City Council - Regular Meeting

Bye.

Good evening. I would like to call to order the August 18th, 2026 Hutchinson City Council meeting. Mary, 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 and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, invisible, with liberty and justice for all.

For the prayer this evening, we have Pastor Tanya Raymer-Winger from First Mennonite Church.

Let's pray. Gracious God, we ask your blessing on this gathering this evening for the discerning, the listening, the decision-making. Give us all the grace we need to join in creating a city where neighborhoods are vibrant and whole, where all people find support and community, where arts and culture and sports flourish, and where the earth itself is treated with reverence and has all it needs to be whole. Make the diversity of this city a delight to all of us who live and visit here, and a strong bond uniting us around common goals for the good of all of us. Amen.

Amen. Thank you.

Next item, Mary.

Approval of proposed agenda.

Councilman, do we have any amendments or items they would like to change on the proposed agenda?

If not, I just need a motion. If we're going to add executive sessions, we probably want to note that now. Oh, note that now? Yeah, just you don't have to say the whole motion, but just the two executive sessions, both for attorney client.

Okay, so we'll basically have two executive sessions at the end of the regular meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve the proposed agenda as presented, actually as amended with two executive sessions at the end. Second. Second.

Yes. Garza?

Yes.

Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes. Next item.

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

This is part of the agenda where any person listening to address the City Council shall first be recognized by the Mayor, come to the microphone, state the person's name, address, and subject to be discussed, and if appearing in a representative capacity whom the person represents. Remarks shall be limited to five minutes. Comments during this 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 exchanges, and debate are not permitted during general public comment. The portion of the meeting is for the city council to receive public comment. The council will generally not engage in discussion or debate with speakers. To avoid repetitious presentations, the mayor may require a spokesperson for a group. Audience members may address items on the agenda when those items are taken up by city council, and comments relating to those items shall comply with city code. So at this point, if anybody would like to come up and make a comment, come forward.

Council, Cecil Weibel, Public Works Director. I just want to take a quick moment real quick to invite everybody down to Public Works tomorrow night. We'll have an open house to show off Public Works utilities. Time to meet staff and see what we do a little bit behind the curtain. So I just want to take a second and invite you and all the public to it. So it'll be at Public Works 6 to 8 o'clock tomorrow night.

Thank you. Thanks. My name is Bob Kenyon. I live at 2507 Meadow Lake Drive. I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. As a reminder, the Earth Matters group, which I represent, was here a month ago. There were nearly a dozen members. And at that time, we presented you with these fabulous reusable bags to encourage you to not use the plastic bags that you get at Walmart and Dillon's. And I trust that you are all using them, I'm sure. We had a very impassioned speech by my partner in crime, Carla Kenyon, where she explained why these plastic bags are terrible for our environment. So we ask you to consider that. Again, ultimately my request is that you put the consideration of banning plastic bags on the agenda. It doesn't hurt to talk about something. It's not a commitment, but let's have a conversation. As a reminder, the members of our group represent seven churches in Hutchinson. We feel that is part of our spiritual obligation to take care of our earth. I attend Grace Episcopal, and we frequently speak this prayer, which I'd like to share. Give us all a reverence for the earth as your creation, that we may use its resources rightly in the service of others and to your honor and glory. So that's important to me. That's very important to me. After our last meeting, one of the council members responded to a request and suggested that it would be useful if we could produce an ordinance from a similar city. So we found the City of Lawrence, Kansas ordinance number 9996, and I have duplicated it. May I distribute these?

Yeah, if you just hand that to Mary and she can pass that down.

So in sum, we really are passionate about this topic. Surely it will be somewhat controversial. Surely there will be naysayers. But we need to take care of this planet. And you're our leaders. So please take the lead. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hi, everybody. I am Kate Ireland, 1300 East 33rd, and I am here to talk as the representative for Cause for Paws, Inc. The Cause for Paws, Inc. nonprofit is celebrating 20 years of ensuring the well-being of all cats and dogs, reducing pet overpopulation, building a strong base of animal advocates, and supporting the Hutchinson Animal Shelter. I'd like to share some of the group's history, contributions, and accomplishments in working together with the city on the shared vision for more humane management of Hutchinson community dogs and cats. In January of 2006, the city ended their contract with the Hutchinson Humane Society and opened the city-owned and operated Hutchinson Animal Shelter. The shelter was quickly overwhelmed with pet overpopulation issues before there was sufficient infrastructure to mitigate the influx. The city council asked that a group be created to assist the shelter in reducing the number of pet euthanizations through education and financial support. By August of 2006, the nonprofit Cause for Paws, Inc. was officially established as a community solution to a community problem, and the founding board members, Sylvia Griggs, Charles Bucklew, Artie Alexander, Donna Hessman, Nicole Phillips, and Nancy Scott, and other animal advocates were soon able to reduce the number of pet euthanizations by half. Artie says, we cannot adopt ourselves out of a pet overpopulation problem. It is only by preventing unnecessary litters that we reduce the overwhelming number of strays. In July of 2007, Cause for Paws, Inc. officially launched the STOP program, making low to no cost spay and neuter services financially accessible for everyone with a cat or dog who might not otherwise be able to spay or neuter their pets. Over 10,000 pets have been spayed or neutered through this program. In April of 2008, Cause for Paws Inc. and the Hutchinson Animal Shelter received a rescue transport van through a donation from the Bob Newey Legacy Fund to transport dogs and cats to other shelters and rescue organizations to reduce pet overpopulation. The City of Hutchinson recognizes the importance of this service with continued sponsorship and with your help we've been able to transport over 10,000 animals. The city of Hutchinson Dog Park officially opened on June 14, 2008, and Charles Bucklew was the driving force behind this project. The city designated two acres north of the animal shelter for the park, and Cause for Paws Inc. secured over $50,000 to install the fence, and later secured funds to install a pond, trees, benches and shelters, and even rebuild after a damaging storm. The park continues to be a valued space where people can safely recreate with their pets. Over the years, Cause for Paws Inc. has made many other contributions to the city and community, including providing pet oxygen masks for the fire department and animal shelter, paying the ballots for the dog center expansion, and creating other initiatives including pet food drives and an annual reduced cost spay-neuter for pit bull terrier breeds. Our community is who sustains Cause for Paws, Inc. through partnerships with the city, area businesses and organizations, and through grants, endowments, and donations from others who share this same vision of humane animal management. As we celebrate 20 years, it is important to reflect on the impact the city and its citizens have made. This community solution to a community problem has helped well over 25,000 pets through stop, rescue transports, emergency medical equipment and assistance, vaccination clinics, spay-neuter clinics, adoption events, and more. In addition to creating immeasurable benefits such as contributing to citizen livelihoods, educating pet owners, improving pet health and recreation, and by doing fun events and activities with each other and our pets. So from the bottom of our pet loving hearts, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Good evening, council, city team, and our community. I am here on behalf of the Hutchinson Community Foundation. Mary, do you mind if I give these to you? Thank you. I'm going to remind everyone that it is the time of the year for the Love Where You Live survey for our communities here in Reno County. This is the third and final year for the survey. One big final push. There is a $50,000 grant pool to go out to the communities for grants in each individual community. Based on the ratio of survey returns, each community gets up to a maximum of, I believe, 30%. The survey can be filled out at renosurvey.com and it closes on September 30th. I cannot emphasize how big of a deal this is for our community in regards to gathering information on what is important to the overall citizenry and to what proportion efforts should be pushed towards what endeavor we go after. So it really helps us be more efficient and provide community leaders, nonprofits with information they need on how to create strategies to best move forward on what the community has filled out in the survey. So please fill it out. If you have questions, go to the Hutch Community Foundation's website. or renosurvey.com and also I believe there are paper surveys available also so if you don't want to fill that out online just reach out to the Hutchinson Community Foundation and you can fill out a paper survey there. So I would urge everyone to do that and we'd like to try to beat last year's numbers. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, Mary. Next item.

Item number six, consent agenda.

Council had a chance to look through the agenda, consent agenda, anything in there, questions, comments?

I had questions about expenditures on, let's see, page 37. Sorry. Yeah. Okay, so either we can move this out, move the expenditures out, or I can ask questions right now. What would be most appropriate?

I'm assuming Angela to answer the question? Probably. Yeah, I think we probably just do it now.

Okay, so there are four expenditures to the Cosmosphere, and I was hoping these could be explained what these are.

I don't know a whole lot of detail about this. I know that they're restoring this as a firefighter and airplane. The Cosmosphere is for us. It's going to be part of the displays for the Starbonds. So I know they're restoring it and we're paying them to do that. It's part of the Starbond agreement.

But the Starbond isn't active yet?

It's not.

So we're already paying funds from a Starbond that isn't creating, generating funds?

The Starbond will start collecting funds October 1st. And we're... I meet with the underwriters tomorrow to try to get that process going so we can submit this probably to local banks so we can put that out and get that star bond process going.

