City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the July 21st, 2026 meeting of the governing body. We're going to, okay, we got everybody quieted down. We're going to start with our invocation. Tonight Susan Zuber-Schall is going to give the invocation. She is a retired professor from Washburn University and Emporia State University, and she is serving as chaplain for the Topeka Police Department and a lay rabbi at Temple Beth Shalom. Please come on up. Please stand.

Please bow your heads. We thank you for bringing us together again. We ask for your guidance and wisdom as we discuss the matters at hand. Help us to communicate clearly, to listen to one another with open minds, and work together in a spirit of harmony. May our time here be productive and our decisions beneficial. We are grateful for the opportunity to function as representatives of the community. We ask for your guidance and wisdom as we make decisions that affect the lives of our residents. Grant us clarity of mind and unity of purpose that we may serve with integrity and compassion. Help us to work together in unity and to put the needs of our citizens first. Aid us in listening to the voices of those we represent and inspire us to work towards solutions that promote justice, peace, and prosperity for all. May our decisions be fruitful and our actions reflect the needs within our city. May our words and deeds reflect compassion, integrity, and justice. In God's name we pray. Amen. Amen.

Thank you. I pledge allegiance.

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, please call the roll.

Mayor Duncan. Deputy Mayor Hofer.

Here.

Council Members Hiller. Here. Valdivia Alcala. Here. Ortiz.

Here.

Banks.

Here.

Kell.

Here.

Miller. Here. Bradbury. Here. And McGee.

Here.

We have nine present with Mayor Duncan absent.

Okay. First up tonight, we have a certificate of recognition. So Sylvia Davis and Jason Tran, please come up to the front.

Okay, tonight we are presenting a certificate of recognition to the City of Topeka Public Works and Utilities Departments.

The City of Topeka proudly recognizes the Public Works and Utilities Department for earning full accreditation from the American Public Works Association, APWA, for the sixth consecutive time. This distinguished achievement reflects the department's continued commitment to excellence in public service, operational effectiveness, sound management practices, and continuous improvement. APWA accreditation is awarded only after a comprehensive evaluation demonstrating compliance with nationally recognized best practices for public works agencies. First accredited in 2005, the City of Topeka remains among a select group of Kansas communities to have achieved and maintain this prestigious designation through successive reaccreditation cycles. This accomplishment is a testament to the professionalism, dedication, and teamwork of the employees whose daily efforts ensure the reliable delivery of essential public infrastructure and utility services to our community. The mayor and governing body commend the leadership staff and the employees of public works and utilities departments for their unwavering commitment to excellence, accountability, innovation, and service to the citizens of Topeka. Their work continues to strengthen our community and exemplifies the highest standards of the public works profession. In witness of, the mayor does hereby affix his official signature and the official seal of the city of Topeka, Kansas on this 21st day of July, 2026. So switch your hands, or should I?

We'd actually like to talk about the cancer chapter of APWA, so if you would.

You did a really good job. You covered almost everything I was going to say. I do want to point out, though, that as part of this process, we had professionals from Massachusetts and Missouri reviewed 139 practices to make sure that they were in compliance with internationally recognized management practices. I also like to really mention that of the agencies in Kansas and, in fact, agencies in North America, there are only 231 agencies in all of North America that are accredited through APWA. In the state of Kansas, there are nine. And I think it's really important for you to know that two of those nine are with the city of Topeka, your utilities department and your public works department. I'd also like to note that there was a model practice identified that is something that has been pointed out that will be used and should be used as an example for other agencies and that is your permits and license webpage and the the quote in the certificate or the certification about that is that this is an excellent resource for informing developers, contractors, and citizens about the often complex permitting and licensing process of the local agency. And special thank you to Jason Tryon, Sylvia Davis, and your accreditation managers, Ian Forbes and Chris Wagers. Thank you and congratulations. Good work.

Yeah.

Okay, next up are appointments.

All right. A is a board appointment recommending the reappointment of Chris Carlson to the Board of Plumbing Examiners for a term ending July 31st, 2028. B is a board appointment recommending the reappointment of Charles Campbell to the Board of Plumbing Examiners for a term ending August 13th, 2028. C is a board appointment recommending the appointment of Glenda Washington to the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Board for a term ending July 21st, 2030. And D is a board appointment recommending the appointment of Timothy Ivey to the NOTO Business Improvement District Advisory Board to fill a term ending July 21st, 2028. Okay.

Is there a motion? Okay. I have two. A motion has been made by Karen Hiller and the second by Marie McGee. Let's vote.

And Councilmember Valdivia-Ocloa, what will your vote be? Yes. Okay. And Councilmember Miller?

Yes.

Okay. We have nine yes. The motion carries.

Okay. I would like those that have been confirmed, I believe Timothy Ivey's here, Charles Campbell is here, and Glenda Washington. Please stand and be recognized. And we thank you for your service in advance. OK, next step is the presentation. First one is Gage Park Improvement Authority. Mr. Warda, come on down. I go to a few of these meetings, so I know a few people on the board. And they're quite a great group.

Well, thank you. Yeah, I'm Keith Ward. I'm the chair of the Gage Park Improvement Authority. With me tonight is Tammy Cortez, who is also on the authority's board as secretary treasurer. We are here to present the 2025 annual report for the Improvement Authority, and that should be included in the packet. I'm standing here for any questions you might have. I might just offer a comment or two before there are any questions. For those of you that aren't familiar with the Improvement Authority, it was established in November of 2022 by vote of Shawnee County residents. In addition to the 2% sales tax that is dedicated to Gage Park, the authority oversees the revenue that's generated from that sales tax and distributes it to the main three entities in the park, the zoo, the Discovery Center, and Shawnee County Parks and Rec. So we know that it generates about, after three and a half years, we know it generates nine to nine and a half million dollars that's dispersed to the entities. And certainly it's made a difference in the park for any of you that have seen the improvements in the park. It's no surprise, but it's double the size of the Children's Discovery Center. There's a brand new tiger exhibit that was opened in the zoo just this month, as well as other exhibits that are in queue for the zoo. Shawnee County Parks and Rec has transformed the playland just right across from the zoo there to the west. That's opening up soon. It's a transformational change. It's not just replacing playground equipment. They are also working on the carousel and the building that surrounds the carousel. All that's because of the revenue that is generated through the sales tax. So with that, I'd stand for any questions if there are any.

Does anyone have any questions? Sylvia.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. How are you doing, Keith? Doing well.

How are you?

Good. There was a free event a couple weeks ago, and it wasn't really publicized. A lot of people didn't know about it. I just want to kind of connect those dots and see how we can do a better job because They gave away 300 lunches and there were tons of them left over. And there's a lot of kids that would have loved to gone out there and gone in the zoo free and got a free lunch. So how can we close that gap there?

That's a good point. I'm not familiar with that event, but obviously maybe to your point, one of our strategic initiatives is communication, communication of events within the Gage Park. And so certainly that's something we need to get better at. We rely on the three entities for the most part to advertise and communicate their events. But when it's a more global event, something that encompasses the whole park, the Gage Park Authority tries to get involved with that and support that.

And we do have somebody with the city that sends out a community blast, and we can hook you up with her or Deputy Mayor can hook you up, but I just want to see that so that doesn't happen again. Thank you. Deputy Mayor?

Any other questions? Okay, since I sit on the board, the zoo board, I'm out at the zoo quite a bit. I'm going to plug one thing that people forget happened. They moved the Sand Beach Volleyball. They are now, I'm not sure quite where, they've moved basically straight south. So they're brand new. They're not used much. If people are loving beach volleyball, great venue to use. And I don't think there's sign up or anything. You just show up. So that's another thing that they've done. More to come. There's a lot of things coming soon.

Yes.

So keep your eyes out. It's a crown jewel in the Parks Department for the city, and we want people to know what a great facility it is and get people out there and using it more. Okay. If there's nothing else, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up is the severe... Weather response, is that what it is?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body. In this presentation, our team will discuss how the city of Topeka responds to severe weather events, provide guidance for the community to report requests urgent and non-urgent city services, discuss how the city considers services such as limb pickup after a severe storm, and how the city communicates all of this information. With that, I'll turn this over to Dan Garrett, Director of Communications, to lead us through this item. Dan.

Good evening, governing body. As the city manager just said, I'm Dan Garrett. And tonight I wanted to review how we get the word out about some of the city's response when we have severe weather events. So something that we wanted to remind the public is the rule of three. And if you're experiencing something and you need a response and it can wait about three hours, we would recommend that you use the city call center. And that number is 785-368-3111. And that would be to report things such as traffic signal outages, flooded streets, flooded homes, water flowing over a roadway. and a tree blocking a public road. And if something can wait a little longer, about three days, that would be when you would use the C-Click Fix app. And that would be to report debris that is not blocking a roadway but might still be blocking something that needs to be removed and other things like potholes. Now, again, if it's a true emergency, that you would use 911. And that would be if you're stranded in a car that's taking on water, there's a downed power line, something that would be a hazard to the public. We would like to remind people that while our department is monitoring social media, making a post to social media is not providing a report to the city. So I wanted to go in on how the city responds after a storm happens. So to help with a flooding response, the utilities department will clear blockages and debris to improve the flow of water. They will also monitor pump stations and we will also have different crews that will close roads if they are taking on water. Now, if there are limbs and other things down, the Public Works Department will address hazards in public streets. Traffic operations may use generators at intersections that may have a power outage, and crews will work to clear trees from streets and public right-of-ways. Now, the communications team will work on interdepartmental communication. We will also be sending out any notifications to the media, and we will also be posting those notifications to our social media and the website. So all of that information that I just went over is now resting on the home page. On the bottom right, you can see that we have a severe storm resource page that will go up during the storm season. And it kind of has all the information we shared. And it also has information from our assisting partners. So on that web page, you'll find resources for how to report a power outage to Evergy. It links to the Shawnee County refuse policy for limbs disposal. It goes to Shawnee County Emergency Management social media and the US National Weather Service social media. So if you're not following those pages, I would recommend following them. Those are how you get your alerts on if we're in a flash flood zone or other weather emergencies. So again, that page will go live all summer. Similarly, how we do in the winter months with our snow removal resources. And we have also added links. We've put up a list of tree removal companies that are permitted by the city as well as places to drop off limbs. So also on that webpage, we have uploaded the storm debris cleanup policy that was established in 2024. And so it reads, generally, it is the responsibility of the property owner to remove a tree or limb debris after a storm. However, for severe storms that affect the majority of the city or a particularly devastating storm in smaller areas, the city will offer assistance. So that is something that we get a lot of questions on if we're doing a limb pickup. The default is we will not be doing a limb pickup. unless we say otherwise. So if you don't hear from the city that means that the residents are responsible. So we kind of wanted to lay out the difference between a minor and a major storm. A minor storm is typically localized, generally limited to one section of town with no disaster declaration by the federal state or county government. And the clearing of the streets can generally be done within a week and debris from the trees and private property will be placed back on the property from which they came and debris removal and haul off will be the responsibility of the property owner. And for a major storm, that would generally affect more than 50% of the city. An emergency declaration would be issued by the federal, state, or county government. And those other factors are major loss of electricity, roads blocked by trees, and powerful damage, things that will take longer than a week for us to clean up. So we just want to remind people that every storm is different. So every response is going to be a little different. So we do ask the public to be flexible and know that we will communicate anything that needs to be sent out to the public. And our avenues are Topeka.gov, Facebook, Nextdoor. And we also work with our local media partners to get the word out whenever there is something we need to tell the public about. And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay. First one up is Councilwoman Valdivia-Akla.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Dan and City Manager, I just want to say thank you for this. I'm sure you guys got sick of hearing from me in the mornings, but your commitment to doing what you've said is this presentation, and I think it's invaluable that a protocol has been established. So again, thank you. I would encourage, if at all possible, because we're talking about local media, Nextdoor, Facebook, Topeka.gov, that we push this all out to the NIH, to the CAC, to the listservs that Monique Laudet's office has, any listservs that we have that we know reach people and community. Because I think I told you guys, one of the frustrating things that is happening here is that, and even if we put it in the paper, that would be a good thing, but there's that paywall with the paper. lot of people still have branches that are from their own trees in their own yards on the easement and so as we go around you know we're saying you know is this from your easement or is this from your yard it's from the yard well then you are responsible for that so I think people a lot of people are still in the 2024 mode And because our winds have become increasingly stronger and our storms more frequent along with the rains, I think it's really going to take these push in education so that ultimately these folks that think that they can still do this will understand that they can't do this and that they don't ultimately end up getting some kind of write-up. So thank you again.

