City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to call to order the September 1st, 2026 Hutchinson City Council meeting. Mary, if you'll roll.

Rick Truen.

Here.

Garza.

Here.

Goss. Here. Fast.

Here.

Makers.

Here.

Pledge of Allegiance.

And tonight we have Pastor Kim Berry from Trinity United Methodist Church to offer us a prayer.

I invite you to pray with me. Faithful God, we gather today in the spirit of community and service. mindful of the diverse voices present in this room. As we engage in discussions, we ask for your guidance and wisdom. Help us to listen with open hearts and minds to seek understanding. As we work on important issues, may we remember our shared commitment to the welfare of our city and its residents. Let us strive for unity in purpose, clarity in communication, and a spirit of cooperation. Amen.

Thank you. Next item is the approval of the proposed agenda. Do we have anything in the agenda that council members would like to request amendments to?

I have some amendments to request. The first is that I request that the August 18th meeting accurately reflect that Mr. Fast spoke in defense of the Cosmosphere spending. Accuracy is important. This does not require a second. However, if there is a dispute, unapproved minutes do require a motion or a second. And if there is a dispute, I'm happy to play the link of the footage where he spoke in defense of the spending.

I would like to remove... Item 9B, after request from the Art Council, remove 9B public art ordinance discussion from tonight's agenda. They've asked that it be removed and put on the September 15th agenda.

Is it the 15th or the 14th?

I don't have a calendar in front of me.

There's a calendar right there.

September 15th. September 15th.

15th? Okay. I was planning to make the same motion, so I do provide a second. Truin?

Yes. Garza? Yes.

Goss? Yes. Fast? Yes. Makers?

Yes.

I have additional items to move. I want to take a moment before we approve the agenda for tonight and talk about the order of the agenda. Five of the new business items on tonight's agenda were moved by me and seconded by my colleagues at our August 18th meeting. each with unanimous support to come back before us within 60 days. E-bike regulations was seconded by Councilmember Truen. Public comment policy seconded by Councilmember Fast. Flock camera oversight seconded by Mayor Meggers. Plastic bag ban seconded by Mayor Meggers. Brick streets update seconded by Councilmember Fast. I believe each and every one of you seconded these items in good faith because you believed, like I did, that these are the issues that our residents deserve to have heard in real conversation, not in a rushed one, giving you the benefit of the doubt on that tonight. But good intentions only matter if we follow through on them, and tonight the new business are scheduled after our budget hearing alongside several other new business items. Now that the Public Art Design Council item has been removed, I will remove it from my consideration. However, that means that one of two things happen. Either we rush the budget hearing, which deserves real scrutiny to get these items heard, or we get to them so late that the residents who came to speak to them, of which I see plenty, or who are watching from home, are gone by the time we do. Either way, the community loses the conversation that we all voted to give them. So I'm asking my colleagues tonight to move these items to a future meeting, to our September 15th meeting. Sorry, I had the wrong date in my notes. September 15th meeting, where they can be heard on their own with the time and attention that residents were promised when we voted for them. Council Member Truen, Council Member Fast, and Mayor Meggers, you each stood behind at least one of these items, and I'm asking you to stand behind them again tonight, not just as a motion on a page, but as a real conversation with the people who asked for it. This is a chance to show our community when we say that we're listening, that we mean it. I don't think it's fair for us to, quote, tack these on at the end of a lengthy budget discussion. They deserve real study by the council. I motion to move items 9B through 9G to the September 15th meeting. That's the end of my statement.

No, I would actually agree with that because I do feel like these business items need to have some more conversation about them as well, so I would second that.

Thank you. Truen?

Yes.

Garza?

Yes.

Goss? Yes. Fast? No. Magers?

Yes.

I'm sorry for those that came.

Any other items? Then I just need a motion.

Oh, wait, hold on. So the minutes of the meeting that we just held were added this afternoon as an amendment to the agenda, correct? Correct. I had already printed my agenda prior to that. So give me one second to find my notes, if you don't mind. Hold on. I'm going to pull up the email that we were sent with the amendment. So the amended item was 6B. Is that correct?

9B. Oh.

No, it would have been 6B.

6B. The approval of the minutes from the August 27th City Council Special Meeting. Is that what you're referring to?

It is. Thank you. I was at, no, never mind. I'll bring it up at a later date.

So if nothing further, I just need a motion on the proposed agenda.

On the amended agenda.

The amended agenda, I'm sorry.

So moved. I move to approve the amended agenda.

I'll second.

Truen?

Yes.

Garza? Yes.

Yes.

Goss? Yes. Fast?

No.

Makers?

Yes. Next item.

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

This is a chance for the audience to come to bring their public comments. Any person wishing to address the city council shall first be recognized by the mayor. To come to the microphone, state the person's name, address, and subject to be discussed. And if appearing in a representative capacity whom the person represents, remarks shall be limited to five minutes. Comments during this portion of the meeting shall relate to matters not on the agenda and within the business and jurisdiction of the City Council. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to other speakers, members of the audience, or City staff. Rebuttal statements, back and forth exchanges, and debate are not permitted during general public comment. The portion of the meeting is for the City Council to receive public comment. The Council will generally not engage in discussion or debate with speakers. To avoid repetitious presentations, the mayor may require a spokesperson for a group. Audience members may address items on the agenda when those items are taken up by city council, and comments relating to those items shall comply with city code. So at this point, if someone would like to come to the podium, name and address, and

My name is Scott Brown. I live at 211 West 9th Avenue. My understanding is that I can't address the council, but I do have a question for the council. Do we have a star bond? Does the city of Hutchinson have a star bond? Where is it?

Sir, it's not a question and answer session. It's just for making comment.

Because I can go to the state of Kansas website, and I can look at their star bonds. I can look at applications for star bonds. You can look to see what's been approved. I don't see one. And that's a real curiosity to me. I have a kind of understanding that Sometimes these grants are not really there. I've seen this with the development of the Fourth Avenue kayak launch. It was sold to the city council by the administration as having a matching grant. called a CFAP grant, which is a community fisheries assistance program. You can go look at that on the state of Kansas website, outdoors.gov, outdoorkansas.gov. And there is no CFAP grant for that Fourth Avenue launch site. It was sold to the council because it had monies associated with it. And I think as we move forward, it's hugely important that we do not get into a habit of approving projects that are expecting to have grants, and those grants don't come in. It's happened to us before. I've been to the council to speak with the council about how we behave with regards to applications for grants, whether people follow through with the things that they say they're going to do when they apply for grants. The council signs off on those grants oftentimes, state grants, things like that. You guys have to pay attention to what happens to these projects after that grant's been issued. I can't imagine that these organizations that do give grants don't look at past behaviors. And from what I've seen in Hutch, it's kind of alarming. The star bond is a real question for me. I've seen so many newspaper articles over the last two years that treat this like, this thing's a done deal. We got this money, and it's coming in. But every time I go to the State of Kansas website and go look at their star bonds, I don't see Hutchinson there at all. What I see is the underground salt mine, which was touted as a very successful project. In fact, it's one of the few that the star bonds actually can tout as being a success. But that's the only one. And I don't see anything for the city of Hutchinson. And oftentimes when these projects are spoken of publicly, it's treated like it's a done deal. And I think that's really deceptive. It's deceptive for the public. And if the administration is doing that to the council, it's deceptive for you guys. Because you're making decisions as these folks come up with their projects based on things they're telling you. You've got grants and this grant's coming and that grant's coming. If they're not coming, something's wrong. It's alarming to me. I think my statement to you guys, I've spoken to several of you in the past, your jobs up here is oversight. That's it. You need to perform some oversight. I appreciate a couple of council members that seem to be doing that very actively. But I don't often get that same sensation from the rest of you folks. But it's hugely important that we treat these grants with kind of respect, understand that it's other people's money. And when we receive that money, that the things that we're telling them that we're going to do with that money is what we do with it. I've seen numerous projects over the years that were promising things that aren't delivered. There's a list going back over the last 15 years that are kind of surprising to me. But I think, you know, as you guys move forward in this budget process, don't forget your job. Your job is oversight. Perform some oversight. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Mayor Riggs, I have a question. Can you point out the statement that you read at the top of the item 5 petitions, remonstrances, and oral communications from the audience? It says it's pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City Code, but In reviewing Chapter 2 of the City Code, I'm not sure where it says that we're not allowed to speak to the people who are coming before us for public comment.

So it's basically in that portion of the meeting when a city councilor receives public comment. The council will generally not engage in discussion or debate with speakers.

What page of what section of Chapter 2 is that on?

I don't have that in front of me. Cody, do you? I mean, at the very least, Chapter 2 states that you all set the procedure for, and that's been the procedure, and that's the procedure I have recommended in the past as legal advice, because that's when cities get into trouble, because if you don't treat everyone the same with the same back-and-forth conversation, we've had this discussion before we have. And so that's why that's set forth on there, just to make sure we stay out of any legal issues with respect to constitutional issues. So I would strongly recommend you keep that process.

I know you put some time into researching all that and putting this together, so I just wanted to make sure.

But it does say in Chapter 2, let me see, this is Section 2-209. That's page 2-10. It says, no question may be asked of a governing body member or a member of the city staff without the permission of the mayor. So it seems like you have the control to say that Yes, a person speaking during the public comment section can ask a question of staff or of the city council.

Yes, I think that is, but I think we've kind of deemed it, just like Cody had said, that we're trying to keep everything consistent. So that's why we're not opening up for basically discussion or debate with speakers.

Okay.

Basically, it was based off the advice of council.

Well, I believe that the advice of council differs from Chapter 2, which is the administration document that we as a council are following and have elected to follow since, I don't know, 1980-something, before I was alive. And a... city attorney who's been with the city for a period of weeks may have a different interpretation, but I believe following Chapter 2 to fidelity is incredibly important.

Chapter 2 does not require any public comment section at all. Neither does state law or Kansas Open Meetings Act. So what that's referring to with respect to the questions is just throughout the meeting in general. So yes, the mayor can. And I actually had quite a bit of information for all of you tonight in the presentation that was kicked to next week or next meeting. That's great.

And I've read Chapter 2 of the City Code, which is our administrative document, and it doesn't say that unelected personnel have the right to interrupt or interject themselves into the debate of council. So with that being said, I think we should move on.

As the chair, may I just finish briefly? Yes. Okay, thank you. So, yeah, I would, again, just recommend that we follow the procedure that has been followed, that we not get ourselves into any potential legal issues with engaging back and forth during the open comment section because there's been several cities that have gotten into legal trouble by doing so. So that's the legal advice from the city. I guess from the city attorney, you don't have to take it, but that's where I stand.

You didn't want to recess into executive session to provide legal advice in this case?

It wasn't legal advice. That was necessarily to keep confidential. It wasn't necessary to keep confidential. That's the difference, Council Member Goss. Thank you.

So I think that we still need to move forward based off of the information that Cody has provided us in this information. So if you would like to go ahead and come forward to the podium.

Charles Johnson, I live at 1022 East Sherman in Hutchinson. Mayor Meagher's council member and distinguished city staff, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you in public comment. I am here as a resident who cares deeply about Hutchinson, our public institutions, and the people who step forward to serve. I want to preface my comments by saying this statement is not intended to attack one person or defend another. It is about naming patterns many residents are seeing. Public conversations involving local organizations, community leaders, and city government have become increasingly less professional, harsh, personal, and damaging. I do understand that my words can be twisted in today's political climate, but also silence carries a risk. I love Hutchinson and I want our community to succeed. People outside of Hutchinson are noticing too, including businesses we all agree are critical to our future. They see city council meetings stretch for hours with a public square shaped by anger, accusation, and mistrust. More specifically, they see women in leadership or organizations with women on their leadership teams face scrutiny that moves beyond fair oversight into public hostility. I worry that future decisions to invest in our community may be affected by how we look and how we conduct ourselves. The question is not whether a disagreement should exist. Of course it should. The question is what kind of community we create when disagreement becomes personal destruction. Disagreement is a part of public life. Accountability and transparency matter. But transparency must never become a cover for intimidation, humiliation, harassment, or selective outrage. When a concerned resident or a woman in public office is interrupted, publicly diminished, accused without evidence, held to a different standard, and then labeled antagonistic for refusing to be pushed aside, that is not healthy governance. It is a warning sign. That warning becomes more serious when hostility moves beyond policy and into personal safety. When families are pulled into political conflict, children's images are shared, workplaces are contacted, and online accusations escalate into claims of criminal contact. That is not ordinary criticism. That is a civic environment that puts people at risk. If conflicts of interest are raised, they should be handled evenly, calmly, and according to clear standards. They should not appear to be applied forcefully to one council member while similar relationships, funding interests, or nonprofit connections involving others are treated differently. The public can accept disagreement. What it cannot accept is that the appearance of rules being used as tools against particular people. Hutchinson operates under a council manager form of government. The council sets policy and the city manager administers city business. That structure depends on clear roles, responsible oversight, and public trust. Questions should be fair, not defamatory. Oversight should be serious, not performative. Communication with other public bodies should be professional, not dismissive or accusatory without cause. Hutchinson is strengthened by people who volunteer, serve, lead nonprofits, sit on boards, raise money, and do the unglamorous work that makes a community function. When public pressure turns into personal destruction, good people stop stepping forward. That should be a concern for every single one of us. So I ask this council and city leadership to step back and look honestly at the environment being created Are women in leadership given the same respect, room to speak, and presumption of good faith as men? Is criticism applied evenly? Are public statements lowering the temperature or raising it? Is transparency also protecting due process, dignity, and community trust? Let me be clear. Sexism, racism, misogyny, and denigration of others are not welcome in the Hutchinson I want to live in. Harassment is not leadership. Doxing is not accountability. Double standards are not transparency. Public service should not require anyone, especially residents or women in public leadership, to accept attacks on their family, safety, or livelihood as price of participation. I'm not asking everyone to agree on every issue. I'm asking for something more basic. Conduct public business in a way that is fair, consistent, safe, and respectful. Correct misinformation. Stop feeding personal hostility. Hold one another accountable for dismissive, racist, or gendered treatment. Model behavior we expect from every board, commission, nonprofit, and citizen group in Hutchinson. Hutchinson deserves vigorous debate, but also deserves decency. It deserves transparency, not cruelty. It deserves accountability, but not selective enforcement. For those of us who come from a faith tradition, scripture calls us to do justice, love mercy, walk humbly, and treat our neighbors as we would want to be treated. Those values remind us that public service should be guided by fairness, humility, compassion, and respect for every person's dignity. My hope is that tonight becomes a turning point away from personal hostility and toward better conduct, safer public dialogue, and a clear message that racism, misogyny, and harassment have no place in Hutchinson. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, God.

Scott, can I speak?

Yes, sir. Come up to the podium.

First of all, I'm speaking as a private citizen tonight, and my full name is Carlton Henry Duvall. I live in Hutchinson, Kansas, and I am a taxpayer. And one of my concerns is that we only have a five-minute time limit. where there was a person here a month, month and a half ago who babbled on for God only knows how long, who doesn't even pay his taxes, yet taxpayers are limited to five minutes. That's all I've got to say about that. This is a copy of the Constitution. I hope everyone has one. Mr. Truin, Mr. Fast, Mr. Meggers, Ms. Goss, Steve, and so forth and so on. This is a very important document. It's the Declaration and the Constitution. So that gives me First Amendment rights. A history lesson. On this day in 1775, Many people in Congress still hoped for a peaceful solution. War escalated in Canada at Fort St. John in Montreal. In the South, patriots clashed with British forces. Britain hires mercenaries. On this date in 1775 also, the Grand American Liberty Tree was cut down in Boston. Enough said about that. I do have some things, but it's mostly about taxes, so would that fall under the budget if I could ask a simple question?