So I guess I'm just confused why we have an expenditure that, so these have already been paid. But the intent was that these funds would come from the Starbond, but the Starbond doesn't have, there's no funds in the Starbond fund right now because it hasn't even generated, it's not even active. So I don't get it.

I'm not even sure if this is going to be reimbursed by Starbonds at this point. That's something we're still working through.

Okay. And if it's not reimbursed by Starbonds, what contract is in place that we're paying the Cosmosphere $65,000 to restore fighter jet?

I do not have the contract. I'm not sure, but I could look into that.

Okay. I mean, it says, sorry, it says other capital outlay, but I don't know if that's like...

Yes, we're paying it out of the CIP fund right now. If it isn't paid by start bonds, we'll be paying for it out of the interest generated off that fund.

Okay.

That's all I know right now.

Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

No, that a part of the Starbonds was artifacts around the city, and this would be the first one.

The Starbond doesn't have money in it because it hasn't started until October.

Okay, but it's all been approved, and they're getting started on the airplane so that it can be placed, I believe, at the Woody seat. We talked about this several meetings ago, I remember.

Right, I just didn't know that we were making... that we were cashing checks from something that doesn't have any money in it.

Well, I mean, it's similar to tax proceeds. We don't have all the taxes collected at the beginning of the year, but the budget is set forth through the entire year. So as funds roll in, those expenditures are, are spent.

So as funds roll in, those expenditures are spent. This is already, we've already written a check to the Cosmosphere. This, This is an expenditure from six days ago.

Yeah, but it's my understanding with things like that, if it's been approved and the money will be coming in, then you can spend against it. We can get you an official opinion on that at another date. But also, if you do have concerns for staff and things of this nature, I mean, you can let us know beforehand and we can look into it more if you do have a question at the meeting.

Thanks, Cody. Any other questions?

If not, I would just be looking for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented and authorize the mayor to sign. I'll second.

Truett? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? No. Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes.

Item number seven, public hearing. A, continuation of public hearing to consider Meadows-on-Monroe RHID and development plan.

Matt Williams, Director of Community Development. We are asking to continue this to the next meeting while we continue working through the details.

Okay. I'll move to continue the public hearing.

Before we... I got a question. Yes. I do too. Is this something we should close until we know exactly what's going on? I think we... I mean, because every... I guess my concern is if somebody's coming to hear it and they come every meeting and then we continue it... Yeah.

I think that's a discussion that Cody and I have started having is... Do we need to start a new time clock or continue this one out? I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.

Yeah, I mean, the issue with closing it is then we absolutely do have to republish and start the whole time clock over. But based on the negotiations that are currently going on with the developer and the terms in the developer agreement, we may have to do that anyway. So I would say I would request we continue this one more time, and by the next meeting we're going to know either way if we can just continue it at that meeting or if we just need to reset the clock because of certain terms in the developer agreement that would require us to do so.

Is there anything you can share with us about the cause for delay or just that terms haven't been reached?

I would add we're looking at assurances. I mean, this is specifically in relation to the issues that we're dealing with the Plum Creek development and making sure that those problems do not happen again, using that as a case study of lessons learned, I guess you could say. So working with the developer, we're really excited about them. They're really wanting to move, and we've expressed that to them. But that, you know, I think they also understand the concerns that we want to make sure, you know, we have the proper assurances in place. And that's a legal term for the specific terms that we're discussing with them. But I think we're really close to having that idea. We've had meetings with them, and they understand where we're at. and we're getting ready to give them information based on some conversations we've been having with Bond Council. So, again, yeah, we're really excited about it. I think we're getting close, and I think this developer is going to move pretty quickly.

That's what I was hoping to hear was that we're applying the lessons that we've learned from Plum Creek to – I can never get... Meadows and Monroe. I am encouraged by the fact that Liberty Homes pulled four building permits in the Plum Creek area, not in Meadows and Monroe, but that is promising that at least they're moving forward with some.

Yeah, we're very excited to work with them, and we just want to make sure this is perfect, and we just had a positive meeting with them. Do you feel like we're on the right path?

Yeah, and they have permits, but there's also foundation forms set already.

Yep, I saw that.

That's a good... Making progress. Yeah, making progress.

And in the span of, like, two weeks. Yes. When we were told four weeks ago these houses were unbuildable and unsellable. Mm-hmm. So I think that's... That's a good thing. Yeah. If there's no additional remarks, I provide a second to Mr. Fast's motion.

Truen? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss?

Yes.

Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes.

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

I will make a motion to open this public hearing.

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

Yes. Good evening, council. Jason Lady, building official. So tonight we have a hearing on residential combination from five structures that you heard on July 7th to set this hearing. So we'll get started with the first one. This is 102 West 9th Avenue. On this one, recent activity, we made attempts to contact the owner with no positive response to date. We've mailed not only the certified letters out for the enforcement and the property maintenance code violations, but also for this hearing. The property condition still stands the same as it did during that July 7th meeting on all these, really. And so the residence is currently vacant since 2024 when it had a structure fire. There was a PMC opened 6-23-25. There was a whole house building permit in 2025, which expired on July 1st. 2nd of 2025. There's been four property maintenance violations since 2020. A board up in 2024. There's been no active utilities since before 2024. And the taxes are delinquent on this structure for 2025. Can I ask a question on that one?

Yeah, sure.

And that's probably the best if we ask questions. As we go. Okay. As we go.

Is this the one that we have insurance funds? No. Okay. I'll speak to that one as soon as we get to it. Okay. Thank you.

I did have a positive interaction with that owner this week. So this is 300 East Avenue E. Recent activity on this is we had an individual removed from the property May 14th, 2026. We've made attempts to contact the owner with no response to date. The owner is deceased, however, there was other interest in the property and we have not heard from those other parties. Staff mailed certified letters for enforcement and for this hearing again. Property condition is that the resident is currently vacant since 2022 with the exception of the individual that was living there this year, but was not authorized to live there. The PMC was opened on 5-14-2026. It's had 12 property maintenance code violations since 2018. We boarded it up on May 14, 2026, and there's been no active utilities under this structure since 2022. And the taxes are delinquent since 2022 on this property. Oh, yes. So in your staff report, I believe this says 300 East Avenue F. Had to make a correction of that because I put the wrong address on the resolution, but I have fixed that on the resolution that you should have. I sent that to Mary this morning, so... Noticed that error on my part and corrected the resolution. But the resolution that was sent out to the owner and the resolution that was posted for this hearing in the newspaper were correct. So there was no error in that. The next one, 315 and a half North Cleveland Street. Staff spoke with the owner during the board up on April 23rd, 2026 with PD present. I believe, according to the staff member, they were using PD's phone and spoke with the owner. Spoke with the owner at that time. The owner was upset because we were boarding up the structure at that time. Staff has made attempts to contact the owner since the board up with no response. Staff spoke with a potential buyer on this property. They performed a walkthrough and decided not to purchase the property due to the condition of the property. Staff mailed certified letters again, not only for the enforcement, but also for this hearing. Currently, the structure sits vacant. The PMC was open on this on 3-6-2026. There are current nuisance violations that date back to 11-12-2025. We have an open abatement on this right now. I'm not sure whether that's been completed by the contractor or not. I'd have to follow up on that. But it was boarded up in 2025 and again re-boarded on April 23, 2026. There's been no active utilities on it since 2025, and the taxes are delinquent for 2025.

Was this the one we had a gentleman come to council and speak in regards to?

Yes.

Okay, and so no positive movement forward then? No positive movement forward. Okay.

This is 615 East Avenue A. This is the one that we have the fire proceeds for. Staff spoke with the owner. I spoke with the owner personally last week. I explained the condemnation process. He was already aware of the condemnation process. I wouldn't say I've been in regular conversation with staff, but he has had... just some general conversations over time. He has asked and wished to remove some items. He had some film in there. He's a photographer and he had some film in there that was starting to fire. He removed some previously and the film still came out okay, so he's requested that he retrieve some other items out of the home and we'll allow for that and work with him on that. And again, he's aware that we've mailed the certified letters for the enforcement in this hearing. We've had regular conversations with him. There was a structure fire in November of 2024. currently sits vacant. The inspector inspected on 11-26-2024. The house was deemed inhabitable at that point. There was a current PMC on April 3rd, 2026. The original PMC was open on 11-26-2024. And there's been two property maintenance violations since 2018. Nothing significant on this house. But as boarded up after the fire in November 2024, there's been no usage on the utilities in the last three years and the taxes are current to date. We do have fire proceeds like I said for the demolition of this house. The owner wishes to move forward with the demolition. Just wishes to get a few items out before we do that. So we would use the fire proceeds to take care of that. The owner has had a couple of bids on the house, but we would allow for city staff to make contact with our demolition contractor and see if we can get into this at a reduced cost. That way, some of the fire proceeds after the demolition of the home would go back to the homeowner.

