City Council - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Good evening. Um, I'd like to call to order the Hutchinson City Council meeting of February 3rd, uh, 2026. Mary Coroll Truan here. Garza here. Goss here. Bass here. Mayors here. Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Um tonight we have Victor Halfoon here um from the Legacy Bible Church um to give us the prayer.

Sorry about that. Let's pray. Father, we come before your throne of grace and lift these procedures and decisions to you. Lord, we ask you to pour out your wisdom and abundance upon the council members and guests as they discuss the needs of our community. May their words be spoken with respect and seasoned with grace. Lord, you know all things and you know perfectly the needs of everyone who is here. Meet their spiritual, financial, physical needs in accordance with the measure of your grace. Grant repentance and forgiveness and men relationships. encourage, sustain, and comfort each one in the days ahead ahead. We ask these things in Christ's name and by the power of your Holy Spirit. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. Next item, Mary. Item number four, proclamations. We have none. Item number five, petitions for monstrances and oral communications from the audience.

Um, this is the part of the agenda where we hear oral communications from the audience. Um, please limit your remarks to five minutes and for items not on the agenda. Um, audience members may address the items on the agenda when discussed by city council. Uh, if anybody has any items to discuss, please come to the podium and make sure you state your name and address. Uh, seeing none, next item. Item number six, consent agenda. Um, has council had time to read through everything on the consent agenda. Any questions, comments, concerns? I've read it. I don't have any questions.

No. Same. Uh, looking for a motion. Move to approve the consent agenda and authorize the mayor to sign. Second. Truan, yes. Garza, yes. Goss, yes. Bast, yes. Mers, yes. Item number seven, public hearing. Public hearing and resolution determining the advisability of issuing taxable industrial revenue bonds on behalf of SDI Sales Data Incorporated. Move to open the public hearing. Second. Truan, yes. Garza, yes. Goss, yes. Bass, yes. Mayor, yes.

Angela Richard, director of finance. Um before you tonight, we have a public hearing to hear the advisability of issuing taxable industrial revenue bonds for SDI. Um after I go through the routine things that I will cover in the about regarding the process, we have Lauren from the chamber and some representatives here um to describe the project for you. Um so SDI is proposing to issue industrial revenue bonds to um uh for the construction, furnishing and equipping of a commercial facility that is 101,754 square ft expansion of their current facility. The estimated amount of the IRBs is $2 million. Notices were mailed to USC 308 and Reno County along with publication in the newspaper. For your benefit, the costbenefit analysis has been included and you can see that this project does um show a a benefit that outweighs the cost of the IRBs for the all related taxing entities. By adopting this ordinance, the city council would approve issuing industrial revenue bonds for this project. Uh this project is a little bit different in that where they propose to do the construction is a long-term lease with the city. So I just wanted to note that going forward, uh we will become the owner, they'll become the lease holder, but at the end of that term, we might um talk about what we want to do with that land. Um, so just so you're aware of that for the future, the city will not be responsible for any of the expenses related to issuing industrial revenue bonds. We are not rel responsible for the debt in any way. Um,

and no city funds will be used for the project. Um, they are asking for a 10-year property tax abatement. So, I'll stand for any questions and if you don't have any questions of me, I'll turn it over to Lauren from the chamber. Council have any questions? I think my questions are for Lauren. Okay, Lauren, if you'd like to come up.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Lauren Storm. I am the business retention, expansion, and workforce program manager for Greater Hutch, which is the economic development partnership underneath um the umbrella of the Hutchinson Reno County Chamber of Commerce. Um it is my pleasure this evening um to describe to present and introduce the project expansion project that is being undertaken by SDI maps and um what the the great benefits that that's going to afford the city. So over the last year Greater Hutch and the city of Hutchinson have worked closely with SDI maps um in their plan for their facility renovation and workforce expansion here in Hutchinson. Um, they were established in 1976 and they continue to be one of the primary suppliers and installers of POSOS systems for over 2,700 McDonald's stores nationwide. Um, and they have seen unprecedented growth in the last year alone to accommodate the growing technological advancement demands from McDonald's and their systems upgrades. So in their what was very notable to me is that within their 50 years of local ownership and operations, this is the first time they have gone outside of their own financial resources to accommodate the unprecedented expansion that that is being demanded of them and am encouraged as I always am by the partnership and willingness of city of Hutchinson to answer that call. um in their their current impact is um at the our time of reporting is um 120 jobs and still growing six million in annual salaries um 416,81 of net benefits of fiscal impact to the city of Hutchinson alone um and these are all findings from the um costbenefit analysis that was produced by Kansas Department of Commerce and is provided in your packet this evening um and

something also important to note is that the majority of the revenue that they generate is from outofstate. So this is revenue that is being brought in to Kansas and into Hutchinson to um infuse our economic base. Um so with the request of this the issuance of these industrial revenue bonds to fund this first phase of renovation of their existing over 100,000 um foot square footprint at the the south facilities at their um Adams location um will create a minimum of 50 new jobs with an of an average wage of 41,665. So well above our median's um county wage um and growing jobs in the technology sector and starting in 2026. Um the renovation of this existing space is going to accommodate the growth of their workforce to up to 118 office jobs. Um and that'll be in addition to the service technician jobs that they have in the field. um over a 15-year projection, which is what um though the the bonds will be issued for 10 years at 100% is the request, but um the return of investment will be seen very in very short order um with a payback in just four years at a 28.1% return to the city of Hutchinson and various points of return to the other taxable entities. Um the expansion is underway as there are still long lead times in the supply chain and um we hope to connect the company with these essential benefits to support their expansion now and in the future with future phases of their expansion. I would be happy to stand for questions and um after which I would we also have representatives from the company that are happy to speak to their project and their expansion. I have a question I'll ask and then you guys can decide who wants to answer it.

Um, so they're staying at the current location. Would any other tenants in that building be relocated? Um, that has not been decided and I would probably let the company speak to that. Um but they because of the acquisition of property that was previously the furniture store that has allowed them to um utilize that space in their expansion and renovate that to their purposes. Um and this might be for Angela or Paul Brown. Why why are we leasing for 67 years? I think I read more than that. Okay. 99 years. How many? 99 years.

Okay. I thought I read some weird number that caused me concern because it's not a lot of land that we're leasing to them. Um, we why don't we just sell it would be my question. Well, first of all, we have a 99-year lease. And at the time that that property was acquired, that was part of the the Woody seat and doing the intersection and the highway. And there were previous prohibitions for property that was obtained by imminent domain and you couldn't sell it. That's why it was leased. Okay. All right. Well, this works. If there's no other questions of me, then I'd be happy to um pass it over to Jerry Boon with SDI.

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Uh Jerry Boon, um SDI. I also have my business partner Josh Barnett back here with me. Um Josh and I are equal partners in SDI and uh became partners after the passing of William Mason in uh 2020. Um since then we've we've um done a lot of business in a very tall building in Chicago. um houses the McDonald's Corporation and um we have a we have a lot of connections in that industry and that business and uh that's been very good for us and good for Hutchinson. Um as far as our building goes um we we uh started doing business there in 1991 and the building was was really way too large for what we were doing at the time. So, it was leased to other tenants um as it was a retail space originally and over time we've taken pieces of that back as tenants have moved on and at this time the only tenant left is Dollar General who has a standing lease to 2033. At that time, we will certainly be evaluating um whether we keep them as tenants. Um as of today as mentioned um 120 employees that number is actually a little over 130 today. So we are underway we are growing and uh it has grown since this IRB came to fruition. Um 50 jobs 170 target is uh certainly in our wheelhouse. Um the numbers shown on the report are really for the 15-year period that the um document was drafted

for. Um and uh why an IRB? We we um as Lauren mentioned, you know, 50 years here, um we've never asked for assistance. And in fact, one of the one of the things that I'm proud of is that we share the north end of our parking lot with uh Reno County and the police department and so on. And um I think that's been a mutual partnership for all of us and we look forward to continue doing that. Um given the growth that we're experiencing, some of the options that we've looked at may um involve building on that land that we currently have for parking space. We'd rather build to the south and and potentially to the west if we can require some land with the Woody Seat displacement and uh leave that for for Reno County. Um and uh we are yeah so we we just appreciate the help a lot. We have a lot of options in in our growth. Um being a business that's working in all 50 states and Hawaii included. Um, a lot of our business is very centered in large metro areas and we could very easily stand up offices and grow in those metro areas and expand in in a more distributed uniform way I suppose if you're looking at the US. But we choose to uh to grow that with the people here in in this very town. We find uh the culture here to be one of the best cultures we've seen in our industry. Um, we have people that just care a little more here. So, just wanted to mention that. Um, so with that, I I leave it for questions. Jerry, I just want you I just want to thank you for bringing your

business to Hutchinson and keeping it here. Um, and and we just we want to work with you to make sure that uh you continue to keep it here. So, um, of your employee base, how many of your of your employees I know you're all across the country. How many of them are actually here and how many of them are remote or work from out of other areas? Just curious.

So, um I would say we're around 110 to 115 local and then we've got uh five account managers that are distributed and probably another five to 10 uh installers out there and a couple more business support guys. Um so, yeah. Okay, that's that's all I had. I just want to thank you for your business here. Appreciate it, Scott.

I really more of a remark. I I think your business is really interesting. Um I when I very first heard of what you guys do there, um I was like, they do what here in Hutch. That's cool, but weird. Um so I've just always thought you guys were just a really cool business and um really flying under the radar. um I had no idea you had that many people working in that building or even employed um right there. So that I think that is kudos to you. Um and I think what you said about um that the workforce here cares a little more. Um also it's a it's a lot more affordable to have your base here than in Denver or Chicago or even Witchaw. Um and that probably helps you on your bottom line as well. So, I I really think you guys have done some great work and um look forward to continuing to watch you grow. Um my only hope for your building is that you would let someone paint a mural on the back of it because that's going to be the first thing people see when they come down off the new uh woody seat when it finally opens up this summer. And it would be cool if it was a really big like welcome to Hutch thing. So,

we'll we'll take that into consideration, Stacey. I won't draw it for you or anything, but Well, we might might use your help. It would be cool. Mhm. There are And uh not that I'm counting or anything, but we have like 436 parking spots in the lot, so Oh, nice. There uh there's plenty of room for Well, Stacy Stacy, you stole what I was going to ask of him. I thought it's a perfect timing. There is some folks in the neighborhood over there that would love to have some sort of mural on the back of your building, but thank you for what you're what you're doing and thank you for your kind words about the city. It's it's good to hear positive things every once in a while about our city. So, thanks. Thank you, Greg.

Now, what do you monitor the equipment in all McDonald's? Is that what you do with their computers and everything? How what do you explain to them?

Sure. So, our business is in thirds. We a third of our business is um selling new hardware to restaurants. Uh that's all technology items from the kiosks in the lobby to the front counter registers to kitchen uh technology equipment to show orders that are in process and some drive-thru um technology as well. That's a third of it. Then another third is that uh we have projects that we go out and do to upgrade all this stuff. And uh that usually ends up about 30% of what we do. And then the uh last third of our business is contracts that we have with restaurants where we agree to service um and replace equipment on a regular basis for them when it breaks a break fix program. So that's that's it. And I again thank you for coming to Hudson and staying here with us. Yeah.

Thanks, Steve. All right. Any further? No, sir. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Are there any uh questions or comments from the audience? If not, Angela. Yes. Yep. Yes.

Chris Link, 3506 North Lraine. Uh so my first question is if uh this is a successful business which it sounds like you guys haven't asked for any assistance and that's good. That's what you're not supposed to do. Um I don't get to go and ask for government government assistance whenever I need to. So thank you and and good job. But if this is a successful business, why can you not get private investors? Why can why do we need to use public funds for this expansion? Um, and just and and I'll let you answer these here in a few minutes, but and why is it the government's job to pick winners and losers? Are you guys going to allow anybody who can claim that they're going to be successful in the future to uh take public money and hopefully bring a benefit in the future? Um, I don't think it's the government's job to do that. I I think that's uh promoting unequal weights and measures and that is showing partiality and I don't think that's right. Uh, I think that we should allow the companies and the people to stand on their merits and to I pray that they're successful. I want Hutchinson to be just as excess as successful as we can be. But we've got to do it the right way. We've got to do it the righteous way. We got to do it according to God's standard. And so, um, I just ask that, uh, that you answer my question about why we can't find private investors and why we should allow public funds to, um, be take the place of private investors. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't know if you want me to speak about that.

You comment or or I could. This is a long-standing program that that businesses use to um to do projects. There's been many over the last four years that I've been sitting here and it gives up sales tax and and a tax abatement for 10 years. Um I use Seammens as an example. You know, we gave away a lot um to get Seammens here. they wouldn't have came here without those incentives. But right now, they're paying over a million dollars in property tax every year after that 10 years. So the question I would say to you is it worth it. It's not okay.

Doing it doing it unrighteously, council. And I would say too, I I understand the uh the terminology can get a little confusing, but with an IRB, it's essentially just using the city's name to uh not pay sales tax on construction goods. So, there's actually no uh taxes or like public funding for this. Um it's just using the city's name. Um, I mean it's a little more than that, but that's I'm boiling it down for substance purposes that it's using the city's name to not pay sales tax on the construction material.