Probably, yeah, what would be your question?

What?

What would be your question?

Oh, I just have some things I want to spiel out.

I would probably say during the budget conversation.

Okay, I just don't want to overstep my bounds because I am a concerned citizen, and I'm also a revolutionist because the revolution can never end. We fought for... TAXES, NO REPRESENTATION, NO TAXES WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. AND I FEEL RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS CITY.

THANK YOU.

OH, ONE MORE ITEM REAL QUICK. I GOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE TWO PEOPLE THAT LUCAS HELPED ME Darren with his last name. Lucas Dunbar, a police officer. I had a tree fall down. He was out there in the middle of the night. He got it out of the road, and the next day he came over and cut it all up and hauled it off. That's Lucas Dunbar. If you run into him, please say thank you. because we need more people out there to do this job. I was also at a gathering two, three weeks ago. I was stumbling around like a drunken sailor, and a council member grabbed my arm and led me to my seat so I wouldn't fall flat on my face. And simple acts of kindness like this go a long ways for me. That's all I have for now. Thank you very much for your patience.

Thank you, Duke.

Thank you, Mayor Meagher, council members, and city leadership for this opportunity. My name is Melinda Jarrett. I live at 402 East 18th. I've prepared what I'm going to state. I was deeply disappointed when I read the social media post made by Stacy Goss. She shared all the topics that she wanted on tonight's agenda. She proposed a discussion on a moratorium, and she did not get a second. I will not single out any one of you that I have personal conversations with about this topic, but I do want to share a couple comments that have been said and dispel some of the beliefs that are being stated. I was told that a moratorium has been voted on before, yet no one can tell me how long ago. Do you want to know why? Because one of you lied to me and you said that it was voted down. And I cannot remember when was stated. And why do we need to keep bringing this up? Well, I'm here to tell you why. Because I want each of you to vote so this community can see exactly where you stand. There's not a reason that you can give me that you'll not give Stacy the second that's needed to put this on the agenda. I'm not here to voice my opposition to ban the building of a data center in Hutchinson, but I am here to beg you to put a moratorium in place with the city while you're working with the planning department and create all the necessary guardrails. In my opinion, it gives the city time to establish the rules before approving the project that could have decades-long consequences. A moratorium is not necessarily a rejection of a data center. You know that. It's a temporary pause for due diligence. And you all know that. This is the area of my biggest concern and why I feel strongly that we need the moratorium. Stacy posted that the council has been told that moratoriums are illegal, but this simply is not true when we have at least 14 active data center moratoriums and temporary development pauses in Kansas. At some point, you will have to give the citizens a meaningful voice in this process. We are all on the heels of the Google data center that was approved in Barber County. We're seeing what we keep being told that we cannot stop. However, you see where Emporia has a judge that ordered their commission to put the data center issue on the ballot. Is that what you really want? I went to the open house meeting last month and a few weeks ago. I felt that it was incredibly insulting. The very first poster that... that I saw when I walked in said, welcome, planning for the future of data centers in Hutchinson. Really? So that's how you tell us that you're doing everything in an effort to plan this to come to Hutchinson? The meeting was not a time to engage in conversations because the city employees that were standing behind each table with the posters explained it was not within their scope when we asked questions. One even told me, I don't know why I'm here, but I was told to be here. I had a council member tell me that he felt more people were there and actually in favor of having a data center based on his personal conversations. I'd like us to repeat that evening with an actual time for public input and see if you walk away with the same analysis. I thought the meeting would add some clarification as to what the planning department was doing to protect us. There was a poster that had potential concerns. How do you show and tell us all those concerns have been addressed? I did see that a statement was made online within the last hour talking about those concerns. So I thank you for at least acknowledging that and putting that out on social media. The moratorium can be framed as a good governance, not as opposition to economic development as you're saying. I keep hearing this, we need to be open, we need to be friendly, and we need to show other businesses that we're open for business. And by doing this moratorium, we'll say that we're closed. And that simply just isn't true. It's good governance. So why are you all not wanting this layer of protection for us? You know us, the people that you're here to serve? And to the council member that told me that more people were in favor of having a data center for that open house meeting, I'm going to send you the picture of the poster that says, where would a large-scale data center be most appropriate? There were 22 post-it notes attached in my picture. Zoom in and read all of them. Every single one of them have a variance that say no data centers. Well, in closing, I'm going to give you a prayer as quickly as I can. Heavenly Father, you've entrusted us with your land, the water, the resources, the community that we call home. Help our city leaders recognize that these resources are not simply commodities, but gifts that carry the responsibility to protect and steward to those that live here today and for generations to come. Give our leaders the wisdom beyond their own understanding. Help them look beyond immediate opportunities. Consider the long-term consequences in every decision. Give them the courage to ask difficult decisions, the patience to listen to all sides, and the discernment to separate facts from pressure, promise, and fear. Protect them for conflict of interest, personal agendas, the decision making for the benefit of the few at the expense of many. Give them the integrity to do what's right, even when the right decision may not be at the easy decision. And Lord, remind us all that the leadership is the responsibility and a form of stewardship. As decisions are made concerning our water, our electricity, our land, our infrastructure, and our natural resources, help our leaders consider our children, our grandchildren, our farmers, our businesses, our homeowners, and everyone who calls Hutchinson home. We ask for your guidance, your protection, and your wisdom over Hutchinson and its leaders. Amen.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Kelly King. I'm at 34 Williams Avenue. I stand before you tonight not as a politician, not as a developer, and not as someone looking to profit from this decision. I stand before you as a citizen of Reno County, a taxpayer, a business owner, a neighbor, and a person who loves this community and wants to protect it for future generations. Tonight, I'm asking our elected officials to do one simple thing. Listen to the people that you were elected to represent. Because wherever I go, I hear the same thing. People do not want a data center in Hutchison or Reno County. I hear it at businesses. I hear it at community events. I hear it from parents, grandparents, farmers, homeowners, and working families. On the news and everywhere on social media, the overwhelming message is clear. We do not want our community transformed into an industrial technology hub that benefits outside corporations while local residents carry the risk. A data center does not exist to serve the people of Reno County. It exists to serve the corporate interest. The promises are always the same. We hear about the investment. We hear about the economic development. We hear about progress. But what we are not hearing enough about are the costs and the repercussions. the strain of the infrastructure, the enormous consumption of resources, the impact on future growth, and the potential burden placed on taxpayers. And the reality that many data centers create surprisingly few permanent local jobs compared to the federal land resources and incentives they consume. But have you talked and listened to the residents that do live by these data centers? If you haven't, maybe you should. The question we must ask is simple. What problem is this solving for the people who already live here? Because government exists to serve its citizens first. Not developers, not lobbyists, not corporations, citizens. That is why we elect all of you. the city council members and county officials. We elect you to be our voice, not to pursue personal agendas and not to chase projects because they sound impressive. Not to make decisions that benefit a select few while asking everyone else to simply accept the consequences. Public service is exactly that, it's service. It requires listening and it requires transparency and sometimes it requires saying no. A council member's responsibility is not to tell citizens what they should want. A council member's responsibility is to hear what the citizens are already saying. And many citizens are saying no, not because they fear change and not because they are against progress, but because they understand that growth without accountability is not progress. Development without community support is not progress. Ignoring the voices of the people is not progress. And real progress strengthens the community, does not divide it. Real progress improves the quality of life for residents. It does not ask them to sacrifice their future for promises that may never materialize. Tonight, I challenge every one of you elected officials in this room to remember why you sought office in the first place. Was it to represent the people? Or was it to push projects regardless of what the people think? Because history remembers leaders who listened. History remembers leaders who had the courage to stand with their community when it mattered the most. This decision is bigger than a building and it's bigger than a corporation. It is bigger than any individual sitting on this council. The decision will send a message about who we are as a community. Do the voices of Reno County really truly matter? And do the concerns of citizens matter? Does public input matter? Or are decisions being made before the public ever has a meaningful chance to be heard? The people of Hutchison and Reno County deserve answers and they deserve transparency and they deserve leaders who place a community above everything else. If the overwhelming majority of citizens are opposed, then their voices should not be treated as an obstacle to overcome. Their voices should be respected. That is democracy and that is representation. And that is what public service demands. I ask you tonight to stand with the people of Reno County, protect our future, protect our resources, protect our voice, and reject any proposal for a data center until the people of this community have clearly and overwhelmingly showed that it is something that they really want. Because at the end of the day, this community belongs to its citizens, not corporations, not developers, and not political agendas. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, may I ask a question real quick? We have conflicting notes. On new business, which items are remaining, if any?

I think we had one item remaining. Plum Creek update.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else?

I have a comment. It's distracting when there's whispering from staff that while we're trying to pay attention to the people who are speaking to us as a council, and there's whispering and carrying on over here. Again, looking at Chapter 2, employees are expected to abide by the same decorum during meetings and during public comment.

Okay. Thank you for that comment. Anyone else? If not, next item.

Item number six, consent agenda.

Council had a chance to look through this. Any modifications, changes you would like to make to the consent agenda?

This, again, I printed mine before the amendment came out. So the amended consent agenda, actually, yeah, I had it under... under my desk, but I ripped it up because I thought it wasn't valid, or I thought I had it. So this includes the minutes of August 18th as well as the August 27th. Is that correct? Let me get to the right page here.

So, yeah, it'd be the August 18th and...

The 27th.

August 27th. And I think that was the only one correct. Only two? Yep.

Yes, that was two. So, like I said, I had mentioned an amendment to... the minutes for August 18th. Perhaps that was a bit premature, so I'm just going to restate that my intention earlier as we passed the proposed agenda that those remarks were intended for the consent agenda and that they did not receive any dispute and therefore the August 18th minutes should accurately reflect what I stated earlier. And then the second part is, so I have a question about the accuracy of the minutes from the August 27th meeting. And I feel like I already know what the response is going to be, but it states that the purpose of the meeting is to provide privileged legal advice specifically to receive an update on the Hutch Brett commission. So, um, my question is why is city staff receiving, um, updates on, uh, and, and I don't want to subpoena investigation. I don't know what the right word is, um, on something that doesn't relate to city matters. This is a question for the mayor.

I'm not sure. I guess I haven't seen that information being related to staff, so I'd have to... You were the one who made the motion on August 27th.

The motion for... To go into executive session to hear that item.

Based off of information that was provided to you by the attorney. I did not make the motion. I just read the motion. So, Cody, do you have anything to say to that motion or any comments to that?

I mean, I guess I don't understand that it was the city attorney and city manager that were to be in there.

It was not the city manager. The city manager was not in attendance at that meeting.

Are you talking about the special meeting or the August 27th or the August 18th?

I already said I'm talking about August 27th.

The August 27th, the city manager was. Yes.

You're thinking of the August 18th meeting.

You're thinking of August 18th.

I mean, Mayor, if I may.

Well, hold on. In that case, the minutes of the August 27th meeting as in... I did print that page off. So it doesn't mention that the city manager was expected to go into the executive session.

Mayor, if I may. Yes, absolutely. It's good practice in the motion. I think it probably was in the... to have to state the staff that would be in there, but it's not required by the Kansas Open Meetings Act. So I guess that would be my response to that. I'm not sure why it's relevant. And I would just add, we're talking about a consent agenda items here. I think really if these need to be discussed, they need to be pulled off. Consent agenda is just to vote yes or no.

So if that would be the case, then we just need to pull this off the consent agenda and have a discussion about it. There would need to be a motion for it? Motion and a second.

Motion and second of what?

To have those minutes.

Sure, I'll give a motion. I would like to pull the minutes of the August 27, 2026 meeting, which is consent agenda item. Mary, can you provide me the item number? 6B. 6B. to be heard on September 19th. I'm sorry, September 15th.

So there's a motion. We just need a second. If there's no second, then it will remain where it is at.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as is. I'll second.

Truen? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? No. Fast? Yes. Nagers?

Yes.

Item 7, Public Hearing A, Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Meadows on Monroe RHID and Development Plan.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matt Williams, Director of Community Development. We are again asking to continue this public hearing for Meadows on Monroe. We have made a lot of progress in the last couple weeks that we hope to have more information on at a short, at a point. near in the future. What I would say is this is not a reflection on the developer. This is internal discussions with staff trying to make sure that the development agreement is appropriate and ensures that we don't miss out on anything like we have in previous developments. We're just trying to protect the city and make sure we make a good deal.

Thank you. You don't recommend pulling it off. You just recommend extending.

At this point, we recommend continuing it to the next meeting.

Okay. I know that I think both myself and Ms. Goss have wondered about that, so we'll defer to your judgment.

I can speak for myself. Thank you.

I will refer to your judgment.

So I have a concern that the intent of the law is, which is... the Kansas Office of Reviser of Statutes 12-5246, that we are so, and this is, again, not the letter of the law, but the intent of the law, we are so far away from the original hearing as it was announced that it does feel appropriate that we would end this today and move into a second hearing And I understand that moving into a new hearing would initiate a new, um, 30 day, um, a 30 day window as well as an additional, uh, newspaper public publication requirement. But at this point it's been months since this was originally heard. And I feel like the residents of the area impacted by this development, um, have been following along and some of them at this point have given up because we've we've moved this on and moved this on and it's no fault of your own and it's no fault of the developer i understand the intent is to draft a airtight contract that protects the city from previous bad acts that we've seen very recently but it feels like if we have the resident's best interests at heart, we would close this hearing and have a new one when the contract is actually completed.

I know we'd had this conversation when you were here two weeks ago. Cody, do you have any insight on what we should do as our attorney on this matter?

Yeah, we've been discussing this with Bond Council. I mean, I think their general recommendation was to just continue it. There wasn't anything stated specifically in the statute that says you cannot continue it. The idea was to avoid that unnecessary additional publication and cost if we are able to end up using the same hearing process. But depending on what eventual structure we end up with, There's a potential that we would use a new hearing structure regardless, but again, just speaking with Bond Council, it was something that they recommended because some of the information at the time when we started continuing, it wasn't really in our control, and so we weren't quite sure when we were going to get information. It's still been flowing in. So that's why the recommendation has been to continue it. Nothing says we are barred from doing so, and it would save the additional publication cost in the 30 days.

So your recommendation is to continue it then? Yeah, that's fine.

So to be clear, the publication cost is probably $150. And I have the statute right here, and that's correct. It doesn't say anything that you can't continue it. That's exactly what I said. My point is that bond council doesn't work for and was not elected by the residents of the city, and the residents of the city are not having their voice heard when this hearing has been continued for months and months on end.

Council have any comments on this?

My comment is I'm going to defer to staff and the attorney's recommendation. So that's my comment.

I would agree with that.

And if any residents have questions, they can always contact planning or my office. Okay.

Well, then that would be my recommendation too.

Well, I will make a motion to continue the public hearing. Second. Second.

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

Yes.

Item 7B, public hearing to consider 2027 budget revenue neutral rate budget hearing and resolution to levy property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate.

Move to open the public hearing.

