City Council - Regular Meeting

Good morning, Wichita, and good morning to all of you here at City Hall. Thank you for joining us for this week's City Council meeting. We'll call this meeting to order. With us this morning is Bishop Kimi of the Catholic Diocese of Wichita to provide our invocation. Following that invocation, we will have the Pledge of Allegiance and we ask that you please stand for both.

Let us pray. Almighty and gracious God, we give you thanks for the gift of this day and for the blessing of the City of Wichita and all who call Wichita home. We ask your blessing upon this city and upon all who live, work, worship, study, and raise their families here. May Wichita continue to flourish as a community of opportunity, compassion, safety, and peace. strengthen the bonds that unite our citizens, and inspire us always to seek the common good. We pray especially for our mayor and the members of the city council, and for all who serve this community in positions of leadership and responsibility. Grant them wisdom in their decisions, patience in their deliberations, courage when difficult choices must be made, and a generous spirit of service to every citizen. Protect our first responders, police officers, firefighters, healthcare workers, public servants, and all who work each day for the safety and well-being of our community. Watch over the people of Wichita, especially the elderly, the vulnerable, and those most affected by the challenges of these days. And God, we bring you a particular need of our community. We ask that you bring an end to this prolonged heat, and grant us relief from the extreme temperatures. Open the heavens and bless us with gentle and life-giving rain. Refresh our fields, our trees, our gardens, and our waters, and remind us of our dependence upon your providential care. May the rain we seek and pray for be also a reminder that just as the earth needs water to flourish, our community needs wisdom, cooperation, generosity, and hope to flourish. Bless the deliberations of this council this day. May all that is considered and decided here contribute to the peace, prosperity, and flourishing of the people of the city of Wichita. We ask this through your gracious providence and mercy. Amen. Thank you, Bishop Kimme.

Madam Clerk, please call the first item.

Approve the minutes of the regular meeting September 1st, 2026.

Council members, any items to be edited from the minutes? I see none. I will move to approve the minutes for the regular meeting for September 1st, 2026. Second. Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Awards and proclamations. Today's proclamations are Hispanic Heritage Month, National Suicide Prevention Week, and Save a Life Free Naloxone Day.

May I please ask the Wichita Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and its members to come forward at this time? The proclamation reads, the city of Wichita, Kansas, founded in 1870, whereas the city of Wichita is proud to be home to a vibrant Latino Hispanic community whose roots extend across Latin America and bring a rich tapestry of cultures, languages, and traditions that deeply enrich the diversity of our city. Whereas Latinos and Hispanics have played a pivotal role in shaping Wichita's social, cultural, and economic landscape, contributing meaningfully across every sector, from the arts and education to business, civic leadership, and beyond. Whereas the city of Wichita takes pride in its strong partnership with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which tirelessly advocates for the economic advancement and empowerment of Hispanic-owned businesses, helping foster a more inclusive and prosperous community for all. Whereas Hispanic heritage is an integral part of Wichita's identity, enriching our community through unique traditions, culinary, artistry, vibrant cultural celebrations, and diverse artistic expressions that enhance the lives of all residents in Wichita and beyond, and remains steadfast in its commitment to honoring and celebrating the contributions and achievements of its Latino and Hispanic residents, recognizing their invaluable role in shaping a vibrant, inclusive, and dynamic city. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Wichita City Council does hereby proclaim September 15th through October 15th, 2026 as Hispanic Heritage Month.

Thank you, Mayor Wu. Members of the Wichita City Council and everyone here today, on behalf of the Wichita Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, our Board of Directors, members in the Hispanic community, I am honored, and my name is Gary Torres, President of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, to accept this proclamation recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month. We sincerely thank Mayor Wu and the City Council for recognizing the many contributions Hispanics and Latinos continue to make to Wichita. Hispanic Heritage Month is a time to celebrate our culture and traditions while also recognizing the business owners, educators, professionals, families, and community leaders who help make Wichita stronger and more vibrant. At the Wichita Hispanic Chamber, we are proud to support Hispanic-owned businesses, create opportunities, build partnerships, and strengthen our business community. This proclamation reminds us that our diversity is one of Wichita's strengths and that our community succeeds when we work together. Thank you, Mayor Wu and members of the City Council for this recognition and your continued support of our community. Muchas gracias.

May I please ask Council Member Joseph Shepard to come forward and the Cedric County Suicide Prevention Coalition to come forward at this time.

Thank you, Mayor. I am happy to read the proclamation, which reads the city of Wichita, Kansas, founded in 1870. Whereas in the United States, one person dies by suicide approximately every 11 minutes, an average of 134 lives lost each day, making suicide the 10th leading cause of death nationwide. And whereas in 2025, Sedgwick County lost 90 residents to death by suicide, an average of one death every four days, which is deeply concerning and a preventable tragedy for Wichita and communities across Kansas. And whereas the mission of the Sedgwick County Suicide Prevention Coalition is to promote and implement evidence-based approaches, local research, and community change to reduce the impact of suicide with the ultimate goal of zero suicides in Sedgwick County. And whereas help is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling the suicide prevention hotline at 316-660-7500. That's 316-660-7500 or by calling or texting 988. And now, therefore be it resolved that the Wichita City Council does hereby proclaim September 13th through the 19th, 2026 as National Suicide Prevention Week signed by Mayor Lily Wu.

Thank you, Mayor and Council Members, for this thoughtful proclamation. We are honored to accept this recognition on behalf of our staff and the Suicide Prevention Coalition and the many community partners who support individuals and family during difficult moments. This acknowledgement reinforces our shared commitment to compassionate, accessible crisis care to prevent suicides and create a healthier community. Thank you for all your continued partnership and support. This proclamation also happens to fall on 988 day, which is September 8th, which is a day to raise awareness of the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline. If anyone you know is experiencing mental health related distress, including thoughts of suicide, they can call or text 988 and receive support from a trained counselor. We brought some 988 items out there for you all to grab on your way out and also some for the council members and mayor. We appreciate this thoughtful proclamation and thank you so much for bringing awareness to this issue.

May I please ask Council Member Mike Hoheisel and the Safe Streets Wichita to come forward at this time.

Thank you, Mayor, I appreciate this. Whereas Save a Life Day is a community initiative dedicated to preventing opioid overdose deaths by raising awareness, reducing stigma, and expanding access to life-saving resources. And whereas Free Naloxone Day provides an opportunity for residents to receive free naloxone, a safe and effective medication that can reverse an opioid overdose and save lives. And whereas equipment, community members, families, and first responders with naloxone empowers them to act quickly, and an emergency strengthening Wichita's commitment to public health and safety. And whereas the City of Wichita recognizes the importance of prevention, harm reduction, compassion, and education in addressing the opioid crisis and honors all organizations, and volunteers who have tirelessly worked to prevent overdose deaths, and now therefore be it resolved that the Wichita City Council does hereby proclaim September 24th, 2026 as Save a Life Day, Free Naloxone Day.

Thank you. Greetings, distinguished guests. Let me get my little speech here. All right. For Save a Life Day, we celebrate free access to care through mutual aid. Despite 2026 being underfunded and new federal limitations on harm reduction supplies, Safe Streets Wichita and its volunteers still persevere to keep access to free naloxone, substance test strips, overdose and first aid training, fresh local produce, and health resources easily available to Sedgwick County. The fact that local government entities also have to reach out to us for supplies not only stresses the importance of our work, but also the lack of planning and insight regarding the importance of harm reduction and overdose prevention for the city of Wichita. We supply over 70 local bars and businesses with naloxone to keep behind bars, and utilizing overdose 911 call hotspot data to ensure it is going to the most affected areas, while our own health department cannot even give Naloxone out freely. I have some other people to talk.

The surge in overdoses in Wichita lately and the banning of Kratom this year is not a coincidence. Our city needs us, and yet our inventory of life-saving supplies is at an all-time low due to lack of funding, and even with grant money, we are unable to use it to purchase fentanyl test strips. There is privilege in preaching just say no to drugs. Citizens are silently struggling with a lack of healthcare, mental health resources, and substance use support. This Save a Life Day, we urge community members to look outside of themselves. and their circles and add naloxone to their first aid kits, even if you do not think substance use affects you.

At the center of this work is a simple, urgent truth. The only thing naloxone enables is breathing. That's it. It doesn't erase challenges. It doesn't solve every struggle, but it gives someone another chance, another chance to live, to heal, to reconnect, and to choose tomorrow. That gift of breath is everything.

So today, as we honor Save a Life Day, we also honor those who keep this mission alive day after day. We honor people who use drugs and the ones who love them. We honor folks in recovery, sober living, and those in medical assisted treatment. And we honor the loved ones we've lost to overdose, and we keep their memory alive in the work that we do. We thank the people, our partners, our volunteers, and every person who steps forward to act, not because the work is easy, but because every life is worth saving. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Junior Achievement of Kansas Business Hall of Fame Honoree, Dr. Alex Amar.

My first business adventure was helping my dad in his men's clothing store in southwestern part of Virginia. The problem with that is I asked him so damn many questions, he wanted me to get out of there. So go home and leave me alone so I can get my work done. The second problem was all my friends congregated there and they would put together a basketball game or something and then I would slip out and go play ball instead of working. So that really was not what I would consider a real job. My first real job was as a scrub tech at St. Francis. I came here a couple of summers during my second and third year of medical school and it was a two week course and it was, I decided to do it mainly because I knew I was going to practice here and because of my uncles. and the exposure I thought would be helpful at an earlier age than later. What I'm doing today is managing a large surgery group of 30 to 35 surgeons. It requires a lot of patience and really I have to be a surgical psychologist. And that's what I do now. Previously, though, I did vascular surgery until 2018 when I retired and also was chairman of the Department of Surgery at the medical school. And I retired from that last year. Pam and I have been married 20, I better get this right, 22 years. And I was married before and had two sons, Allie and Chad. And Chad and his wife had three children, my grandchildren, two boys and a girl. The people that were important in my life start with my parents. My dad imparted on me patience and calmness and my mom, drive and fire. The next person would be my uncle, Dr. George Farha. He was the ultimate professional and he exhibited that every day when he was at work. The last would be Dr. Fred Chang. Unfortunately, he passed away three or four weeks ago. I've never met anybody who was more dedicated to education than he was. He taught me how to be involved in everything you do as far as the educational system is concerned. Those would be my mentors. I do believe that the Junior Achievement philosophy does fit my mindset in the sense that role models have to lead by example and don't ask someone to do something that you don't want to do yourself. The second thing is I think it's important for role models to give back to the community. I think that's obviously important for the community going forward to have all these young people realize that and contribute when they advance in their careers. And the criteria for becoming a Laureate are very sound criteria that I feel represent and embody the whole organization of Junior Achievement.

Introducing 2026 Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame Laureate, Dr. Alex Amar.

Thank you again, City Manager, for highlighting these award recipients throughout our community and the various nonprofit organizations. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

From the city's adopted civility pledge, the city council is committed to promoting civility. They stand united, they lead with respect and dignity, and they honor every resident in all communities. They are working to create an environment that values shared goals with increased empathy and genuine dialogue. We now come to the public agenda. The public agenda allows for up to five speakers to have five minutes each to address the council. Please bear in mind that this is not a period of dialogue with council or a question and answer period. This is your opportunity to address the city council with your concerns. I ask that you address your remarks to the city council as a body and not to any individual council member. No action will be taken relative to items on the public agenda other than referral to the city manager for information as necessary. Speakers will please speak into the microphone. Please state their name and address for the record. A time clock will display the speaker's remaining time to speak. Order and rules of decorum will be observed. The first speaker today is Jason Chanthon, Public Record Parameter Reviews.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Jason. I am here to represent our family small business, the Fun Venue LLC at 221 North St. Francis Street. I am speaking today to report a shocking abuse of authority by the Park and Recreation Department under the City Code Section 3.11.150. Our neighborhood blocked gathering signatures to protest a street closure by Summerfest. We reached a majority of business and properties owners who opposed the four-day street blockage on St. Francis Street. Instead of representing our right, the city staff sent us an official letter to on September 2nd to deliver fabricated data and maneuver the map to favor the summer fest organized over the local merchants. First, the city letters claim that the majority property owner of our street does not object. This is completely fabricated. We hold direct written record proving the city never even contacted this owner and that he's actually signed our fiscal petition to oppose the blockage. Second, the city manipulate the map's boundaries to dilute the outnumbered cities. City step counted the properties from Emporia Street, which has an entirely separate six-day closure just to make our St. Francis block legal majority look smaller. Summerfest is demanding a total blockage that completely wipe out our business footprint. The city action have already caused the real financial hardship to our business. Because of some of the proposed closure to confusion and delay caused by the city, a birthday event planned scheduled on September 26th canceled their contract, and a wedding planned scheduled on Friday, September 25th, also canceled their contract. One client stated, we have to cancel this. There is too much blockage and parking is going to be a huge concern. All of those people going to the party will be fighting. People will be crowded in this area. This is not the vision we wanted for this event. Another client stated, we hate this kind of festival schedule on this precise weekend. At this point, we are going to cancel our contract. We... issued the refund of our packet, resulting in a $2,300 loss of those two specific events. And because we are being forced to freeze our booking counter so no other client has to face this unfairness, limited access. With little to no concession offered by Summerfest, the total financial loss for that four-day closure has reached a stagnant $6,000. It is wrong for the city staff to sacrifice local businesses to benefit the Baker Corporation back event. I urge everyone to think about the danger precedent being set here today. If the city staff are allowed to run over our block despite our legal protest, imagine what happens next year when this event expands or gets bigger. If you let them manipulate the data just to break the rule now, more streets will be shut down, more neighborhoods will be run over, and more local small business taxpayers will be sacked for a bigger corporation profit. I hope many Wichita are watching this broadcast. Let this be a warning to every business owner in the city. If the city can falsely record to run over our legal majority, No neighborhood in Wichita is safe. Thank you.

Thank you, Jason. Council Member Shepard.

Jason, thank you so much for being here. City Manager, can you please clarify for the record how we arrived at this point of honoring the appeal? I am deeply concerned about it because... If we want our city to be a growing city and we want multiple events to happen at one time, I'm curious about what is the process or the ecosystem that we're creating to ensure that we are making methodical decisions about which one moves forward and which one doesn't.

So knowing there's an appeal underway, some of the limited information is that we have a street closure process and we have an event process as well. So they're kind of two different processes, so make sure we understand that. With the road closure, part of that involves the property owner's who are surrounding the area not necessarily the businesses who are in that area and so that is where we're having the conversation about who is protesting or who is signing petitions and that's part of the question at hand is the staff review of the valid property owners from the area and so that's where we're ready to have more conversation should there be an appeal

Thank you, city manager, I think that does outline. Jason, again, I hope that made sense, but maybe this is a question for the city manager or the attorney, but does our policy clarify that it should be a property owner and not a actual business operator of said property? Because I can see how that can get really tricky, that some people sign the petition, but they're not really eligible to sign the petition because they're not the actual property owner, they're just the operator of that business or that infrastructure?

Incorrect. We also have had, that's what we're verifying as part of the question, because even then some of the employees of the businesses who may not even be connected to the property ownership is part of the question. I don't have that detail ordinance in front of us, but we have it cited for the appeal process so they can use that information if they want to appeal.

Thank you. We have room for any other speakers who would like to address the council.

