City Commission - Regular Meeting

neighborhood. Oh, it is. Okay, it is it is 3:00 and we have a study session scheduled and it's rather timely, I'm afraid. So, um don't know if I'll turn it over to Nancy, it looks like. Yep. Go ahead, Nancy. Thanks.

Hi, good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. Nancy Shestler, the city's risk manager. Um, we're here to talk about property and casualty insurance. Um, it's that time of year where our policies are getting set to expire at the end of June. So, we need to start talking about what our plans are moving forward. So, obviously, property is going to cover our facilities and our equipment. And the liability policies that we're talking about are law enforcement liability, um, employment practices liability, cyber liability, those kinds of things. So, um, we do need assistance to go out to market. We can't do that on our own. So, um, I've grabbed an expert in the field, Mark Skidmore, is here today from Iron Insurance Partners, and they're the ones, um, along with many other things that they do for the city of Salina. they're very active and involved this time of year talking about what we're going to do for renewal and um what's available and and what's the best uh turn for the city. So um the second set of ears and eyes that the city has um along with a lot of expertise is James Charlesworth is here from Charlesworth Consulting and he brought a friendly right. Okay. All right. I did remember. So um with those guys's experience, their years of working with the city, they know us the best. um they know what's going on out there and today they're going to start talking about the state of the marketplace. Mark's going to talk first. Um but before I sit down and let Mark get started um just because I know you're dying to hear um the current last year, if you recall, we actually changed from travelers to chub for our property insurance. So they cover our facilities obviously and then also our equipment. So, we do have we did get a lowered um hail deductible, wind and hail deductible. So, it's only 1% and but 100,000. It's 1% per premise

and then it's a $100,000 minimum except for Tekk. Tekk is set at a 2% and a $250,000 minimum. So, anyway, uh unfortunately, we have uh some substantial damage that's coming our way, I think. So the the reporting is leading me to believe that we're going to be busy with that for a little while. So we'll let Mark start off. Thank you all for your time today. I really don't know what to say. I think I put a presentation together just kind of to give you a state of the marketplace and what we've seen. the marketplace had kind of calmed down a little bit and the presentation talks about some storms and things like that. Nikki should have put it on the P drive for you

or not. Go to P drive.

Thanks. That's okay. Do you want a copy?

Yeah. Thanks. So, we started putting this together a few years ago for y'all just to kind of let you know the state of the marketplace and what we were dealing with when we talk about going to market, talk about what rates are doing, not go to market. Uh, just to kind of give you some oversight into what the industry was doing as a whole. You can go to the next one. So hard market the lines of coverage that we've been having difficulty placing most of this information is accredited to Gallagher down at the bottom of the slide but liability any sort of general liability um claims have been difficult. Uh so that line of coverage has been more difficult than some auto coverage naturally with the litigation that we see in any auto claims. The auto line of coverage has been difficult and sexual abuse coverage still hard uh in those three lines of coverage challenging pollution and crime and what we have seen is stable in the cyber and property line of coverage across the country. We can go to the next uh casualty. We're seeing the insurance companies reducing limits. It used to be that we could go buy these big umbrellas and it was relatively cheap to get a 10 million, a $15 million worth of umbrella coverage if we wanted. Now the insurance marketplace is pulling back knowing that it just takes the right case to attach to that number and it's gone. Whether they believe it's true or not true, it just can go away. So they're pulling back uh limits due to the latigiousness of society. Um, I don't have to tell anybody that watches television about attorneys advertising or driving claims cost up. Um, evaluational claims tales. So, what we're seeing is that claims

that have been open for a period of time are ballooning up due to inflation, increased medical things they thought they could settle for a million dollars 18 months ago is now costing them a million and a half. Um, market challenges. I talked about sexual abuse. um claims in emerging years, right? Some of the the states have changed around how long they allow somebody to file a sexual abuse claim. That's making that coverage increasingly more difficult. Uh average catastrophe claim severity, we'll talk about that in a slide in the future. Um auto I said employment practices liability losses continue to grow still. So this is just a tower comparison to the umbrella uh issue that I talked about, right? We used to be able to go out and get one carrier to give us a big limit. Um then a few years ago it went from one to five and now it might take us 10 to provide the same amount of coverage that we used to get. So, property showing showed signs of stabilizing. Um, convective storms uh have continued to be the number one uh property loss leader. Um, pushing wind and hail deductibles. Nancy talked about that. We've improved our percentage. Um, insurers with good losses are seeing larger rate reductions naturally. If we don't use insurance, then we stand a better chance of it going down. Um, we're trying to loss control away everything that we can if we can control it. Hail storms, we can't, but we can control other things. We need to make sure our house is buttoned up in that regard. Um, and updating property valuations. The insurance marketplace is still pushing for insurance to value. So, we can't take a million-doll building and try to insure it for 800,000. that's just not flying in the

marketplace today. Uh they saw inflation with everybody else. This slide is is kind of compact, I will tell you. And off the top of my head, I don't remember the number specifically, but from about 2018 till about 2024, we'd seen the number of billion dollar events across the country rise from about the mid- teens up to the mid20s. Now, some of that was COVID inflation. We're we're we're trending all of that way. In 2025, we were fortunate, and this information is a little old because I think it's through July of last year, we'd only seen 14 billion dollar events across the country for a 12-month period. So, that's really what's led to property stabilizing somewhat. We think it's important that we take a look at the the premium compared to our losses and our loss ratio each year. um the insurance marketplace and James has said this and I hope I don't steal his thunder later but we need travelers to be profitable in our space or they're going to leave and we would end up with bigger problems. So we're constantly looking at okay how much money do we pay the insurance company and what are our claims against those years. That's kind of a great predictor of what we think we can get in the marketplace. You can see our premium spend has increased, but so have our claims to some degree over those years. Gosh, we were running so great until yesterday. So close to home. So three-year loss ratio of 98%. So for every dollar we paid out to the insurance market, they paid us 98 cents back in paying claims. Sure.

Mark, um, quick question. Uhhuh. with with like looking at 24 25 obviously the year overlaps. When when does the year end and the new year start? All of these all these years would would go July 1st to July 1. Okay. I didn't know. Yep. Thank you.

Yep. That's fine. And a 5-year loss ratio of 89%. Five years. If we go to the marketplace, uh 5 years is pretty common for them to want to see what our loss ratio is. So, okay. Here's what our specific claims kind of break down to. You can see that that half of our claims since um June 30th of 2023 have been in the auto world, right? $1.3 million worth of auto claims. We've had $770,000 worth of property claims. We have general liability claims. Um we have professional liability that includes public entity management, law enforcement, and employment practices. And then we had one cyber incident. So you'll see on the left you see the number of planes we had in those areas. The auto claims are kind of skewed and I forget exactly how they're skewed, but there's two hail storms in that period.

Yep. We've got two hail claims in there that was impacting a number of autos. Um but we had five property claims in that period. Um and so we're talking about almost three years uh in that pie chart. Mark, in that auto claim, does that also include the the large equipment like the loaders where the It does not. It's in So, we've had some pretty large events happen at the landfill with landfill equipment. There were pretty fires on on, you know, equipment that had to be replaced. So, those were some pretty big claims.

Yes, they were. They would fall over into the property and inland marine section. The compactors are covered under the inland marine policy. Um, okay. This was, you've got to remember this was put together about 10 days ago. Um, we were expecting something less than a 5% rate increase on the property in in the marine schedule. Um, they're going to take a small 2% or so inflationary increase. I would tell you that that last week I was expecting that number to be high, meaning I we were looking to improve on that. Um casualty lines, we are expecting a rate increase. Uh we we had initially anticipated 25% on the auto last week. I was getting the feeling that that was going to be better than 25. Um 20% or so on the professional liability and about a 10% on the liability. So, we were kind of anticipating when we put this information together a 15% overall increase. Last week, I was improving that to about 10%. Now, I don't know that anything that happened last night is going to necessarily get baked into our renewal. So, I'm still kind of hoping for a 10% overall number. Uh bottom line, I I don't think they'll I don't think we'll turn the claim in soon enough to get it baked into this this year's pricing. That may be the last slide I had. Oh, it was. So, any questions you've got but for me before I turn it over to James and I'm happy to come back after he talks.

Sorry. So like what type of claims do we have on the professional liability? What are what do those look like and on those a lot of times is that just paying for attorney's fees or is there actual claim that's been paid?

It was 193 total in the last three years and I don't remember. I don't want to get too specific about those claims, but those are the ones that you're going to see when somebody files a claim against how a department handled a process. Maybe they got a variance on building a garage and and you know went and built the garage how they thought it was supposed to be and then come to find out something was wrong and they said the city did the paperwork incorrectly or whatever and so maybe it cost them some money and so they were out some dollars for that. So they're coming after the city for that. So those are you're going to be your professional liability claims. those um it's first dollar is ours up to 50,000. Um so we're stuck with that. General liability works a little bit different. Those are your let's say somebody goes through a construction site of ours and um maybe they didn't maybe they think that we didn't you know do the safety and security part um properly and they end up you know driving into a hole and damaging their car and maybe they're injured as well. So that's going to fall under general liability. Now that one, it only pays out if the claim is paid. So first dollar isn't ours. It's whatever the settlement might be with that part party that then travelers would charge us a $50,000 deductible. All our liability lines are $50,000 deductible.

So of those 10 claims in that area, eight of them are still open. So that would include any law enforcement professional claim that completely bogus. We file, we have a claim presented to us, we're going to turn it over to travelers and they're going to put a reserve amount on it. That's what they anticipate it might pay, but sometimes they're so new they might throw 25,000 of it. So 193,000 includes reserve amounts. So they're just guessing that this is what I think our claims they think their claims are going to be. And so eight of them are still in process.

Yeah. And those types of claims tend to stay open for a long period of time. It just takes everybody a long time to sort through all the facts and and gathering data. And so they sent, you know, they tend to kind of be open for quite some time. Yep. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mayor, members of council. James Charlesworth, Charlesworth Consulting. Um, I'm not gonna rehash what what Marcus said. I support his analysis and his review. Uh, a couple of just quick points I wanted to make is one of the challenges that we face is there's no there's no competition. You know, competition is one of the great wonders of the world. It helps drive down pricing. Uh, we've got Midwest Public Risk, which is a pool. Uh, they've looked at in the past. Uh we haven't talked to them yet this year, but after yesterday, chances are probably the 99 percentile that their position will be unchanged. Um EMC insurance company, you're a little big for them. Uh they've not expressed interest in cities of this size and complexity. Um and so without competition, it's hard to get travelers too excited about really trimming or or sharpening their pencil. When Mark talked about loss ratios and and Mark may disagree with me, but generally insurance companies want to be the 50 60% loss ratio. Uh that'll help cover their overhead and their profit. And so at 89 to 95% obviously we're outside of that parameter. Now his job is to argue with them saying, well that's 90 89% based on those premiums, but if we had that same premium over five years, you know, maybe we get it down in the 70s or something. uh and try to squeeze them for the best pricing. But but his hands are pretty tied. Uh I think his estimate of the 15% before rate is fairly accurate. I would be hoping for 15% 10 to 15 12 to 15% after rate. Uh but yesterday obviously changed the the dynamics a little bit. We'll just have to see how that all plays out. uh as decisions are being made about what vehicles to fix, what roofs to fix, if it's cosmetic damage versus actual structural damage or the structural integrity damage. Uh those are some

decisions that will need to be made on whether to get the that those fixed, whether to take the insurance money. Um the theory is is that you you pay your own losses eventually. Now the other argument on your loss ratio is there should be some sort of a shock loss factor. Uh that's why you buy insurance uh that that you're not paying for the huge ones just the smaller ones. So uh the good news is is some of the reinsurance treaties from Lloyds of London uh were very positive this past year. insurance companies buy insurance and the people who buy insurance, they buy insurance and and so even though we might say we have travelers, there's probably 50 insurers behind the behind closed doors that are all part of it. And that's that helps seed the risk and hopefully uh we'll will limit the impact. But unfortunately, our our unfortunately we have little competition. The good news is we're with the best insurer uh that handles this type of risk. Uh, and the Chub property renewals that I've handled lately have been very positive. Uh, the cyber renewals have been very positive. Um, but as as Mark has mentioned, claims are just getting out of control. Uh, and that has nothing to do with the city of Salina. That's just throughout the country, throughout the Midwest. Uh, we luckily we have the Kansas TOR Claims Act on our behalf for everything that is outside of federal. But for your law enforcement claims, for your employment practice claims, those are going to normally fall outside there where the sky's is the limit. So, um, the one thing that I will ask to at least keep in your mind is that it would be in the city's long-term best interest if there's ever extra dollars to create and maintain a riskmanagement reserve fund. So, when these claims come up, we've got some buffer and there's not such an immediate impact on your current budget. So, uh I don't know your physical situation. It's it's outside of my scope, but uh that is something that

I encourage all my clients to have. Uh again, you take on considerable risk because of your size and the fact that you have good loss control, but we really need to find a way to have uh some funds set aside for these type of events so that it doesn't have a significant impact. And the further we can get away from insurance, the better off we're going to be in the long run. Uh, and if we have reserves built up, if if right now we're at a $50,000 deductible, if we're forced to go to a h 100,000, we're positioned to do so without uh without scrambling. So, that's the only comments I had. Um, any any questions for me? Mine's more for staff. Do we don't have a reserve fund set up?

No, we don't. We've we've talked about whether it would be appropriate for us to to start some sort of a reserve fund. But right now, our general fund fund balance is is large enough that any any kind of eb and flow in the insurance world or claims, we can really we can absorb that with our general fund balance. So, we've kind of used that as our as our de facto reserve fund. It doesn't say necessarily it's set aside for this specific purpose. Um, but it is there and and as we've had, you know, emergencies or things come up. I mean, for instance, you know, we had the log jam that we had to pay for. We just paid for that at a general reserve fund balance.

Yeah. And God forbid we ever get back to where we were, you know, with our general reserve general reserve balance wasn't very I would like to see us talk about it. Budgeting to do that mainly on years where we have good years. I think it'd be beneficial to do that. Um to set it aside for for potential future hits to the the budget because, you know, with with the economy, you just never know what's going to happen with your general reserve balance. And I think it'd be better to be proactive. I agree.

And I would encourage the city to if you if you want to do that. I mean, how you're doing it now is perfectly common. Um, but I would suggest having a philosophical conversation about what is our our in riskmanagement reserve fund policy, what's our theory. Some will say we want three times our deductible plus all outstanding liabilities. Uh, just as an example, we want that to be our our buffer. Um,

well, I think it's just like you were talking about whether it's cosmetic or or structural. I mean, some of the cosmetic stuff we may want to take care of, but we don't want to we don't want to, you know, file that with our insurance carrier. I think you do that as an individual a lot. And I think that's the things we have to look at. So, some of that you're kind of self-insuring still a little bit. So, it's again, you don't want to get in a position where you're just trading dollars with the insurance company because for every dollar that they give you, they're going to want a $140 back. So, um, so yeah, it just has to be strategic.

Yeah. Go, go, Scott. Go to slide I think it's seven. Right there. So if you if you look at this slide, you see our premiums went from in 2021 to 22 from 500,000 to close to a million dollars in 2526 and we probably will hit a million dollars in and when it's 26 27 time frame. I just want to point out that those premiums have gone up, but also the plan design has gone has changed dramatically. So the cost for our our premiums that we're or our deductibles has gone way up. It's just it's changed dramatically. So we have had to have those conversations about you know what type of you know do we file it or not. I think uh so for instance we had quite a few police vehicles that got hit last night. We are going to have to have a conversation about you know whether we fix those right away or not. Um based on the fact that we typically with our leases you know we have a lot of vehicles that we flip in 12 or 24 months. they have a lot of value in the market when we resell them. And so that's good for the city. So those ones we probably are going to want to fix. Um we'll have to look at the deductible and see if it makes sense for us to fix it ourselves or or turn it into insurance. But like police vehicles, well, we're going to keep those for 60 months uh or, you know, 68 months. So that vehicle is going to be in our system for a long time. And it really has almost no value at the end. Uh you know, once you once you get to that point, it's got 140,000 miles. they've been driven hard. Um, lots of usage. So, there's really not a market for that vehicle on the back end. So, we're going to have to have those conversations now in particular because our deductible for for uh auto is what? $5,000. It used to be $1,500 per vehicle. So, and I think when we had that $1.6 million claim around that was we had $1,500 deductibles.