This also isn't the only tool available, and yes, it is available to everybody because this property is in our um neighborhood revitalization um plan area, and so any property south of 11 Street would be able to come up here and apply for the exact same thing. um they're just using the IRB instead of the NRP program, but both programs are available. The NRP is a little more robust and allows for the um the purchasing of a little different items than the NRP. The NRP is really just um a tax abatement on the property and the improvements made on the building. Um the whereas the IRB is the sales tax abatement on the construction equipment and the furnishings. So um yeah, absolutely. Uh if you own a business south of 11 Street, come on up here and ask because that's the NRP and it's just a little different program, but it's available to anybody. So we're not picking winners and losers by any means. I didn't know this guy from Adam before today. So

north of 11, if you're going to if you're going to speak, you need to come to the mic, please. Nobody north of 11th is available for the NRP right now because we haven't expanded it, but we've specifically chosen to keep it south of 11th Street because that's where we want to drive business. We have had conversations as a council last year about expanding it to be the entire city. The whole county is an NRP, too. So, the county commission is also picking in winners and losers by that logic. I don't agree with any of that, but you're you're you just told me that nobody north of 11th, but you're not picking winners and losers. So any business north of 11th can't get public funds. So I don't understand these aren't public funds.

So a bond issue and IRB. I guess I don't understand the bond that's 2 million bond that's not going to increase any tax burden on any of the tax that council. This is not public funding at all. SBI will get their own loan. The only thing it allows them to do is get a favorable interest rate. There are no public funds here at all. Okay. Well, thank you for the clarification. I I still don't understand why the government's involved in this, but thank you for the clarification. And that does answer a lot of my questions. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Ask a question. Is it still open? Yes. Go ahead.

Hi, Katie Link 3506 North as well. Um, so I had one comment that um, Mr. Fashion mentioned that it's been long-standing. That is not a great defense of something. Just because it's been around for a long time doesn't mean it's a good policy. Slavery was around for a long time. That was not a good policy. Um, secondly, we there was a proposed tax increase, sales tax increase for the city coming up, a vote in the next month. So obviously there's a little bit of struggle with the city budget. I would like to know how much money would the city make if we did not do this IRB and actually tax them the way we tax other people. Have you guys done that calculation? How much in taxes is the city losing by giving them this favorable discount? We literally said it's going to repay itself within 4 years. What we lose is the opportunity and that's hard to put into dollars because the opportunity cost is they wouldn't be able to do this expansion. Gun Bros wouldn't have built. Seammens wouldn't have built. This is a program that has proven successful time after time after time. We are not the only city. We are not the only county who uses this tool. The IRB is nothing special. There is nothing special about SDI. Everything that we said nice about them, we would say that to any other successful business who came up here and applied for the NRP or for the IRB who has already been vetted by an investment group and by bond counsel for the program and the Department of Commerce. We didn't we didn't make this up on our own.

No, I understand it. It shouldn't be happening at all. Just the again the idea of well, they're doing it so we should do it. Again, if someone jumps off a cliff, should you do it? No. You need to make decisions for yourself and when you see something improper in government, we ought to discuss it like this. Unfortunately, Mrs. Miss Gosh, you did not answer my question. Do you guys happen to have the financial information available of how much money we are losing in taxes by giving them such a large discount?

We're not losing a dollar. And yes, it's in the packet. Yes, in the packet there is a handout that goes over the cost benefit analysis of each taxing entity and proves how long it'll take to repay itself for giving the tax forgiveness for 10 years. Okay, assuming the company does what it's supposed to do. So, it's kind of like gambling, right? We we think this is going to happen, but we don't know. Is this packet available to the citizens or just to the council? It was published on the internet on Friday. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Angela. Anybody have a question? Move to close public comment. Move to close public hearing.

Did you have something to say, Angela? Sorry. I I did not. I Okay. I thought you had I didn't have anything to add to to your comments. I think you did a good explanation. So, uh looking for a second. Second. Truman. Yes. Garza. Goss. Yes. B. Yes. makers. Yes.

Item number 8A, ordinances and resolutions. Consider a resolution determining the advisability of issuing taxable industrial revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, expansion, renovation, furnishing, and equipment of a commercial facility sales data, Inc. I'll move to approve a resolution determining the advisability of issuing taxable industrial revenue bond revenue bonds for the purpose of finance and the acquisition, construction, expansion, renovation, furnishing and equipping of a commercial facility sales data in incorporated and authorized sign. Sorry. Second truin. Yes. Garza, yes.

Yes.

Bas. Item number 8B, consider a resolution to set a public hearing on advisability of the Landmark Community Improvement District, CI. Angela Richard, director of finance. Tonight, we are approving a resolution that will set the public hearing to advise whether we should allow Landmark um Mayor Landmark LLC to issue a community improvement district within their building and their area. um they will be here if we set the public hearing on March 3rd um to talk more about their project and why this is a piece of the overall financing of that project. Tonight we're just discussing whether to set the public hearing for March 3rd.

Council have any questions on that? Seems pretty straightforward. Okay. Uh if that's the case for a motion. I move to a to approve a resolution to set a public hearing on advisability of the landmark community improvement district of March 3rd. I'll second. I'm sorry. And authorize the mayor to sign. Wait, sorry, I got the other one mixed up. Truan, yes. Garza, yes. Goss, yes. Fast, yes. Makers, yes. Item 8 D, consider an ordinance authorizing issuance of GO bonds to pay for certain improvements, golf master plan. I think we missed we must we skipped one, Mary.

Uh C. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Consider resolution fixing a hearing date and time for unsafe structures. Good evening, council. Jason Lady, building official.

Uh tonight we're um um in your in your packet there's a staff report. So, tonight we're looking to uh set a hearing for five um residential structures. Uh you can see at 419 East Avenue F, 1526 East 2nd Avenue, 224 East 3rd Avenue, 213 East 8th Avenue, and 526 West Avenue. These are all um structures that um are in severe disrepair or that we've considered as condemned. Um, so tonight we are looking to approve a resolution to set a hearing for let me flip my paper over. My apologies. Um,

for April 7th. Yep. April 7th. So, do you have any questions on these? Um, so have we contacted all of the uh property owners?

Yes. So, all of these uh in your packet under each one, you have photos of each one of these uh residents. Uh each one of these has had boardups. These have open uh property maintenance code violations. Um they've had u nuisance abatements. They have no utilities. Uh taxes are delinquent. I mean, there's multiple multiple things that uh are on all these. And what we've done is is we've looked at the list of abandoned or um structures that we have around town and kind of picked started with the worst of the worst in a sense when we look at the residential properties.

So, just for clarification, how do we go about contacting each one of the property owners so they we make sure they've been contacted correctly and have notification of this process? So they uh they get the uh they get the PMC's first. Um then once we get the u property maintenance code violations out to them, the notice of violations so there there's an awareness there. Then we do an abatement. That's basically a followup. Um after that we take and we send out a uh letter of condemnation once we board it up and then actually condemn it. Um we may send that out earlier in the process depending on when that board up process is. Um, so we could send that out that letter out really anytime. Um, so that's the that's the process for uh for the condemnation process in a nutshell kind of. Um, but we also will take and make notifications. So if you all set the hearing here tonight for April 7th, we'll take that and we'll post that in the paper plus we'll send each one of them a notification that there will be a hearing on April 7th. And

and on these notifications you've sent, how many came back? Are did they all go where they were supposed to go? I couldn't tell you on these. I think two of them are dis two of the listed owners are deceased. Yes, two of the listed owners are deceased. So, um there's been obviously Okay. There has been contact with uh one of the deceased members uh family members. One lives in Colorado, one lives in the Kansas City area. And I've had uh contact with um uh two of the individuals, but no one owns the property. I mean the individual that owns the property

to speak to that point that's why you publish it in the newspaper for the two week period is because you send the letters and whether or not they come back returned or whatever status is really irrelevant because of the newspaper publication. So that's that's still following state statute. They're not required to respond or sign off that they actually got the letters. And a lot of the times if uh I don't know if we did in this instance, but a lot of the times when we get those letter backs, we'll take it back to the office. We'll take it and post it on the property as well because the code says we can physically go post it on the property. That doesn't mean anybody's ever going to come by and see it, but it's officially posted and that's a way of notification.

Good. I I just don't want down the road somebody coming to me and saying, "Oh, I didn't know." Yeah. And you know, I think we need to make follow the law and make an effort like you're doing. And and just to clarify, so our code enforcement, I mean, nobody's responded on any of these and they're not trying. I mean, um, none of these have said, "Hey, we're going to try to work on it or we're beyond that for

No, we've had no response from from a that anybody's going to work on any of these at this point." And I mean that 419 East Avenue F, you could see that the um owner's deceased and that's the one I've spoken with two family members who would like to see they've expressed um concern for the structure as well as um they would like to see the house demolished. However, um they would have to go through quite the process to get um the property in their name to do to do the same. And then the rest of these we have had not had any uh response on to this point. The only individual that we have talked to uh was at 224 East 3rd Avenue and we really haven't had any constant contact with that individual and nothing's been done to the house itself. And the alternative is Darren, I think what you're kind of getting at here is um you know the process of some or Darren and um Greg, the process of somebody coming back and making a claim for adverse ownership is a 15-year process in the state of Kansas. So earlier this year, I sent an email um to the League of Kansas municipalities as well as our elected officials in Reno County and asked them to consider a modernization of that law. Um, in some states it's five, in some states it's two if you have the title. Um, but this is a problem. I mean, uh, one of the one of these owners passed away like 6 years ago. Um, so even if the family wanted to make claim to that home, they still have to wait another 11 years while the property sits there and rots. And that's the case with not only these houses, but houses across Reno County in the state of Kansas. So this law that the same law that we used um on the atrium demolition gives us the right and we were following

all of the um appropriate proceedings as required and um I mean it's a tool given to us by the state of Kansas. Any other questions? No sir. Uh is there anybody in the audience has questions about these properties? Uh if not, I would be looking for a motion. I move to approve a resolution fixing a hearing date and time fra structures not authorize the mayor to sign um date of April 7th for the hearing. Second. Tran. Yes. Garza, yes. Yes. Bast. Yes. Mayers,

yes. Item number 8 D, consider an ordinance authorizing issuance of GO bonds to pay for certain improvements for golf master plan.

Good evening, mayor and council. Um, so I I just plan to touch a little bit on this and I'm going to turn it over to uh Justin and Angela um to talk more into the particulars about the golf course master plan itself. Um that was approved by city council way back in 2003. Uh funding for the golf course master plan then started in 2008. Um so every year since 2008 there the city has been taking bites at the golf course and trying to uh make um necessary improvements to um any of the structures uh in the field itself. Um and that kind of leads us to present day with the project um or for the bond proposal in front of you all. um that this project was actually included in uh prior year CIP. So in 2022 um it was for 270,000 in 2023 it was for 280,000 and then in 2024 it was for 290,000 for a total of 840,000. Um, and admittedly, uh, Justin and I, not this budget, but last, uh, budget cycle, um, we did talk about the golf course and the improvements that we're making out there and whether this is the appropriate time, uh, to do these things considering the budget issues that we're in. Um so if you recall from prior uh budget sessions um it was shared within the list of things that were cut or deferred if you will um that uh the golf course master plan the improvements for 26 um that was cut and those improvements would have actually have happened in 27.

Um so I I do want to share that we did talk about this. The reason why it didn't get shelfd just like the other one is because that work hasn't been obligated yet, meaning no one has started the work. Um whereas the work for this project, they're already underway. Um so it wasn't as easy to just nyx that um without looking at what could a breach of the contract or something like like something like that and what what that entails. Um, so I do want to share that for the record. I mean, this was contemplated. We did deliberate this. Um, and Justin and I, uh, obviously we monitor social media and we're also kind of attuned to the budget issues that we're in. Um, Justin, we are prepared to kind of share with you something that could save uh, money um, by going this route. Uh, so with that, I will turn it over to um Justin to kind of fill in any of the the gaps or answer any questions that you may have as well.

Good evening. Justin Combmes, director of parks and facilities. Um, I just want to pause right there and see if we have any questions um um about the funding and about the project itself. How far So, I was talking to Rico about this this week. Um, how far along in this project are we? like how much of work has actually been done? Um, we're probably 70% done with the work that's under contract right now, which is the installation of the upgrade to the irrigation system. So, a rip and replace of the irrigation system that's 60 years old, somewhere in that ballpark. Um, and then the rough grading of the fairway greens and and tea boxes.

Okay. So, we've just got 30% left to finish it. When did this project start? Um they started last week in December, first week in January. Somewhere somewhere in that in that ballpark. Yeah. Okay. That's all the questions I have for the moment. Um and if maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. If we don't fund this, what happens to the work that's out there? I mean, I drove by there, there's dirt, you know, is it going to become weeds? What is uh yeah that's a great question. I mean obviously we have to have an operational golf course right

we and we have we can't have a 17hole golf course cuz right now we've only the major impact is the whole 15 this project includes holes 15 and 16. Um so if we pull the plug today I mean obviously we're going to owe the contractor 70% of 330 I forget the exact amount for that for that contract that we have. Um, and then internally we're going to figure out how how to piece mill it back together. It's probably a temporary green. Um, it's not great, which is also not free. Not free. No, they'll still be solution cost money as well.

