City Council - Regular Meeting

one thank you for joining us for this week's agenda review may we please stand for the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all

I want to recognize that Council Member Shepherd, Council Member Tuttle, and Council Member Ballard are online as well.

Great. Thank you, Mayor, and good morning to everyone. Happy Friday. And first off, happy birthday to you, Mayor. We have a little goodies afterwards that we can invite people to enjoy for a little cake and festivity. I do want to highlight a couple other things. We did announce earlier this week that we did open our cooling stations. which basically is our recreation centers, our libraries, and some of our community centers. And we are offering free transit to and from those cooling stations for those who may need that. We also want to highlight coming up is Labor Day weekend. So for the Labor Day weekend, we will have alternate hours for city services. A lot of our services will be closed on Monday, September 7th, including our transit service. We will have our pools open this weekend. It'll be our last weekend for our four pools But we'll still have several of our splash pads open through September and so and encourage people to beat the heat to get out and enjoy our Water options, but also our libraries and other facilities if they want some air conditioning and hydration So that's for what's going on this weekend looking to The agenda item for September 8th. We don't actually have that many items, but we have some big ones for you. So we want to highlight a couple of things. And the first one on there you'll notice is a termination of lease, which is related to the boathouse along the Arkansas River. And so there is a good history in there in the write-up. for the council to see. I want to highlight, there's been some history certainly with this location, this facility, and different folks that we've worked with over time going back to 1992 and 93 to our current lease from I believe 2009. But I want to highlight for you is that this also is the home for a couple organizations. We have a lease agreement with what is called the American Cubed or American Three Foundation, but they also have a lease with the Kansas Hall of Fame that uses that location, and then there's also some event venues or events that are held in there for weddings and other things. We've got a couple things going on there. But the request is from the America Cube, who we have the lease agreement with, to terminate the lease. So they have come to us and requested termination. But keep in mind that that context was because we highlighted part of their responsibility in the lease was to do maintenance. And so we did go to them and said we have some maintenance needs that have been identified and they said that they cannot address those and don't have financial support to meet those going forward. So we looked at our contract and within our lease contract we do not have any clawback provisions in there which would allow us to recover the funds. We just have failure to perform in there, and so that is where we're at. They realize they cannot perform the maintenance required and don't have resources going forward, so would prefer to terminate the lease. That is basically our option.

Can we have a list of what that maintenance is? Yes, we do have some of that. Yeah. Is it in there?

Yeah. Well, we have that for you. We don't have it here. We did total over 400,000 identified. When you look at some roof needs, a rot, paint, different needs, but we have over 400,000 identified I think we're saying maybe around 200,000. Depends on how you look at the roof needs and all the roof, if it's 90,000 to 200,000. But we do have that identified. So part of the conversation, and we can take some questions here, So part of the conversation is twofold. One, terminate the lease, if you're agreeable to doing that or not, which means the entire site reverts back to us. During this process, we've also found that what we consider the sublease, the Hall of Fame, they have also said they are interested in vacating the building. And in fact, they are making plans to be out of the building by October 30th. Yeah, so they're in there now going through things and pulling all their things to vacate as well.

Was that out of concern that the rent was going up and they couldn't afford it or?

Just out of concern that they too have been struggling with having events and financial going forward so they couldn't maintain some of their portion of the heating AC, the ongoing operating. So the arrangement, my understanding is, from America Cubed is a sublease with the Hall of Fame, and part of that sublease is for them to pay for electricity, insurance, and other things, and the Hall of Fame is saying they don't have the current financial ability to maintain that level of operation for what they're doing and for the facility.

So with that being the discussion, the Sports Hall of Fame and potential options for them moving forward?

They're basically saying with the termination of the lease, it also impacts them, which they're fine with. And so they're going ahead and wanting to end their sublease and vacate the premise.

If we didn't terminate the lease, would they still be vacating?

Probably. I can't speak for them exactly, but knowing what they've communicated about their financial ability to maintain operations of the facility, that I don't think they have the financial to go forward. So yeah. don't know what that means they're still looking for their future home they're going to store stuff in someone's basement so i think that means they have some other financial restructuring to do as an entity going forward i don't think the boathouse had anything to do necessarily with their current financial situation

For Tuesday's council meeting, we have a list of every time we sent them a notice of underperformance. So when they weren't maintaining the facility, did the city send out notice to them? I know in some ways it's maybe semantics, but the idea of us accepting their request to terminate the lease to me is different, at least in principle, than us saying you're in violation of the terms of the agreement You've been given an ability to cure those terms like word terminating the least. The outcome is the same, unfortunately, in both circumstances. But us acquiescing towards their underperformance is a concern of mine versus us saying, hey, you're underperforming. We're going to, again, end result, unfortunately, is the same. But I think that's just a different conversation to have with someone of, hey, you're not living up to your expectations. And so we are ending this. Again.