I think it was500 $500 deductibles. So it it made a whole lot of sense for us at that time, you know, to make the decision to get it fixed and go with insurance. It just doesn't make sense the same way now that it did back then. So I just want you to you'd be thinking about when we talk about a reserve fund or we talk about whether we should be setting additional dollars aside. Um it's really bigger than just the premium and the doubling of what we're paying in premiums. It has a whole lot more to do with how our plan design has changed and what we're going to pay out because the deductibles are so much bigger now than they ever were. The uh now that we lease those vehicles, are we is there there's nothing in there requires us to get those fixed? Well, um I don't

not necessarily, but but we really have to look at it based on the value of the vehicle because it's really, you know, if we're going to trade it off in a short period of time cuz they buy them back. They buy them I mean we

they sell them for us so they will and we don't have to fix them necessarily, but the value so you just it's a value proposition. Does it make sense for us if we fix it now, will it be worth enough? Does it make sense for us to fix it and get the money back when we sell it? Or does it make sense for us to, you know, just hold on to it and sell it, but we'll sell it for a lower value. So, there's lots of kind of value propositions we're going to have to go through and we will sit down with Enterprise on each one of these vehicles and go, does this make sense? What what do we have in value? What do we think it would sell for? Um, and just it's going to be a a very kind of line item by line item decision that we'll make as we move forward because the I mean when the deductible is $5,000, you can do you can you can spend a lot of money on a fleet of 185 vehicles getting them fixed and it just we just have to make sure that it that it makes sense. And if it doesn't make sense, then we have to know that we're making the decision on the front end uh that we're not going to have the same value that we might have had on the back end. If that all makes sense. I had that very conversation with a client last week where they had vehicles that were close to $5,000 for repairs and they determined that the residual value only went down $2,000. So, they're like, "We're not going to spend five just to get two back in a year or two."

Um, and so it was just it's just a business decision. Yeah. I'd like to throw out both James and Mark mentioned the lack of competition in marketplace and I know from experience because I've gone through these type presentations for decades but in in business and I'm sure it works the same way in government. The lower your loss ratio, the more the insurers are looking to get your business because they want those businesses or they want those entities with the with a history of low loss ratios.

Absolutely. Um, however, government is complicated. A city risk is a complex risk. When you think about streets and police and fire and parks, I mean, they're all separate business models under the same umbrella, there's just not a whole lot of insurance companies that that want to be in it regardless of the loss ratio. So, we we kind of are in a really tough spot. Our loss ratio isn't that great. Like I said, if we took $964,000 and ran those for all the years and refixed the loss ratios and maybe put some sort of a shock loss multiplier or limit on the big loss, you know, we might be able to argue our our loss ratio is not all that bad. U but it doesn't change the fact that nobody else is really getting into public entity. It's just very it's a challenging risk. Um, and but to your point, it sure makes my job and and Mark's job a lot easier if if we've got a low ratio, uh, and we can try to get some of these other whether it's EMC or NPR or some other insurer that maybe shows up. Yeah, they're going on cherry pick the good clients, but unfortunately, we just don't have that option this year.

Would you agree? Yes. It's all good news. So yeah, Mark Mark acted like maybe the claims wouldn't hit in time to affect our next year's premiums. Do you agree with that or do you think Yeah, I think we're close enough. I mean, the 71 underwriting is well underway. Um, you know, they'll they're not they're they're going to know, so it's going to but they don't know the extent. We don't know the extent. So, um, yeah, I I don't think it's going to be it'll hurt us next time when we're next year. Obviously, we'll have another storm the day before we come next year again. Um, but yeah, we'll stop putting you on the schedule.

Yeah, please do. Um, but yeah, we will uh So, it's really next next year is maybe see the the residual and not only it will be next year, but not only will be our loss, but it'll be the totality of spring storms throughout the the country that we'll have. And then hurricane season will be a big a big factor because it does seem like the Midwest has been getting hit a lot harder here the last few, you know, recently. Well, we were hoping everything was moving east. It seems like Kentucky and them were getting more, but unfortunately we're back to where we where it normally is.

Yeah. So hopefully here in I don't know the schedule, but I would imagine sometime in early June, we'll be back in front of you with hopefully some some good news. Um the market's stable. You're a good risk. Uh there's nothing that I think we can do better. It's just we just have to keep uh keep working and make sure Mark and his team do what they always do and get us a good renewal. Okay. Any other questions for guys? Comments from staffing. Okay. With that, we will be back here at 4:00 for our regular scheduled meeting. Thank you guys. Thank you.

Hey, hey, hey.

Heat. Heat.

Come on.

Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Hey baby, hey.

Okay, it is 4:00. We will call the April 27th, 2026 line of city commission meeting to order. I will look to staff for confirmation of the Kansas Open Meeting Act required notice has been provided. Yes. Thank you. Uh, roll call, please. Mayor Hoppick, here. Commissioner Davis, here. Commissioner Ivy here. Commissioner Langwoods here. Commissioner Remp here. Thank you. Will those who are able please stand for a pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence.

I pledge alce 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. Thank you. Okay, that will bring us to public hearings. Item 3.1, conduct a public hearing and consider approval of resolution number 26-8351 and ordinance number 26 26-11280 relating to the levying of special assessments.

Okay. Due to a conflict, I am going to recuse myself and turn it over to Vice Mayor Ivy. Okay, we will start by opening this public hearing. Miss Pack.

Afternoon, vice mayor and commissioners. Uh Debbie PAC, director of finance. Um today's item is the public hearing and resolution and ordinance for six special assessment districts. Uh one of the districts being considered today is the Cedar Point um district on May 20. 12, 2025, city commission adopted a resolution that that um agreed that a 100% of the cost of those improvements associated to Cedar Ridge Drive in this district would be paid by the city at large. On April 13, 2026, city commission received the final breakdown for costs for these six um special assessment districts. Cedar Point, Lake View Estates number two phase 2, Liberty Edition number three, Overlook Estates Edition, Airport Industrial Center number three phase 1, and Stone Lake edition phase 3B. Um, after the final costs were accepted by the city commission, um, it was determined that there were some additional co engineering costs on the Cedar Point edition. Um, it was determined that the majority of these costs were triple to the Cedar Ridge Drive. Therefore, staff is recommending that these costs be set uh added to the city's portion of the project as reflected in the in resolution 268351. Also, after final um costs were accepted, uh we determined that there were two credits on two act of the uh districts that um would create a less amount that would be um uh assessed to the uh property owners. One of those was for credit for um issuance costs because the project at Liberty um addition included a grant a substantial grant and a substantial um portion for the city that will not be debt financed. So the finance costs of that project would be lowered thus lowering the pro the the per lot um assessment to each of those homeowners.

And on the airport industrial center, we discovered that uh there were some uh interest earnings on the temporary notes that the airport originally um had had and so that pro that cost was um credited back to that project. In today's action, both of those adjustments have reduced the total cost and the allocation to each property within those districts. Um the public hearing today is to re receive input from interested parties. It's not whether the special assessments should be levied against the properties, but whether the the final costs have been properly calculated and distributed as noted. Uh with this action, homeowners or owners will have the opportunity, they'll have a 30-day period to prepay those special assessments, which basically allows them to pay them at cost as opposed to after they're bonded when the cost of interest on the bonds would be added to the special assessment. All five or all six of these districts are being bonded or will be bonded for over a 20-year period. After the public hearing, there are two commission items to be um acted upon. The first is resolution number 268351 amending the advisability of Cedar Point edition special assessments. That's to include those additional engineering costs. You can approve that uh resolution. You can approve it with amendments. You could postpone consideration or vote to deny that and give staff further instruction. The section act second action item is ordinance number 2611280 which actually levies the special assessments for the improvements at special point or Cedar Point. Uh Lake View Estates number two phase 2, Liberty edition number three, Overlook Estates edition, Airport Industrial Center number three phase 1, and the Stone Lake edition phase 3B. Um again the you have the same options

approve approve with amendments postpone consideration or um do not approve and and give us um direction as you far as you want to how you want to handle that. Um at that at this I'll open up for any questions. Are there any questions? I have maybe just a question Debbie. Mhm. I I guess a couple of them, but Liberty Edition, I'm Help me think of where Liberty Edition is.

It's on the southeast corner of I'm looking at Wayne because you want to answer that question. I'd say where I thought it was, but I won't do that because it might be wrong. Why Nelson, uh, civil engineer. Uh, the Liberty Edition number three is located south of the, uh, headquarters of the, uh, Sunflower Bank. It's, uh, about a quarter mile south of the, uh, intersection of Ohio and Schilling. Bigger lots back in there. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Yes. I believe it's zoned as a industrial area. The the Evergy uh Go ahead. EverG recently moved into that area. Right. And kind of going along with it, the the city share of 961 grand. Um the K dot portion of 744. Was that K Dot economic program money? Is that meant to be used for liberty edition number three? Yes, it is.

Okay. And the city share is after that deduct or before that deduct was the original amount say a million roughly seven or that 743 is included in the 9 in the 961. So the city shares about 180,000. Right. Right. Right. Less than 200. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we will open this up. Uh, any public comment? Please step forward. Seeing none, we will bring this up for action.

Mr. Vice Mayor, I move for approval of resolution number 26-8351 amending advisability of Cedar Point Edition special assessments. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve resolution number 268351 amending advisability of Cedar Point Edition special assessments. All in favor say I. I. I.

Oppose. Same sign. That passes 40. We'll move on to the next um second part of that. I'm on deck. Okay. Um, I move for approval of ordinance number 26-11280, living special assessments for improvements for Cedar Point edition, Lake View Estates number two. Phase 2, Liberty Edition, Overlook Estates Airport Industrial Center number three, phase 1, and Stone Lake addition phase 3B for a period of 20 years. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we approve ordinance number 26-11280. Roll

call. levying special assessments for improvements for Cedar Point edition, Lake View Estates number two phase 2, Liberty Edition, Overlook Estates, Airport Industrial Center number three, phase 1, and Stone Lake edition phase 3B for a period of 20 years. May we have a roll call? Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Lanowitz, I. Commissioner Rem, I. Vice Mayor Ivy,

I. That passes four and four to zero. We'll move on to the next item and bring Mayor Hopic back. All right. So, consent agenda item 4.1 is to consider approval of the minutes of the April 13, 2026 regular meeting. Item 4.2, 2. Consider authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement for excess workers compensation coverage with Midwest Employers Casualty Company for two years in the amount of $170,046. Item 4.3, consider approval of resolution number 26-8350 appointing members to citizen boards, commissions, and committees. Item 4.4, consider authorizing the acceptance of a change order to modify the switches to be placed in the module supporting the city's fiber network upgrades. Item 4.5, authorize the city manager to execute agreements for 2026 vehicle and equipment rebids. And item 4.6, consider awarding the bid for the 2026 pavement marking project to Traffic Management Kansas, Inc. of Topeka, Kansas in an amount not to exceed $14,687.36.

Okay. Thank you, Nikki. Is there an item a commissioner would like to pull from the consent agenda? Okay. If not, are there any comments from the public on the consent agenda items? Okay. If not, I will bring it to the commission for action. May I move approval of the consent agenda as presented? Second. We have a motion and second to approve the consent agenda as as published. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. That item passes. 50. That will bring us to administration item 5.1.

Item 5.1, consider a debt finance financing plan for 2026 general obligation bonds relating to fire station number four. Okay, Miss Pack.

Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. Debbie PAC, director of finance. Each spring, the city of Salena reviews its needs for permanent debt financing for projects that have been completed or near completion and ready for um bond financing. During the 2026 budget process, staff presented options to the city commission um in regards to spending down the general fund balance, which was approximately 33 million, a little over $33 million at the end of 2024. One of those options was to pay part of the fire uh station number four project with general fund cash instead of issuing debt. The city city commission gave staff direction to include a $5 million transfer out of the general fund to cover part of the cost of that project. After um some unexpected expenses over the budget and some under revenues um in the budget in 2025, the estimated ending fund balance of the general fund should be about 26 million was about $26 million. Very early projections um in 2026, which is through March 31st, um show that the fund balance at the end of 2026 could be around $19 million. That includes that $5 million transfer. Staff believes that the total cost of the fire station replacement project will come in at around $9.1 million. Staff has identified a few options for city commission's um consideration. Uh the first option as far as financing the the fire station project. The first option is, as we had discussed it during the budget process, which was to debt finance $5 million and cash fund from the general fund, the additional f $4.1 million that is expected or up to $5 million. This would be create an annual debt service payment of 370,000 and over the cost of 20 years would be about 7.4

million. That means the total cost would be about 11.5 million. Second option would be to debt finance the full amount of the project at 9.1 million. That would create a debt an annual payment of $670,000 and create a cost over the 20 years of $13.4 million. The third option is to debt finance none and to do um to finance the entire project out of the general fund cash balance of $9.1 million. That would create a total cost of $9.1 million. uh some considerations for all of these options. Um on option one with financing the 5 million staff has to evaluate the debt service fund capacity and we believe that the current property tax can support this option. The the effects on the general fund leaves it um comfortably above its target of it should be 13 million not 15 million. Um option two, staff's evaluation the debt service find uh fund shows that um with the current projects that are approved in the in the capital improvement plan that we would need additional property tax revenue by 2030 to support this option. And while option um three opens up $5 million in debt capacity, it could leave the general fund under its target of $13 million. Based on city commission's direction given to staff today, the sizing of the bond issuance for scheduled for June 8th, 2026 will be adjusted accordingly. Staff has identified the following options. You could move to direct staff um to use either option one, two, or three for funding the new fire station. You could do any of those options with amendments as you might see fit. You could postpone consideration of how we should fund this. Um, but I would say that any decision that we make after May 11th could delay the financing schedule

um that's set forward for bonding. So I would I would stand for any questions at this point. Okay. Questions or comments from the commission for Miss PAC? What type of interest rate do we pay on our debt? Um it's usually around 4% something like that. Depends on the market obviously. Um but it's usually around 4%. So, not bad in today's world. And I know this has been gone over many times how the price ballooned so much. Mhm.

Hey, it may or may not be the time, but I know wanting to keep the city's reserves healthy, it just would be my recommendation that maybe we reook at roundabouts because we overspent by a couple of roundabouts on this fire station. And I think we're looking at some areas where they're kind of a nice to do, not a need to do.

And that's it. Yes, I believe if we did if we financed the entire project, we would have to look at all the projects that we have on the list as far as their priority and things like that. I think we'd have to do that without getting into a position where we'd have to issue more property tax to pay it off and and we will have a discussion about prioritizing, you know, projects when we when we get into the budget process. So, we will have some of those discussions. Now, uh, some of those projects like, uh, Magnolia, um, West Magnolia phase one is already we've already let the bid and that's that's already the train is on the track and we can't slow that one down. Um, but there are other projects we certainly could discuss.

Yes. I guess the only option I don't like was number three. Uh, number one seems a nice middle of the road and get I prefer to have uh a little more money in that general fund. Uh, second that. Yeah,

good compromise. Yeah, I think I think that's kind of where our discussions had been in the past is uh you know, we had talked about depending on where our general reserve balance was is to using part of that to to pay down uh the debt and then debt servicing part of it. So, it's kind of I agree. I think that's kind of where we've been discussing this for quite a while. So, I think option number one takes us down to roughly 16 15 16. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, and we talked about Well, it'd be le it'd be about 199 million, didn't I say? Yeah, because that would include that that transfer that we've already Oh, that was already included. So, it would takes us down to about 199 million.

Yeah. If projections stay like they had budgeted for, that's correct. M Commissioner Linkitz, any comments? don't have much to add other than originally I was for option one, but after our conversation pertaining to insurance coverage and premiums, I'm leaning more towards option two. Yeah, I I think the option one though, I think we're I think that's kind of where I'm at. I So, I guess we'll uh open it up to uh public comment. Does anyone have any public comment? Greg, you make a good point.