Good morning, my name is Sarah Cowling. I am in all districts right now. I am a homeless citizen. I'm here, I guess I've decided just every week I'm just gonna check in with you guys because I think it's important for you guys to know the voices that are out there. I've even thought about if I could keep a phone, having a kind of on the street review of the city council meeting. you know, have the people out there react to some of the things that are going on in here and have a little bit more conversations. I've been out there. Currently, my apartment is I just put my notice of appeal for my eviction and right now that still leaves me homeless. I've lost everything and I'm supposed to go to San Jose the 28th of this month. My birth certificate was in my apartment. My ID and my phone has been stolen and this is a normal thing. I talked to you guys last year. I came up here and I had said one of the things that I'd had problems was keeping things and a lot of the people that are out here, for them to get on their feet, they don't have the necessary tools for somebody to go get a job. They don't have the necessary things. Like, I was working a two and a half hour walk just to get to work, and I see so many people that, like my son, he rides to Park City on a bicycle. This morning when I was on Facebook, I saw that Darcy Smith had posted something about transportation and trying to gather funds for helping people out with employment and general bus passes. And that is something, you know, the Salvation Army has a great program where if you go up there and bring a proof of employment, they'll give you one month bus pass. And they will do that for two months. And a bus pass, a monthly bus pass is $55, I think. It might have gone up since they changed the station. But if you haven't got your paycheck yet, You don't have that money. I don't know what the solution is, and I don't know. I'm not asking you guys to make a solution. I'm going to come up here. Like I said, I will offer information and actual data and at least put it in your guys' ears and for anybody else that's out here to listen to. I have a friend right now that... He is getting ready to lose his house. I have multiple friends. Last year, when we started with Grassroots, we did a lot of housing navigation. We got a voucher program set up, which I was a pilot. we got a lot of people signed up for housing this year is homeless advocacy you know we need to lay where systems are failing these people why we're getting so many people that are going out into the street because it's not that many people that are just making bad decisions we have landlords that are discriminatory and it's very easy to take the word of mouth from other people instead of give people chances. And I know I've heard so many people say, well, if you keep giving people chances, they're going to keep taking advantage of you. Well, if you keep thinking like that, you're never going to have anybody move ahead that isn't in your bracket. I have a million thoughts in my head all the time, and that's one of the reasons it's hard for me to speak. And there's a million things that are out there that need to be said. One of the things that, like, this week, basically, I'd like to speak about, like, the homeless and the people that are actually vulnerably housed, that their employment and they're vulnerably employed has caused a lot of the problems that we're having. We need more resources for people that are up and coming because like during that, I was doing the research on the Alice report and they were saying that in 2024, the projected survival is 5,500 for a month for a family of four, two adults and two children. I, at maximum, made $2,800 a month with my family. And yes, we struggled, but there's not really any way to make more. How do we come into places? Like I said, I'm going to ask a lot of questions, and I don't expect answers right now. But how do we get such a large bracket or large... division between the people that are making it and the people that can't. You know, there's opportunity and you guys have done an amazing job doing things for people. Sorry, the time is cutting short, but I would like to see or come, like one thing that I really liked about Woo, Mayor Wood, is when you were talking about the water plant and you were talking about new firms and you said, you know, yeah, we can give the old firms, they have the experience and the knowledge, but if we give new firms, they have a chance to grow and come up with something new. We need to do that with more people and businesses out here. Thank you.

Thanks, Sarah. Would anyone else from the community like to speak?

Good morning, and thank you guys for being amazing and allowing people to come and speak in public without even having to sign up ahead of time. You guys are truly awesome. Wasn't intending to necessarily speak on this this morning, but as Wynn has been really busy trying to get out there and communicate with the community, this morning and this weekend and doing the hustle. I just wanted to maybe shout out to you guys about the fact that city council does a better job than a lot of other government organizations in having community communications networks, like dabs and breakfasts and newsletters and all the things, and I really appreciate that, especially when you're working with other ones that maybe just need some more support, some more help. And so I ask, as a citizen, who's been doing that communication hustle, and you guys work hard at it every day, that when a government agency does an MOU with the city, that maybe we can have those MOUs go through our dabs, and go through our breakfasts, and go through our great communications pathways that you have so that we're not as a city sort of getting surprised by things that have been MOUs for a long time. So again, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for your leadership and have a good day.

Can you give your name and your district for the clerk, please?

I am so sorry. Trish Heilman, 139 South Fountain, District 1.

Thanks, Trish. Would anyone else from the community like to speak?

Good morning, my name is Valerie Haney, and I'm not sure if I count because I'm currently living with my mother in Augusta, Kansas, but I just wanted to say thank you, Madam Mayor, thank you for all you people who are working towards expanding access, the pedestrian and bike access to Wichita. I expect even from Augusta, once this thing is finished, if I'm still alive, I will ride from Augusta and connect with the Prairie Sunset Trail. So thank you, thank you, and thank you for the clarification on the fact that $18 million is not the cost of the bridge. There's a lot more involved, and I appreciate, like the previous speaker said, your efforts to keep us informed in communication, the response to the bike pit community that was following up on that. We totally endorse it, and we're excited to see the Augusta portion Hopefully hopefully being finished in a couple years. We've got the funding for the bridge for it now. We're working on the trail portion So again, thank you everybody. I am residing at two three zero seven Moyle Street in Augusta Again, my name is Valerie Haney and thank you. Thank you.

Thank you Thank You Valerie We have room for one more individual. I see no one. I'm gonna bring it back to the bench and Thank you to our four public agenda speakers. Madam Clerk, please call the next item. Consent agenda items one through nine. Council members, any items to be pulled? I see none. I move to approve consent agenda items one through nine.

Second.

Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Termination of lease agreement at 515 South Wichita.

Good morning. Jerry Ford, City of Wichita Real Estate Administrator. Today we come back to revisit the item, termination of a lease agreement at 515 South Wichita. To begin, I'd like to present some background information on the boathouse history itself. The Riverside Boathouse was originally constructed in the late 1800s as a privately owned and operated boat rental facility on the Little Arkansas River at the Murdoch Street Bridge. It was substantially remodeled in 1920 to include a clubhouse, diving platforms, and additional water level docks. The expanded facility became a popular attraction drawing large crowds from Wichita and surrounding areas and after decades of use, the boathouse fell into disrepair and was ultimately demolished in 1968. The building that would eventually become the new Wichita Boathouse has an entirely separate history. Constructed in 1926, The plain two-story brick building was originally used by various companies for office and warehouse purposes. In 1983, the building was converted into the Senior Services Center, which later relocated into Delano. In 1991, the property, being located within an urban renewal area, was acquired by the City of Wichita. Here are a couple photos of the original boathouse. The black and white is the 1920 circa original boathouse after its remodel. And on the right is the now what we know as the Wichita Boathouse as it was originally built. In 1992, The Arkansas River Foundation, a group of private citizens interested in drawing people downtown and creating activity along the Arkansas River, approached the city about transforming the former Senior Services Center building into a new boathouse. The 1926 brick structure would remain while remodeling its interior and adding extensive balconies and architectural features reminiscent of the historic Riverside Boathouse. Bill Koch originally offered a $500,000 challenge grant toward the conversion if the Arkansas River Foundation could raise the remainder through private donations. The arrangement was later revised to an $800,000 loan from Koch to the foundation. Koch also offered the Jayhawk, a sailboat from his America's Cup team for display at the property, subject to restrictions that it could not be sold, transferred, or removed from the property. This photo here is the Wichita Bauhaus as we know it today. On January 26th of 1993, the City Council approved a resolution affirming the Arkansas River Foundation's concept and approved a 20-year lease at $1 per year. This former senior services building was remodeled at a total cost of approximately $1 million. And mind you, this money is believed to be made, is from the Koch Foundation. The foundation originally intended to construct a boat storage and launching facilities near the river that would make the facility a true boathouse, but those plans were ultimately abandoned. The Arkansas River Foundation officially opened the boathouse to the public in 1994, and just three years later, the foundation approached the city asking it to take over the building, citing financial difficulties. On September 9th of 1997, the city council approved a proposal from the foundation to terminate their existing lease agreement, and to arrange for a transfer of the facility and its operations to the city on January 1 of 1998. Part of the agreement was that Bill Koch would forgive his $800,000 loan and he would make a $200,000 cash donation to be used for the continued support of boathouse operations. In addition, the city accepted the Jayhawk, which Koch had donated to the foundation. In doing so, the city council accepted the terms and conditions regarding the Jayhawk as originally imposed on the foundation by Bill Koch. The city operated the boathouse as a visitor center and reception facility for seven years from 1998 until it was closed in 2005. due to street reconstruction related to water walk development. Construction required some site reconfiguration and the existing utilities to the building were removed as part of that work. City staff then mothballed the boathouse. In November of 2005, the city issued a request for proposal RFP to interested parties for utilizing the boathouse. The proposals received were determined to be unsatisfactory and city council tabled it further for consideration until an undetermined, pardon me, tabled further consideration until an undetermined future date. In 2008, the city contracted with a local architectural firm to analyze the condition of the boathouse and prepare an estimate for the cost to return the building to its former use as a meeting and reception facility. Their report gave an estimated cost of 1.4 million, however, later reviews of their report by building contractors indicated that a cost of 1 million to 1.2 million may be adequate. In early 2009, the city issued a new RFP for the reuse of the facility and three proposals were received. Following evaluation by a staff screening and selection committee and two city council representatives at that time, the city council voted on June 9th of 2009 to support the William Cokes proposal to reuse the Wichita Boathouse as the permanent home of the Kansas Sports Hall of Fame and authorized staff to negotiate a lease agreement. The resulting agreement designated the America Cubed Foundation, a nonprofit entity headed by Koch, as the city's lessee. On September 11th and 18th of 2009, the city published the required urban renewal notices announcing its intent to accept the America Cubed Foundation proposal and inviting additional redevelopment proposals or comments. None were received. On October 13th of 2009, the City Council approved the final lease agreement for the boathouse property at 515 South Wichita. The agreement provided America Cubed with a 99-year lease at a dollar per year with the boathouse to serve as the permanent home of Kansas Sports Hall of Fame. America Cubed Foundation would sublease the facility to the Hall of Fame, which would conduct its daily operations. The lease also preserved flexibility for complimentary uses of the property. The second floor and other portions of the facility could be rented for meetings, banquets, receptions, food gift concessions, and operate in connection with the Hall of Fame. And river sports recreation activities could be conducted in connection with the site's proximity to the river. The Jayhawk would remain on the property. As part of the reuse proposal, Bill Koch committed $500,000 toward the refurbishment of the boathouse on behalf of the Kansas Sports Hall of Fame. The city agreed to contribute approximately $68,000 in insurance proceeds resulting from roof damage and reimburse up to $61,200 for the restoration of those utilities that were once removed. The city also returned $200,000 previously held for a boathouse operations and maintenance of the Jayhawk. A recent review of MABCD permit history from the 2010 indicated that work performed at the boathouse on such items, such as mechanical sewer electrical plumbing and new pavement, totaled 401,275. This work would have been done on behalf of America Cubed. In 2022 or in June, 2026, the city was made aware of potential maintenance deficiencies and notified America cubed. If such, it was in response to this notice that the June 12th, that on June 12th of 2026, America cube requested to terminate the lease agreement, citing that it cannot manage the lease of the boathouse. In response to America cubes requests, the city approached Kansas sport hall of fame about a short term lease, directly leasing the property to them with both part while both parties can assess the property's future use and next steps. On August 6th of 2026, the Kansas sports hall of fame advised the city that it no longer has the financial capacity continue to operate the museum at this location. Kansas Sport Hall of Fame has identified October 31 of 2026 as their intended exit date, although Kansas Sport Hall of Fame has events scheduled until the end of December, through the end of December of 2026. It is the recommendation of the Kansas Sport Hall of Fame that the city contract with the current Sport Hall of Fame event operator to manage the scheduled events and cost share those scheduled events for the last two months of this year. After a more in-depth analysis was completed to determine the cost of deferred maintenance, the city requested that America Cubed Foundation compensate the city $476,504 for the cost of the deferred maintenance. In response, America cubed advised that the city that it does not have the capacity to pay the lease agreement dated October 13th of 2009 without notice does not allow for the opportunity to recover those funds due to a failure to perform. If America cubed and Kansas sport hall of fame, both walk away from the lease, the city could be responsible for those repairs. The Jayhawk is a retired sailboat, and in 1993, American Cubed donated this sailboat to the Ark River Foundation, provided that the sailboat would not be sold, transferred, or removed from the boathouse property. As part of the termination agreement, the city would require American Cubed to waive all rights to the Jayhawk if there is a desire to retain the sailboat with a redevelopment, or remove the Jayhawk if the city requires its removal. Just as a matter of fact, the property is located within the boundaries of the East Bank TIF district, but it is separate from the Water Walk development project. The city would retain full control of the property upon its return. Options as of today. Do not accept the request for a lease termination. Another option could be to terminate the lease agreement with a specific negotiated conditions. or we could allow for the termination as requested and consider a reuse of the property through an issuance of an RFP. If the city elects to pursue a new RFP for the reuse or redevelopment of the property in its as-is condition, the new tenant could be responsible for the deferred maintenance. A second option would be to invest $303,504 to address deferred maintenance to preserve the property and develop an RFP seeking a public-private partnership for the reuse of the boathouse as it is today. A third option includes the raising of the facility to redevelop the site, either through a sale or a development agreement. With a request for proposal, the redevelopment or reuse of the property will allow for a higher and more productive use. If an RFP is the preference, City Council will have an opportunity to maintain the ownership of the property, establish goals and objectives for a reuse or redevelopment, establish development requirements and or preferences, A sale of the property on the open market would result in the relinquishment of control of the property. The property ultimately then could be raised for redevelopment. A sale with development restrictions in place would likely result in a sale price less than what a property would attract if on the open market. A development agreement would be necessary to ensure development standards are met. And with that, it is recommended that the City Council approve the request for a lease termination to resume control of the property and issue an RFP to explore the redevelopment or reuse of the property. And with that, I stand for questions.

Thank you, Jerry. Questions for staff, beginning with Council Member Hohaisel.

Thank you, Mayor. Now, when we were talking to the Kansas Sports Hall of Fame, are they leaving because the current rent price? Did we offer to continue the current price that they have for rent?

Yes, we did. One of the challenges that the Kansas Sports Hall of Fame is their income, their revenue. Before having moved to this location or at the early stages of having moved to this location, Sports Hall of Fame did receive money from the State Board of Regents. They used to get quite a bit of their funding through the rivalry games in Kansas. So K-State, KU football, KU, K-State basketball games. They would earn a $1 surcharge as revenue. They have also received um funding from the state legislature in years past which they have not recently received so no longer having those two revenue streams have impacted their ability to generate additional revenue but also they have cited too that when covet hit that really hurt their bottom line okay so i i appreciate so they're looking to walk regard here regardless They are interested in exploring a new model for siting their museum.

OK. Now they had two events they wanted later this year for us to maybe help out with. Would that require us to terminate the lease agreement so we can run the museum? Or can that be done if the lease agreement is still in place?

The museum would not continue to operate there, but the events that are currently scheduled could still occur. And if we entered into a contractual agreement with the operator of those events, the city could allow those events to continue.

And if this doesn't pass today and then that would still be between them and the current leasing?

That is correct.

Okay. Last thing, the $476,000 that we feel that they owe to put back in the building, does that go away if we vote for this today?

The deferred maintenance would still, it needs to be addressed, whether it's through redevelopment or our preservation, if we desire to keep the building as is. If the city does not terminate the lease, we could give them an official notice to perform. But if they fail to cure the way the lease is structured, they could still walk away after 30 days.

All right. So we don't really have an enforcement arm to get that 476 back?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor. A few questions regarding the cost for reuse or to raise the building. This may be a question for the manager. Where will those funds come from?

I believe, yeah.

So a couple of options. If you want to invest the money, if council determines to continue to terminate the lease and then be the owner of the property, we do have facilities funds and then also some funds within the manager's contingency fund for the rest of 26. So those would be the two buckets that we'd go through through 26. And then if you do choose to demolition, there is an estimated cost of demolition of approximately $150,000 that, again, those funds from either part of the facilities budget or the contingency fund could be utilized.

Okay, so that was one question. I probably have two others. I know we briefly addressed this last week when this came forward. I think we all agree that we don't and shouldn't write leases in this way anymore. So what does the city do now that it was not doing in the 90s and also in 2009? What have we changed?

Sure. Most of our leases are currently with nonprofit organizations. But for those that are with LLCs, what we have started to do a little bit more frequent or a little bit more is require personal guarantees on those that are LLCs. If an LLC goes defunct, if you have that personal guarantee, there is still an opportunity for recovery. We currently have some of those on some of the cinema retail spaces. In addition to that, we have language that better defines the expectations for maintenance and the improvements made to the property. We have language in our leases about arbitration and damages, jury trials and warranties. We also now require... notice of the lessee to notify of damages or issues, um, and that the city will be reimbursed that the city has to go in and make a repair that is also out spelled out in the lease. Um, instead of the longterm leases, we now renew, we will do short term leases three, five years, but most of them are set up on year to year and renew on a year to year basis. If they end up in a holdover status, then they're a 30-day month-to-month. And then also, we have built-in security deposits. We can require security deposits in our leases, which would allow the city to retain some funding should there be an issue in the future.

All great things. I'm glad we've learned a lot since the previous agreements were signed. Council Member Shepherd asked this, I think, at a agenda review on Friday, or maybe something to this effect. Do we go in and proactively maybe inspect, or how often are we checking these facilities to make sure that it doesn't balloon to the $400,000 in deferred maintenance costs? Because we still have facilities, so how often are we going in and checking that?

Sure. And I will note, though, that out of that $400,000, most of that is a roof. But to the best of my knowledge, we don't have a standard operating procedure for routine and comprehensive site assessments for any of our real estate, but we do rely on periodic inspections of staff and for reports of issues and concerns. For the properties and property management portfolio, get out there and periodically get into the properties or and drive by the properties.