I don't know if that changes anything. I'll ask for us to track down the list of communication with them on this. I would hunch that it's not as extensive, but we will find what we can.

So then did that end maybe as part of that? I mean, maybe it's a larger conversation and we have other agreements like this? that we're sending this out now and we're sending out these notices early so maybe it doesn't amount to $400,000 in lost damages at some point. Chair Greg Musil.

And to that point, we also, I think that's key for you to know, is that our standardized contracts now for lease arrangements and agreements have been changed and updated that do have these financial clawbacks or provisions where if they don't cure a deficiency of the contract, then that can spur us into action. And so we have changed our standardized contracts since this one, but we're under this one from 2009, I believe.

Can we find out? So this obviously was agreed upon November of 2009. Who created that agreement back then? I would like to have a little bit more history of when that agreement was created, by whom. And then this was a follow-up question to actually Councilmember Shepherd during the meeting, which was, we'd like to see what it used to be this agreement and lack thereof for clawbacks versus now in 2026 this new standardized agreement um that we have clawbacks and anything that again won't put us in this similar situation um so some history additional history uh before the meeting on tuesday would be helpful

Gotcha. Yeah, the old language, new language. And I know we have some of that. As to who created it, we'll work on, but again, I will say the general process is everything comes out of law approval, city manager's office, and then reviewed and adopted by city council. So the who created it was based upon the RFP, and we'll go back and pull that, but also I just say in general law, I don't know what attorney who was here then at the time, but I'm sure our process, law, city manager's office, and council.

Can we have names, please?

We'll see, yes. So that is the boathouse status. Now, you're being asked now, we have to look at this, the recommendation, one is to terminate the lease, and so we do, that's certainly my recommendation, but then the next step, if you want to do this now or not, you have a couple options. We've highlighted that

we can as council make the repairs we know we're looking at maybe up to four hundred thousand dollars in repairs you can think about why are the numbers different because it says um right here a second option would be to invest three hundred three thousand dollars for a deferred maintenance whereas on the first page it says the city is asking for 476 000 in deferred maintenance those numbers don't match right we've did i think uh

It's what you consider critical non-critical so the four hundred and some thousand is some overall maintenance that we've identified and that could be Where you do see the peeling paint or some things but the three hundred and three thousand is what we would consider the more critical And that could be roof leak damage would rot so that's how we've delineated out those numbers. And so council, as you go forward and think about this, with those options outlined there, is think about a reuse. Do you want to do an RFP and have a reuse? Do you want to sit on the property for a little bit and think about some options, see what else might be developing in the area, the waterfront, riverfront? Or we can always, as we're recommending here, we could draft for you the RFP and then you don't have to execute that until you review it and think about what you want to do. But we're suggesting terminate the lease and then we could start the draft of an RFP to solicit bids interest of any kind and you could welcome anyone to come and repurpose the whole site invest in the facility and do the upgrades to the maintenance needs and have them take on those costs and bring in a new business or whatever it may be. Um, or Council can just determine if we do something for the land, clear the land, think about river development or whatever. So. You got a couple options.

I have a question regarding if the city chose to invest $303,000 in critical deferred maintenance to preserve the property, where would that money come from if it was not an RFP for another entity to go and take care of?

We would have to evaluate the, I'd look first to the public works facilities budget. And then within the 26 budget, We would come out of, there's still a little bit of money in the city manager's contingency fund. There may be a little bit of money there, but we'd probably have to go to a couple different funds to put that money together.

I have one last question, and this would just be data for Tuesday. What it would cost, and obviously it would be speculative, but what would it cost to raise the building as well? Because that's just, it lists as an option, but does it list like a monetary value in the green sheet? What would that cost?

So we'll work on generating that information requested. Any other questions we or any other information we can generate before Tuesday?

And so one more clarifying question. No matter what, there's going to be a termination of a lease of some sort, but there's not going to be any legal ramifications for the current entity to pay the city any dollars.

Correct.

Based off of the agreement that was signed back in 2009. Correct. Thank you.

Yeah.