Thank you.

Okay. Next is Councilwoman Bradbury.

Yes, thank you. Thank you for this presentation. I was going to ask if this is going to be posted to the website, the city website somewhere so it's accessible.

The PowerPoint?

Yes.

Yes, we could add this to that web document as well. We can add it to the page.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Councilman McGee.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Do you think we could utilize push notifications more and have people sign up for those?

Email notifications?

No, text push notifications.

I'll look and see if that is capable with the website, but that is something we can look into.

A lot of times... Cities have that so people can subscribe to it or sign up for it and then get notifications and updates via text.

Okay. Yes, we'll look into that.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Hillard. Thank you. Two questions. One, a lot of people are still telephone people. If they call, but they don't want to be that guy who called around or was the one who kept bugging people. If somebody calls 311, will they know and be able to tell them that they are responsible for their own branches?

So as we were putting this together, we discussed that we don't know right away. It'll take a little bit for crews to assess. So we would like people to understand that it might take some time before that declaration is announced. So until you hear us say that we're doing a limb pickup, the recommendation would be that you are responsible for limbs. And so that would help kind of keep the phone lines open and not bog down workers.

will 311 tell people that if it's either not decided or it's no correct okay just checking and the other one was um a lot of times people have concerns about street lights being out and sometimes they're not sure whether it's ours or somebody else's can you talk for a moment about that

That is a good question.

Oh, sorry.

Just to address both of those things. One is that the 311 staff are well trained that if someone's calling in reporting a tree issue, they can roll through a list of questions to determine is this a tree that's part of the city right away, in which case it would be our responsibility to do that maintenance, or is this a tree that's on your private property, and then direct them to the resources to address that. To the streetlight question, yes, 311 is perfectly appropriate. Typically what's going to happen is they're going to report it. Our Transportation Operations Division will review that, and we have the contacts with Evergy. If it is their streetlight, we can make sure they know exactly where it is. We can help them identify the exact light faster than a typical resident would be able to.

Thank you. Yeah, I knew the answer to that one because one of the things is to have people take a picture of it, of the serial number on it with their phone or else write it down because that way you guys can locate it right away.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up, what's the consent agenda? City Clerk?

A is a resolution introduced by Councilmember Marie McGee granting Michael Poston, Jr. an exception to the provisions of the City of Topeka code section 945150 at seek concerning noise prohibitions. B is the amendment to license and management agreement 49243 Friends of the Topeka. Oh, sorry. Approval of the contract amendment to license and management agreement number 49243 with Friends of the Topeka Zoo for the operation and management of the Topeka Zoo and Conservation Center. C is the ordinance introduced by city manager Dr. Robert M. Perez allowing and approving city expenditures for the period of May 30, 2026 to June 26, 2026. and enumerating set expenditures therein. D is a resolution introduced by city manager, Dr. Robert M. Perez, requesting consent from the governing body to intervene to protect its interests in a lawsuit. E are the minutes of the regular meeting of July 14th, 2026, and there are no applications. Okay, city manager.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body, I would ask that we please move item 5D to action item for August 11th. I understand that my request doesn't require council action, so I would just like to move it there so we can have further discussion.

Okay. Item 5D will move to August 11th meeting, and the rest are up for approval. I have a motion from Councilman Kell. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Council and Banks. Are there any comments on the consent agenda? We're good. Let's vote.

Council Member Valdivia-Alcoa, what's your vote?

Well, my little machine thingy is working. I voted yes.

Never mind. Thank you. I just noticed that. And Council Member Miller. Yes.

Yes. Okay.

All right. Okay, that'll be nine yes. The motion carries.

Okay, next up are action items. City Clerk, 6A.

A is a public hearing regarding the petition of Michael J. Lewis relating to the vacation of a public alley lying between Northwest 8th and Northwest 7th Street, as well as an ordinance introduced by city manager Dr. Robert M. Perez relating to the vacation of a 15-foot wide public alley right of way for a segment lying between Northwest 7th and Northwest 8th Street within the city of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas.

City Manager?

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body, as mentioned with this item, we seek your consideration for vacating a 15-foot wide public alley right away for a segment line between Northwest 7th and Northwest 8th Streets for the applicant to build an accessory dwelling. As the adjacent property owners have consented to this vacation of the alley, I recommend approval. I will now turn this over to Dan Warner, Director of Planning and Development Services, to lead us through this item.

Dan? Thank you, City Manager. Good evening, Deputy Mayor, Governing Body. Most of this was covered already. What I want to just reiterate again is that all adjacent property owners have signed the vacation application and therefore are not objecting to the vacation. With the vacation of this alley, it's essentially splitting it down the middle. Each side of the right-of-way will go to whoever property it's adjacent to. after it's approved. I also want to point out that reviewing agencies that we notify for vacations have no objection to the vacation. Process here is that the governing body holds a public hearing for vacation requests. Staff recommends approval. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Does anyone have any, we do not have any public comments, so do any of the council members have any questions? OK, I'm looking for a motion. OK, I have a motion to approve by Councilman Banks. And I have a second from Councilwoman Bradbury.

I think we need to hold and close the public hearing.

Sorry, second half of my page. OK. We do have a motion on the floor, so that is good. Would anyone like to speak to this vacation of property? Is there anyone who would like to speak to the matter? Is there anyone that would like to speak? OK. The public hearing is now closed. We have the motion. We're ready to vote.

Councilmember Miller, what will your vote be?

Yes.

Okay, we have nine yes. The motion carries.

Okay, city clerk. Item 6B, please.

B is an ordinance introduced by City Manager Dr. Robert M. Perez amending the district map referred to and made a part of the zoning ordinances by Section 1850-050 of the Topeka Municipal Code by providing for certain changes in zoning on a .17 acre property located at 1117 Southeast Madison Street from M2 Multiple Family Dwelling District to D2 Downtown District.

City Manager.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body. In this item, which is related to item 6C, we are asking for the governing body's consideration for zoning change at 1117 Southeast Madison Street from M2 multifamily dwelling district to D2 downtown district to support the development of stormwater detention and single story parking garages on the adjacent property. I support the recommendations of approval for both item 6B and 6C. With that, I'll turn this over to Dan Warner, Director of Planning and Development Services, to lead us through this item.

Thank you, City Manager. Deputy Mayor, Governing Body, as previously mentioned, the applicant wishes to rezone this property and it is related to the following item. The applicant wishes to use this property as stormwater detention for his project to the north. The proposed zoning change supports that stormwater detention use for this property. The applicant held a neighborhood information meeting and answered questions about the project. There were a few people that showed up and asked questions. The proposed zoning change, I'm sorry, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and recommended approval. Staff recommends approval as well. And I also want to point out that the Kansas LLC is in good standing with the Secretary of State. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Before we go any farther, I would like to ask if there has been any prior to proceeding with the vote, each member of the governing body who has exchanged an ex parte communication with any individual either in favor or against the matter being considered must state that the communication occurred and indicate even in the light of having engaged in the communication, they were able to fairly objectively and impartially consider the measure based upon the evidence provided on the record. The record includes the Planning Commission meeting minutes, the staff report, and its attachments, the public comments made during the Planning Commission hearing, and similar relevant information related to the matter. Does anyone have any expertise communication? Council Member Ortiz.

Thank you. I have had conversations and a couple emails. Dan, I believe this is in District 3 and not 4. Oh, is it one? OK. Well, they thought it was in three. But I know it's not in four. And I know we're right up. And I can make a sound decision with the next part.

OK. Anyone else have any expert communications they want to disclose? OK. If not, is there any comment on this case? Anyone have anything they would like to say? If not, is there anybody who'd like to make a motion? OK. I have a motion to approve from Councilman Banks and a second from Councilman Kell. No, there. Dan, I can't see. Is anyone saying anything online? No? OK. Then we're ready to vote.

Councilmember Miller, what will your vote be?

Yes.

Okay, we have nine yes. The motion carries.

Okay, we'll move on to item 6C.

C is a resolution introduced by city manager, Dr. Robert M. Perez, in accordance with section 186010 of the Topeka Municipal Code, approving a conditional use permit to allow for up to 20 enclosed garages for the storage of personal vehicles and light duty trucks on property zone D1, downtown district, and located near the southwest corner of the intersection of Southeast Madison and Southeast 11th Street, all being within the city of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas.

City manager?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body. As mentioned, the last item is connected to this item. And so, again, recommending approval. Turn it over to Dan to lead us through any other discussion.

Thank you, City Manager, Deputy Mayor, governing body. A little more discussion on this one, and I'll get to it here shortly. As mentioned already, the proposal is to build 20 individual parking garages on this property that's outlined to support the multifamily project being built to the west. The current use of the property is vacant. So the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit and the conditions of approval in the staff report. That was the action at the Planning Commission last month. We come to find out later that the applicant disagrees with the Planning Commission action, specifically the condition of approval that would have required a front setback on the property for the first building at 25 feet. That requirement at that time or that condition of approval was based on the review of the originally submitted site plan with conditional use permit application. So the applicant wishes to set the front building back to 20 feet instead of 25 feet from the property line. You have some emails in your packet from Mr. Mead. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan to staff. Staff has reviewed that new information. and believes that we can support the setback of 20 feet that he's requesting. So a couple points about the support for that is the existing homes on that block are much closer to the property line than 20 feet. So this garage is still going to be set back behind those houses. This property on the west side of that street is elevated relative to the properties to the east so not as even more obscure viewing of those of those garages and then also the the right of way along Monroe is fairly wide wider than normal I would say so three feet isn't going to make a big deal on the grand scheme of things here related to the siting of those garages on this property so Again, so based on that new information, staff is supportive of the 20-foot setback. So the recommendation then is for the governing body to make a motion to approve the conditional use permit application with Mr. Mead's request to reduce the setback to 20 feet. That will require seven votes from the governing body as you're amending the Planning Commission's recommendation. So that would be the recommendation is to move to support, move to approve the CEP and agreeing with the applicant's request for 20 feet for the front setback. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Councilwoman Ortiz.

Dan, would it be cleaner to send it back to the Planning Commission since he's...

So I think that's obviously an option. I think Because we got new information from the applicant and could support that 20 feet from staff's perspective, we think it's a valid action for the governing body to amend that recommendation from the Planning Commission if you see fit.

Deputy Mayor, if I may. Councilmember, excellent question. Certainly you have that ability. I will tell you from a development standpoint, time is money. And if you all have the ability, which you do, to simply amend the Planning Commission's action to increase that setback by five feet and do that as an amendment tonight, then it's done. Otherwise, it has to go back to the Planning Commission so they would meet in September and then it would come back to you guys possibly at the end of September. Again, delaying the developer's ability to order the buildings to get started on the construction because he does want to do this as a companion to Union and Tower to be able to provide parking for those individuals who want a covered secured slot for their vehicles.

That was going to be my next question. Nick, did you have something?

Yeah, I was just going to add that this moving the five feet, the setback, would be considered a minor amendment, which you fully have the ability to do. If this was a major change, then maybe you would want to send it back, have another public hearing. But in this case, we're just talking about a five foot adjustment of the setback. So you can absolutely just go ahead and do this tonight.

Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Are there any other comments?

Councilwoman Hiller. Just to clarify, my motion was per the recommendation of the staff.

I was going to get to that in a minute. Okay. Anyone else? Not seeing anyone. I do have to ask for ex parte commission.

Or commission. Communication.