Okay. To the manager, I think I'd be interested in looking at it in the future. I was in the city's box of the wind surge game. I looked over and you can see the roof and the damages to the roof just driving by. And so I think there's a lot of challenges, at least visually, you're able to see some of the damages as well. And then maybe one last question. Let's say that we issue an official notice to perform because I know the outcome is the same, but I still struggle with allowing them to lead the termination when maybe we haven't issued them a notice to perform. If we issue them a notice to perform, they have 30 days to answer that. Likely, they're not going to answer it. The outcome will probably be the same. Does that have to come back before the city council for us to then terminate that? Or can we do an official notice to perform? If they don't answer it, then the city takes the steps to terminate the lease.

I might defer to legal on that.

It could be that we declare it that it's automatically canceled. I think I might advise that if we give the 30 days, then it comes back and the council make a formal vote to cancel if they have not performed.

So theoretically, we could initiate it, say, you have 30 days to be able to answer this. Likely, they're probably going to come back with the same thing. But then that has to come back before city council at some point.

I mean, I think that'd be my recommendation. I think it's cleaner.

Thank you. Thank you for answering all my questions.

You're welcome. Thank you, Jerry. I asked this question last Friday. I wanted to know who was involved in crafting this agreement back in 2009, which did not have any clawbacks. And you sent an email, so can you just share those findings?

Sure, I don't have the RFP information from that time frame from the 2009 But from what I can tell in our research that the agreement was drafted from a former Attorney in the law department and a former economic development director So no one

involved in the crafting of the actual contract is still employed with the City of Wichita?

Correct.

Thank you. I had a couple of questions that I sent via email and I want them in the public record. Number one, who or what entity originally paid for the construction of the boathouse in 1926? How much and were any city dollars used to build it?

The building was originally constructed by a private development, so the city was not involved with any construction when it was originally built.

Did the city use city dollars to renovate the building in 1994? If so, how much?

If we have a number for that, I don't have it with me today. That would have to be researched to determine if it was privately... renovated using funds from the Arkansas River Foundation's fundraising efforts and through the Bill Koch donations.

Do we have a roster of the Arkansas City River Foundation group? I'm pretty sure that's a defunct group now, but is there a list of maybe individuals that can still be contacted? Because there is still obviously a sailboat there. In addition, they were interested in the past. I just would like to know what happened to that group.

Yes, they are defunct now. There is a river, there is another organization with the river coalition. I look at Maggie because I believe she might have some involvement with that. And we have not yet talked to that group, but if we go out for an RFP, we would definitely include them in having an opportunity for consideration.

Thank you. How much in total has the city put into this building?

I don't know that we have put much money into this building at least since 2009. So I can't answer that question at this time.

Does that mean that the 401,000, so slide number 22, MABCD permit that showed 401,275, was that the city paying that payment or was that the Bill Koch America Cube Foundation that paid for that?

That's a good question. The permits were pulled by a construction company that was working on behalf of the foundation. Not city dollars?

Correct. Okay. Do you know how much in total has Bill Koch put into this building?

It is presumed that he has put approximately around 800,000 into this building over time, but we don't have an exact number for this.

And then last, what's the value of this current building?

That's a kind of tricky question. Without getting that property appraised by a third party, I did look at what the county has it appraised for. The county has it appraised for around $2 million, which I think is probably a little aggressive. They have a high value on the improvements itself and a low value on the land. If I were to estimate what the fair market value of the property might be today, given the current value or condition, I might estimate that the property is probably worth around $1.5 million to $2 million. Thank you, Jerry. You're welcome.

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate all the commentary from the Vice Mayor and Mayor on this. I'm curious, and again, I don't know if this is a question for legal, but this is a state appointed board, like they have a state appointed board. So I'm curious if we were to do the notice to perform and they say no, what implications does that have for us in the state? I mean, I'm looking at the list, and this state has directors that the governor appoints to the board, and I'm just, it's troubling that an entity connected to the state would even put us in this situation.

I will defer to Jerry, but the notice would really go to America Cubed, not the subtenant, the State Sports Hall of Fame.

Repeat, who it would go to again, Attorney McGonigals?

The America Cubed Foundation.

Which brings me to my next question, because I think there's a lot of confusion publicly around this. Who is issuing this notion that they don't have the financial capacity? Is it the foundation or is it the Kansas Sports Hall of Fame?

Both parties in conversations with them of recent conversations, both parties have said that they are financially incapable of making repairs.

Both the foundation?

And the Sports Hall of Fame. Okay.

Okay. Can you remind us who's over that foundation?

The America Cubed Foundation, is that your? Yes. There is an attorney out of Florida that represents the foundation. At one point, Bill Koch was the chairman of that foundation.

Is he still? Do we know?

I do not know.

Okay, no worries. So, Jerry, and if you wrote this green sheet, you did a remarkable job. I feel like I had a lot of the information that I needed, but I'm curious because I have had the opportunity to speak with some folks who are a part of the operating side, and there's some concern that... perhaps maybe the city was made aware that there were some deferred maintenance concerns prior to when we first became, or we're saying we first became aware in June. What record do we have of our operator coming to us, if any, saying there's some problems here?

Sure, we did find where in 2021, there were some concerns that were brought forward and a site assessment was performed at that time. but it is unknown, and I believe a copy of the site assessment was provided to America Cubed, and from what I can tell, I do not see where an actual notice was provided, but in the email that I located, America Cubed seemed concerned that they would just be, they were getting pushed out perhaps because of water walk development at that time that was beginning, And they were interested in still continuing to stay at the property.

And so Vice Mayor asked about the process once we put these clawbacks into contracts. What is the standard operating procedure to ensure that we're going in on an annual basis to assess if deferred maintenance is there or if there needs to be some remedy? And you already kind of answered that. My question is, who handles that? Who does the review? Is it legal in partnership with Public Works? Is it legal audit and Public Works? Because in my brain, legal handles the legal contractual side, but they're not necessarily best suited to go in and assess deferred maintenance.

Correct, legal provides support services for the creation of documents. A site assessment would have to be, a plan would need to be developed. It's gonna depend on the owner of that property and really how that property is used and what kind of assessment is warranted. So we would need to create a plan for that.

OK, what city manager, what's the process for that? I think it is desperately needed. This is one case of many. And I think the way that we you know, this is a learning moment for all of us. I think the best way we can show the public that we're learning from this is to put a plan or a policy in place to ensure it doesn't happen again. So what's the plan to make sure we get that plan outlined both for the public and for this council before the year ends?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember. So understand our portfolio of properties all have different city responsibilities. Sometimes we're the landowner, sometimes we're the tenant, sometimes we are the leasee or work with different organizations. So we have a variety of structures. We've also broken them down between what are cultural facilities, what may be parks and recreation supported but not owned, and what might be general service buildings that are maintained by our public works. So we've got a different variety. So the answer is internally we've got to work on our asset management no matter how we classify them. So right now we've been looking at them in different silos and some of these don't have that one ownership. Like sometimes it is our real estate folks who are looking at things, but not our public work folks. So to give you and public some confidence going forward, the first step is working with all of our asset understanding and evaluation and so that will be led primarily by Public Works so we'll put that plan together they've also done some things already such as was highlighted site assessments and facility investment or facility assessments but again if you look at all of our arrangements from the Indian Museum to even exploration places a little bit different about land to the art museum we just have a a unique structure for each facility in many cases so it is something that we will continue to work at our arms around and clearly as we said we've learned about those where we have the least contractual relationship that we've strengthened those for having clawback provisions and having more strength for the city review so

let's talk again in about four or five months and we'll tell you where we're at i'd really like to talk uh prior to four or five months uh and hopefully get something at least on paper if not solidified um i get that it's a complex all clawbacks do not look the same and they shouldn't because it can't be a one-size-fits-all i guess my concern is What good does a clawback do, though, if we're not doing the work to assess whether or not people are holding true to their side of the agreement and taxpayers end up taking the brunt of that? And again, this this is not a new conversation. I think this is just another challenge. And I really want to utilize this as an opportunity to learn and grow from it. With that being said, my final question is, Vice Mayor said it very well, we do things very differently from the 90s and the early 2000s. I think we put clawbacks in place. In the case that someone does business with the city and puts us in a situation, though, where we are now absorbing cost, that they were originally accountable to take on. What do we put in place to ensure that we don't do business, at least for a certain matter of time? I think of it from a housing standpoint. If someone does not pay their rent, and even if those circumstances are reasonable circumstances as to why they cannot pay their rent, they get an eviction on their record. And now thanks to the capital, right? Like they've changed that to be penalties moving from seven years to now three years, which is a little bit more lenient, but it goes on your record. And it's very difficult to continue to rent or even get a loan for a mortgage. These are conversations that have happened at the bench prior to my time on council, but I'm curious, why don't we have something in place like that? People should not be able to continue to do business with the city, at least for a reasonable amount of time. I'm not saying forever, but for a reasonable amount of time, if they're putting us in situations like this, and then we have to answer to the public, and we're telling the public to trust us, but there's no provision there that gives them the latitude to believe that they can. So where does the level of accountability fall into place here. I'm very interested in a notice to perform, but in the case that they say, no thanks, absorb the cost, what can we put in place to hold folks accountable?

Thank you for the question. I think as we've demonstrated from the conversation, the time to address that is when the lease is signed or when the contractual relationship is entered into. And as we talked about, everyone's kind of unique. If you think about what we just recently did for the park landing, that was the city taking on a facility, but we have an operator. And so the lease terms are a little bit different because they're fulfilling a housing goal that the county is looking for. When you think about some of the cultural museums or facilities or whatever, they were meeting needs at the time that the city council wanted addressed. And so there are different provisions put in at different times, but we can certainly standardize, which is what we've talked about. But again, it'll come back to when the lease or the contractual arrangement is presented to Council and finalized. If there are different provisions, to address some uniqueness of that, that will be the time to address it. But we'll continue with our standardized clawbacks and provisions and present those first. And then if there's some other ones to add, we can certainly add.

Thank you, City Manager. I'm very interested in that. As this council discussed, even as they reviewed the International Housing Code and different things of that nature, working with landlords, putting poor landlords or bad actors even in a database to hold them accountable when they are not doing right by tenants, I mean, we have entities that are not doing right by the city and by taxpayers. And so they do need to be held accountable. And it is very difficult, for example, myself, who's new here, to come in and understand the history. I haven't been here for four years, two years, eight years. And so what is the systems that we're putting in place that regardless of who's coming into this role, there's a database or there's a set of information out there that someone could see to ensure someone's history with doing business with the city and if they've abided by their agreements with the city as well.

I might also add to address that issue, it's not limited to just real estate. I believe the finance department through the purchasing division may have a process in place. So if you have a contractor who continually fails to perform, they may have a process for not allowing them to bid on future work or eliminating them from bid submissions.

Council Member Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor. Jerry, thank you. A quick question. You may or may not know this. Is the estate of Bill Koch or Julia Koch still involved at the foundation?

I'm not sure. I don't know exactly who the principals are of the foundation.

Okay, just curious, because she would certainly have the money to rectify the situation. Secondly, how long would it take the process to do an RFP?

One of the things with the RFP, I think to do it right, I think we need to get some citizen feedback as to what people want to see and how they want to see this property developed. I would recommend that maybe... council members get some feedback from their constituents, because what we would need to do is establish some parameters that appropriately represent what the city's trying to achieve, whether those parameters are actual requirements or just preferences on how we wanna see that property developed. So I think it's gonna take a little bit of time for that. And also too, I think if that, around the same time, we would probably be getting our, we should be getting our economic development director in place who then can oversee that RFP process. So the short answer is probably going to be a couple of months for that to be developed appropriately.

Okay, or with feedback, maybe much longer. So your advice is very good advice. We should heed that advice. Do you think the roof will hold up?

I haven't been on it. I don't know. I know that there are staff in the audience who can address the condition assessment that was recently performed.

Okay. If we could do that, that would be great.

Mayor and council members, Gary Jansen, Public Works and Utilities. I don't have a lot of specifics for you right now, but I can get back to you. What I will say is, We hadn't had the opportunity to really keep eyes on this facility for some time. It has a lot to do with discussions that you've had and where this lease agreement was, kind of ownership was. But since we started the discussion again, we've had staff out there multiple times. As of right now, we don't think there's any imminent issues, but we will keep a very close eye on it going forward. Make sure we mitigate any problems. This is no different than any other facilities, especially with roofs. When we start to see problems that can really compound themselves, We'll find some way to address those on the short term. Okay. Thank you.

I'm going to have a quick discussion with the council. I know that we're not at council discussion time yet, but given that there are multiple options that you've laid out, one of the options that actually the attorney has laid out is the letter to remedy and 30 days to remedy, an official one. I know that this resides in Councilmember Joseph Shepard's district, so I don't want to take over that motion. would you be in favor of something like sending a formal letter to the current leasee, which is America Cubed, for them to remedy the situation and really outline all of the background, including the deferred maintenance that has been assessed by Public Works, any other fees that may be due in that formal letter? Would you be in favor of that?

Sorry, I thought you were asking Jerry here. Yes, and I appreciate you asking me that as the person who oversees this district. I'm curious though, if that is the case, obviously, I'd like to say we can walk and chew gum at the same time this gets really complicated though if we were to do that attorney Magana would we also be able to at least make the motion that if the 30 days passes and we don't hear back then we can at least instruct staff to move forward with an RFP process I mean to come back again instead of just giving them the opportunity to move forward I think I just want to streamline things if we can yes

Mayor, if I may, within your agenda packet, there is a letter from the America Cube Foundation dated June 12th, where basically there's initial follow-up saying they're no longer in a position to let or manage the lease of the boathouse, and then it's communicated upon presentation of request for preventive maintenance funding. Ms. Ford, was that presented in the email that we received back from them about they were not in the position to make any payment?

Yes, that is correct.

So we do have those two documents on file, is what I'm saying, related from their response from America Acute.

In that email, was it clearly laid out how much in deferred maintenance was estimated and that that, according to the contract drafted in 2009, that it was their responsibility even though that there were no clawbacks?

I know that the email that was sent to them that I provided to the law department did provide a summary of the breakdown of the assessment that came up with the total of the 470 and change. So I haven't seen the email from the law department to America Cubed, but I know that the number was discussed and I presume that the information was shared.

I'm sorry, Mayor, I don't have the email right now. I'm trying to pull it up, but I believe it was shared in detail. I'm sorry, I don't have that handy.

Council Member Hohaisel.

Thank you, Mayor. I would be interested in the proposed action as well. I do have one question, though, because, again, we have tenants in there right now who are trying to make plans. So do we know when the Kansas Sports Hall of Fame's events are planned? And would it still be able to continue if we take the proposed action?

The Kansas Sport Hall of Fame has been very open and transparent with the city in providing contact information and the copies of their contracts. and scheduling for the remainder of this year.

Okay, so would that interfere in this at all? Would they have to move their events, or could they still go on as planned?

I think the city would, and I think we would want the persons that scheduled events to occur there to be able to continue to have those and plan on those. And I think that if we enter into agreement with the cost-sharing agreement, we can continue their current agreement for those couple of months between the Sport Hall of Fame exit and the end of the year.

Okay, so if we're delaying this for a month while we send out the letter to cure, does that throw a wrench in that or do we think they can still hold their events?

No, they should still be able to continue to host.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome. Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor. That prompted another question. Would we be cost sharing as a result of, help me understand that. I'm not sure if I fully support cost sharing.

The current arrangement with the Kansas Sport Hall of Fame to operate that as a venue is under contract with a third party. That third party has a cost sharing arrangement with the Kansas Sport Hall of Fame Kansas Sport Hall of Fame currently has the responsibility of the utilities and it's my understanding that the utilities, the cost for such is barely breaking even with that cost share. So I think we would want to continue the same model that they have with the vendor or require the vendor to pay for those utilities over the course of those two months.

Yeah, the third party operator, which wouldn't be fair to them. And even if we do, given 30 days of notice to perform, they wouldn't be responsible for still taking care of their portion of the cost share? We would have to absorb that?

I think if we allow them to terminate the lease and Kansas Sport Hall of Fame exits, what we're doing is just offering to step into that role so those persons that have booked the boathouse for events can still rely on that being available to them. The last thing we want to do is to see somebody's wedding get canceled at the last minute due to a change in the venue location.

Yeah. Yeah, we heard a similar case a couple weeks ago and then again today about that, and so I definitely don't want that. I want to... I guess I don't have as much grace as I should because this is putting us in a very, very uncompromising situation. And I just find it very hard to believe that someone wakes up one day and recognizes that they don't have the ability to financially take, like you have accountants and books for a reason and you see the trends long before they're coming. Um, so I'm just struggling, but I'm open to other council members and meeting in the middle if we can.