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

Yes. I do have a opening statement. So good evening, Mayor and Council. Before we get to the budget, I will read the following. I understand that council members may have questions regarding the proposed budget, and staff is prepared to address those questions. I would respectfully note that the advanced submission of detailed questions was strongly encouraged, consistent with the city attorney's prior guidance, so that staff can provide complete, accurate, and well-supported responses. Questions raised without advanced notice may require follow-up if the information needed is not immediately available. To be clear, if the discussion begins to shift from a business meeting into a political debate, personal criticism, or questioning intended to create conflict rather than to obtain information, I will ask the council to help restore a professional and orderly process. Our staff are here in good faith to provide information and to answer questions to the best of their ability. When questions involve detailed financial, operational, or technical matters, providing them in advance allows staff to prepare complete and accurate responses. If the questions are raised that cannot reasonably answer during tonight's meeting, staff will document them and provide a response before the next council meeting. This approach protects the integrity of the budget process, respects staff time, and ensures the public receives accurate information rather than incomplete or speculative answers. For everyone's situational awareness as to how the budget is shaped, Many supervisors involve their employees in determining work group needs. Many department heads involve their supervisors in weighing the pros and cons of the total budget request. Multiply that by all the departments, and you now have hundreds of people involved in helping shape the proposed budget. I meet with each department to try and juggle needs and wants, and I'm responsible for presenting the proposed budget. Historically, the finance director has taken charge of presenting the budget, but in the past few years, I have helped as much as I can to share the load. Ultimately, the council has the final say, period. As you can see, the budget is a team sport and as it should be. It is important to note that I did not create the budget problem we have today. I inherited it. As I've said on numerous occasions when I got here in 2024, the projected fund balance as proposed was negative five million. I have been steadfast in pursuit of finding creative ways to restore the fund balance, be an employer of choice, and get caught up on a backlog of long overdue work, while also taking blame for things that I did not cause. Playing whack-a-mole with city managers not only caused inconsistent and poor strategy issues with respect to the budget, but also major cultural issues across the board. So rather than point fingers, let's be professional. The department heads are here to help answer your questions. If they cannot, Angela or I will step in to assist. That has been the long-standing practice. So key dates to be aware of. The budget does not have to be approved tonight. The hearing just has to be approved by September 20th. The deadline for the budget is October 1st. And I'll now turn it over to Angela for the presentation.

I have a question. In the state of Kansas, is the purpose of the revenue neutral rate hearing to hear from council or to hear from taxpayers?

I believe either.

Either. Okay. So in the same regard that council participating in the public comment section at the beginning of our meetings is supposedly going to have a chilling effect and, you know, violate somebody's First Amendment rights. I feel like a statement from the city manager basically saying don't ask any questions unless they were submitted in advance Achieves that same purpose. That's not what I said this of this hearing is to hear from the residents of our community And this is the absolute first time that I've ever heard any type of statement like that and I feel like it was incredibly inappropriate at this exact time. The time for council to participate and ask questions is later in the meeting.

I think what you were saying was basically that if there were questions the staff could not answer, then we would move it to the next meeting so those questions can be answered correctly. Am I understanding that correctly?

That is correct.

Well, the agenda item... What number is this? 7C has final action, which is the adoption of the 2027 budget. So are we being asked at this time to amend the agenda because this is final action. Adoption is final action.

Well, the agenda can be amended at any time if the facts change the circumstances.

I understand that, but Mr. Villegas' statement says that tonight is not, that there is no final action expected, but the final action is literally printed on our agenda.

We don't have to approve it.

We literally already approved the agenda.

That doesn't mean we have to approve every item on the agenda.

Are you moving to amend the agenda?

No.

Okay. So where it stands at this moment in time, final action on the agenda is expected tonight as item nine C. And we've had items on the agenda before that we have deferred to a later meeting because of questions or whatever.

So there's no, there's nothing saying that we can't do that if we don't come up with the correct information.

Right. So I'm proceeding under the understanding that final action is expected this evening because the agenda has not been amended. And item 9C, which is the adoption of the 2027 budget, stands literally at this moment.

I believe that's the staff recommended action, but if you do not want to approve tonight, it could be postponed.

Yeah, the point is to dine is not to cut off statutorily. You have time based on the law.

Based off of presentation on the board, it says budget discussion. I mean, I understand what it says in our packet. However, it's still a discussion, and if we need to move it farther on, we can definitely do that as a whole council.

So you intend to amend the agenda at a later time tonight?

Possibly, depending on where we...

And a budget discussion is not an item on the agenda. It is a public hearing.

Public hearing for the budget discussion. Would that be correct, Enrico?

What's on the agenda doesn't include the word discussion. It is public hearing to consider 2027 budget revenue neutral rate budget hearing and resolution to levy property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate. So again, also a final action in this item, which is that we are being asked to approve the suggested action from council or the suggested action from staff is to approve a resolution to levy a property tax rate exceeding the revenue neutral rate and authorize the mayor to sign after the public hearing.

So then if that's the case, then maybe you need to make a motion to have the items removed so we can just have a budget discussion.

We cannot move the public hearing. We need to have the revenue neutral rate, and if you agree to exceed revenue neutral, we need to approve that resolution tonight and have the public hearing and at least open it up for comments. If we decide to close the public hearing and then not take action, we can move that, but we do need to have the hearings tonight. I don't know that we can move those after they have been published.

That's correct.

I was just suggesting that they move it.

The revenue neutral portion is separate from the budget portion. Most cities do them together if they can, but they aren't required to be together.

Did you say are or are not required to be together?

They're not required to be together, unless you're pushed up against, I guess, the final deadline, but we're not to that point.

Feels like it. That's all the questions I had.

And again, if there's a question asked tonight, we will try our best to answer them. But if we cannot, we will still provide the answers at the next council meeting. Thank you. That's what was said.

Okay. So my name is Angela Richard, Director of Finance. And we've opened the Revenue Neutral Rate Budget Hearing. Um, the action that we're, um, looking to take with this item is to approve exceeding revenue neutral. We have proposed the budget with a flat mill levy, which exceeds the revenue neutral rate. So per the state requirements, We have passed a resolution that notified the county clerk that we intended to exceed revenue neutral, and we did that before July 15th in accordance with the state requirements. We published the notification of the public hearing and the revenue neutral rate hearing on August 19th, and we also posted that notification on our city website. So the revenue neutral rate for 2027 is 40.945 mills. The proposed budget has 42.096 mills, which is the same as the prior year mill levy. So the next steps are to conduct the revenue neutral rate hearing to allow for public comments. We ask that during this portion of the meeting, we only discuss the mill levy and exceeding revenue neutral. Any questions regarding specific items in the budget should be saved for the next public hearing where we discuss the budget as a whole. And then I would ask that if you intend to cede revenue neutral to exceed that, that you make a motion to approve that resolution before we close the public hearing, which is different, but that's the way the state statute is written that it has to be done before we close the hearing. So at this point I would open it up to comments from council or the public.

Council, do you have any comments on this public hearing?

I would like to hear from the public first.

Council, do you have any comments before we go to the public?

I don't have any.

Okay, now you can come forward. Public hand, limit your comments to five minutes, and name and address just like the prior during public comment. Whoever would like to come forward? I don't have nobody else.

I'm going to let that happen.

Carlton Henry Duvall lives in Hutchinson, Kansas. I'm a concerned citizen. And as I declared earlier, I'm a revolutionist. Tax revolutionist. I get confused about mill levies and this and that, and it's all smoke and mirrors to most people in the public. We want to know the bottom line on what we are going to be taxed, not any more bullshit in plain English, because you guys just make it confusing. Boom, boom, boom, boom, everybody. So I'm not excluding anybody. Let's talk plain language. How much are we going to have to pay in more taxes to keep the oligarchs happy?

Anyone else?

Mr. Mayor and Council, I'm somewhat confused. I came to talk about certain points in the budget, and my remarks are very short. But I understood from the finance director that this part of the agenda is to talk about the revenue neutral rate only. And then another hearing at a later date would be for the budget. No, no, no. No, no.

After this. Immediately following this, we'll talk about the budget as a whole.

That's not on the agenda. There's nothing about the revenue neutral and then a motion to approve, as Ms. Goss has said.

It's on the next page, item 7C.

Okay. Then my comments would be later. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else want to comment on this agenda item? Seeing none.

Regarding, I have a comment. Is council allowed to comment?

Yeah, just bring it back to council.

Okay. Did the rest of council have any comments or questions? I just want to point out that a flat budget is still a tax increase. And as Ms. Richards stated, it is .573 mils above neutral. That's the entire purpose of this. So, If there are people in the audience who generally have a complaint about taxes going up in general, right now would be the time to ask those questions. And then as we discuss the budget as a whole at the next item, that would be the time to get into questions that are more specific in nature regarding specific items on the budget, how we prioritize things on the budget, that sort of thing. That being said, I believe the rest of my questions are for the next item, which is the budget item. And yeah, I'll reserve my right to ask any additional questions. But I would encourage anybody in the audience who has questions about general tax raises to come forth at this time.

Does anybody have any questions? Okay, seeing none. Move to the next item.

We need a motion. Oh, sorry.

I'll move to approve a resolution to levy a property tax rate exceeding the revenue.

Point of order, we need to close the hearing, right? No. No.

It's right there on the sheet.

The state statute requires that we approve the resolution during the hearing. It's the way the statute's written, which is different.

I see that. Thank you.

I'll try again. I'll move to approve a resolution to levy a property tax rate exceeding the revenue neutral rate and authorize the mayor to sign.

I'll second.

Truen? Yes. Garza? Yes. Goss? Absolutely not. Fass? Yes. Magers?

Yes. I'll move to close the public hearing. Second.

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

Yes.

Item 7C, public hearing to consider the 2027 budget and adoption of the 2027 budget. Need a motion?

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

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

Magers? Yes.

Okay, this is the budget hearing where we talk about the general budget as a whole. And I wanted to take you through how we got to today. and some of our prior discussions. As we have discussed before, when revenue neutral was enacted in 2021 for the 22 budget, we started decreasing our mill levy to align more closely with revenue neutral. Not all the time did we stay at revenue neutral, but we did have a history of decreasing our mill levy. So the right side of this table lists the amounts that we forfeited in revenue by decreasing the mill levy. So over those years, it equates to about $6 million that could have gone into our general fund to help our fund balance, but we chose at the time to decrease our mill levy to help the residents out. And also during this time period, we saw increasing costs. In 2024, we became almost fully staffed. We were giving raises to be competitive in the market with other governments and other local employers. And we started seeing contractual services increasing costs as well. So because of those things, starting in 2023, our general fund balance has been decreasing. The red line on this shows where our target general fund balance should be, which is about 7.3 million. And at the end of 2026, we're projected to have about 1.8, and then in 2027, about 1.9. So this is a recap of what that looks like with projected and budgeted for 2027. It restates the 1.8 and 1.9. And what we've had to do between the two years is, if you remember that alligator mouth graph, we've had to try to close that. So this shows in green the expenditures and blue the revenues. And for those years between 24 and 26, You see that the green is above the red, which is not ideal. And so in 2027, we are trying to close that gap. And this is what we projected during the 2026 budget that 2027 would look like. That we would just exceed revenue. That bringing in additional sales tax would not... completely restore the general fund balance all at once. We have some progress and some work to do. So in those discussions with the sales tax, we talked about the different things that could be used for. And the things with the blue arrows, those are things that are directly impacting our general fund to help restore our fund balance and restore that deficit and close that alligator mouth. So we were using some of the sales tax, or we're proposing to, on parks and recreation operating costs and street operating costs. So that helps our general fund by approximately $4 million to restore that imbalance. And then we have $2.16 million going to our stormwater fund. That fee was eliminated, so we are proposing a new fund for that, which I'll get into. And we need to fund that stormwater and those operating costs, the wages that are paid out of that stormwater fund. And also to note, by using SALES TAX MONEY TO PAY CASH FOR THESE CIP PROJECTS, THE STREETS, THE ZOO, THE JIM MARTINEZ TRAIL, PARK ROOF, AND THEN A ZOO VISITOR CENTER. BY PAYING CASH WE'RE ABLE TO SAVE $1.3 MILLION OVER 20 YEARS BY NOT HAVING TO BOND THOSE PROJECTS. SO THERE WE'RE STARTING TO USE THE SALES TAX MONEY TO USE THE PAY GO METHOD THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN PRIOR MEETINGS. So this is another graph that just shows in the red dotted line what our expenditures would be without that sales tax helping the general fund. The purple is the revenue, and then you'll see the orange and the light blue that are starting to meet there. And what that's doing is we're able to lower our expenditures and increase the transfers into the general fund to make that revenue and expense closely match. Um, so what does this mean for citizens? So we're proposing to, uh, have the mill at 42.09. Six. Sorry. That's a typo there. Um, that is evaluation increase of 2.7%. And that's a flat mill levy, but that does, as you pointed out, mean an increase, um, to residents in their property tax bill for a hundred thousand dollars home, it would be $13 and 23 cents a year. For a $400,000 home, it'd be $52.90. And then for a million dollar commercial building, it would be $287.50 a year. So that's what exceeding the revenue neutral rate means to citizens and property taxpayers. So to go over the overall budget impacts that we've discussed before, it has a budgeted health insurance increase of 6.3%. We've heard from our insurance company that it may be higher than that. It accounts for salary increases an average of 5.5%, but we are still in negotiation with union contracts. So that is not a final number. It incorporates that 3.25% sales tax. We have put that sales tax into a separate fund for transparency reasons. So we can account for it and show taxpayers what we are using that for. And then we will transfer that to other funds like the general fund or the capital improvement fund as we need it and as we budget that. We are showing a decrease in one full time equivalent and a decrease in one full time equivalent of part time workers. So part of our increase in personnel is a swap between part time and full time. And then we also are showing the airport taking over the fuel-based operations in August of 2027. So those are the main highlights of the budget. Here is a list of all the personnel that we all the personnel changes that we are proposing. I did highlight in or bolded the assistant city attorney. We may not go that route and we may contract some of that workout instead. So that is to be determined, but likely that'll be a decrease in one of those added positions. For the airport, you'll see additional revenue of $2.2 million budgeted and additional expense of $2 million. And that is the fuel purchase and the fuel sales in that operating budget. And then we do have startup costs in the MRF, the equipment fund, of $160,000. That will be the startup costs that we won't have reoccurring every year. I think at this point, could I ask Alec to give us some of the benefits of taking over the fuel-based operations and what that means for the airport and the city, if you would be so kind.

Alec Stang, airport director. So, there's three main reasons that a municipality tends to take over or do a city-operated FBO, and that's primarily quality assurance, customer service, revenue retention, and for us, there is a bonus of added personnel. So, when it comes to quality assurance, there's never been a question about the quality of the FBO fuel or anything like that from our current provider. They set the bar very high and we expect to meet that bar or exceed it. Customer service from a city perspective, the FBO is often the visitors first impression of Hutchinson. So it's a chance for city staff to put their best foot forward when meeting new customers coming into the airport. It creates those relationships that might develop into opportunities. So as far as revenue retention, This gives us an opportunity to retain the margin on fuel. This will be applied to airport equipment, facilities, operation reserves, and future development. Let's see. Overall, with the addition of the new personnel, they're not just gonna be filling up aircraft, they'll be double trained as also airport operations. So effectively, Our ability to address maintenance concerns, both on the airfield, facilities, on the grounds, wildlife control, event support, will increase from an airport perspective. And that's generally... what municipalities gain by taking over FBO operations. Is there any questions?

What is the percent of city-owned or municipality-owned FBOs versus privately?

I do not have a percentage, but I know GAO... Government Accountability Office, back in 2021, identified over 580 municipalities that operate their own FBO.

Out of how many airports, though?

I don't have that number.

Because if it's out of like 20,000, then that's different than if it's out of 1,000. So 580 is just a number, but with nothing to weigh it against it. It doesn't mean a lot. I have some questions about some of the things that you've said, if Mr. Fast is done.

Well, I'm done.

Um, so it feels like this isn't just a minor administrative shift. It's a government expansion into a role that the private sector has already filled and has filled for, I don't know, like 100 years. Um, and I think that alone should give us pause, um, the point of revenue retention as a benefit. Um, but if we look at what that actually means, it means that instead of a private business earning a profit in exchange for taking on the risk and the responsibility of providing the service, that profit is now redirected into government coffers. So it's not a public benefit. It's the government displacing a private enterprise and capturing that margin for itself. In my opinion, this isn't fiscal prudence. It's the basic mechanism of socialism. And before we go down this road, I would like to see a real cost-benefit analysis, not just projected revenue numbers, including increase in staffing that accounts for the operational risk, the accountability gaps, and the long-term liability that the city would be taking on that a private operator currently absorbs. There isn't an exact question there. It's more of a statement. But if you would like to address any one of those concerns, I would be more than happy to listen to it. And the council as a whole would be happy to listen to them.