Communication. So prior to proceeding with the vote, each member of the governing body who is engaged in ex parte communication with any individual either in favor of or against the matter being considered must state that the communication occurred and indicate that even in light of having engaged in the communication, they were able to fairly objectively and impartially consider the measure based only upon the evidence provided on the record. The record includes the Planning Commission minutes, the staff report, and its attachments, the public comments made during the Planning Commission hearing, and similar relevant information. Is there any expertise communication on this? Seeing none, we'll go to the motion. Councilman Hiller has moved to approve the CUP with the amendment.

And for the record, to point of order, for the record, it would be an amendment for a 20-foot setback in lieu of the 25-foot setback, just so everyone knows what they're voting on and so the clerk has it very clear for her record.

Okay. And I have a second by Councilman Banks. Seeing no other comments, let's move to a vote.

And Councilmember Miller, what will your vote be?

Yes.

Okay, we have nine yes. The motion carries as amended.

Okay, moving on. We have item 60.

D is an ordinance introduced by City Manager Dr. Robert M. Perez amending the district map referred to and made part of the zoning ordinances by Section 185050 of the Topeka Municipal Code by providing for certain changes in zoning on 0.12 acres of property located at 916 Southwest Polk Street from M1A Limited Family Multiple Dwelling District to OI2 Office and Institutional District.

City Manager.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body with this item. We're requesting council's consideration for the approval of the amendment of the district map to allow expansion of the existing Azure Credit Union and I-16 Southwest Polk. I support the recommendations for approval. With that, I'll ask Dan Warner, Director of Planning and Development Services, to lead us through this item.

Yeah. Thank you, City Manager. So as already noted, Azura Credit Union wants to expand their parking lot that's for their existing facility there at 916 Southwest Polk. There's an existing house on the property that will be removed in order to expand that parking lot. The applicant had a neighborhood information meeting. It was well attended. The neighborhood was there along with other people, and they answered questions about the project. Planning Commission held that public hearing on the rezoning and recommended approval. Staff recommends approval as well. Also want to point out that the credit union is in good standing with the Secretary of State. Happy to answer any questions.

OK. Are there any questions in this case? Seeing none, since it's a zoning issue, we're going to talk about ex parte communication. OK. Each member of the governing body who is engaged in ex parte communication with any individual either in favor of or against the matter being considered must state that the communication occurred and indicate that even in light of having engaged in the communication, they were able to fairly, objectively, and impartially consider the measure based only upon the evidence provided on the record. The record includes the Planning Commission meeting minutes, the staff report, its attachments, the public comments made during the Planning Commission hearing, and similar relevant information related to the matter. Does anyone have any ex parte communication?

Councilman Hiller. I heard about it through the neighborhood meeting, but that's it. I will throw in that if one of the concerns they had was losing this house, if anybody knows somebody who would like to have a really nice house and move it, they're interested in being able to save it. Thank you. And that doesn't affect my vote.

Anyone else? Can't see them, but I will assume no one else. So I am looking for a motion. OK. I have a motion to approve from Councilwoman Bradbury, second by Councilman Kell. And we will take a vote.

Councilmember Miller, what will your vote be?

Yes.

Okay, we have nine yes. The motion carries.

Okay, city clerk, we are at item 6E.

E is an ordinance introduced by city manager Dr. Robert M. Perez amending the district map referred to and made a part of the zoning ordinances by section 185050 of the Topeka Municipal Code by providing for certain changes in zoning on 10 acres of property located at 4212 and 4236 Southwest Burlingame Road from R1 Single Family Dwelling District to I1. Light Industrial District.

Okay, City Manager.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body. Through this item, we're requesting council's consideration for the approval of rezoning from R1 Single Family Dwelling District to I-Light Industrial District to support the development of self-storage. I support the recommendation for approval. With that, I'll ask Dan Warner, Director of Planning and Development Services, to lead us through this item.

Thank you, City Manager. Last zoning case here. So again, the proposal is to rezone this property from R1 to I1 light industrial to support the development of a self-storage facility. I1 zoning is the zoning needed at this time to allow that type of use. The property is across the street from the beer distributor, Stratham I believe it is, along Burlingame there. This area is designated as industrial in the future land use map of the growth management plan. So the industrial zoning is consistent with that. So again, the applicant held a neighborhood information meeting. Planning Commission had a public hearing and recommended approval. Staff recommends approval as well. And the church is in good standing with the Secretary of State. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions for Mr. Warner? Seeing none. This again requires note of ex parte communications. So each member of the governing body who's engaged in ex parte communication with any individual either in favor of or against the matter being considered must state that the communication occurred and indicate that even in the light of having engaged in communication, they are able to fairly, objectively, and impartially consider the measure based upon only the evidence provided on the record. The record includes the Planning Commission minutes, the staff report, and its attachments, the public comment made during the Planning Commission hearing, and similar relevant information related to the matter. Is there any expert communication? Dan, can we bring up the council members? Okay. I see no one reporting ex parte. So I'm at that point where I will take a motion. I have Councilman Kell and Councilman McGee. And we're ready to vote.

All right. Councilmember Miller?

Yes.

Okay, we have nine yes. The motion carries.

Okay.

Next up is item 6F.

Clerk will read.

F is a resolution introduced by City Manager Dr. Robert M. Perez making certain findings pursuant to the Kansas Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act with regard to an application submitted by Doltmeyer-Rohenhagen LLC to establish a reinvestment housing incentive district and requesting that the Secretary of Commerce review the resolution and advise the governing body.

City Manager.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor and members of the governing body, recently Shawnee County held a property tax foreclosure sale by which multiple parcels in the Lawrence Bay subdivision located in Southwest Topeka were sold. As part of that tax sale, Dultmeyer Roll and Hagen LLC purchased 52 lots within the Lawrence Bay subdivision. Part of the challenges with development in the Lawrence Bay subdivision is the absence of the gas, electric, and fiber services. And this potential RHID incentive would allow for reimbursement to the developer for the cost of land acquisition as well as other site preparation and infrastructure such as water lines and roads. Given this opportunity to help address the community's shortage of market rate and higher-end housing, I support this resolution to authorize staff to submit the RHID application to the Secretary of Commerce for review. With that, I will ask Braxton Copley, Deputy City Manager, to lead us through this item. Braxton.

Good evening, Governing Bodies. The City Manager indicated counties sold approximately 100 lots out of Lawrence Bay. Mr. Doltmeier and one of his associates purchased 52 of those. They have requested for the formation of a RHID district, including those 52 lots. That includes the 12 in green on this slide, as well as the 40 that are yellow. The street, sewer, and water are in. What is not in is the Gas, electric, and fiber preliminary estimates could be as much as a million dollars to be able to do those. Also, the roads need some significant work, which would also be an RHID-eligible expense. Staff has done the preliminary due diligence with the Secretary of State. The Daltmeier-Rollenhagen LLC is active in good status, and the developer does not have any delinquent taxes, special assessments, outstanding utility zoning or code cases. The project ultimately will be single family homes, anticipated to have a beginning price at the $350,000. And that would be for the upper end of the scale in terms of our housing needs analysis on the upscale in the luxury homes. which the current pent-up demand is in the upscale, which is 120% to 200% at 135 homes in that price range and an additional 68 in the luxury above 200% AMI. That is the target of these homes. These are most certainly not targeted for LMI or workforce. So What we're doing tonight is truly a preliminary action. State law requires that the Secretary of Commerce review the findings that we have under our housing needs analysis, that there is a need for it to allow for the next step, which would be the actual formation of the district. So what tonight's resolution is doing is saying, staff, you're authorized and directed to submit this to Commerce for their review and designation that it's appropriate under the RHID statute. That's what we're asking for tonight, is simply that authorization. After Commerce has approved, We will then go into the much more in-depth analysis and that is we will require the developer to provide us with the pro forma. We will have him provide us with a detailed plan for what that housing looks like in there. We will then do a financial analysis and we will apply our but-for test to make sure that we're not over-incentivizing this. we will negotiate the terms of the development agreement in which we will limit the amount of the RHID eligible expenses that will be available to them. preliminary conversations that I've had with the developer is that he is not going to seek RHID for vertical construction costs. It would be for the site acquisition, site prep, and what we'll call the horizontal cost, which would basically be the necessary repairs to the road, as well as gas, electric, and fiber to be able to market these properties. With that, I will gladly stand for any questions that you have, and I will mention that Mr. Daltmeier is in the audience. If you have any specific questions about him and his particular development, as city manager indicated, staff would respectfully ask for your approval.

Okay. We do have one person signed up for public comment. Danielle Twemlow, would you like to come up and speak to this?

Thank you, Danielle Tremlow. Well, I will be consistent. This is not personal. I respect Mr. Daltmeier and Mr. Roland Hagen. This is about the RHID and these Lawrence Bay properties. I've spoke about it multiple times, so instead of me writing yet another comment, I am going to read from the City Council meeting on November 5th of 2025, items 3C, the resolution on Lawrence Bay L.B. Lotz RHID application, the phase two. Mr. Chuck Daltmeier public comment where he stated, blah, blah, blah, he's going after the RHID, which means the city already has not collected taxes on that for 15 years. And we got another 20 years to go now because he's going to take the RHID. That's not what the program was built about. It was built to entice developers to build infrastructure in smaller towns. He goes on to resent how other developers do not get the same deals that Kauffman got. Totally agree. Not stating he shouldn't resent that. Called it a sellout. And then went on to say, quote, that land's just too valuable to let go at what the city's doing. Each one of those lots, you could pick up $50,000 face value on it. And we could also work in $165 a month specials if that's what we need to do. And there would be very little lost by the city on that land. Blah, blah, blah. Quote, so I would ask the city not to make any more agreements like the last one you did. And I would be willing to go in there and put a million dollars in that project and get power to the west side. blah, blah, blah, quote. So if you want to fund that for another 25 years, I guess that's a choice you make. But please don't make another deal like this one from the first 15 lots. I think it's pretty clear. For anybody who maybe attended also, new housing study presentations. We will not be receiving that full report until close to September. But if you did attend any of those, there was some very specific conversations that the failed economic development that GTP promised us with the growth that we would have and did not have, that there was a drastic change. in the amount of housing development that we would need to see in this city. For instance, the 2019 housing study suggested that we were gonna need 7,300 units per year based on that projection. We did not have that growth, we did not have that need, and the new study that's going to come out that isn't going to be the study that will be reviewed by the state suggests that we're going to need 4,220 units over the next 20 years. A massive difference. And I can tell you when this picture came up and we were asking questions about incentivizing these higher price point value homes, they couldn't figure out why we were talking about that. They literally stated, why are we focusing on higher price point homes? These pay for themselves. You don't incentivize. these homes because developers make money. They couldn't fathom why we were having that conversation. And if you pull up our RHIDs and the state website about transparency, we far outweigh incentivizing higher price point homes than other communities that use this RHID. So I strongly encourage you not to put us down this road again. Let's not start this. Thank you.

Councilwoman Valdivia-Alcala, you have a comment?

Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I talked with Chuck earlier today and I told him a number of concerns that I had. One was that, you know, he was not a proponent at the time for RHID for this particular area. I like Chuck. I respect Chuck. But I also told him that, you know, I just couldn't see myself um in support would have to wait until it all got to the council and all got hashed out but i think that for a number of things that you know miss twemlow said and and beyond that uh this is not uh something i'm going to be able to support and i would imagine if this ends up getting approved and the negotiations start you know seeing what ends up being negotiated out of this for incentives is, is I think going to put us in a challenging place. Um, so thank you, deputy mayor.

Next councilman.

Just curious because this has been such an ongoing project out there for 20, 25 years. Is there any timeline that homes have to be built on that property? Um, Besides the 25 years?

The 25 years is the maximum period under the RHID statute that allows for the use of fee or the rebate of the taxes to the developer. As part of our development agreement, we would absolutely have those discussions in terms of what does the development of this particular tranche of 52 homes look like. When we did the previous one with Lawrence Bay, I think that the target was four homes in that price point per year because it's really a matter of what can the market tolerate without oversaturating it where the homes are sitting there vacant and the developer is paying financing costs because of the construction. So certainly we would have that conversation with the developer in terms of what is a fair and reasonable period of time in terms of getting those homes constructed under the development agreement.