Sure. And I think the sport hall of fame has seen this coming for a while, but it's not been a conversation had between the city and them.

Jerry one. clarifying question. So if I'm understanding this correctly, the city owns the building. America Cubed is the leasee of this agreement. That leasee then subleased to the Kansas Sport Hall of Fame. And then the Kansas Sport Hall of Fame has another sublease to another group here in our community that does events as well at the Sports Hall of Fame.

There is not a third sublet. It is a contractual agreement between the venue operator and the subtenant, Kansas Sport Hall of Fame. So yes, there is a lease between the city and America Cubed. That lease is then sublet to Sport Hall of Fame, but the vendor is a contract.

And one more question, because that venue, the Kansas Sport Hall of Fame, also has, I think, a contract with another local group Exclusive events.

That's the contract I'm referring to.

So we really have multiple entities that would be affected no matter what this agreement comes down to, whether it's A3 owning it or the city owning that agreement.

Yes. The Sport Hall of Fame is impacted as well as the event holder.

Thank you. Council Member Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor. Jerry, quick question about the boat, the actual boat. So correct me if I'm wrong, they gifted it to the city or the boathouse, but then told us we can't trade it, sell it, or any of that stuff. but they gifted it to us. Sure.

Originally, sure. Originally our approach was it's the personal property belonging to America cubed. We then realized that through the research and preparation of this agenda item, that the boat was actually donated to the, the arc river foundation first. And then the city assumed that ownership of it. Um, If you assume the ownership of it, you would assume it with the same conditions, which was that the boat could not be removed. However, if America Cubed is walking away from the lease, I think we would take the position that it is the city's with the right to either continue to maintain it, but that would include the preservation of it, Or we could require its removal and we could require America cubed to remove it So the city has the ability to make the call on what to do with that boat and has the maintenance of the actual boat been kept up From looking at it. I would say it has not been kept up probably as it should have been but it's my understanding that in conversation with sport hall of fame that, um, some years ago at some point, I know America cubed did send in a team out to do some restoration work, but I think it's been a while.

Okay. I would just be. And so the responsibility of that maintenance would be whose responsibility.

If we decide to keep the boat, um, it would be our responsibility.

But I mean, as it is today, whose responsibility has it been for the maintenance of the boat, America 3?

According to the leases, America 3 and Sport Hall of Fame.

Okay.

I would be just curious if, you know, is that there $50,000 of deferred maintenance to the boat? I just think it adds another layer of irresponsibility to hold up their end of the contract if, We're adding the boat to that as well, but gifting it to the city, but then not taking care of it. I just would be curious what that looks like, because it just, burden is not the word, but if we assume the responsibility of that, it means we assume the responsibility of the maintenance that goes along with that. So we'd just be curious if the number is not really 400,000, if it's... That's a good question.

Yeah. I think the boat, if you were to decide to keep it, you kind of have to treat it as art. Obviously it's not going to be operational as a boat. Um, but it's more of just a, uh, a landmark piece or something similar to art. So there is maintenance involved with maintaining art. And I think it's going to be, it would be a similar scenario.

Great. Thank you. I just wanted to make the point that, um, They didn't just neglect the building, maybe they neglected the boat as well. So just wanted to make that point. Thank you.

You're welcome. I have a point of clarification. Can you go back to the slide from 1998? So if I am looking at the timeline correctly, in January of 1998, when the building and the boat were transferred to the city, Bill Koch provided a $200,000 donation to the city to upkeep that piece of art. So there was, so what happened to the $200,000 to upkeep the art?

In a later slide, the city, when we entered into the lease agreement with the Kansas Sport Hall of Fame, that those funds were returned for them to continue the maintenance of the boat and boathouse. It was part of the lease agreement.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

So the recommended motion by staff, what does it do with the boat? Because I haven't heard from anybody that they're interested in saving. If somebody is interested in saving the boat, please say it during public comment. But what is the recommendation from staff regarding the boat?

I think you would need to see what the responses are for a potential reuse and redevelopment of the site. If the property is redeveloped with that being a focal point, obviously, then that new user would be responsible for keeping it and maintaining it.

Okay, thank you.

I have another point of discussion with Council Member Shepherd. Since this is in District 1 and this RFP, again, requests for proposals will go out to anyone in the community or beyond. But do you think your district, maybe DAB, may want to talk about the options first?

um well given that we heard earlier today from someone from the district i do think that that would be prudent we have a very engaged district advisory board as i know all of the district advisory boards are and one opportunity to hear from from community would be great i do think that we can do that within the 30 days and i'd be interested in hearing what what our community thinks of that as well but for time being i think if there's a way to give that boat back we can give it back and save some costs

Thank you. I see no further questions. Thank you, staff, for answering those questions. We will now open it up for public comment on this item.

Hi, I'm Callie Estrada. I live in District 2. but I also work part-time for exclusive events. I am often in the building three times a month probably. I will say when it rains, it pours, and it pours in that building down onto the main floor. We have trash cans that will be set up. It is unfortunate when there are events during that because... the event's pretty much ruined. It will pour onto in front of the screen where the dance floor is. It will pour onto the main floor, probably damaging, probably some of the Sports Hall of Fame's museum items. Ceiling tiles are damaged.

So the roof is damaged.

It's very scary when you're in there when it's raining because as someone who was taking care of the building during events, it is nonstop. So I will just say that.

Mm-hmm. Thank you, Callie. We'll continue with public comment on this item.

Myron Ackerman, District 1. It seems to me that as a council you're finding another thing where somebody in the past really made a mess. And going forward, what I see making sense, as Mr. Shepherd had said, it's in District 1. I think it should go to all of the dabs as to what the people want. I think this is something, from my perspective, this is akin to the Crown Uptown, except the city owns it. The city's responsible. You had a bad lessee who did not maintain the property. but you are the landlord. If it currently needs a roof, fix it. It's yours. Make repairs to keep it usable, or else is it gonna be usable for the events that are already scheduled? I think what makes sense to me is you've got a lot of variables, a lot of different things to iron out. It would make sense to give the lessee notice that they need to cure the problem, go ahead and make the repairs if the roof is leaking and there are imminent repairs, make the repairs regardless because that keeps the facility usable. Now, I don't know about the event coordinator that Hall of Fame has. You may have someone who would want to take over operation, much as you did with Century Two, where you own it, but you have someone else manage it. It seems like going forward, you won't make these mistakes in your leases to where someone is supposed to make repairs, they don't, and you run up to half a million dollars in repairs. My suggestion, notify the lessee that they need to cure this. Go ahead and do the repairs to keep it usable, because we can reasonably assume that they're not going to fulfill their duty. Let's be honest. It's yours, you need to fix it to keep it usable, and you need to take your time going forward with what you do about it, rather than making rash decisions today. Keep it, fix it, look forward to what we're gonna do with it in the future, but don't leave it for 30 days with a leaky roof. I think we all agree there are some serious mistakes in the past. The chance to move forward is to simply accept you have an asset, it needs repair, you can do the legal actions with the responsible parties, you realize that they are not going to fulfill their duty, but you need to fix it, and then there are a lot of options. This particularly would be a good year for an America's Cup race because the America's Cup annual, or not annual, America's Cup race is currently active, so this is a year of the race. You might well find someone who would want to keep that or perhaps maintain it here. From a sailing standpoint, that is an asset that I don't think the city has ever fully utilized. There are people who are avid sailors, who come to Kansas to have national races out at Lake Cheney. I doubt if any of those national racers know that we have an America's Cup boat here. I think we've been neglectful about how we've handled the boat and the boathouse, but I think it's pretty straightforward. It needs to be fixed. And it's going to take some time to figure out what we do beyond it. But fix the roof so it can be used. Notify and just get it to where it's decent enough today. For a future RFP, you may have them do repairs, et cetera. But any repair that's material to the boathouse needs to be done now. You own it. You have the ability to do it. So do it.

Thank you, Byron. I'm just gonna add a quick comment, by the way, Council Member Shepherd. An avid sailor did contact me about the boat house, or the yacht itself, so I'm gonna forward you that email. No, no, no, no, concerns that they were raising. We'll continue with public comment. I see no one else from the public who would like to speak on this item. We will close public comment and bring it back to the bench. With that, we have Council Member Shepherd. This is your district. I also wanted to make mention, I appreciated the comments from our two public speakers One in particular asking that all DABs hear about this. I think that's a really great idea because I understand it's in District 1. However, many residents from across the city have seen this venue and also the boat itself. And I think it would be, if the council members would be okay with hearing in their DABs about this, situation because there are multiple options right now at hand. There is the option of the city taking care of the fixing of the roof or RFP and someone else would take care of fixing of the roof and reimagine what that could be. Or the third option, I think they mentioned city staff said raising the building. And so there are multiple options at the table. And I think maybe the dabs would want to chime in. So I, I just want to open it up for council members to talk about.

Mayor. I'm very supportive of getting as much community engagement as possible on this. And I would yield to my colleagues to see how they want to handle that in their respective districts.

Council member Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor. I would be in favor of that. I think this is not so much a District 1 asset, but a city asset. So I think all the DABs should have a say in it. And earlier I got mixed up with my Cokes, and I apologize for that. David and Julia were married in New York, and Bill had a little fight with them, I guess. So I apologize for that.

Council Member Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I'm fine with having it at DAB. I wonder if it would just be maybe a slideshow presentation or something that we can do that doesn't require staff necessarily to have to stretch themselves out, but I'm just throwing a couple ideas out there, but I'd be fine hearing this at my DAB.

Could this be done in 30 days while the letter to CURE gets sent out?

I'm happy to put it on our agenda for September 14th for DAB.

You guys all have dabs upcoming?

No, mine would be October. Council Member Tuttle.

I'm just curious who from staff would be responsible for putting the slide deck together and then putting the, doing the presentation. Just want to make sure that somebody leaves here knowing like it's me. And then also I think just one concern is this is really complicated. I mean I'm, you know, even sitting here questioning myself. I have an extremely engaged DAP. And I think, I'm not saying this is varnished as I should, so if anybody has a way to say it better, but if we take it to DAP, what is it that we want DAP to leave with a thumbs up, thumbs down, or just hear it? Is it receive and file? Is it just the boat? Because I can see this spiraling. Many of my DAP members are watching this meeting right now and emailing me and asking me questions. And so I don't want it to get into something that, because this is very legal, there's lots of complexities, there's multiple facets of this. So I just wanna make sure that there's the very clear intent of it goes to DAP and these are the parameters that we're looking for and which staff. Does that make sense? Can anyone make that better?

Yeah, I think there was a slide that Jerry showed of the three options. Number one option is the city, takes care of the roof and continues operating it as the new operator. The second one was allowing an RFP process for anyone in the community to say what should happen with the boathouse and what they could imagine seeing. And the third option was raising the building. Is that accurate or am I inaccurate?

And I appreciate that, but then I heard the other thing is that we would take it to DABS to ask about the boat. That is a different conversation. So are we asking about the boat, or are we asking about the boathouse, the actual facility? Because that's two different things, and to me, the actual facility with the legal ramifications, I mean... So I just don't want it, what happens sometimes is if we're not crystal clear going into it, every DAB approaches it in a different way, and then we don't come back with something that can help us formulate a better decision. So if it goes to DAB, is it just about the boat, or is it about the boat and the facility? That's what I would like to know. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Glaskopf.

Thank you. I was just going to say, I don't think DAP4 needs a presentation. I'll ask them at the end. I ask for feedback about whatever's coming to council, but it'll be more of, hey, what is the potential for the river as a whole asset? What could be the best use of this? So I'll keep it pretty casual. I don't need a huge staff presentation and just get feedback from residents in the district.

Does that sound okay, Council Member Shepherd?

yeah i will leave it to council members to decide how they want to run their dab meeting but i think the general presentation that we've seen here today council member tuttle will be fine and many times what i try to do is send those powerpoint presentations in advance to dab members and then solicit feedback via email just so it's on record and then offer the opportunity at the end of the dab meeting for any particular thoughts but i think addressing the three recommendations which one would they like to see um and then as in regards to the boat we can include that in the conversation as well with the recommendations. But I think if you raise it, you're raising the vote too. If you are doing the RFP, you are giving them the opportunity to decide how they wanna utilize the vote within their request for proposal. And if we decide to take that on, which I do not believe we should, I think we would be responsible for the maintenance on that vote as well.

As a reminder, is it accurate to say from Jerry's answers, raising the building or demolishing the building would be $150,000, whereas the other option, option one, which was make sure all the deferred maintenance gets remedied, it is about $300,000? It'll be $300,000 immediate is what we call, but $475,000. So I think that even in that conversation, these numbers should be presented to folks because it's important information to make an educated decision, including an option two, the RFP, what the current value of that building is. And I think you mentioned, does the city want to retain control versus not retain control? Those are also important questions to ask. Okay, with that, this is in Council Member Joseph Shepard's district.

Thank you so much, Mayor. I move that the City Council direct the City Manager and Law Department to issue America Cubed a formal notice to perform and cure consistent with the terms of the existing agreement requiring America Cubed to timely address the identified deferred maintenance and to take all actions reasonably necessary to preserve, secure, and prevent further deterioration of the property. The notice shall state that the city's intent to terminate the agreement if AmericaCube fails to satisfactorily cure the identified deficiencies within the time period required by the agreement. If AmericaCube fails to timely and satisfactorily perform, I further move that the city proceed with the termination in accordance with the agreement and applicable law and initiate a competitive request for proposal for the future reuse, redevelopment, or raising of the facility.

Motion second. Discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item. Agreements and funding for Redbud Trail from Woodlawn to K96, Phase 2.

Good morning Mayor, City Council Members, Paul Gunzelman, Public Works and Utilities, for the record. This item is being brought back to you from last week. The agreements and funding for Redbud Trail, Woodlawn Decay 96. The slide before you shows the limits of the project. Again, this project has been broken up into phase one and phase two, and I'll get into that in a future slide. Slide before you also shows the existing traffic counts on each of the arterial streets with 21,000 on Woodlawn, 30,000 vehicles per day on Rock Road, 22,000 vehicles per day on Webb, and approximately 16,000 vehicles on Greenwich. Again, this is filling in a three and a half mile gap that will extend the pathway from downtown Wichita to Augusta, which I believe is 22 miles. During the initiation of the project, an open house was held at East Presbyterian Church. And with that open house, I recall over 40 people were in attendance, including those from city of Augusta, including city staff, as well as residents. I don't recall if Ms. Haney was there or not, but we did have residents from Augusta that were in support of the project. Background on the project, June 6th, 2023, city council approved preliminary funding for design. In November of that year, City Council approved the design concept. And in February of 2024, the City Council approved the final design budget. And in October 2024, City Council approved the preliminary art budget for the project. Continuing on, in September 2025, the City Council approved all remaining available budget of $6.2 million and the remaining budget for art of $100,000. In December of 2026, the City Council approved an agreement with Evergy for relocations of its facilities within a private easement. Again, this slide before you shows the previous projects along the Redbud Trail, including those in green from I-135 to Woodlawn. To the right of the screen shows the improvements from K96 to Andover Road in 2020 in purple. And in the center of the screen shows the current phase one project under construction as well as the upcoming phase two project. And I will get into what each phase will build. Phase one constructs the nine foot concrete path with a one foot shoulder on one side as well as a four foot crushed limestone pathway on the opposite side and that is allowed for runners who don't like to run on the concrete. In addition, phase one also improves the woodland crossing pedestrian signal. It upgrades to the current configuration on the left side of the screen to the more visible hawk signal, high intensity activated crosswalk on the lower right of the screen. Phase one also includes web road crossing improvements. Currently, Webb Road is a four-lane roadway. They're circled in red. It shows where the crossing crosses Webb Road. The improvements will include a raised median, widened Webb Road to five lanes to accommodate that raised median, as well as a hawk signal, as was shown on the previous slide in the lower right corner. Similar improvements are proposed for or will be constructed at Greenwich Road. Currently, there is a raised median. However, it has a dual left turn lane. As it is northbound, we propose to widen the median, remove one of the dual left turn lanes, and make it a single left turn lane as we believe that will accommodate the traffic going into the commercial property on the north side of the trail. And again, it will include the raised median as well as crossing or a hawk signal at that location. There are also approximately eight drainage structures throughout the project that will be improved during both phases of the project. Phase two will include the pedestrian bridge over Rock Road, providing adequate clearance for large truck traffic to get under the bridge and to accommodate ADA accessibility. The retaining walls or walls will also be included, lighting, the path itself, sidewalk connections along Rock Road, and landscaping. All of these improvements will be completed as phase two and construction of phase two is projected to begin in 2027. The city has also received a private donation for the project. The funds will be utilized to upgrade the proposed wire mesh with a tighter weave, providing additional public safety. I know there is a lot of information on the slide before you, but it does go through the project budget as well as estimated cost. I want to bring your attention to the top slide first with the $12.1 million budget that was approved in September of 2025. That was all of the funding available at that time, as I mentioned before. And the estimated project cost at that time was approximately $18 million. We work with our partners at WAMPO regularly, and we anticipated an additional federal funding coming into the project at a later date. And as you move down a little bit with the provided city council approves the agenda item today, an additional $5.5 million would be added of federal funds would be added to the project budget. in addition to the $150,000 from the donation brings a total up to, if you include the ARC funding of $18.2 million budget with $10 million of federal funding for the project. Moving down to the bottom half of the slide, the estimated project costs. We have design for both phases one and two, as well as other items, including project management fees, TIP fees, property acquisition, and financing. Phase one of the project, again, building three miles of the path, including the three signalized street crossings at Woodlawn, Web Road, and Greenwich. We had an estimated cost of $6.6 million again in September of 2025. The actual bid came in less than that. And then highlighted in yellow is phase two, the estimated cost. Originally, we had an estimate of $1.5 million for average relocation. We had negotiated with them to get that as approved by city council of $920,000 in December of 2025. The construction estimate remains the same. And I will go over those on the next slide. So to simplify that a little bit, again, the estimated cost in 2025, September, was approximately $18.2 million for Phase I and II. The cost to date for Phase I, since we have open bids on the project, is $5.2 million. And phase two, including the art, would be $9.3 million for total estimated cost of $14.63 million for the project. The slide shows the existing federal funding, the proposed federal funding of 5.562 for a total of $10 million of federal funding, and the general obligation funds would remain the same at $8.2 million for a total funding budget of $18,230,000. With that, it is recommended the City Council approve the agreements, adopt the amending resolution, and authorize the necessary signatures, and I will stand for questions.