Okay, I will bring it back to the commission for action. I'd move to direct staff to use option number one for funding the new fire station number four. Second. We have a motion and a second to move to direct staff to use option one for funding the new fire station number four. All those in favor signify by saying I. I

opposed. Okay, that item passes 50. Okay, that will lead us to item 5.2. Item 5.2, Two, consider authorizing the mayor to execute a development agreement with the Salina Selen County War Memorial Incorporated for the construction of public improvements at the Sunset Park War Memorial. Mr. Hammond.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, commissioners, Jeff Hammond, parks and recreation director. Um, feeling a strong sense of pride this afternoon delivering this proposed agreement on behalf of the veterans here today and our community. I'm here this afternoon to present for your consideration uh a development agreement between the city of Sena and the Sena Selen County War Memorial uh incorporated group for improvements to the war memorial located at Sunset Park. Um the original memorial was established to recognize and remember the names uh members of armed forces who died in the line of duty from Selen County and and all those that served our country. The memorial was constructed in Sunset Park and dedicated to the city of Salena in 1994. The ongoing with ongoing maintenance provided by the city of Salena through parks of recreation. In recent years, the Selena Selen County War Memorial Group was reestablished as a nonprofit organization to continue honoring veterans and to allow additional commemorative opportunities through the sale of inscribed bricks and related memorial elements. As part of that renewed effort, the organization proposed an expansion of the area at Sunset Park and a renovation of the existing memorial. On February 15th of 2023, uh the the War Memorial Group approached the parks and wreck advisory board um and re they reviewed the project concepts and fundraising plans and gave a positive recommendation for the group to move forward. If you recall, uh some of you might have been there for a study session in uh April 10th of 2024. Um representatives of the organization presented the project to the city commission during that study session. uh including conceptual drawings,

estimated costs, fundraising plans, uh along with a request for a 50% city contribution towards the construction plans um of that renovation of the existing memorial. Since that time, staff has continued working with uh the representatives uh to refine project details, assist in the final construction drawings, discuss project funding, and develop the proposed agreement before you tonight. Um the proposed project in partnership with Hutton Construction uh with the War Memorial Group includes memorial additional memorial features, site improvements at Sunset Park uh at the War Memorial uh including memorial benches, granite monuments, uh marker wall tiles, brick paving, concrete walks, landscaping, lighting infrastructure and related site work. The estimated total cost of the project as provided by Hutton Construction uh was $317,000 42866. Uh under the proposed agreement, the uh War Memorial Group would be responsible for the construction, installation, and completing the memorial improvements. Once funding requirements are satisfied, uh the nonprofit would serve as a contracting entity with Hutton Construction. The city's contribution under the agreement would be an amount not to exceed $165,73251. That funding would come from the parks improvement fund which was which is derived from sales tax fund and this project was identified in the uh 10-year capital plan for parks maintenance. Uh the agreement also includes several important protections and clarifications.

uh establishes that the improvements are uh in fact city-owned and on city property. It provides that the city will retain the right to review and give final final approval of all inscriptions, names, sponsors, and related text on the war memorial uh improvements. further clarifies that approved uh that the approved inscriptions displayed are in fact a government speech and not a public forum or public speech. In addition, the agreement requires construction contract to be to include the city's standard contract addendum for insurance, bonding, uh warranty protections, things like that, and um names the city as a third party beneficiary. In summary, this agreement provides a path forward for a meaningful community project that honors veterans. Uh enhances the public memorial that is uh has two events per year on Veterans Day and Memorial Day and it's the next one this year's coming up in Memorial Day. Um uh also additionally there are uh uh so I'm sorry staff recommends that approval for of the motion other options to consider uh for the governing body to consider would be to amend um the proposal to postpone uh this action today or to vote no on this development agreement. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Also, there are several members here of the war memorial group that would love an opportunity to speak and uh speak in support of this project. And with that, I will hand it over back to you and I'll stand for any questions you might have.

Are there any questions for Mr. Hammond? If not, we'll a quick one. Jeff, you talk about Hutton Construction being involved since 23. Um, can I assume the bid is a current bid, one one that is good in today's dollars? Um the Hutton is is a uh I mean the Selen County the Salina Selen County War Memorial Group is the contracting entity with Hutton Construction. The city is not. I want to pass that off question off to them.

Okay. But there are uh on the screen um I'd love to give Bob Miller an opportunity to speak. Bob Miller uh being with uh Hutton Construction for many years. Uh these are the drawings that uh are available publicly on the screen. uh that he might be able to answer some of the questions you might have better than I. All right. Well, I just wondering about that total price and I certainly appreciate our veterans. I have not served myself, but I'm very appreciative of those who have. Of course, Bob, you want to speak? Thank you. You want to speak? I can't stand. Okay. All right. Thanks, Bob.

Thank you, Jeff.

Good afternoon. And I'm I'm Bob Miller. I'm a member of the Sling County Sina War Memorial Association. We thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and hope that you can can help us with this. Your your approval today, it will actually allow our group to go ahead and start a formal fundraising process to raise our share of the funds. To date, we've just been a few donations here and there. We haven't been able to really go forward with much of anything. So your vote today to allow us to proceed will allow us to do that. Uh as Jeff said, phase one was completed in uh in 1994. Uh that represented the the overseas conflicts uh up until that time. Phase two recognizes those conflicts that have occurred within the last 32 years and will provide uh a little bit of additional room for anything that may come up that we don't foresee or might be in in in the future. uh uh uh uh I was fortunate to be the project manager on the original project 32 years ago and so I feel really privileged to be here and represent this group today uh as just the liaison and for everybody's clarification I've been retired from Hutton for three years but uh I was with bus for 47 years which which was the original contractor there I'd like to thank Jeff and Jacob uh and and Brent for their time that they've spent with us and guiding us through this process have been very very informative, a lot different than the last time, but uh we've learned a lot as well. But we encourage you to support us, provide your vote so we can move forward. We thank you very much.

Thank you, Bob. Somebody from the warm up. I I don't know how much better I could have said, but give it your best. Uhhuh. Thank you.

Okay. To introduce myself, I am Stan Britt. Get up here. I'm a very proud veteran of this great nation in which we live. I served the United States Air Force December 671, December 675. I'm a life member of both the BFW and the American Legion with 52 years and 35 years respectively. I'm currently the commander of the sixth district of the department of the American Legion. So you see I'm pretty dedicated to our veterans and doing things for our veterans, their families, and our community. And all this works in together because if you if we can move forward with this, our veterans, their families, and the community will see improvements in our uh war memorial as a whole. You know, I've visited a lot of of memorials around the area. Over here at Solomon, there's a very small one, but it's very nice. Witchah, Topeka, Hen City. Uh, in late 2018, I had the opportunity to go to DC on the Honor Flight, um, Arlington Cemetery, uh, changing of the guards, those kinds of things are just extremely impressive and very, very, uh, heartwarming. Um during the time that I was in some of the local uh veterans uh memorials, there were people in there, you know, local people

who were asking themselves where how do we get a brick here? How do we how do we donate? How do we do this? Well, so in 2018, there was a committee that was formed uh to discuss the expansion of the Selen County War Memorial. Today, we're here eight years later with a finalized plan, a clear plan, and the dedication to move forward with what we've been doing for eight years now. So expanding the park would be uh extremely helpful helpful improvative for our uh memorial as a whole. All the artwork that has gone in recently has uh very much uh enhanced the uh war memorial as a as a whole. So I would like to thankly thank sincerely parks and wreck, the city of Salena administration and the commission for providing us this opportunity to accomplish the expansion of our veterans and their families. Thank you. Are there any questions for um thank you for your dedicated work? I know I've been on commission nine years and we've seen you up here several times. So, thank you for your hard work on this, but also thank you for your service to our country. Obviously,

yeah, we're getting closer, aren't we? Mayor Hopic and commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ben Vidrien II. Three decades ago, my father, also known as Senator Ben, served as finance chairman for the original War Memorial Committee. seems only fitting that I hold the position of treasurer as well as project designer. I would like to acknowledge a few of our committee members. You just met uh Stan Brett and uh Bill Vineyard is our first vice chairman. Bruce Richardson, is he here? Oh, he's back here. Okay. Second vice chairman. Karen Vidrien, secretary. I don't know if Doug Randolph is here. He is our historian. Oh, I see Steve Merson over here also is one of our committee members and Jim Cole, advisor. Jim held a position of of co- vicechairman with the original committee from the 1990s and he's here to be our advisor. Helping us with fundraising is Jenny Jones and Lori Blake with their marketing skills and their grant writing. On behalf of the committee, I want to express our sincere gratitude for your consideration of this partnership supporting the planned expansion of the Selina Sling County War Memorial. We appreciate your leadership and your commitment to honoring the veterans and families this project represents. We look forward to working together for the benefit of the

community. I'm available to answer any questions now. Any questions for Mr. Hendrickson? Nope. I know. Well, this allows us to to move forward and we will we will uh do it quickly. Okay. Thank you. And get on with it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any comments from the public?

If not, I do have one quick question and I don't know if it's a typo. In one place here we have 167,73251 and on the financial notes it's 165732. It I mean it's not a big deal but I don't know which one is correct. We just want to make sure the contract has that correct. The um 167 was what was what was budgeted in the 10-year capital plan.

Okay. There have been some there was some reductions uh in the scope of work over the course of time from Hutton Construction. Uh there was an element removed. So and then the budget document that is attached as part of the agreement or part of the proposed proposed agreement is um city contribution of 165. I guess that answers Mr. Commissioner Rimp's comment about it doesn't really matter what the the bid comes in. We're giving an amount not to exceed 65,73251 and I I do have one followup on that too when you're done. Mayor, that's all I was Yeah, we do have a a cap on what the city is contributing.

Jeeoff, as a followup, the name of the memorial is the Salina Selen County War Memorial, Inc. Has anybody approached the county about a contribution? Um, I don't know if the group has has or has not. That's the name of the group is the Salena Selen County War Memorial Incorporated. Um the the what what I generally call the name of the area of the park is the Sunset War Memorial, but we're representing or or honoring all of our vets from the entire county, too, right? And it might not hurt to ask for a contribution. I I would uh

we'd be happy to go to talk to the commission. I was thinking on the other side of the ledger though. Yes. Yeah, we we would definitely do that. That might be our next step. Okay.

Okay. Any other questions? If not, I will bring it back to the commission for action. Mayor move to approve a motion to authorize the mayor to execute a development agreement with Salina Selen County War Memorial Inc. to provide for public improvements at the Sunset Park War Memorial and an amount not to exceed $165,73251.

Second. We have a motion, a second authorizing the mayor to execute a development agreement with Selena Sleen County War Memorial, Inc. to provide for public improvements at the Sunset Park War Memor Memorial. All those in favor signify by saying I I opposed. That item passes 50. Congratulations. And go get them, guys. Thank you all for your service. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, that will bring us to item 5.3. Thank you.

Item 5.3, consider a recommendation to reject all bids for the landfill scales and scalehouse project, revise the project scope and bid documents, and rebid the project. Okay. Because of some work uh related uh conflicts, I am going to recuse myself from this item also. All right, you got the floor, Mr. Marsh.

Uh, good, excuse me. Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Commissioners. As part of as part of the approved 2026 capital improvement program, new scales and new scale house at the Sina solid waste municipal landfill are planned to be constructed in this year 2026. The posting for the project bids went live on March 5th on the city web page in the Salena blueprint plan room and was published on Salena 311 on March 8th, 11th, and 15th. A pre-bid meeting was held March 12th. Bids were opened April 2nd, 2026 at 10 a.m. with three bids received. JC Builders, Potton Construction, and Prairie Landworks Incorporated. The bid tabulation has been attached in your packet. Prairie Landworks was the only complete bid and were 18% above the engineers estimate. two bids were incomplete. Staff believes there may have been some confusion on the invitation to bid regarding uh several things including the scales the city the types of scales the city requested the style of the generator which is really no big deal on that one catwalks for the scales grading fencing and the entrance to the uh landfill. Section 17.1 of the invitation to bid states that the owner the city reserves the right to reject any or all bids. City staff and SCS engineering, our contract engineers have been working to redefine grading, paving, fencing, drainage, positioning, and entrance layouts to reduce the costs. We believe we are in the range of 1 to $1.5 million in reducing the costs on the scope of the project. Funding for the project is in in the CIP was $3 million, $2.7 million for construction, and 300,000 for design. The engineer's estimate of probable cost was $4,352,52.37 with a 10% contingency. The funding will be from general obligation bonds supported by the solid waste fund. Staff has identified the following options for the city commission to consider. Reject all bids, redefine the project scope to lessen costs and clarify bid documents

and rebid the project or approve the one complete bid in the amount of 5,159,742. I will stand for any questions. Anyone have any questions? Uh, one I have one.

Was the uh confusion on the invitation bid I'll put that in quotes. Was that responsible for much of the amount over the engineers's estimate or were there other factors? I believe that was part of it. Commissioner, I also believe that we u did not define enough on on on amounts if that makes any sense. And it it left they had to bid high. They had to bid very high to make sure they covered their costs. And we've redefined that in this next. Okay. So with the redefinition would I know it's not done this way. Would their bid have been appropriate? I'm sorry.

Would their bid have been appropriate for the way it's been redefined? Uh no. No. Okay. No. Okay. Sorry. Probably know where I was going with that. Well, just in in terms of redefining it, it's not just uh what what Mr. Marsh and his team are doing is using what they've learned here to substantially change the project. so that the cost will be lessened. So, it's not just the goal here isn't just to redo the bid because it's it's to change the design work substantially and then redo the bids. Okay. Thank you. And a quick question, Ron.

Yes. It seemed like a month or three back we were talking about the the scale um kind of having one foot in the grave and and the other on a banana peel like it was very very limited in the amount of life left back in it. It will it hold out through a a new rebidding process? I mean we can get we can get many more months out of it. we're not going to be left. Um, seemed I don't know what type of revenue the landfill generates, but I think the scale is a very important part of that. Uh, yes, Commissioner, the scale would be a very important part of that. Um, you're right. This the scale we currently have is on its last legs. We feel we can coax it along. Can't guarantee anything, but we feel we can coax it along till this project is done. If in if by chance it fails and we can't use this one, we can also we can always rent until this project is done. Okay. Do we have a time frame as far as uh how how long will this set us back timewise to rebid? Do we have a ballpark?

We're look we've been working commissioner uh since we got these bids back and and and and decided to come to you and request the to reject the bids. We have been working trying to be proactive with SCS. That's where we've identified the one to $1.5 million. We hope it can be more, but that's where we're at right now. U we hope to have it out in the next within the next two weeks. So, thank you. And just to clarify, biggest problem was the parameters of the project were just the two lower bids just didn't meet those parameters. They not they didn't have complete bids.

Okay. So, for instance, one of the items that we had, we had five addendums, which is unheard of in a bid, and that's, you know, I'll take full full responsibility for that, but we we will not have any of those this time. We will put it out, define it, and and get the bids back. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Do we have any uh public comment? Please state your name and where you're from. Uh I'm stating Deal and this is Kathy McCandless and we're here representing Pier

JC Builders with Craig Piery. Uh they stated that we had an incomplete bid. We just found out about this as soon as they put the letter out. There wasn't any communication back from them, but we acknowledged all five addendums plus uh on the bid sheet all line items were addressed and we're under a little bit of confusion of what the incompleteness was.

You address that. Adendum four adjusted the invitation to bid and added a 39th line item which was scale the scale catwalk which allows our crews, our our employees to perform maintenance and to identify problems with the scales. Um they did not bid that line item. So and that came out that was out in addendum number four. So

thank you. Can I can I ask how their bib was other than that particular line item being omitted and I'll look to city attorney but there were enough discrep there was enough questions on the bid okay one of them I'm not going to get into individual line items because I don't want to do that here but there was enough questions with some individual line items that we could um and if it was just simply a matter of sitting down with them we have met with them and done that. Um, but there was enough question that we felt it was better to go out, redefine the scope and go back out.