Thank you.

Okay.

And so you know Lawrence Bay was platted in about 2007 or 2008. So it is under 20 years. Any other questions on this? Any other comments? OK. And I believe we're ready to, I'll take a motion. I'll start with, I will make a motion to approve. Yeah. Is there a second? I have a second from Councilwoman Bradbury. Let's go ahead and take a vote.

Councilmember Miller, what will your vote be?

Yep.

OK, we have seven yes. The motion passes with council members Valdivia-Alcala and Banks both voting no.

OK. Next item, 7A, rental registry, city clerk.

A is a discussion on the draft rental registry pilot program.

Thank you.

Sorry.

No worries. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body. As part of the FY2026 strategic goals, we shared that staff would evaluate the feasibility of a rental registry program. Over the last several months, using the community-developed rental registry program as a starting point, staff and I have developed a draft registry program that was discussed during the June 30th Public Health and Safety Committee meeting. In that meeting, consistent with the messaging I've shared with the governing body, I reminded the committee that I intended to bring this discussion to the governing body for further discussion and consideration. Given the proposed program details you hear this evening to include this being a self-funded program that will provide proactive exterior and public space inspections and a public-facing map that highlights good landlords, I would recommend implementation of this program. With that, I will ask Kerry Higgins, Director of Housing and Homeless Services, and John Sherdine, Director of Property Maintenance Unit, to lead us through this item. I'm sorry. Just kidding.

Anyways, Chief Vallejo and John Chardin to lead us through this item. Thanks. Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem and governing body. For those of you in the audience and those of you online may not know, the property maintenance unit falls under the police department. That's why I'm here in support of Director John Chardin as he leads us through the draft rental registry program. Go ahead.

The Canadian Governing Body. A few weeks ago, maybe a little bit longer, city manager asked us to look into a proposal, a plan, a pilot program that would require landlords to register their properties. We looked at several cities and what they've implemented. We've kind of developed a hybrid model. And tonight, I'm going to present that to you. We're going to discuss who really benefits from this model, how this model is paid for, and the value versus cost. Let me get the clicker from you. Someone's got a clicker up here. I'm sorry. Now we've received input both from supportive groups and those who were really not interested in it, which is understandable. We listened to what they said. We didn't block any, we respect everybody, what everybody brings to the table. So with that in mind, the city of Topeka, The city of Topeka currently relies on a largely complaint-driven approach to enforcing rental housing standards. While the Topeka Property Maintenance Unit enforces the Topeka Property Maintenance Code, it establishes minimum requirements for safe and habitable housing. The city often becomes aware of these violations only by the tenants, neighbors, or first responders. That is a problem. As a result, deteriorating housing conditions may persist for extended periods before intervention occurs, increasing the risk to tenant health and safety, placing additional demands on the city's resources. I'm going to give some examples of real-life problems, real-life cases without mentioning names or locations. Compounding this challenge is the lack of comprehensive inventory of rental properties and responsible ownership information. Many rental properties are owned through limited liability companies or other businesses, making difficulty to identify decision makers, establish timely communication, and hold property owners accountable for maintaining their investments. without a centralized registry the city is limited to ability to identify repeat offenders monitor long-term compliance trends and proactively engage with responsible landlords Currently, the city has 25,000 rental units located in city limits. Approximately 13,000 units are multifamily occupied, which means five or more units, which represents the highest density and most impactful segment of the rental housing stock. Property maintenance unit inspectors must balance thousands of code cases enforcement each year with limited staffing and resources. Under the current system, compliant landlords and chronically non-compliant property owners often receive similar levels of oversight because of inspection priorities driven primarily by complaints rather than measurable risk. The reactive approach is city's ability to focus on enforcement efforts where they have the greatest impact. The Landlord Registry Program provides an opportunity to modernize Topeka's approach to rental housing oversight by creating a centralized database of multifamily rental properties, improving communications with property owners, implementing a risk-based inspection system that prioritizes resources toward properties with the greatest need. This program is intended to encourage volunteer compliance, improve housing conditions, increase transparency, and strengthen accountability while recognizing and reducing regulatory burdens on responsible landlords. So what this program does is it's going to protect our tenants by educating them. Right now, we do have a safety net in place. But that safety net only comes into play after there's an issue. What this program will require, since Kansas is a home rule, which means that you guys can create your ordinances as long as they don't conflict with state or federal laws, right? So you can put into place what the landlord is required to provide the tenant. Educate them before they move in. And I'm going to cover that in a couple of other slides. Supporting responsible landlords and property owners. Landlords with a history of compliance benefit from fewer inspections, reduced registration fees, streamlined communication, with city public recognition through a tier one good standing. And I'll explain what the tiers are a few slides later. And finally, improving the government efficiency. Not too long ago, I had an issue with an apartment complex not too far from my office. I spent three and a half days trying to locate the owner. It sounds easy. You can go to a couple of websites and locate it if they register it. If they don't register their property, you're back to square one. I finally was able to recognize and identify who owns it. That was assistance from the fire department, believe it or not. But that took three days. Three days that if I had that at my fingertips, I could pick up the phone and make a phone call. And believe it or not, we get the greatest compliance from phone calls. If I call you and tell you that your property is not in compliance, what can I expect from you? I expect an answer. That's common sense. Our notices go out, that's fine, but half the time, I believe, I honestly believe they ignore those notices, especially if it's an LLC, because they have other properties on their mind. If supported, this pilot program would represent a shift from reactive enforcement toward proactive performance-based oversight that benefits property owners, tenants, neighborhoods, and city as a whole. This framework that we've worked on will create a central database, provide education to new and existing tenants, increase communication between tenants and owners, encourage volunteer compliance, improve housing conditions, increase transparency, strengthen accountability while recognizing and reducing burdens on responsible landlords and property owners. Your PMU staff will implement a risk-based inspection system that prioritizes resources toward properties with the greatest need. why this program matters. Safe, stable housing strengthens neighborhoods and supports community well-being. Most landlords maintain quality properties and operate responsibly. A small number of chronically non-compliant properties create the greatest impact through repeated violations, complaints, and demand on city resources. The Landlord Registry Program establishes proactive, data-driven approach focused on accountability, transparency, volunteer compliance. By maintaining accurate ownership and emergency contact information, identifying responsible parties, and categorizing properties based on compliance history, the City can prioritize resources toward properties with the greatest impact in residents and neighborhoods. This is a balanced, targeted approach. It supports reasonable landlords, rewards consistent property maintenance, it reduces unnecessary city involvement, prioritizes repeat offenders and safety concerns, and uses resources where they have the greatest impact. This program is not designed around the landlords who are doing things right. It's designed to identify and address the small percentage of properties that have the greatest impact on tenants, neighborhoods, and city resources. When we started this, we first had to identify exactly what we have in the City of Topeka. You see that this graph here indicates how many rental units we have, how many parcels, and how many unit counts. We have 13,915 rental parcels in the City of Topeka. That equates to 25,000 rental units. That was mind blowing to me when we found this out. How we plan on addressing this is the scope and eligibility implementation. We cannot address all these properties all at once. That would be a huge ask. And I know the city manager cannot afford to give me that much money. So we want to do it in phases. Phase one would be all residential rental properties with five or more units located within city limits of Topeka, including apartment complexes, condominiums rented to non-owners, and mixed-use buildings. That's five residential units or more. Phase two, which would be after year three, properties with two to four units, single-family rentals, remaining rental properties not included in phase one. There are exemptions. Owner-occupied duplexes, triplexes, condemned properties, university student housing with their own inspection requirements, short-term rentals already licensed under Topeka STR ordinance. Registration deadline will be 180 days from the effective date. That includes phase one and phase two. Like I said, this is a home rule state. So as what you decide, and this is an ongoing study, this is just the framework. So what you decide that you want these landlords to provide the tenants before signing this contract is going to be up to you. So we're going to be giving them the education, who to contact, when to contact before they sign that contract. Upon registration, landlords must provide legal name and contact information of the property owner, local property manager and agent contact information, property address, unit count, unit types, and current occupancy status, ADA accessibility compliance for common areas, proof of current good standing with the Kansas Secretary of State. All data is maintained in city-administered database and updated annually. A public-facing portal will display a 24-month rolling property tier, inspection history, and violation history. This registry creates a reliable communication pathway. Before enforcement occurs, the city needs to know exactly who's responsible and who can resolve the problem. All registered multifamily properties must post and maintain following information in common areas as clearly visible and accessible to the residents. This will include a current city-issued tier status certificate, name, address, 24-hour emergency contact information to a responsible property manager and designated agent, one-page tenant rights summary, city code complaint contact numbers, 311 service information, including notification of tenant complaints that are confidential. Additionally, landlords must provide a tenant rights brochure to all new and renewing tenants at the time of the lease signing to ensure residents understand availability, resources, reporting options, and housing standards. tenant information requirements, a one or two page brochure explaining rights under the Kansas Residential Landlord Tenant Act, landlord maintenance responsibilities, and tenant maintenance responsibilities, how to report code violations, emergency repair expectations, protections from retaliation, eviction process overview, city contact information. This will educate our tenants before a problem occurs. One of the biggest problems that I run into, I don't want to say problems because it's job security, but one of the biggest issues I have is that a tenant will call me after an issue arises and they've got no response from the landlord. They have no idea where to go next. And we've been working with the Public Health Safety Committee to develop a safety net We came up with this to put all this information out there when they're signing that contract. I mentioned the tier program. My vision is to have a website. It's going to be a map, and it's going to show all the footprints of all the rental properties in the city of Topeka. We're going to talk about the tier system. Green means clean record, no unresolved code violations in the previous 24 months. Yellow means unresolved violations for nuisance-type issues but no life-safety violations. And the red means life-safety violations or convictions of three or more minor or non-life-threatening violations in the previous two years. For the green, requirements registration, I'm sorry, inspection every four years, yellow every two years, and red annually. There is a fee associated with this. The fee for the green tier is $20 a unit. The fee for the yellow tier is $30 a unit. And a fee for the red tier is $40 a unit. That comes out to about $3.75 a month. $3.75 per month. I guarantee you those tenants who run into problems, have no idea where to go, would pay for this information when they sign that contract. financial model. If we were to implement this tomorrow, based upon the two-year look back for these properties, in category one I have 4,862, category two is 3,121, and category three is 4,969. That's in phase one alone. The implementation totals are on the right-hand side. They total $389,630. What does it cost to implement this? We're going to ask for two FTEs for inspectors. This is going to fall in the property maintenance unit. One FTE for an office assistant to manage everything that comes in from these property owners. We're going to develop a web-based so they can enter this information themselves. They're going to have 180 days to do this. We're going to have staff on site that can walk them through this if they need it. 0.5 FTE for GIS for helping with mapping. Two vehicles. Additional equipment comes to $362,932 for the initial year. The second year will be $278,932. Evaluation metrics and accountability. Registration compliance. First year target is 70%. Year two would be 85%. Percent inspected units with no critical violations, baseline established, 10% improvement, second year. Tier 3 properties established baseline reduction by 15% by year three. Tenant awareness. This is so important. Tenant awareness. We launch a survey to the tenants who register with the property, sign an agreement. I'm looking for 50% awareness by the second year, 50%. Program revenue versus expenditure, we're about even for the first year. Second year, generating reserve. Who does this really benefit? The tenants is number one. I'm a people person. First, I've told you this in the past. Improve access to safe and well-maintained housing, clear understanding of rights and available resources, direct access to responsible property contacts and city assistance, responsible property owners, recognition for maintaining quality housing, reduced inspections through positive compliance history, a fair system that separates responsible landlords from repeat offenders. our neighborhoods. Early identification for declining properties, reduced impact from neglect on safe housing, improved neighborhood stability, and property values. City operations, that's our staff. I told you that story. I spent three days looking for that information that if I had this, it'd be automatic. It'd be right at my fingertips. Accurate ownership and emergency contact information. Faster communication and voluntary compliance. focuses enforcement resources on properties needing the most attention. This is an idea of the map. We would spend more time developing it, but right now this is phase one, what it looks like. Those are our rental properties in the city for phase one only. I told you I'd share another story with you. The second story does not have a good ending. Recently, I'm not going to name names, we've had an air conditioning outage. Our code does not require air conditioning. However, an air conditioning is an appliance, and that's how we cite it. If that appliance works when you sign the lease agreement, it better work when we do the inspection. There is an entire building somewhere with about 95 residents with no air for one month. That case has been forwarded to the municipal court. What bothers me is that I've had one report from one tenant in that entire building. So that tells me either they weren't provided this education on how to make contact with us, they're scared to make contact with us because they're afraid of being evicted. So those are my true concerns and it starts with the tenants. Now, like I said, this is an ongoing study. This takes a lot of time of your executive management teams. What I'm asking tonight is that if you have an interest in this program, please let us know. If you don't have an interest, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I would prefer to continue this study because I think a lot of people are depending on this program. With that, I'll open up to any questions.