Thank you, Paul. Questions for staff, meeting with Vice Mayor Glascott.

Thank you, Mayor. Paul, can we go back to slide 48?

48?

Yes, that's perfect. So that top right, it says the 9-16-2025 City Council meeting. I went through all the minutes from that meeting and could not find... the approximate value at 18 million. Everything that I had seen was close to around the 12 million. So where, was that in a slide presentation? Because it wasn't in the minutes when I went

No, that was not included in that presentation. What we had asked for the City Council to approve that date was the available funding we had for that project. We knew that we had an estimated project cost of $18 million at that time.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. So does that mean staff knew about the projected cost at $18 million, but that wasn't presented to Council at that time?

That is correct, yes.

Okay, I would probably prefer that conversation at the 916 meeting if staff was aware that there would be additional maybe cost associated with the project but that wasn't presented to council. So I find that a little bit misleading because I tried to review all the minutes and couldn't find that. When we look at the bottom of the original estimate versus the revised estimate as well. So the recommended action from staff is to approve the original estimate at $18,391,606. But the revised estimate from staff is the $14,638,142. why would the recommendation to this body be approving the total original amount versus what the estimated amount is? It would make more sense to approve the estimated than just saying, hey, we're going to give you $18 million and hope it doesn't balloon to that cost.

We are asking today to approve the additional $5.5 million of federal funding that we have available for the project. which will bring the total project budget to the $18 million.

Or the budget could be reduced to compensate for the $5 million in federal funds.

Reducing the general obligation funding. I caution you with that because we don't know how bids will come in. If we reduced it and then we had bids that come in over the new revised budget, then we would be back at a city council at a future date to approve the overestimate. If you approve the total $18 million budget today, then we would receive bids. And then if there is savings in the project of general obligation funds, we would bring that back. and reduce the project budget at that time as we go through future budget and CIP cycles. So we would rectify it at that time.

Thank you for all the clarification. I have no challenge accepting the federal funds or the donation for this project in a way to offset the GO cost. I think that's a really smart maneuver, and I know that doesn't include... the design elements and that doesn't include the art elements as well. So I think that component makes sense. My concern is that when this originally was presented to council and voted on it, it was closer to 10 million. 10 million something. The revised estimate then came up to 12 million. Now we're going up to 18 million, but it may only cost us 14 million. So I still have concerns that that would be interesting. Maybe if any of my other colleagues have questions, but in terms of accepting the federal funds, I have no concerns.

I echo the same concerns. You just mentioned something, a number that actually is very significant. Remind me how much a new fire station costs? How much does Fire Station 23 cost? Roughly $5, $5.5 million. Yes, yes. That number that you just mentioned, $5.5, is in federal dollars. But in looking at the actual cost of the bridge, can you remind me how much the bridge actually costs? Because you can't just have a bridge without supporting

Right, and that's what I say. The overall cost of the bridge, that includes the walls, path, lighting, landscaping, and the energy, well, is $6.6 million. You can't have just the bridge. You have to have all the other elements, including that.

So the bridge, by all technical purposes, is $6.67 million.

For phase two of the project, yes.

I have deep concerns about this, and they stem from that very start of my conversation, which was how much does a fire station cost? I have heard from firefighters about the need for more fire stations or renovating fire stations. And when I know that that number could help renovate a fire station literally just down the road from there that needs that improvement right away, that concerns me. And had I known that the $18 million approximate would have been shared with this council, Back in September of 2025, we would have more questions regarding whether or not to approve that budget since it was not highlighted and 18 million is nowhere in the minutes. I find that deeply concerning, so for me, I appreciate that staff has found federal dollars in trying to help offset this entire project, and that you've also found private donations to help offset this project, but now this project in its face value the way that it's presented to us is not the project that i initially was in favor of and that was a project that was roughly 10 to 12 million dollars that improved three and a half miles and made it safe for pedestrians and bicyclists now it has ballooned and i don't feel comfortable with this and so i know that there are more questions and I'll ask further. Council Member Tuttle.

Thank you. Thank you, Paul, for all your work on this. Paul, is the project going to cost $18 million?

At this time, our estimate for the 3.5 miles is 14.6.

Yes, thank you. And have costs on all projects that we are completing within the city gone up period? I remember, and I wrote it down, since 2020, construction costs for utility projects have increased by 66%. Is that correct?

They have increased, yes.

So when we first came, we said this is probably going to be around $12 million. Now it's $14 million. I just have grave concern of saying that a fire station costs this and this costs that because funding from WAMPO for a portion of this, could that be used for a fire station, Paul?

No, I would clarify that. That is, as you know, there's approximately $12 million to come into the WAMPO region that we compete as well as other cities compete for, and that is for transportation-related projects. Yes, exactly.

And it's not for design, it's not for public design, it's specifically for construction of projects. So out of the 12 million that comes to WAMPO, the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, and an annual budget, approximately how much is being allocated to the City of Wichita? Potentially.

That varies per year. For this, we have probably a half a year's worth for phase two.

Yeah, so that means that we received half of the funding that WAMPO allocates every year for this project, and that couldn't be used for a fire station. It couldn't be used for anything else. Is that correct? That is correct. That is correct. So if we turn this money down for this project, we can't say we're going to use it and build a fire station.

Correct, and it would be lost most likely to the region as well. Yes, okay. There's not another project to absorb it by the time it has to be obligated.

That's a great point. Thank you. I just want to point out also, and this is a statement, and I'm sorry, but it's timely, and then I'll have more statements later. This is a three and a half mile project and three intersections that are going to be enhanced for public safety, which is one of our core values. Is that correct, Paul? Yes. Yes. So I'm going to say it one more time. Is this an $18 million bridge?

No.

Thank you.

I have a follow-up to that question, and that is in regards to the WAMPO dollars. And I asked this question during agenda as well. Can this be utilized to do signalization on Rock Road, just like you're doing signalization at Woodlawn, Webb, and Greenwich?

We have not this... Let me say this, we have received federal funding for signalization projects in the past through WAMPO. We are the current project on East 21st, putting the fiber communication in and upgrading signals has received federal funding in the past. The upcoming project on the West 21st from 119th to downtown is also receiving federal dollars through WAMPO for that project. So yes, it can be used if we, first we have to apply for that, and then if the project selection committee deems it, ranks it high enough to get it, then yes we can.

So are these specific WAMPO federal dollars for a specific bridge then?

These are for the specific Redbud Trail project.

For the bridge?

For phase two, yes, for the bridge, yes.

The reason why I'm asking is, again, people have asked, people have been emailing us, both in support and also not in support of this, $6.67 million bridge. They have asked about other more economical ways to have another safe passage across Rock Road. One of the options that an email, a constituent emailed was, could you not have improved sidewalks and had a cross section right there, a more improved cross section just south or at the Bradley Fair crosswalk right now. If you also improved and added a sidewalk on the east side of Rock Road just south of Red Rock. That was one constituent's ask, so I'm going to ask it in public. Have all those been exhausted?

They have, and that is still an opportunity for folks to do that. Our experience, and we've done it, I've seen it on the Armor Bicycle Boulevard that we had constructed back, I think, probably 2013, maybe a little bit after that, that we have... put in sidewalk along Central, I think it's Stratford, that provides a safe way for folks to cross Central. They can go to an existing signalized crosswalk and go out of the way to do that. And I've seen a lot of people just cut straight across and not utilizing that path because it is out of the way. So I would venture to see the same thing happen at Rock Road if we did not have a crossing or the bridge there.

And remind me, I know that the bridge is what's part of the design right now, but when the discussion was had, this is before my time, can you explain why a crosswalk, simply a crosswalk on Rock Road was not

Part of that was, yeah, a lot of that was dictated on the 30,000 vehicles per day that travels Rock Road. We have a consultant as well that's witnessed even northbound traffic there at Rock Hill, Bradley Fair, Rock Road intersection, that it would back up to where this redbed trail crossing would be. So stopping vehicles for a signalized crosswalk at that time would also cause further delay.

Council Member Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor. Paul, I think one of the concerns that I hear a lot of people have is mission creep. If we have $18 million, we'll use all the $18 million. So when we get down into some of the costs here, the bridge, walls, path, lighting, Is all of that itemized and locked in so there's nothing added to that necessarily?

Right. We would, I mean the scope of the project will not change if we get additional funding. We will bid the project as it is and we will not change the scope of the project.

Okay, I guess this next question is for the city manager. So if we pass this today at 18 million, can we put a requirement in there or some sort of strings attached that whatever does not get used for this project can go to a firehouse or a firehouse maintenance?

That would be, I think, a policy change for this council. My suggestion certainly is it stays within the pot of money for the CIP, which is where other fire stations and public safety items are. And so that could help us maybe move some things up the project list. But I think that's a conversation you all want to have in context if we have freed up CIP money, what is the next project? And we'll bring you those project lists. So I think the process you and policy you have now is sufficient that you still may be able to achieve what you're looking for if you want to look specifically at fire station. But we'll bring you the CIP list and what's scheduled for the next year, and we can move some of those up if we have remaining funds from this project.

So what would that look any different than the proposal we have today? Would that be like an addendum, an add-on to any potential motion?

I don't think you need it because when we look at the CIP for next year, we'll show you how much money we have and we'll bring you a project list. And if you say, hey, we want to try to do a fire station version, if it's not on that list, it may be on that list already. That'll be the time for the conversation.

Okay, I'd just be interested, and I don't know, Jennifer, if you have any input as well in earmarking whatever savings we have from this specifically for fire, firehouses and fire maintenance. We haven't done that for any other project.

Councilmember, I believe it is more of a policy question than a legal one, concurring with what the manager's proposal was.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor. Paul, it looks like Phase 1 came substantially under what you estimated. Is that true?

It did, yes.

So that's the reason why, part of the reason why it's showing so much less as a revised estimated cost.

Correct, yes.

So Phase 2 could possibly come under the estimate too.

Right. We just don't know. Correct. Yeah.

But right now, the federal, through WAMPO, you're talking about $10 million from the federal government and $4.6 million from the city. Yes. Okay. And is it true that WAMPO requires a 20% match? They do. Yes. Yes. That is true. So we'd have to invest at least $2 million to get that $10 million?

Correct.

Okay. And again, those WAMPO dollars cannot be diverted to any other thing in our CIP?

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Also, just curious, there's not a sidewalk on the east side of Rock Road, right? All the way from the Koch property, all the way south. Is there a reason why there's not a sidewalk on that side of the street?

No. In fact, we have had a request for it. I think it stops at Cork Street. I think it continues north of Central at Cork Street, but then it doesn't go past the Country Club or anything. But we have a request for it, so we are pursuing to see if that makes sense to people. And then we are, from the past, we are connecting it up to, with this project, it would be connected from the Redbud Trail north to Wilson Estate Parkway, which I believe it continues north of there. Okay, okay, thank you.

Councilmember Townsend.

Thank you and this is a question for Paul or maybe the city manager just to follow up. So we're anticipating as I mentioned last time we had a budget more more funding got put into the budget anything that isn't spent which we anticipate will be probably four million will go or more will go back into the CIP correct?

Yes.

And also manager. So we have done renovations in libraries in five of the six districts recently. We've built community center, building a new community center in another district, lots of other quality, park and rec. I can't even think of how many renovations, updates we've been doing across the city. Have we ever said before that the stipulation, if there's money left over, has to go to a specific entity, such as a fire station? I just want to be really careful because that's a precedent that could impede other projects in the CIP that are currently in queue. We're getting ready to build two new fire stations and actually three fire stations because station 18 and district 2 will be built on behalf of the Kansas Department of Transportation when we do the renovations for K96. Not at all against fire stations, not at all saying that we don't need more of them, but with more fire stations also comes more staff and more apparatus and more equipment. So I would just be hesitant of saying if there's money left over from this project in this AP that it goes to a fire station if we're not completely willing or able to implement that project. When there are many other projects that are already in queue in the CIP across everyone's district that then could be elevated so we have less geo. Is that correct? Yes, yes. Okay, we'll have more discussion, but I just, yes, thank you.

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you so much. And this is a question for some of my colleagues, Are we asking for the 5.5 allocated in the CIP, if those dollars that are not used for this project, if those things can go towards other projects? Because I don't think we could use the funding from WAMPO for anything other than what we've applied for.

I'll answer that. It would be any remaining general obligation funding that we don't utilize for the project. Perfect. OK. That's all I wanted to know.

Thank you.

I see no further questions for staff. We will now open it up for public comment.

Good morning. I didn't want to have to be the first person if somebody else wanted to speak first. Good morning Marowu and members of the council. My name is Holly Terrell and I serve as the executive director of Bike Walk Wichita. I'm here today on behalf of our organization and personally as someone who believes Wichita is stronger when people have safe choices for how they move around our community. Bike Walk Wichita supports the city moving forward with the pedestrian bridge over Rock Road. We recognize the concerns that have been raised about the cost of this project. Public infrastructure deserves thoughtful scrutiny. We should ask questions about how taxpayer dollars are spent, and public deserves clear information on the scope of funding of major projects. But we should also ask what we're getting for the investment. The Redbud Trail is not infrastructure waiting for people to use it. At Trailhead Park in Andover, RD's trail counter recorded approximately 92,300 users during the first eight months of this year. That's 380 people a day. On a recent Saturday, they reported approximately 1,100 people used the trail. The numbers tell us that people are already using this corridor. So what we're discussing now is how can they safely continue to use it? Rock Road presents a significant barrier. A grade-separated bridge allows people walking, biking, and rolling to cross this busy roadway without having to cross Rock Road at street level. It closes a gap in a regional trail stretching more than 15 miles from Wichita toward Augusta and makes infrastructure that we've already invested in more useful. The funding matters too. I understand why a large dollar figure gets people's attention, because it should. We also recognize that some of the public concerns surrounding this project appear to have been shaped by confusion about what the $18 million figure represents. I appreciate the city staff providing additional clarification today about the scope, cost, and funding of the larger project. Public scrutiny is important, but so is making sure that decisions about public infrastructure are based on complete and accurate understanding of the projects. And I hope we don't allow confusion surrounding the number to overshadow the fundamental question before us. Do we believe that people walking, biking, and rolling deserve a safe way to cross the road? And we do. At Bike Walk Wichita, we envision a community where everyone can move freely, safely, and joyfully. And achieving that vision requires connections. It requires us to address the places where our transportation network becomes difficult or dangerous for people outside of vehicles. And sometimes it requires us to make significant investments today that will serve our community for decades. So on behalf of Bike Walk Wichita, I respectfully ask for you to accept the updated proposal and move forward with the Redbud Trail bridge over Rock Road. Let's close the gap and build a safer, more connected Wichita. Thank you.

Thank you, Holly. We'll continue with public comment on this item. I see no one else from the community who would like to speak on this.