I'm Kathy McCandless and I am the project estimator for PIY Builders and um, we were just told this morning that we had an incomplete bid and that we had used a wrong bid form. So, I went back through the addendums and the only adjusted bid form I could find was on addendum number one. That is the bid form that we used. My concern is that we were told we used the wrong scale. So, I also went back through the addendums and we were also told that they wanted a steel deck on the scale, but that's not what the addendums say. In addendum number one, it gives us the option for a concrete deck or steel deck. So, our scale our scale proposal has a concrete deck. It meets all of the requirements. We also have included that catwalk. Um, so we're just a little bit confused. If someone would have called and said, "Hey, looks like you've got a wrong bid form." And obviously we weren't the only ones. I've contacted Brandon Pontton and Brandon his group used the same bid form that we did and I asked him to go back this afternoon to look through the addendums to see what he could find. He could not find an adjusted a new um bid form that shows the catwalk line item on there. The comment was also made. They thought that we had used the wrong generator. Um, the bid form asked for a diesel generator. The addendum specify a gas generator. That's exactly what we have included. So, we're a little confused. We were the low contractor and $563,000 difference between our bid and PLI. So,

it makes no sense to us why we would even consider the very highest bid that that the city had had gotten that day. Um, we're just hoping someone can explain things to us. If they would have just called and said, "Hey, we have a question. Can you explain these items to us?" We would have been more than glad to have explained what what we had included and where we had included it in our bid. I I think this is um we're we're considering redoing all the bids over again, not and and one of the options is to go with the higher bid, but we're considering re rebidding the whole project and hopefully straightening out all these um issues that we're having so that everything can be correct.

Well, the unfortunate thing that happens when you do that is those numbers are now public. So unless you absolutely scale down that project and redesign it where we can all start from scratch, um you know, it's just a matter of going back through and saying, "Okay, can we live with this number? Can we live with that number?" Um and that's typically what happens. I've been doing this for 20 years and it seems as though when you go back and ask to uh rebid something a lot of times you get con you get qualified contractors that refuse to bid again because we spend a lot of time I suppose on that particular job I had 55 or 60 hours in doing the takeoff on that project and we here we we were expecting to have a nice project to get started. We also have have went as far as to have people start doing some of the submittal process thinking that today we would have been awarded a contract. So, it would have been nice if someone would have just let the contractors know that there was a problem.

Thank you. And and I just want to say just when Ron and I first discussed this, you know, we just both um just felt, you know, felt very we we under we talked about all the scenarios. We talked about how this affects biders. We talked about how we don't want to become a place that people don't want to bid. Uh we discussed all that. Um the problem, you know, is there's no good option because of because of the bids we got back. We could accept a bid that would essentially guarantee that we'd going be going into change orders right away or we could accept a bid that wasn't as the engineer really wants it or we could accept um bids with other problems. All of our documents always say that we have the right to reject all bids and everyone knows that that's not what we want to do but that is something we reserve the right to do and that is the staff recommendation. Any other public comment?

Okay, we can bring it back for any discussion or action. Just a question. H how often uh does our staff call biders? I mean, if it was a typo or an obvious arithmetic error, you'd probably call, you know, 2 plus 7 is such and such. Uh is commissioners on something like that? Generally, we will do that. if it's if it's something minor like that just to just to clarify and make sure we're all on the same sheet. But when there's enough questions or enough there just seem to be enough

generally speaking if there was one I mean if there was you know one line that was a discrepancy but I think the problem here is is we had multiple bids that had discrepancies in them. So it wasn't like you just had one line item from one bid that you could review. It was multiple line items from multiple bids that were uh and honestly this is our fault. It was not it was not clear. I mean we just the bid documents were not as clear as we would have liked them to be. Um meaning that the end the end result of this project if we awarded it today is not going to be what we actually want. So um hasn't happened very many times. I I actually can't think of a time in the last seven years that we've rebid a project. Um so it's not something it's it's certainly not ideal. I um we don't like to do that. Um, but in this circumstance, we felt like we could rework the project enough and change it enough that it was worth going back to rebid it, if that makes sense.

You have something else you want to add. Uh, no, Commissioner. Sorry. Oh, I would just appreciate it if someone from the city could email to me um the correct bid form and where it was found, what addendum it's located in so that I can see if I'm the one that made a mistake or if it simply was not included. Thank you. Yeah, we could certainly contact you and and give you all the information, but I I believe it was not your your mistake. I believe it was our mistake. I I think it was us that messed up.

Okay. Any more discussion? Ready for action? Yep.

I will make a motion. Seems like our options are limited, but I do not want to go with the high bid, especially if there were biders that there was miscommunication. But getting to the motion, option number one, reject all bids, redefine the project scope to lessen costs, clarify bid documents, and rebid the project. And I'd like to put a time frame to that, too. you know, perhaps um here we're at the end of April. What is a reasonable time frame, Ron? Well, commission, excuse me, commissioner, I would tell you the second meeting in May. However, we don't have a second meeting in May. So, the first meeting in June, we can have a recommendation to you.

But I think we'd like to get on with this. And I think um Percy Builders would be able to submit a new bid rather quickly. I would think maybe Potton could as well. So I I guess unless somebody has another idea, I would like to have those bids in no later than May 31. We can have them in by May 31. That's not a problem, Commissioner. Okay. Second.

Okay. Um, it has been moved and seconded that we reject all bids, redefine the project scope to lessen costs and clarify bid documents and rebid the project to be or all bids would be received by May 31st. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign.

That passes 4 and we will welcome the mayor back. Okay, that will lead us to development business item 6.1. Item 6.1, consider approval of ordinance number 26-11282, reszoning the property at 663 Brier Cliff Road, the old fire station number four to allow the building to be used as a city facility maintenance operations site. Mr. Hers.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Dustin Hers with planning and zoning and I'm here to present item 6.1 which is application ZMA 26002, a request for a zoning map amendment regarding the existing soontobe former fire station number four property. Next slide please. As shown on the screen, the applicant, which is the city's facilities maintenance division, is requesting a zoning map amendment. Next slide, please. Specifically, the request is to change the zoning of the property from R single family residential to PPF, which is our public use public facilities district. Next slide, please. To orient you to the surrounding context, the site is in a transitional area. It is bordered by single family residential homes zoned R to the north and west and higher intensity commercial zoning uh specifically C1 to the south and then the Wilbur PDD uh to the east. Next slide please. Background. The subject property is about half an acre and it's located on the east side of Brier Cliff Road. The site features the existing fire station number four building which was constructed in 1969 and has been in service for the community for over 50 years with a new modernized station that is under construction at Crawford and Markley. This site and this fire station is soon to be decommissioned for the the new constructed fire station. Next slide, please. The nature of this particular request, anticipating this decommissioning, the applicant proposes to adaptively reuse the building, the fire, former fire station or the current fire station

before as it is building to serve as an operations hub and maintenance facility because public works maintenance facilities are not permitted use in the existing R district. Shifting the zoning to PPF is the required first step. It should also be noted that if the property is to be reszoned and approved here today, the applicant will still be required to submit a conditional use permit that would be reviewed by the planning commission through a public hearing process. Next slide, please. The zoning ordinance of the PPF district evaluating the existing site in accordance to the PPF bulk regulations. the property meets all the requirements for lot area width setbacks. The only exception is the public use district requires a lot depth of 150 ft and the existing lot depth which in this case is the east west dimension is 136 ft. This is a pre-existing non-informity which does not preclude the resoning from moving forward but is something to be aware of. Uh next slide please. Now we're going to get into the statutory criteria for reszoning applications. The first criteria is sustainability of the site for development and the existing property is no longer suitable for development under the existing residential zoning. The building features large appar apparatus bays as well as commercial grade infrastructure and is fundamentally incompatible with traditional single family residential occupancy without extensive remodeling or or demolition. Conversely, the site is inherently suited for the municipal uses accommodated in the public use district. Next slide. Looking at the uh neighborhood character, applying the public use district establishes a

logical low impact buffer between the commercial uses and the residential uh properties in the neighborhood. Historically, adjacent properties have coexisted with 24-hour active uh fire station. And the applicant states that transforming this particular property to a maintenance facility will will replace unpredictable emergency responses with standard daytime business activities and shifts. Next slide, please. Looking at the public utilities because the building is operated as municipal facility for over five decades decades. It already has fully integrated utilities on site such as a sanitary sewer, water, storm, drainage infrastructure and the existing infrastructure will not place any undue burden on the public infrastructure as it is today. Next slide please. streets and traffic. Traffic access to the site will continue to be provided via the established driveways which are off of Brier Cliff as well as Mry Mount. The transition replaces the safety hazards associated with high-speed emergency vehicles and routine traffic patterns that are typical of civic uses that the public use district would permit. and the adjacent street network is adequately sized to handle the proposed traffic and operational impacts that will further be evaluated during a conditional use permit review um for the maintenance facility. Next slide please. Conformance with the comprehensive plan. This request is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The future land use map designates this property as public semi-public and the public use district is the specific regulatory tool designed to accommodate this designation. Therefore, no amendment to the plan is required.

Additionally, adaptive reusing of existing buildings satisfy the comprehensive plans criteria by preserving the established physical scale of the neighborhood while providing a transitional buffer from the commercial properties in the area and the existing residential neighborhoods. Next slide. So, you have options for your actions that are outlined on page four of your staff report. The planning commission held a public hearing on this item on April 7th and voted 70 to recommend approval. The 14-day statutory protest period has expired with no participation received based on the planning commission's findings. Staff recommends that the city commission approve ordinance number 26-11282 and we would answer any questions that you might have. What what type of repair would be envisioned occurring here?

Yes. Do we have Sorry, my thing was off. What type of repair would be envisioned occurring here?

Yeah. So the applicant is our maintenance facilities uh division which is a division of parks and wreck. But they are tasked with um going to the the different various city facilities and doing things like building maintenance, parks maintenance, things like that. So it's more it's not like street maintenance. It's more building structural maintenance type items. So this would be their headquarters to leave there to go out to do maintenance elsewhere as opposed to bringing vehicles and who knows what else in to be fixed at that location.

Yeah. So there's there's a couple things with this one. The specific proposal here today is to reszone it to a public use district so it could be used for a public government facility. Um there are a list of permitted uses that that are included in that including fire stations, law enforcement centers, um neighborhood centers, uh community centers, things like that. Conditional uses, one of the conditional uses that is allowed would be the maintenance facility. So your your actions here today do not directly allow the maintenance facility, but what it does is it enables the applicant to submit an uh conditional use permit application to the p to the planning commission for them to hold a public hearing for that maintenance facility. So that's one one point of clarification. Second point of clarification is that from my understanding the the location would be kind of a a hub for the maintenance facility workers to report to work to have their vehicles in which in which they would dispatch to the various facilities where their maintenance is being conducted day-to-day. So depending on the day where they they're going, this would be the the local headquarters and they would dispatch throughout the city to our various facilities for those maintenance items. Did that answer your question?

It does. I mean I I can't prejudge the Right. That's that's the tricky part with this because it's a conditional use item. It we're not really reviewing that piece, but nonetheless, it is in the background of of the the request that we're dealing with, right? because you know in my mind I mean you've done due diligence and in deciding if this could be done you know it's legal it makes sense it's past the hurdles I'm having trouble getting past the should part of the right argument because it's still a residential neighborhood and it's correct

I mean that is the lowest profile commercial district across the street from it that that probably there is in town. Uh it's I mean it's it's it says commercial but I mean it it functions like a residential area.

Yeah. So I understand the dilemma and so I think I would if I could advise your thoughts what you would want to look at is what are the permitted uses or what is the nature of the public use district aside from the condition use permit and is that acceptable. So, um, we can review what those those land use categories are if you'd like. So, on in your staff report from to the planning commission, we do have the listed ordinance uses in there. So one would be like animal shelter. Two would be aquatic centers or spray parks. Three would be community center. Four would be community garden. Five would be dog park. Six would be fire stations. Seven would be golf courses. Eight would be government buildings and offices. Nine would be indoor recreation centers. 10 would be libraries. 11 would be neighborhood centers. 12 would be public parks and playgrounds. 13 would be pump station wells. 14 is accessory or temporary uses permitted in article uh four of the zoning regulations. Number 15 would be signs permitted and article 10 of the zoning regulations and 16 would be off streetet parking and loading that would be required. So those would be the permitted uses. So your action today if you were to approve the resoning request those would be the permitted uses by right. In addition to that there's a list of conditional uses which is athletic stadiums cemeteries jails and other detention facilities public arenas public works and public utilities maintenance facilities and yards which is what's being proposed eventually. um eight or six sanitary landfills, utility substations, water towers, wastewater treatment plants,

water treatment plants, wireless communication facilities, and zoos. So, those would be the uses that would be potential through a conditional use permit that would require public hearing with the planning commission. So, um I don't know if that helps give you So, those who would be directly impacted by that would then have their day to comment at the hearing on Yeah. none.

Right. So, any of the permitted uses would not require a public hearing with any of the neighbors. any of the conditional uses which the maintenance facility would be would require a public hearing with the planning commission and there would be public notification to the surrounding properties for that action. I would think that um most activity would be kind of between that 8 to 5 week days. Seems to me it'd be less disruptive than a fire station with a fire engine going out at 2 in the morning. Mhm. Although people don't mind fire trucks because it might be their house that's on fire one night and and they put up with that I think.

And Commissioner Davis, I just um explaining my little bit of outburst there. Earlier we were looking at one of the equal uses was Roselon across the street and when you were talking about the amount of activity um it anyway I my mind went to a bad place for a moment. I wasn't laughing at the the question. I was laughing at the analogy thinking thinking to the south there's not much activity typically in the graveyard.

Certainly not from the residents. The uh the question I have is it's uh it says utility maintenance facilities and yards and I the the ground to the what direction would that be of this? We do not own the vacant lot. Correct. To the south the seal property we do not own that now. So when I see a yard I think of storage and that that's the part that would bother me is obviously that wouldn't fit in with the neighborhood. Um, so basically we would just be looking at it have to be a maintenance facility. So vehicles would pull in, pull out. There really wouldn't be a a type of a room there for really storage of stuff. So that's what kind of

I wouldn't anticipate we'd have any outdoor storage. There would be some stuff inside. If there was outdoor storage or if that was something that that facilities wanted to do, it would certainly be we'd build the fences and stuff. That's the way I would. We wouldn't just put We're not just going to plop stuff on the driveways there. For sure. Could you back a slide up till I get an aerial photo? Scott,

and Commissioners, I just did just want to point out that um irrespective of the zoning aspect, this is kind of a critical um need that we have because currently our facilities is operating out of a twocar garage over at General Services and we're storing enormous amounts of equipment in Memorial Hall. Now, Memorial Ball has been with us for a long time and not changed, but that could change very quickly, and we quite simply would have no place to move all the things that facilities utilize as Memorial Hall. This is um if you approve this, this would allow us to get facilities uh a facility which would allow them to install a lot of that needed equipment out there um in the large base at a fraction of the cost. If we were to build such a facility from scratch, it would be much much more expensive. Um, as such, being able to transition from the fire from the fire department to the facilities will cost a a very very very small fraction of what the cost would be in order to build a new facilities building.

Kind of highlight the geographical area. It's kind of hard to see on the the aerial photo, but you do have the property lines represented in the orange lines there. That would be the boundaries of the facility that's being requested for resoning. And again, this any type of um conditional use permit, which the maintenance facility would be, would require a site plan and development plan that has to be reviewed by the planning commission through the public hearing process, which we're not to that point yet. So, we don't have that information. I would make a motion. We uh need public comment first.

Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Hers? If not, I open it up to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to comment on this issue? Okay. If not, I will bring it back to the commission for action. I'd like to make a motion that we go with the staff's recommendation or the recommendation of the planning commission ordinance number 26-11282 reszoning lots 3 and 4 block 7 of the rolling hills edition from our single family residential to P-PF public use-public facilities district.

