learned a lot when I was sitting there.

So I thought I would bring it up when I had the time to talk. And I got educated yesterday. When I went into the education over there, just listening to the people sitting around me, they were mad. They were mad. And I learned that we can't do what we think we can do. So I came up by me just sitting there and I had Mrs. Goss's things in my desk and I went over there and looked at it. And my thinking just from that meeting is that we do a mandatorium. And we need to do it pretty fast. Because we gotta get going on this and it's tearing our town apart. It teared the citizens apart yesterday where I was. And they had a right to be there just like everybody else has a right to be there. And they have a right to speak their decisions. And they are the people that put me in power. And I have to listen to them regardless what I think. Because when you're a city commission, the first thing that comes to your mind, we have to get taxes in here. We have to get more money. And I do know that the things that I've seen, those things are supposed to bring us a lot of money. But we have to think of people's thoughts and what they think. So my little speech today, I was thinking about this all night, sitting can't sleep, and my thinking where I sit is we should put a 10-year monitorium on it, and that's the best thing I came up with. It's like I said, you can't kick them out. There's a lot of regulations on it. And I learned that yesterday. A lot of regulations on it. So I learned a lot. And like I said, there's people out there telling me I'm shifting. You're not. Well, that's my job.

My job is to learn everything I can on it.

I learned a lot of good things about it, a lot of bad things about it. But we have to take care of the people I represent, and they don't want it. So if we don't want it, we have to figure out how we're going to take care of it. In my point of view, the best way of taking care of it is the mandatoriums. So that's what I think as a representative. And when I went to the meeting yesterday, I thank all the people who went to that county meeting. And we have to start moving on as far as I'm concerned. Other than that, that's my job as a representative. I thought I would tell you what I thought. That's what I think.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Yep.

All right, Stacy. I would totally be open to a near future agenda item to discuss moratorium again or to discuss, as Mr. Garza spoke to, the option of putting this up for a public vote. That is something that people have asked me about, and I believe that with the... we have elections coming up in August and November, that those would actually be zero cost to us. So those are options that we could still pursue. And either date would have appeal based on turnout. A quote that I read from an article out of St. Louis that someone sent me about a moratorium. Their mayor said, while St. Louis is already home to 12 data centers, which we know are important to the modern economy and local industries like geospatial, finance, and healthcare, we as a city are committed to a simple principle. We want St. Louis to be open for business, but business on our terms, and that means we're only going to allow the development of data centers if the community benefits. So they outlined a number of enforceable pieces so again I would be open to continuing this conversation in a future meeting I was not able to attend last night we were in the car coming back from vacation but I listened to what I could hear on YouTube it was an interesting meeting and I had a couple of things that I wanted to mention The first one was the Superman Smallville folks, everybody who attended the festival, everybody who helped put it on, who helped bring people in from out of town, the vendors and everybody. Thank you for bringing that to the community again and again. I think it's a fun kind of a... kitschy thing that we do here in Hutch that it's our claim to fame and no one else can say that they are Smallville. So I appreciate the effort that I know that that festival takes each year. And thank you for the Woody's Seat update. we're kind of presented with a list of not great options and I know that you guys are doing your best and in the 11th hour dealing with all of that crap sandwich was probably not ideal and it doesn't sound like it will be ideal until the actual ribbon cutting so thank you to all of the staff and the contractors and subs and everybody who have been working on that Um, and thank you, Mr. Lady and everybody in your department for, um, like you said, 40 properties that are currently, um, under consideration. I think this was a huge project that we started tackling and piece by piece. Um, we're starting to see the benefit of, um, holding people accountable, um, homes being remodeled that people are moving into businesses that are opening their doors and are now, um, contributing to our community, so all of that because we decided to start cracking the whip on our code enforcement, which is such an important tool that we have in our tool belt. And that is the end of my remarks.

Okay, thank you. Mayor, excuse me, you realize it's 9 o'clock? You want to go for another hour?

No. Is that your request? No.

We can bake an executive session.