My name is John Moore, and I'm with Prairie Travelers. In 2001, we started out at Garden Plains, coming this away with a rail trail, if you're aware of that. And that was private donation. And then about 2014, we come clear to Hoover Road, private donations. But we always envisioned it going all the way through. So just hoping... that you'll see this too, that, yeah, we ride like Sunday morning, we'll ride from 13th and the river and go to Andover and, you know, we have to do all this gyrations to get across. It'd be wonderful to be able to go straight through. So anyway, thank you and good luck.

Good morning. I'm David Robinson. I live in District 5. I want to thank the mayor and the council members for discussing all of this. I come at this as a view of kind of a recreational cyclist. I've emailed all of you. I've also been a participant in those rides to Andover where we go over. A lot of times we're actually coming back into town to eat at Mocha's or some other spot. But one of the things that always has concerned me is when we'd get to Woodlawn, that area is not unimproved. I've ridden it in the past. I do understand getting across on Rock Road, even on a Sunday morning, can be an adventure. I actually talked to my financial advisor who works in Bradley Fair. She brought up that the intersection that they have with Bradley Fair over there, you guys have trouble actually keeping the signs up on the medians because of car drivers. On that, I think a bridge is gonna be a big improvement. I also think getting people out to exercise more, whether it's walking, running, riding their bicycle, is gonna do nothing but positive things for the area. On that, I know, and JV knows this, I had a son that, through triathlon, has gone from a young man, who I had a first grade teacher tell me that he was gonna be a criminal, to where he is now a chiropractor. And he's actually a really fine gentleman. And I think it was through exercise and competing that helped. I could see Coleman Middle School's very, very close. I know when I ride the Prairie Sunset Trail, I see cross-country groups practicing. I'm assuming it's Goddards. But you're going to have access to so much more by providing a safe way to cross Rock Road into other areas. And fitness, I think, is very, very important on that. You look at me, and I'm a big guy. I still do a lot of writing, and it helps me go through and not only relax, but actually keeps me active. So I hope you consider everything. I'm really glad to see that it's not an $18 million bridge, and actually the whole project, which is really large, is projected at coming in well under that. But I hope you consider that the people that, whether they're recreational cyclists or whether they're people that are going to be riding to work or whatever they choose, this is an important project in connectivity. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, David. I see no one.

Okay. Hi, I'm Liz Pizer, and I'm in Maggie's district, which I can't read the number. Anyway, I really appreciate Dave Robinson talking, and that really kind of like made me think. There's been a whole theme here around compassion. It started with our invocation, and then talking about compassion with suicide prevention, And then we had the naloxone. And then the compassion, just being able to get two and a half miles to work every day to try to earn money to be able to pay rent. So I think this really just kind of closes the loop with compassion about how this trail will really improve everybody's lives through mental health, through physical health. providing transportation to get to where they need to be. And it really brings this city up to the level of other cities that I've traveled in that have amazing infrastructure for bike and scooter and stroller and running travel like Boise, Idaho. They have this amazing greenbelt on both sides of the river, amazing bridges and tunnels, and so many people use it, and it's a real draw for the city. So I think not only does this improve everybody's health, but it also brings people to the city because we'll have this amazing infrastructure that would be world class. Thank you.

Thank you, Liz. Would anyone else from the community like to speak on this? I see none. We will close public comment now. Thank you to the four speakers. I simply wanted to say thank you. We hear you about the importance of outdoors opportunities and safety. And again, I'm going to be voting against this, not because I'm not in favor of opportunities for mental health and public safety, but rather a budgetary concern. This budget has ballooned to a number that I don't feel comfortable with and one that our community has said to keep prioritizing. And so again, I'm grateful that there are private donations coming in. There are federal dollars that are being requested and approved and coming in. But again, the budget has ballooned to a number that I am not comfortable with. And so that, again, is not a no to the community of bikers, the bicyclists or pedestrians, but rather, again, the budget. Vice Mayor Glasgow.

Thank you, Mayor. As I said earlier, I'm interested in figuring out a way to accept the WAMPO funds and also the donation, but not increase the budget. And I don't know if there's appetite among my fellow council members to do so, but the bridge was already included in the original project amount when it came before this council at 12 million. And I think being a good steward also means completing it with the commitments we already made. Just in terms of scheduling, the existing budget that we approved was $12,118,061, and that was on December 23rd, 2025. And I understand there's a difference between the revised and also the estimated cost. But between that date less than a year ago, about eight months ago, nine months ago now, that somehow that budget has increased to a six million dollar commitment from the 12 million and let's say that we don't use the extra amount that's still increased more than two million in less than a year my other challenge we have is that on before that date where we so we approved that on december 23rd 2025 but before that date according to staff on 9 25 2025 they knew the cost was gonna be 18 million when they brought this before. And that was at least according to the presentation presented today that was not included in the minutes or included in the conversation when we discussed that on 9-25 or December 23rd, 2025. And so if there was a projection that it was gonna be more at that time, I think it's disingenuous that that was not presented within the existing budget amount at the $12 million or even a hint that it would balloon to $18 million less than nine months later. And so I use the Red Bud Trail myself. I'm a runner. I've turned around at Rock Road rather than cross it because I don't want to cross Rock Road. And so it has shortened my crossing. So I hope that we can use the $12 million that was already allocated for the for the bridge that was included in the original approval and if we can't then i hope that that money can be allocated towards some form of crossing because it is incredibly needed but i also believe that outside funding should reduce the city's burden that it shouldn't be an excuse to increase the city's commitment to the project councilmember johnston

Thank you, Mayor. David, thank you for speaking. Thanks for coming up here in District 5. I witnessed your son Chris' transformation. And you have every reason to be choked up over that. So I competed against him in those triathlons and beat him every time. Until he got in shape and he just smoked me every time. So it was quite a transformation. And more than the physical transformation, it was a mental transformation. So congratulations to Chris and to you. I appreciate that. Some people know I used to ride to work from the west side to Johnston's at 21st and K96. This path would have been nice to get there. I did get there in a roundabout way, but it would have been nice to get there. I loved it. I'd stop at the North Lie, take a shower, and then finish riding in. So that's nice. I would be open to Councilman Glasscock, or excuse me, Vice Mayor Glasscock's suggestion. I think if we set a limit of 15 million, it would cover any cost increase. It would be framed up, and it will stay within that $15 million range, I would say. So I would be open to that. Lastly, I was at a church picnic yesterday at St. Catherine's, and two people came up to me and said, hey, I support that bike path. He says, I go to other cities and they have nice stuff, and we deserve nice stuff too. So, and I agree with them. We do go to other cities, they do have nice stuff, cool stuff, and we deserve that in Wichita also.

Council Member Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor. I know Council Member Tuttle has worked really hard on this for a really long time. I use the Redbud Trail as well, and I know that that is one of the busiest parts of the trail, certainly with congested traffic. So I just appreciate the federal money that's come in, all of the hard work with WAMPO. I know how competitive those dollars are. I really appreciate everybody that has worked so hard on this. I appreciate all of the speakers, all of the emails, and it is not always convenient for people to come and sit and hang out with us for hours. I hope you guys learned something along the way today, but I certainly appreciate any type of engagement at any level, whether it is coming with us, to the meetings or emailing or calling or dabs or whatever. So really appreciate all of the engagement. Even if you were not supportive of it, even appreciate those conversations as well, trying to work through some of these difficult projects that come with price tags that maybe we weren't expecting in the beginning. So with that, I will be super supportive and looking forward to the project being complete.

Council Member Tuttle.

Thank you. Paul, could you join us for a second? I know this is a time for a comment, but I do have a clarifying question, I think, before I make a comment. I heard from a colleague that the project has ballooned in cost. The budget has increased to $18 million because we received additional funding sources, but the estimated cost of the project has not ballooned. Is that correct?

Right. As of today, the estimated cost is $14.6 million. Okay.

I just want to make the clarification. The budget has increased. The overall budget has increased because we received outside funding, which is a good thing. The cost has not ballooned for this project. Am I correct?

Correct. Nor has the scope.

Are we anticipating spending the same amount of local as we have from the beginning of this project? Pretty much. Yes.

Yes. Yes. It was set in of the September of 2025, around 7.9 plus 400,000 is set. So we are not increasing that with any action today, only increasing the federal share plus the donations.

So we're only increasing the federal share?

Correct.

Correct. So I just want to help with a misconception, misunderstanding, whatever it may be. We aren't just saying, oh, hey, here's the budget and go spend. We've already set the spending limit for this project. Is that correct?

For a general obligation, yes.

So out of, I'm going to say it again, I'm going to say it 50 times to be redundant, and I hope that people watching, that my colleagues, people in the audience, the media, social media capture this. The amount of taxpayer dollars in the City of Wichita local budget is not increasing. That amount has been set. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, thank you very much.

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you so much, Mayor. And I want to reiterate a lot of the points. There are very few things where I feel that we have received an enormous amount of communication on as it relates to policy topics. This is by far one of them. And overwhelmingly, majority of the communication that I've received via email has been supportive, and a few of the folks from my district who were concerned were concerned about the cost. And Paul, thank you for engaging with me to clarify, and I think it's been reiterated again. I go back to what Councilmember Johnson has said a couple weeks ago, and it just has stuck with me. There's a difference between an expense and an investment. And I do see this as a meaningful investment to ensure that we're creating more avenues for people to get to work, to get to school, to increase their quality of life. I think we need more bikeability. I think we need more walkability. There are many people in my district who, for whatever reason, they can't have access to a car. They don't have access to a driver's license at this point. And I certainly think one way to get over that barrier is by investing in opportunities to make our city more walkable and bikeable. And so with that being said, I am going to be very supportive of this. I am very hesitant about the 18 million cost that we all saw. But again, it's been clarified that the overall budget increase because we received a grant from the federal government But the amount that the city, our taxpayers, are giving to this project has not increased astronomically. And that's a really important clarifier. So with that being said, I appreciate the folks who have worked on this. I am going to be supportive because I think it is creating an opportunity for more people, especially working class families and those who are disenfranchised, to be able to get to and from where they need to go safely, but also to get to and from the places they need to make a quality, meaningful life here in Wichita.

Thank you. Thank you for the great comments from my colleagues. I'm just going to start out by saying thank you to Paul and thank you to James Wagner and to Gary Jensen and all the folks in Public Works who have been really diligent on this project for many years. This started as an opportunity. We knew that we had the three and a half miles left of the 30-mile trail that wasn't done. and when we began having conversations several years ago about what about Rock Road. And initially some of our conversations were we cannot in good conscience encourage more people to walk, bike, use a stroller, a scooter, anything across Rock Road. So maybe we just leave that 3.5 of the 30 miles stagnant. And then we said no, exactly what Council Member Johnston said, what if we deserve more? What if we can aggressively pursue outside funding? What if we can get private donations? I just want to make a point real quick. Andover completed their portion of the trail. They have a lovely restaurant there now. We estimate that we probably have 90 to 100 people who try and traverse across Rock Road, the busiest road in the city of Wichita. We have about 90. they have about 380 per day. Since August and the improvements they've made and the safety enhancements they've made, they now, since January until the end of August, have 92,000 people who are utilizing the Redbud Trail. One of our, the city of which our mission, and I always talk about this, everything that I try and do from this bench, I ground in our mission. Our mission is to be an exceptionally well-run city. And two of the four pillars are to provide conditions for living well, but also to help grow our economy. And completion of the Red Bed Trail is going to help with both of those. Even if you're a person who doesn't walk and bike, I don't ride a bicycle, I do enjoy walking, it may not make sense to you. But if you do, this can be a game changer for connectivity to other communities in our region and a way for people to see our community in a different way. I have said this for years, even though I don't ride a bike, all my friends who do say that riding a bike and seeing the city of Wichita going 10 miles an hour looks a lot different than going 40 miles an hour. It's more than recreation. It's going to provide opportunities for community engagement, attracting and retaining talent, and economic development, and that's what we all crave in Wichita. We talk about it every time, every day, and this is the chance to do it. The business community between 13th and 21st Street are welcoming this potential new amenity and a chance to give all trail users an opportunity to get out more and ride and walk and when they do, they're also going to stop and they're going to shop and they're going to dine. And so it's going to enhance the economic development along this corridor. i want to say one more time i've heard you which i've heard you loud and clear you're worried about budget issues and you know things that may not be deemed necessary you're also worried that this budget seems to have bloated and it hasn't the amount that the city budget has obligated has not grown we have just been aggressive in seeking additional funding so my final thought before we move on because someone else is on the board What if we could spend something to gain? And I think that is exactly what this project will do. Thank you.

Council Member Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to just address the thought that a crosswalk would serve instead of a bridge. I go down Ridge Road a lot, next to Central County Park. There is a crosswalk there. People access the park through the middle of the road between 13th and 21st. people consistently blow right through that stoplight. Consistently do it. If you're crossing that road, you better look both ways and be prepared to get out of the way. And that is not nearly as busy as Rock Road is. That's one issue. The second issue is Rock Road is the busiest street in the city. It probably should be three lanes in each direction instead of two. But it's two and it takes you a couple stoplights during busy times to get through those intersections. The last thing people want is to stop again at a crosswalk. And I guarantee you they'll get frustrated and blow right through that crosswalk, which is very, very dangerous for people. So I think a bridge over Rock Road is justified. I think it is prudent, and I think it could save a life, definitely could save a life.

This is in Council Member Tuttle's district.

Thank you. Again, thank you to all staff. Thank you to all of everyone who's attended here today. Thanks for your nods of affirmation. I appreciate it. Thank you for the people who, everyone in the community who has sent emails for and against this as Councilmember Ballard said, we always want to hear both sides. It is unfortunate to me that because of a misleading headline from one of our friends, the media that this is turned into a story that instead of being celebrated is being questioned the way that it is I always want projects and things that we do in the city to be scrutinized and to have transparency but the narrative I hope for this someday when we do the groundbreaking and we do the ribbon-cutting will not be that this is an $18 million bridge because it is not an $18 million bridge. This is an investment in the completion of the 30 mile red bed trail. So with that, I will move that the Wichita City Council accept the donation, revise budget, and approve the agreements and adopt the amending resolution.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes five to two. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Acceptance and administration of the affordable housing and supportive services demonstration grant park landing supportive services expansion.

Good morning, Mayor, City Council. I have another grant here for you. The Administration for Children and Families released a notice of funding opportunity that could only be applied for by a community action agency and an organization that owned an affordable housing property. Well, that's us. So with that, we have applied for the Administration for Children and Families, NOFO. It was released on July 24th of 2026, and we submitted the application on August 21st, 2026. City of Wichita seeks that funding to expand supportive services at Park Landing, a city-owned campus with 25 non-congregate shelter units and 50 permanent supportive housing units above. Integrated service access via second light trauma informed shelter and multi-agency services will create a continuum. Our local data suggests that 222 unsheltered individuals in 2026 and affordability pressures for asset limited income constrained and employed households highlight the need for the campus based low barrier stabilization services. Park Landing delivers a shelter to PSH continuum, permanent supportive housing, through the 25 non-congregate shelter units on floor one, the 50 permanent supportive housing units on floors two and three that are funded by project-based vouchers, and the services that include case management, SOAR benefits, which is Medicaid and all sorts of other benefits, navigation, EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRANSPORTATION, FINANCIAL CAPABILITY, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NAVIGATION. WITH THE GOAL OF IMPROVING THEIR HOUSING STABILITY, THEIR ECONOMIC MOBILITY AND WELL-BEING FOR EXTREMELY LOW RESIDENTS. LOW INCOME RESIDENTS. IN THE NEED FOR ASSISTANCE WE HAVE 30% OF CEDRIC COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS ARE ASSET LIMITED INCOME CONSTRAINED BUT EMPLOYED HOUSEHOLDS OR BELOW POVERTY THRESHOLD. THE MEDIAN INCOME FALLS SHORT OF THE SURVIVAL BUDGET OF $11,536 TO LIVE IN WICHITA. Our point-in-time count shows rising unsheltered homelessness. In 2022, that was 124 that were unsheltered, and in 2026, that's 222. The asset-limited income-constrained but employed households face avoidability stress, increasing their risk of housing loss and homelessness. The objectives of the grant would be to increase the housing retention and reduce returns to homelessness via the seamless campus-based continuum that would exist on the park landing property that includes Second Light and into park landing. It would expand the workforce participation, credential attainment for those, and earned income. It would improve engagement in primary care and behavioral health services and strengthen the resident leadership, civic engagement, and community performance. The program model would be that we'd have two case managers that would be employed full-time, plus an additional full-time person with the sole responsibility of disability benefits and economic mobility navigation, and then, of course, the program manager to oversee. We'd use evidence-informed practices, housing first, trauma-informed care, motivational interviewing, and harm reduction, and weekly multidisciplinary case conferences will align with the property management and services. Service domains include SOAR benefits, employment readiness, adult education, and credential attainment, financial literacy, arrears prevention, credit repair, housing stability supports, including conflict mediation, crisis prevention, and transportation to include bus passes, ride vouchers, and the use of the city, our staff using city fleet vehicles to transport them for housing navigation. Our outcomes would be a housing retention of greater than 85 percent, which, of course, returns to homelessness less than 15. Sixty percent of the able-bodied residents would be employed or in training within 12 months, with the average earned income increase of $2,000 per household, 70 percent engaged in primary care, 50 percent in behavioral health services, and improved quality of life scores. The federal share would be $300,000. The non-federal match will be $33,333. Total project costs will be $333,333. And I will go over the budget here in a little bit. We've got the program manager, the case managers, client incentives, applications fees, supplies, transportation for local, transportation for the client, transportation in the city fleet, IT connectivity, and then the overhead. There is a 10% match requirement. However, no new city funds will be requested. The match would be fully supported by existing rent revenue that are embedded in the pro forma, and there is no impact to the general fund. The grant application has been reviewed and has been approved as to form by the Department of Law. And the recommendation is to approve the submission and acceptance of the Affordable Housing and Supportive Services Demonstration Grant for park landing, authorize the necessary signatures, and acknowledge that the application was prepared in accordance with federal requirements and deadlines. I'm acknowledging that the deadline was August 24th, and it was submitted in advance of that, and we're seeking council review required for post-submission compliance. With that, I'll stand for questions.