I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Um, concurring um with the zoning request, ordinance number 26-11282, reszoning lots three and four, block 7 of rolling hills edition from R, Single Family Residential to P-PF public use public facilities. May we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Ivy, I. Commissioner Lanowitz, I. Commissioner Rem, I. Mayor Hopic,

I. That item passes 50. That brings us to item 6.2. Item 6.2. Consider approval of ordinance number 26-11281, resoning lots 1 through 8, block 1 of the replat of 9 south edition from C3 Shopping Center to PC5 Plan Service Commercial.

Okay, it's one of those days. I'm going to turn it over to Vice Mayor Ivy. Excuse me. to the ordinance. You guys have an updated copy. Thank you. Thank you, Nikki.

All right, we'll move on to the other Dustin. Yep. Taking turns today.

All right. Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. Um, mayor's not here. Um, item 6.2 on today's agenda is application number ZMA26-001 filed by Jeff Mays on behalf of 9 South Development LLC. This is a request uh for a zoning map amendment from C3 to PC5 for an 8.31 acre track of land at the 9 South Edition on the east side of South 9th Street. Approval of this item would adopt ordinance number 26-11281. Uh and we can go to the next or yeah on the agenda here. So today's presentation will cover the the following. We'll do an application overview uh some background on the property nature the nature of the request, the applicable the applicable uh reasonzoning criteria and staff's analysis, the planning commission's recommendation and the commission's action options and staff recommendation. So, next slide. Um, so this application was filed by Jeff Mays of Comproy on behalf of 9 South Development LLC. Uh, the request is to reszone the 8.3 acre 9 South edition from C3 Shopping Center to PC5, which is a planned service commercial. The property is located on the east side of Marketplace, which was the uh South Ninth Street fronted road between Marketplace Apartments and to the north and Sam's Club to the south. And the legal description is lots 1 through eight block one of the replad 9 south edition. Uh next slide. And so here's the an aerial view of the request area. And the site that's highlighted in yellow is is the 9 south edition. You can see its position along the frontage road. There's marketplace directly to the to the west and the residential neighborhood directly to the east uh along Highland Avenue. Next slide. So, looking at the surrounding zoning,

to the north we have uh R3 and the marketplace apartments. To the south is PC3, so it's planned commercial uh which includes Sam's Club and the multi-tenant commercial area. To the west across South 9 Street is C5 zoning with restaurants and commercial uses. And to the east is R2, an established a single family residential neighborhood along Highland Avenue. the eastern boundary of the request area is where much of today's case analysis focuses on. Uh, next slide. So, a little background here. Um, it's commonly this property was commonly known as the former DY pumpkin patch annexed in 1971 and it sat on platted and zoned agriculture for nearly five decades. 9 South Development purchased it in 2017 and the city commission reszoned it from A1 to C3 by ordinance number 18-10926 in January of 2019. Uh the original four plat or the four lot plat was approved in December of 2018 and all public infrastructure marketplace the marketplace extension water sewer and the storm water detention pond has since been completed. More recently, the planning commission approved a replat in December of 2024 that reconfigured the subdivision into eight lots with two common access drives uh named reserves A and B. The city commission then accepted the revised easement dedications on that replat at its November 24th, 2025 meeting. So, the replat is recorded and the subdivision is ready to develop. Uh what what's before you today is establishing a zoning that will govern how the development proceeds. uh based on some some specific needs that they have for that development. Um so next slide. So this is the recorded replat. Um it's pretty hard to see up on a screen like this, but I'm going to get to some some graphics that are easier to see. Uh

there are eight lots here with two common access drive reserve uh for reserves A and B. And then there's a very small uh reserve C which is a com a small common area tract along the west boundary. And just to give you a heads up on this, this is turned 90°. So north is actually to your left and this is just to fit it on the slides better. So I'm going to give you a heads up. There's a few slides that have it like like this so we can see it. Um can go to the next slide. So this is the platted lot layout with some some markups here to make it a little bit easier to see. So this annotated version makes the lot configuration a little bit easier to read. And the lots highlighted in yellow uh lots 3, five, and 8 are the three interior lots that are the focus of this application. I mean the the entire subdivision is the request area that would be reszoned, but a lot of the the drivers for this resoning come from those lots. Um rather than fronting on marketplace, these lots are are served by an internal access drive which was approved by the planning commission as a variation from the subdivision regulations. Uh that configuration is important to understand for all three pieces of this request. Go next slide. This is the same lot layout. There's just a few extra labels here. You can see the reserves labeled. Reserves A and B. Those are those gray um vertical strips there. And uh reserve C is a small piece right down at the bottom center that has a red circle around it. That's that's the future location of a sign that's part of this um it's kind of at the core of this request. So next slide. So there are three components to this application. First is the reszoning itself to PC5 which is being requested primarily to to allow the sign regulations of the underlying C5

district. Uh the applicant wants to have a shared multi-tenant sign on reserve C to serve the interior lots which would give them a sign out along the road. uh because that sign would be located on a separate track from the business that advertises. It qualifies as an off-remise advertising sign under section 42506 and off off-remise signs are prohibited in C3, but they are permitted in C5 under section 42522. So PC5 with the C5 zoning district uh as the un underlying zoning district is the me mechanism that would allow that um sign to be placed there. The second piece is that the applicant is requesting full relief from the front yard landscaping requirements for lots 3, five, and 8. And third, the applicant is requesting full relief from the 15 foot uh landscape buffer that is required when a commercial property abuts a residential uh property. So this would be in the case of this plat would be along the eastern boundary of the of the 9 south edition. The landscaping relief components can only be granted through the planned commercial uh ordinance under section 4249.7, which is why the PC5 reszoning is the vehicle for all three requests here. Next slide. So the highlighted areas on this graphic show where the landscaping variations are being requested. So those redish areas. So up along the top, that's actually the east boundary of the of the subdivision. And then down towards the middle, that would be where the front yard landscaping would typically be required for a for a lot. It's where where it has frontage on the street. The front yard relief applies to those internal drive frontages for lots 3, five, and eight only. And the rear uh

the rear landscape buffer relief applies only or applies along the entire east boundary of those same lots where the development abuts the residential properties on Highland Avenue. Next slide. On the zoning districts, the existing C3 district is designed for a broad range of retail shopping facilities with a minimum district size of 1 acre. And the proposed PC5 uses uh C5 as the underlying district service commercial which is designed for businesses that draw customers from highway and arterial traffic. Under sections 42 409.6 and 42 409.7 uses and restrictions in a planned commercial district follow the underlying classification unless the approving ordinance modifies them. Importantly, staff is recommending that C3 use and bulk limitations would apply to this development, meaning that the practical profile of the development of the site wouldn't wouldn't change substantially from what it's currently zoned and would allow. Um, so this this proposal or this request, it wouldn't intensify the the actual development that occurs on it. Next slide. So section 4225 of the zoning regulations sets out criteria the commission should consider when acting on a resoning request. These are the character of the neighborhood, the suitability of the property under existing zoning for development, availability of public facilities and services, conformance with the comprehensive plan and any other relevant factors. uh a comprehensive analysis of all five criteria is provided in the planning commission staff report that's attached to to your to your packet today and I think that's attachment number four in today's packet. So I'll summarize the key points here of our analysis on the character of the neighborhood. The property sits within the established South 9th Street commercial corridor flanked by

commercial uses on three sides with C3 use limitations applied. the use profile is consistent with the surrounding commercial area. Um, sorry, C3 use and bulk limitations applied. Uh, one sensitive boundary is the east boundary where the property abuts R2 residential uh, development and that transition is addressed through the the buffer and the screening conditions that we'll get to shortly. on suitability under existing zoning. C3 already permits all of the uses the applicant intends to to have in the development, which include restaurants, retail, and professional offices. The only thing C3 can't accommodate is the off-remise identification sign for the interior lots. And the sign constraint is what's driving this application. uh PC5 uh zoning with those C5 sign regulations uh solves that problem without changing the the the profile of the development. Next slide. On public utilities and services, all infrastructure is already in place. Water, sewer, uh the marketplace extension, curb cuts on South 9th and the storm water detention facility. There's no change in use intensity and no additional infrastructure demand on the comprehensive plan conformance. The future land use map designate designates this property for commercial use and PC5 is consistent with that. Uh, South Ninth Street is identified as a key commercial corridor and the development's design, the shared access drives, cross- access easements, and interior circulation is consistent with the comprehensive plans uh development criteria for commercial areas. The transition to the east is addressed by the conditions of approval. So, next slide. So, now we'll get into the landscape variations. those fall under factor five of those five criteria or five uh criteria that should be considered uh which is the all other

relevant factors. So as I mentioned the applicant requested full relief from the front yard landscaping requirements on lots 3, five and 8 and full relief from the 15t rear uh landscape buffer along the east boundary. So, the applicant stated site hardships are first that the 50- foot rideaway dedication required for the marketplace extension reduced the developable depth of the interior lots. Second, this is a single frontage infill site with uh without additional abuing streets or alternate access points. And the applicant's position is that a combination of front yard and rear buffer requirements when applied together to the interior lots makes reasonable development of these parcels impractical. Next slide. So this brings the request area, the variation request area back into view. Just kind of just bring it back around to uh look back at those. Um the area in the cloud outlines on the east side of these lots where the buffer relief is being requested. just kind of just bring it back around to and the outlines along the access drive frontages show the front yard relief areas. Next slide. So to help illustrate the applicants um stated hardship, they submitted development exhibits showing lot five, one of the interior lots under two different scenarios. The red box here shows you what which lot we're looking at. So on the left is that plot layout and then on the right is just a blown up version of or blown up graphic of lot five based on the plat. You can go to the next slide on okay. So on the left is what the applicant submitted is exhibit one and on the right is exhibit two. So exhibit one shows the lot developed with approximately a 5-ft landscape buffer inside the east property line. This doesn't show property lines very well,

but we are essentially looking at that middle um back lot that was highlighted in yellow. This is a conceptual drawing. It's not proposed plans, but the gray area would be a building. Green is landscape islands. And the strip that runs vertically both there on the left side and over on the very on the far right are would be the east property line. So, it's two different landscape buffer strips. Um, so exhibit one, yes, shows the 5ft buffer. On the right, that shows a full 15t width buffer that also shows a full front yard landscaping. So, you have the building in the middle to the to the left is like full front yard landscaping requirement and the rear um has a full 15t. So, the building in exhibit 1 has a depth of approximately 56 and a half feet and a total footprint of about 12,845 square feet. And under full landscape compliance in exhibit 2, the building depth shrinks to approximately 50 ft deep and the footprint drops to approximately 11,500 square ft. So again, these are conceptual drawings. They're not the proposed plans. It was just illustrative of what the applicant sees as the constraint that they're dealing with. and go to the next slide. So, staff met with two neighboring property owners ahead of the planning commission meeting. Uh Glenn Boyd, who owns 2824 Highland Avenue, which abuts the eastern boundary, met with staff on March 30th. His concerns centered around the impact of eliminating the rear buffer. uh heat island effects from parking adjacent to his yard, increased noise, car car lighting from vehicles navigating the parking area, and the relatively shallow rear de rear yard depth of the Highland Avenue lots, which reduces the effect of separation between the residences and any future paved

surfaces. Dale Merkelin uh representing Gan Paul's at 2820 Highland Avenue met with staff on April 3rd. He emphasized that the buffer requirement exists for a reason. That a vegetative buffer provides more than just visual screening and that the increased impervious surface at the rear of the lots could or he was concerned that the increased impervious surface at the rear of the lots could worsen storm water drainage into neighboring properties. Both individuals also appeared and and spoke um for the planning commission hearing on April 7th. and they're the staff's summary of the meetings with them are included in the packet today. Next slide. So the planning commission recommendation planning commission held a public hearing on April 7th and voted 7 to zero to recommend a recommend approval of the request. Their recommendation did not grant the full landscape relief the applicant had had originally requested. Instead, they arrived at a compromise on the rear landscape buffer. On the front yard, full relief was granted for lots 3, five, and 8, consistent with the applicant's request. And on the rear buffer, rather than full relief, the commission uh recommended reducing the required buffer width from 15 ft to 6 feet with columner evergreen trees planted uh or plantings required within that buffer and a 6ft privacy fence to be installed along the east property boundary of those lots. in accordance with section 422865. Uh the 14-day protest period is expired and no protest petition was received. Next slide. So the planning commission's recommendation is subject to eight conditions of approval. The first five are on this slide. So conditions one and two would lock in the the development profile of of that's consistent with the C3 uh district. So bulk regulations and uses are limited to those in the C3

district. Use limitations uh under section 42286 apply and parking garages and lots are add as a added as a permitted use to preserve flexibility for lot 8 in the development. So parking garages and lots does come from the C5 district. Uh condition three governs signage. So C3 sign regulations would apply across the board with the one exception being allowing the off- premise advertising sign as a permitted um permitted use on reserve C which is limited to serving lots 3, five, and 8 only. Conditions four and five carry forward the screening and lighting requirements consistent with the C3 district standards. Next slide. Um, so conditions 6 through 8 address the site development plan process because the applicant requested deferred site plan approval, meaning the plans will be submitted on a lotby-lot basis as each lot develops. Cons. Condition six requires planning commission approval of each individual site plan before a building permit can be issued. Condition seven is where the landscape modifications are codified. So full front yard relief for lots three, five, and eight and the six foot rear yard, rear landscape buffer with columner evergreens and the six foot screening fence for those lots along the eastern boundary. And condition 8 requires that all development conform to the approved site plans that would be approved by the planning commission as part of the planned commercial um site development plan process. Next slide. So in consideration of this request, the commission has five options. The first is to approve ordinance ordinance number 26-11281 as recommended by the planning commission which requires three affirmative votes. Uh the second is to approve the ordinance with modifications to the conditions also requiring three affirmative votes. Uh third, the commission could return the item to the planning commission with its stated reasons for disagreement

again requiring three votes. Fourth, postpone it to a future meeting if you feel that additional information is necessary. And fifth would be denial of the ordinance which requires four affirmative votes and would require the commission to adopt alternate findings. Next slide. So staff recommends approval of ordinance number 26-11281 uh as option two. So just to bring it to your attention, we did provide you with a a revised ordinance. There was one small change that I noticed a couple of words had been dropped out or had not made it into the ordinance and those are on the second page about halfway down on condition number two. And the it previously read the C3 district use limitations shall apply. And the revision was to add the words and bulk regulations. And each of those use limitations and bulk regulations includes a parenthetical um code citation there. So the full condition two would be the C3 district use limitations section 42-286 and bulk regulations section 42-285 shall apply. And that concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Michaelelsson. Just one question. I think I have this understood the from the residential owners side of the property line. They would see first the six-foot fence. Yes. Then the tall columnar trees on the other side of the fence. Correct. And there'd be six feet between that fence and whatever else is in the development. That's correct. Yeah. So it' be six foot wide. Any other questions?

The planning commission covered me. Okay. Um any comments from the public? Seeing none, we'll bring this up for action. Mr. Vice Mayor, I move that the city commission approve ordinance number 26-11281 reszoning lots 1 through8 block one of the replat of 9 south edition from C3 shopping center to PC5 plan service commercial second did they recommendation of I'm number two action item

that was the recommendation would be actually to use option two um if if you are okay with the revision to the ordinance. I could explain that if you if the significance of that if needed. Um the bulk regulations are essentially side setbacks and rear setbacks without without that addition to the ordinance that says bulk regulations that would uh effectively allow C5 setbacks and C5 does not have side or rear setbacks. So, the intent was to keep it consistent with C3 as far as where the buildings are placed and the setbacks.

Yeah, I think if you're okay with the amendment that was presented as you just said um as proposed or something like that or just add to as proposed by staff and the amendment. It's no problem for me to make a new motion. I can Hey, either way,

I'll do that. Um Mr. Vice Mayor, the city I move the city commission concurs with the findings and recommendations of the planning commission. Ordinance number 26-11281 reszoning lots 1 through eight block one of the ray plat of 9 south edition from C3 shopping center to PC5 plan communic plan service commercial should be approved. This action would require three I think I read the wrong thing again. What what's the addendum I need to add to this to

just uh I just think I I believe you can just say your motion is to adopt 26-11281 as presented by staff today at the meeting. That will work. So as presented by staff second with with the planning commission recommendations correct is the way it was presented. That's the way the staff presented. It's that was stated. Just want to make sure that was stated in the uh we we concur with their findings. Yeah. So I think we covered that and my apologies for that that misread. So we're squared away. Now,

it's been moved and seconded that the city commission approve ordinance number 26-11281 with modifications as presented by staff. All in favor say I. I. This one this one needs a roll call vote. Oh, sorry. Ordinance. I have it written right here, too. Roll call, please. Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Lanowitz, I. Commissioner Rim, I. Vice Mayor Ivy, I. Okay, this passes 40. And maybe the mayor can straighten us all up when he gets back. Yeah, maybe so.