Yeah. So as far as... why this is coming up now. The current arrangement with the FBO does expire here in the next year at the end of August 2027. This is an opportunity for the city to adjust the airport's long-term operating model. In that aspect, The goal is to have a sustainable airport that's equitable to users and consistent with federal grant assurances. That's all I.

Okay, so I feel like your statement means that there was something inherently wrong with the way that the setup was prior and that we were missing out on federal grants. To begin with, do you have a history of federal grants that we've applied for that we did not receive based on the FBO operations that we had operated under for the past couple of decades?

No, that's not what I was implying.

But what you said is that the new operating system with the city as the FBO is going to have better assurances of federal grants. That implies that the old way of doing it that we were missing out on grants or that the assurances were not there because it was operated by a private FBO. Is that not a safe assumption?

So one of my concerns immediately when I got to Hutchinson and evaluated the operations of the airport was our arrangement with the city-owned bulk fuel tanks. And if a competitor or another user ever wanted to come in and become a competitor at the airport as an FBO, how would we extend that same courtesy to them? Would we have to take over those fuel tanks completely and become the middleman of the fuel operation? Or would we have to develop and install a new set of tanks? That's probably the closest concern I have to the potential of violating a grant assurance agreement.

But didn't we just install new fuel tanks like two years ago and run pipe for new fuel tanks?

So the fuel tanks are above ground. They are ours. We lease them to the current FBO. If a competitor... or a new user came onto the base and wanted the same courtesy, we'd have to address that. And the potential there is that we either become the fuel middleman of those tanks or we develop another set of tanks. We have to be equitable to all users.

So instead of being equitable to all users, we've taken a hypothetical to heart and created the solution, which is to take over the enterprise entirely.

We have the option to exercise a proprietary exclusive right. This is one of the options that council has.

Yes, I understand that. And my understanding is that we've never done that before. And so this is the first time that we are doing that.

Yes. And many other municipalities have been in the same spot here that we are right now. Um, The current FBO provider is a longstanding company. It's changed hands over several years. I don't question their quality. All I can do is present you the potential benefits of us operating the FBO. And this is the pivotal moment to be able to do that. If we pass up this moment here, it'll potentially be another 15 years before you can reevaluate that.

Was an FBO contract ever put out for either an RFP or an RFQ or any other type of bid process?

That was, uh, one of the options presented last year. Um, and the direction I was sent upon was to pursue, uh, a city run operation.

The direction that you were sent upon by council council voted on that or who gave you that direction?

Oh, that wasn't, uh, it wasn't an official blow, but that was the discussion that we had. and the general consensus, nobody opposed or suggested otherwise.

I think I recall the conversation, but I don't feel like, I mean, in all of the things that we've talked about in recent meetings of things that are moved forward on or not moved forward on that we didn't actually technically vote on. This feels like one that has a lot more consequences than some of the other things that we have not actually voted on and then changed our mind and not pursued. So I guess my main concern with this is that We're taking over something from a private business. And before we move on to a different section of the budget hearing, I would like to open up this section for public comment. I think it makes sense to do it piecemeal and then at the end open it up for general comments if the mayor would be so inclined. Thank you.

I was thinking to potentially open it up for public comment at the end, I guess, because I think there will be several items that the public will want to comment on that we can have department heads come up and address those issues. So if there are more than one, we can address them all at the same time.

I think there are people waiting in the audience who would like to speak to the airport issue.

Well, I just think that moving to the end, any councilor, any other comments?

I have a few things. So, Alec, we talked earlier. You said you're allotted three employees. Yes. But you're down to two. How long have you been at two employees? Since I've been here.

Okay.

Have we not tried to hire anybody, or can we not hire anybody?

We've had... Various times of hiring freezes. Okay. And they kind of help out the, the budget operation we've made do with two operations technicians.

So is there, I mean, have you been told there's a hiring freeze right now or are you allowed to hire somebody? I guess what I'm getting at is I'm concerned that if we can't have three employees, how are we going to get up to eight employees? Are we having a hard time hiring people? or I'm trying to figure out the issue here.

So we had a slight pause and we volunteered, um, as, as the airport, you know, to wait a little bit longer to hire that personnel. Um, I would like to bring somebody on in the fall, uh, if, if we're capable.

Right. So, well, there's some stuff. I was actually out at the airport today. and looking around, and I think we need to, and it's something we need to talk later on, but I think we need to hire you another one right now.

Yeah.

Because you need help out there.

Yeah.

And that makes me concerned that, you know, are we going to be able to, I agree with Ms. Goss, I question whether or not the city I like the idea of being in control, being able to regulate everything, but I also question whether or not we as a city should go into a private business. I'm going to give the scenario because we have two lawn guys. What if we as a city came out and told the two lawn guys that the entire city, the city is just going to take over lawn care in the whole city? I mean, that's kind of a stretch there, but we're taking a private business away. My opinion is I think we ought to put it out for a bid. And RFP. And look at that.

I think to compare the lawn business, we do have contracted people that mow for the city. Right. And I would expect that if Justin figures out a way to do it better, faster, cleaner, everything, that he would pull back from those contracted people.

That makes sense. That may not have been a good scenario. But I just question whether or not we should be in, you know, Would we be, you know, put it out for an RFP and see what kind of offers we get? You know? And as far as, you know, we'll have to talk to the same manager about that, but you need help out there, I can tell you that.

I feel like, based on your remarks, Mr. Truin, that... I haven't driven out to the airport. I couldn't tell you when. But based on the remarks that you're providing, it feels like the city's not maintaining what we need to maintain in the first place. And taking on additional responsibilities of an FBO, which is a... That's a fixed-based operator, and that's a big thing. That's a 24-7, around-the-clock, rain-or-shine responsibility, and it's not just hiring a mower or two. It's hiring people with a very specific skill set, and it doesn't, in my opinion, doesn't feel right that we would be shifting this responsibility to the government when a private business has been doing it well for a long time.

You're doing a great job. Why are we going to get the department head to decide they need to change something? You're doing a good job. Our airport is doing fine. If we're going to get into every department head and say, no, we don't need that tractor, let the department heads and let them run the city. Here we are. You come with a change that you need some help or whatever the department is. We're going to go through this whole book and make changes. This thing is brought to us that you need whatever you need. And it's brought to me and let you do your job, sir. I think just leave it alone. Let them do their job.

Well, Steve, we're not saying not to let them do their job. But if you're going to – But what we're saying is are we going to add – Okay, let's do this.

Every time we go on the budget that we should have done, I haven't realized this until today, and I've been in the city 33 years, all right? If you're going to go and we're going to tell this guy what to do, tell this guy what to do, then let's write a report on that before we get to this point in front of all these people. If you think that a part in here that this is wrong, I don't. Do your job. He thinks he needs it or they think they need it. We're here to back them. We're also here to back the people.

And I'm here to back him. That's why I'm saying we need to hire him another person. If not, maybe a fourth person. That's good. But what I'm saying is before we go spend $2 million to take over a business that's already operating, Maybe we need to look at, yeah, probably higher. What I'm saying is I think we need to look at, and I know they've got the numbers, they've put the numbers together, but could we... And I'm not saying that the business that's doing it isn't doing a good job, but do we negotiate? If we want something else, we negotiate a new contract in 2027, and this is what we expect.

Okay.

If they can't meet that, then maybe we get somebody else.

Okay, but let's do it next year that these department heads make a decision on whatever they're going to do. Maybe we ride a port if we don't like it.

Right. Now, I'll tell you, and this, you know, we all know this week's been a heck of a week. Oh, yes. I've been getting phone calls and, you know, some of this, of course, I do it. I procrastinate. But a lot of people also, you know, notify you a day or two before this. So when I did meet with somebody today and a lot of information was brought to light and it wasn't I didn't have the opportunity to present that prior to this meeting. And and I wish I would have, you know.

You know what? I appreciate you speaking up. I appreciate you saying your mind, but I also say my mind and my mind. I've been in the city 33 years and it's totally run different and it's totally run that it is before. All right. So I'm not here to – we hire department heads to do their jobs.

Right. And I'm not saying that he's not doing his job. I'm saying I think he needs more help because that's a big facility out there. And, you know, I know a little history about the airport. My brother used to work out there for the USDA. And, I mean, basically his response to me is the airport's been treated like the stepkid of Hutch for decades. ever and you know that may not be the best way to say it but I think we do need to put money out there and make it the best airport you know but I'm just not quite sure right now that taking over the fuel Fueling is the best thing to do. Okay.

It's not just the fueling. It is the FBO as a whole. It's a big responsibility. It's a tiny bit beyond the fueling. And to speak to...

Right now, we plan to expand those services, be open seven to seven, seven days a week. So that would be an expansion. That would allow the weekend crew to actually... do additional work at the airport. So groundskeeping is one of the big things that we get a fair amount of kickback on. A lot of that has to do with just equipment. We had agent equipment. We did purchase a new tractor this year. We're looking for a new tractor next year. in the budget. I do want to address this $2 million that keeps getting pushed around. So that's a conservative annual fuel purchase assumption based on 250,000 gallons at $8 per gallon. Now, I set that number because of fuel volatility right now. It's a very conservative projection. This fuel is purchased as needed and sales revenues offset that cost. We're not buying $2 million of fuel at once just to put it in the ground. For next year, we won't even get close to that $2 million, hopefully.

I think the true cost is $130,000 plus $30,000 because it's $2 million in, $2 million out yearly or six months. And I would also say that it does accomplish having some extra people to do things. They're not going to be fueling planes 24-7 or moving airplanes around.

Now, we consistently flow about 240,000 gallons a year. 200,000 of that is jet. About 40,000 is hunter low lead. In this region, the markup from wholesale is usually about $1.25 to $2.70 per gallon of jet A. And 75 cents to $1.15 for hunter low lead. With these numbers... You're projected a return at around 280,000 to 586,000 in revenue.

Per year?

Yeah, based off of that flowage.

Based off of fuel alone.

And what is the flowage fee that we're paying now?

The flowage fee we receive, I have the combined number. It's... 9 1⁄2 cents per gallon. And that is to factor the fuel flowage and the lease or the rental of our bulk fuel tanks.

Okay, so I have a question. The flowage... So two things. Number one is... This is not a decision that we can walk back next year, that we would easily be able to say, oh, in 12 months from now or six months from now, what have you, that the city being the FBO isn't working or isn't quote unquote profitable. It's not a decision that we can easily just walk back and find somebody else. Yeah. My other point is that if... we, if you were to control for the gallons per year of all of the various types of fuel, and this is where I think having audience input right now would be especially helpful. If you were to control for how many of those gallons were sold, I don't want you to say sold, whatever, are contributed to the Cirrus company, I'm sorry, I don't know, but the Cirrus service company owned by Mr. Rogers, when his business goes away, I believe that we will not sell as much fuel. And I don't think that that is being controlled for in these predictions that we're being told right now.

I mean, that's implying that Wells aircraft would be leaving I'm Not fully aware that that's a conclusion on Don's behalf It's two separate businesses, right? It's the FBO and then the Cirrus well two different services unnecessarily Different businesses. I don't know how well splits that but Yeah, I mean, there's inherent risk in pretty much everything. Without risk, you don't have.

But this shifts the inherent risk from a private industry to the taxpayers, and that is what I take issue with.

Yeah. And we'd manage that through phased implementation. So one of those key implementations would be to lease fuel trucks instead of purchasing them outright. We could lease those for around three years and negotiate a buyout. Um, if at that three year mark, the new council just doesn't want to do this anymore. We could put this out for proposal and return those trucks. Um, You know, the other thing, again, conservative projections, purchasing controls, and routine finance reporting that would go through Angela's office daily. You'd be able to track our inventory and our revenues fairly easily. So, all the...

income revenue generation and everything and the expense and all that take note of those but are we missing any opportunities as a city by not having this internal in the city to like where we have we're missing like I don't know just things that we might be because we've stated that it is like almost the front line of the city we have all these planes coming in, et cetera. Is there something else on top of that too?

I would say the airport is one of the major entrances to the city, and many people don't understand that. It is the first impression that many corporate business executives have of a city. And if we want to have – I would say if we want to have – good relations and a good first impression with those people, this gives us an opportunity to control that aspect. If you guys service a complaint about the FBO, you'd be coming directly to me, somebody that's accountable to the city manager. As it stands, that's not an option you guys really have. The other benefit for the city is obviously retaining the potential margin and capturing it for the airport. And it would remain at the airport. It cannot go back into the general fund. revenues earned at the airport stay at the airport. And that is a big part of trying to get to our grant assurance agreements of trying to be sustainable. This is an avenue that, you know, has been and continues to be utilized by different municipalities to incrementally get to that sustainable.

And we would be available more often than our current FBO, like in hours open?

I'm not going to speculate on that. I just know that the way I would plan this out would be a seven to seven, seven days a week.

Are we missing out on any with the current provider? Are we missing out with any expansion opportunities in regards to what we can do and what we can't do at the airport?

I will say the airport has largely been has largely been underfunded historically. There's a lot of deferred maintenance. The facilities are not at peak condition and they're well aged. That is something that we are continually trying to address. Along with that, we had severely aged equipment So it's been a process of triage over the past couple years Having additional personnel would absolutely help out in those areas that need extra attention As far as business expansion I can't speculate on that as as an airport or a sponsor-operated FBO. We're not necessarily going after, you know, top dollar return on fuel cells. So sometimes that reduces the fuel pricing and attracts more traffic or potential tenants. So... Oh, go ahead.

Okay, so I have... maybe it's a series of questions. Um, okay. So if we don't take over the FBO, what's the, what's the mill levy impact on this city budget? Because it sounds like the profits of the fuel sales, et cetera, would be kept within the airport, but the losses would be spread across the city and made up for by the general fund. Is that not correct?

What losses?

Like if your fuel projections are off or we don't sell as much and we have too much fuel or it goes bad. I don't know. It goes bad. I don't know a lot about jet fuel. I don't own a plane. But you can't say that there would never be losses. I mean, again, that's the benefit of having something like this run by a private company is that the profits and the losses are kept within the company. And then the tax revenue is shared to the city, obviously. And then the fuel purchases would be shared to the city. But if we're taking over all of that, then the losses and the The losses, it seems like, would be shared, but the profits would be kept at the airport.

Our initial goal would be to cover additional personnel and operation costs. From there, we would... try to cover and set aside funds for the startup cost and those replacements. At that point, we would be able to start considering drawing back our burden on the general fund.

What's your current burden on the general fund?

I don't have those numbers off the top of my head.

Mr. Richards, is that something that you have?

I will say on the notion of risk, There's risk to just about everything. And without risk, you don't have a return on investment. So we keep flowing back to this risk. Yeah, there's an inherent risk there. But there's also a chance of a return on that investment. And we already own a considerable part of this airport, all of it. And we own much of the operation. This is an opportunity to invest further into that and try to get a better return.

I understand what you're saying, but, um, without risk, there's no return. But in this case specifically, the return is kept within the airport and not shared to the overall city budget. Like it's not going to save the residents of Hutch any money. if there's additional return, if you will. And so that gives me pause. But then the other thing is that it sounds like, and based on the CIP, the historical CIP and the one that's built into this year, the airport receives money from the budget, from the general fund, from the CIP budget that we're giving in lay terms, we're giving you money for projects and for maintenance and for all of these things. But if there's ever any quote unquote profit or return, it's kept. And that maybe there's an argument to be had that that returned, the return dollars are diminishing what the future ask is from the city budget, but without firm numbers of what those projections are, it makes it really hard to say that this is going to ease your ask on the future city budget over the next five years, unless there's something that I'm missing in the budget document.