City Manager, I have a question, and if I may, Mayor. To the mayor's point in regards to the entity who's currently leasing not meeting the obligation in the contract, one side of it, you know, we failed in 2008, 2009 to put clawbacks in the contract. But what is the city's standard operating procedure when we're working alongside entities that do not honor their agreement? What does that look like going forward when they want to do business with the city? That doesn't have to be answered right now, but it's something I think we need to be thinking about to preserve the trust of the public and to protect any risk in the future, given any history we might have with them. And then the second thing is, we might do this, but I'm going to ask for more information on Tuesday in regards to When these items are listed in a contract about the lessee being held to maintain the maintenance, How are we on an annual basis reviewing that? So in my mind, I think of our housing department, those who are on vouchers, you know, they're doing a walkthrough on an annual basis, maybe even more to ensure that the property is being held up to standard and they're addressing any concerns. What is the standard operating procedure for us when we have these lease agreements with partners in our city? that say, you know, you're responsible for the maintenance, how are we actually ensuring that they're addressing any of that maintenance so we don't run into situations like this where we find, you know, we have $400,000 in unaddressed critical deferred maintenance? So it doesn't have to be answered now. That's just something that I'm pondering on.

Great. Thank you. I've got that written down. I appreciate it.

And in addition to that question, a list of the actual agreements. So I know for sure there's one in District 3 in Council Member Hoheisel's district. The disc golf folks are renting a city building. So that would be one agreement. I can't think of the other ones, but if those could be listed out similar to this boathouse situation, who else is leasing from the City of Wichita?

OK, got that. Thank you.

Looking at other agenda items for your consideration on the 8th, we do have brought back, per your request, the Redbud Trail project phase two and three i believe or um two trying to reconcile the i know there's been some discussion from our last meeting about what's budgeted what's a project cost how is the funding structure then when you bring in public art funding how we do our bids and our bid estimates so there's a lot that goes into a project and then how we execute it I do have some information from our engineering as part of Public Works that we will hand out for you to see if this may help clarify some of the information. And then if this doesn't do it, then we'll work again and make sure we have, we are working on a PowerPoint for you for Tuesday. And I'm sorry, Mr. Shepherd and Ms. Ballard. online we'll see how we can send these to you but we'll talk about some numbers here so you can follow along with us but trying to clarify or hone in on basically what are the project expenses versus what was budgeted and do keep in mind that the project expenses are still dependent upon getting our final bids back So that's why we were talking project costs versus budgeted because we don't know some of the project costs until we have some of the bids back. So I'll ask Mr. Gunzelman to join us here and Basically start on what you have and we're going to talk numbers for those online so you can see it. If Mr. Guntz, when you start on your page 13 of the financials, I want to highlight again that some of the questions in media coverage has been about the bridge over Rock Road versus a total project, which is part of the 30 mile Redbud Trail. And so we are talking about a couple different things here as part of this project. But Mr. Gunselman, for this phase, if you'll highlight on page 13, the cost there and then the cost to date. Sure, okay.

And I will start, I sent this out to y'all yesterday, so I think, so, What we have done for the manager, we have taken that and boiled it down to a simpler format. So what you, what he just showed you here. So.

So the council member make sure, the council members online may be able to reference an email from you yesterday. Yes. Yes.

With the overall spreadsheet that I had sent out. So.

I sent out the three photos to the three council members who are online.

Great. Thank you. Okay. So on slide 13, the top portion um, is the estimated cost, um, going into this, um, that we were, um, that kind of references the upper right box of the table that was sent out, um, yesterday. So, um, we had at that time the, uh, budget was $12,118,000. And then in addition to that, we had $400,000 for public art to add to that. That was the available funding at the time. and that was what was approved. We also knew at that time that the estimated project cost was approximately the $18 million that is shown on slide 13 at the upper part of that. We had also been working with our partners at WAMPO and we're pretty confident that additional funding would become available through WAMPO for the project. After we opened bids in February for phase one, which phase one includes the three and a half miles, or approximately three miles if you take out the bridge on either side at Rock Road, of the trail, it includes improvements to the signalized crosswalk at Woodlawn, as well as new crossings with medians and signalized crosswalks at Webb and Greenwich Road.

How much were those signalized street crossings for Woodlawn, Webb, and Greenwich?

I don't have that. I think Webb and Greenwich were approximately $200,000, but I'd have to pull that bid tab for you, Mayor.

Sorry about, I'm asking a question out of order right now, but there's a reason. We have heard from community members who are just now understanding that there was a bridge proposal over Rock Road. Many residents are asking the question, why could that not be another signalized street crossing like Woodlawn Web and Greenwich? Can you tell us why Rock Road was proposed as a bridge rather than a street signalized crossing?