No. Hey, I ended it at 7 last time or something like that. It was super quick. Anyway, I have some comments. Thanks for staff. Thanks to you, staff. Stacy already stole my thunder with the woody seat. I appreciate all the extra hours and time. that has been spent trying to rectify that situation, Juneteenth, this Thursday. And I think that I'll just end this with the text I got today at 4.38. I'm just gonna read that and you can take this for what it's worth. And now that I have your attention, it's a very good thing. So, hello Scott and Greg. Since I know both of you, I wanted to tell you there are some exceptional things happening in Hutchinson, Kansas. I went to the opening of the new Y and was completely blown away by the variety of opportunities for every age group, even mine. Wayne would be all over it, and especially for families with young kids who will be well-supervised. Then, Saturday evening, the Fox Theater showed an exceptional video created by Josh Davies highlighting the beginning, development, and continuation of the precious Fox through the last 95 years. Next, onto the landmark. Absolutely amazing. I'm sure Nation is smiling at Laura and Mike for their foresight and follow-through. And my sincere thanks to each one of you and the many others who continue the goodness and foresight that came before us and moves us forward. Helen Monroe and Wayne, watching from heaven. That's all I got.

Thanks.

That was a great text.

Great text. And to follow up with that, I just have to say I really appreciate the investment from businesses, people that live here into our community. I mean, that new YMCA, that is phenomenal. You can go there any time of the day, and the parking lot is darn near packed. So that was a great investment in our community. I really appreciate the... the YMCA for doing what they did here. I appreciate everybody that was involved getting it here and getting it on location. And then I wanted to... I know we push back on staff sometimes, but we do appreciate what all you do. It's kind of our job sometimes to push back, just to make sure we're doing the best we can for our community and taxpayers. And so when we push back, it's all in... I think it's good to make sure we're doing our due diligence to make sure everything's being done correctly. And then, yeah, there's great events we've had. The Smallville looked like there was a great attendance to that. There's just a lot of great things going on in our community. That Fox, I saw some stuff on the Fox deal, too, and that was pretty cool. So let's see, I think that's all I've got.

Did Darren go?

Oh, yeah, he had nothing.

So are you. A few updates and then I was just going to turn it over to Cecil to share an update on a grant. One program that we're looking forward to rolling out is the kind of tree abatement issues around town. And so we're obviously aware of the grant that we've received and we kind of shared the map. But things that we've been trying to internalize It is also putting a program in place to tackle more than just the trees that were shown and to be more programmatic about how we're doing that. And through the generosity of a potential big contribution, through the generosity of an individual, we'd like to go dollar for dollar on our monies to help go towards dead tree removals across town. So I am looking forward to kind of sharing more details about that. I presume that they want to remain anonymous, but at least the idea of being able to tackle a lot of trees at once. So storms or anything else have caused a lot of trees to collapse around town, and so it is a genuine public safety concern. So I am looking forward to that. A little bit of a plug on the trip to Japan. I know we got Real beat up over that, but during my trip there when we met with Takako, we did say, hey, if you ever want to expand or if you're looking at opportunities to expand here in Hutchinson, let us know how we can help you. So it is great to see at least a little bit of fruit coming from that. So anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there, and then I'll kind of turn this over to Cecil.

Evening again. Just a quick update. We also had applied for a grant to do some bridge work in town. Seems like that's been my topics here lately is bridge stuff. But 6th and Keese is another one of our – it's not a huge bridge, but it's over one of our major ditches in town. It's been in need of repair. It's been one of the ones on our list. So we did get a reply back from the state on the grant we applied for, and – I believe it's 100% coverage, so we'll be able to get that bridge going here pretty quick. I think we already had the plans and everything drawn up, so now it's just a matter of finalizing some paperwork and seeing when we can get that one into the list, but just kind of wanted to update on that. We are making progress. It doesn't always have to cost us money. Thank you, Cecil.

Anything else?

All right, next item, Mary.

Number 12, executive session. There is none.

Go back to 11, sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry. We're 11 future agenda items.

Many council members want to request this would be the time for future agenda items, like your data center, Mr. Garza. I do think we will need to put that on for a future agenda item. Is there anything else you guys would like to see discussed in the next meeting?

Mayor, if I could, for just general direction, if there's any proposed future agenda item, if you guys could vote on it, just so we, as staff, it's clear that it's supposed to be on. Because there's been times where it's been talked about, it doesn't get on, or it does get on, and it would be nice if we could clean that part of the agenda up.

Well, and I have a question. If we're going to add the moratorium back onto the agenda, how many times are we allowed as council members to present an item and revote, basically? Because we have a path forward with this data center discussion with text amendments and Senate to planning and zoning to move forward, so I'm a little bit uncomfortable You know, putting this back, I mean, I know we'd change our minds and things change.

I guess that would have been my answer is as a body, you have the right to change your mind. Okay. So if that is the will of the council to pause that, we certainly can and deliver you all a moratorium to consider. I mean, that's really just, it's a policy question for you all to debate.