To speak to that, in 2024, the general fund subsidized the airport operations $326,000. In 2025, it was $178,000. I'M ON PAGE 176. AND THEN IN 26 IS PROJECTED FOR 509,000 AND 27, 674,000. THE INCREASE BETWEEN 26 AND 27 largely those startup costs on the slide. And so if the airport makes a profit on the fuel, that would reduce that subsidy. If that subsidy then becomes zero and there's money left over in the airport fund, it can roll forward to the next year and we can use it to reduce any operating expenses, or you could use it for capital improvements to offset those costs as well. So if we are able to reduce that general fund subsidy, it would benefit other operations as well. And I sent a lot of hesitation tonight, too, so I just wanted to point out that I don't think this is something that has to be decided for sure tonight. You have a couple different options. I mean, we can always wait until the next meeting to approve the budget, but if we don't get answers in that time, you could approve the budget without the fuel-based operations. And then if we decide to do it, we could amend the airport's budget. Or you could adopt it with the fuel-based operations and just know that we need to come to you with RFPs or stats or whatever you require before we implement it. So you have a couple different options so that this one decision doesn't completely hang up the budget. I just wanted to point that out.

Do you want to have people come to comment while you're up here, just so if there's other things you need to answer, you can, before we move forward, I guess? That's fine. Okay. Anyone from the audience would like to comment on this item? Remind me five minutes in your comment.

Come on, we've been 45 minutes talking about my business, and you're going to give me five minutes?

According to Chapter 2, it can be expanded with the mayor's permission.

I think the biggest fallacy we're seeing is you think you're going to make profits in fuel. If Angela would have come out to the airport, if the airport manager would have come to my office, if the city manager would have come to my office, we could have gone over those numbers. You will not make a profit selling fuel because it's marginal for us at best. And I have three people in that department, and you're going to put five plus a manager? Six? Last week at the tower report at our advisory board meeting, we were told that the traffic count is off 19% this year. Your numbers in your budget you're looking at is based on 25 numbers. You're already off 19%. and you think you're going to increase it 8%, you've got to come up 33% difference to bring this number back up. It's just not going to happen. If you want the fueling today, I've told Alex, come get it. Because it is not a profit. And I'm going to sit there and watch you suffer. at what you're doing because we've covered it as a community leader to be part of your airport. We do meet the public first. I guarantee you more people at that airport know Don Rogers' name than know Alex's name because we meet the public. We are meeting the golfers coming in. We are standing up at the Reno County Commission to give Salt Lake the support that they need because that's what's going to make this airport better. And I look at the airport today, and I would challenge all of you to come out. If we're not taking care of it today, what makes you think we're going to take care of it when you have more expenses? It's going to eat your lunch. One airplane misfueling. We're not even talking about the liabilities of you misfueling an airplane. Mike Winkler's been with the company for 27 years. He knows how to fuel airplanes. His staff that he has, my youngest guy is nine years. You're going to take on that liability of putting fuel in an airplane. I think you're going to have some sad things that could happen. Tank uses. Let's talk about the tanks. I had two tanks in the ground. I made the arrangement with the city that we wanted those out of the ground in order to keep the military fueling contract. So it was a joint venture. Again, city and independent working together to get those tanks out of the ground. I paid to remove them from under the ground. Those tanks were put in with the idea that anybody could take fuel out of them. I do not lease those tanks. So that's a fallacy. I own the inventory that's in it, but that inventory can be split. The city could buy the inventory, and we buy it from them as we pump it in the trucks. So another competitor, if so, could have been on this airport for years. Flow rates. It's 9.5 cents for Jet A, and it's 5 cents for Jet B. 100 low lead. Another issue you're not even dealing with here is the 100 low lead fuel is going to go away in 2030. You're going to have to buy tanks and put another fuel in at somebody's expense because piston airplanes aren't going to be able to fly unleaded. We're not even talking about the future of what's going to happen with the tanks that we currently have.

My timer's not there.

Traffic count. We talked about it being off. Risk of fueling. Our projects were really off on any maintenance that's been on the airport since I've been there. And I've been there 26 years. I bought it in 2006 from the Dillon's Corporation, if anybody wants to know the history of the airport. It was about to go to bankruptcy in 2006, and we saved it. Turned it around because it was $2 million in debt after Dillon's walked away. Anyone ask about that? Where did that money come from? My business. Grant assurances by traffic. So you ask what happens if I move Cirrus somewhere else? It's by traffic counts. We look at it every month from the tower. You take those traffic counts away, grant assurances, not so much grants, are based on your traffic count. If the whole state's looking at the number of airplanes that drop into an airport, and yours all of a sudden drops 65%, because I'm pretty sure that's about what Cirrus business, coming and going on maintenance flights, is that traffic to that airport. Where's that traffic going to come from? It hasn't come, is Salt Lake maybe going to bring it? Maybe. We have a lot of high hopes that another image of what Prairie Dunes has been awesome for the airport for, and you all need to be very happy with what Prairie Dunes has done for your airport. Because without them, it's going to be awful.

First impressions.

I've got to finally tell you, if you want to go out and look at first impressions, go out to the steakhouse, walk out the gate, turn right and look at the sign. There's another container right next to it that has fire extinguishers in it. Look at it. That's the first impression that people see. The weeds growing up through the runways, the weeds growing up through the taxiways, that's first impressions for a guy that comes in on a $10 million airplane. That's the first impressions that you have right now because you maintain The grass. And we've all said, we've been in these meetings, I've been here, you know, grass has been a problem, but not at an airport. You spray it, it's done. You mow the first three feet away from it so it's not under the airplane. I get the calls when a jet calls and says, there's grass and dirt clumps on the middle of the runway. The tower then gets the call. So I just think we're missing a lot that the partnership that we've had has been there. And I don't know why we went to this. I was shell-shocked two years ago in your budget meeting. It's on YouTube if you want to watch, that you all of a sudden decided that the airport's better off with a new FBO, which, by the way, then it was a $2 million building, a Taj Mahal, and a new hangar altogether. That's not what we have now. It's all been pared down to something different. So what do you really want? And if you're not going to communicate with the operators out there, how are we going to know? We're not. I had two people in my office, November 23rd of 24, accost me that I did not provide a good service. Two days before Thanksgiving, I remember it pretty cleanly. I sent an email on that Monday, and I asked, do you want to sit down, go over those differences, let me know, because I have people that work for me just like everybody else. I'll make sure that they understand that there's a problem. I've never heard a peep from that meeting. No follow-up emails, no response to my email at all. So to say, you know, I like the fact Alex thinks we are a good partner. We are a good partner. We do a lot of things for the airport that we don't get paid for. And I'll end with this. If you want to take the fueling over today, you're going to lose your butt. And I'll step aside right now for the fueling. Because I feel that I'm not protecting it because it's a very low margin for us. And our contracts that we have with the government fuel, you may be able to reissue them and get them, but I've been 20 years with those contracts. You might be able to get CAA fueling contract, but I fought three years to get that. So those may come back, but I think the biggest number you're looking at is the traffic count as of last month, 19% down. You're using numbers from 2025.

Thank you, John, and I would agree, and I think you addressed my concern spot on, which is that without your business operating, not even operating as the FBO, but just operating within that space at the airport, we're going to lose the refueling options and the fuel sales because The traffic count, I didn't know that was the word, but the traffic count is going to go down. I think you are the draw to the airport. That is, I mean, I would say the unsung hero, no offense to the other guys who are at the airport, but you are the unsung hero of bringing people here. And the golf courses and the tourist attractions in Hutch are really the icing on the cake. But I think people are planning their visit to Hutch around their service with you and their golf trip is the bonus. So I thank you for your years of service out there. I hope that we can come to a conclusion that's mutually beneficial and that you're still open-minded to reconsider and that we can find some kind of common or middle ground here that doesn't take on so much risk for this city.

Hi, I'm Bill Garrison. I own Ag Air Service based here in Reno County, and I have Tanker 95, which is the first air tanker firefighting aircraft in the state of Kansas on a contract with the Kansas Forest Service. A couple comments. Ms. Goss, your question was how many airports are in the United States, and I looked that up, and there's around 20,000 airports. And with Alex's number of roughly 1,900 are run by where the municipalities are running the fuel, I don't know what percentage that is, but it's a pretty small percentage. Most cities are contracting that out or have private FBOs, one I would imagine for liability because of misfueling. And everybody knows that, just like Mr. Fast said with his comment on the lawn service, that private enterprise is always more efficient than a government-run operation. airport maintenance. There are some issues out there and I think it's been pointed out and I'd like to reiterate that maybe the people in charge of that now, if they get more help, they could handle those issues there and taking on an added issue of fueling airplanes and towing airplanes or what have you is more burden. That's about all I got to say other than the fact that for numerous years that I've been leasing a hangar at the airport that I've never had an issue with the service from from Wells Aircraft or the level of professionalism that Don and his team exhibit. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Garrison, before you go, I'm familiar with the service that you provide, but can you tell us what you do exactly and what your tanker does?

I'm on contract with the Forest Service, and I get dispatched anywhere in the state of Kansas. I've been to Nebraska, Oklahoma, and basically we haul water and dump on fires and support the ground guys in fighting wildfires.

It's a remarkable service. Thank you.

Bill, tell us what your day job is. Oh, I just fly yellow airplanes and spray crops. There you go.

I've heard all this about the airport, and it's funny. Cities shouldn't take it over. They have enough on their table. You can't maintain what you already have. All you have to do is look around the city and see that you build it and then you have no idea on how to maintain anything. Let this gentleman run the business. My God, simple. Too much government intervention. We need to quit it. Six employees plus a supervisor compared to three employees? Duh. Do the math, guys. Everybody do the math. Please. I mean, we are getting, as taxpayers, we are being ripped off day after day.

Jason Probst, Hutchison resident.

Would it be appropriate for me to ask a couple of questions to clarify my understanding of this issue? Yeah, that would be fine in this instance. The... The $2 million for fuel purchasing is a new budget expense. Is that correct? OK. And the new staff is a new budget expense. Have we calculated what the mill levy equivalent of that is? We just passed the R&R that increased it about a half a mill effectively. And my rough math on $2 million is about 4.8 mills that we could have lowered if we don't add this to the budget. That's not accounting for staff. And I'll remind, and there are some comments about what the duty of the council is, which is to back up staff and support them. That is not your duty. Your duty is to the taxpayers and to the full management of the city. So when we're talking about kicking a business owner out, taking over an operation, adding expenses to the budget line, it's imperative that that be looked at as a mill levy equivalent and what that would mean for taxpayers, especially on a night when you just effectively raised the mill levy. Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that. If we took all the FBO operations out of the budget, we would essentially save $160,000 because the revenue is offsetting those expenses for the personnel and the fuel purchase. So I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Yeah. And again, the $2 million, it's an expense that has a revenue directly attached to it. We're not buying fuel, $2 million worth of fuel and putting it into the ground. We buy it as needed. So just wanted to clarify the $2 million. And then I did take a look. At the number of airports, so we're a Nippius airport, and to compare apples to apples, there are roughly 3,300 Nippius airports in the United States. With the numbers from the GAO back in 2021, that'd be roughly 18% of airports are Nippius. FBOs are managed by their municipalities. And that is actually growing year over year and why Congress asked the GAO to explore that topic. If there's any statements you want me to answer on, please let me know.

I have a question. Again, presuming that tonight is the final action of the budget, at least that's how I'm operating until there's a motion to not have it be. such, but the term misfueling, again, I don't own an airplane. I own a minivan, so I don't know what misfueling is, but it sounds like it's something that carries some type of liability that we would have to be insured against and that we would have to hire staff that is trained to do those specific tasks. Can you speak to the liability and the insurance required?

Fortunately, I am at field trained as a quality assurance and distributor of fuel. My maintenance supervisor right now was previously a military fueler, has extensive experience filling aircraft. The other portion of this is that we would be hiring staff prior to taking over these operations specifically to train them. And that would be with whatever fuel provider. we choose to go with. I have a relationship or not a relationship. I have experience with that fuel. I know their training program. I know that they'll come out and do training along with that. I've also spoken with the airport director over at Newton to do some cross training over at their facility. Um, so to kind of give you an idea of what a miss fueling is, um, we have two different types of fuel on the airfield. You can potentially have three, um, but we only have two at the moment and that's hundred low lead and that's jet. Um, the potential there is that you could either put one fuel that you can mix up the fuels. There are There are ways that we try to prevent that. Is it 100%? No, because there has been incidences in the past. I don't recall anything in the recent history of South Central Kansas of having a misfueling. There... We train individuals to recognize what type of aircraft they're filling, and that informs them what type of fuel is most likely to go in there. And then we also ask the pilots themselves if there's any kind of confusion. There's a way to mitigate that risk. And training is a big part of the plan for next year.

And the employee that you referenced who is military fuel trained, does that directly translate into being civilian fuel trained?

Yeah, there's very similar similarities there. In fact, they have higher standards for their specific jet.

Okay. And so is there any additional type of insurance or, I don't know, like bonding that we would have to do to mitigate the risks of a missed fuel. It sounds like it's uncommon or it's rare even.

It'll be part of our general operation insurance.

Okay. And then as Mr. Rogers mentioned, in 2030, the 100 low lead being discontinued is going away. So at that point, we would only have one fueling option. What's the plan to either increase and offer the second fueling option or increase our offering of that remaining fueling option?

So 2030, that's a speculative date. So the manufacturer that makes the additive for Hunter Low Lead is European based. We import that, it gets mixed here. They want to gradually phase that out. So for the past decade plus, The FAA and several companies have been seeking an alternative fuel that will replace 100 low lead. Right now, there's two, possibly three different fuel types. Ultimately, from... A aerospace management perspective, we kind of foresee that one to win out, and that'll be the one that's kind of standard across the industry. If there's multiple, they all have to be able to work together. As far as replacing the tank, I think that is a... That is a speculation from when diesel went over to biodiesel. And what happened with that was there was an acidic acetate that was released by the biodiesel. And those systems weren't prepared for it. So they corroded very quickly. And that's part of what the FAA is monitoring here. in this transition as well. AvFuel, just because I know their operation from working with them in the past, is a supporter of one of these fuel types. So they're watching the market. I guarantee Phillips 66 is watching it. So those are the two bigger providers.

But the changeover... the future investment that would be on the city residents or I guess would be one of your operating expenses would be that you would have to entirely remove that. No, not necessarily lead tank. No. Okay.

The goal is to have a product that can be mixed and stored in the current equipment. That is the goal. We've acknowledged that that could be a potential that wasn't acknowledged during biodiesel introduction, and we're anticipating it.

Okay. I just have one final remark, which is, I mean, throughout all of this conversation, it really feels like we're talking about something that anytime we have the opportunity to shave anything off of the mills, it has a real impact on the residents of Hutch or if the opportunity is to not take on a new enterprise, a new risky enterprise. And for me, that's my goal tonight is to find efficiencies or find things I've already identified some during my own independent research, but I appreciate the airport. I feel like it's something that I wish the county invested in as a whole instead of it being solely on the city's payroll, if you will, when any time that We hear reports or your strategic plan. We're talking about regional benefits and county benefits, but all of those benefits are paid for by Hutch residents. For me, airport expansion and airport investments, just doesn't feel like this is something that is really going to make an impact on the normal people's lives. Yeah, Hutch Airport is, what did you say, the entry point. Not if you don't own an airplane. And I don't own an airplane. That's just disingenuous to the tens of thousands of people in town who don't own an airplane. Maybe 4th Street is an airport road is the entry, but it's not the airport for normal people. So I have an issue with large investments at the airport in general.