Thank you, Steve. Questions for staff, beginning with Council Member Hohaisel.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Steve. One of the things we hear about from pretty much every single organization working in this field is the need for case managers. And it looks like we have two of them here, and this is a two-year grant.

Yes, it's a one-year grant, renewable for probably two, but it's unclear in the notice of funding opportunity.

Okay, will this start when the project is done?

We will be able to begin using this with, of course, federal approval prior to the opening of park landing because we'll be able to start navigating services before park landing is actually open. But once we get it open, we'll be able to do that for probably a year and a half what's left on the grant.

Okay. In the year and a half, I assume we're going to be looking for other grants to help.

I'm always looking for grants, as you have probably been able to tell. Yeah.

If not, would that fall on the city or Second Light to fill those positions, or is it possible we let it go?

It's already embedded in the revenue that's coming through the pro forma. So with the way the project is built, those 50 units on the second and third floor are being funded by project-based vouchers from the Housing Authority. and so we will embed the ongoing services to stabilize those individuals in the rent revenue in that pro forma.

Okay, so if there's no additional funding, we still have it to where the case managers will be available.

This gives us the opportunity to work with the Administration for Children and Families as a pilot project to really stand up and do it in really nationally best evidence-based practices. Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you so much. And stemming from Council Member Hoheisel's comments, given that these are grant-filled positions, what is the plan to continue these positions in the budget should you not have grant funding moving forward?

We have baked in already in the pro forma of the project to include case managers in the project that will be, we even have on the floor plan, if you looked at it recently, case manager offices with the plan that we are going to use the revenue from the rent revenue that turns through the pro forma to provide that case management. This would just be an enhanced way of doing that.

And have you factored in that life happens? And maybe sometimes people can't pay that full amount of rent or only a certain percentage of the rent. And I'm assuring that you all have accounted for that. Yes, of course. Perfect. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any further questions for staff? I only had one. I had the opportunity to drive by there last week during the second light board meeting and it looks like construction is moving along really well. Can you just give us some maybe milestones that have happened so far and the big milestone that is yet to come?

At this point, we're meeting weekly over there on the construction meetings. They are putting the roof on. If I'm not forgetting, they're putting the roof on in the next week or so. They're going to have it sealed up, so they're going to start drywalling in the upcoming weeks. The projected actual opening date is July of 2027, and we have no reason to believe that that will alter, although life will happen probably. But that is still the current projection of July of 2027 to open.

Thank you, Steve.

You're welcome.

I see no further questions from my colleagues. We'll open it up for public comment on this item. I see no one from the public who would like to speak on this item. We will close public comment and bring it back to the bench. This is in Councilmember Maggie Ballard's District 6.

Thank you, Mayor. Steve, thank you so much for always being on the lookout for grants. I know the downside or other part of grants is that we do need to be cognizant of how we're going to move forward once the grant runs out. So I really appreciate you already thinking about that. And the other thing that I wanted to point out is just the supportive services. We know how incredibly important the wraparound supportive services are to make all of this make sense and you know sometimes hold somebody's hand to walk through this whole process um at whatever stage they might be coming into it so really appreciate all of that if my colleagues don't have any other comments i would like to take the recommended action approve submission and acceptance of the affordable housing and supportive services demonstration grant for park landing, authorize the necessary signatures, and acknowledge that application was prepared in accordance with federal requirements and deadlines.

Second.

Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item. HPC 2026-262, appeal of the planning director's written determination regarding the Crown Uptown Theater.

Good morning, Scott Waddle from the Planning Department. As you heard, this item is about whether or not to grant an appeal by the applicant who is the owner of the Crown Uptown Theater concerning the Planning Director's decision to uphold the interim control on the Crown Theater property. Just a quick note about the presentation. I'm gonna try and be brief, but I will have lots of slides if there's any questions. So, in terms of the recommended action, it's to take action as determined necessary by the city council. In terms of questions, again, this item's being presented today because of an appeal filed by the applicant. As mentioned before, the appeal is a way to do away with the preservation staff's 30-day interim control, which was extended by the City Council to the date of January 23rd, 2027. If the appeal is granted, then no interim control would be in place and the demolition permit could be issued. Additional background information, the process for consideration of interim controls is established in the municipal code. You can see the section here. The city council again previously extended the interim control to January 23rd. Following the city council action, the applicant requested and I as the planning director held an informal hearing with the applicant. I ultimately decided to uphold the interim control in place on the property and the applicant is appealing that decision. So in terms of actions, there are a number of actions that are listed in the staff report, actually just a couple of them, and they are, one, you can uphold the planning director's decision and keep the interim control in place, or the second one is you can override the planning director's decision and remove the interim control. Now with that, I'm gonna go ahead and stop and I'll take questions, but do know that I've got all of the presentation materials that we had at the last time, but because this item's been covered a couple times, we wanted to try and keep it brief.

Thank you for the presentation, Scott. Questions for staff? I see none. This does not get public comment? Or it does?

I mean, it is a new business item. Okay, so it does get public comment. Technically, it's a hearing, so it's just, I think in deference to the First Amendment, we'll allow public comment.

Thank you. Thank you for the staff presentation. We will now open it up for public comment on this item.

Joy Robertson, District 1. I think it was very gracious of the planning people to make zero recommendation and allow you to determine what you want to do. You choose your staff. based on their competence. And I would recommend that you follow his suggestion, which was stay the execution for 180 days. And if you value his opinion and his level of education and commitment to researching these FACTS, I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU STICK WITH WHAT HE'S ALREADY SUGGESTED YOU DO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, JOY. AND JUST FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, ALL THE CITY STAFF ARE ACTUALLY, THE CITY MANAGER STAFF, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NO STAFF. ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL AND THAT IS THE CITY MANAGER. WE'LL CONTINUE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT.

DISTINGUISHED MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY STAFF, MY NAME IS DAVID BAYOUTH, 719 NORTH BRICKFIELD, DISTRICT 1, AND I REPRESENT THE SAVE THE CROWN Uptown CAMPAIGN. A few weeks ago, Mayor Wu asked me an important question. What will change moving forward? Today I have an answer. We started by studying the Crown's provenance, her history from opening in 1928 to today. We're studying her owners and operators, her changing uses, what worked, what didn't, and why. We're also reaching out to people with experience in preservation, theater operation, governance, and fundraising. Before deciding where the Crown should go, we're learning where she's been. For 98 years, reinvention has been part of the Crown's history. Movie Palace, Live Entertainment and Radio, Cinerama, then the extraordinary Second Life Ted and Karen Morris gave her as the Crown Uptown Dinner Theater. Again and again, the Crown adapted to survive. And that provenance is helping point us toward the next chapter. We are increasingly convinced that the Crown's next chapter should be permanent nonprofit ownership That changes the entire structure behind The Crown. A non-profit doesn't have investors seeking a return. Success can be reinvested back into The Crown. It opens doors to charitable giving, grants, memberships, sponsorships, and other private support. and as a strong board can bring together expertise in business, fundraising, preservation, entertainment, and community leadership. We've heard many times that's already been tried. Many of the uses have. Permanent nonprofit ownership hasn't. This is the Crown's next reinvention. Stewardship is a relay race. Nobody owns a 98-year-old landmark forever. Each generation carries it for a while and then passes the baton. Mike Brown is carrying the baton today. Mike, I'm asking you to help us make the next handoff. Consider becoming the Crown's interim steward. work with us while we build the nonprofit organization and raise the capital to make that possible. That invitation is open to anyone willing and able to help carry her forward. We're not asking the city to buy or operate the Crown, and we're not building a future dependent on taxpayers. Finding another owner may solve today's problems, But by itself, it doesn't create a structure for long-term success. Studying her provenance has also changed how I think of her. I've started calling her the crown lady. The crown lady deserves more than a quick fix. She deserves a carefully built future. For inspiration, Wichita already has a remarkable example of effective nonprofit stewardship. We call her sister down the street Lady O. We're not trying to create another Orpheum. The Crown Lady is a different lady. But we can take inspiration from Lady O while building a structure designed specifically for the crown. The crown's provenance isn't simply telling us what happened. It's helping us determine what should happen next. For 98 years, generation after generation has carried the crown forward. We have the opportunity to help carry her forward again. respect her history, respect everyone who carried her this far, and above all, respect the Crown Lady enough to give her the future she deserves. Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Thank you.

We'll continue with public comment.

Hello, mayor and council members. My name is Mary East and I'm with district one. Um, David just talked about the progress we're making. I want to talk about why it matters. I want you to imagine something with me. Imagine driving down Douglas on a cold December night. The crowns marquee is glowing again. Cars are pulling in. Families are walking through those doors. Kids are dressed up. Grandparents are bringing their grandchildren. And inside, Christmas has returned to the Crown. For years, Christmas performances at the Crown were a Wichita tradition. I want that back. I want Wichita families saying again, we're going to the crown for Christmas. And that's only one night in the future I can imagine. I can see a bride standing under the marquee on her wedding day. I can see children walking onto the stage for the first time and maybe discovering something about themselves they never knew was there. This is a picture back in, I think it was like 2002, when my children were in elementary school, and they had a field trip there as a memory that will always be there. I see concerts, community celebrations, local theater, dances, markets, fundraisers. I can see people who haven't been inside the Crown for 30 years walking through those doors and saying, I remember this place. And beside them, I can see someone walking in there for the very first time. And that's the crown I want us to save. Not an empty building. Not simply bricks and mortar. A living place. A place where Wichita keeps making memories. We don't know yet exactly what every part of that future will look like. And that's okay because we're making progress. People are talking. People are researching. People are bringing ideas. People are asking how they can help. Something is happening. We're not just fighting to keep the crown from disappearing anymore. We're starting to dream about what happens when the lights come back on. And I hope all of you will dream with us because someday, hopefully not very far from now, I want to drive down Douglas on that cold December night. I want to see the marquee glowing. I want to see those doors open. And I want to know that somewhere inside, a child is watching Christmas at the Crown for the very first time. This future is worth fighting for. And I thank you.

Thank you, Mary. We'll continue with public comment.

My name is Kathy Fati, and I live near Central Woodland. I talked to you before about my memories of the Crown and the value I feel like it has to our community, particularly the core area, but I wanted to remind you of the August 15th letter that Stan Longhofer sent the City Commission about the Crown and about the fact that He is a professor at WSU in the Barton School of Business, and he talked quite a bit in his letter about the idea of how important property rights are to him, but that the current owner is acting recklessly, and that the main thing that I thought was important about what he pointed out was what the loss of the crown or demolition of the crown would do to the neighborhood, to the area. We talked about amenities that are important to the quality of life in Wichita, and it seems to me that if this building is, according to Stan Longhofer, if the building were to be razed, it would be very difficult for that area to be able to sell. He mentions the figure of $52 per square foot. If it's vacant, it would be an eyesore and it would it would decrease and draw down the property values of the surrounding area. I know we're committed to doing things way out east, but I am committed, and I think that's good, but I'm also committed to seeing that our core area continues to be viable. I know we have put money into Downtown Development District, the Douglas Development District, we have City Arts, where I work, is in the downtown area, in the core area, and I think we want to maintain what we've built or rebuilt from downtown. I'd like to see more emphasis on the core area. I'd like to see a more-contailed and more thoughtful approach to the suburban sprawl that makes it so Rock Road is as densely and dangerously congested as it is. Anyway, so I think that when I look at the letter that Stan Longhofer sent, he makes very good points about making sure we don't allow the demolition to occur and to damage the property values and the livability of our city. And so that's essentially what I wanted to say to you guys. I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kathy. We'll continue with public comment.

Sorry I'm walking a little slow these days. I guess it's good afternoon. Madam Mayor, esteemed council, and members of the public, I really didn't envision myself standing in front of you again so soon. But here I am. I won't belabor the point my esteemed colleague has already made. I've done my research. I also believe that a bright and viable future awaits the Crown Uptown with the right management team and a curated business plan that plays to the theater's strengths, not its purported weaknesses. Last Friday night, I had the great privilege of attending the grand reopening of the Orpheum. As I listened to the remarks made by Mr. Matthew Broderick, President of the Wichita Area Arts Council, I found myself in profound agreement, not only with his advocacy of the Orpheum, but for the arts in Wichita in general. Among the things he wanted for our community, this idea stood out. He wanted Wichita to be a community that recognizes that historical institutions like the Orpheum aren't just buildings. They are part of our civic identity. Today, I stand before you with a much clearer idea of who and what the Crown of Town is and what its niche should be in the artistic landscape of Wichita. This Bowler Brothers Atmospheric Theater with one of the few remaining starlight ceilings in this country can serve a demographic and cultural milieu not currently supported by an appropriate facility. I wish I could share with you the dozens of stories that have been shared with me since I spoke with you last. Members of the community have reached out to me with their memories of important events that happened at the Crown. In these stories, a basic human truth is revealed. The theater is not just a brick and mortar edifice. The crown uptown is also a part of that civic identity. Currently almost 2,800 people have signed in support of saving the crown, and every day that number continues to rise. For me, the bottom line is this. We were given 180 days to come up with a plan to make the Crown viable. I believe we are well on our way to doing just that. Together with our allies in the historical theater community, I am asking you to uphold your decision to give us the time to reach an outcome that is beneficial to all potential stakeholders. And I include the current owner in those stakeholders. In closing, I am reminded that today is a very special day. On September 8th, 1966, the iconic science fiction show Star Trek was launched. In the opening credits of that original series, we are told that it is the mission of the Dauntless Captain and his intrepid crew to boldly go where no one has gone before. Ladies and gentlemen, our enterprise may not have warped into cells, but it does have a similar mission, to seek out new life and new purpose for itself. To achieve that purpose, we need the time to find the right team to put at her helm. Please grant us that time. Thank you for your time and attention. Christine Ledden, District 3.

Thank you, Christine. We'll continue with public comment.

My name is Alan Ledden. I live at 5401 Stoneboro here in Wichita. Thank you for listening so politely to my wife. She is much more brilliant than I am. Something that I haven't heard stated that I would like to put on the record is that great cities are more than brick and mortar and stone and glass and steel. They all have a spirit. And that spirit, just like it is with each of us, resides in our memories. Who would you be without your memories? And what we are doing in this city is destroying our spirit. We've already lost the Crest, we've lost the Boulevard, we've lost the Miller, and so many others. These are the places that my father and grandfathers and those who went before me made their lives. How many young men were enjoined to join the service and fight fascism in World War II, sitting in the Miller and the Orpheum, and yes, the Uptown Theater. These memories and this spirit is important to who we are and what our city represents. I'm asking you to give these brave people with their ideas and their knowledge and their business sense the opportunity to prevent the collapse and loss of another part of the spirit of our city. Please uphold the 180 days that we were offered so that we can make this attempt so that we can prove that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. Thank you.

Thank you, Alan. We'll continue with public comment. If there's no one in the public who would like to speak, we will close public comment. We will bring it back to the bench. Thank you to the... City Attorney Logano.

Thank you. Mayor Wu, as you bring it back to the bench and the hearing, the appeal hearing begins, I just want to clarify that the question before you today is only whether to uphold or override the planner's written decision on the 30-day interim. There's been a lot of discussion. But that is only the question before you as you approach this hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, City Attorney. This resides in Councilmember Shepherd's district. I just want to say thank you to the six speakers that came to talk to the council today. Councilmember Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll make this quick. I move that the City Council make hold of Planning Director's written decision regarding the appeal and thereby maintain the interim control placed on the Crown of Town here. Second.