Here's the way to speed this process up, since he's willing to have it demoed?

I mean... That would be a conversation I'd have to have with Cody and then see if there's anything we can do to speed it up. Regardless, I mean, there's 30 days written into the resolution here tonight, and it would take a little bit of time anyway to work with our demolition contractor to even get that going. So those 30 days would probably go by regardless.

Okay. So there's a potential it could be done in 30 days?

There's a potential it could be done within the next 30 days, yes. Or after those 30 days that are over, according to the resolution.

Okay. Yeah, I've been contacted by some citizens that are very, would like to have it taken down as soon as possible. And they own a residence next door, and it's a very big eyesore.

Yes.

So if the owner applies for a demo permit at some point during, let's say that we move forward with the condemnation this evening, and that starts at 30-day clock, and the owner pulls a demo permit at some time during that 30 days, are you willing to work with him and allow him time to get the bids and all that?

Yeah, if the homeowner came in with a demolition contractor and pulled a demo permit, it would go the same route. They would demo the property, and then after we cleared the property and approved all the inspections, we would then release the fire proceeds.

Yes, okay.

Yes.

And I assume that the standards for the demolition are the same standards as what our contractor would be held to.

Yes, demolition standards are the same no matter what, whether it's through a city contractor, whether it's through a privately obtained demolition contractor, yes.

Thank you.

And then the last one tonight, 1109 North Elm Street. The owner here is deceased. Again, staff's not had any contact with the owner, but, I mean, deceased. So we did mail the certified letters for enforcement and for this hearing, as in accordance with state statutes. There's been no other... that have come forward in this case. The residence has been vacant since 2023. We've had a PMC on this since 10-2 of 2025. There's been 11 property maintenance issues on this since 2023. We regularly mow the grass in this property, as you can see in this. photo here. It was boarded up in October 2025. There's not been any active utilities on the structure since 2023 and the taxes have been delinquent on this property since 2023. And then I'll stand for any further questions if you have any.

I have a question about 300 East Avenue E. So You mentioned that it's delinquent since 2022. And this same question applies to, I think, two of the others. So it's a three-year period before it goes to a sheriff's sale. So that would mean that, presumably, this would be sold at the sheriff's auction soon.

It depends. If it's seen as a residence, then it could be as those three years for a non-homestead, five years for a homestead.

And who makes the determination of whether or not it could be a homestead?

I believe that's the county. I'm not familiar with that process.

Do we know if any of these are currently, because the sheriff's office does some due diligence with title work before the sheriff's sale. Do we know if any of these are, like, in the process of having title work done? Okay.

Council, any other questions on these items? If not, is there any public comment in regards to any of these houses? If not, I just need a motion to... I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

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

Yes.

Item number seven, ordinances and resolutions. Consider a resolution condemning unsafe and dangerous structures within the city of Hutchinson.

So I would just need on this one, any comments or questions on this process?

I do have a question about the funding for the demolitions. So I know that we've set funding aside in the 2026 budget, and I would imagine that some of the other properties that we've worked on throughout this year are not going to make the calendar to come out of the 26 budget and some of them will be pushed over in a 27. Do you anticipate these being completed in 26 or pushed into 27?

on the demolition contractors actually we're going to take about ten of these structures we have 20 residential structures right now this is the four set that we brought to you we have about five or six that are in the works of getting rehabbed and then we're going to bring ten I don't know that's going to be next council meeting or the council meeting after that but we're going to bring ten We're going to put 10 out for bid to contractors because our demolition contractor with the city just hasn't been able to get to some of these.

And do you know how much money would still be in the demo fund after all is said and done for those 10?

After these 10, it'd be just dependent on what the cost is. I mean, these could range anywhere from $6,000, $7,000 where we've got bids back on some houses all the way up to, you know, that East Avenue, that 615 East Avenue way there. I know the homeowner got bad bids back in the $40,000 range. So it'd just be dependent on how the bids come back.

615 East Avenue. Is that two or three stories?

It's two stories.

In a basement? I don't know what it is. Okay. That was my only question.

Council, do you have any other questions? I do. I'd move to approve a resolution condemning unsafe and dangerous structures within the city of Hutchinson, 102 West 9th, 300 East Avenue E, 315 1⁄2 North Cleveland Street, 615 East Avenue A, 1109 North Elm Street, and authorize the mayor to sign. I'll second.

Truen. Yes. Garza. Yes. Goss. Yes. Fast. Yes. Makers.

Yes.

I am a be considered an ordinance updating section twenty four dash one of the hutchinson city code regarding expungement chloe smith city attorney

Mayor and Council, in the packet I did include a memo on this as well as you have before you the proposed ordinance. What this ordinance does is it amends our current code section 24-1001 relating to expungements in municipal courts. Really it's a clean up ordinance. The way the current code is written At the time, the state statute, that particular state statute was in place. It was essentially, I believe, probably a copy-paste job where took the provisions of the state statute, which that's what controls over expungements in Kansas, even over municipal courts, pasted into the code. Well, that code or that statute, I should say, has now been amended a couple times since then. So In talking with municipal court staff, they raised this with me and asked that we get our code updated so that it reflects the current statute. So that's what this does. I kind of streamlined it a little more than the current Code 2. I referenced those particular statutes. and that those are what would apply in the situation. That way, when this statute is inevitably amended again, we don't have to do this again. It's just going to be based on that statute as amended. So it kind of future-proofs it, so to speak, as well. So just briefly on expungements, for those who aren't familiar with those, After a certain amount of time, after someone is arrested and or convicted, they can apply for an expungement of that record. Usually it's at least three years, but it depends on the nature of the conviction and the arrest. It can be longer than that for more serious offenses, but I think essentially the idea is that at some point... to give people the opportunity to remove that from their records so that it does not serve as an anchor, so to speak, especially with respect to job applications and things of that nature. So an expungement essentially kind of takes it off the individual's record for the most part. Again, there are a lot of exceptions that apply. There's a lot to it. It's a very long statute. So another reason why I cited the statutory numbers as opposed to copy and pasting it. But we'll also be working with court staff to develop some forms and things like that to make it a little more streamlined and easier in municipal court once this is adopted. Yeah, I would just ask that you pass this so we can make sure we're up to date with what the state statute says so there's no confusion if someone comes in and wants to apply and is looking at our code and comparing it to what controls the state statute. I ask that you approve this, and like I said, we'll move forward with kind of implementing it after that. Council, do you have any questions?

Yeah, I have a question. So in the absence of a... city regulation, we would default to whatever the state law is, right?

Essentially, yeah.

So why not just repeal this entirely and default to the state law? Are we required to have this because it would allow us to provide expungements for city prosecuted cases? Or would the state law still also allow for the expungement of city prosecuted cases?

Yes, I mean, the state law is what applies, and we can't – this is a uniformly applicable law. I don't believe it's something we could charter out of if we wanted to. But it does – I think it's important to include the reference of the expungement that way, you know, when someone is looking at the code or even, you know, an attorney is looking at the code to see, okay, where – where they add on their expungements. What does it say? It won't be a question of, well, I didn't see expungements in your code. Did you guys try to charter out of it or something? Is this something that's available? It's clear that someone looks at the code. We do offer expungements pursuant to state law and then cite the statute that they can reference in terms of how to make application for those.

I would hope that any attorney would know that in absence of a local regulation, we default to the state law.

Yeah, but I mean, a lot of times when you're looking at code, you never know if they did charter out of it. So I think it clears that question up. Again, I don't think that's possible, but generally criminal defense attorneys aren't well-versed in municipal law in terms of ordinances and things of that nature. So again, I think this just makes sure everyone's on the same page with what the law is and what they need to follow.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Not looking for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve an ordinance updating section 24-1001 of the Hutchinson City Code regarding expungement and authorize the mayor to sign.

Second. Truin. Yes. Garza. Yes. Goss. Yes. Fast. Yes. Magers.

Yes.

8C, consider an ordinance authorizing issuance of geobonds to pay for cost of demolishing an unsafe and dangerous structure.

Angela Richard, Director of Finance. Part of the demo list included 211 East 4th. This is the church. This has been condemned through code enforcement. It was put out to demo the property and the bid was awarded for just over $218,000. Tonight I'm asking that you approve an ordinance allowing us to issue geobonds to reimburse ourselves for the cost of this demolition. And the 2026 budget, it was budgeted to bond a certain amount of demolitions and then also use cash to fund part of those, the cash for carry forward and the bonding Allowance will also carry forward to 27 to kind of answer some of your prior questions. So we're asking this ordinance to allow us to authorize bonding up to $235,000 to allow for bonding costs. So city council or city staff recommend approval of the ordinance as stated. Are there any questions?

I understand that I understand the reason for bonding this by itself, but with it being such a small bond, do you anticipate it getting a less favorable rate than if we were to wait?