They'll and and and I'll get to this in a minute or maybe I can dive into it now. That's going to have a huge impact on revenue. Um, you know, the golf course in 2024, we we operated at a 77% cost recovery. So we generated $847,000 in revenue which is 77% of our cost. Um and so it would be a tremendous impact on that if we had to operate you know a 17.5 um whole golf course for for lack of or lack of better words. Well, um so one solution I do want to want to offer up um is um in the Orchard Park project um several years ago uh there was a project to build an enclosed um rental building. Um it was in 2019 2020 had a great design uh budget was $700,000. Um designed a building um if you remember the the um inflation just went crazy in 19 and 2021. That building ended up being a $1.4 million building when we bid it. Uh we did some some work to the design, tried to bring it back into scope, rebid it, was 1.1 million. Um at that point, city council said, "No, we're not going to we're not going to proceed with that project." Um some of those funds, so that project had already been bonded. We had, you know, $700,000 cash uh in a in a project account. Some of those funds were redirected to Fun Valley for the bleacher project that was completed in 22 somewhere in that ballpark. Um and so in the Orchard Park, uh we do have a project account with $428,000. Um just sitting there can as of right now it can only be used at Orchard Park. Um but through council approval, those funds could be redirected. Um so I would I would would propose that we use those funds. Um so uh and that we'd have to bring that back to council in two weeks. I think it would take a ordinance or

resolution, one of those um to redirect those funds and then we could then essentially eliminate or reduce the bonding amount uh that we're asking for by half. So bond, you know, 450,000 in that ballpark plus use the 428,000 we have available in that orchard park. Um what's so what's left to finish the project? Like I know I know you got mounds of dirt and all that stuff. I mean it's like are we talking build greens? Are we talking irrigation? Are we talking

Yeah. So it's finished the irrigation um uh all the so so cut in the greens um in the green complex. So the mounding around the greens um I don't remember the number of bunkers. There's at least one bunker. So cutting in the bunkers, um building tea boxes. Um and then one of the the major cost of of the project is also purchasing the sod. Um you know, we saw the fairways, we saw the sawed the green, saw the tea boxes. Um you know, another thing we we'd have to do if we we if we pulled the plug on this or significantly reduced the budget is we'd have to seed all of that. then that's going to put us at least a year growing season before we can open that hole up. So again, we then we start looking at what does that do to our our revenue long term. Um you know trendwise we're doing really well at the golf course and in 2022 um we generated $747,000 which is a 71% cost recovery. In 23 we generated 823,000 which is a 75% cost recovery. In 2024, we generated 846,000, which is a 77% cost recovery. So, we are trending in the right direction. We are we are every year um in the same years, we reduce the amount of tax dollars or general fund dollars that were going into the golf course. So, we are trending in the right way um for sure. And I do think by pulling the plug on this or or significantly reducing that scope that that trend gets reversed and any savings that we see from from pulling the plug or reducing the scope are going to get eaten up really quick through the revenue. Um the other part of this that's really important is the control system for the irrigation system um right now operates on a computer that

has to have Windows 10. Uh Microsoft no longer supports Windows 10. Um we have a workaround. Uh we're confident for the next few years, two years, three years that we'll still maint be able to maintain control of our irrigation system. U but at some point we're going to have to upgrade. Um there's no no ifands of but buts about that or we will lose complete control of our irrigation system. Um the current cost for that upgrade is $100,000. that's part of this project that the 840,000. Uh so that would be the other place we'd look to cut if we had to significantly reduce. Um however, that that upgrade still has to happen. And so if we push that off two or three years, we know nothing gets cheaper over time. And so again, we're just that savings is just going to continue to to disappear. Um, and I use savings in quotes because in my opinion, it's really not when you when you count when you when you calculate that lost revenue plus the the can we're kicking down the road.

So I and I know I'm familiar with Bermuda sod and seed and all that and I know how trying to seed Bermuda is terrible. Um, you might wind up reing it two or three times actually to get a good stand of it. Now, I know a lot of courses have actual and I don't know how many square feet or yards of sod we're talking for install. Yeah. And then maybe you probably don't know the answer. I don't have that off the top of my head, but do we have um that type of turf on property that we could cut and fill or do we not? No, we have the bent grass for the greens. Okay.

Um so, we have a a nursery green that we use for emergency repairs. We have enough that we could use our own sod. Um there is a consequence to doing that. we use that nursery green as a practice facility for some of our schools that use the golf course. Um, and so they would no longer have that practice facility available, which means they're either on the same practice green as everybody else. At that point, we're just destroying that um that or we simply tell our middle and it primarily be our middle school kids that sorry, they don't they don't have a place to practice at Kerry Park. There's

And then can we do like say this saw work we have to do around that which to me is like you have to to if you're going to finish the project you have to do it to protect the um project you've already done. If not you're going to lose it potential to rainfall whatever. Um so do we can we do that the sod part of it in house? Do we we lay the sod in in house? So you guys will do it. So the current contract does not include any sod. So we'll bid that separately and we'll lay we buy it in giant rolls. We've It's all hands on deck and we with a saw ourselves. Okay. He's volunteering to help out that day. It's It's a lot of work. It's It's fun. So, seeing it go down in those huge roles earn your paycheck.

Um I have a question for Angela um about the bonding. So, um part of the reason why this is on the agenda today versus at a previous meeting is because we grouped it with other projects for bonding. So would if we did the if we took the funding from the Orchard Park project and moved it to to allow it for this would diminishing the bond that goes out for bid by $428,000 reduce like the interested parties and make it get a higher interest rate or would that impact? So, what happens is I individually take these ordinances authorizing it to be bonded as as the projects come up. And and I apologize, I probably should have brought this back in December, early January,

but I sometimes like to group those in the same ordinances as well for um other reasons. And so I would wait and to bond this with other projects um so that we have a larger bond sale. Um, so it wouldn't necessarily affect that. Um, and I don't have that timing down yet. We're still working on getting some of the 26 projects started. That's great. I just wanted to make sure that that that transfer wouldn't make this bond project something that people didn't want to bid on. So, I don't believe it would. Okay.

And Paul, can you weigh in on the logistics of No. Okay. No, because we'd be contacting our bond council to make sure it's done properly, the transfer of the funds or switch from the geo bonds to from the and also from the project from Orchard Park to the golf course. Okay. We we did that process prior and it it does take a ordinance or resolution. It depends. So, I'd have to ask which it would be and then it has to go to the attorney general to get their approval too. So, I've been through that process before um with the same Orchard Park proceedings.

And does the attorney general have like a specific amount of time that they have to reply within? They do. So, it would take a little bit of time before we could redirect those those. Thank you. Thanks, Paul. I just want to go back to the mayor's question about sod vers seed. Not to nerd out on grass too much. Oh, I'm all good. We uh so all of our all of the most recent projects we've done out there we've converted to Zoya um instead of Bermuda and so you have to sod sod zoya um just we have a lot lot less winterkill issues with with zoya than we do with bermuda grass. So

so and the reason we're having to approve this is because this is something that's been approved before. I'm just making things clear for everyone involved that it's because it was approved in a previous council's um approval and we're just getting to the project now. Yeah. So, the funding was approved in the 22 budget, 23 budget, and the 2024 budget. So, three times it's been approved. This is just a formality of the of what's required by the state for the bonding. And we don't have any other type of funding in any other accounts that we could use to help pay for this instead of having to bond it. the rest of it. We we don't I mean we have some small reserve funds, but those are kind of fun for for emergencies. This was the only kind of big chunk that I need.

Well, I'm just trying to figure out how we can, you know, not have to pay some more money on something we you know, we're doing. So, that's all I was asking for.

So, are you recommending we kick the can down the road until we can get the funds where they need to be? bond less or bond the same amount but with other projects that we will find that we're going to be bonding. So is that what you're suggesting?

So I would I would recommend that today we approve the ordinance for the bonding but reduce the amount. We're not actually bonding it. We're just setting the maximum amount that we we would bond at a future bond sale when Angela would group multiple projects together. So, we're just setting the limit on what we could bond today. Um, that also then gives us the authority to pay the contractor with with the money that that we will reimburse ourselves from once we sell the bonds. Um, and so so it' be two pieces. It'd be it'd be approve the bond sale for a lower amount, um, you know, 450 or 500,000 as a maximum amount. Um, and then I guess officially give us a direction to to look into uh transferring the funds from Orchard Park into this project. And that will have to come back for official action. That would give me the okay to keep the project keep the project rolling as originally designed.

So, still saving $428,000. So, the minimum amount would be 546,000 though. Okay. 874US 428. Oh, wait. No, I I I didn't do the math. Yeah, the math's not I haven't used a calculator. Minus 428. Yeah, 446. Okay. And we could we could probably take off with the 100,000 for the uh and put a band-aid on the computer for three years or a couple years. We we can, but it's going to come back and and it's going to come back at 120 or 13. I think that

and to me delaying that is really also an IT security risk because if that computer's on the internet it probably doesn't have good um security software because I can't imagine that they're still making patches for Windows 10. Um yeah. So to answer your question, yes, but no, I'm just it's gonna come. I'm just asking questions. Yeah. Council, have any other questions? You have another comment, Mr.

Uh, no. The other the only thing I I would would add um is, you know, if if we're able to to proceed um with this phase, all that leads us left is holds 10, 11, 12, which are the three holes that are off kind of by themselves, you know. So, the light is there. we can see a lot at the end of tone for this project that's been ongoing for 20 23 years. So, and at that point, your master plan is complete and

yeah, and and all the the irrigation's all been completely updated. Um, you know, we've added some length to the golf course to meet some some numbers that are important to high school and college and college players. you know, we've done that that plan that we shouldn't have to go back and make major improvements to the golf course for the rest of my career, if not probably quite a bit longer. So, so just maintenance at that point. Yes. Y' comment. No, Justin said

I have I have a question for Justin when you're done. Um Justin said what I was going to say is that I mean really we're a few years out from the finish line and I mean I think theoretically one could ask I mean it it's over a 20-year-old plan. Is this still what we want to do? Um but it's been living in the CIP since 2008 with relatively no issues ever propping up. Obviously I understand why it is now. Um, I totally get that and a little bit a little bit of this was foreseeable which is why a future year was delayed. Um, I think really this is a message too in storytelling um and especially in getting with Charles with the the Hutch Tribune to make sure this is appropriately covered um and to make sure every single minute detail is covered in there as to how we got here, what the plans are. Um, so I did want to share that. I think we'll definitely get with Charles on making the story or at least telling the full story. So Justin, you're up.

Justin, my question would be um so you mentioned some of the in the money coming in from the golf course, the return on investment. If we were in a maintenanceonly situation for the course, what would your dollars coming in versus going out look like? Yeah, I you know I I think it's realistic for us to be 75 to 80%. You know, I think getting getting north of 80%, you know, I think we're going to have to increase fees to the to the point that it gets unplayable for certain players. But I think in that, you know, that 80% is probably where we where we should be and and can stay. There are courses that operate at 100%. Um but again, their fees, um, you know, are what's dictating that. So I think for us to to kind of walk that fine line of making sure we're still

still available to to vast majority of players. So what's our fees compared to like uh Sand Creek or Yeah. So we we study those every every year. We look at them every year. We look at um increasing fees whether it's a green fees, a membership fee, um cart fees, those sorts of things. We are looking at at a fairly significant increase in carts for this year. um in the budget we uh we included carts that have G that are GPS enabled. Um and so we can pay we can you know we can charge a premium for those like like other courses. So it's we look at that every year. Um so I can't tell you off top of my head but I've got a spreadsheet that has six courses that are close by um and and we look at those

because we want to keep those fees competitive to our neighbors but not to where they're leaving town to go Yep. Um play golf other places. Yeah. Because we we've got a lot of good good public municipal golf courses around us. Yeah, we do. So, it's a balancing. And we changed our policy of bringing your own cart, too, right? We're in the process of that. Okay. Yep. As we phase those out, that'll be a big a big win for us, too. Okay. Any other questions from council? No. Okay. Um I guess I I do have a qu So, I'm just trying to being the new guy here.

How much is this going to cost? cost us, I guess, is what I'm trying to figure out. If we You said we have the 420,000 from the Orchard Park project. Yeah. How much more are we going to have to come up? That's what I'm trying to sort out. Yeah. So, we would have to bond approximately $450,000. Okay. Which is in the budget. The approval was was $840,000. for essentially cutting that number in half of what was in the budget over the over from 22, 23, and 24.

So, we've got about two, $250,000 worth left to complete the project. Is that about right then? You said about 30% left to finish 30. Our contract with House, who's our current contractor, is 380,000. So it's 70% that Yeah. Because we we haven't bid out the sod um and some and the the greens mix. So it's a very specific mix for the greens, right? Okay. And then the um software update. Okay. So we I mean we have to do something to pay for the 70% of the work that's been done. Yes.

So we have to do something to actually take care of that part and then um complete the project. So, okay. But would that 420 from Orchard Park cover that? That would cover House contract. Yes. And with the balance, we would piece meal together so we could have some sort of playable hole. It would not be great. It would take us a year to grow that in because we would have to seed it instead of saw it, you know. So then we're looking at significant loss revenue. We would lose state and we would lose the college tournament right up if we don't have 18 holes. They're they're not playing here.

Yeah. Yeah. And and by seeding that we're going to seed it to a cool season grass. We can't seed to to a warm season. So for the life of that hole, it's always going to be an isore in the summer. In the spring and fall, it's going to look different than everything else. So it'll be it'll always be inferior to everything else that we've done at the golf course since since our first phase in 28 or in '08. I know you can't I know you can't tell us exactly how much would that loss of revenue be if we have a 17hole course.

Yeah. So just I thought about that a lot today. I would say in in this current year or this upcoming year we'd probably lose about 10%. So 80 to $90,000. Um you know I don't know that that would as that hole became open as an inferior hole that's short that's cool season grass. you know, I I don't think we'd immediately go back up, but I don't think it's 10% every year. So, we say say five 5% in in, you know, after that. So, just in that scenario alone, we're at 8ish years before we get to that where we've lost so much revenue that that eats up that potential savings. And that that doesn't include the the software update. So, you include the software update, now we're at six years. Are we hitting that point where we've lost revenue plus the cost of that software update that we're no longer quote unquote saving money?

And the thing you got to be careful of is when we host those tournaments, if we lose those tournaments, then they could be gone for a while. Correct. I mean, they could go somewhere else, go, "Hey, we like this and not and you know, the the Hutch invite and uh uh the state, which rotates between what classes, I mean, those are bringing players in from all over the state." Um, you know, those are we we will have some local players, but you know, we get a lot of players from Kansas City, Metro that are playing in those. So, those are two or three night stays. They're going to one of our busiest days is the day before those tournaments because we have everybody wanting to practice on the golf course. Um, so there's a lot of long-term revenue impacts. Um, so I did pull some some data from the golf course. Um, as far as visitation, um, 65% of our our visits are coming from, uh, zip code 67501 and 502. So, not in not all that's within the city limits. So, that means 35% of our play is coming from outside of those.