Motion second. Discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please open the roll.

Excuse me, Mayor, do I not get an opportunity to speak at this appeal? Is this not a hearing?

You had an opportunity during- No, Mayor, I think there was this confusion. I think that was public comment. The appeal should include a presentation by the applicant if he wishes to have one. Mr. Brown.

Sure, you may come and speak. We should withdraw this motion. I move to withdraw this motion. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion is dismissed at this time.

Good afternoon, guys. I think you all know who I am. Jennifer, you're the city attorney. I'm going to keep this whole thing pretty simple. I have a letter from you. Do you have a copy of it? You all have a copy of it. Would you like to read it, or would you like me to? A letter from you.

Go ahead.

Yeah, sure. This is dated July 23, 2025, to my attorney, Harvey Sorensen. Are you the Crown Uptown Theater?

Dear Harvey, you and your client, Mr. Brown, Mike Brown, the owner of the Crown Uptown Theater, at 3207 East Douglas have inquired about the status of the city council and earned control status for the Crown Uptown Theater.

The property was on the city's undecided list. That's in the past tense. Is it still there? Anybody tell me? Okay. Is there any way to get off that list? Is there any city process, official process that any of the 400 and some property owners in this city that most of them don't know they're on the list and their property has this type of control that you guys can take? Do any of them know it? Is there any way to get off the list? Think about that one. So to continue her letter. Your client's application for demolition permit targeted the metropolitan area planning department's ability to put a 30-day hold on the application. On March 4th of 25, the Wichita City Council extended the hold to six months from the date of the demolition application pursuant to city code 21210241. The extended hold expired on August 4th of 2025. At the city council meeting on July 15th, the city council considered whether to list the property on the register of historic places. A motion to list the property failed to receive a majority of votes. Another motion to defer the interim to the August 5th council meeting was determined to be invalid and no further action was taken by the council. There were no other conditions or review processes related to the 180-day hold under city ordinance or realization and no other further eviction evaluations are on site or ongoing. The vote was final. dispositive and therefore entering the interim control period on this property. Any demolition permit application review and processing may proceed without further hold related to the interim controls. Your client may now have his license-directing contractor apply for a permit through the Metropolitan Area Building and Construction Department. So why are we here? I have a letter from your city attorney says that we won't be subject to any. It was definitive, final, dispositive. So does your dictionary have different definitions to these words? I'm listening. It's your letter, Jennifer. You want to answer? I've sent you emails August 4th, 10th, 11th. No answer. I sent all of you, the mayor, the council, emails starting back in May 4th asking for clarity on how to move forward. I relied on your city attorney's letter to start my due diligence, my development process. I expended funds. I have architectural drawings. I've secured and worked out for financing, that all of this is jeopardy now because you guys want to put another hold on a piece of private property that nothing in your code allows. 180 days is the maximum. So if I'm here, again, is 180 days just like a refillable drink at a quick service restaurant? I can just go back to it every time I want more? So I'm asking you guys, you know, I talked to Waddle at an informal hearing that happened after he took the 30-day hold to the 180-day hold before my hearing. During the hearing, I asked on the record, and it's all for you guys to go look at. You see it. Was there anything wrong with the outside firm's report that you guys used in 2025 to determine that this building is what it is?

Anybody want to answer that?

I mean, I can call witnesses. I can call Wiedel. He can come answer.

Right?

Is that approved, man? You're the attorney. You're the head legal person here.

Mr. Brown, you're speaking to the council, and then the council can ask additional questions.

Okay, well, I'm allowed to call witnesses for this hearing. Scott Whittle.

Yes.

So where do I go to ask him questions? To stay up here?

Manage it however you'd like.

Scott, you may come to the microphone.

Hey, Mr. Whittle. Were there any deficiencies? Can I ask these questions? Were there any deficiencies in anything that happened last year when you guys evaluated this property?

in terms of is the property eligible to be listed, is how I'm interpreting that?

Yeah, anything that happened last year, was there anything wrong with what happened with the architect's report or the proceedings or the hearing? Anything that happened, was it wrong?

I think the best answer to your question is to say that the consultant did the work, did the research. Through that research, it found that the structure, the place is eligible for listing as on the Wichita Register of Historic Places. And so in terms of your question, was there anything at fault or deficient about that report? And not to my knowledge is the answer.

Okay, so the purpose, sure. So the purpose of this whole Code here is the exact text. Immediate but temporary interim controls is provided in subsection C below, prohibiting any alteration demolition may be placed by the preservation planner on any building site or structure that is identified in the preservation plan as an undesignated historic resource and for which a notice of interim control has been mailed until effective evaluation of the building site or structure can be made. Provided that the interim event may be the interim control period exceed 180 days. So we've already got an outside third party report. We already know the status of it. You already went through it and the 180 days expired. So again, why am I still being told that I can't develop private property? You've already extended every hold you have and now you're back to the lick log. From what it sounds like, you guys have added another hole to try to figure out if you can find some other option, some other way to delay, some other rabbit to pull out of your hat, some other overlay. What else do we need to do to move forward with a piece of private property that you've already exhausted your 180 days? I don't even know who wants to answer that question.

I didn't really get a question out of that, but I will address it in that there is 180 days, which provides an opportunity for something to change, for something different to occur. This is the same question that the city council was confronted with at the last meeting when you discussed this one. You've had community members who have shown up who have said that they are working towards a plan. You've also had information provided about ownership, mortgage on the property, other things. So there is an opportunity for things to play out, but 180 days, what it does is it prevents a demolition permit from being issued. That is simply what the 180 days does.

So what is the 180 days used to evaluate? Because the code says it's just to determine the historic status and what it can be. And if there's no ultimate other than demolition, which is what we're moving towards, how can you continue after every time someone comes in to add the 180 days when it says it's definitive? I mean, what is the definition of the word any, city attorney?

Mayor, I can't be a witness unless you need another attorney to advise you. I can't.

Let's get another attorney. Then let's recuse her because it's her letter.

This is his opportunity to present evidence on his own.

Mr. Brown, I think you can ask questions to Scott since he is your witness right now.

Okay, well, I'm done with Scott. I'm going to call a new witness, the city attorney, Jennifer Majania, or however she says her name.

Magana. Magana.

I think she's representing the city. Is that accurate? So you can or not?

You can take into account that the letter he's got before you, he can talk about it. We would need an executive session to discuss other options.

So the city attorney is refusing to answer what the word means any from a letter that she wrote?

I think...

take into account the weight that you would like to give that letter can the letter be provided to all of us again you guys have it in your email multiple times and I have a copy here if you'd like it I also have a request could you clear the board so if we have further questions we could go on to the board

I guess my question is, and I just like to make and move this, that you guys just abandon this hold, or if you want to vote for it, but I'm ready for you to vote. Let's just get it over with. If you have any questions, I'm here.

I actually have just one question for you, Mr. Brown. I sent an email earlier. a few weeks ago because we've had community members say that they would like to purchase the building from you. Could you address that?

If not, it's okay. Sure, I'll address this one more time. There has been zero formal legitimate offers made on this building. Zero. It's just like you watch that show American Pickers where that guy went around to all those folks and they had stuff that wasn't for sale. Eventually, if somebody thinks they can buy it, and if they can prove it, then show up with a number. It's not for sale.

So it is for sale or not for sale?

It's not for sale. But if somebody thinks that they can do something with it and they want to present something, we'll look at it. But as it is right now, the building's not marketed for sale. I'm not interested in selling it. I'm interested in redeveloping the site, which we are legally allowed to do. And one more thing for clarity. uh when the pud was amended the last time when we got all of the fire restrictions and the parking restrictions there were also things that were amended that uh that relate to the building and availability of things that we can build there i want to make sure that once that building is gone that all of those pud changes as far as what we can build there the square footage the zero foot setbacks the only needing 17 parking spaces move forward as well as with the gc commercial code

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you. I just want to make sure we get back to the point of why we are here. So if there are no more questions, I'm ready to move forward. Vice Mayor, it looks like you might.

I just have one question for Scott regarding Mr. Brown's request for PED. That would have to come back, go through the District Advisory Board again, to then come to the City Council if there would be any changes to the PED, correct?

Yeah, that would be a zoning action.

So it would still go through council or go through council or MAPCD or MAPC. It would go through DAB and come back to council if there were to be any requested changes to.

Yes, sir. That's the typical process. Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you. So just to be clear, the PUD as it stands, I'm not looking to amend it. I'm fine with my construction rights and capabilities underneath what was changed the last time we did that.

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to clarify because there have been community members who, again, we've heard from today and weeks prior. I know the Mayor clarified this for you as well. So there hasn't been any legitimate offers made on the crown?

Zero.

Okay. And you are not interested in selling it privately?

It's not for sale.

Thank you. So community members should not make overtures because you're not interested.

Look, I'm not going to tell anyone in this country that they couldn't put down a formal purchase sale agreement with any number they choose and send it over. We'll look at it if it outweighs what our lost development rights are for what we can do on that site. But I doubt it. Everybody has opinions on what can be developed. I've developed in... probably almost every state in this country close to a million square feet of hotels, entertainment venues, fitness centers. I've secured probably eight to 12 million dollars in federal historic tax credits and state tradics on historic buildings. Currently working on a TIF that was just funded. Mr. Glasscock, you were in Oklahoma City with my friend David Holt. We just got a three million dollar TIF down there to save a historic building. None of the fights we had in Wichita for three years. So maybe you learned something while you were down there. I hope so. It's a great city. Wichita is a great city. It's just got some questionable things the way you guys lead. So I've got places to be. I'd like this to move along. I hope you vote. Vote with whatever you want to do.

Were you speaking about the gold down? Yes. The one that just went up at the sheriff's.

Yeah, it went up for sheriff's sale. That has nothing to do with this. My other developments. I didn't own it. We're in the process of buying it. Excuse me?

You also didn't get your TIF.

I do have the TIF.

Okay. I'm reading something different then.

Well, you don't know what you're talking about. You should pay attention to Wichita.

Okay. So I need. Okay. I'm ready to move forward.

Mr. Brown, just one last question so that everyone in the community that has been, quote, wanting to buy from you, if they want to provide a formal offer, how shall they contact you?

It's not for sale, Mayor.

I'm sorry, what'd you say, Mr. Sanford? I was repeating what you said, sir. It's not for sale. Thanks for clarifying. You're welcome. Yeah, your input's great. So what we need to do is if anybody thinks they can buy it, put it on a contract, have proof of funds, and they need to do it in about 45 days.

Contact you via?

Info at kismetconcerts.com.

Thank you very much for putting that on the record. So if anyone is interested in providing a formal offer, that was the email address to contact you. Thank you very much.

Do you guys have any other questions?

Council member, Vice Mayor Glasscock.

I withdraw my request.

Attorney Magana.

This is a hearing. You're entitled to take all evidence. If you wish to entertain staff's evidence, you can do that as well if you're done with questions for the applicant.

Council members, are you guys done with questions? I see no further questions from the council. We will turn it to staff.

So Scott Waddell again. Hey, I just wanted to address the issue that came up. Mr. Brown described this letter that he received from the city attorney back in July 23rd of 2025. I've shared the same information with Mr. Brown before via email, but in the letter it does say, the last paragraph here, any demolition permit application review and processing may proceed without further hold related to dot interim controls or if you go to the paragraph before what you're gonna find is that at it mentions at the july fifteenth city council meeting that the city council uh... did not list the property and therefore the one hundred and eighty d hold under city ordinance resolution is no longer So the contention that this provided him carte blanche ability to demolish the structure at any time simply is not true. This letter in itself is referring to the action that the city council was considering back in 2025. Staff have gone through this with Mr. Brown multiple times that he has a new demolition application because it went beyond the 180 days for which an application is still valid. that application expired, so this is a new application, hence the new interim control period that was entered into.

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you, I think the proper thing is to make a motion, then we'll have discussion, right Mayor? I appreciate the conversation, spirited conversation we had today. With that, I move that the City Council may uphold the Plain Director's written decision regarding the appeal, thereby maintain the interim control placed on the Crown of Town Theater. motion second discussion see none council membership thank you mayor i just think it's really important to recognize that i believe that this council in this city wants to be business friendly and work with our business because we understand how important of a role it plays in economic development i've had the opportunity to watch this conversation play out before my time on the council my predecessor many of the colleagues here on this bench got to a point where they actually approved with some provisions and amendments. So I do wanna make it clear that this could have moved forward with several of the amendments that were added to ensure the safety and the security of the individuals who would have been existing in that space. I will not compromise the safety and security of our residents. And I think it's critical that we don't either. The second thing is we just had robust conversation today alone about how critical it is to do business with people who have good faith efforts to do right by the city. I'm not sure that I've seen that, and I just feel very uncomfortable. And because I mentioned the Gold Dome and because I think we should learn from our partners, I think it's great that Vice Mayor Glasscock went and spoke with Oklahoma City's mayor because we have something to learn from others and others have things to learn from them. But since I mentioned it, I want to give context. This article says on Monday, OKC City Council approved a $3 million incentive loan that would have gone to a Tulsa developer who was eyeing it for a music venue and david hold said this has basically been the only person who stepped forward with any kind of credible proposal but hours after that meeting an oklahoma county sheriff's office auction took that deal off the table the sheriff's office confirmed to koco that hours after the city council meeting a man named caleb hill with another relative company bought the gold dome for 1.1 million making that 3 million tiff not void and with that i'm done

Thank you. It's actually closed. Sorry. Oh, is it? Yes, because there's now a motion and a second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion from council? I see none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Vioci Incorporated Information Technology Agreement Supplemental Agreement Number 5.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Jesse Romo, Director of Airports. Here to talk a little bit about Vioci. What is Vioci? I'm glad you asked. It's a cloud-based software platform used to manage and store airport records associated with training inspections in the airport safety management system. SMS is our newest federal program that we're obligated to do. The airport entered into the original software as a service SAS agreement with VOG in 2016. Since that original agreement was executed, the airport has entered into four supplemental agreements with VOG. The supplements have extended the agreement and expanded the services provided as the airport's needs have evolved. The current five-year agreement expires September 11th with pricing established under the existing user-based structure. Extending the agreement will ensure uninterrupted access to a system that is critical to safe, efficient, and compliant airport operations. Key capabilities of the system include emergency notifications, records management, work order management, and tracking. The system has performed well, has proven reliable, and continues to meet the airport's operational and regulatory requirements. The cost to extend the agreement is $257,000 over three years, so a little over $80,000 per budget year. Funding for the software is included in the airport's approved operating budget. We recommend that the Wichita Airport Authority approve the supplemental agreement, authorize the necessary signatures. I'm happy to stand for any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Jesse. Questions for staff? I see none. Thank you very much. We will now open it up for public comment regarding this item. I see no one from the public here to speak about this. We'll bring it back to the bench since this is closest to Vice Mayor Glasscock. Vice Mayor Glasscock, District 4.

Mayor, I would move that we approve the supplemental agreement and authorize the necessary signatures.

Second. Motion. Second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. Madam Clerk, please call the next item. Council Member appointments and comments. Council Members, any appointments? Council Member Tuttle.

Thank you. I'd like to appoint Kelly Estrada to the District 2 Advisory Board.

Fantastic. We will also just send all of you an email for my appointments. I would like to appoint Maria Adriana Curry to the library board, and I would like to appoint Joseph Shepard, council member for District 1, to the Northwest Bypass Steering Committee. With that, I move to approve the appointments.

Second.

Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Are there any comments?

Council Member, comments? I see none. With that, I move to Council Member Tuttle.

Thank you. I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind our community that on Friday it will be the 25th anniversary of September 11th. There are some in this room who are not even probably 25 to be able to remember that day, but I remember exactly where I was and exactly what I was doing at that moment. And I remember how it changed our country for the good in some ways and for the bad in some. But overall, as a nation, we came together. And for nothing else, we should remember the lives that were lost, the firefighters and the first responders who continue to lose their lives even to this day because of their heroic efforts to try and save people they didn't know. So I hope on Friday everybody will take an opportunity to pause and just remember it's September 11th. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Shepherd. I, too, remember that day. So thank you so very much. I was in, sorry, Council Member Tuttle, my bad. And I just wanted to say that I'm very appreciative of Beyond the Call, who hosted a 9-11 challenge this past weekend. And for anyone that would like to also support our firefighters, On Sunday, they will be climbing the Epic Center, which they do every year in memory of those lives lost during 9-11. So again, that is in District Number 6. So thank you again, Council Member Tuttle. With that, I see no further comments. I move to adjourn this meeting at 1249 p.m. Second. Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. We're adjourned.