So the airport is a lot more than just a mile of asphalt that takes you anywhere in the world. It's how goods can be brought in during a disaster. It's $100 million worth of economic impact each year. And that's actually 2020 numbers right there. There is a lot more... to an airport than just what meets the eye. It's a lot more than just airplanes. And again, this isn't about pushing out a tenant. This is about strengthening the airport so that it can continue and be more self sustainable in the future. And by getting to that point, we can better service those tenants that we have at the airport right now. Well, prior we've been just kicking the can down the road. Um, there's not been significant modernization of the airport and largely it's just been status quo. Um, this is an opportunity for the council that only comes around once in 15 years to change something.

I wasn't prepared to speak today, but just listened to the stuff that is, I don't know, if it's half-truths or just completely false. But I've worked with Don for, I don't know, over ten years. I see his books. I've been trying to talk Don into getting out of fuel for years. He loses money. I'm his accountant. I tell him that. Well, Don doesn't want to do that because people are going to lose their jobs if he does that. You guys are going to lose more than jobs if you do this. You're going to lose your entire airport because if his plan goes through and they take it completely over and Don leaves, that airport dies. The whole thing. I guarantee you. And that's going to be on you guys. This is serious stuff. The only thing I heard of could be a possible improvement is first appearances. If that's what you're worried about, have your airport manager out there greeting people as they come through the doors. I mean, just taking over the fueling isn't going to do that. Somebody's still going to have to do it. Unless you're going to tell me a $15 or $20 an hour linesman is who you're going to put a suit and tie on to greet your people coming in at the airport. I mean, I would think that's part of the airport manager's job to begin with, would be to do that. I don't know what his job description is, but... I think that date for the leaded fuel is set in stone, to answer your question, Stacy. I think that's set by EPA. I don't think that's a proposed date. I think it's set in stone, but I could be wrong. I'm an accountant, not an aviation expert. Last thing. You just said this is $100 million economical impact for our city. You guys want to gamble that on this deal? Seriously? It's ridiculous. Completely ridiculous. Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we find out his name? Oh, sorry. Randy Porter. Randy Porter, thank you.

Anyone else like to comment on this part of the agenda? All right, Angela, if not, I guess we can move forward.

Take a break. I have a process question, and then I would like to take a body break. If we intend to strike pieces as, I guess this is a process question for everyone, Mr. Scherzer, for you, to propose to strike pieces as we're going along through this this evening. Would you prefer us to make those motions now before we get to the budget adoption or wait and bank them until the end? what would be the preference so that we are all operating with clarity?

What would be your option?

I don't know if Enrico has a preference. Um, I think it probably would be good to, um, have some consensus of what needs to be removed from the budget or what you're proposing. Um, if there's too many changes, I would suggest that we just close the public hearing and bring it back on the 15th. If there's, you know, one change you could make an emotion to adopt with the following changes at the end.

That would be my advice, that if there are a lot of amendments to the proposed budget, then we can just take it to the next meeting. But if it's just one, then move forward.

Can you quantify what a lot would be?

I mean, there's no specific amount other than two, three, four, whatever. I mean, whatever that looks like.

And I think it may depend on what the changes are. If it's striking a couple CIP projects, that's easy to do. But if it's modifying staff count or something like that, then I couldn't give you a firm number of what that cut would equal. So something like staff changes would probably be something we want to bring back.

And based on the... Okay, so... Based on the proposed final action, which is, sorry, it's on a different page, 7c, though, that doesn't include a final dollar amount. It just says approve and adopt the 2027 budget. So would the appropriate motion be approve and adopt the 2027 with cuts, or with the elimination of specific line items correct okay that's what I would suggest and if those include but you're saying if those included staff that we would need to send that back to be reworked or not?

Possibly. If it's something like the airport fund and cutting the staff that have been requested, I could give you a rough estimate of what we could cut from that budget. But if it's something like cutting some staff from the general fund, then I don't think we would necessarily have to calculate that. because it's a large enough fund and it can be more flexible.

I mean, I certainly don't want, if Don's losing money, we would go forward with an RFP. I certainly, we could not do the FBO ourself, but he's made it clear he really doesn't want to do that. So if we go down this path, would we, we would obviously put out an RFP for somebody different by August of 27, correct?

Yeah, that'd be my understanding.

Okay.

Okay.

I feel like that's speaking for Mr. Rogers when I feel like he should be at the very least given an opportunity to continue his current contract without it going out to RFP.

He would certainly be invited to.

I understand that, but I think that his intention, his previous intention, and I may be misinterpreting interpreting this here, but if his previous intention was to cease FBO operations in August of 2027, that there may have been certain circumstances that we would be remedying here tonight that change the situation enough that he may choose to just renew with some minor contract changes. And I feel like giving him the opportunity to do that before sending it out to an RFP would be the fairest thing to do.

Well, his accountant says he's losing money. He said he would like us to take it over ASAP. I mean, he said that. I'm only repeating what he said, Stacy, so I'm not trying to put words in anybody's mouth or anything. Obviously, we would consider whatever proposal he might bring.

Just because people lose money on something doesn't mean that they don't want to carry on with it or that there isn't some intrinsic benefit to I'm sorry, I already forgot your name, sir. You can come back up here if Mr. Meggers would allow you to speak but that doesn't mean that there isn't some intrinsic value in carrying on the business as it is or maybe his intention the accountant's intention was that he's losing money in one aspect but that makes up for The other, like, I would bet McDonald's loses money on some items, but that doesn't mean that they discontinue them because that Happy Meal gets me in the door and the, I don't know.

Well, I was just looking for clarity as we move forward on when we say we don't want to do the FBO, but we may want to, you know, there's an obvious break in August of 27. What are we going to do then? I mean, do we just keep going and forget about doing this ourselves? I mean, how does staff want to handle that? That's all I'm saying.

And a thought I have on this is do we work up a proposal? This is what our requirements are, and then we put it out. I mean, that would be something that Alec would have to figure out. What does he feel like the airport needs? We put out a proposal. If Mr. Rogers can meet that or if somebody else, you know, because I'm like, I'm a Stacy. I got a utility bed truck. I've never flown before, you know, so I don't know much about the airport. And so I don't know quite how it works, but I think it needs to be put out for an RFP and.

To push back, I would say that we have multiple MOUs in place with different organizations across town that are not put out for RFP every single time that they come to a point for renegotiation, that they are offered to be renewed and renegotiated. without sending it out for RFP and whether or not that is or isn't the right thing for us to do as a city, that's basically the standard that we have set for I don't know, the past 10 years in operating with different groups in the community. So forcing something to go to an RFP when you have an established profitable business already running, if there are issues of X, Y, and Z that need to be addressed, those can be addressed in a new contract without terminating or without ending the contract with an existing profitable business and moving on to God knows what because I think the unknown of a new FBO to me is just as concerning as us being the FBO because

And I don't disagree with that. I mean, I just think we, and that's probably how you need to do it. Sit down, go through the MOU. This is what we would like to see and negotiate it. Now, the only other thing, I mean, and I agree with Stacey, I want to, I'd like to see us lower some taxes. but also at the same time, I'm not so sure we don't need to look at putting some extra money into the airport. Uh, it does need a lot of work out there and it's, it's no fault of Alex. I mean, it's, it's been neglected for a long time and, and I don't know, maybe that's something, maybe we need to do that in another budget year, but

suggested goats like two years ago but apparently they're like they get run over and it's a whole thing so you can't put goats well now now i hear we're getting prairie dogs out there so that's going to be even a bigger mess randy right okay so stacy did hit the nail on the head the the fuel service does lose money and if that's the only piece you guys are taking over That's all you're going to see. The fuel service does generate revenue on other sides of it for Don's business. You guys aren't going to have that yet, unless you go through with this and take the thing completely over. But the other thing that you've got to understand that I think everybody's glazed over is... This place being a serious service center is huge. And I don't think you guys understand how huge it is. And Don's not gonna toot his own horn, but I don't even know how many service centers there are nationwide. And this little small podunk, Hutchinson, Kansas, I believe is in the top five, 10? Top 10 in the nation. And there's only, I say, one reason. Don's the main reason, and his employees. They're great. I mean, you couldn't believe the amount of people that just go on and on about it. But I'm just rambling now, but if that service center goes away, I'm going to go off Don's number, 65% of touchdowns go away. You'll never see a dollar of grant money. Ever. And you guys want an FBO? Somebody else do the fuel? I just don't understand how you think somebody else could do service better than what you have out there right now. Impossible. I put my... life on that. Impossible. Nothing to get Alex or his employees that he would bring, but there's no way they're going to do a better job. So I'm back to the first appearance. Get somebody out there to do first appearance. Meet people, greet people. Solution. Solved. Done. Pull it out of the budget. Don will keep operating. We'll go on down the road. The city of Hutchinson people won't have to foot the bill. And everybody can thank Don Rogers.

Thank you. Let's take a five-minute break. And then we'll move on.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

MEETING BACK TO ORDER. ANGELA, I THINK YOU'RE...

I THINK ALEC WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING REAL QUICK Okay.

Yeah, just real quick. We keep having this 65% number bounce around, and I don't think that should be in your guys' consideration for a decision. That's anecdotal. I would venture to say that It doesn't support the flowage and the actual operation numbers that we have at the airport. So it's been repeated several times. That's not a statistic that has been vetted. So I wouldn't take it into consideration. The other aspect is I think... With Don's operation and his overhead, it's partially because his three employees are directly tied to the FBO, strictly, in that operation. Now, I shouldn't speculate to say that's 100% of their duties, but the added personnel we are bringing on are splitting duties. They're not just working for the FBO. They're also working for the airport administration. So that should be acknowledged as less of an operation cost on that FBO side. The other factor in overhead that Wells experienced is the flowage fee, which we would not experience. So those are just some topics I wanted to clarify on. I can't bring you back better numbers on traffic, but as I see it, we flow much more jet than we do Hunter Low Lead. I know Newton flows more Hunter Low Lead than we do. So that leads me to believe that the majority of our traffic is jet and training flights. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you.

To move on, I wanted to address some changes from the proposed study session material from July. So from between then and the proposed budget you have in front of you, we added a deputy city manager position and we removed the strategic growth director position. He has since left the city. And to account for that, we moved some of the strategic growth divisions Downtown budget was taken over by community development, human relations moved to law, and then some of the other expenses in those line items were moved to other divisions. For instance, Market Hutch moved to the public information officer, and then the economic development position we were helping fund moved to the city manager's budget. So you will see some movement there because of those changes. In the capital improvements program, we added $150,000 to pavement marking by reducing the funding to Jim Martinez Trail. We moved cash funding to the demolition CIP of $300,000, and we're bonding other projects to make up for that. It's just easier to demo the smaller projects when you have some cash. And then the storm... Sorry. some water CIP projects were increased to match the rate study. Both water and sewer are matching the rate study pretty well. So we're just following that and we don't have concerns with those budgets. And then you'll see that we added a new sales tax funded stormwater fund. So The two sources of funding have different legal obligations. The old one, you couldn't use it for street repairs, if you remember right, with the stormwater fee on utility bills. But with the sales tax, if we had stormwater improvements we needed to make that required some street repairs, we would be able to use it for that. So you will see that divided out, and we will come before you with an ordinance to create that fund at a future date. What we have not changed is brick streets. And I know that came up last council meeting. So if we wanted to discuss whether we needed to shift funding from residential streets or another CIP project to brick streets, we can. I think Cecil... Sorry, you moved on me, I think. Cecil, the Director of Public Works, was prepared to talk a bit about that. That wasn't on the agenda formally because we thought we could address it here. And I know he's still working on some information. So if you want to talk about brick streets, we could do that now.

Do you have anything you'd say? Well, I have a question about the brick streets. That was something that I had wanted to talk about on a future agenda item, and we moved that to the brick streets plan. I mean, it feels like if we're hearing about brick streets, it would be limited to the funding, the budget line that we currently have.

Yeah, and the main thing, I was actually asked to have that moved anyways because my staff needed a little more time. We plan on having a full presentation with some options for you on brick street maintenance on the 15th. And that way we can have some numbers to actually put to that.

So yes, the topic we would want to discuss tonight is whether we wanted to shift any funding to that and if you had any recommendations on amounts or where to transfer that funding from. So I don't know if you want to discuss that at this time or if you would like me to continue with the presentation and we can discuss it later.

I have a question about the Market Hutch. So my understanding is that because I used to serve on the Market Hutch committee when I first moved back to town that this was a committee of people and it was, I don't know, I think it was like $90,000 that was given to that committee and that committee decided how those funds were used. If I recall correctly, most of it was used to drive downtown spending, and we were tracking increases in sales tax, seasonal sales tax, et cetera. So does this mean that the Market Hutch Committee is being disbanded? Are you talking about a committee with the chamber? I'm not familiar with that. It was a committee. I believe it was within the chamber, but it was disbanded. funded by the funds came from the city.

So I believe that is an operation that we have brought back to the city of Hutch. So city of Hutch staff were going to direct that Market Hutch campaign. And so in 26, it was accounted for in our budget for $75,000. And I believe in 27, we raised that to $100,000.

Okay, and so the public information officer is who? That is Jessica Woodward. Okay, and so now the public information officer is taking on the work that had previously been done by an entire committee of people with some oversight from the chamber to essentially manage a $100,000 marketing contract. Is that... how it's being proposed.

Jessica, would you be able to assist?

Yes, that's correct.

Are you getting a raise for taking on a new responsibility like that?

I don't believe that's been discussed.

Okay, so you will now be taking on the work that had been previously done by If I remember right, it was like nine people who, I mean, we met once a month to manage the contract with the ad agency and, okay. Yes, that's correct. You're taking on that work with no increase in pay. Okay. Okay. And who is the ad agency that you would be working with?

We currently do not have a contract. So right now we've talked about working through what that communication plan looks like and potentially putting that back out for RFP.

What happened to the RFP that was put out in April of 2026?

I recently took this over. It came from strategic growth, but it was decided with the change in leadership of the program that also that would be reevaluated.

Okay. So how long have we not been engaged with a marketing agency or an ad agency for the purpose of the market hutch work?

I know that they started in on some work, but we haven't had a contract at all this year.

Okay. That's odd to me, but okay. And that's not a criticism of you. It's more just a criticism of that it's like we have this Funding set aside, that was for a very specific purpose. It seemed to have worked well. My recollection of serving on the committee was that we tracked sales tax data very closely, especially within the downtown corridor. Bringing it all in-house feels like it's a lot of work for one person to manage a year-long, multi-faceted marketing campaign on top of your other duties. When I think the previous setup of the Market Hedge was, I thought, functioning well. I think it was one of those things that people didn't know it even existed. bringing it in-house doesn't seem like it actually saves us any money or creates any efficiencies. It seems like the opposite because it's creating more work for an employee who every single employee has limited capacity and you're not getting more hours in a day or more pay for your work. So I think that's a bad idea.

Anything else I may answer?

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next part of the presentation, I wanted to remind you of some of the policy updates that we had discussed in July. We have a draft of the purchasing policy. It's been vetted through department heads, so that should be implemented soon. So we're establishing approvals for any non-purchasing. budgeted expenses. And so this also incorporates if you want a non-budgeted expense, then where are you going to cut in order to pay for that additional expense? It establishes a capital improvement committee who will vet the projects and the budget, also vetting any capital improvement projects that were non-budgeted that are intended to be It incorporates that PAYGO policy that we talked about and then it establishes a regular, either quarterly or monthly reporting of spending trends and purchase order change orders to either city manager or city council. We are also working on revising this council budget policy. And so if there is a fund balance deficit like we are currently in, it will help us create a stronger plan moving forward. What are the criteria to identify that we're in a deficit and we need to be restored? What's the time period? Those kind of things are the things that that policy will address and so that we'll be able to implement them to restore our fund balance. It better defines one-time revenues and limits their use to non-reoccurring expenses so we're not just putting one-time revenues in our general fund and spending them on operating costs. Our budget should be balanced without those one-time revenues. And then to restore the general fund balance, we plan to align that plan with the sales tax over 10 years and gradually restore our general fund balance. That is the end of my presentation. Do you have any questions, or do you want to open it up to public comments?