And I will cover that as well on Tuesday as I have a slide, but the traffic volumes on Rock Road are approximately 30,000 vehicles per day. And that was reasoning for the bridge over Rock Road. The traffic counts on the other arterial streets aren't that heavy. So we provide the actual number. I will have that. I did not bring that PowerPoint down, but I have those on the slide as well. I think one of them was 17,000, if I recall right. But the others will be covered Tuesday as well.

Mayor's question, just maybe an additional follow-up for data points too, is what is the economic cost of adding additional traffic measures? So people are gonna have to stop an extra time, so that increases traffic. I imagine there's some economic calculation of increased traffic on there or maybe increased vehicular accidents if there's an intersection. I would just be interested in, like, maybe what are the additional data points of justification for one over the bridge versus on the road.

TODD BANDUCCI. And I believe we have all of that in the study that Binnish had done. TODD BANDUCCI.

Because if I had to stop one more time down Rock Road, I'm not going to be happy personally.

OK, moving on down to the bottom portion of slide three. So we did receive favorable bids on phase one. We're still estimating the public art, and phase two. All total costs to date with what we have bid received for phase one, we are estimating $14.6 million.

Any savings will come back to the city first, right?

That would be, yes. So we have, again, with the approved budget in September of 2025, the general obligation portion of that was $7.6 million. Add the $400,000 for public art would be $8 million. That would be our commitment to the project. Even with the additional federal funding if approved on Tuesday, that is still $8 million. Now, if we get favorable bids, then yes, that could be reduced. And money coming back, general obligation funds would not be as that much. That we could reprogram in future CIP or budget cycles. All right.

Thank you. And that is for phase one and phase two. So the cities, yeah.

So the federal government, the WAMPO, has $10 million invested in this? Yes. And it's expected to cost $14.6. That's where we are now, correct. Yeah, OK.

So by all technical purposes then, what you're telling us would be that the total project of that cost at 14.6 million, 10 million will come from the federal government, and the remaining 4.6 is city dollars?

It's not quite that simple because not all costs are participating that are eligible for reimbursement back from federal dollars, WEMPO. Design costs are all general obligation. That's still local funds that we have to pay for.

Wampa only pays for construction costs.

Construction, they could pay for part of our construction, engineering, administration, et cetera, for inspection. We can get reimbursed for that as well. Okay.

Sorry, another follow-up question to that. So the $10 million, in order to accept it, is there a requirement then that it must be a bridge?

Well, that was partly yes. That is how we put the project description within the application to WAMPO. So yes. Project scope we submit with the application.

And as a reminder, all $10 million of federal funds would be utilized first. And then any remaining would be city dollars. And any city dollars not spent on this project would go back into the CIP for CIP projects such as a new fire station.

TODD BANDUCCI- As long as it's, yeah, same general obligation funding, yes. TODD BANDUCCI- We have to have a 20% match. TODD BANDUCCI- We do for construction.

TODD BANDUCCI- To that $10 million. So we have spent at least $2 million on it.

And so far, because you said 20% match of the 10 million, how much has the city so far spent in city dollars?

So far, we have all of the design funding spent local dollars, part of the other funding, other category, part of our project management, the TIP fees, property acquisition, and then any others that we might have in there.

This maybe is a question for Tuesday, because we're probably getting into some maybe debate on Tuesday. what of the things you just listed could be eligible for the 20%? Because design is not, art is not.

It's a part of the project management for construction engineering after bid.

So I do want to highlight, that's I think the clarification on the numbers. If you do look at the green sheet still for the agenda item under the analysis, you will see under the financial considerations, for instance, there the financial considerations, it still shows revised budget of 17.8. That's because it does not factor in the 400,000 for public art. So again, I wanna make sure we can help you all match the numbers up based upon some of the questions that we had. And then again, where you see there under financial considerations, the first thing, the existing budget of 12, That's now been updated because we've gotten the additional federal funds, so there's a little bit of rhyme and reason. It's hard to communicate, and that's why we went to PowerPoint on Tuesday to be crystal clear for you all, which would include this information. But we now are looking at what is the estimated cost, what I say the budgeted costs have gone up to 18 million because that's factored in all the other grants in scope and then the cost to date are the actual project costs that we know. And so we're within quote unquote budget with our new funding sources. But this also is more than just a bridge. And so make sure that people are following that. Any other questions?

One more question. I think there has been a miscommunication regarding also the bridge itself. Remind us, in order to have the bridge, you still need the supporting concrete. So in total, how much is the actual bridge?