OK. Before we do any questions, we have several that have signed up for public comment. So I'm going to move to that next. I want to remind people who are coming up to speak, because we have almost 20 speakers tonight. And at four minutes each, that makes quite a long program. So when you come up to speak, state your name. I'd also like you to notice the timer that is by the sanitizer. When the light is green, that will run for three minutes. It will go to yellow for one minute. And when it goes to red, you're finished speaking. And we'll move on to the next speaker. So first up is Debbie Herrod. I may be saying it wrong, so. Is Debbie Herrod here? And one more time, Debbie Herrod. OK, I will circle back. Jason Weigert, he should be online. Go ahead and pull him up. Jason, you have four minutes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can now.

All right. Good evening, city council members. I'm Jason. I'm a property owner here in Topeka, and I also operate rental properties in two other cities that already have a rental registry and inspectable programs. So I've experienced firsthand how these programs actually work in practice. As it's currently proposed, I'm not in favor of the rental registry as written. The main reason is simple. Our city code enforcement has already backlogged with violations, adding a whole new layer of mandatory registration, annual fees, and inspections will only stretch those resources thinner. Even with our new staff that's being proposed, we're adding more work to the property maintenance unit instead of addressing those violations that already exist. What makes us think adding even more responsibilities will produce a different outcome. I do support part of this proposal. requiring emergency contact information for every rental property. That's completely reasonable and helpful. I provide affordable housing that rents between $575 to $650 a month. I'm happy to do it. The $20 annual fee isn't the real concern. The bigger cost is the administrative burden. Coordinating inspections of tenants, being present for inspections, and handling reinforcements. It just takes too much work to do. It takes just as much work to inspect a $600 apartment as it does a much more expensive home. So this can end up not scaling well, and it disproportionately affects affordable housing like mine. I have direct experience with these programs in other cities. Those registries were sold as tools to improve housing quality and protect tenants. In my experience, they haven't solved the problems they were supposed to solve.

For example,

The board rental program failed to address problem landlord. I've seen that firsthand. Responsible owners comply, while the problem properties remain problems. The biggest concern we've experienced is the inspection process itself. Without clear inspection standards, it's like . Inspectors end up citing things that have nothing to do with life safety or habitability issues. For example, I've been told to stain and seal perfectly good oak cabinets. I've been cited over caulking around exterior trim and purely cosmetic issues. And just last week, an inspector called out a tenant's car tire that was flat. These subjective calls turn a safety program into a costly game of gotcha. often leading to another inspection fee. Section 8 uses a short, clear inspection checklist that inspectors can consistently follow. There's no reason you can't do the same here. I don't believe this proposal is ready to move forward in its current form. However, if the council chooses to adopt it, I strongly encourage to avoid the same mistakes I've experienced in other cities. One, consult directly with experienced property owners and managers when developing those inspection standards. Two, adopt a clear objective infection checklist focused only on true life safety and habitability issues. Lastly, ensure code enforcement has the staffing needed before expanding its responsibilities. Before creating another program, let's make sure we have the resources and processes in place to make it successful. Happy to take any questions.

Jason, we don't take questions on these, but this is a non-action item, so we are not voting tonight. We are still taking comment. So if you'd like to send any comment to the committee or council members, you're welcome to. Okay, next up, Martha Boatwright. Yes, she's here.

All right. Hi, everybody. You know me. I'm one of the members of the Topeka tenants. And my interest in housing started, of course, when first one of my properties was purchased by Lou McGinnis and it completely went downhill. I've since then worked as a census worker. I've done door knocking as tenant housing. I've done home visits for community action. I've done home visits as a TARC case manager. And I have seen standing water next to open wiring. I have walked on wooden support structures that were so riddled with dry rot that they shook and creaked as we were walking on them. And these are in your districts. These are in places that people that are your constituents are working in. Meanwhile, the buildings that we were looking at and that we were visiting are not owned by your constituents. They are not owned by people from Topeka. I know you're going to hear tonight from local landlords who own a few properties and don't want to be impacted by this, but I feel that the model system that has been developed by Mr. Chardine here, which is excellent, loved your presentation, is going to actually be protective of those people. I've heard it said online by many of the landlords here that we are trying to punish them all for just a small handful of people. But the reality is that small handful currently owns the majority of multi-family housing units in Topeka. We have done our best to try to dig through, as Topeka tenants, to dig through public records that we can find to determine who owns these properties. And when we are able to, we have found in the big apartment units that you can see on maps, absolutely zero are owned by people who live in Topeka. They are all owned by people from often, most of them, out of state. If you're lucky, you'll get somebody in Kansas City, but usually it's Kansas City, Missouri. The problem is not I guess what I'm saying here is that when you are looking at this and thinking about how you want to vote, I know that the landlords tend to sometimes be the loudest voices because landlords are able to take off time during the middle of the day to come to the committee meetings that are held in the middle of the day while their tenants are working. Landlords are able to come here in the evening because maybe they have someone to watch their kids all night when they sit here for three hours waiting for one of these to happen. As a Topeka tenant member, that's part of what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to be here to represent the people who are not able to come and give their testimony at these meetings. Part of our government's job, when we talk about empowering tenants, we've been trying to do a lot of education in coordination with Kansas Legal Services throughout the city. I even suggested that they come talk to the CDDO to help with disability providers. We've been trying to do education that way. But one of the ways that we empower tenants is you guys. It is our government. Government is not supposed to just be By the people and of the people it is supposed to be for the people you are supposed to look and try to see what is going to help my tenants, not these out of state landlords. who are trying to use the local small landlords. Well, they're not even using because I don't think they're even showing up here. They're expecting the small local landlords to stand in and have their concerns somehow be the same as the concerns of these large landlords that are going to be the first people in the phase one rolled out. Because I could tell looking at that map that you had a phase one, I'm like, Luma Guinness, Luma Guinness, Monarch, I know who all owns all of those properties. and they're not local small-time landlords who are your constituents. They are out-of-state corporations who are bleeding your constituents dry while leaving them in substandard housing. Thank you.

Steve Vogel.

Good evening. My name is Steve Bogle. I live in Tecumseh, and I'm the president of the Shawnee County Landlord's Association. I want to say that I oppose the landlord registry pilot proposal. The city calls this a balanced approach. I don't agree. The proposal says eventually all rental properties will have to register, pay a fee, and will be inspected regardless of tier status. I am skeptical that there is adequate budget allotted for this. Do you want to take a chance that this will be adequately funded when the city has a $15 million budget deficit? The proposal says Tier 3 properties will be inspected once a year. This inspection will consist of looking around the exterior of the buildings and common areas. No interior inspections. It's hard to take this seriously as an effort to hold bad landlords accountable. One of the selling points of this proposal is that it will create a searchable database of landlords and their record of code compliance violations. There is also going to be a group who will assist tenants against retaliatory actions against them. This is good news. These things are going to happen whether this proposal advances or not. The main thing I have against this proposal is it will create unnecessary burdens on good landlords and, more importantly, will do nothing to curb the mistreatment of tenants by bad landlords. Here is a quote from the Topeka tenants Facebook page. Quote, Topeka tenants has determined that this will help renters prove the chronic maintenance neglect and hold landlords accountable with an ordinance that makes violations public and enforced. This is simply not true. The only fines and penalties in this proposal are for failure to register. Don't take my word for it. Read the proposal for yourself. I was contacted by a friend last week calling for her granddaughter. No air conditioning for over three weeks. I think this may be the same thing that John was talking about. They have called the apartment management and code enforcement numerous times. I got an update this morning. Still no air conditioning. So now the whole building has been out for a month. I emailed John and he said the case has been sent to municipal court, which is just what he said. This story and more like it have been happening for over nine years. I don't see any indication that it is getting any better. I have been advocating for simply enforcing the existing ordinance regarding property code violations. It is municipal code 8.60.090 section 107. I argue that if this was done, it would be far more effective in curbing this bad behavior. No one from this city or anyone else has ever explained to me why this approach won't work and more ordinances are necessary. The one word I would use to describe this proposal is unnecessary. If this is enacted, I'm afraid the city will create an unmanageable bureaucracy and fail to achieve anything meaningful to help tenants. Thank you.

Thank you. Alex Buzicki.

Hello.

Sorry, I butchered that.

Oh, no, you did it right.

Okay.

Hello, my name is Alex Busicki. I wrote in a comment, so you can look on it on your computer as well if I don't get to it. I'm here with Topeka tenants. We've been door-knocking a bunch of properties here in Topeka, and I would like to represent the tenants because we have seen some awful things. I'm going to skip to the bottom of my letter where I address some of the issues the concerns that are brought up. So I've heard that this proposal is going to duplicate services or that the increased inspections can be done with our current services. I've heard concerns about the increased cost to city. So I'd like to address those. I'm obviously not city staff, but I do know that the PMU has been understaffed and I'm glad that we get the inspections that we currently get, but we need more. The reality is with the current budget and structure, not all apartment complexes are being seen by PMU, which is my understanding. I've also heard that fire inspectors could be doing these inspections, but I would assume that fire inspection and code inspections differ, which require more training and more time and money allocation. As a person who has worked in several positions, I've continued to ask to do more with less. I am asking you to please increase the resources if you're going to increase the workload. This pilot program is meant to be self-sustained by the fees that the landlords and therefore the tenants are going to be paying, which is my understanding. I understand that there's going to be a bit of cash flow work around and work during the first year of implementation, but I hope that city councilors would find the value in starting this pilot program to be worth a little cash flow work around.

I don't understand this, so I'm not city staff.

I have heard that exterior inspections is not worth this pilot program. I've also heard landlords push back on the idea that code inspectors knocking doors and asking for voluntary interior inspections. So they push back on that idea. Every time that Topeka tenants has gone door knocking we have found unsafe or unsanitary conditions on the exterior of the property or within common areas such as hallways. We have seen so many hallways that have been flooded, unsafe desks, decks, unsafe stairs and rails to name a few of the problems that we see. I will also testify that tenants are more than happy to let us in when they know that something is wrong with their unit. They want to see fixes in the solutions. I will also comment that it is fairly easy to figure out which units might need assistance when the floors are ripped out outside or their plumbing access holes cut in the hallways. Also, if a tenant happens to report to the city with an issue, it could affect more than just their unit, like the AC problem. You see one AC, you might see that it affects the entire building. Please read my comment because I do not have the time here. This would greatly benefit the tenants. We really need it. I love the idea of the education aspect as well as the goals set out by this pilot program. I want to thank staff and I want to thank you for considering this pilot program. Thank you. Thank you.

Alyssa Jacob.