Sorry, I apologize. I didn't clarify that. We are going to wait until he has other projects to bond with this, and then we'll bond all the demos together. As he goes through the condemnation process on further properties, we'll combine it and do one bond issuance.

Okay.

So it may not be until the spring of 27.

Okay. The analysis on the staff report said we were waiting until the next bond sale would delay the project.

Yeah, that's if we don't do this ordinance, we would have to wait until the bond did all the... With other projects. Okay. And then we could demo. So this allows us to do it before we actually have the blind persons. Okay. So that's what I was trying to point out in the staff memo.

Thank you.

Council, any other questions? I'll move to approve an ordinance authorizing the issuance of GO bonds to pay for the cost of demolishing an unsafe and dangerous structure and authorize the mayor to sign.

Did you want to open that for public comment?

Yeah, sorry. I was getting ready to. Oh, I'm sorry. Anyone from public comment on this? Seeing none, I'm looking for a second. I'll second.

Second. Truin?

Yes.

Garza?

Yes.

Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Magers?

Yes.

Item number nine, new business. A, update on 17th and Plum.

Good evening, council. to provide a summary of the recent activity at the intersection of 17th and Plum. In the last week of July, the city experienced a number of water main breaks as the temperatures soared at the end of the month. Major breaks occurred on Plum Street, just a little bit south of 16th Avenue, and then on 17th Avenue, west of the intersection. Our water maintenance division responded and repaired the breaks on the six inch water main on 17th, and the 10 inch water main on Plum, but we discovered while we were doing that work, we needed to replace the water valve that was in the middle of the intersection itself. The damage done by the water breaks left sections of both 17th and Plum impassable for traffic, and we needed to close the intersection in order to handle that and the replacement of the valve itself. So the Public Works Division and the Utilities Division met after water service had been restored to the impacted residents and we discussed a plan of action to address the damage from the water main breaks. Because the footprints were so large, we determined that the best path would be to use outside contractors to accomplish most of the work. Some city crews were identified for associated activities, but the bulk of the work would be done by contractors. After the water division completed the surface restoration and after the sanitary sewer division checked the integrity of the sanitary sewer line that runs down Plum, we were worried about it, and once that was confirmed to be in acceptable shape, we went ahead working on scoping the necessary contract documents for the repairs on both of those sections. Now we chose different approaches for each of those partly because the work on 17th was quite a bit smaller and we found that it actually fit within the remaining scope that we had on our concrete maintenance contract. So we assigned that work under our existing contract to Ward Davis and the work on Plum looked significantly larger because the damaged area was about a half a block. So we ended up We realized that the area where this damage had occurred and the timing threatened the traffic patterns at the start of school for the HCC campus or the high school for Graber. So we attempted to expedite that work while still making sure that we were getting the quality and the value that we wanted to establish. So we went out to three bidders. These are all companies that we've worked with on street restorations and reconstructions recently. We went to Ward Davis, we went to Kansas Concrete, and then Procon, that's the contractor that did the work on 30th between Main and Adams. We had estimated that the cost of the work would be about $160,000. PROCON wasn't able to bid. The schedule that we'd set out was fairly tight. We knew the school was starting soon, so we had set August 11th as the date of completion for all the work. PROCON just wasn't available during that. Both were Davis and Kansas concrete debt out of availability, and both produced bids that were under the $160,000 number. Kansas Concrete had the lowest qualified bid at $91,000. So we met with them, drafted up the contract documents, and I believe you got a note from the city manager alerting you that we had bypassed some of the formal processes for this because of the timeliness. And then we executed their contract on August 3rd. They mobilized that same day, and Concrete was poured on August 6th. While where Davis was working on 17th, we did have a second water main break on the 31st of July that did, it was just within feet of the original break. So that delayed some of the work there. We had originally expected that to be closed up before the break, before the repairs on Plum. But we ended up actually opening both of them, I think, on Tuesday, August 11th, after we got the concrete test results that showed both patches met the required strengths. So both of them were open to be open. Hopefully before there was too much impact for the before opening schools activities. And I just want to commend the teams within the city that worked really hard to fix the main breaks, prepare for the work, And then both Ward Davis and Kansas Concrete for doing outstanding jobs delivering both of those scopes of work within a really aggressive schedule. So my thanks to all of them for the work they did. That's it. Any questions?

Yeah, I have one. Cecil, did they interrupt the loops in the traffic lights for the control? Did you go another route or put the loops back in or what?

Honestly, I don't think we affected the loops on either one of those.

Okay, you didn't hit the loops? Okay, good. Thank you.

I have a question about which parts of the formal bid process were waived. Council was made aware that the timeline was shortened, but which parts were waived? Was it strictly the length of response time?

We did not post the request for bids to the open public. So we only went to the three bidders. And then Enrico approved the contract rather than bring it in before the city council. So those were the two areas where we bypassed our normal procedures.

And how did you select which companies to send the RFP to? So our criteria was

companies that we had worked with relatively recently on similar, if not the same kind of work, and that were local. And that we queried initially to find out if they would be willing to bid. So it was a limited set of criteria, but we did want to make sure that it was transparent through the process.

Any other questions?

I have one final question, and it's for Cecil probably. I think Monday morning the wattles were still on Plum Street. Did they get those picked up?

I think we were still working with the contractor just to make sure some of the grass was where they had to establish grass, and then those should be picked up fairly soon.

Cool, because they were on the sidewalk, so they've gotten picked up.

Yeah, we were going to make sure we maintain those until the grass gets established.

Okay, thank you.

Evan, thank you for your work, and thank you for expediting that.

The staff, I just watched them work literal miracles, honestly.

It was pretty amazing seeing the street water and the contractors. I don't think people realize how much they use 17th and Plum, and with school starting and everything. I know. I was like, oh, no. What do I do?

I mean, Plum was bad, but Plum has okay detour rates, but 17th is just horrible. To make sure they could get both open back up in a second comment.

I think I like your haircut I have one more question the The westbound Lane Hold on I wrote it down because I didn't want to get the directions wrong. Okay, the eastbound Lane just west of the intersection is has some asphalt patches that are pretty rough. Are those going to be re-evaluated, or is that as good as it's going to get?

Sure, we can take a look at it. I haven't driven that section myself.

I drive it eight times a day.

I'm the north-south, so I see all the stuff on Plum, but yeah, we can take a look at it.

Plum looks fabulous.

Plum is great. I was really impressed.

And I couldn't tell, I couldn't recall if these sections, they're fairly small squares, were new or just they now appear rougher based on some of the other smooth patches that are there.

That's the irony. Sometimes that's what shows up. But I'll sit down. Engineering and Street will take a look at it tomorrow and see. Thank you. Maybe we wait. I think Trinity starts tomorrow. Are they the last ones starting school?

Yeah, they start on the 18th. They were delayed. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, just do it in the middle of the fair. That would be ideal. Sure.

Thanks again, guys.

Thank you, Evan.

Thank you. Item 9B, school zone discussion.

evening again. C. Swivel, Director of Public Works. Actually, less of a discussion and more of an update real quick. Staff's been working trying to get school zone stuff put together. We've also been working with Cody on we want to re-look at the ordinances. Some of the stuff when this project's all kind of started back in 2024 when we first started looking at some of these the more we've been digging the more we've been finding some stuff that our ordinances are out of date for one we found where there's schools on the ordinances that are not on the ordinances that we have school zones so we're trying to work through that what I'm really asking for tonight from council is a little patience Cody and I are going to work diligently on it and the plan is the September 15th council meeting to be able to bring a in order for you to look at that and address a lot of the questions and issues that's kind of around school zones, and really have our staff plan on how to attack this in a way that's both beneficial and safe for the schools and the public, but also financially sound towards the city. So that's what I really wanted to do tonight, and with school just starting, I didn't want to wait and just spring it at the end of September, or middle of September, so I wanted to just give a brief update tonight to Let you know where we're at and ask for just a little more time so we can finish it off. But I will answer questions if you need.

If I remember right, didn't we vote to, aren't we going to have a traffic study?

So we've been doing traffic studies in a lot of places. I don't remember if we voted.

I was thinking one night, gentlemen, maybe we had some money that had came in.

So we did talk about the Safe Streets for All program. We have an existing grant for that. And we've selected a firm to do the work on that. And this is a possible topic. We haven't had our scoping meeting with them yet. I think by the time that CECL presents in mid-September, we'll have had that scoping meeting, so we'll be able to tell you, hey, the experts tell us this is a good topic for the dollar amount that we have, or maybe we need to adjust the parameters. Hopefully, we will have more information then.

So your SS4A grant was just turned in at the end of July, right? That was your due date?

Don't remember. I'd have to look.

Okay. But you've already been notified of funding?