Um, so it is um, you know, it's an attractant to to out out outside dollars coming in. So that sales tax we're collecting when they pay their fee, hopefully when they're buying a hot dog and and drinks, and then hopefully filling up their g, you know, their tank of gas as they leave. So did that answer your question?

It does. I I mean, I'm just having a hard time here. I I mean, I understand. I want to I want to fund this, but we're also talking about major budget cuts if our sales tax doesn't pass. And I think we need we need to look at I I I wish I had a magic ball and could tell what March 3rd was going to bring. But I just I just can't I don't feel like we should spend more money right now. Make a decision right now until we know what the future holds.

Yeah. I you know I mean we have to answer to the citizens and right now I mean now I know it's probably a small percentage but there's a lot of people that are furious right now with what's going on. A lot of them are are uneducated. I wish they would educate themselves better but uh I I just I just don't think right now is the time to spend any extra money on something that's not a necessity. Yeah, Darren and I agree. I when that popped up on our agenda, I started making phone calls going, "Okay, why are we approving something for a golf course when we're trying have these all these other big issues going on?"

But now, you know, it's it's like a double-edged sword. We have to look at it and go, "We're 70% complete. If we don't finish it, then what revenue stream is that going to cost us future-wise? Are we going to lose tournaments?" I mean, I it's I don't like being in the seat having to make the decision when when I don't think we should be spending the money either, but I'm like going, "Okay, do we fix,

you know?" I I guess I look at it if we uh didn't have any money to fall back on to pay our contractors when we were going to be in a bind, then I would say we're we need at least vote on part of it. that I feel like we have if we can transfer the Orchard Park funds, get our contractors paid and, you know, see where we're at coming up here and, you know, make some make some more informed decisions, you know, a few months down the way. Honestly, I wish we could and I I don't know if we have to make a decision. I I I personally would like to table this until after we see what situation we're in after the sales tax election. and then look at what we can do then if we you know if we're if we look like we're going to be in better shape and aren't going to have to cut jobs and all lots of other projects which is my thought

just in the timing of this right now does this project finishing this project if it's funded today and then um the resolution to transfer the funds at the next meeting if that happens as proposed does this get the holes 15 and 16 completed and open for the spring playing season. Yes. And we've already committed to hosting state and college tournaments. So, not only are we then going to say, "Hey, sorry, we can't host these tournaments." And they have to find somewhere else to go. Um, but all of the hotel stays that have been probably pre-ooked. Um,

I mean, there is a there is a trickle down like there's a trickle down effect from from a cascade effect, let me say. Yeah, we have a very I'm not finishing this. Yeah, sorry not to cut you. We have a very narrow construction window for this so that we can get it done where we're early enough in the year that we're not impacting play but can still have the course ready for our big tournaments. Um and then not starting it so so early in the fall that we're impacting play then. So it's how we've done every every phase is in this window for that exact reason. um to not be disruptive to to to normal play to tournaments play and and so we have a good growing season to to get everything grown in. So,

and to be clear, you guys greenlighting and beginning this project a few months back with funds that have been put into the budget for the past 3 years is in no way a reflection of some kind of oversight that we're now um in a shortfall because of the hiring and the I mean the cost of everything going up. like I feel like you guys have done everything possible to save money and I don't know reduce the the financial impact of this. I mean even considering to take a um the funds from the orchard park and transfer them to this I think that's a a very creative idea and and that gets us a long way with this project more than or halfway almost halfway. What is the total budget out there?

Um, total budget's a little over a million dollars. 1.1 1.2 somewhere in that in that ballpark.

So, we're subsidizing 330,000 every year. So, in Yeah. In in 2024, we subsidized 248,000. Okay. out there. Well, I should have just asked the question. Yeah, I've got I've got it all right here. Um, but that's always been true. Yeah.

No, I understand. And and you know, the fact that it's partially subsidized by the public is is good. Way ahead of Rice Park or other parks probably. Um, what and and I know maybe this isn't appropriate to talk about this now, but what if we offload that? Let the private folks take care of that. What get that off of our radar? How what does that look like?

Um, yeah, it's it's been done. Other communities have prioritized public golf courses. Um, usually the result is not good. Um, you know, the fees increase. They most of those clubs operate on a on a business model that it's a membership first because they're just like a a health club. They're going to make their money by you being a member and then not using the facility. And so that's kind of their business model. And so the grounds, the course itself generally goes downhill. And then they really push u food and alcohol themselves. And then sometimes they'll bring in other things into the clubhouse um that will encourage people to use use the clubhouse. It's been that's a broad a broad broad brush. We can get in more detail with that. But

I understand I think the long-term result for our players and for our community. Um I I don't think anybody would be happy with that. I think the the conditions would would would suffer. And you can look to um so saying that reminded me this it it it's happened and we can look back as recently as 2019 um Clap Golf Course in Witchaw the city sold it to an investor and then I don't know how long it took um but they decided it was too expensive to keep up as a golf course and they turned it into green space and um I believe part of it was parcled off for um housing. Um, I mean, it's a municipal golf course and it always has been. I would wonder if we would be getting into an area of not using the um property for its intended purpose because wasn't Kerry Park donated to the city? I don't think

so. So, we can't sell it. The city doesn't have fe simple title to that real estate in Kerry Park. It was given to us as long as the city uses it as a park. So you you could get a management company to come in and run the golf course, but you can't sell it to anyone. I'm just looking for efficiencies. I think that's what we're all trying to accomplish here.

So can we I I don't want to say table. I mean can we push this off for the what's your timeline I guess on actually I know you have a timeline with window because of planning stuff etc. What's your what's your like this is the last day I could have this to get it done? Um I mean to be honest I I think we need to come to some sort of resolution today since we have a contractor and and we owe money to that and I'm saying the resolution would be to go to pull the orchard fund money to get that guy paid for and then figure out like Darren was saying to make sure we're making the right decision on the rest of it. I'm just trying to be um

if you were in So if you were this contractor, you both own your own companies. If you were this contractor and you've already spent 3002 $280,000 worth of parts and labor and equipment and time in all of this and the city council tables for 2 weeks to think about it more, you're probably going to stop work tomorrow. I'm a contractor. This project's been going since December, right? But you're probably not I'm not even getting much payment yet. So I'm fine with if they say, "Hey, let's push this off." So I know I'm getting my money cuz But you don't know that. You don't actually know that they're going to get their money. No, not all of it. Well, the majority is going to pay for their contract. Correct.

I if if I were that business owner, I wouldn't I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in that and I it would be hard to do it every day. So

continue work The tricky thing about using the Orchard Park money to make the contractor whole present day, I believe the window of time that the AG has to respond is 60 days. So then that's two months where the contractor is not getting paid. Um, so I just that's not helping, but you guys need to know as you make your decision. So, so by passing the resolution for the for the bonding to not exceed gives us the authority then to pay the contractor I'm looking at Angela to make sure I'm not not misspeaking to pay the contractor with with funds that we will reimburse ourselves with once once we sell the bonds. And so again, setting that limit at, you know, $450, $500,000 maximum gives us the authority to go ahead and proceed with with paying the contractor. Um, and then make could take the other 60 days for the for the

we would so we'd pay the contractor out of authorizing that. Um, but the 400,000 would come back to reimburse us on that backside if we move the money from Orchard Park. I'm not sure I understand how that Orchard Park money plays into this equation. I'm just trying to get clarity. Yeah, like we couldn't take that Orchard Park money and pay the contractor right now. We would have to wait that 60 days. So, I I think what Justin's proposing is we passed the um the ordinance tonight with some allowance so that we can pay the vendor now before that 60 days. Um, so whether that be, you know, 300,000, 500,000, I think that's that's something you have to decide. But that at least would let us get the vendor paid sooner.

Then I think that's probably the route we need to go is to get that. This isn't the vendor's problem. This is our problem. I I agree with that. I mean, we need to pay our bills and they did the work and we told them we hired them to do the work. So, how how much would we have to make a motion on to get the contractor paid? I mean, do we have to have a little extra there for uh so our current contract is $338,630. There is bonding fees in that. So I would recommend I'll let I'll let if we made a motion to go up to 400,000 that would

and remember you're setting the max here. So if if you set it higher but you know give us instructions to do what we can to reduce that we could do that as well. What would your recommendation be on the amount? I I think that depends on whether you want the irrigation or not. Uh, but I would say you probably want to do the 338,000 plus about 30,000 in bonding costs so that we can get the vendor paid at least. Okay. So, we're going to take that down from 800 and some,000 to 368 375 max.

But like you said, we could do we could just make it an even 400,000. And if you can do it for less than that, that's max. And yeah, 400's the max. We get them paid and and then if we use the orchard fund, if once we get that, that would be more than enough to reimburse that. And and yeah, that that' be enough to get us a really good product. We're we're limiting how much we're bonding. Um and we're and give us time to pay the contractor and then work out the orchard park piece. And this that amount would delay the irrigation project by at least another year. Um we'd be really close. But the irrigation is working. Yeah.

Right. Yeah. Yeah. With a limit of 400,000. If we're able to push right to that, we might be able to make that. We'll have to go back and and look at all the line items for the project. Can we skimp on some sod here and there? Those sorts of things. What did you say the orchard park was? 420. 428. Could we just make it for 428? I mean, that's money we already have, correct? Correct.

So, that's not any new spending and then that would give you I guess I'm I'm not sure if that's appropriate how we do that, but I'm just thinking if we have that money already in the bank, that gives them a little extra. We get done what we need to so we can keep our obligations. I mean, you'd still be able to have the tournaments and stuff then with that. Yes. And then down the road if we,

you know, I I I I am so cuz we we will have to come back with an actual bonding amount when it comes time to actually sell the bonds. So, we'll have an exact amount at that point and it'll it'll be packaged with with multiple others. So that number could be, you know, if we say 428 or 375, whatever, you know, that number could come in uh come in less than that. All we're doing is the motion will be not to exceed 428,000 in my mind. Sounds like a good good compromise. I mean, because we're not doing any new spending. It's money we already have. I mean, yeah, I wish we didn't have to spend it, but the work's been done.

But the work's been done. you know, we've got to pay pay the people and if that's going to help us get the golf course up to par and pardon the pun, but get us up to where we need to be and uh so we can fulfill our obligations on the tournaments and stuff. I think for public comment, you should. All right. I think that's some good deliberation there. Um, is there anybody? Well, is there anybody in the um audience like to comment on this item if you're done? Justin, sorry. Make sure you're you're good. I'm good.

If you do, just uh please limit your marks to 5 minutes. State your name and address. Hi, Katie Link again. 3506 of Lorraine. Um I am a citizen here just trying to get educated on everything going on. So, I do have some questions. Um okay, so when you said 75 to 80% of revenue, does that mean that it's currently losing 20 to 25%? Is that what that means? That's correct. Okay. So, even before was losing money. So, we're putting money into something that possibly will actively be losing money. Yeah. Okay. Just to clarify on that. Um the 60day was that a minimum or a maximum? That's a maximum set by state law. So, it could potentially go faster than that. It doesn't usually.

Okay. Um Okay. And I just I thank you guys for your time. I do want to say it sounds like maybe we got a little bit of champagne taste on a beer budget as they say as far as like the the name of the saw is so fancy I couldn't even pronounce it GPS. Um putting something all those things into the golf course in Hutchinson, Kansas. Some of those line items might need to be re-evaluated for whether or not we're going to make that kind of money. So, especially if we're already losing money on this golf course, then we're gonna put some more money into that money pit without the potential or with the potential of continuing to lose money. So, and then one more comment. Have you considered um it's but asking the public for um contributions? So, like at playgrounds sometimes you could buy a brick or something and have it on there. Have you considered any outside fundraising other than just the city doing it? And that way the community is involved and they care and it's our golf course, not something the government just made us do because they wanted to look good with the other um cities around. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

So I want to um speak to one point which is that the city loses money on the zoo, we lose money on roads, we lose money on the airport, we lose money on um the golf course, we lose money on parks. The city is not in it to make money. We are not a for-profit business. So to say that we are subsidizing the golf course by $270,000 a year. Every single municipality in the state of Kansas is probably subsidizing um that if not more. So an a 70 to I think a 70% subsidy rate for a golf course I would imagine is a pretty darn good rate. Um it's a municipal service. It is for the public good. We are not h we don't have a golf course to make money. We don't have the zoo to make money. We literally lose money on these things because we are not a for-profit business. So our balance at the end of the year looks very different than a for-profit business. Um they are absolutely not comparable. The reserves that we're required to keep by state statute um are very different than a home budget or a business's budget. they are just totally different accounting um mechanisms. So, I am glad people are curious, but there's no way we're going to have a profitable golf course. It doesn't exist at in a in a municipal setting.

Just a comment on that. Um, since our city is having budget issues and then we're failing at these things and actively losing money, perhaps the government should pull out of those businesses that they shouldn't have their hands in to begin with and then you wouldn't have to worry about losing that money and coming up with all the money for the budget. They are not businesses, they are services. The zoo is a service. Let me ask you this, ma'am. Let me ask you this. I talking to a friend the other day

and we were talking about the golf course losing money, but how much does that contribute to quality of life? Now, I'm not a golfer. Never played around the golf. So, personally, I I would probably say I could care less if we lost money, but I like the zoo. I take my granddaughter to the zoo. We lose money on that, but that's quality of life. If we as a city, and I know I I don't like spending more taxpayer money than the other person, but it's sometimes you have to spend tax dollars to make the quality of life better for our community, you know? I mean, and you got to ask yourself how much what is too much and what's not enough.