How are y'all doing? I am with Topeka tenants as well and you know the conditions of which we're expected to endure living in is highly unacceptable more often than not people we were afraid to come forward to say anything to the landlords and It shouldn't be that way. We pay good money to live in sub-bar conditions with nothing really being able to get taken care of. I have a photo if you guys are interested. The average renter here in Topeka, I mean half of our income is going to pay rent for housing that I wouldn't want to put anybody in most of the time. um so i think this registry is a good idea it's a good start um for topeka um to hold the landlords accountable and you know as attendant we have rights and we're entitled to know these rights and i just hope for the best things in topeka to come especially with you know the homeless situations that we do face out here and in our country in general um if we can start at the basis of providing safe housing for what we're i mean that's a good start i think so uh good things to come hopefully and i hope that we can make some changes here because it's really hard to feel safe and at home in some place that you know you're afraid to even make the comment of hey it's 120 degrees out and i don't have ac can you help me So knowing where the resources are for having the resources to find those is really important for the basic renter who has no idea where to even start. So thank you guys for your time.

Matthew Galino?

Yes, that's perfect.

Can I just start? Thank you, Deputy Mayor and governing board for letting me speak. I am an engineer by trade and sorry, is this better?

This one or this one?

In the middle. Thank you. I'm not much of a public speaker, so I'll try to make this make sense. I'm an engineer by trade and the president of the Shawnee County Young Democrats by passion. Director Sardine has said that the current approach is reactive. There is another word for this, whack-a-mole. We cannot fix life-impacting issues as they occur. This is not a long-term solution. The president of the Landlord Association has said that for the last nine years we have been seeing these problems because we are reacting to them as they happen. With any process, the first step is to evaluate what is the problem and where is it happening. That is the proposal that you are seeing before this body. How can we figure out which landlords, where and what is going on if we don't even know what landlords are in the city or who or where to contact them? We cannot fix the underlying issues of the rental situation here if we do not even know what is going on. So I greatly plead to this board that you consider the very first step of improving rental stock in this city by identifying the crisis and listening to the tenants on how we can improve. I've heard many landlords say that this measure will unfairly harm those good standing landlords to seek out the bad ones. And that is a fair, I do understand the sentiment from that, but how can you identify who is the good or bad landlord if you don't even know who is out there in the first place? So the current situation of let's find out via crisis and report of what we need to fix is not working. However, I will agree with Mr. Steve Vogel that the enforcement, The city is behind on its inspections and adding more bureaucracy on top of that will not solve the issue. That does not mean we need to stop identifying the problems. That means we need to help keep inspections up and identify the problems. This is not a false dichotomy of if we can't do inspections, then let's stop looking for problems. The problem is deeper that we cannot address it. Let's look in. Let's have the city take this first step. And I ask that the board consider this as a wonderful proposal. And I commend Director Chardine's approach. And thank you so much.

Danielle Twemlow.

Thank you. There's not a whole lot more that hasn't already been said time and time again. But I do wonder if the rest of the governing body that maybe doesn't attend or see the public health and safety meetings, if you're aware that we actually already have a registry for mobile home units. It's in our municipal code. We have... very detailed in two different sections of our municipal code, how you have to register with your mobile home units, the inspections that must occur. So we do have a framework. We can accomplish this. We did find out through some chatting that there's some maybe loopholes that we can close to make it more effective. And I do believe that this proposal begins to do that. So it's possible. It's something that we've been doing and it has been working in other areas. I've heard time and time again that this creates a burden for landlords and we know that renters go through enormous amounts of paperwork to apply to be considered for properties, paying huge fees, sometimes $50 per person, just to apply to be considered for a rental property. And sometimes doing that multiple times in a month before they find a location. And the landlords are already participating in a yearly registry who are a part of the Shawnee County Landlord Association. They fill out a form every single year that asks them how many apartments they own, how many single family units. They even have to name a reference in order to be a part of the Landlord Association. And they pay a $50 yearly fee and 10 extra dollars if you want the monthly newsletter sent to you. they have to register LLC businesses yearly as well. So not something that's kind of out of the ordinary. I believe Karen Hiller, you're signed up to speak at the County Landlord Association in September. So it's an active group that is something that is already being participated in. I think it's really important to also reiterate the importance of the proactive measures. We continue to be reactive, which is more costly. It's not going to be a fix for all of our problems. That does not mean we don't start somewhere. We have lots of models that are effective. I know the ones that just don't automatically have positive results are being brought up to you time and time again. But the National Association of Cities and League Municipalities has a beautiful toolkit that we can continue to reference. And many cities around us are implementing things that are working, which the longer we delay on doing something to enact very specific restrictions, we continue to get those landlords who are being held accountable elsewhere trying to purchase up things here. And we need to get ahead of the game and with everyone else around us. So I appreciate your consideration in this and all the work that's been done.

Okay. I'm sorry.

I know I butchered that. It's a very difficult thing. Good evening. Thank you for your time. I'm here just as a Topeka tenant myself. I recently had very bad experience with poverty and Live there for a few years. There's increasing issues and many times when this is When I went forward to try to report something or my partner did there There just wasn't a lot of overhead other than hoping that The landlord would take care of it and I would say as with increasing affordability crisis with housing, I think with all the responsibilities that we as renters have to come forward and prove our worthiness as a tenant, I think it is just due diligence on a landlord's part to prove their side that they will provide safe housing. And I'm just here to ask that this be approved because I feel like it's something that's desperately needed here in Topeka. There's not a lot of protections and there's not a lot of options for renters. So thank you for your time. Okay.

I'm going to ask one more time if Debbie Herod is here. Okay. Seeing there's no response, we are done with public comment and now we're going to move into council. Oh, is she online? Yes. Yes, Alyssa's already spoken. Okay, so we're ready for questions and comments. First up is Councilman Valdivia Acala.

Thank you Deputy Mayor. First I want to say to the City Manager and to the Police Chief that if this does end up passing, it's imperative that you both stay in the loop and in the know as much as possible because it will be with your push and continued support that will help change this mindset in Topeka where we could get out of the reactivity and into something that is truly proactive. I want to say that first and foremost, when we spent the $84,000 for the May 8th consulting, and let's remember that Karen Black is a civil rights attorney. She had worked in HUD. She was an expert in code enforcement. She had worked in cities large and small, similar to our demographic. and much different than our demographic. And things that she said that she recommended in her study have not always shown up to the degree to where they need to be. One is the land bank. She pushed for that. There were some on council that did not want it, but now look where we are. We're getting started. And then the other one was this landlord tenant registry. And I will tell you a frustration with me is that it has languished for months and months and months in committee. And so what I believe is happening here is that this is a pilot that we need to start off with because we know When I was employed with the city back in 2006, there were already multiple issues in multifamily dwellings. They were not being inspected. Even exterior-wise, they were not being inspected. There were all types of ADA violations occurring, and there was tremendous fear, even back in 2006, of retaliation. Push forward now where we are 20 years later, and there's the possibility for us really to do something. Is it going to be a cure-all? Absolutely not. Is it against landlords? Absolutely not. Landlords have the Landlord Association, they have lobbyists, they talk to legislators, and I would venture to say that the most vulnerable and good tenants don't have that in their pocket. And I would also say that without this, we are never going to be able to get a handle on our multifamily dwelling situation. And for all those landlords out there listening that believe that this pilot project will mean that there will be able to be inspections by the city to just go into a dwelling and inspect. That is not true. That is total misinformation because the tenant has to allow code enforcement in. So I know that we're just in the discussion point. I've been on public health and safety the whole time I've been on city council. And I would just really hope that my colleagues would look in their district to look at their multifamily dwellings and see if they believe that those that they serve deserve better. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Next up is Councilman Kell.

I feel that a good landlord shouldn't fear this registry. My number one concern with this is contact info. It's one of those things of when we don't even, as a city, can't even contact a landlord and, you know, we've had issues. A good example is the dumpster situation in a couple different complexes. When we can't even get a hold of the owner to get that resolved, that's an issue. I think neighbors should have access for residential properties or rentals because sometimes as a neighbor, you have to want to work with your neighbor on a project. And if you have no idea who that landlord is, how are you supposed to get these projects done? I would like to see on, I think it was slide 10 and 11, the checklist. have that be able to be checked off when the tenant's handed those things, and have the tenant sign it. And then the landlord and the tenant keep a copy of that. So this way, we know that they're getting all these things. So if there is a complaint, they can sit there and say, hey, then the landlord can say, no, I gave them all this. Or if they don't have a copy of it, we can assume that they didn't give them these things. It was said just kind of enforce what we have right now, but that's hard when you cannot contact the landlords. I'm kind of frustrated with the Shawnee County Landlord Association. They're not at the forefront of this to try to take care of the bad landlords. They're just, oh, they're there. We're good landlords, but those bad ones, they're there, but what are they doing to actually stop the bad landlords? And they have just as much power as the bad landlords to stop the bad landlords, but they don't try to. I would like to see something for the landlords in the situation of the, you know, let's say there is a code violation, whether it's the landlord or if it's the tenant. Now, if there's a car up on the blocks and it belongs to the tenant, I don't think we should necessarily punish the landlord for that if they aren't. as long as they're trying to work with the city to take care of that with the tenant. You know, if they're just ignoring us, saying, hey, you've got a tenant with a car up on blocks or anything like that. One question is, what are the fines, or are there any fines in place for not registering, for not being able to be contacted for noncompliance of any of this? And that's one thing I'd like to see is a fine structure.

Yeah, we've discussed this and we're working with legal to establish what the fines would be. Not only do we plan on the audits for the office paperwork with the signatures that you asked about, we've discussed that also. So moving forward, there's probably five or six categories of violations. When I say categories, one could be the audit, one could be non-compliance issues, one could be failure to register, one could be failure to provide the adequate information that's required by ordinance. It all depends on If we move forward, we're going to be having roundtables, discussions with the tenants, with the landlord association. We're going to find out what works. In reality, I mean, we're not going to expect something that nobody can provide, right? We want to make sure this is going to work. So once we have our hand on what will work, we'll present it to legal. We'll ask legal, is this defensible, right? So we've got to make sure that we're legal all the way around. And then once we have that and we are moving forward, we're going to bring it back to you for an ordinance. And once we have the ordinance in place, then we're going to work on providing the folks to enforce it. Are we looking at anything of loss of license?

If there's a habitual offender that they just do not want to comply, don't want to do anything with us? Right. I don't want to displace. Yeah, that's my fear. I'd like to see some type of loss of license where we don't create a mass eviction. Or just a landlord that's... After he loses his license, creates a massive eviction, and then just sits on the property because it's a tax write-off for all the other property that they own. So just like what pretty much happens with shopping malls over the country after he's 23 years old, it's dormant because of the tax write-off. So I'm trying to look long-term here.

Yeah, just to make it clear, what's proposed right now is not a licensing program. It's not restricting the ability of someone to rent a property out to tenants. So there are some penalties that are proposed in place for not registering. But the thing to keep in mind with a program like this is any fees or penalties or anything like that have to be reasonably tied to the cost of executing the program, of implementing and executing the program. So that's one thing we have to keep in mind as we move forward. But just so we're clear, this isn't a licensing program per se. Okay.

One other question, or one other idea I'd like to have is when we do have our inspections have it being announced to the tenants so any tenant can sit there and if they want to invite the city in and say, hey, look at these issues I'm having and I have these five emails that sit there and say I've showed them this problem five different times and nothing has come of it. So this way we can have some teeth to this. We do have to take something to court that it's I just want this to be where it punishes the tenants. I don't want to punish the good landlords. I know we have some great landlords in town. I have some in my neighborhood, but I also have some in my neighborhood that if there's an issue, we can't even get a hold of companies in town that have management offices in town to come take a tree out of the street when a tree fell. We've got to be able to do something here to really... Let them know that we're being serious about this, and this isn't just a Band-Aid. I think that's it for now. Thank you.

Councilwoman Bradbury.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank City Manager for bringing this forward. I know it's been in committee for a bit, so I'm excited to see this moving forward. I do have a couple of questions. Is there a timeline for a draft ordinance?