And that's what I was going to bring up with this. This is a great place for it to add those items to vote on it to make sure that's the path everyone wants to go. So it's a group decision, not just an individual.

Yeah.

So if there's anything you would like to add, now would be time to bring it up and vote on it, and then everybody has a clear path for where we need to go.

Does... We have no problem rehashing it, but we've already set a path forward with how we're dealing with conditional use permits and rules when it comes to data centers.

I'm going to say that I'm not sure I'm for a moratorium yet, but I do agree. I think we ought to discuss putting it on an August or November ballot. I do agree with Steve that it was crazy last night. you know granted how many you know were the ones that against it that were the most loudest were they the only ones that showed up because there's a lot of times when people are for something they don't show up you know and I've received I've received multiple emails from people that are for them and saying we should go for them but then also I'm hearing a good portion of the public I'm at that point right now That was suggested to me that we put it on a ballot and we let the community vote on it.

The only problem, my first thing was voting on it. But when I found the cost.

There should not be any cost because we have two. That's off the table. Okay, hold on.

So Cody and I actually had this discussion, not in any formal discussion. It was very casual. Would you mind kind of advising on putting it on the ballot? Because that was something that I'm like, hey, Cody, could we do this? And then he kind of informed me of that.

So I looked into this a little bit, and I can dig in more and give you a more formal opinion. But Due to the nature of what we're dealing with here, we're talking about zoning laws that are established by state statute. We've incorporated those into our own city code, but those particular state statutes are uniform, so we do have to follow those. We can't charter out of those and operate under our own set with respect to zoning. So with that said, Elections cannot circumvent what the law says. So if we do have an election, it would be what they would call an advisory election. It would not be a binding election. So it would essentially be hey, what is the public, what do you think about this? And then you'd get the response, and you could do with that what you want as a council. But as far as the procedure goes, it's a big difference when it's an advisory election. because then it's subject to the county election officer whether or not to hold that election. And also, advisory elections cannot be held at the same polling place as a regular election. They have to have their own separate ballot as well. So that's why I feel like it probably would cost, and I think the sales tax was around that. It would probably be at least that, around $40,000. But if it's a whole separate polling place and everything, it could be more than that. So, again, I didn't dig into that real specifically. I looked just kind of generally at it, but that's what it was looking like to me.

I have further discussion. There is a group of people that think we have too many fast food restaurants. Should we vote every time a business wants to come to Hutchison? What about another Tyson's factory production facility? I mean, maybe I'm stretching here a little bit, but I think when we start voting to pick and choose what businesses we allow or how we allow them in, that's just not a good path to go down.

So it feels like we're debating the subject matter and not just saying do we want to talk about it more because we're talking about it more. So I feel like we do want to talk about it more. And having an agenda item at a future meeting would give everybody that time to speak and to hear from people.

So where are they at on the regulations they're working on? Do you have any idea?

I know that it went through planning and zoning, and I want to say in either the first or second meeting in July, it'll come to you all. That's roughly where we're at.

And that's probably something we should wait on.

Perhaps at the time, just thinking out loud, if you all want to have a moratorium, you could always just send it back to planning and zoning. for them to then consider that. I'm just kind of throwing something out there.

Yeah, they approved the temporary regulations, and so now there's a period of time which has to expire, and then that's why it'll be placed on the July council meeting for you all to look at. And I do think since it is with the planning commission, I don't know. I mean, it's kind of, I guess, a question of practicality more so than anything, but uh... i don't think a council then can say stop that process once it started i mean ultimately like that we talked about you still have the ultimate decision of course but i think they would follow through with the process and then submit to you all with their recommendation but you know if you have all decided that you wanted some type of moratorium before then, I'm sure they would not want to exercise something that was futile. But with that said, again, because we're dealing with zoning laws, and I talked about this in terms of why it was recommended that the conditional use permit process be followed or be looked at, is because Our code provides what looks like could be a matter of right or at least subject to interpretation by the zoning administrator. So I think it's going to be difficult to legally justify an outright moratorium without going through the planning commission as well. So that would still need to be a process that would go through the planning commission since technically it would be an amendment of our current city code which which arguably provides the right for data centers and battery energy storage systems.

So it sounds like we just need to wait for that to come out in July, and then we can kind of go from there.

Yeah, I think that would probably be the best course of action. And like Enrico said, at that point you can send it back for revisions and things like that, so that could start the back-and-forth conversation at that point.