Do you have any questions for Angela? I don't.

Just a comment. I feel like based on that, we are tightening things up as far as accountability for all of us, city manager. I like that direction.

Yes, that is the intent. And to make it clear of when purchases need to come to city council to be approved.

And who's driving that?

Enrico has initiated those changes.

Thank you. Council, to advise you all as well, that because of the plans that we've been working on, whether it was the sales tax initiative to the policy changes, for two years in a row, we've been able to keep our bond rating the same. And that's really important for us, again, as, I mean, debt service is a tool we use to get capital improvement projects done. So I'm very confident in what we've presented as a way to keep our bond rating the same in the future as well.

We've made some promises to keep that bond rating, such as saying we are implementing these policies, we are making changes, so we need to own up to that and show that to keep our bond rating.

And just to put on record, would you repeat what you said early in the presentation about the PAYGO and about how that's going to save us, did you say $2 million or $1 million in bonding costs? 1.3.

What? 1.3 over 20 years.

Okay.

For just the 27 projects that we're funding with sales tax. 1.3 over 20 years. Yeah.

So then the hope is 28, another 1.3 over the next 20 years. And then eventually we got this train back on the track.

Right. We plan to lower our total debt, lower that debt per capita because every citizen right now has about $1,300 worth of debt. And so we hope to lower that over time. But it is going to be gradual.

And I appreciate you keeping being mindful of our bond rating which is essentially our credit score so so how is it that I?

understand the That we're we're paying down debt, and that's like based on what we have right now, but That feels like it's a snapshot based off of the budget right now when we have a potentially a $100 to $300 million wastewater treatment project, wastewater treatment facility project looming. And that's something that we are 100% going to have to bond. Yes, chipping away on the debt in very small increments, 1.7 over 20 years, which is honestly not much when you look at our $150 million budget. We're potentially looking, I would say we're guaranteed to have a wastewater treatment project within the next year. I don't know, seven to ten years. That's probably the biggest project that our city will have ever taken on. And it completely diminishes any savings that we would save on our bond service. Not to say that it's not important that we save on our bond service. That's important. It's one of the things in the balancing the checkbook. But... I think it's myopic to say that that's such a thing to be celebrated when we have a huge project looming in front of us. And to make way for that project, $1.7 million of savings over 20 years really doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things.

And if we save 1.3 million over the next, say, seven years before this comes to fruition, how much have we saved in theory towards that project? I you know, I'm just trying to point out the positives here, and it doesn't seem like anybody wants to talk about some of the things we're doing to hold ourselves accountable and to be fiscally responsible, to not borrow as much money as we need to or as we could. I'm just trying to point out the positives here. I know I'm not happy that we're going to keep the mill levy the same. Higher. What?

It's higher.

Slightly higher, yes. So I'm just trying to point out some positives here. And, you know, I understand what you're saying. We do have a lot of expenses coming up in 10 years. But I appreciate the work that staff does, as I say, every week, every other week.

There's a project that I would like to see cut entirely, which is the Cary Park water reuse project. Based on my understanding of the project and the questions that I've asked that have gone unanswered, the water rate study was supposed to predict our water rates out for I could be wrong what I thought for 10 years. And if we are using the $6.2 million that is not forgiven by the SRF loan, then from the water rates, and I understand that, again, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the $100,000 to $300,000 project that we anticipate using. But when the savings is to save $85,000 of a water bill because we're currently watering the Cary Park Golf Course with reverse osmotosis water, that takes us like, I don't know, like between 50 and 75 years to pay off. And then we have the compounded, um, issue of the state revolving fund would be a $1 million, um, forgivable loan, which leaves us. So the total is 7.2. And all that does is dig a pipe from the plant out to carry park. And then an additional $4 million of, um, digging out Cary Park, making it bigger, reworking the road, building the boathouse, et cetera. And I understand that these have been tied to specific strategic items within the park's budget. I think any good and experienced administrator can make a project fit a strategic plan. But my concern is twofold. Number one, I feel like the water rate funds should be used for, should be saved for the wastewater treatment facility project that we don't know, we don't even know how much this study's gonna cost us at this point. And then, alternative water resource was not discussed in our presentation at the last meeting, I don't know, a couple meetings before that. My understanding is that we could tap into wells that are unfiltered but are, I don't know, maybe not the same type of gray water that would be as potentially dangerous or hazardous to swimmers and to fish and would eliminate fishing in that new environment. expanded Cary Park Pond. And then the other thing is that if the funding doesn't come to fruition, we're looking at, we just ran a $7.2 million pipe from the wastewater treatment plant to Cary Park so that we can water the golf course. And then the other parts of the project, which would be funded by the, excuse me, I'm going to look up the acronym because I always get it. I keep getting it wrong in my head. The ORLP. So the ORLP grant is highly competitive. It has never been issued to a park in the state of Kansas. And I have a concern that the SRF funds that we would potentially be receiving from KDHE are not able to be used for the ORLP as a match. And if that's the case, then we're looking at we just ran a $7 million pipe to water the golf course, and the rest of it's never going to come to fruition.

I would like to address some of this, Dave, before you go.

So thank you.

I would like to address some of the, at least one of the statements that, questions that have got ignored. I went ahead and just printed off the email chain that actually started it. So you had an initial set of questions on the 19th to which was responded. Then that subsequently followed a several more questions to which all of the answers are here. And then you follow up with another set of questions that some that I guess to get to it, Dave Gwynn had talked to you on Friday about. And so I had spoken with Dave. He did advise that he spoke to you on Friday with those questions. There was, I guess, one or two that he could not answer. So you did get answers to those questions. Maybe we did not have all of them at the time in which you asked, like an answer for all of them. But, I mean, Dave can certainly chime in. He offered to, you can come to Public Works, meet the entire team. You can talk with Evan, Aaron, Dave, Cecil, whoever's working on the project. There was good faith efforts to answer all of your questions. And I just, for the, for the record, um, I get asked, I was getting asked a lot of budget questions from all of the council members, from community members and trying to do my day to day job. So if you send an email Friday at 1252 AM, um, I, and then, uh, You know, proceed to post on Facebook that these have gone ignored when actually your answers, or you did get answers to several of your questions, maybe not directly from me, but from staff. I guess I'm confused, but I would say that the point still stands that it would have been at least helpful to at least advise that we did make good faith efforts to answer a lot of the original questions.

Yeah, I didn't say the word ignored. That's absolutely not what I said. I said this email was sent to city manager Enrico Villegas on Friday morning. I have not yet received an acknowledgment or a response, but I was hoping to have a response before the budget hearing tonight. I understand my email ended in an open-ended manner, and I could have demanded a response before the budget hearing. You are all not this is not addressing you. This is addressing the public You are all right to be asking questions about how projects are being prioritized How projects align with strategic goals and and why we are not focusing on restoring our nerves as a hat as it has been told to Council is a quote priority So no these questions were not answered. These questions were not answered by Dave. Dave did not have the Well Dave could speak to some of the SRF questions. My question as a whole is how does the SRF and the ORLP grants connect? Because my understanding is that you cannot use federal assistance And the SRF is a federal bucket of money that is administered by KDHE. And using federal funds as a match for federal funds is not acceptable. My hope is that this project would come to fruition entirely before we're asked to make a commitment of $6.2 million from the water fund. I think the water fund is worth protecting. I think that we just took a water rate increase. And based on my conversation with you Friday, we are going to have another one in a much shorter time than anticipated. If we don't spend $6.2 million of our water fund, would that delay the anticipated next water weight raise? Because this is, this is a budget that increases the cost of taxpayers by 0.573 mills. We just had a water rate increase. We just had a trash increase. Everything else in the entire universe has gone up as well, and this isn't your fault by any means but um if We cannot take this six point two million dollars out of the water rate fund out of any fund for that matter Would it delay us having a an additional water rate increase in the next couple of years no Okay, so the water rate study that was performed in just last year was not accurate.

Well, no, I'm not going to say that. We are going to have to do another increase, which we will talk about in depth, but we don't know what that's going to look like because there's, just like you stated earlier, there's too much work that we're going to have to do, some of the largest maybe that Hutchinson has done. And the rates, as they're structured now, because we did the water, we did that rate case before all this work was completed, and we didn't know exactly what we were getting into fully. We know we needed to do one so that we could start recouping some of that money. But long term, we knew, we shot for, we think it's going to be this date. We missed by a year or so. So we're going to have to come back and do that.

What year should we anticipate a water rate increase request?

I don't know that exactly, but... We should have a better answer for you on the 20th. I think we're coming for you on the 20th with the study that we're doing at the wastewater plant. I think that's our 90 day. Evan, is that our 90 day? Something like that. I think that's our 90 day update. And we should have a better idea there.

20th of September?

October.

Okay.

So just real quick, I apologize about that right there with the emails because that's probably on me. He sent the email, please advise. I didn't respond to it. I was like, nah, took care of it on Friday, talked to her, we're good. So I should have just responded so that I apologize for that. That's on me.

But even then, our conversation about... Our conversation did not cover... IF THE SRF FUNDING QUALIFIES AS THE MATCH FOR THE ORLP AND ET CETERA, ET CETERA. RIGHT.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME. DID FIND THAT ANSWER. AND IT WILL. SO WE ACTUALLY, THE NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE, I DON'T REMEMBER, LYDIA, RESPONDED TO AN E-MAIL AND TOLD US THAT THAT MATCH WOULD WORK. WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT IN E-MAIL. SO WE CAN MATCH THAT TO THAT, WE'RE CALLING IT ORLAP. ORLAP. TO THAT ORLAP, YES.

And this would be a 20-year SRF loan?

Correct. We can do 30, but we don't know what that would look like in interest. It does change it. But also on the SRF, so when we go after these SRFs, we go after several. We don't just go after one or two here and there, and what I told you today was incorrect. In this particular category, we got two, I'm pretty sure it was two, that got above the line of where, hey, you've got to do certain things now with these. You've got to start having the public meetings, all these things. You guys are probably going to get this, but it's not a for sure. So that's what we've been doing. We brought it to council. We started doing these meetings. It doesn't take away from anything we're going to do at the plant because if we don't take advantage of this money now, it just goes back into, it's not money that's coming out of the reserve or anything. We do have to pay for it. We do got to pay for it over the 20 years. But it's not, it's money that just goes back in the bucket and we just can't use it. So it's one less thing we can do out there. And because we do want reuse long term, for many different reasons, but the biggest reason is to help protect the aquifer, kind of like some of the questions that are being had about the data centers and that kind of stuff, of how that's going to impact. We're doing it on a different scale, trying to protect what we have now, because long term, we don't know what we will have. So reuse is coming. Why it's not here now, I have no idea, because of where we're at. We're having problems with aquifers just to the west of here. We're in a good spot because of the river bottom. We're in good shape. But I don't want to take the chance that someday we're not.

So we're trying to set this up to protect that resource.

That's the whole goal for utilities in this and why we're going after this now. Because if we don't, we just don't get it. We'll have to do it later, which is always an option that we can try.

So when we talked Friday, and again, I did not go through this list of questions with you. Many of these questions are outside of the scope of... They're outside of your wheelhouse. That is why I directed them to the city manager. This is the city manager's budget, and I feel like he should have been the one to answer these questions, or at least to connect me to the right person. Because sending an email to somebody saying, please advise, I don't think that's a proper way to handle a question. It's a $14 million project, and I don't think that there's a limit on the number of questions that I should be able to ask about it. And yes, I sent an email at like 1 a.m., and I said on there, I sent this at a time that was convenient for me, which falls outside of regular business hours. Please reply at a time that is convenient for you. We are unpaid volunteers. We do not have business hours. And asking us to adhere to some made-up business hours that fit your agenda, that doesn't work for me. I guess I could have scheduled send for 8 a.m. or something, but sending an email in the middle of the night that you don't have to respond to within five minutes is not as big of a faux pas as you're trying to make it out to be. So with this project, When we talked on Friday, you said that well number two could be tapped into and you could run a pipe for a million dollars. My understanding was that that would not turn that pond into a non-potable, non-fishable pond. Is that correct? That is correct. So the cheaper option before us is to run a $1 million pipe, activate a well that is operational but is not in use right that's correct and doing that would not diminish the capacity that is serving our residents currently in any way shape or form not entirely so it the only reason it's not in use at the moment is because we're redoing it that is one of our emergency wells

What we do with that, in that scenario, we would pump water to Cary Park as needed, but then when I need it in an emergency, I have to shut it off, and I've got to send it to town.

Well, you think not watering the golf course in case of an emergency is something that's just a contingency plan that a lot of people would be okay with?

Which we've done, right? When we had the break at 16th and Plum, Justin had to shut everything off down there, but that's hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of investment that could potentially be ruined if we do reuse. I don't ever have to worry about him being able to do that for one. And I still, if I'm using well two, I still have to juggle it between that emergency and I also am still putting pressure on the aquifer at that point. And that's what I'm trying to really get away from.

But if you're connecting to well number two, you wouldn't be disconnecting the Cary Park Golf Course from the RO water, or you could possibly put it on bypass, right?

We could, yeah.

Okay, so in case of an emergency, if you needed to activate well to provide water to our residents, you would still be able to water the golf course. It would just happen to be with the RO water.

That's correct.

Okay, that's a plan that I don't mind. That's a million dollars to water the golf course, which I still think sucks. But I think that's a lot more palatable than a $14 million project with 6.2 of it coming out of our water fund. The other question that I have is, and this is probably a question for Justin because it's about a fish grant that we receive. So if we converted the Cary Park Golf or Cary Park Pond, I don't know if they have individual names, but it's the one that's south.

We just call them the lagoons. Okay.

So this is the one that we've been talking about all along. We're currently receiving grant funding. Mr. Brown alluded to this earlier through the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, the CFAP, where – I guess my interpretation is that they lease the pond from us and they stock the pond for us. Is that accurate?

Not that pond. The pond on the back of the golf course. So we call that one the fishing pond. So that one is the one that's stocked with trout in the cold months and then channel cat in the warm months. Because of the condition of the lagoons, so those are the front ponds, we haven't stocked those in at least five years, maybe longer than that. And also with this project, you made the comment that you wouldn't be allowed to fish. Actually, the fishing would be improved and we would stock it. You wouldn't be allowed to consume the fish. So it would be a catch and release only because of the RO water. But it would actually be a much better fishery than what's there today. We would just have to sign it, no consumption.

What would be the risk to a person if they were to consume a fish that came out of that water?

I'm not qualified to answer that. That would be a KDHE question. That's just in their regulations.

Well, I printed off something from KDHE. Actually, it's from KWP, Kansas. What's that? Department of Water and Parks.

Kansas Wildlife and Parks.

So it says, no, you should not swim in a pond of non-potable treated gray water because it still contains significant health and safety risks. Gray water is wastewater from sinks, showers, washing machines. Even when treated for basic non-potable uses, like subsurface garden irrigation, it does not mean the strict microbial and chemical standards required for full-body human contact recreation. Gray water frequently harbors fecal coliforms, viruses, bacteria from skin and household sources. Exposure can lead to skin infections, earaches, GI illness if water is swallowed or enters the eyes and nose. It talks about soaps, detergents, and oils being in there. And it says that most public health and plumbing codes prohibit open service standing ponds of gray water because they attract mosquitoes and expose humans or animals to contamination.