Okay, thank you. That will bring us to item 6.3. Item 6.3, consider approval of um Yep. Consider approval of ordinance number 26-11283 amending the Wilbur Plan Development District on the east side of Crawford Place to allow for SRH adviserss to construct a new office building. Mr. Hers, you're up again.

Yes. Thank you, mayor and commissioners. Uh this item is 6.3 and it is application PPD260001 which is a request submitted by Charles Rens of uh JGR Architects on behalf of SRH Advisors. Next slide please. So the applicant is seeking approval of an amendment to the existing Wilbur PDDD which is a Wilbur Planned Development District ordinance. This action would clear the way for a new professional office building on a 1.6 acre tract of land that has historically sat vacant near the corner of Crawford Place and Crawford Street shown outlined in blue on the aerial photo there. Next slide, please. Looking at the surrounding area, the site acts as a trans transitional node between different land uses. To the west, you have the established commercial elements of the Wilbur PDD. To the north you have R1 single family zoning which is the the yellow area to the north. To the south you have the Hillrest Apartments that is zoned R3. And then to the east you have the Brookdale Senior Living Facility which is also zoned R3. Next slide please. Quick background. The Wilbur PDD was originally approved in 1983 and to the balance to balance commercial opportunities and to preserve nearby residential neighborhoods. It functions under a hybrid set of rules, meaning that it allows a custom list of commercial uses, but subjects these uses to stricter physical design regulations of the art of the excuse me, C2 shopping or neighborhood shopping uh district to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood homes and properties. Next

slide, please. The 1.62 62 acre tract has remained vacant the entire time of the Wilbur PDDD's existence. So since 1983, it has remained vacant. Next slide. The nature of this afternoon's request is quite specific. SRH Advisors is proposing to build a 6,750 ft office building. This PDD amendment is strictly isolated to these specific vacant parcels. It will not alter any of the existing regulations of the or approved plans of the rest of the Wilbur PDD. And the main reason for the proposed amended preliminary PDD is to address uh proposed variations to the site which we will go over uh a little bit in this presentation. Next slide. The PDD resoning and final development plan review process to provide some context to where we are in the regulatory timeline. The PDD requires two steps uh for approval. Step one is what we're dealing with today. And your role as a city commission is to review the preliminary development plan uh from a higher level policy perspective and consider the amended ordinance that authorizes the site variations. We will discuss. If approved today, the project advances to step two, which is a final development plan review that would be submitted to the planning commission for their review of the detailed plans before a building permit could be issued. Looking at next slide, please. The zoning ordinance requirements. In terms of the Wilbur PDD zoning requirements, the proposed professional office is already in allowed use within the Wilbur PDD. Furthermore, the core physical requirements, things like lot coverage, building height setbacks, and parking

are entirely compliant with the baseline C2 zoning. Again, the reason we are bringing this amendment forward is four specific waiverss that are custom uh designed to the site that we'll get into now. Next slide, please. So, the first the applicant is asking for a shift in the required landscape buffer. So along the very north edge of the site plan, which is on the right, you'll see some trees. Typically, the landscape buffer is on the property line. This particular site has a utility easement at the very north end. And the applicant is proposing to shift the landscaping to the south of that utility easement so that there are not conflicts with the existing utilities and the roots and plantings that are being proposed. Second, rather than installing a six-foot screening fence along the east boundary, which they share with the nursing home to the east, they are proposing a 15t buffer with landscape plantings rather than a solid screening fence. They believe that that is more aesthetic and more in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide, please. Oh. Oh, sorry. Go back. I got ahead of myself. So, the third and fourth waivers. The third waiver is a is a waiver to the strict requirement of the front yard landscaping. So typically landscaping is required in the front yard area which is the front 25 ft along a street frontage. Here we have two street frontages. In this case we have Crawford Place and Crawford Street. And the applicant is instead of just having the front 25 ft be the landscape area, they're requesting that the front landscape area be defined as the area between the building and the street frontage. Lastly, because this is a corner lot with two frontages, they're requesting

an allowance of three signs rather than the standard two that the C2 district limits properties to. Next slide, please. getting into the state statute zoning criteria. Um when we evaluate the suitability of the site, the property is physically and legally suitable for the proposed office, professional office with lot coverage sitting at just over 12% and roughly 60% of the lot remaining as green space. It is a the proposed development is a low density development that won't overwhelm the property. Next slide. Character of the neighborhood. Uh, a professional office is one of the more harmonious uses that could be placed here because it operates almost exclusively during standard business hours. It doesn't generate late night traffic noise or light glare that you might see with heavier retail or restaurant type uses. There thereby respecting the neighboring residences um around this particular property. Next slide, please. Public utilities, storm drainage and services. There are existing sanitary sewer, water, and underground storms in this area, and the proposed building would not undermine or overly burden the existing infrastructure. Next slide, please. Street and traffic for site access. All traffic entering and exit exiting the site would be from a 26 foot wide driveway off of Crawford Place shown on the site plan there. The uh the no formal traffic study was required. Public works team did do a thorough review of the circulation plan and confirm that no operational safety

concerns would be in place based on uh the proposed site plan that the applicant is bringing forward. Slide 16. Next slide, please. Conformance with the comprehensive plan. The project directly aligns with the comprehensive plan which designates this particular area as part of the neighborhood center zoning or land use category. By utilizing the existing commercial area at the intersection and introducing a smallcale structure with high quality materials, the applicant fulfills the city's long range vision for transitional commercial design in this area. Next slide, please. The planning commission conducted their technical review of the proposed development plan at their April 7th planning commission meeting to give context to the proposed PDD. Uh we're sharing some renderings to help tell the story of what SRH Adviserss is uh proposing. The applicant is proposing a modern aesthetic featuring blonde limestone veneer, varying shades of brick face and architectural metal panels. This particular rendering is the south elevation. So this would be facing Crawford Street. Next slide please. This also is facing Crawford Street but from a little bit different view. You can see the mixture of the limestone, the blonde brick and then the charcoal brick and also the architectural panels and glass framed windows there. Next slide please. This is the west elevation. So this would be uh if you're looking at it from the existing Wilbur PDDD. Next slide please. Again another west elevation. And then you can see the architectural paneling on the left side and then the limestone

on on the right. The more tan color there. Next slide please. And this is the last elevation again showing the mixture of materials and the proposed facade of the building. Next slide. So to wrap up, the planning commission held a public hearing on April 7th and voted seven to zero to recommend approval of this preliminary PDD and the requested variations subject to four standard conditions which you can find on page five of your report. The 14-day protest period has expired without petitions. So the item is now before you for final consideration. Staff would recommend that the city commission approve ordinance number 26-11283 approving the amended preliminary development plan and the requested variations. We'll take any questions that you might have.

I don't have a question but I want to compliment you on the design and layout of the slides. I mean thank It's very easy way to follow this type of a of an item on the agenda. It's uh Well, I appreciate the compliment. Thank you. You've set the bar high.

Any other questions or comments? Uh would the applicant like to say anything? You don't have to. You're you're good. Okay. Well, this this land sit vacant for a long time, and it's exciting to see a a new wonderful facility like this to to go in. I think it'll to me anyway. I'm only one person. I think it blends in well with the area and be a real asset to that area. So, uh any comments or questions from the public on this? Okay. If not, we'll bring it back to the commission for action.

I'll try a motion this time. I think the wording is a little funny again, but I would make a motion that we concur and go with the findings and recommendations of the planning commission ordinance number 26-11283 approving the amended preliminary development plan and requested variations. Second. We have a motion, a second, uh, concurring with the findings and recommendation of the planning commission, ordinance number 26-11283, approving the amended preliminary development plan and requested variations. May we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Ivy,

I. Commissioner Linquitz, I. Commissioner Rim, I. Mayor Hoppik,

I. That item passes 50. Congratulations and we looks look forward to seeing construction begin. Okay, that will bring us to other business. I will look to my fellow commissioners to see if anyone has an item they would like to bring before the commission. I have uh two. One is more a question than if I submitted it to the city manager attorney and got an answer. I haven't read it. I apologize. But uh uh a little over a week ago, I'm assuming all five of us got requests from Joshua Barnhard to answer some questions about proceedings for the animal shelter. And I responded to them. I wasn't going to really answer because I didn't know if that would be tanamount to a Kansas open meetings violation. Now it's not like a campaign where you can have people expressing their views but if all of us were to express views on something that we are going to take up in a meeting seemed inappropriate place to conduct our business.

I apologize. I don't recall uh seeing that matter or reviewing it. So I'm not prepared to talk to and I may not have said it. You know, I don't I don't see that there's any concern with you responding to an email from Joshua Barnhart just like you would any other any other citizen. So, there is no concern with you as long as you're not you don't copy the rest of the commission on when you send that email back. Um well, if all five of us you all five received it, but if if you all five uh copy each other on it, then that would be an interactive meeting, a serial meeting and would would violate the Kansas open meetings laws. Um, now we read you individual we read each other's comments in the paper.

I I I see where you're I I I follow your train of thought. I am not familiar with any attorney general's opinion directly on point whether or not all the majority and I believe that other places a majority of a governing body have all commented to the media on the same matter. So I'm I'm confident that's happened other places and never been found. Um, but I am also I haven't I haven't reviewed it specifically, so I'm a little, you know, but but my thought would be that would be okay.

Okay. And uh because it seems like our comments can be taken verbatim with recordings. uh actually prepared just a short remark and and it does have something to do with the uh animal uh shelter issues. Uh I don't you probably all get little advertisements on the phone when you look up stuff on Google. Uh but there's one little thing that I can't seem to get rid of, but it comes up with famous quotations. And this one was by Aristotle and it reads, "Anybody can become angry that is easy. But to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose and in the right way. That is not within everybody's power and is not easy. There are a few of you who are angry that the city commission has not jumped and acted impulsively to do something or anything. What may seem like inactivity or lack of responsiveness is far from that. We are listening and we are very concerned. We need to explore to what extent efficiency at the animal shelter is affected by people, process, procedure, training, facilities, the animal services side, the adoption side, finance, regulations, personalities, public demands for services, or something not yet identified. Before we apply a fix, we need to identify the target. Open discussion such as facilitated dialogue akin to our

strategic planning sessions is strongly urged before we try to fix some things that might not be as broken as whisperers would claim. We have the talent in our continuous process improvement department to lead such a discussion and at some point I would suggest we take advantage of our in-house talent. so that we can better refine what our real issues are. Thank you. Done. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?

Well, I'm going to backtrack on that a little bit. a month and a halfish ago, I suggested we start a RFP process to at least take a look at options on the shelter. I know in talking to um Mr. Wood, he says if we were ever going to do it, now would be a good time. the shelter um is having a hard time even keeping the lights on. They're having a hard time keeping the doors open. And in the meantime, the animals aren't getting the time and attention, the care that they need due to minimal staff and minimal volunteers. And I just don't know why it would hurt to take a look at proposals. Like I saw an email approximately a week ago where Mayor um Kim Hill presented half a dozen different options besides Prairie Paws. I know pray pause you have publicly stated as a no-go, but if we're really going to listen to the community, this is not a small issue and if we're if we really want to take a look at a a fix because whether or not we have the talent internally um is still a question mark with me. But in the meantime, why would we not take a look at some of the entities or or do an RFP process and take a look at what our options might be? At this point in time, it has to be taken up a significant

amount of time from city staff. And in the meantime, the animals are I just don't think they're getting the the care. The end goal if the animals are adoptable would be to get them out of the shelter. But if the shelter looks like it's closed and and perhaps the doors are locked when people pulled up, I don't know how we could accomplish that that mission of of rehoming the animals that are being held. I just don't I am I'd like to see a sense of urgency from the city. And thus far, I think we've had very little um besides looking at a consultant to come in.

I have some answers, but go ahead. I I was just one, are we barely keeping the lights on? And two, do we have any open hours at the shelter?

We do have open hours. We are open by uh appointment during the week, and then we have uh shelter hours on Friday and Saturday. everything. I I follow the animal shelter page and there's been numerous I don't know if you do, Mr. Commissioner Ramp, but there's been numerous uh adoptions recently. If you look, there's been a significant number. So, um it's not like it's closed and we're not doing anything. I guess um your urgency is not maybe my urgency. I I I'm looking for a long-term solution. I'm not looking for a knee-jerk reaction. I'm looking for a long-term solution. I don't think you ever heard me say that. I'm not open to pri privatizing it. But there's a lot goes in. I'm not an animal shelter expert. That's why we're bringing in a third party. I've got a list of 12 questions here that I don't have answers to. And I have to have answers to those before I know whether we even do an RFP for privatization. And I'm think we've looked I've had staff look and we've contacted some places and they're not interested. So just because we have a list of six doesn't mean I have six knocking on the door. Um so I think what we need to do is we need to take the steps as we talked about. We need to get some things answered. We need to look at intakes. Well, there's there's a lot of different moving parts on this and uh I'm willing to and I'm I'm a little frustrated that the the community is is pushing us to do something instead of actually taking time to do the right thing. And so I don't get it. So we're going to at least I'm I'll have to look at my fellow commissioners. As far as I'm concerned, we're still going to go through the using the third party to to try to get some answers. So I'll look to my other commissioners to see if they feel the same way. We voted on it and that's

I I I feel the same way and I would just ask if among ourselves if we could meet again with a facilitator to guide discussion you know who has no

dog in the race so to speak uh so that we can even formulate good questions for the consultant to answer because there are a lot of moving parts you know the the most simple one is you We have a fullervice animal shelter and we run an adoption agency and I have a feeling the complaints may be more on one side than the other. Uh but we provide a lot more services. You know, we're we're a health we're a neighborhood health clinic for animals is what what we are. Uh and uh if we get rid of one little part, we still got to stand up the rest of it. Uh, and in the days when the shelter was run the way a lot of people think it ought to be, it was still under government, hate to use the word control, it was still run by a government agency. Uh, you know, so the capacity for it to return to what I'm going to call its glory days exists. Uh, I think we just need to chart a careful, deliberate path back there.

Well, and I've got a lot of questions. You talk about the glory days. Um, you know, we kind of get beat up because last year there was 166 euthanasia euthanasia. I go back to 2013 when Rose Bay we had 684 euthanasia. Where was the where was everybody then? 466 in 2014, 466 in 2015. I think we as a shelter have tried to do the right things. And I'm not saying we're doing them well all the time and and it may not be perfect, but we there's a lot of questions that we still need to answer. And I miss Commissioner I Excuse me. Um, Commissioner Ivy,

I I mean, how far are we on the the the third part the consultant? They're consulting. Yeah, we have a meeting tomorrow with uh there were four responses. Um, and we've narrowed that down to the one that we think is the right one to go with and we have a meeting with them to discuss kind of the scope and what their thoughts are. Certainly circumstances have changed a little bit since we sent the RFP out. Um, so we just need to have a discussion with them about um, you know, what their thoughts are and how we move forward, but that's scheduled for tomorrow. But I I like the idea of having a meeting with them and saying here's some concerns and and hopefully they can help us answer some of those questions. Well, this is not Commissioner Link was Commissioner ask. Excuse me.