If I get the okay to move forward from council, we'll start working on the ordinance. We'll start working on groups of roundtable who I want to invite to the table, right, to get better ideas, ideas that will work. And then whatever we collect, we're going to present it to legal. and have legal review it and then of course have the executive management look at it and then once we have everything in place we're going to bring it back to you and have you look at it and if you agree to it then we'll have an ordinance then we'll work on providing the personnel and in in internal policies we have to develop those yet so um maybe by the end of the year

Yeah, by the end of the year, Councilwoman, we definitely have an ordinance back to Council for consideration. Definitely would want to consider the ramp-up of this because there would be new staff required, so we would look at implementation sometime in FY2027. But certainly if we get direction and guidance from the Council to move this forward, we can have something considered as far as an ordinance by the end of the year.

And another question I have, are the positions that you talk about in the presentation, are those included in the proposed 27 budget or no?

They are not, ma'am.

Okay. And I think probably just one final question. Is there some sort of decision framework or something that the council would use in order to determine whether the pilot continues or if it's modified as is or terminated or What results would trigger stopping or redesigning the pilot?

So we're going to have surveys sent out to the tenants, and we're going to ask them if this is working, and we're going to reevaluate the program as a whole at the end of the two-year mark. Is that what we decided, right? So after two years, you're going to tell me if this is a good idea or a bad idea. If it's a good idea, we're going to move on to phase two, right? If it's a bad idea, then we'll have to circle the wagons and have further discussion.

I said that was my last one, but it's not. What do you need from us right now in order to move this forward?

So there's a couple ways that we could do this, Councilwoman. We can get kind of a straw vote nod or nay here. One other thing, and I'm glad that you brought up the budget consideration because somebody could propose that as an amendment to the proposed budget, and that would give us the indication as well. Thank you. Yes ma'am.

Next up is Councilman Miller.

Thank you Deputy Mayor and thank you city staff for bringing this up. It is clear that this is something that is needed for the defense of our community. There's a couple things that I would like us to think about as we move forward. I wonder what the cost effective example would be of the notice that's required to give to the tenants. And what that would look like if we could get the city to give an example of what a cost effective notice would be. And is there a way for us to give in that first tier, that first two years, if there's a way for us on an initial registration, if we're able to give them that example. And secondly, I do know the funds that are connected to this are going to be close to the cost of implementing, and it would be my request that any and all funds that go above and beyond those expenses would be forwarded to the affordable housing trust fund. And one of the emails that we got there, there was also someone who brought up the thought of a fee waiver for properties who have gone three to five years or three five years plus of a clean record. I would also like to see what that would look like and see if that would also be a good incentive for landlords that continue, that say they are doing the right thing and that want to continue doing so. So thank you very much.

Councilman Gill.

To kind of piggyback on Councilman Miller, I'd also maybe, because as Mr. Weigert said, he rents to the LMI community something that after so many years, those might be able to waive on those low income housing so that way they can try to keep their costs as low as possible. My other thing I forgot that I wanted to speak up was for staffing, on the staff aspect of things. to look at staggering the registry over how they do when you use your license, when you register your vehicle. It's staggered over so many months. This way our staff isn't just getting inundated right off the bat with all these registries. And then when someone's like, well, I know my land is registered, but we're three months behind on entering things. Maybe if we can stagger... those and maybe get with the landlord association and figure out a best way to maybe do that you know use use our districts as the setup or uh figure out how maybe looking at the maps of what properties are the uh the densest that they'd have to register. So this way we're not inundating the staff right off the bat and getting overloaded and also creating possible mass confusion on this because we have 1,000 people within the first two, three months loading the system down with registers.

Councilman Banks.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. John, as we're talking about the registry, and certainly thank you and your team for all the work that you've put in, I'm wondering how do we, through the registry, accommodate landlords that are having damages to their property because you know that's going to come up sooner or later somebody's going to be asking we try to accommodate our tenants but then when they move out they destroy the property so how does our registry address an issue such as that?

I don't know if the registry would address it. I can tell you that We take each case on a case-by-case basis. When we do the, and you were referring to an interior inspection, I'm sure. So when we do the interior inspection, we ask a lot of questions. How long have you rented? How long have you been here? Do you have any other parties? What caused this damage? And a responsible landlord will have pictures of the property prior to moving in compared to what we're looking at today. So we're going to interview the landlord as well. So we try to evaluate not only the occupant, but the property and the landlord. And we ask all these questions if time permits. So if the landlord responds to us, then yes, we can have that conversation. As far as their landlord registry, we're looking for the actual landlord information. We're looking for making sure that if it's an LLC, he's registered properly. And then we're looking for to make sure that he's providing the information to the tenants prior to moving in. Those are our main concerns. I think we're missing the gap, right? We have a gap with this information that's provided to the tenant themselves. If they have this, then they know how to proceed once there is an issue with the property, instead of making these phone calls and panicking and going through the safety net as they do occur. So those are my main concerns. And of course, identifying the rental properties themselves. I really don't think we have any idea. And I think it's more than $25,000. I don't think we have any idea of how many properties that we have. Thank you, John. Thanks, Deputy Mayor.

Are there any other? We will. Are there any other questions? Councilwoman Hillard.

Thank you. This has been really good. I appreciate the input.

Appreciate the input and the discussion from folks. I think people know that I've had concerns about this. We've worked really hard over the four years to make a lot of progress. And we have made a lot of progress. I appreciate particularly how people handled their comments tonight. One of the things that's happened, and as John says, if the group decides to proceed, there's a lot more work to be done on this. But we've had some testimony along the way that's been very bashing toward landlords especially. Um, yet everyone knows that we, we cares about the tenants and also at least says they care about providing, we've got to have landlords in order to have the rentals. And by being respectful, um, when, When we've had commentary in some of the meetings, people have been particularly sensitive about who got to talk. In my experience, we learn a lot from what everybody says, whether it's sharing their own experiences, raising issues about points that they're concerned about. Every one of those is a heads up to all of us in terms of something to consider. to make, if we're working on fine tuning a system or making a new system, to make it right. And so I hope that as we move forward from here, whether we pursue this or not, we have a lot of work to do, as John knows especially, on just the regular code enforcement, making sure those fines and fees that people have discussed, that there really is an effective and consistent system. If we want to do more than that, what I've heard in terms of the consequences of this system that's intended is just simply publicizing what somebody's rating is and why, not to make it more complicated than that, perhaps. One of the things that concerns me is we've made a lot of progress, and as the Changing Our Culture Property Maintenance set a work plan for 2026 that was very viable. And I hate to lose momentum. I don't know if your thought is to just stop because we do now have, as you've reported, our TGIS staff has just produced via technology, which is what we'd hoped, the map and the database that we've been waiting for. So for the most part, we do know where those rentals are. We know who owns them, and we can find it relatively easily. There are always going to be problems, right, when an owner changed or something happened. or there's been a big storm and nobody's answering the phone right now. But we do have that which we had not had and it was a priority for changing our culture to get it. We will then be better ready to make case history available. Just in case everybody doesn't know it, we've had it available for over 20 years. So that's not something new. Somebody has been able to check a property before. But what we figured out was if nobody knew where to find it on the website, fair enough. We needed to do change there. In terms of tracking and getting inspections done, we do have a refreshed partnership and transparency arrangement with the entities that do government assisted housing inspections. We had a presentation on that just recently. Staff has, from the Code Compliance Department and the Fire Department, developed educational materials already and are already handing them out on site with voluntary teamwork inspections between code and fire to make outreach stops at the multifamily projects already. So we have that already going. I wonder if in terms of even looking at something as a pilot, that letting that play out as planned for the rest of this year wouldn't be worth watching. Overall, I will wrap up. I just want to thank everybody again for their input, particularly Alex in the last week. We spent a lot of time together. I think it was mutually helpful. Thank everybody that's taken the time to comment, and I hope that people will participate if there's a decision to move this forward.

Okay. Councilwoman Valdivia Acqua.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I don't know for sure, but I am just saying as a committee member, I am not supportive of this going back into committee. I am supportive of Director Chargine, with other directors bringing the roundtables together, picking those folks, whatever, so that we can meet that goal that the city manager is talking about, which I'm very glad to hear that, City Manager. And I would also say is that I beg to differ with Councilwoman Hiller because I believe there are absolutely, and I've said this from the beginning, wonderful landlords out there. And having been a woman, a single mom that lived in a number of apartments for a number of years as I was raising my daughter, I had wonderful landlords. But I think from what we have seen on social media, from what Topeka tenants is telling you, and I've always seen the communication is very respectful, even when going to the Topeka tenant meetings, that I would not want to portray this rather pejorative narrative about how landlords are talked about because that is not what I heard. I understand that I've been out of some of the meetings when I was out for my heart issues, but overall, I think that there has been very controlled dialogue by tenants, and we're talking about tenants that are living in abysmal situation with children and elders. So thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Okay. Are there any other comments tonight? Any direction you would like to give?

I would like, I'm sorry, I would like to move forward with this however we do that in direction to them to move forward.

Doing kind of like a straw vote, if the governing body wanted to consider hand raising in support of it, that's something we can do this evening. OK. Moving forward.

So everyone who would like to move forward with this as written with some possible changes coming up as we discuss more. But raise your right hand. So I've got two and three. I've got five, six. Those who do not? Okay. I'd say you have your direction.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you all.

Okay. Seeing as how we have gone a couple of hours, over a couple of hours, I'm going to ask for a ten-minute break. We will be back. Actually, it will be eight minutes. It's at 830. Okay, we are ready to continue. Our next item is 7B, Clerk Read. Please read.

Okay, B is the discussion regarding proposed utility rates. City Manager?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, members of the governing body. Given that 2026 represents the last year in a three year water utility rate schedule. Since June 2nd, we've been discussing potential fee adjustments to support an annual operating budget of 120 million and a 260 million capital investment into our water utilities infrastructure over the next four years. As a refresher, when we started this discussion, we provided the governing body with two fee structure scenarios. Based upon the feedback we've heard, the rate recommendations that I support and that you will hear this evening include a higher rate increase in our commercial and industrial customers who currently pay a lower per unit cost than our residential customers. We will also discuss proposed adjustments to the base charge. With that, I'll ask Sylvia Davis, Director of Utilities, and Nicole Mallott, Deputy Director of Utilities, to lead us through this discussion. Ladies.