So on that line, I enjoy fast food. I like taking a night off doing pizza movie night on Fridays. That's a service to me, but I pay for it. So the zoo is not necessary. We could pay for it. So some I'm just saying the government biblically should not be in those kinds of things. And I think if we went back to those biblical standards, we'd have less trouble with our money and with all the problems we seem to have. There are no biblical standards to go back to. This is the government.

There are actually biblical standards in the government about um protecting it citizens um doing defense. The Bible never says anything about providing zoos or golf courses, although that's really fun. doesn't say a lot of stuff. However, a golf course is not a necessity for the citizens. We could sell our parks. We could close the zoo. We could close the airport. Those are great ideas. That would those would save us money, too. All right. Does anybody else have a comment?

I I do. Katie, it's taken me four years up here in my seat to not run everything through my business mind. It is hard. I I hear you. I understand. Um we we do provide services and and that's what we do. We provide police, fire, roads, and your point's well taken. Should we provide a golf course and a zoo? I don't know. That's all I got. Thank you. Any other public comments?

All right. If none, I'm looking for a motion. I move to approve an ordinance authorizing issuance of geo bonds to pay for certain improvements, golf master plan, and authorize the mayor to sign not to exceed $428,000. Is that Yes. Forbage work. I'll second. Truan, yes. Garza, yes. Sauce, yes. Bass, yes. Yes. Item nine, new business. A, it inoperable vehicle discussion.

Good evening again, Council Jason Lady, building official. Um I don't really have anything prepared tonight for this inoperable vehicle discussion, but um my understanding is that um we would like to have a discussion as staff prepares to review the inoperable u code and uh so my question to you as a council is what priorities what um kind of clarifications um are you looking for when we as staff go back and review the code? And we're going to be reviewing that code over the next uh few months. I would say probably bring that back to council sometime in April is probably when I'd be looking to bring that back to council for review and approval. I guess the only question you and I talked one time and you made a comment that there was maybe an issue with somebody has it in a backyard and then when you guys give them a violation they move it to the street and then you got to start all over. Is that something you think we need to fix or is that when we just call the police department and have them tow it or

Yeah. I mean, when it gets you need something and you where if you've already had a case and they move it to the street, you can still remove the vehicle because it's already been an issue.

Yeah. So, those fall under different areas really. I mean, the property maintenance falls under us where anything within the rideway would fall under the police department. Um, so I mean unless we were to revise the code to the point where we would be allowed to deal with things outside the property line and deal with things in the in the street. Um, as far as um, you know, those vehicles that are inoperable or those vehicles that aren't tagged properly or things of that instance, then yes, we could do that. Um, because it wouldn't matter where they moved it. Um, however, there's also instances where um the vehicle that if the property maintenance follows a property, not necessarily the piece of property that they're moving around. So, it doesn't follow the vehicle, right? It follows the property. So, they move it from a house to a business property to over here and we constantly have to start over. A lot of these times we end up catching um vehicles just by the fact that they move it to the property that we already have an abatement order on. So then we execute that abatement order and we get to take the vehicle uh at no cause of of whether what property it's on. Um

this may be a poll question, but once you start a case on a certain vehicle statutoily, could we make an ordinance where no matter where they take that, if it's in violation, you don't have to start a new case or is it got to be a new case every time? depends on what the case was for. I I mean like I'm talking for like a dead disabled car in a backyard. Well, the problem that you're going to have with it, it's about where it's located. And when the circumstances change, you have to adjust to start because if it's in the backyard, it's property maintenance. If it's on the street, it's a parking violation which goes to HPD. And if it's in the salvage yard, it's no violation at all.

Right. But it's illegal to have an an unregistered uninsured vehicle parked on the street period. So and and in those cases too, it doesn't necessarily mean that they move it to a property that is legally theirs. It may be a friend's property. It may be, you know, someone else's property. So I can't go execute that on someone else's property when we haven't when we have sort out if the if the case could follow the car. But I understand what you're saying that if it gets a different location and so

and if it doesn't have tags on it and we can't see the VIN because of the location of the vehicle, then you're getting into a gray area of tracking that vehicle. Also, um, a lot of cars look alike. I think the only solution is that if it if it is unregistered, uninsured, but parked on an improved surface, it has to be covered according to our current. But or is if it's covered, does it have this could be covered for 6 months? That's the that's the length of the term that it could be covered and then it has to be resolved. Okay. But it can be uninsured and untagged during that period

and inoperable. Covered. Yes. As long as it's parked on an improved surface. As long as it's parked on an improved service. Not in a street. Yes. Or easement or rightway or alley or Yes. Okay.

Um well, I was excited to have this back. This was something that I had asked for um a couple months ago. I know you guys were just um pretty busy with the all of the blight situations that we've been tackling. Um so I'm glad this is coming up for me. And I don't know that it's necessarily a um change to the ordinance so much as a change to our process because currently when an inoperable vehicle by any one of the definitions um is investigated. Um it seems like the solution for a lot of people is that they just park their vehicle so that they can't so that the tags are not visible. Um which would not show registration which would mean that we can't check for insurance coverage. Um, so is there something in between that would help you guys with the investigation like sending a letter saying that they have to come in and prove that the vehicle is tagged or they have to submit through a portal or something that it's tagged and insured?

Yeah. Really, um, you know, in those cases, uh, we look at the we look at the condition of the vehicle. We don't necessarily look at the whether it's tagged, it's insured, anything of that nature. What we do look at is tagged and insured. If it's obviously if it's street facing and we see that it's not tagged uh properly, then we can contact the owner, send a notice of violation. Even if they do turn the card around at that point, we already have a notice of violation that's out so we can continue the case no matter what. Um, but I don't know. I mean, if us as staff want to get into the fact of tracking insurance and tags and everything else that an entity, you know, that a government entity already tracks. Um because do we want to track everybody's tags and and insurance to know that every citizen of Hutchinson, Kansas is tagged and insured? I mean, I think that's a lot of manpower and a lot of

effort. My next question is how much is all this going to cost us? I mean, we're sitting here trying to ask the public for things and well, I don't think it cost us anything extra. I mean, besides time and manpower, I don't think there would be add any added manpower to to the current state. there would probably need to be an added manpower to um you know we've already expanded our code compliance department this last year with one individual and um that that work and in the kind of the progressive work that we've done already um I think we've shown that that was much needed

um but you add something like that to it too now you're tracking a lot more because otherwise we would have to pull back from some of the progressive work that we done to fulfill this other area you you know, so I think it would take away from some of the other conditions that we're really looking at in the city, which is, you know, that is much needed to look at when you talk about blight, when you talk about things of that nature. So,

and I I guess I don't see this as a tool that would be on its own that would be enforced necessarily on its own but in conjunction with the other items because if a vehicle is so the example that you gave was if you can if staff enforcement staff would see that the vehicle was not tagged and insured and then the person reparks it so that it couldn't be checked. But they're inoperable vehicles who don't look inoperable, but they don't move and they're parked with their tags to the back or what would be their tags to the back. Um, and I mean at that point there is no enforcement, right? I mean,

sure, there is no enforcement at that point because we can't see the we can't see anything. We can't see where the tags are coming. And as long as it doesn't look inoperable. Yes. Um, that's why I think that there's a I don't know, some kind of middle step.

But, but I think from a code um compliance perspective, that's what we're looking at is the feel and the look of the neighborhood. Is the vehicle look inoperable? I mean, yes, it's out of compliance with whatever is required for registering and ensuring a vehicle. Um, but at the same time, it still has a nice look to the neighborhood. It's not doing anything to to take away from from the look of the neighborhood. It's not causing any real um issues. It's not um you know, so I think that the beholder

if somebody puts in a complaint about one then obviously somebody feels like that particular vehicle doesn't adhere to any case. I mean, we have to go out and look at it realistically and see whether it meets or violates current codes. And I mean, if if uh it is in the eye of the beholder, but I mean there's there's complaints that we get out there on a pretty regular basis that are neighborto neighbor disputes. Of course,

um and we have to be that judge to see whether it's a legitimate complaint or not, you know. Um, and I think that's where we look at that aspect from kind of that neighborhood. I don't know, lack of better terms, beautifification, and looking at it to see whether it's it looks um like it's an inoperable vehicle or not.

You know, if the tires are flat, if it's up on blocks, if there's parts laying around, if there's, you know, things of that nature, obviously an inoperable vehicle because it can't run, it can't move. Um, and and by definition, I mean, that's what it is. it can't run and can't move and maybe it can't run it and can't move, but it's on the improved surface and it looks nice. Um, so how are we to determine whether it can't run or can't move? How are we to determine that um it's in license out of license? Um, so I think maybe that's uh, you know, just maybe in those conditions,

maybe that is something we could take a look at in the code and say, you know, if there's a complaint and um, neighbor says it's inoperable and it hasn't moved for so long, maybe there is something we could place in the code. But we could look at other jurisdictions and see if there is anything that they have in their codes to uh to say, "Hey, maybe we make the individual prove that it's not inoperable at that point." Yes. So, and maybe there's something we could look at in there.

And so, I I think a couple of things come to mind. So, a question of how are we how do you track like um parking for an exempt trailer that doesn't have to be tagged or registered? Like they can they be parked on the street unhitched? Yeah, as long as it's not parked in I mean if it's parked on the street again not hooked in vehicle it is illegal but that would be under your STOs. But that Yep.

So a trailer that's parked in a driveway on blocks because most people put them on blocks keep them from rolling but yet it's not like its own thing like you have to have it hooked to something for it to work. So, as a standalone unhitched trailer, would an unhitched trailer be an inoperable vehicle? It's not a motor vehicle. No, it's not a motor vehicle. So, we wouldn't consider it wouldn't fall under the standard of an inoperable vehicle. Yeah. It wouldn't fit. I mean, personally, I mean, we've had this same

ordinance. I mean, I've lived here 25 26 years now, and it's worked. I don't know why we're even looking into it so much. I mean that it's worked over and over. I've been involved in these issues and Lord knows I've towed many of cars off the street for dead and disabled. So I don't I mean if you find something that you think should be brought to us, I'd say bring it to our attention. But I think our ordinance is fine the way it is. Yeah. And we're reviewing other ordinances right now. So, um, and the other thing I'm concerned about is I don't want to go too far and start violating constitutional rights, search and seizure, and Yeah. And that's,

I mean, we're going to why we sure don't want to get violate somebody's constitutional rights over a car,

you know. Yeah. I mean, you when we speak with residents, you know, they one of the questions is, well, why can't you go up? It's parked in the driveway. Why can't you go up and just look at it? Well, uh, from my perspective, when we talk about constitutional rights, when we walk onto an individual's property, our process is to any normal way that the public would take up to the house, um, if you were just to come up and knock on someone's door if you're selling something, you know, walking around the neighborhood selling candy bars, whatever it is, and that's any normal route that any individual would take to get up to the front door. So if we park our truck in the street, we get out, we walk up the driveway, we turn, we walk up their sidewalk to the front door, do our thing, post something, knock to talk to an individual, whatever. That's our normal route. So anytime that we go anywhere else on the property, um that's breaking their that's breaking their rights at that point.

I would like to point out that a trailer does fall under the definition of a vehicle under our ordinance. Well, then that may need to be looked at because it's not a definition of a motor vehicle. It's not. We're not I mean, you could take a motor out of a car and say it's not a motor vehicle probably then. But um a parts car is also defined like it's inoperable means that it's junk, total, dismantled, discarded, and abandoned or unable to perform the functions or the purpose that it was originally constructed. So that's

I mean we've had trailers that have been dismantled that we've removed from properties um because that point they're but we don't consider that under the inoperable vehicle. We don't really consider that under chapter 12. We consider that under the um PMC.

So because they are cuz they're not really a motor vehicle but they are not in the condition they were originally meant to be in. So, uh, we consider those under the PMC. We don't use chapter 12. So, if it's just a vehicle, I mean, just a trailer sitting in someone's driveway that's, you know, chocked up or something with blocks or something like that. I mean, as long as it's in usable condition, we wouldn't consider it. If it had flat tires and hasn't moved within 30 days, would it be

then start considering it? Yes. But not necessarily under chapter 12, right? Yes.

Any more questions for Jason? I think you have the next item, too, don't you? I do. So, we can just move straight into that. There's no more questions. I think that's going to pop up on the screen. Hit the space bar. Maybe the C team's back in there. I've been told. Oh, his words, not mine. I I got third street. Third straight.

Yes, sir. Uh so this uh next discussion is uh efforts uh towards blight discussion and this is some of our blight remediation initiatives also with a few updates and and a few um things we've been talking about as of late when it comes to when it comes to blight maybe. All right. So, up on the screen right now, we got a demolition program grant program that uh we've established. Um, this isn't uh active for public use yet. So, we haven't had any anything come in on this. We haven't put it out on the website yet. So, we're still putting a few things together. We just finished up all the documentation for it. We just finished up the application. Uh I do have another uh waiver form that I have to establish. So that's going to take me a little bit of time, but I'm looking to get this out by the beginning of March um on up on the website and hopefully see if this will be a feasible alternative to um some of our blight remediation out there. So this is what we call our structural to uh soil initiative. So how does it work? So the demolition grant program is a city of Hutchinson initiative to provide financial assistance to a property owner associated with demolition cost of dilapidated structures uh in the city. Uh this initiative is designed to spur development investment within the local community and the removal of dilapidated structures is essential to improving uh not only life safety but appearance and the future enhancement of our community. So who's eligible for this program? everyone. There's not going to be a defined target area um within the community. There's not going to be a defined target income level uh within the community. So, anybody is available to use this program.