Yes, this is the one where we had to work through the process. And we requested qualifications through our public bidding website and selected a joint firm. It's a blank page. Garver out of Wichita is partnered with JU. That's what we selected. So there's a pre-scoping meeting and a scoping meeting when you go through what are our priorities, what are some of our wants, and they tell us, okay, here's how you adjust those parameters to fit within your dollar amount. And like I said, we're hoping to have accomplished those couple of meetings. about what information they've given us because ultimately we want your goals to align with the point of the study too.

And the Safe Streets for All grant, the planning grant that is being funded does not fund infrastructure, correct?

That's correct. The program can, but our particular grant will not.

But that would be a second grant that would go out? Correct. Next June or July.

We would use the first one as the, I guess, jumping off. Right. There's an intermediate one where you can do tests if you're wanting to test out some novel approach. I'm fairly conservative as an engineer, and I like to use things that have been used before, so we'll see if that's something recommended. But ultimately, we would want to end in a grant that was for the kind of infrastructure changes that the first one identified.

So with the kind of speaking to the process of the grants, both grants combined, so the planning period is going to be now, and then once we have the plan, we would begin our Safe Streets for All, the one that's, it's still SS4A, but it's the one that goes for the equipment and the infrastructure. So then we would put together that grant, submit it next summer, and if funded, we would be using those grant dollars to execute the plan basically this time next year.

Yeah, that's what seems logical to me. There may be ways to expedite it, and the experts may tell us, hey, go ahead and put your application in for the infrastructure, the actual infrastructure one now, and we're working on the plan right now, and we'll clarify what that looks like. Sometimes there are opportunities like that, but I think if there aren't, the schedule you outlined sounds logical.

And for clarity, the option to... pursue the fund, which may or may not, I mean, you never know how much you'll get, may or may not cover all of the projects that are outlined in the plan. So the other option would be that you would offset the plan with city budget dollars.

Yeah, and I need to learn a little bit more about it. I think you can establish a budget in your application. I don't know if there's a cap. I suspect there is.

And are the grants competitive?

Yes.

So would establishing city budget dollars ahead of applying for the grant make us more competitive?

It does for similar grants, like the TA grants is very much part of their assessments, is whether the city's committed to the program overall or if we're just waiting for the grant to come through. So I would have to ask about SS4A, but it wouldn't surprise me if showing a similar commitment beyond the grant itself had value to the people reviewing the grant application. Okay.

Is that something that you'd be able to get us at least a conservative measure to include in our budget discussions as we work through that through the rest of the year?

Yes, I think that's probably some of the early questions that we need to ask in these scoping meetings because... As we've learned, it's never too early to start planning for the next budget season, and that's information that would be useful to us. If we know we need to start socking money away in a CIP reserve for these, it would be good to have that information as well. So I'll add a list of questions that we want to go over in the scoping meeting.

Thank you.

Sure.

The only thing I was going to add, if there's no other questions, is at September 15th, we also plan on having a traffic engineer from JDO here to be able to answer questions that might come up as well. But yeah, that's kind of the plan. We're trying to get it so we have something we can scope for and budget for and be able to get what's needed, but also make sure we can financially cover it.

Any more questions? No. Hey, while you're up here, you want to give me the mowing update?

Yes. While I'm here, I'm going to quick update on, we've had a lot of phone calls about our mowing season. We have crews out diligently working, but we have had a ration of equipment breakdowns. I was actually just talking to the chief about that. He asked me if we have more breakdowns in zero temperatures or 100 degree temperatures, and Honestly, normally we have more breakdowns in the middle of winter. Cold's not good on anything mechanical, but it seems to be this year, especially mowing ditches and stuff, that anytime you take a piece of equipment that's supposed to travel at a parallel with the ground and you put it in a ditch at about a 45 degree angle, oils and lubricants don't go where they want. should and we've had a lot of breakdowns this year so we are behind a little bit but while we're broke down we're still not not working so we've been having crews out with weed eaters and everything else trying to stay ahead of it we have been focusing on the bad areas people in town may notice some areas where the very center of the ditch maybe not been hit yet that's an area where we typically have one of our One of our pieces of equipment, it's a remote control mower. It's about six foot wide. It is currently broke down and waiting on parts. And the bottom of those ditches is usually really wet. So sticking guys down with weed eaters in the bottom of that is asking for somebody to twist an ankle or something. So some areas are going to look like that, but we are keeping a list of those so we can get back to them. But we are trying to make sure the ditches are still flowing and ready to go.

What did you say? Did you give an update on when those mowers would be up and going?

Honestly, we keep getting them up, and then another one will break down. So I think we've come very, very close. The parts guys at a lot of the John Deere dealers and stuff like that know us by the phone, and before it even rings, they know it's somebody from the city. So they usually answer by first name. But yes, as soon as we're getting parts in, we're getting them back out. It seems like we'll get one up and running and one of the other ones will break. So on average, we've had at least two pieces of our big equipment broke down the whole summer.

And I know you're trying to get in front of us, so we appreciate that as a community. And the guys out there running trimmers in 100-degree weather, we need to thank them as well because they are working hard in that hot sun.

Yeah, absolutely.

All right. Thank you.

Item number 9C, water reuse project, Cary Park update.

Hello. Good evening. I'm Erin Patterson. I'm project manager with the utilities departments.

Justin Combs, director of parks and facilities.

And we just wanted to give you guys an update on the Cary Park and the water reuse project that we're working on. We first presented this in May of this year to city council to give you a heads up on what we're working on. Just gonna do a refresher. We are looking at utilizing non-potable water from the wastewater treatment facility for irrigation and recreation purposes out at Cary Park. You can see here where the wastewater treatment facility is. It's in this red box and we're proposing running a pipeline up along our current easement along the arc to Cary Park where there will be some modifications to the existing aquatic facilities and then the irrigation system. It's about a three miles long pipeline. We've got some pump stations along the way. And then where we stand on the SRF loan application. So again, we're looking at using about 600,000 gallons of water per day for reuse out at Cary Park in our peak time. That's about 15% of our daily effluent from the wastewater treatment facility. We did receive pre-approval of the SRF loan in June from Kansas Department of Health and Environment. We are working on preparing the full application for the SRF loan. The loan details that we've received so far from KDHE, right now we're looking at 7.2 for the conveyance, so to get it to treat at the wastewater treatment facility, pump it up, Two, Cary Park, and then pump stations for irrigation. KDHE has said that out of that 7.2, there'd be about 1 million in loan forgiveness. And the terms of that loan currently are sitting at 2.84% for a 20-year loan payback. That's about 60% of the current market rate. And then for the SRF loan application we have some very prescriptive next steps that we need to be doing. We're actually going to be having a public meeting on August 27th. It's actually going to be a joint public meeting so we can talk about not only the addition of reuse to our community but also what the parks people are looking at doing for Cary Park. We will have a public hearing on September 15th at city council. So please don't go on vacation and cancel that city council meeting. And then we will also have the resolution for that loan application that we'll be presenting on September 15th as well for council review. And then we have to get our loan in no later than October 15th for the KDHE portion of this. Any questions on this slide?

If we get this approved, what's your timeline for?

It's about a three-year project is what we've estimated. So we figured the first year for actually going through doing the design of the system, working with KDHE on our NPDES permit modification, and then also sorting out the easement for that pipeline. And then I've estimated two years for the construction where we go out for bid or the project actually start it and then construct and then complete.

Can you go back to the map, please?

Yes. I will just say, if you got more questions on details, I think Justin's got some other stuff in the slide deck as well.

For the park itself? Yeah.

No.

OK. OK. So where are the city limits on that? Are they?

Along the pipeline? Yeah.

Or in general? In general.

I don't know the exact city limits, but I do think there is some of the property between wastewater treatment and Carrier Park that are not within the city limits. But we do have ownership of the property where the levee is and where the pipeline will go.

Okay. And so all of the pipeline will be contained within the levee system and within our property?

Not necessarily. That's something we still need to work through on the design phase because we need to look at what those offsets actually are going to be. We need to do some studies with the Army Corps of Engineers because that will help. can give them assurance around the distance from the levee from where we're going to construct that pipeline, and then also the pipeline construction method, whether we bore it or if we excavate and then have to rebury it. Okay. We might have to do some expansions of our existing easements, but we would look to make it so if we could, it'd be...

contiguous with our current easement so that way there would be like a weird little island between our sewer easement and then this non-potable easement um and there's already a sewer line that's running right there yes that's correct um okay and what is the likelihood that there would be an allowance for another thing of any type to tap into the non-potable water line

So right now, what we've been discussing with KDHE has been for irrigation, non-potable uses only. If there were other interests as far as using non-potable water for agriculture or industrial or even then pushing it onto a direct potable reuse, there's no... finalized framework yet within the state. That is something they're working on, but they are also, in the discussions we've had with KDHE, we've told them that ultimately our end goal would be if the need arose, we would look at direct reuse, and they thought that was fantastic. Right, so I wouldn't expect there to be any pushback from the state. We would just need to follow through and establish that with them. And the pipelines are only going to be if we had to do a significant increase of non-potable water off that pipeline. Either if we knew now, you could look at upsizing that pipe. But if we didn't know now, what we could look at is, OK, well, do you just make your easement big enough? You could put in a second pipeline down the road. There's options that we could work through. It's just money, right?