I don't have much to add to the conversation other than I think if we want a long-term viable solution, we need an impartial third party to look everything over. And uh to me, that's just the best approach. And I concur with Commissioner Davis. Commissioner,

we'll see we'll see that by next meeting or so. Yeah. I mean, at this point, I'd like to hear from the consultant as well. This is not a recent problem. At least according to documentation I've gotten from citizens. I've seen emails from years ago talking about conditions at the shelter. And we are never going to be animal experts. An animal expert pretty much has to be absorbed in it day in and day out. And maybe we can bring a consultant in that would perhaps coach us on the right questions to ask, but I think it'd be a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Amen. There's an old saying, very often people don't know what they don't know. And in this situation, I think some guided conversation would help open our eyes to some things that we may not know is the underlying problem. we may find that we're doing a lot of things correctly. Um, but when you say, you know, even this has been an issue for a long time, I'd have to ask you define this

because when you come in and talk, have a consult, the consultant wants to know what is this this you're talking about. I don't have the correspondence with me, but I have correspondence from as many as three years ago where it documented talking to Mr. Wood regarding conditions at our shelter. The conditions aren't as bad as I think some people are led to believe. I mean, could it Yeah. Could we use a building with 2,000 square feet more? Yeah. Uh, you know, There's always going to be a wish list and there may be reasons why things are a little crowded. Uh but we have to define the this and and that's where I think a facilitated guided discussion amongst us. Uh you know we can get rid of perceptions and and get down to facts. I'm

not against improving the shelter. I mean things can always be done better. It's just we don't necessarily know what that is and bringing in, you know, I'm not even 100% opposed against privatizing it. Um, I just I want to know as as the rest of us I believe up here, we just want to know the questions what to ask and and to be told what's wrong by, you know, an unbiased third party

is going to come in. So, so yeah, I think we'd even have to I think this can help us even if we do an RFP for the third party, what questions we put on that questionnaire for what services we expect because I don't know if all private and I don't know how many that are out there, but uh if they even do all the services that we currently have. So anyway, okay. Anything else from any of the commissioners? If not, I do have a couple of my items I would like to bring forward uh as a on a positive note. Um just recently, you may have seen where uh we announced that executive assistant Holly McGinness had been awarded the 2026 Nancy Crane Municipal Administrative Professional of the Year award. Um we're very proud of her. This is the most prestigious honor presented by the administrative assistance of Kansas cities and counties, the AAKC. So, congratulations to her and this uh nomination highlights her decadel long record of service and leadership with AAKC and her 16-year dedication to the city of Salena. So, uh behalf of that, congratulations, Holly. Uh welld deserved.

Amen. Kind of helps keep us in line, doesn't she? I' I'd say take out the helps. It keeps us in line.

Um, one other thing and I said we'll talk about other organizations. Uh, just recently the SL Education Foundation uh selected its 2026 loan initiative uh for future teachers recipients and that you may if you if you're involved with that. They use Acriman Lyft. Um, six individuals from Selen County receive a $5,000 forgivable loan and it's good for a maximum of three years. And the whole key is to to bring local talent back to USD 305. And um it's kind of dear to my heart. I was on the education foundation when we started this and we only had money for one scholarship. So or loan. So to be able to see that they're doing six now is is great. And and uh that's a good thing for USD 305. So

one question that you might know the answer to when when do the wraps come off the Oh yeah. Uh Saturday at 11:00 is uh unveiling a sculpture tour, the 16th year. So that'll be this Saturday at 11:00 downtown. So,

okay, that will bring us to uh citizens forum. And before we get started, I have a couple comments. One, um we have a 3minut clock that doesn't make a sound. So when 3 minutes hits, I'll try to keep an an eye on it. Um, and I will call out time and need you to wrap up your comments within the next 5 to 10 seconds. We've kind of been letting those go long and it's not fair to allow somebody to go four minutes when somebody's tried to keep their comments to three. So, we're going to do that. Uh, the other thing is, uh, last meeting, uh, things got a motions got a little out of hand. Um, the demeanor of the public was in my eyes not acceptable. Um, so you get your three minutes, you come up, you can say what you want, how you want. Um, we don't have to agree with it. That's fine. But if uh we're disruptive in the audience, we do have an officer here. We will have you escorted out. We're not going to deal with that anymore. So, that was that was an embarrassment to the community. So, with

embarrassment. Okay, here we go. She can leave, please. We're not We just talked about it. We're not going to Yes, please. I'm sorry. We will respect you. I expect you guys to respect us also. Okay. With that, we'll open up uh citizens forum.

I'm Christy Dixon Parham from Salina. Um before I read what was sent to me by someone, I'd like to address what Dr. Davis said regarding the expertise, um, you're absolutely correct. There is no expertise in the people running the animal shelter. None. That's like having a podiatrist do your prostate exam. Okay? There's no expertise there. Has absolutely no idea what he's doing. Um, second of all, your records from 2013 regarding Rose Base. That's because we kept records back then. We actually wrote things down. We didn't hide things like they did the last few years. Okay. So with that being said, on April 2nd, seven pet bulls were euthanized at the Salina Animal Shelter, seven dogs. And I want to be very clear about something right from the start start. Sometimes euthanasia is necessarily necessary just like hospice is for people. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether every realistic, reasonable effort was made before that decision was reached to euthanize those seven dogs. Because what we are hearing and what needs to be addressed publicly is that the numerous organizations outside of Salina reached out to help. rescues groups willing to take these dogs, the seven dogs that were euthanized. Groups willing to give them another chance, a loving home. Those phone calls were not returned. So, I'm asking you plainly and directly, why? Why?

Why would a shelter choose choose euthanasia over a phone call? Why would animals lose their lives when there were organizations willing to step in? Why was the effort not made? Because this doesn't require a new budget. It doesn't require a consult or a consultation or a third party coming in. It requires basic communication, a return phone call, a simple coordination, a willingness to try. And we already know this wasn't just a one-time failure of effort. Although Andrea Murphy's own emails, we know she declined to participate in something as simple as featured animal of the week with nine salin 311, a free platform, a built-in audience, a chance to get animals saved. Were there options truly given or were opportunities like this simply free effective being ignored because if outreach was happening if promotion was happening and even out incoming calls weren't returned this wouldn't be about capacity it'd be about effort

thank you ju just for the record the expertise I was referring to was in-house expertise to lead our discussion it had nothing to do with I was talking about leading our discussion. We we have tremendous expertise in this building to do that.

Kathy Schwarz, Salina. Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce introduce to you Rose Base. In 1986, she was hired as an animal control officer. At that time, the shelter was located at 1960 West Old Highway 40. It had 13 cat cages and 19 dog runs. In 1993, she became the director of the Salina Animal Shelter. Rose pushed to either make the current shelter larger or to build a new one. Since the old shelter had stairs and was not ADA accessible, a new shelter seemed to be the way to go. She visited other shelters to determine what would work and what didn't. Construction began in 1999 and they moved in in July of 2000. Rose basically designed the current shelter with architect Warren Ediger in and in 2014 Rose retired after 28 years. Does she take the current unorderly uncoordinated status of the shelter personally? Absolutely. And so do I. And so does Salina. The well-maintained, well-managed shelter no longer exists. I've had the honor and privilege of knowing Rose for over two years when instead of enjoying retirement, she's attempted to time and time again to bring problems and her concerns to the attention of the mayor, commissioners, city manager, and parks and recreation director, all who have dismissed and ignored her. I join joined her cause over two years ago and since then several others have joined her each with a special talent that contributes to our petition for a better shelter as well as healthy and happy animals. Meeting after meeting, you have been

made aware of serious concerns and have chosen not to act. This is not an inaction. It is a decision. A decision to look other the other way. A decision to avoid accountability. a decision that allowed problems to grow unchecked until they have reached catastrophic proportions. If you had listened to us earlier and chose to act, we would not be where we are today. Now, we're left hearing explanations, excuses, and carefully crafted statements. If everything was being done properly, if leadership at the shelter truly reflected the standard the city claims to uphold, there would be no secrecy, no delays, no redactions, no need to attempt to hide information that the citizens of Salina, the taxpayers and donors have the right to know. In the meantime, the animals are suffering the consequences of delayed action, ignored warnings, and decisions made behind closed doors. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Kathy.

Rosemary my line of Kansas. I had the opportunity a couple weeks ago to visit uh Clay Center and Manhattan shelter and the one in Clay Center. I was very impressed with it. It is privately owned by four direct uh stockholders and they hire one director and he has three part-time employees and the rest are all volunteers. I was very very impressed with Clay Cent's uh shelter. Immaculate. It it it's probably as as clean as a hospital and their play area is just fantastic. And um I encourage uh the commissioners maybe to take a run over to Clay Center in Manhattan and talk to these directors that they have there and uh see how um their shelters are run privately. Now, the one in Manhattan is um city and prairie paws uh combination, but uh I was very impressed with what I heard. And the gentleman in Clay Center said that uh when our shelter was built, it was one of the best built shelters because it had all the filtrations in it that a lot of the shelters do not have. So he was impressed with the way our shelter was built and so we need to be proud of that part. But I encourage you to go run to Clay Center or Manhattan and talk to these people. They're very and most of all Clay Centers is done by donations. Uh it's pretty much funded by donations throughout the city. So appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Rosemary.

Good afternoon, Mayor Habuk and commissioners. My name is Anna Cardinz. Um, I live at 319 North Kansas Avenue. I'm here today to report a pattern of unfair leasing practices, financial exploitation, and what I believe is a misuse of local resources to bypass the law. I'm a taxpaying citizen. I work here in Salena. For over a year, I have paid rent to my landlord. Despite my payments, my seven-year-old daughter and I have lived in a home without the option for central heat. As a matter of fact, the gas company removed the gas meter early last year. I have not had or I have had to chop wood just to keep us warm in a house that I paid that I still pay $850 a month for. This isn't just about our safety. It's about the public safety. Last August, a commercial food truck belonging to the property manager was parked in my driveway and caught fire less than 5t from my residence where my pregnant daughter was inside visiting me. Additionally, the city's own gov built record showed that the electrical work done on this house in 2025 was completed without any permits or safety inspections. I have that report with me today. Furthermore, when I began asking for the safety and trans for safety and transparency, the situation turned into retaliation. On March 16th of 2026, a sheriff's deputy used um was used to deliver a makeshift eviction notice only hours after I had had a city code inspector inspect the property. This document didn't come from the court. I believe it was a private letter meant to trick me into leaving so the owner could sell the hazardous property without going through the proper legal channels in Salen County. Finally, when I tried to resolve this through building services, I was handed a letter that essentially bars me from speaking to the regular staff. I was redirected to officials who are currently unavailable. It shouldn't be this hard for a resident to access code enforcement their taxes pay for. I am handling my EV I'm going to hand my evidence packet over after

this. It contains messages message evidence, utility records, photos, and the city's no data permit report. My goal today is simple. I am asking this commission for help and direction on my next moves. I need an investigation into these permit violations and guidance on how to ensure our city's process process to protect families like mine rather than shielding negligent landlords from accountability. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And did you say you had some I do. I have um you'll hand that over to our legal counsel, please. Yeah. And is your contact information on

Yeah. Thank you. Come on up. Yeah. Okay. I'm Lucille Sanderson Salina. Um commissioners, I know why you were discussing this animal shelter. I'm thinking there's cats and there's dogs in those cages. is thinking, "What did I do to become in this cage? I'm not getting the care that I should gotten. What did I do?" They don't understand language. They understand action. Now, the helpers, the workers in the animal shelter don't mean to do this, but they're unhappy. There's fighting. There's aggravation. There's arguing going on. And that transfers or transfers to the cats and dogs without realizing it. I'm sure all of you have had pets. If not, I'm sorry. Because your pet always came to you with the tail wagging. Oh, and it gave you kisses unlimited. But you spoke harshly to that animal. And what happened? The tail dropped and it slucked away. We can't let this happen. I don't know what you're going to do, but you need to somehow quickly arrive at a decision because what's hurting is the animals. And this is another thing that is burns me to death. You were quick to sue the cozy because he disagreed. He disobeyed. But yet you jumped to pay the attorney fees for these girls from the animal shelter. That's a two-way street.

You It's right if you do and it's wrong if you do. You just are not doing something correctly. But most important is these animals. And the longer you sit up here and talk and discuss, the longer those animals are hurting. Think about the animals. Think about the pet you had as a child. You're not, you don't have to answer, but I'm sure you all had a pet. You loved that pet. And when you lost that pet, what did you do? You probably cried uncontrollably. You cried. You hurt for a while. Those animals are alive and hurting now. So, please act swiftly. And thank you,

Lucille. Just one comment. The city did not sue the Cozy. The Cozy sued the city. Just But you spent a million dollars of the citizens money. A million dollars. I just wanted to clarify who sued who. Okay. Just cuz that was But didn't you spend a million dollars? Not a million. Close. So, pretty darn close. Okay. Thank you. But the animals are what is hurting here. Okay. Thank you. All right.

Sue Nichols Salina, just to kind of go off of that, I'd like to talk about the decision to use taxpayer dollars to fund the criminal defense of the two individuals is not just concerning, it's unacceptable. You're being asked to believe that their actions were performed within their official duties, that they acted reasonably and in good faith. But the documented evidence shows the exact opposite. They did not follow the city of Salina's youth in Asia policy. They did not follow the written veterinary protocol. They did not follow the AVMA guidelines, the most basic standard for humane youth in Asia. And just so there's no confusion, this is not my interpretation. This is their own documentation. This right here, this is a direct email sent by Andrea Murphy to the state of Kansas. And she says, "Our policy manual released last year by Mon'nique is written permitting intraaritinal in cats, birds, and pocket pets." So let's be clear about what that means. Show me where in this policy that intracardiac euthanasia is allowed in dogs. It's not there. It's not mentioned. It's not authorized. It's not permitted. And yet that's exactly what happened. So when I say Monique Collie wrote the policy, I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm showing you theirs. Which means she knew the policy. She understood the standards and those standards were not followed. This was not confusion. This is not a lack of training. This was a decision. A decision to ignore policy. A decision to ignore protocol. And a decision that inflicted excruciating pain on defenseless puppies, animals that had no voice and no choice and no protection. And that decision crossed a line so serious that it resulted in criminal charges. And it doesn't stop there. In

early 2026, the shelter failed the state inspection and was found deficient in even the minimum standards for euthanasia training. So much so that the state of Kansas required euthanasia to stop entirely. So how can this possibly be described as reasonable or in good faith? Let's make this simple. If a city employee operating heavy equipment, ignored safety protocols, and caused a death, would you pay for their defense? If a police officer ignored use of force policy and face criminal charges, would you have us taxpayers footing the bill? No. Because when someone knowingly ignores policy and causes harm, they're no longer acting on behalf of the city. They're acting outside of it. And this is exactly what happened here. And this decision should not be treated as final. You justified paying these legal fees based on the claim that these actions were within policy, within training, and in good faith. But the facts don't support that. And make no mistake, this is not something the citizens of Salina will soon forget.

Uh Sue, um do you have a second? Um I know you've uh talked about you've turned uh some complaints into the uh attorney general. Did you want to address those at all? I would love to. Okay. So let's bring this up. Mr. Hoffman, you want to charge me $1,20 for 5 days of emails and then two days later you change your mind and say it's $512 when I have three months of her emails. Three months that cost me $85. Explain that. Okay. First of all, we you want to address that?

Address that real. So, yes, there was uh we've had I think we're at over 40 KOA requests since March. um when I get a core request, some they don't all come to me, but the ones that do, I have a duty to um charge people for my time on it because that's taxpayer money that is funding my salary and if I'm working on a core request, I'm not working on my other duties. Um recently there was a request that had initially was identified as having I think over 2500 pages. Yeah. Um and so I did give an estimate based on all the redaction I have to do. Uh when we're talking about city emails, even in the most innocuous documents, there's a lot of um with these animal shelter, there's a lot of personal information. There's a lot of uh employee information in there. And so I have to do a redaction. Um the reason I have to do it, I can't really, sometimes we do have other staff do it, but we are subject to the attorney general complaints if we don't do it right. And so I'm not comfortable just handing off that duty to anybody. Anyway, uh in reference to the thousand dollars, um initially my estimate for the amount of time I thought it would take me to do that core request uh redaction was very high because of the 2500 pages. After I scrolled through and g gave an initial review of it, I realized that a lot of it was repetitive and a lot of it was actually referencing core requests we'd already done for this person

and I asked for clarification. Please Sue, let him Sue, please let him finish. And and one of the reasons I give the the estimate in advance is to give the the requester the opportunity to change to modify the request to make it less burdensome if they wanted to. It's to deter me from getting the request.