Um the application process, so the application process for uh uh for this, they'll be online uh once we get the website up for this on our on our city website. And then uh they'll also be available here at city hall uh through the building and neighborhood services department. Application must be two competing bids for review for a licensed demolition contractor. So it has to be a licensed demolition contractor uh for the work. There needs to be two competitive bids and then the property owner uh is required to submit as the applicant. Now, I would say that under those two uh competing bids, uh I I may have it later in the in the uh slideshow or in the presentation, but um under those two competing bids, they can use the uh city's demolition contract as one of those competing bids. So, if they were to request from us, hey, can you contact the city uh demolition contract that you have uh for your normal demolition process? um and your condemnation process, then we would reach out to our contractor and say, "Hey, um we've been asked to reach out to you for a competing bid uh for the demolition of this house at this property." Um and they can go take a look at it and they can put a bid in for it as well. So, they they technically only have to submit one bid and can request of us to offer out another competing bid. uh the building official uh at that point. So, building and neighborhood services would have a staff review and it does need to meet the definition of condemnable. So, it has to be something that's condemnable. Somebody can't just come to us and say, "Hey, I got this house. I want to demo it. I want to build something new here." Well, we're not going to spend money on a completely viable house that somebody can go live in today, right? Um so, it has to be a condemnable status. So at that point uh the property owner would get with uh

myself and my staff. We go out on site. We would take a look at it. We would see if it's of condemnable nature as in accordance with the code. And uh if it is, we would um submit to the housing commission for review. And then under the housing commission review, they would either uh approve, reject, or suspend the application. and by of course approving it, we'd send a notice saying, "Hey, you've been approved for this money uh these funds. If they reject it, we send a notice to um explaining the why the denial um and if maybe if more information was needed or or whatever the case may be." And they could suspend the application, too. They could basically just table it and say, "Hey, let's request more information from this and from this property owner. We get the more information and we bring it back to the housing commission without actually approving or rejecting it. So we can table those things or they can table those things. So what's the financing look like? So there's two options. Well, first of all, there's residential and commercial. But under the residential, there's a 100% option. And under the 100% option, this is where um we look at properties where maybe somebody doesn't have the the a viable source of income to um do the do themselves. Maybe they can't even maintain the property. Maybe they're just looking to get rid of the property and but they don't even have a way to um tear down the house that's on the property and they don't even know what they're going to do with it. So, they would come to us, they would talk to us and there's a possibility here of getting a 100% option uh to fund the complete demolition and then the owner would transfer the property over to the city land bank. And that's a that's a pretty simple process from from my understanding. So, and then there's the 50/50 option. So under the 50/50 option, the owner retains the property providing u there's plans for some type of revitalization. So when they come in for the 50/50 option, they would present us with some plans too that we would take to the housing commission and they say,

"Hey, I would like some help to demo my property. This is my plans to rebuild on the property. This is what it's going to look like after the fact." And um we're talking about putting some type of time frame in there so there isn't just uh so we haven't finalized that quite yet, but we're talking about putting some type of time frame in there so uh we don't just use that 50/50 option and then they don't build anything on the property. Um and then there's uh the I doubled up that 100% option there obviously. Um, but then there's a commercial option and under that commercial option, there's 10% of the cost up to $25,000. So, if they wanted to come in and say, "Hey, I have this commercial property. I want to demo this." Um, sure, we'll loan, but the max that we're going to put out there for a grant is $25,000. We don't want to get into the business, I don't think, of of funding individuals um commercial property demolitions. So, some owner responsibility. Um, there's a little bit more to this, but I just wanted to hit the main points here. Some of the owner responsibilities. So, there's access to pre- bid and pre-demolition inspections. They have to allow access onto the property. Uh, not only for the contractors to kind of come pre- bid it, but then for us to come out and take a look at it, see whether it's in condemnable status. Um, and so there is some inspections that we want to take a look at beforehand. Are they current on tax obligations and are they free and clear of any uh leans? Uh we got to make sure there's nobody living in the house. We got, you know, we got to clear a few other things. There's some title and deed stuff that we got to go through. Um and then free of or ineligible or yes, ineligible for any insurance funds. So we want to make sure there's no insurance funds say out there. Say in the event of a natural disaster or fire um that happens and they come to the city and say, "Hey, I want to apply for this program." Um now we go demo a house when they had insurance funds available to demo the house themselves in the

first place. So, we want to vet all those things before we go uh using any of this money. Can I ask a question on that slide? Yes. Um, so we would check that they are current on taxes and there's no leans. Um, and maybe you'll get to this in a different slide, so I apologize. Would we not if they're doing the 50/50 option or the 100% paying on their own or not that what 50/50? Sorry. the 5050 is where they're going to revitalize. Yes. Property. Would we require any sort of bonding or shity of that they would pay their demo contractor?

Uh so the demo the the payment to the demo contractor comes directly from the city. So after the project is complete, the demo contractor would be the one to invoice the city and not the property owner. So there is no change of money between the city and the property owner themselves. So once this goes through, then the demo contractor would send the itemized bill to the city and we would pay out through our demolition funds and we would but then they would pay for their part

and they would have to pay for their part. That's between them and I mean that's that's a civil issue between in my mind that's I think that's a civil issue between the property owner and and the contractor at that point. But we wouldn't require any proof that they have those funds. No, we're shy bond. Okay. No. So, so to add to that, what guarantee do we have that they would go ahead and revitalize it? I mean, maybe we're and I know this is new, but Sure. Yeah. You know, I I mean, it seems like to me and kind of what Miss Goss was saying was, yeah, we

we make sure they get it demoed, but now we're splitting it 50/50 with the intent that uh you know, I mean, I think that's something we need to look at that there's got to be Well, and that contractor would be able to then place a lean on the property property. Well, I'm not saying that. I'm saying so they pay their demo contractor and then now we have just a lot there. But we've split it 50/50 with them with the intent that they were going to revitalize it. I feel like we need to figure out some way to have a guarantee.

I I think from the city's perspective um I think at that point they don't pay if they pay their contractor that's fine. And if they and then if they don't revitalize um you know city pro footed 50% of the bill for for that demolition contract. But at the same time, um we have a a property that's free and clear that also no longer has a blighted structure on it. It's no longer presenting a safety hazard in the community. That's the part I would go back to is to be even qualified for this, the the property has to be

Yeah. And and that that makes sense, but I just make sure we're not being taken advantage of by Okay. We're funding the demo, not the the revitalization. So, we're funding more of the we're we're doing half of it with the intent that they're going to revitalize it. Yeah. The hope is that they will revitalize within a certain time frame. And that's where we're talking about putting a time frame in there. And maybe if they don't, maybe we put something in there that if they don't revitalize the property within a certain amount of a time frame, then maybe we put a lean against the property. Um, and that's what I'm getting at. I know this is all new and you're working through it. I appreciate that. I just just something I thought, you know, how do we guarantee that? Yeah. You know,

and that may be a way to guarantee it. Maybe the city puts the lean against the property if in in the same course of action that the contractor has that, hey, you said you were going to revitalize within two years and you haven't done anything to the property. So, that demo money that we gave you is now being held against your property and we'll have to figure out that process. But yeah, that's a good point. Yeah. So, and then the question is, do I need a contractor? Um, so a licensed demolition contractor is required for all demolition um in the city. So, demolition permit is required prior to any demolition work and then the cost of the demolition will be invoiced uh to the city by the contractor and paid directly to the contractor. So there's no exchange of funds between the property owner and um and the uh city. So that's the end of that. Um do you have any questions on the uh what we would consider the demolition grant?

Just to be clear, where did this money come from?

So that's a good point. Um, so we have money in the budget um that is um unbonded. Uh, so it's non-bonded funds that we have in the budget already. So this is money that's in the 2026 budget. Um, so on our program, we've put that u the city reserves the right basically to change this program at any time and that also this program is subject to funding. Uh so we've established about $100,000 um towards this program right now. And really what this helps with is is an individual owner can come in here and say, "Hey, I don't have the availability to to do this." Or maybe a contractor comes in here and says, "Hey, I'd really like to do this on this property. I need some help with the demo and we're going to rebuild and revitalize." And and so we pay this out. And I think what that, you know, and and things like that, I think it's a big benefit to the community that we're not going through that normal condemnation process that we went through already tonight to set a hearing, to send out all these notices, to do all these things. It's just another alternative means that we have, it's the same pot of money because if we go demo these five other structures, alls we're going to do is take the money that we have in our demolition contract. we're going to demo those structures and we're going to put lean against the property.

At least in this instance, the property's been turned over to the land bank or the property's been, you know, um has a new house sitting on it within a couple years, whatever the case may be. So I I I would add to that um some of the ideas behind this as well, obviously with all of our blight pursuits, whether it was the atrium, the worm guy, whatever the case may be, um we all want that to be the private property owner to take actual ownership of the issue. Um and we've been trying to establish a way to have like a carrot in addition to the work that we're doing. This is money that already lived in the budget, but we're trying to find a more creative way to use that to get the private property owners to take ownership of the issues that they're causing. Um, and so, uh, blight affects property values, uh, drugs, homelessness. Um, there's a significant amount of issues that that can bring. Um, so I just wanted to clarify at least where this is coming from.

Is there opportunity to get federal grants to do something like this? I don't know. Jason, are you aware? I'm not aware of any, but we can certainly look into them as well. To me, that's something I'd like to check into cuz Sure. I mean, I know it's a double-edged sword and I've heard a few people complain, you know, that we're using taxpaying dollars to demo buildings, but yet when you have a building that needs demoed and the owner's not going to do it, how do you do it? You know, I mean, we have to get rid of them, you know. But I personally I don't like using taxpaying dollars to do that. I do like your idea where if they'll sign it over to the land bank, then we're getting the entire property and not pennies on the dollar when it goes to the tax sale. So,

yeah, we tried to put a little something in there that I mean, if the city's going to foot the bill for the whole thing, then there's got to be some give and take on on the other side of that, you know, at least then we have the full value of the lot of the lot, not pennies on the dollar. Yep. And are we putting a line item in every budget for demo? Like I know that that 100,000 is from years. I know that that 20 years ago we were demoing houses regularly. Yes. And we quit doing that, but we kept funding that for a while. Correct. Are we currently funding that line item for demolition?

We are currently funding the demolition line item. Yes. But it's not considered it's not broken out into any specific like what that demolition money is going to be used for. I mean, it's basically in one big pot. Yeah. Yeah. And I would add too that say if we don't do this program, um we would still deal with the property maintenance file issues of the properties anyway and then it just goes to the court process. It'll get drugged out.

Um and we're always wondering why is it taking forever? I mean, there you go. It's it seems like once it goes to court, it's stuck there. And the other thing with going through this process and having the essentially the title work done and their commitment to um turning it over to the land bank, which doesn't make us whole. Going through this process versus letting something go to um the tax sale or the blight process that we mentioned earlier is that this ensures that the city is not the fourth or fifth lean on the property. because once something goes to a tax sale, the county is the first um uh person essentially to um get the funding. And then if there's anything left over after the tax um the back taxes that are owed, then it would go to the city, the other taxing entities, and then the lean of the demolition would be considered. So

when we're going through the blight process for for properties that are so very close or nearing their um tax sale time. Um the consideration of we will never be made whole is very real. Um even on this this doesn't make us whole in in theory. Um but it's the opportunity that a demoed property can be improved whereas a h a rotting structure um is a a huge um hurdle to overcome um when making an improvement.

No, I mean I like this plan. I mean because it makes sense where if they'll sign it over to the city or do something with it. I just would like to see maybe look at federal grants and Sure. I mean, I know federal grants are tax dollars, but we don't take it, somebody else is going to take it. So, if we could get it to help, that would be, you know,

and I think on these things, too, when we're talking about tax burden of the city, I mean, and and how we spend taxpayer money, I think you got to put into consideration when we uh demo a a residence or a commercial building or whatever it is. I mean, then you have uh the lack of need for fire response to that location because there's no longer building there. I mean, you have the need, lack of need for police response. And so, there's other things to take into account besides just the fact that we spent 567 thou,8 on a demolition cost of of the structure itself.

On some of these properties you have on the actual um list, like what's what's it cost to demo like one of those houses? It just depends. So, I mean, approximately we've spent anywhere from $5,500 to close to $10,000. That's that's kind of our averages. Most of them running anywhere from 5,500 to in the $7,000 range. And that includes um scraping the scraping the site clean, taking out the footings, foundation, and it really depends on first story, second story, basement, right? You know, all that stuff. So, I guess I was talking more just like a simple a simple slab on grade home that's ranch style home. Yeah. I mean, you're probably talking 5,500 to 7,000. I mean, on average,

some sort of kind of like a what would that potentially cost? That's what most of our uh other ones that we've had where we've had fires and stuff like that and we've had to demo about what they've cost. Would a property be eligible for this if it wasn't a complete demo? if they were only doing a partial or like leaving a garage or leaving or like if they wanted to demo a can't leave a garage on a property without a primary residence. So, but if they have the intent to rebuild if they have the intent to rebuild um would that case build within a certain time. Um then we, you know, may look at something like that.

Just take it into consideration because they're going to rebuild. Then you're going to have the primary residence there. And if they don't rebuild, then we tell them they have to demo the primary residence and we put a lean against the property. I mean, you know, that's just the way it may go on in some cases. But yeah, I wouldn't have any

would it be eligible? I'm just thinking of situations that would come about that would be interesting and would hopefully I don't know if hopefully pass but be considered at least if if a person wanted to demo the house but keep the garage for instance and then sell it to a neighbor an adjacent neighbor and then replat it so then it does have a primary residence because it's all one lot. Would that be if that situation?

We've had those situations that have occurred, not necessarily city money that we're spending to make that demolition, but you know, an individual demoing the house themselves and then selling the lot off, replatting. We've had those discussions and yes, it would be allowed as long as it meets code that there's no can't have more than one garage if it's not attached to the house. And I mean, there's there's other things to consider, but yes. I would add to that um this was run by the the housing commission and they were supportive of this as well. Any other questions for Jason?

Thank you.