Yeah, I don't think people like to hear that.

Sorry.

It's just money. So there's no plan currently to upsize the pipe in hopes that it could be tapped for irrigation or industry use somewhere in between there? Correct. Okay. So we're putting the appropriate size pipe to simply run the water from the plant to Cary Park and that's it? Yes.

Okay. Is that the $600,000 a day then? That's the max that pipe will carry?

I don't know what the max would be, because there's going to be some level of conservatism in there, but that's the design intention.

So there's no room for expansion once I hit Kerry Park off of that line currently?

So these are some of the details we haven't finalized yet. Because we haven't gone into the engineering, right? Because that costs money and it's not in the budget yet to do that. But, you know, we could actually design the system so that way we only send that 600,000 gallons in the span of a couple of hours. And then if we needed to tap off for some other use, like maybe we want to get to Rice Park or who knows where, then, you know, okay, well, maybe we just run that system more throughout the day, right? Or do we look at oversizing it to begin with? But we're not planning on oversizing it. But if there were needs for an increase through that line, there are ways we could try to mitigate that.

Okay. I got two questions. First question, is that pipe above ground or is it underground?

It will be underground.

Underground. Second question, at the end up there, that blue, is that a pond? Does it go into a pond?

We'll show you in just a minute.

This is Justin's part. Uh-huh. A couple slides ahead of us. Uh-huh.

So I'm just wondering, is it electronically done where we need to irrigate, it turns the pump on to push the water down there? Yeah.

So what we'll do is we'll have – so the plan that we have to do is that we've got to have pumps here at the wastewater treatment facility that pumps the water up to Cary Park where there will be a reservoir.

Okay.

The reservoir size and – Scope is dependent a little bit on separate funding streams. But regardless, you gotta have a reservoir. And then from there, that will get pumped into Cary Park for the irrigation purposes. But it will just probably be a much smaller pump station because you're not gonna be having to go as far and the flow won't be as high.

I guess what I'm thinking is you have a reservoir there and all the un-potted water or whatever goes into there. Is it gonna have a big smell?

No.

Okay. So then on the other side of it, just thinking, remember I'm an electrician, thinking this way, you're going to have to pick up the water out of that pond, some other pipes, and take it to the irrigation, correct?

Correct. Okay.

These next few slides are slides you have seen before, but I just wanted to reiterate just real quickly on this project that it is in line with all of our master plans and strategic plan, park and rec master plan and utilities water master plan is being worked on now. as well as the strategic plan for the city. Also, it's very in line with what's called the SCORP, which is the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. It's a plan the state, the master plan they put together, I think on a five-year basis. It falls very much in line with that statewide plan. Funding sources, we already talked about a little bit of this, but the two big ones are the SRF loan that we just talked about, as well as the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership, or ORLP grant. We are currently working on that grant application. That is a 50-50 match grant, so essentially we would leverage the $7.2 million from the SRF loan, then as our match, and then potentially receive up to $7.2 million from the National Park Service for the park amenities. There's other options there for grants. Land Water Conservation Fund and Recreational Trails are things we could maybe layer on top if need be. About a month ago, we kicked off the RTCA program, so that's the Cary Park Master Plan. So they were here, spent several days, and so that's going to be our primary community engagement piece. As Aaron mentioned, There is a public meeting on the 27th. Some of that team will be back to get some input about Cary Park as a whole and about this project. We will also be kicking off a public survey in the next week or so as well about the park itself as a whole and this project. And then we went through the stakeholders before. I won't read through the list, but lots of stakeholders, lots of people are interested in this project. We touched on this a little bit, but this is a similar slide from last presentation. You can see we've kind of pushed ourselves down the The timeline, and so we have the presentation tonight, and then the next piece will be public meeting on the 27th. The actual SRF application, October 26th. Also, October 1st, the ORLP grant is due to Kansas Wildlife and Parks. They have one month to submit it to National Park Service. Technically, Kansas Wildlife and Parks would be the applicant, and we are the sub-applicant. So we've been working with them hand-in-hand for a long time on this project, so they're very well very aware of it. What's not on this slide is the timeline if we are awarded the ORLP. We will know in May of 27. And then we have a year from May of 27 to May of 28 to essentially get all the paperwork and get to a grant agreement. Because it's National Park Service and federal dollars, we've got to do things like a historic study with SHPO. We have to do environmental study, our endangered species, all that stuff, get all the permitting through Corps of Engineers. So there's a long lead time. to get all of our ducks in a row. And so then the intent would be the grant would officially be signed and awarded in May of 2028, which would then be our notice to proceed to start spending dollars. So that timeline falls very in line with the SRF timeline as well. So again, this is a long-term, multi-year project. Just to get to the point that we know we're going to do it, it's going to be several years out and then probably two years of construction. So now I want to jump into more of the fun, exciting stuff about the actual pond itself and some of the concepts we've developed. But I want to step back just a little bit and think about the park, the history of the park. And one element that I hear a lot about is the boathouse that was demolished in 2010, 2012, somewhere in that area. It's definitely a feature we'd like to bring back. So this is a historic postcard of the building. This is a view of the ponds before the levee system went in. So currently if you were to stand in the same spot, basically the left third of this photograph would be the levee. And then the body of water is basically in the same spot as it was before. And you can see this is the This is the boathouse here. You can still see the sidewalks that led to the boathouse are still in place. This building, I'm not sure when it was demolished, but it was the bathhouse for the pool and the public beach that you see in the background. But this general body of water is still the same body of water that we see today at the front of the park that we call the lagoons. This is a more recent photograph of the boathouse prior from it being demolished. So you can see it was kind of a stone structure that had a little peninsula that stuck out into the water. So we've developed two different concepts and these are just working concepts at this point. These are concepts we'll show again on the 27th and start to receive feedback from them. So I just want to walk through a couple of the key features. Probably the first thing you notice is there is a road realignment with this project. So currently Cary Park Boulevard comes through and just cuts through the middle of the park where you have ponds on this side and this open green space on this side. And so what we're doing or proposing is to realign Carey Park Boulevard, so it would join Harvey Then come up here to Maple and kind of go around this big area instead of cut right through the middle of it One thing this does is this does create a net reduction in road. We are eliminating road Not adding road not adding You know, I guess one option you could continue this road through but then you'd have to have box culverts or some sort of bridge structure that would be long-term maintenance. And so in this scenario, we are actually reducing the total amount of roadway. Some of the key features on this is the boathouse that we talked about here, as well as an amphitheater. And so this would be an amphitheater looking over this large lawn, and there'd be a shared parking lot for both facilities. And then it's got several smaller picnic shelters and then fishing docks as well. And then back here behind Strimwell Fields we're showing a small parking lot with improved access to the river. Our goal is to get vehicle access up and over the levee so it's easier for somebody to drop off or pick up a canoe as opposed to dragging it up and over the levee. It's not depicted real clearly and that idea is not fully flushed out but the intent is to get vehicle traffic on the other side of the levee. A couple things that this design does is, as you pull into the park, it really opens up a nice view of the boathouse and of the ponds. It really kind of invites you into the space. The other thing it does is centralizes this parking lot that could be then used for soccer games. You've got soccer fields up here. And then the body of water itself, this shoreline is exactly the same as it currently is and so we would expand Around here. So currently there's a road that cuts through here. So that roadway would go away This would become an island and then we do a series of islands That are on the existing bank and then do the major expansion out here in that open field open green space One thing we're very cautious of we have lots of really nice mature trees in this area And so it's part of the reason why we're trying to keep some of the shoreline the same So we don't go in and rip out all of these these really nice trees Second concept, the body of water looks very similar. We're showing the same reconfiguration for the roads. But what we're doing in this one is we've actually moved the boathouse back to this corner, back behind Strummel. And what this does then, if we push the parking lot back here, But in this concept, we're showing, it's hard to see, but there's some grade lines, there's some topographic lines. So as you pull into this parking lot, you're actually gaining in elevation. So the height of this parking lot is in line, or very similar to the height of the levee. So that is a couple things. It does make it easier to get over into the river, so we'd have some sort of better river access. Again, hoping to get vehicles across there. But by bringing the elevation up, And then if we do a better job of controlling some of the vegetation here, you can actually feel connected to the river. If you didn't know the river was there and you drive through Cary Park, you would never know that there's a river right there. And so this really opens up the view. The other thing is that would allow us on the boathouse then to do some sort of multi-level where you could have almost like a split-level home, if you kind of think of that idea. where you could have an observation deck up high, and you could have more of a gathering space below. So it's just kind of doing some interesting stuff with elevation here. The other piece of this, and this is true in both concepts, incoming water into the pond would be somewhere in this area, and right here it's showing it. Here it could also be down here, but we would do some sort of water feature, so a waterfall or something really cool in this zone. And then water would actually exit up here. So in both of these we show, this one's a small shelter and the other one is the actual boathouse. The intent of that is so we don't have stagnant water, so we're forcing water to flow through the ponds to help with fish habitat and we control those sorts of things. So these are the two general ideas that we'll be talking to the public about on the 27th, trying to get feedback. Do they like one placement versus the other placement? I do think the roadway realignment is going to create some conversation. So obviously it's a fairly significant change. So those are generally the two ideas. I do have a couple... These are kind of inspirational, I guess, photographs of what we're thinking for the boathouse. Now, these are residential types, so the building materials are not accurate. We would do stone. but the intent is something like this where we have this observation deck up high and then some sort of gathering space. The water could come into it if we really wanted, so something along those lines, or it could be more of just an open air feel such as this one, depending on how the feedback comes in. But one thing we do really, really lack in Cary Park right now is that big outdoor space for a big event like a wedding or something. And so we're hopeful that this will become a destination-type pavilion, some place where lots of fun events, including weddings, could happen. And then the last piece is the amphitheater. The amphitheater shows up in both of the concepts. This amphitheater I believe is in Goddard. So just as kind of the general size and feel that we would be looking for. This one's maybe a little bit too vibrant for what we would want in Cary Park because of the bright colors. Generally, the idea would be something that we could host some really nice events on the lawn that we'll be creating with the ponds as a backdrop. So that was a lot of information, a lot of concepts. But again, the intent here is just to kind of get this out publicly and then get a lot more feedback moving forward. So questions?