It's not to deter you're going to miss I am very confident you're going to continue making requests regardless of what I do. So I'm not even No, I know you are. So I'm not even that's not crossing my mind. What I am trying to do is uh protect my time because the city doesn't kora is just a piece of what I do and there's a lot of other things that I'm not getting done while I'm responding to 40 different core requests. And so that's the reason for the time limitation. I did I did send you an estimate revising down the time I thought it would take which is what I'm required to do because I don't want to if I was trying to deter you I think I would have kept the higher estimate. 10 days compared to 3 months.

I don't know what you're talking about with 10 days versus 3 months. I really don't I I don't understand. I don't really want to have this conversation because we're wasting everybody else's time right now. But I mean that's the point the part I want the part I wanted to get please.

The part I was wanting to get to is that there were seven complaints filed against the city of Salina for Kansas Open Records Act violations. the the attorney general um answered back and on the first three um he did state um that to help the city improve um from a copy of this letter he's asking us to take a necessary step to ensure that he tells the requester when we expect the records to be to them if we cannot do it within the three business days. Some of that is because of the number of requests we have and so on so forth. There was no um formal enforcement action and the attorney general considered the complaint um closed. There was also two done on March 23rd, March 27th, April 2nd, and April 8th. And according to the attorney general, the city did not violate Kora and no formal enforcement action is warranted and we were the cases have been closed. So, we're not trying to hide anything.

They weren't all filed by Sue though, please. And so we're we're getting to those. We're doing what we're allowed to do by law. We're there sometimes redactions are required. Um so anyway, this this idea that we're hiding things from the public is not at all true. So anyway, I I'm probably not going to convince you guys that. That's that's the next subject. Okay. Michelle Tempson, Minneapolis. Yes.

Before I begin, I want to define a simple word, truth. Truth is not subjective. It is not flexible. It is not something that changes depending on who is speaking. Truth is what is supported by facts, by records, and by evidence. Over the past several weeks, Andrea Murphy has made statements in this room and in official communications that do not match the documented record. On February 5th, we were told that euthanasia was stopped out of an abundance of caution. But on January 28th, email from the state of Kansas directed the shelter to stop euthanizing animals unless performed by a licensed veterinarian. That was not caution, that was compliance. On February 11th, at the animal advisory board meeting, Andrea Murphy stated, "We will always sedate." On February 18th, in a written response to the public, she stated, "Sedation is part of our euthanasia process." But in March, it was acknowledged that the puppies were not sedated. When the same assurance is given more than once, it is not a misunderstanding. The record shows otherwise. And on March 23rd, we were told the puppies were euthanized by IP injection and were lethargic and dehydrated. But sedation was not used. And you cannot describe animals as too lethargic to respond while also requiring restraint restraint to complete the procedure. Those two things cannot both be true. When you look at these statements together, this is not confusion. This is a pattern. A pattern of statements that change while the facts do not. And what is equally concerning is this. These statements were made in this room in front of city leadership, including Jacob Wood, Jeff Hammond, and Patrick Hoffman. They had the opportunity to correct the record. They had the opportunity to challenge what was being said. They chose not to. These are not misunderstandings. These

are documented contradictions between what was said and what the records show. Truth is not flexible. Truth is not negotiable. And when the truth is known but not spoke, not spoken, that is no longer oversight. It is a decision. You're set. This will land exactly how you want it delivered, steady and controlled. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle.

Rose Base. Um, I'm going to quote uh the interview with Dr. Jubie. Melissa Jubie. Um, on March 6 during an interview with Salina 311, Dr. Melissa Jubie stated the following. The standard operating procedure for humane euthanasia I created is based off the HSUS euthanasia reference manual. Just want to clarify it did not offer author this guide book. Introvenous or inpreneurial are the preferred methods of euthanasia. Intercardiac is an approved method but only on unconscious animals. After learning what was reported to me, I emailed parks and recck director Jeff Hammond, operation superintendent Andrea Murphy and animal services manager Monnique Holly within about one hour to express the concerns regarding the reported use of a heartstick procedure done without sedation. I issued direction that no shelter staff may administer euthanasia at that time and that euthanasia must be performed by myself or another licensed veterinarian while the matter was being addressed. Those are not my words. Those are Dr. Jubie's. This is the city's own contracting veterinarian. Now, let's look at what happened next. We don't have to speculate because we have the email. On December 17th at 12:20 p.m., Andrea Murphy forwarded proof of her enrollment to authoria training course and stated, "FYI, here shows my enrollment. I only purchased the part one online course for now. After I've completed it, we can discuss part two. That's documented evidence. The very next day, within hours after being told to stop, she enrolled in training. That tells us two things. First, Dr. Jubie was telling the truth. But second, this was not compliance. This was positioning to move forward, and it was done in haste. So, let's ask the question, why was Andrea Murphy so determined to continue euthanizing? Was it because she was told to stop? because she believed she was right, because she believed she did not respect the authority of the veterinarian overseeing that shelter, or was it all those things? And here's the next question that matters most. Was it

urgency or was it refusal to accept limits that were clearly put in place by the veterinarian responsible for that shelter? Meanwhile, the DEA registration for those drugs used in euthanasia remained under Dr. Jubie's name, not Andrea Murphy's. You cannot separate euthanasia from the legal authority to use those controlled substances. And when the state inspection was conducted, the findings continued confirmed. It was no, no one at the shelter meant the minimum standards, not under those state regulations and not even under their own policy. So, let's be clear about what it shows. The serious breakdown in judgment at the exact moment of professional oversight was most critical. And here's what should concern every person in this room. City Manager Jacob Wood, parks and recreation director Jeff Hammond, and city attorney Patrick Hoffman knew. You guys knew. They knew what happened. They knew that Dr. what Dr. Jubie had said, and they stood there in the public meetings and they allowed false narrative to be presented anyway. They didn't correct it. They didn't challenge it. They allowed it. And when the leadership knows the truth and this still allows this to stand, that is not oversight. That is complicity. If this is what you choose to allow, then the responsibility for this behavior rests squarely on each of your shoulders.

Thank you. And I do have the the email the very next day after the puppies were heartsticked for the Florida training course.

Good evening, Tony Johnson. Salina. Uh first off, I want to say it's good to see public works is widening North Street between Santa Fe and Knight. That'll be a big improvement. Also want to say that uh the free landfill day, I took part in that. I appreciate that. Uh plenty of staff out there taking care of business, getting got people in and out. It was very efficient. Uh to piggyback on your comment about Holly. I had that written down, too. I've talked to her, not a lot, but I've talked to her on more than a few occasions, and she's always been helpful and pleasant, and like I said, it's very welld deserved. uh cozy in mural looks like they're starting uh starting to pick that back up. So that'll be nice. Um I also heard the city manager say will not deviate from the requirements of volunteers needing to give their social security number to work at the animal shelter as a volunteer. Is that same requirement needed for all volunteer positions like for instance at the river festival? If not, why is there separate rules? And then finally, uh, I'm just asking something simple here. Honesty, accountability, and transparency regarding the animal shelter. In February of 26, Jacob Wood stated he had taken on a larger oversight role beginning in 2023. Since that time, funding for the shelter has increased, including significant use of donation funds. Yet, based on public records, meeting discussions, and firsthand accounts from veterary professionals, conditions for animals have not improved. At a 2024 public meeting, a licensed veterinarian was moved to tears right here, talking about the condition of animals that were arriving from the shelter to where she worked. That's not a minor operational issue. It's a serious indicator that something in the system

is failing. We also know that staff were allowed to adopt animals at no cost. Public resources, including equipment purchased for animals and shelter care, were not clearly accounted for, including over $1,000 spent in May of 2025 for bearded dragon supplies. Required records were not consistently maintained. When serious concerns are minimized and policies appear inconsistently followed and when transparency is limited, public confidence erodess, the question is no longer just what happened. It is whether leadership is willing to fully acknowledge and address it. Thank you.

Thank you, Tony. Anyone else? Mayor, commissioners, Trent, I hope you have the time to get off your phone and whatever and listen to what I have to say. You haven't listened to anybody else. You've always just had your head hanging like shame. Yeah, I'm taking notes. Anyway, so no, wait, wait. Don't make an accusation and don't think this is a one-way conversation. Okay. No, you wait. I'm taking notes on everything you're saying. All right. That's the reason my head is. Thank you. Thank you. Don't take my time. Don't make unfound.

I want to start with a single animal, a kitten. Animal number A0059049086. According to the shelter's own records, this was a 4month-old kitten euthanized on October 10th, 2025. The reason, it had ringorm. Not a life-threatening condition, not an emergency, not a public safety risk. Ringworm is treatable and the city's own policy proves it. The policy says animals with ringorm are to be quarantined, treated with antifungal medication, and allowed to recover. It doesn't say euthanize. It doesn't say to kill the animal. It says treat the animal, but that's not what happened here. This was a four-month-old kitten. It was killed anyway. And when you try to follow the paper trail, this is where it gets even more concerning. This animal appears in the euthanasia and outcome reports, but it does not appear in the intake rep records, and it does not appear in the controlled substance log. that should document the drug used to perform the euthanasia. So, I have to ask, where did this animal come from? What was used to kill it? And how does a 4-month-old kitten exist in a system only at the point it was killed, euthanized, without a complete and traceable record? because your own regulations require full documentation from intake to care to outcome. And yet we have a kitten euthanized for a treatable condition with gaps at every

critical step. This isn't just about one animal. This is about whether your policies mean anything at all. You have a written policy that says reduce euthanasia. You have a treatment protocol that says treat ringworm and yet this kitten was killed in direct contradiction to that policy and the records that should explain it don't even exist excuse me across your own system. If you think a consultant is going to fix this, you're you're wrong. A consultant cannot fix a culture, and that's what's going on at the the shelter that ignores its own policies. You don't need an assessment to tell you what's happening in that shelter. You already know. You've been told over and over and over and over again. So, if this continues, it won't be because you didn't have the information. It will be because you're choosing to ignore it. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Lori Hall. Um, I would like to share my concern about misrepresentation of rabies risk, falsifying records, and a complete neglect for a public health danger while under the supervision of Andrea Murphy and Monnique Holly at the Salina Animal Services Facility. No one here in this room would disagree that rabies is a p is a serious public health issue. Bats, like other mammals, can and do carry rabies. In Kansas, 11 bats out of 418 suitable specimens that was their brains could be used, you know, to um tested positive for rabies last year. Three out of 418 of those bats, just three of 418 were confirmed in Selen County. Um, other animals that were confirmed rabies in Kansas last year were dogs, horses, cows, goats, sheep, skunks, coyotes, and other wildlife species. In other words, bats are not the only vectors of the rabies virus. Directly from the animal service employees manual is the following. Depending on the condition of the animals and circumstances regarding rabies control, wild animals may be set free in a safe release area. Now, let's let's look at their their records. And um they're from Kora, so I

I appreciate that. In 2025, 32 bats were euthanized. Documented records indicate that 27 of those bats were killed for rabies testing. That's what it says on the documents, rabies testing. Now, of the 27 bats that were killed for rabies testing, you would think 27 were sent to KState, right? Eight. So, what I see here is that those two supervisors put down that they sent 27 bats in for rabies testing, but right here from Kate, it says every one of the eight bats came back negative. Now, I called the epidemiologist at in Topeka the other day, and you know what her response was? Oh my, why are you killing so many bats? I She goes, "You must have a rabies anxiety going on." My question is, why are we killing them? They're a protected species. Now

time there is a little girl that was in a room where a bat was flying that needed to be sent in but not 27 of them. So if I look at Dr. Davidson said if he recorded something in his uh doctor's office and it was false that's fraud. Thank you.

We all know that's fraud. Benwinhol Salina a few years ago. Not all of you because not all of you were on the commission at the time, but most of you were. You started handing out city freebies and you handed them out, I think, to the Lee building developers were the first ones to get them. After that, every developer that was doing what you guys wanted by getting 2,000 houses done in this town in 5 years because of the 2,000 jobs we have coming. Yeah, right. Um, they had to get them, too. You guys had you opened up a can of worms where you gave them everything that the others were getting. Now, let's switch to what you guys did last week. You're paying the fees for two individuals who created a crime while on duty. Animal cruelty. So now you've opened up another can of worms to a point where any city employee

in any department if they do something criminal while on work working for the city on their work hours should be able to get legal counsel paid for. And and you can you can use the argument well they were doing their duties. Well, anybody can be doing their duties and do something criminal and they'll have the argument of saying, "I want legal counsel, too, because these two got it." Gosh, guys. I mean, come on. Let's get real here. Just exactly what you have done. And you can sit there and say that it was an embarrassment to the city what happened last week. Yeah. It was an embarrassment to the city for what you guys have done by paying legal fees for somebody who has done something criminal. Criminal animal cruelty that's not in their job description to do animal cruelty. And yet you guys are seen to be for it. Let's pay their legal fees. That's the embarrassing part for this community through the whole state through the whole nation whoever wants to know. Period.

Okay. Anybody else? Norman Man Salena, how come our county commissioner has a better approval rating than your city commissioners? That's embarrassing, ain't it? You want our respect? You got to earn it. Now, I'm going to go another direction. What if any plans for our 250 year celebration has this nation came to be? Does the city have? This nation came to be at the expense of another nation. The destruction of another nation culture. This calendar here was done by your own Ken Jennison right there. Ken Jellison 1979 calendar. And I ain't giving it to the city museum either. They ain't got enough money to buy this. But you can sure spend it at other places, can you? The ASPCA. You can get a hold of Temple Grandland. She'll help you on this. We got another issue around here. It's in the news. What is the drone security in the city area limits? You don't have any. The FAA has jurisdiction over the airport, but over city property. I got a pin right here. And if he flies over my property again, he can't do that. These drones are so easy to get a hold of, they're cheap. So you better look at that thing at the security of the airspace over city property. the park where you have people. We can weaponize these chemical, biological, radiological warfare.

There's people out there that know how to do it. The money you have spent on this log jam. I'd like to have one of them million-dollar hamburgers. You squandered a lot of the taxpayers money. We have the right to criticize our public officials. We express our displeasure with you. That's a right. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. If not, I believe we have an executive session scheduled. Yeah. Take a break.

Yes, please. But take it. We'll start the executive session at 7. Seven. Okay.

Yeah. I move the city commission recess into executive session for 20 minutes to discuss the subject of legal considerations related to the city animal shelter with legal counsel based upon the need for consultation with an attorney for the public body which would be deemed privileged in the attorney client relationship pursuant to KSA75-4319B2. The executive session will start at 7 and we will return at 7:20. Do we have we have a motion, a second for city commission to recess an executive session for 20 minutes to discuss the subject of legal considerations related to the city animal shelter with legal counsel based upon the need for consultation with an attorney for the public body which would be deemed privilege in the attorney client relationship pursuant to KSA 75-4319B2. Executive session will begin at 7 and we will resume back in this room at 7:20.

In attendance at the executive session will be uh legal counsel Patrick Hoffman, deputy uh city manager Sean Hennessy and myself. Okay. We're not going away. Heat. Heat.

Hey, hey, hey.

Heat. Heat.

All right. Okay, we're back in session. I think we're going to ask for a few more minutes. Mayor, I move the city commission recess into executive session for an additional 15 minutes to discuss the subject of legal considerations related to the city animal shelter with legal counsel based upon the need for consultation with an attorney for the public body which would be deemed privileged in the attorney client relationship pursuant to KSA75-4319B2. We will return 7:36.

7:36. Second. We have a motion, a second to recess into executive session for 15 minutes to discuss the subject of legal considerations related to the city animal shelter with legal counsel based upon the need for consultation with an attorney for the public body, which would be deemed privilege in the attorney client relationship pursuant to KSA75 4319B2. meeting will resume in this room at 7:36. All those in favor? I opposed. Okay, we'll be back.

Baby.

Heat. Heat.

Okay, we are back in session and there's no action to take. So I will accept a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. Motion to second. All those in favor. I I opposed. Okay. See everyone next month.