All right. So on this next slide, I just want to update you on a couple of the bite programs. Um so obviously this is kind of the four means that we have for our blight programs um that we put in place or that we are putting in place. So I'm not going to go into that last one too much because we're going to bring it to you here in a few weeks as far as um what that process entails. Um we're going to bring it back to council just to kind of explain what that state statute process is because there's a lot of legal things um with Carissa, our housing coordinator. Uh moving on to another job. I'm still trying to jump in and understand some of the some of the things about this program under the state statute. So uh right now we have our normal code compliance process and then the condemnation process that we bring here to city council. Uh then we have our Hutchinson resident uh residential revitalization program. And what this is is a uh contractual agreement with uh Interfaith. Um and so there's a process where we work with Interfaith to get them to uh purchase the houses and some uh city funding goes uh towards that process and then they revitalize the property. So most of the cost burden at that point um is on interfaith because they're doing the reconstruction. We're basically um in kind of the administrative portion of that and then we're in the uh demolition process of that. So really most of that burden is still on interfate to um revitalize the property. And then the third one the structure to soil initiative uh which I just uh presented to you. And then the last one, the state statute process, which I'm not going to really go in tonight, like I said, uh, but we we'll be bringing back to council here very soon.

And then this last slide, is there any questions on any of those? Sorry. Any of those uh processes? Uh, this last one is just the uh commercial condemnations that we've been discussing over the past uh few months. Uh so 806 North Plum U one was one that was on our list. Um that was purchased at the sheriff's tax sale back in October. Uh since that time the entity that purchased that um has demoed the building and uh they are currently backfilling um right now. So that's what they're that's where we're at with that right now. So it's looking pretty good over there if you haven't been by to see it. uh 2100 South Bone Break uh also known as Bernard's that has been demoed completely and so that demolition is uh complete. 225th uh West Fifth Street uh demolition is in progress right now uh over on the alley side uh behind the landmark. They have demoed the little white building that was on the corner right there of fifth and the alley right there behind the landmark. And so now they're doing some uh a bestus abatement um within a couple of the buildings and once they get that complete they will finish the uh demolition there. 401 uh and 405 South Main. Uh we've been working with the property owners. We've had some good open communication with the property owners there. Uh they are working to revitalize 405 South Main right now once they get that done. And um um they're going to re- roof. They're going to redo the facade on the front. They're getting a new electrical service to that building. They're going to do some electrical work. And they have been working on this. Um once they redo 405, they're going to move a lot of their stuff that's in 401 out of there into 405. And then we'll have to make a decision at that point. What do we do with 401 South Main? Uh 411 South Main.

There's no change. I don't have any updates on that one. uh 3001 East 4th is the same along with 2100 North Jackson and we have property maintenance uh ongoing property maintenance violations and conversations with these individuals. Uh 211 East 4th Street is also no change. So, this one um originally when we discussed this one um the church on Fourth Street there, there was um the property owner was going to demo that building themselves. They got the asbestous testing back. It tested positive for asbestous pretty much throughout that entire place. Um the asbestous bill was pretty high. I don't know what that bill looks like, but my understanding was pretty high and that's what kind of determined for them as the property owner not to demo that uh property at this time. So, there's no change on that currently. And then 1221 East 4th Street, um some work's been completed out there. There's really no change on the building itself, but um he has cleaned up a lot. the property owner has cleaned up and I spoke with him today again uh before this meeting and he's cleaned up a lot of the uh like brush that was up against the building, the trees that were up against the building. Um really a lot of that um the the work that needs to be done on that building is painting and some touchup type stuff. Um it's not going to take a lot of money that the property owner is going to have to put into it, but it it's going to take some nice weather. Um, so I wouldn't suggest go painting in February in Kansas. So it's kind of where we're at on those. If you have uh any questions, I'll stand for those.

I have a question. Um, you didn't mention 1321 East 4th. So 1321 East 4th, we removed from the condemnation process, but um that building is getting renovated and uh they're open for business and they're they were on our original list, right? Yep. Yeah. I think that's a great success story. Yeah. So that's looking really good out there. Yeah. Yeah. Now, some of these that have no change, are you in are you able to communicate with the owners? And

Yeah, we've had we've had communication with all these owners. Um we haven't had any um and it's been good communication. So, um yeah, we haven't had any that we haven't been able to reach or been unwilling to uh speak with us. So, yeah. And the um which one is it? I think it's probably 3001 East 4th. That's the one that changed owners, correct? Yes. Okay. Yes. And they've uh got a permit for that front building there on the corner. I can't remember what the fourth and whatever street that is. I can't remember that off top of my head. But the hotel itself, the old hotel building, that's what we're

considering is the condemned structure back there. Um and they have not done anything with that to this point. So, okay. And 2100 North Jackson has a a building had a building permit had. Okay. Yes. And there's multiple um property maintenance violations out there right now. Yeah. Yeah. As we move forward with these no change ones, what does that look like with our budget wos? I mean, are we just going to continue to bond these and do these or what do we

So, I I think at this point when we look at this list and we and we look at these properties, I think we make an informed determination of the cost, you know, have them evaluated and to determine the cost at least of what these are going to take to demo. I mean, when we talk about 411 South Main, we already determined that there's an adjoining wall with the property next door in 413 or 4, whatever that is next door. Some of those skip a number there on South Main, but there's an adjoining wall. So, we know if we tear down that building, um, it's going to cost about $500,000 because we got to build back part of the adjacent building, too. And so, we know kind of where that cost lies at this point. Um, so I think it's really just kind of evaluating these on a case by case and making an informed decision and maybe working through some of the code compliance process. I mean, there is also a legal process to this. So maybe it stays out of the city council room and goes to a legal process at some point. Um, and so if it goes to a legal process, maybe we get the chop property to change hands at some point to where someone that will do something with the property. So, there's options out there. Um, and one of the options we're going to talk about that that state statute um is is a statute that Missouri has that is much um Kansas took Missouri state statute, rewrote it, and um there is some differences, but we're starting to see some movement with that here in Kansas. There is some um properties in Levvenworth that are being renovated right now. Um, and there's about five, six lawyers in the state that constantly kind of work on this program that are very familiar with this program and the way it's enacted in Missouri and what those stipulations are. So maybe there's some other alternative means to get

those properties to change hands um with property owners that are going to do nothing with them. Would and I don't know if this is a question for you, so feel free to pass it off, but if we were to seek CDBG funding for these properties, it would require the cooperation of the property owners, right? They would have to be I'm going to go ahead and skip off on that one. Okay, Matt, can you answer that question to that? Um, I think probably the I don't know if Carissa would probably have the best answer for that, but those property owners apply for that.

Okay. So, we can't like apply on their behalf or I we could tell them it's available, but the the deadlines and like the pre-application is open right now. So, okay. Any other questions for Jason? Thanks, Jason. All right. Thank you. Next item, Mary. Item number 10, reported city officials council. We'll start on the other end of the table, Darren.

Okay, I'll start. Well, I just want to give a shout out to Graham. I don't even know his last name at Startup Hutch. They had their I believe it was their monthly meeting last week and had a good speaker. Brad Prior was their speaker. Attended that so I could meet some community members and it was very good. Uh, I want to call you the the nice couple here in front. I want to personally thank you for coming tonight. I have been trying and trying to get more people to come to the meetings. I hope you come back. I mean, we want I want to hear from the community and you made me do a lot of thinking tonight. And now, one other thing I'm going to say is is you ask about the agenda. I just recently learned this myself. If you go to the city's website, you go to agendas and you find today's date and you pull that agenda up, it's got the entire packet there. Now, I warn you, don't print it off cuz the first one I did, I hit print. I came back in, I was at 250 pages and then I looked and we had about 110 left to go. So, I stopped. So, probably best just to look on it online, but it's very informative. It's got all the Angela, our finance director back there, all her financials and my gosh, the the what the city spends, just the light, electric bill, you know, it's very informative. So, I I I wanted to put that out there for you folks and for people in Facebook and YouTube that that is very informative. And and then like everything we talked about, all that's in the packet. So, I just want to encourage you to look that up. So, other than that, oh, one other thing. Um, there was an issue with a water leak Sunday that apparently occurred in the morning and the people called in, hit the wrong button, and finally at like 8:00 at night, I got tagged on Facebook. So, made some phone calls. I talked to Enerico about it and he's planning on getting the proper information out soon

on who to call or how to contact the city for after hours or weekend water leaks. So it uh kind of turned into a fiasco and it was just misunderstanding. So that's all I have. Greg

um was reading my monthly magazine of uh the Kansas League of Municipalities that we get once a month. It seems that our city manager is in here. He got a early career excellence award. Um another one. So anyway, it's it's right here in print. I guess that means something. Congratulations. Um, and I think that's all I have. Um, I I I do appreciate you guys. Um, maybe I didn't come off that way, but I do. And I want you to also go to the agenda. You're going to see everything we see. So, you're going to have all the information that we have. Now, we may march in here and say, "Hey, what about this?" to staff. Uh but anyway, that's all I have,

Mr. Garza. Okay, now to me. Thank you. Me not being first. Yeah, absolutely. Taking that for you, Steve. I appreciate that being the new guy.

All right. I've been on the council a long time. I worked for the city for 33 years. So, I have a little background on the city. My biggest thing is that u we we have a lot of services we provide for the city and our citizens. And one thing she didn't mention was pools. Our pool is a highly costly thing that we do every year and we we don't make no money at it, but we provide a service for the kids to have somewhere to go in the summertime. So, the city has a lot to do with pools. Um, come in, put this down on your calendar. I'm going to have a meeting on January 21st. Gives you two weeks to get all your gripes and complaints and scream at me. They don't scream at me. They talk to me. February 27 or 21st?

February or January? January 21st. We've already passed it. We've already passed it. What day? What are we at here? That's right. I'm a little old. So, what's today's date? It's the 21st. Help me out. What? February. February. February 21st. There we go.

February 21st. We're going to have another my meeting. So, I'm not this losing it. But, uh, January 21st. You wouldn't come to my meetings, they're great. I got all the street department. I got everybody there. That's the whole idea behind my meetings. You come and ask me a question. I got the people sitting there to answer your questions. So, it's a good one. We get 101 and I buy coffee and donuts and we have sit down and we have a talk. This is for the citizens and would you please put it in the email for February 21st. Everybody come out. I enjoy that and we have good talks and uh it's a get together for the city to come and ask questions that they don't know about what's going on. So, other than that, um other than that, um I want to tell my wife at home, get the dinner ready. I'm coming home. Thank you. That's all. Where's your meeting, Steve?

It's at the zoo. Okay. At the zoo. So, I don't have anything to add. So, nothing, Stacy? No. What? No. There's no way. You have nothing to add. The meeting's at the zoo. That's what I had to add. What about for you? Do you have anything to add? Drop the mic.

No, here. I'll add something. um the trash fiasco that happened over the snow and holiday weekend. Um I talked to Delwin at Stoutzman's and he said in the 31 years that he has been at Stzman's, he has never had a holiday weekend and a snowstorm fall at the same time. Um I know there was a lot of frustration with trash not being picked up and people feeling not communicated to. Um, however, Stzmans has an app which the city also shared on their um, Facebook page and I know Dolan has talked to at least a couple of city staff about how to better promote that. Um, in the app you um, put in your address and then you get an alert the day before your trash pickup. Um, so like if your trash pickup is Monday night, you get an alert um, Sunday night at 7:00 p.m. to tell you to take your dumpsters out and and it tells you if you have garbage and uh, recycling or just garbage that day. Um, in there you can also pay your bill and you can appreciate your driver. So um, you can essentially just say like, "Hey, they're super friendly." Um, we have a great driver on our route. I can't remember his name, but um my boys love seeing the trash truck even though it's at the most ungodly hour in the morning. Um but if they're awake to see it, um they're out there and he honks and we wave and it's a lot of fun. So um they're good guys and they're all doing the best they can. Um I am confident that cancelling trash service that that one day or day and a half that they had to um was the right decision to keep their staff safe and I'm glad that Delwin made that decision. So please download the app. um he personally updates the information in there. So if there is a delay, your app will update and say that your trash pickup has moved or been delayed. I think you can also alert them that that if there was a

missed pickup. Um and if you ever have if you ever need an additional um trash pickup, it is $15 and they will clear however many dumpsters you have. Um, and in the two times I've called and had it done, they got there within the same business day within 4 hours on a Friday afternoon. So, um, it's really helpful, um, on days that you are like cleaning out the garage or doing spring cleaning and stuff like that. So, love Stitzman's. That's it.