Sir, go back to your map. I've got a question on your map right there. Am I seeing me up there in the corner? Are those roundabouts up there?

I did not use that word here.

I tried to get through this without pointing it out. We are showing some... Oh, man. So that's definitely going to be a piece that we discuss, is what do these intersections look at? I mean... You can make the argument on if roundabouts or traffic circles are more efficient or less efficient.

You know I spot roundabouts being a traffic guy. I've seen those two up there.

I think we're out of stop signs with the mayor's district.

That's probably why we're going with roundabouts. That would be my guess. That's probably a good analysis.

We have not done a full traffic study as part of this. And so that will be as we progress forward to find out what the right configuration of those intersections are. Again, these are just concepts at this point. So if around, you know, stop signs are sufficient, then maybe that's where we go.

I have a question on the financing side, if you could go back a couple of slides. So you mentioned that the, I think it was the OLRP, that the 7.2 million SRF funds would be considered our match for the OLRP. Are they counting that as a dollar for dollar match or just the part that's not forgivable or do you not, maybe you don't know?

It would be the entire loan amount, I think, regardless of the forgivable piece. Okay. I'll verify that, but... I mean, that gets us more... Yeah, that gives us an extra million dollars for the development of the park.

Okay. And then, given that these are... in part, or largely in part, federal grants, what's the contingency plan if they are retracted or canceled? And do you have a contingency plan for different spots that they could potentially be canceled, like during the grant agreement period, or if we're already in the construction phase and they are canceled?

I can talk about the SRF part of it.

Okay.

So for the SRF part of it, we've asked for it to be a non-equivalency style loan because it is going to be used as matching grants for the ORLAP. which means it's a state-funded loan with a non-equivalency. So to your question about federal grant cancellation, if the SRF comes through as non-equivalency, it would not be at risk for federal cancellation. Okay. And we did put it into the rate study that was done last year. It wasn't quite the right amount because we weren't there yet. But we have put in dollars into the rate study for the reuse portion of it. Okay. On the pipeline advance.

So only the OLRP would be the amount that we, potentially the extra 7.2 would be at risk?

There is that risk. The program was funded for five years. I know there are ways to pause that funding, and we've seen that before. I do think the way the timelines line out on this, we'll know on the ORLP money if that, say if we're awarded and we're moving forward and all of a sudden it gets pulled, we should know that before we accept the loan because they'll be on the card at the time. So then we can make that decision. Do we scrap the whole project or do we look for alternative funding sources for the park?

Because if we're not expanding the park, we don't need to run the pipe. Or would you run the pipe and then just not turn it at full blast?

The current lagoons don't have enough capacity to water the golf course. So we would essentially drain those dry every night that we watered and then have to recharge them, which is obviously not something we want to do. So a lot of this... The stuff we're doing around the ponds is because we have to enlarge them for capacity. In theory, Cecil's crew of public works could do a lot of that dirt work. There may be a workaround that maybe we don't get the hiking trails and we don't get the boathouse and all that, but we do get the expanded pond and expanded capacity.

Okay. And then a question about raising the parking lot, if you could go to that.

Section.

So if you're raising that boathouse parking lot to the same grade as the levee, does that not make it a weak point that, like the first point of failure for the levee system now?

I think it would make it stronger, but that's the non- Okay.

Okay. So if the levee broke, it would break there and we would anticipate the water going into this.

So by putting additional material dirt on the outboard side of the levee. So we're doing a couple of things. We're adding material to literally stop the levee from being pushed. And we're also, one of the things that the Army Corps of Engineers has realized is problematic is seepage under the levees in cases where the water on the riverside is high. And right now there's nothing other than just the low grade on the other side of the levee. So if we add dirt, that's more stuff that the water that seeps under would have to go. for both of those purposes for the levee. Now, it'd be nice to do it all along the entire length of the levee, but Justin won't let me fill in his pawns. But it's also something we've talked a lot about with the Army Corps of Engineers, because almost this entire project's within their area of concern. So we met with them in May, maybe, I think, for our first meeting, just to make sure that we were not heading down a path that led them to oppose the project from the very beginning. So they're on board with our plan so far, and that is a big part of what we're doing.

Okay. And then this is probably a question for Justin or Cecil maybe, but Harvey Street right now is residential. It's curved and guttered, but it's not very wide. Would that street be improved?

That would be the intent, yeah, to make sure that the street matches the traffic we're putting on it.

Okay.

Thank you. Next item.

Item number 10, report of city officials. Council?

Mr. Garza.

Yeah.

I'm a little tired. This came back from vacation all the way down to Corpus Christi. You ever drove that Dallas and all them? Had to be a speed car driver with gloves and 80 mile an hour this close to each other, man. My granddaughter became a nurse, went to watch her, and she told us that she's going to get married. So I got to go back up there, and I'm flying. I am not driving that again. But other than that, I'd like to thank the city employees for all they're trying to do on the grass. And that's about all I've got today. Okay. Thank you. Mr. True?

I don't have a lot. I want to second what Mr. Garza said. I want to thank our employees and 17th and Plum. I mean, school's starting, and that's one thing I'd heard was, what about if we don't have it done before the fair? I just want to thank everybody for working hard and getting it done. So thank you. Thank you.

Ceci? Yeah, I would echo, of course, thanking our employees as well as our contractors who made quick work of those projects in not great working conditions. And I went to the, I don't know what you call it, a dog day at the pool last night. That was a lot of fun when we took our dog, and he likes to swim. He's a little, very fat wiener dog, and he just had the time of his life for part of it. So it was really cool. Kind of sad that summer's over, but yeah, it was a great event. I'm glad that they do that.

Is that it?

Yep.

I think three things. Along with giving the folks kudos that work for our city. I drove through Cary Park this last weekend. I don't think it's ever looked better. And I'm not talking necessarily about the golf course, but just about driving through around the ponds, around where the old zoo used to be on the other side of the, you know, clear out by the disc golf course. I just, it was very noticeable. So thanks, Justin, and pass that on to your crew. I enjoyed spending a day with them a couple weeks ago with some continuing education, got to know some of them well. So anyway, keep up the good work. I think... We ought to talk about brick streets again. I know, Stacy, you and I were kind of excited about that when we were doing B Street. I think maybe we need to try to work that into the budget at least a couple blocks. I know it's expensive. pick some that are terrible and try to work that in. I think we had a lot of success on B Street and I think people noticed and I think we could continue that. Third thing, attending an event at the Cosmosphere, it's amazing what we have at the Cosmosphere. When you can attract two of the Artemis astronauts, the head of NASA, and of course our Senator Moran. It was a great day and great event. And I'm just elated that we have the Cosmosphere. So anyway, that's all I have.