Dave, you're not going to be pumping gray water out of the... It'd be the same water you pump into the river now, right? So that water's already treated. What that's referring to is a lagoon in the back of your farm where instead of a septic system, you just pump your... septic water out into that. This water is completely treated.

And I was anxious to hear the answer to the question that you asked Justin to see if he had the answer. You said you had it. So what's the answer on if somebody consumes a fish? I'm just, I was waiting to hear that. I'm sorry. You interrupted. I'm sorry I interrupted. No, I interrupted you.

basically the water's full of crap and you shouldn't eat anything that comes out of it.

But this water, this is different water. This is not great potable water that they're going to be pumping to the golf course.

So it's the same water that we would put into the arc that we put into the arc now. So it has to meet the KDHE standards for, whatever those limits are that they put on us so that it's safe to discharge into there. So there will be changes when we pump this up to a pond where we will have, I think it's extra UV, extra UV, which kills that stuff or helps with that stuff. There's a lot of nuances to it, but as far as somebody jumping in the water and doing spit bubbles out of their mouth, no, I wouldn't recommend that. They're saying don't eat the fish, okay. But we're not taking super nasty water from the front of the plant. It's the stuff that we already put into the environment anyway.

I understand that it's filtered to some degree, that it is filtered, but it is still considered. Sure. Gray water.

No, it's not gray water. It's different water. May I? Okay. I'm Evan Patterson, city engineer. Greywater is wastewater that doesn't contain poop, to be blunt. The wastewater industry largely revolves around managing poop and making sure that the poop waste products don't present a hazard. So if you segregate your plumbing fixtures that don't use toilet water or bath water, you can manage those differently because they don't require the same level of cleanliness as water that contains fecal matter. So gray water has a much, much lower standard than what we're treating at our wastewater treatment plant, which gets the entire smorgasbord of human byproducts. So what we're putting into the arc has gone through a radically different process than compared to gray water, which is fairly primitive filtration systems. And we're actually, like Dave mentioned, we're adding on additional UV for the water that goes to Cary Park. The one thing we will have to manage is we'll have to make sure that when we're bringing it into Carrick Park that we're oxygenating it because the stream from the wastewater treatment plant doesn't have enough. So it'll have some kind of a fountain which allows for aeration. And there may be some temperature differences that we'll manage with a stilling pond back at the wastewater treatment plant itself. But those are... Really the limits the only reason it's not potable is because we won't be going through the quality assurance and quality control Processes that would be required to validate that it's actually safe for human consumption. I Hope that clears up the distinction, but it is important greywater Yeah, that makes potentially more of a hazard because it doesn't go through the same processes right and so help me understand

Regardless, you're pumping water into a pond. And yes, you could add oxygen. You could add a fountain. Those are extra expenses as well. Pumping water into the arc, the river, is moving at all times and has a current. It's different because water sitting in a lagoon is different than water that is flowing through.

That's right.

a river, right?

So we have talked about that because you do want to make sure that you're not providing an environment for algae or other contaminants to grow. So a lot of that is in the details of where we manage the inflow and the outflow to these ponds. I don't know if our landscape architect had a chance to talk about that during one of the presentations, but that's already being considered with the pump station because the pump station that brings the water to the ponds will bring it in at one end. We'll plan on drawing out for the irrigation system at another end. So we are inducing flow throughout the entire lagoon system because we want to avoid that kind of hazard.

That's what I was going to ask. So if you're pumping out that lagoon every night and pumping it back in, it's going to be moving through.

Well, it's not so much a movement thing as it is a load. So it's based on the amount that you're putting in based on the body that you're putting it into. How big is that body? Now, movement comes into play in that, but it gets pretty complicated when we start talking through that. So, I mean, that's all stuff that has to be engineered. Right. Yes. A lot of it's based on the, if that makes sense.

Well, my thought on this is, I mean, that's one of the biggest concerns is lack of water and our aquifer going low. To me, this is a chance to get ahead of it. I mean, yeah, it's a lot of money. I agree with that. But I feel like this is a chance for us to step up and start working on a process to save water. I mean, if we're just pumping it out of one of the wells down there, we're doing, I mean.

There are downsides to any direction that we go. The idea is to, we don't have a water problem here right now. We don't have a water issue right now. I don't want to have one. Right.

And, I mean, I think we need to be – and, again, it's a lot of money, but I think we need to be good stewards and start figuring this out. And if we can save water and recycle it, what's wrong with that?

If we wouldn't have got the SRF pre-approvement, then we wouldn't be doing this now. But because we did, it makes sense. It lines up with Justin's stuff. He gets his thing. We get our thing. Bada bing, bada boom.

Yeah.

But if we don't do it, then it just goes into a bucket, and we've got to look at it down the road at some point.

And the way I look at it, I mean, yeah, I think amphitheater and boathouse and all that would be spectacular. But I think, Justin, isn't that something we could do in steps? I mean, couldn't we create the pond first and then add to it later?

Yes, I do want to address the ORLP or ORLAP grant application. It is an extremely competitive grant. I'm not going to deny that. We are doing everything we can to make it as competitive as we can. So I've talked about RTCA, so that's the master plan process that we're doing. That group has agreed to review and make comments on our application, so we're getting it reviewed by the National Park Service before it's submitted. We're also getting... I'm getting one-on-one training and technical advice through the Trust for Public Land. They are the preferred non-profit selected by the National Park Service to do all of the I'm going to get to your question. I know I'm rambling, but I'm going to get to your question. So Trust for Public Land is the selected nonprofit to do all the technical advising for overlap. So I was selected, and our project scored high enough that I was selected to receive that one-on-one mentorship with somebody from Trust for Public Land. We're also working with JEO. They have successfully secured this grant in Nebraska multiple times. So we are doing everything we can. to make it a successful grant application. But to answer your question, yes, those other things could come over time through other funds. The SRF loan, if we don't get the ORLAP grant, we could still get the water to Cary Park, get the ponds enlarged, and get the water back to the golf course. The ORLAP grant is for all the recreational amenities around the perimeter, and then the road reconstruction. So to answer your question, yes, we could. So say if we're not successful with ORLAP, we could try again next year. We could look at LWCF, which is another National Park Service grant. We could look at other things down the road. But the timing just works out really good that we were able to secure the state funding from the SRF, which does qualify for the for the grant match, so it just was a great opportunity to try to be creative and stack those funding mechanisms.

I do want to be clear here. It was not the amount of questions asked. I don't think that that was the issue, but it was the substance. So, for example, like what is the projected savings from shifting 1,500 homes worth of usage off of the RO? I don't know that answer, so I need help. And that's something that I would rely on Dave and his team for. You know, and I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. You were the one that took that to Facebook. And, you know, and I would also say, too, that I'm going to state the obvious here. I'm your only employee. So you guys are my supervisors. But the way in which you have and continue to treat me, I would never treat my employees that way.

I would follow up on this idea. I agree with you, Mr. Truen. The number one thing is here, we're trying to reuse water. That checks a box, and there's about five other boxes it checks for me. It's in my district, it's in the south part of town, and it will totally transform the entrance area to Cary Park. it won't be recognizable. And I think it's an opportunity at very little cost to really do a gigantic project in the big scheme of things.

Yeah, to do a similar project, we would have to come up with that grant match some other place. I'm not saying this isn't real money, the $6.2 million is real money. No, of course it's real money. It's going to have to be paid back, but it's a creative way of doing that as opposed to $6.2 coming from the general fund or someplace else.

Personally, I really like the idea of the well-to idea for the rough estimate being a million dollars. I would imagine that there may even be state revolving fund forgivable loans that we could apply for for that because the state is prioritizing reuse and water is absolutely a concern. Um, the Kansas geological survey, um, posted Thursday, April 2nd of 2026. Um, let me find this sentence that I was looking for. Um, so 2025 was a wet year. Um, and the 20, so quote the 2025 measurement showed an average water level increase of about 0.2 feet across the Kansas high plains aquifer region. breaking five straight years of declines. Annual groundwater level declines across the region averaged 0.57 feet from 1996 to 2025. So yes, we should be concerned about our aquifer. Yes, we should be concerned about reuse. I think we should also be concerned about spending six times as much money on a Project that waters the golf course when again, I feel like we are talking about projects that There's no guarantee that the overlap funding comes through I would love to be super optimistic about this based on my research and I looked at the parks that had received it historically over the past like I don't know, three or five years. They incorporated so many different things that the Cary Park project does not incorporate, doesn't even come close to incorporating. I feel like this whole project is a net loss. There's nothing about this project that turns Cary Park into a moneymaker project. or turns it into a housing opportunity. Improvements in Cary Park are welcome, in my opinion, but not at this cost. Water reuse projects are welcome, not at this cost. Um, when there's a much cheaper alternative that again would have a bypass option so that in case of an emergency, you can still water the golf course, um, and still provide the water to our residents. Um, this is a project that did not exist in the 2026 CIP. This is a net new project. $14 million project here, and I feel like we are debating things that the only thing that matters to the normal people of Hutchinson is how much is this going to cost me. They don't care how the golf course gets watered, and they don't care how many planes fly into the airport. They don't care about any of that. What they care about is how much is this going to cost me, and a $6 million hit to our water fund which it doesn't seem like has a ton of reserves to begin with, that would be a $400,000 payment per year from our water fund, which seems like that would be a pretty significant hit. And I just don't think that this accomplishes the... the mission that was communicated to council of paying down debt of replenishing our reserves this is a net project and it's just the scope is too big and the benefits are too the benefits just aren't there for me so if we don't get this or lop or whatever grant do we have to do the project

So the two could operate independently. So we could still do the reuse side of it without...

But what I'm getting at is until we... I mean, if we don't end up getting that grant, we can just choose not to do this project at a later date, right? Or do we have to make a decision to do it tonight?

We still might not get the SRF.

So we don't even have to make a decision on this tonight.

Yeah, this will come back to council for approval of the SRF loan. It is in the budget, though.

It is. It is included in the budget. And so whether or not the – this is the thing that my Facebook post was trying to get to the heart of, which is, broken promises about projects that we pick up these projects and we think they're great and they get communicated to the community that they're going to happen and then the community doesn't understand the very complicated, very competitive funding stack that's going to go into it and all they know is that at one point in time we were promised the world on a project and then what we get delivered is not that and it doesn't have quite the same benefit, it doesn't have the same use, it doesn't have the, there would probably be some cost savings there, so that's, I guess, the hidden blessing of some of these projects not being finished to fidelity, but it just feels like this is just one more project that we are promising the world, super complicated funding stack, this project didn't exist in council's mind six months ago, and we are being asked to include this in the budget right now. And the benefit is just not there for me.

I disagree, Stacey, because I hear every single day from people that are worried about our water and our natural resources. That's where I stand. And that's what we're trying to do here. Every single day I get something from somebody that is concerned about using water.

Again, the well-to option.

We're still using water that we would have pumped in.

We're still pumping water out of the ground. I understand that, but we're still pulling water out of the aquifer, which is what we're doing any other which way you go. That's not a reuse.

It might be a cheaper option right now to pump the water out of the aquifer, but in the long term, it could be a more expensive option because if we lose that aquifer, we can't bring it back. It's not coming back. So if we look at it the wrong way and go, oh, that was cheaper now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, we have no water. Where'd that water go? We pumped it on the go, of course.

Just to... Tell this story on that side. I'm pretty sure well two would actually be considered non-potable as well because we wouldn't chlorinate at the well. We'd just be sending raw water to Cary Park. So the same rules. I don't know if they would still apply with the signage.

And at that point, we wouldn't be reusing the water. We'd be pumping it out of the ground. That's correct.

I mean, I don't want to spend $6 million either, but I think we need to be good stewards of our environment. And if we can reuse water, I think it's something we really need to think about.

And if there's some sort of reimbursement on the end of this thing that we can get some money back to help with it that we may never see again, it's just something that we can have in the budget to look at. And if it comes to that point and we go, okay, yeah, this doesn't make sense, then we can walk away from it at that point.

Yeah. More of anything what this is going to pay back is in not taxing the aquifer. That's the biggest payoff because she's right. It's a ton of money.

Yeah.

It's a lot of money to do. And there's downsides to both sides of it. We use well, too. We use reuse, you know. What do we want long term? And it wasn't brought to you guys as something we wanted to do, because I was kind of keeping it right here. But reuse is something that we want to look at long term. It just happened to line up with what he could get and us matching for him. And when we put it out there, it hit above the line, and it became a real thing for us. So it was something we could move on. It's not going to change what we have to do with rates. Whether we do this or whether we don't, we're still going to have to come back on rates.

And it can still be a two-stage process where we get the water coming into the golf course. That's where it ends because we didn't get the other funding, too.

We have 16 days. Of funding in our reserves. This is a $6.2 million project. We have $2.7 million in our reserves. Our goal is seven something. This is a hard no for me because this does not meet any of our goals except for water reuse for the golf course.

Those are two completely separate, two different functions.

I understand that. But at the end of the day, when it comes time for us to spend $300 million potentially on a wastewater treatment plant, there are going to be budget allocations, I would imagine, that we're going to offset for studies and we're going to offset for different things. We're going to have bond payments on that. That's going to be a huge drain on our budget in the very near future, in my lifetime. And I have a big concern with that, spending this kind of money to water the golf course, I don't care where the water comes from, when we have two point some million dollars and only 16 days of operating capacity in our reserves, absolutely not. This is a hard no.

Okay. Okay. We have 16 days. We're not saying we're doing this right now. It doesn't. We have 16. Yeah. But we're not doing this right now. This is something we're talking about. That's all we're doing is talking about it.

No, we have final action on the budget tonight, Mr. Garza.

We can change that. Mrs. Goss, we can change it.

Nobody has made that proposition yet.

Then make the proposition that we change it.

My intent is to satisfy everybody's questions until we are ready for final motion tonight. That is the guise under which I am operating.

I am not going to settle the budget tonight. There's too many questions. I see us not doing that. Number one, I'm going to tell you what I think. What I think is that we have to, Ms. Goss, you do a lot of studies. I think that's great. But we have to do something to make our meetings not so long. If we're going to make changes in this paperwork that we do here, right here, and you have questions on it, we should submit this and look at this and submit this and ask our questions behind the door so we can get it out so we don't be here for seven hours. We have changed this thing over and over because the questions that we should be done, ask those questions ahead of time. So sometimes you guys ask questions I don't understand. But if I got the stuff ahead of me, then I can do some research and ask the questions. Why are you asking that question? We need to do that behind the scenes and not make it an eight-hour session. And our budget's not going to be done in 16 days. Now, if we have a disaster or a tornado will come in here, that's what the budget's for, an emergency budget, and our town's got trees laying down, then I can see what we're concerned. But we're not spending $16 million in 16 days. We still got time. And these are just proposals. She's right on some things that we can't afford. Well, we can't afford it. Not right now. But these are proposals to make our town better. I can see we have to maintain the grass. How much money do you spend on the grass every year? Just give me a ballpark figure.

Yeah, I'm not even going to take a guess at that. Okay, but anyway, it's a lot of money, right?

And that water has to come from somewhere. I know a lot of golfers would be upset if we let that dry up. And I heard you one time say that if we took and got the water out of the lagoons, it would drain it. Am I right or wrong?

The current lagoon, the size of them, we would drain it every night.

So we have to do something to get water over there. Am I right? If it's not from the wastewater treatment plant, it's from somewhere. And we're not doing it today. We're not doing it today. So I don't understand, Ms. Goss, and I respect you dearly. We're not doing it today, dear. We have 16 whatever in our budget. That's for emergencies.

No, we are required... By law, to have a reserve, it impacts our bonding capacity.