Thank you. That's uh, actually great. I was actually going to speak to that, but not as in-depth as you did. So, that was some great information. Thank you, Stacy. Um, so I I want to also appreciate you guys for coming and encourage more people to come. Um, it's I mean, again, we are here representing the community. Um, you're actually in my district and so um, we want to hear from you. I mean, that's why I've I've reached out to multiple people over the last couple weeks. Um, my phone number to call me. Um, we've t had conversations about the sales tax, uh, storm water runoff fee, um, budget, all sorts of things. And I just encourage that. Um, that's what we're here for. Um, and we we want to make sure that we're transparent and doing what the community wants done. Um, and again, we all five sit up here and make these decisions and they are not easy decisions. I mean, there every time you have to tell somebody we have to cut this or do this, we don't want to do this or you have to raise taxes or potentially do this. I mean, it's it's some most times it's not fun. Um, so it's um it's a hard job and um we we accepted that task and we are willing to um take the phone calls to help our city move forward in a positive direction. That's what we're here for too. Um and so I'll move off from from that and go some positive things. Last week um we had some good events with staff. We had a staff lunchon uh where uh a lot of our staff were recognized. Um that was a great event uh to see them and be be honored in the positions they're in. And then we had um some conversations with staff and a little training at the end of last week. Um some of the some of the council members which was great. I appreciate the staff for putting the time in coming to that. Um it was very informative for me and I think um everyone else that happened was able to attend. Um I again I think we have great staff and I really appreciate them. And then um we had a great turnout for the

most of you probably don't know the Men of Hutch Cook event on Saturday night. Um we we there was I think 16 booths. We cooked up food. People came in and judged. Um obviously my my team did not win, but we raised uh a little under $6,000 for the Hutcherson Community um Salt Community Support organization. So um that was a positive um thing we did there, too. So, um I think that's all I have and Rico just really a few items and uh I think part of it part of what I'm going to share here is to again try to tell the story of what we've been doing to find efficiencies and save the taxpayers money. Um I know at times you can look at the golf course and why are we talking about this? Believe me, I had that same feeling as well. Um, just it's hard. Um, and so this is not an exhaustive list, but it is to demonstrate that we are doing something in addition to the normal everyday routine work. Uh so with the IT department relocation, the city consolidated its information technology operations by moving staff out of an exterior exterior building and into city hall. This reduced facility related expenses and is estimated to save at least $20,000 annually. Park development scope adjustment and this is in reference to Grace Arbor Park. Um, a proposed new park which was originally estimated at 750,000 was re-evaluated and scaled back to approximately $100,000. That still met the neighborhood's intentions of having something there for the youth um while at the same time

saving the city $650,000 in the process. Both needs were met while not trying to resurface old wounds. Um but we also held discussions about the future of Memorial Hall. I mention that because not everything that we see here we just blindly accept. It is deliberated. We want to hear from the people whether we agree with their views or not. I mean it is healthy to discuss that. Um and uh it just it is important to uh let the voices be heard. Uh position vacancies not refilled. Uh so far there have been six city positions that have become vacant due to retirements or just general attrition. After review those positions were not refilled primarily through efficiencies gained with how the work is handled. So in some cases for example in public works we had two foreman positions that uh due to their retirements after hitting 30 years or so of service with the city um they retired. We consolidated those two positions into one supervisor position. That cleaned up the org chart and that streamlined efficiencies and everything is okay. And we've done that for several other positions and we will continue to look at our org chart as we move throughout the year down and and all the other years in between. Traffic signal removal. Traffic signals were removed at two intersections. This reduction in electricity, maintenance, and equipment costs result in 2900 in annual savings. 117 million gallons of water saved in 25 compared to 24 by proactively addressing our operations and maintenance issues. We believe this has led to a reduction in brakes and

restoring system hydraulics. Water lost through system leaks represents treated water that cannot be sold or used to serve residents. By reducing non-revenue water, the city has retained the economic value of what that water system is. While this does not create immediate new revenue, it preserves sellable capacity that can support future growth and demand without additional water production or infrastructure expansion and costs. At current retail rates, the recovered water represents approximately 757,45 in preserved sellable value, reflecting retained system capacity rather than budgetary savings. The city had around 40 water main breaks last year. In previous years, the average was actually closer to 90. Our crews attend water main breaks within an hour of receiving notice. Prior years, it could have taken weeks due to staffing and culture issues. So, it was well, we'll just get to it when we get to it. That was common several years ago. Um, and we believe that by being proactive in addressing um our fire hydrants, our our valve turning program, and addressing the things that are broken, that's how we're moving the needle in this. And so everyone says, "Well, get back to the basics." Well, we are and we have been. Um, and I just want that to be clear because it is kind of frustrating that we get beat up a lot. Um, you know, there's no data there, but there's data here. Um, EPA's super fund site cost savings. Through coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency, the city achieved approximately 200,000 in annual savings

related to the work at the super fund. reducing local financial impact while maintaining required environmental standards. We weren't able to reduce the entire scope um but we at least chopped some of it off and I and I'll take that as a win. Storm water flood mapping reduction. The city significantly reduced the extent of required storm water uh flood mapping, lowering associated cost while still meeting regulatory needs. The proposed FEMA map has been reduced by approximately 55%. And continued efforts will further reduce coverage and long-term obligations. That's savings for every resident that was potentially impacted by that map. Again, we could have done nothing, but we chose to fight that. Reduced reliance on consulting contracts. The city has reduced the use of outside consultants by moving engineering services inhouse. Achieving full staffing is critical to this approach with potential savings of up of up to $300,000. That's how much we're relying on other people to help us out. Fortunately, with the mad scientists like Evan um and others, um we're we're able to do a lot of that inhouse. policing efforts with full staffing. For the first time in 25 years, the police department has achieved measurable results. The overall crime rate has reduced by almost 13%. And for my plug here, I do believe that the removal of blight is possibly aiding in this reduction because if you think about it, the atrium received hundreds of calls, hundreds, and sometimes multiple times a day. There's drugs, there was almost a shootout, there's a lot of homeless issues. Now, when you remove those dead buildings um from the

city's system, now you can be more proactive, which with what you want to do on the streets. Um, so I just wanted to make that known. And there's also these are some miscellaneous items, but they're more community-minded and I think it's very important to say these. The city suspended late fees on utility billing during the SNAP funding crisis. We didn't have to do that, but we were conscientious of the fact that there were people that rely on uh funding in order to in order to make ends meet. And so we were contributing to that cause of trying to help people out. The city created and implemented a utility billing assistance program to help those that struggle um with paying their water and sewer bills. We've never had one before and we have one now. The city created the facade improvement grant program to assist commercial properties with upkeep of their buildings. Kind of similar to the demolition grant program we have here. We reduce commercial building fees by 50%. Lowering upfront costs for businesses and encouraging reinvestment and redevelopment. The city waved water and sewer tap fees for residential construction to assist in the affordability of new construction. And if the sales tax were to pass, um we would also be looking to eliminate the storm water utility fee. Also again adding or in aiding in people being able to have more expendable income. Again, no no city is doing that. And I would encourage any anyone to okay what cities are willing to cut stuff like revenue that they're bringing in? I mean, I'll wait. The list isn't very long. Um and so part of the this here I mean it is a little tiring that you five get beat up all the time.

I get beat up. Um, what those are facts and oftent times there's no facts presented on social media. Um, and I get that not everyone has the time or the patience to listen to a council meeting, but before people jump to a rash conclusion um or a hasty conclusion, call one of you five if you want to take the call, cuz some don't. Um, call me. I'm always willing to hear someone out. Um, and then finally on the sales tax itself, uh, there's been a lot of issues kind of surrounding what we did at the last council meeting. It It's frustrating um because we often hear uh, you need to be more transparent. You need to open your books. I mean, our our books are online. But notwithstanding the fact that our books are online, I get that. Well, how did this decision get made? And maybe that's what they mean. So you got to play mind readader. Um well, how was this decision made? So taking into account how was this decision made? Last council meeting, we then started talking about here's all the issues for the world to know. Because had we not done that, the only two people that would really know the gravity of where we're at is Angela and I. You know, naturally I tell you all, hey, this is really bad. But outside of you five, Angela and I, that's it. Is that good government? And the answer is no. Um, so it it's about being transparent, about being honest. Uh, and I do want to clarify a few things on uh staffing of the fire station and all of that stuff. The objective there was to not say if the sales tax doesn't pass, we're cutting a fire station.

The objective there was there is nothing left to cut in the fire department's budget other than people. And that's why we shared the entire spread of all of the department's budgets. It's a menu. If we have to go through the exercise of okay, we'll cut this piece and in this department we'll cut this piece. The the default is not we're just going to cut people. I mean, maybe through attrition, maybe you can gain some efficiencies like we did with the other uh positions that we just did, but that's not the default. We're trying to educate people. This is where we're at. It's the reality of the situation. You asked for transparency, we gave you that, but then it turned into, oh, this is just a scare tactic. How? That's what I want to know. How? You literally asked for transparency and we gave that. Um, so that's kind of all of my remarks, but I did want to address those those issues. Um, so otherwise, council, if you have any questions for me.

Well, I want to just piggy back off of that for a second and the budget session, like the first two minutes of the presentation, which was your part of the presentation. Um, I think your your remarks were that but a lot more simple. Essentially saying that, you know, we're heading into budget season season this spring and um, you know, from a a technical side, we have to know what we're looking at. State law gives us three considerations for um when we can hold an election. It's because we can't do that on our own. It has to go to the voters March 3rd, August 4th and well or the Tuesdays and then in November. And if we hold the election in August, then our budget is due to the state in early August and we won't know. We we would have had to come up with at least a couple of different budget options. Um and then we hold our revenue neutral hearing between August 20 and September 20. If we hold our the election on November 5th or whatever it is this year, um we would have to pass our budget, send it to the state, and then be it becomes a a document that we are accountable for before we know whether or not the sales tax would pass. So, putting it in March is truly the only option that we have. Um and yes, it's going to be an election that costs us money. Um that's I mean that's the the nature of the beast. Um but people get to vote on that and personally when considering the um flood plane and the just economic uh impact that that's going to have um on our community. Um I

think it's a it makes sense to share the burden and we can look at the um cosmosphere stratica and roads um sales tax that that one's still active, right? Mhm.

Um that one took cuz that part of the website's still up. I was just looking at it. Um but I closed my tab. Dang it. That's why you should never close tabs. um that one took millions of dollars off of um the tax roles and that that meant that people coming into our community were helping pave our roads. They still are on that quarter uh quarter sales tax. So, um we can prove that we've completed projects, we've been good stewards of the funds, um that the sales tax is not a scam. And honestly, still the people who are the most vocal about not having one don't even live in our community. And they're driving on our roads and they're receiving fire protection and police protection without paying their fair share. And I mean, I don't do a lot of shopping in other communities in Reno County. Um, but that's what sales tax is for. Um, to to offset the needs of the infrastructure and the um needs of the city. So, um I think it makes sense and I I hope people do a lot more research than just saying, "Oh, well, taxes suck and I don't want to pay

another couple."

No, I I completely agree. Um I mean, the reality is it's the only sensible option we had. Our our budget is we have to certify our budget in August. and with the county uh sales tax that they were pursuing. Um again for completely different um uh issues that they were trying to tackle. I I respect the county. Um I get along great with them. So this is not a knock rather than it is we just have different interests. So I just wanted to preface um with that. But if you really think about again our timeline and just rule that out, right? Okay. say the timeline was not an issue even though that was the reason uh the biggest reason why we didn't pursue it with them. Uh you would then assume okay the city is going to take its financial uh a financial risk and everything that we have to worry about and then give it to the hands of the county for them to consider. So now they're having to weigh what we're all thinking here and say then they have to arrive at the conclusion, okay, we'll we'll do this. Then it has to go to the state. So then the state legislature needs to be convinced, yeah, this is a good idea. Then it goes back to them. Are we sure we want to do this or not? And then finally it goes to the voters. So there's so much political volatility there that even considering that as an option is still a substantial risk no matter what you do. Um and we're in a position where whenever we've tried to cut stuff um people end up packing this room like Grace Arbor Park. Um and so it's not that easy when people say just cut something or cut a department. Those are real people with real jobs. It it's not that easy. Um, I mean, maybe it maybe it's easy in the private sector. I don't know. Um, but it's not that easy for the work that we do because we're

serviceoriented. Uh, you know, I think the thing that gets frustrating at times and it's not I'm not necessarily frustrated at the people that make the comments more than it is just the understanding. Um, when people say the city needs to be run like a business, on one hand, you can say, okay, maybe they mean waste. Well, everyone has different interpretations of waste. But if you were to just on its merit say we're going to run it purely like a business potentially whenever you call 911 you get charged for it now or depending on how many property taxes uh you pay maybe your road gets mill and overlaid because you pay more and then everyone else gets coal patch. I mean if you really wanted to run it like a business or your water bill is just as expensive as your electric bill. Nobody wants that either. Um, and so I just not saying the city would or wouldn't do those things, but when people make the statement it should be run like a business, is that really what you mean? I mean, if you really think about the implication of that statement, um, that's the tangent I had for that, but I I do want to add with uh March 17th, um, we really need to consider whether or not we still want to have a council meeting. Um uh the mayor will be on vacation around that time frame and then uh council members Fast Garza and myself um will be attending a conference to advocate on behalf of the citizens of Hutchinson to our federal legislatures. Uh like uh it's good practice to do to make sure that those at the top don't forget about us because if there's anything I've learned in doing this work is if that you're not at the table then you're on the menu. Um and so that it is good for us to make sure that the voice of Hutchinson is still alive and relevant even at the federal level. So

so we wouldn't have quorum. Correct. Then we we could either um just not have a second meeting in March or figure out a different date. Um whichever is easiest. We we would try to restructure any city business around that in the event um that we uh that we don't have the second meeting in March. Angela, do you see do you foresee anything with bond sales or anything coming up that we wouldn't? But I would say we just uh don't have that meeting. I think we just not have it. So yeah, that works. Is that St. Patrick's Day?

So I just want to speak to you your comment a little bit too. just two seconds. Um, no, I appreciate you you commenting on on commenting on all that. Um, just on the basis of we've had, you know, I've had a ton of people reach out just just to get clarity. And again, if it's not still not clear of what you just went through, call us, email us, come see us, and we'll help get that clarity so you know exactly what we're trying to do. Um, again, we're not trying to be hide behind something to to do something, um, that's going to take away from our community. We're trying to do something to for the betterment of our community. And so, I think if we do that, um, again, just reach out if you have any questions to Enrico, myself, or any of these other council members and we'll help you get that. If we don't know the answer, we'll help you get it. So, that's kind of have comment I have on that. You guys have anything on

move to adjourn? Do we need to have an executive now? No. Then I need a motion. I guess you're I need a second. Second. Hold up. Are we going to executive or No, sir. No. Sounds good to me. All right. I'm going to get to eat early. Ruin. Yes. Garza. Yes. Goss. Yes. Bask. Yes.

Yes. Oh, I think I'm on vacation on the 17th, too. So, that's