Thank you. Yeah, I want to piggyback off that Cosmosphere. That was a great event, and sometimes we don't realize what we have in our backyard. It is just a great facility, and having those astronauts come here was really, really cool to hear their story and see that, too. And then kudos on our employees, yes, as well, just working their tails off in this heat. It's terrible out there, and they just keep going after it day after day. So I really appreciate all of them doing everything they do to keep our city rolling. This weekend will be the last weekend for the races, fairgrounds, and I think I have some extra tickets still if anybody's interested. I would like to thank, last week we had a public meeting for the water at Foothills. I want to thank Evan and staff that put all that together. It was a great presentation. We had a great turnout. We actually had to change rooms because we had so many people show up. So Evan had to move around to a smaller TV, and he got it done. So I think that was a great thing. They're really working hard on this. This neighborhood needs water. And I really appreciate our staff taking the time to put in for all these loans and to lower the cost for what it's going to cost them to hook up to water. I think that's very crucial because, I mean, even a year ago, we just didn't have the funding to put towards these neighborhoods to make it affordable for our neighbors. And then we also have one we're trying to work on through Panorama. Hopefully they'll do the same thing as well and try and get some water after them as well. So I really want to appreciate our staff for all of them. We've had a lot of meetings, community, trying to get everybody involved. I appreciate everybody that comes out to participate. It shows that people do really care in this community to make this a better place. Let's see what else I got. 24 days to the fair. And so that's going to be an influx of traffic, so that'll be a great time as well. So that's all I have. Do you have anything, Cody?

Just briefly, as the council knows, City Manager Enrico Villegas, he's out. He's in Chicago right now. The fire department is undergoing its accreditation process, which is excellent news. I wish them all the luck in that process. I know it sounds like it can be a little bit intense. The only thing from that I would add, I know we discussed at the last meeting public comment, reworking that or possibly working that on the agenda. Since the city manager wasn't going to be here today, we thought we'd push that to the next meeting. So we'll have a discussion on that. I'll have some information to you all before in the packet, just kind of setting forth what provisions of Chapter 2 apply, kind of what the policy has been, so that you all can have a discussion in terms of what you – what you want to do, what you think it should look like. It can give me feedback to make any necessary changes. And then to just kind of piggyback off of what Cecil said in respect to the code provisions he was talking about being out of date. And of course I had the expungement one that was out of date. I think... Just be prepared to see more things like that. I've gone through the code. There's a lot of provisions that need to be updated. And so there's a handful that I'm kind of working on and then jumping off working on other projects. So those will be coming down the pipeline. I just wanted to give you a heads up. So that's all I have. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Next item, is there any future agenda items council would like to see on upcoming agendas?

Yes, I have a few. But if anybody else wants to go first, you can.

I think you're up, so you might as well.

Okay. So the first one is I would like to see an item back on about a data center and best moratorium. We've been told that a moratorium is not legal yet. Entire states as well as neighboring counties and cities have enacted them. and extended them, so I'd like to see a future agenda item to discuss the legalities of a moratorium here, and I will wait to mention the others until we give this a vote on whether or not to hear this item.

Okay. Any other items that we might potentially look at?

I have five more. Enrico wanted us to vote on whether or not we want to put something on the agenda for a future meeting, so I think it would be appropriate to vote on them one at a time.

So basically I just need a motion and all of that to second to get if you want that conversation to come for the future meeting.

I move to hear a data center invest moratorium at the at a future meeting or do you want me to say what meeting in particular?

I think at a future meeting is fine if you're not expecting it to be the very next meeting.

Okay, at a future meeting within the next 60 days.

I just need a second if anybody's got a second. Okay, next item.

The next one is e-bike regulations. So in light of recent preventable accidents and public outcry, I ask that this be a future agenda item again within the next 60 days. In the absence of our own regulations defining e-bikes, the current city regulations consider them or In absence of our own regulations, state law and part of current city regulation considered them to be the same as bicycles, which doesn't seem adequate to me. And again, the public is asking for e-bikes to be regulated. So I move that this be heard within the next 60 days.

I'll second that.

Truin?

Yes.

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

Yes. And I do know the police department is working on something. They're going to get with me. So those are forthcoming.

Okay. And then Mr. Smith mentioned the public comment policy. So as a carryover from our discussion at our last meeting, having a solid policy enhances transparency and ensures that all voices are allowed to be heard. I would like to see a formal discussion on this policy within the next 60 days.

Isn't that on the – aren't we kind of planning on doing that on the next council? Yes.

I mean, I guess it doesn't hurt to vote on it, but, yeah, we do plan to have it on the next meeting.

So moved.

Second.

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

Yes. Magers? Yes.

The topic of, and I don't recall, it was one of the meetings in July, something about serving jail sentences in an alternate location came up. And Garza asked us to not hear it on August 4th. I assumed that it would be on this meeting, but it wasn't. So I'm asking that it also be heard within the next 60 days. I move that it be heard within the next 60 days.

I just say I haven't received the necessary information for that resolution from that program. One of the attorneys that was requesting it, I advised that it would be helpful if he's wanting that on to provide that information to help assist with that. I told him I would not be presenting any resolution to you all that I felt like did not comply with the law. And at this point, I don't have the necessary information to comply with that. So if I do get that information, I will bring it forward to you all. But if I do not, I'm not going to bring forward a resolution that doesn't comply with the law.

So is the resolution that you brought to the meeting in July not compliant with the law?

That ordinance just amended our code to allow for a resolution to be passed to do this, but the resolution has to follow what is required in order for a particular program like that to count towards what constitutes jail time. So if I don't have that information to put into the resolution, then it would not fit within that definition, and so it would not be legal. But yeah, the ordinance we passed, we set forth the ability to do that by resolution, but the resolution has to contain the necessary information.

Okay.

All right, so after hearing that, I would retract my second, I guess. So anyone else would like to second that? Next item.

Flock cameras. So, again, this is coming from people who have reached out to me. I would like to have a formal discussion, including a presentation from the police department, regarding various matters about flock cameras, including how they're paid for, how information is stored, how information is accessed and logged. how they're warrantied or insured, and the terms of our contracts for either software or hardware. And I move that this be heard within the next 60 days.

Second.

Truin?

Yes.

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

Magers? Yes.

The, I don't know what number I'm on, six is the topic that was presented by the group that has stuck around for this meeting tonight, at least in part. The plastic bag ban, like the gentleman mentioned, there's no harm in having a discussion about a policy and how it would benefit or harm our community and allowing people to weigh in on it. I move that a plastic bag ban be discussed within the next 60 days.

Second.

Troon?

Yes.

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

Yes.

And then the last thing is, Greg, you mentioned the brick streets. I asked Mr. Villegas where we were at with, Having a plan, we were told a couple months back that there was a plan being put together to address improvements of brick streets. I was told that that was one of the things that was cut, but I don't know how far we got into putting that plan together. I would still like to hear more information about how we're prioritizing which streets to repair which streets to um pave over etc um i think it would still be beneficial um especially as we head into budget season budget season um because there are some streets that are darn near impassable um in town um i mean i bought them out on two street two brick streets in town that i take routinely that Again, without understanding or being presented with any type of plan or budget, it makes it difficult for us to know if we're going to include this in our 27 budget. So I move that we...

I noticed that it was still in the line item for the funding that we do yearly. I don't think that was pulled.

But that is not... My understanding is that that is enough to do... Spot maintenance and, yeah.

About two foot of a brick street.

Exactly. It is not going to chip away at or completely repair the streets where you have two or three blocks of problematic streets. And then, you know, what is the plan? I mean, I still think that council deserves to hear a plan. Just because if we're cutting it from this year doesn't mean that the need isn't there next year. It just means we didn't budget for it. So I move that we hear some type of brick street plan within the next 60 days.

I'll second that.

Druin?

Yes.

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

Yes.

That's it.

That's it. Anything else? If not, the next item would be executive session. I move the governing body recess into executive session under KSA 75-4319, consultation with the attorney on city matters deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship, the subject being legal advice to the governing body on the duties of office, including conflicts of interest and recusal, the justification being that open discussion would waive the attorney-client privilege. With the only governing body and the city attorney present, the open meeting to resume in city council chambers at 745. Can we take a... How about 750? Okay.

I think second. Second. Truin? Yes. Gardison? Yes. Goss? Yes. Bass? Yes. Nagers?

Yes.

Bye. Thank you.

Do you want this for 20 minutes? Yeah, let's do 20. Okay. I have a second motion or executive session move that the governing body resets into executive session under KS 75-4319 for consultation with the city attorney on matters deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship, the subject being an update on the investigations concerning the Hutchinson Rec Commission, the Hutch Rec Foundation, and the Dillon Nature Center Foundation, and related legal matters, the justification being that Open discussion would waive the attorney-client privilege with only the governing body and the city attorney present at the open meeting to resume in the city council chambers at 8.10 p.m. Second.

All in favor, Truin? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? Yes.

I recuse myself from voting, considering that my husband serves on the Hutch Rec Foundation board as a volunteer member.

And then are you recusing from going into the meeting?

Yes.

Fast? Yes. Makers? Yes.

Thank you. Thank you.

I move we adjourn.

Second. One second.

Truen. Yes. Garza. Yes. Goss. Yes. Bass. Yes. Meggers. Yes.