Let me get that number for you, Mayor.

We can send that out with you later on today?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, if you can let me know, too. We'll share that. We'll share that. Let me know, too. Councilmember Ballard?

I'll send it out.

Yes, I would just – sorry, I'm not there. I would just encourage anyone this weekend to go out to this – where this specific bridge is being talked about and see how busy it is and – or go for a walk or a ride on the Redbud Trail and see how much it is utilized just so that you have your own experience with – the area and seeing how much foot traffic bike traffic and how many cars are passing just so that we all have our own idea of what that might look like. DIRECTOR DEWOLF.

Thank you. Any other questions. DIRECTOR MACK. Thank you. DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Any other questions related to the red bike agenda item. All right. I did want to highlight. Thank you, Paul. I did want to highlight one last agenda item on the eighth agenda. It may seem like you've already addressed the uptown crown or crown uptown. But given the nuance of our statute and ordinance is there is an appeal on the books that was filed by the owner related to the 30-day that has to be resolved. And so I'll ask Mr. Waddell as our planning director to come forward and to highlight this agenda item for you and why it's on the agenda.

Yes, sir, and thank you. Good morning, everyone. So in this case, as was indicated, the owner submitted an appeal of the preservation staff 30-day interim control. Now, again, the council has taken action to extend the interim control, and that's 180 days. It takes it out to January 23rd. The original 30-day interim control, if it had not been extended, would have expired on August 26th. So we're past the date when the initial 30-day interim control would have expired. However, pursuant to the code, the owner did submit an appeal of that 30-day interim control And if that appeal is granted, then the 180 day goes away because the 180 day is an extension of the interim control that was placed by the preservation planner. Now the municipal code is not exactly clear about this type of situation. We're beyond the 30 days, but there's an appeal that was filed. So staff have discussed it, perhaps even debated it internally, and out of an abundance of caution, we've placed it on the agenda. And again, if you approve this appeal, then the interim control would go away, including the 180-day one that was extended.

Any questions? All right. Just make sure you kind of had that background about why it's coming forward when we had the last conversation. And then looking ahead, I've got some things to highlight on the 15th, but want to see if there's any other information you need for the September 8th agenda. Looking ahead to the 15th, a couple of things. We are bringing before you our HR and finance team, our benefits renewal as we get ready for open enrollment in October for our benefits for employees. We're going to have a benefits renewal for you coming forward. We also will have a VisitWichita report update for you. And then we do have a resolution about our banking provider. Some people may be interested in our banking services. And so we have that update for you on our banking provider for the city on the agenda as well as a resolution. So those seem to be the highlights for the September 15th agenda. If there's anything we can get, just let me know.

So I have a question about the September 15th agenda. There are 12 items, whereas next week we only have two items. Is there anything that can be moved up? I just feel like a balance of the meeting would be helpful.

I'm sure we can stretch two items into eight hours.

Well, thank you, Mayor, for thinking about that. Given that the agenda is out and we got a holiday, I don't want to. Do too much, so I think we'll move as expeditiously expeditiously as you allow.

City manager, this is this is Becky. I was just going to say exactly what you said. We have an internal policy that nothing can be on the agenda if it wasn't put there by Thursday at 5 PM, so nothing could be added to the agenda for Tuesday.

Thank you. So that's all I have. If there's anything else, please, oh, I do wanna share with you, I'm sorry. I will hand out and we will send to you for those online is pleased to highlight, we do our annual citizen survey and we are ready to do our next one that will look to go out here in the next week, two weeks, but I want you all to see it. You'll see that it's not as intensive as some of our other ones. More of this is about finding opportunities, how we communicate, engage in different things with the public. um but i did want to highlight for council members there will be a question on here related to any proposed sales tax feedback and so i'll share that with everyone and then you can see the overall questionnaire i believe we have 14 Well, we basically say 15 questions. One at the end is blank. So for those who are chosen to get to take the survey, we certainly would appreciate your interest in completing this. Hopefully it'll only take maybe 20 minutes max, but we'd appreciate survey feedback if you are offered the opportunity from our third-party vendor to complete that. How many go out? 415 well more yeah more than we usually get back 6500 but how much we get back for statistically accurate will depend but do you know what the margin error is so 6500 folks will be invited to take the survey so well good didn't you manager when is that survey going out We're looking two weeks, within two weeks? Next week. Councilmember, hopefully by the end of next week. All right. Let me know if you need anything and have a great Labor Day weekend and enjoy some birthday goodies over here. Take care.