Thank you. Tonight, we are just going to highlight the proposal that was given to you all for consideration last month and kind of refresh everybody on where we're at and talk about impacts of that. So just to dive right in, as the city manager said, we have issued a four-year consideration, a rate proposal that supports an increase in our infrastructure investment over the next four years of $260 million, which is almost $148 million higher than our existing capital improvement plans. I want to just remind everyone that our current rate structure does not support the current capital improvement schedule that we have. So you see there's a need, and then we are asking for an additional increase to accommodate more investment in that infrastructure with our overarching goal of having a responsible, financially viable utility that supports the needs of Topeka and our surrounding community that we currently serve. So with that being said, just again wanting to remind everyone, in the ordinance that you all have and are considering, it will show you existing rates and the proposed rate schedule that we have asked for your consideration on. We set that up with two goals in mind. One of those, as the city manager implied, was to gradually work our way up to one single uniform retail consumption rate, the other to try to keep impacts to our residential customers as low as we possibly could. To highlight how we've gotten there and accomplished that with this proposal, I've highlighted in yellow here On the retail water rates for this example is inside city customers. It will show that anything under two inches, a two inch meter size, so five eighths inch, one inch or one and a half inch. You can see that we have not proposed any increases to those base charges over the next four years. They stay flat. Um, along with that, we have increased consumption charges, uh, for the various customer classifications that we have. So that by the time we hit 2023, you can see that it is an across the board, $8 and 14 cents per gallon per thousand gallons. I'm sorry. Um, for, for all of those classifications. So that gets us to that single uniform rate. I want to highlight on the wastewater side of things, same principle. We've kept base charges flat. So anything under two inches here, you see there are no increases to that base charge for anything under two inches. And that is in total almost 99.5% of our residential customers will not see any increase to their base rate charge because 99.5, 99.47% of those have meters that are under two inches in size. On the commercial side of things, 76% of our commercial customers have meters under two inches in size. So no base charge increases for those customers. It is solely increases on the volume charge. gives customers a little bit more control over their usage and conservation, rewarding them for less consumption. So with that being said, How does this impact somebody's bill? So I'm highlighting here that, again, we did not propose increases to meters under 2 inches in size. So these two specific examples for residential customers, those are specifically 5-8 inch customers. So the first one is a 5-8 inch customer at 1,000 gallons per month. Today, their 2026 average bill looks like a combined, when you look at their water charge, their stormwater charge and wastewater charge, $54.66. With the proposal that we have given you for consideration, the total impact to that same customer for 2027 is 97 cents of a total increase. For 2028, it would be $0.64, $0.29, $0.67, and 2030, $0.77. That is the average impact for that customer. say the same customer on a five, eight centimeter is using more. What is more average to us? Uh, 3,500 gallons a month. Um, that current bill looks like $91 and 34 cents with the proposed increases. Um, that would be an additional $3 and 3 cents on their 2027 bill. Uh, another dollar and 87 cents on our 28 bill. $1.77 on the 29 bill. And then in 2030, that would go up an additional $1.92. Again, purely based on the consumption charges that we've increased. Moving forward, what does that look like for commercial or industrial groups? A commercial property that's using approximately 10,000 gallons per month. Currently, that bill, I'm only highlighting water and wastewater here because in regards to stormwater, it is highly dependent on the size of their impervious surface. whether or not they have BMPs that they're getting reductions for, etc. So from a water and wastewater bill for a 2026 average, that current bill would look like $200.12. For that same commercial customer in 2027, they would see an $11.80 increase. 2028, $9.50. 2029, $9.30. And 2030, an additional $9.10 on their monthly bills. So that is water and wastewater combined. for an industrial customer. Again, this group, the industrial one and two, are really seeing the biggest impact. So over the next four years, as we walk towards that common rate for volume charges, somebody who is paying $12,625 for their monthly bill is looking at a $1,305.51 increase in 2027. And you can see 28, 29, and 30. So I want to call out that is a 1 million gallon per month customer. If we have an industrial customer who is currently being billed for 10 million gallons a month, that increases 10 times that. So just to give you a perspective of how that impacts them so much differently than the residential impacts for the proposal that you have in front of you. The commercial stormwater rates for 2027 was a 2% increase, for 2028 was a 2% increase, And then for 29, a 3%. And then for 2030, we proposed a 4% increase. So that would impact them as well. We did have the question posed, what would it look like if we stopped assessing base charges for inactive accounts? So back to the way we assess base charges previously, pre-2024. I do have one math error on here I want to call out, but that looks To do that, to account for the loss of revenue, again, equating to that four-year total increase investment, we would need to add an additional 0.75% to the proposed volume rate for water, an additional 1.15% to the proposed volume rate for wastewater, and then combining those, you'll see that the 21 cents a month additional cost for a 3 500 gallon a month residential customer plus their wastewater increase would be it's actually 49 cents a month for that residential customer and then that commercial user we would be adding a dollar 20 a month to those numbers i just showed you on the previous slide so in totality a residential customer five-eighths inch 3,500 gallons a month is a total of $3 and 52 cents that first year that commercial customer, um, would be $13 in total that first year. And then, um, a 10 million gallon industrial customer would have a $14,255 increase per month from their current charges, um, in 2027. Again, that is changing the way we've done things for the last three years, putting us back to pre 2024. No stormwater impacts because we would just be impacting those base charge application the way we're doing that currently. So with all of that being said. What have we done in between the last time we met and tonight? We began meeting with our industrial partners. We still have a few meetings to go, but we have met with our largest industrial user and then a couple of others, and I will, I promise them I would relay some of their comments. Of course, no one wants increases assessed to them. However, the sooner that we can tell them what they can expect the better. Um, some of them already have their 2027 budgets set. Some of them are in that process of trying to set those. Now we assume they're accounting for some increases as they have seen increases the last three years. However, we do not know what they have personally budgeted for. One ask was what would it take to get Topeka to a point where we can see a perpetual rate increase so that we're not seeing highs and lows every few years. With the proposal that we have in front of you, we do believe that that sets us up in a much better position for you all to consider a consistent rate increase across the board. that you could set in and similar to the way the Sherwood wastewater rates are is it's this percent annually until someone votes that we do not do that or we increase it. So something to consider. We have also, you guys have heard it loud and clear, we've received some criticism that there is no rush to adopt rates today. We're not here to push you one way or another. We want to make sure that we give you all food for thought and what you need following this. Now that we have all of those impacts, we will give you that information tomorrow. how all of those customer classes are impacted on those monthly bills. However, again, our industrial and commercial clients are all in the process of or have set those budgets, and the sooner we can notify them of a rate change, the better. We do not prefer to wait until November to tell them that in January they're going to be seeing a possible $14,000 a month change. So I wanted to relay that. And with that, that's where we're at. I'm willing to stand for whatever questions you might have and, again, get some input from you all on how you want to proceed.

Okay. I have two people signed up for public comment. We'll do that first. I do not see him. Joe Ledbetter.

He led their way up.

Okay. And then he is out. Then Danielle Twimlow, you're up.

Well, I won't be a broken record. It feels a little... A little much. So I did take Mr. Ledbetter's suggestion that he made out loud in public comment a while back ago about someone pulling the prospectuses. Not a financial person, but went ahead and did that, which I can tell you is... a lot to sift through and sort through these are our bonds and each of them are 200 plus pages um you know and comparing them and what it comes down to is i shouldn't have to do this like this is being brought up over and over and over again not just by me but that we need better transparency of where we are spending funds. And I have been provided some water replacement lines that are nowhere near what we were expected to. So clear back in 2018, um we started um you know these bonds were suggesting that we were going to do eight miles per year and then by 2019 with the rate increase it was six miles per year and then when we finally asked how come we've had an 80 percent increase in just our general water utility rates in the last 10 years, are we still not catching up? And, you know, we were told it's just more costly, right? But this has been going on well before the pandemic, well before all of this drastic inflation that was suggested. And we can see that other cities are actually staying on rate with that replacement and with a lower than $2.5 million per mile rate. You know, we've had a half a billion dollars of bonds in the last 10 years. And over and over again, it says for water line replacement time and time again. And that's general, not even just the ones that were bonding for specific projects. And so I can go on to other cities' sites and I can see what these projects look like and how much they cost and where it's coming from and all of these types of things. But we can't on ours, and we haven't been provided that. And while these businesses that are making tons of money need to have some forewarning about when their utility rates might go up, we still haven't provided something that helps people. Keeping one rate basic and then increasing the other to offset costs is still a burden for people. We haven't looked at rate structures that are going to help people who are More low to moderate income. Many cities have these kinds of structures. So there is a lot of work that could still be done, but also a lot of transparency. So I urge you to ask more questions.

Okay. Council members, does anybody have any questions about what's been presented? Any comments?

I have a question. Sorry, I didn't press my button. Where did it go? Okay. Deputy Mayor, can I ask a question? Go ahead. And this may be for Broxton or City Manager. Can you tell me since 2000, when I got on here in 2020, since 2020, can you tell me or have we received and I just don't have access to it right now. How many lines have been replaced each year?

Councilmember, that's something that we'd have to research and get back to you. I don't think we have that data off on hand.

Okay. Can I please request and add this to the record that I want to go back to 2018 forward, each year broken down how many lines have been replaced.

Yes, ma'am.

And for it to be given to the full governing body. Of course.

Not a problem.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

Next up, Councilwoman Hiller. Thank you. Kind of seeking where we are, I guess, and You talked much about the slide number two, the capital investment recommendation. I might need a refresher. So you're proposing at this point, based on some input, to spend more in just projects. Is that to bond more or to spend cash?

Yeah, I was going to say it's both.

Like we kind of talked about before, we had to make some assumptions in there about how much was going to be bonds and how much was going to be cash. So it averages anywhere between 20% to 40% cash funding and then the remainder being bond funding in order to leverage those rates.

Yeah, I just wasn't sure what the differential was here. And, you know, you had some comments about how high the bond indebtedness is. And so if there was more that could be done with cash instead, I certainly would support that. I just wasn't sure how to read it.

Yeah, I'm going to go back to a couple of numbers. I just want to remind the council that when we talked earlier about what our capital investment needs were, those were actually $1.2 billion over a 10-year period. This proposal is a little over half of that, investing that $775 million as opposed to $1.2 billion. Understood.

Well, you've heard me run the number. Well, I've asked Josh to run the numbers. I mean, when even at the rates that we are doing in 15-year GO bonds, it's 45% more money. And so the more you can do with cash, the more you can do. So just checking certainly would encourage that. And when you're running the numbers for lane miles, I mean, one of the challenges you have is as you're simply instead of planning redoing whole neighborhoods, you're popping in on the street projects and doing a block here and a block there. I mean, it's very intentional, but one could argue that's a pretty inefficient way to do it.

We are doing neighborhood reviews. We have two neighborhood projects active right now. We have a third one that we're finishing design, and we'll be starting hopefully by the end of the year. We're also reviewing the... I'll call it the data showing where our worst lines are in the city. And we're looking at those entire neighborhoods saying, what else can we do there? We don't want to just pop in and do the worst line. Let's see what the rest of the lines look like. It's really expensive, really fast, but we're working to, to analyze that so we can do, we can get a bigger bang for the buck.

Good. Because there's just the efficiency and getting in and doing it once and getting out. Um, thank you for that. Also on the, um, On the industrial rates, you said you've talked to some of the industrial users, and I had made a note of that from last time. So, you know, for those of us that do residential, when we look at $12,000 a month, it looks like a lot of money. How is the reaction okay? I mean, you said you named that we only had, like, I don't know, somewhere between 6 and 10. Super big users, right?

We have eight industrial customers in total. Those that hit that industrial two volume rate, there are two of them, one always, the other one 10 months out of the year on average. So what is their reaction? They know that every increase they need to find a way to put back on the customer, of course. So at some point there's a breaking point for them. They continue to work on what they can do to keep their budgets as flat as possible. Some of them are competing with sister companies, and again, trying to keep those rates as low as they can. Not rates, but their costs back. when it comes to charges that are not assessed with these rates. So we have one big impact to them is their excess strength charge on the wastewater side. And that is a charge that is not borne upon all of our customers, only those that put excess strength waste into the system for us to treat. Those impacts that we have made, it was a long time coming that we needed to increase those. So they have made a note that that also has been something that they have had to account for and they are looking at and investing in their systems to help reduce the amount of excess strength that they're releasing into our system, which is very, very positive. That's a huge plus for us. So it's really, right now, again, they've faced three years worth of pretty significant increases. and they understand the need. They definitely support the community. They have been very appreciative of the city of Topeka as a whole and how well we work with them on several different department levels to support growth of their facilities anytime they do expansion and things of that nature. So overall, very positive commentary from them. However, they would like to see something a little more stable.

Thank you for that. One last question. I appreciate that you ran a model anyway with shifting, getting rid of the quote base rate or readiness to serve and then adjusting the base rate. As we moved forward to final, were you expecting then to get feedback now or to... to deliver us an either or kind of choice for.

So, so we have given you all a proposal and typically, um, if there's questions on, if, if we made this change, what would that be to the, what impact would that have? And then someone may make a motion. Um, if there is a motion to go ahead and bring forth that we do have a draft ordinance that we've been working on that would have those new numbers in it for your consideration. Every time we make a change to that and someone wants to know the outcome, what does that mean for the entire overall impact? It's a lot of work on the back end to vet out all those numbers. Before we do that, I want to make sure that we have captured the asks from you all. You all can decide, do we want to vote on what we have with this amendment? I can bring you a draft that shows that one proposed change, which is the new numbers and then the language change that drops the term assessing base charge to customers whether they have active service or not.

So I'm satisfied that you answered my request for at least a run on it. If somebody else wants you to do something different, do you need to know that soon?

Yes. I mean, we've been prepping for that. But, again, before I deliver you another one, the body, another one to consider, if there's other things that we want to change, it would just be more efficient to make them in one – updated ordinance to you all for that consideration. And like I said, I will give you the impacts to both. Here's the average impacts on these customers for the rate that we, the proposal we've already given you and then updated for the impacts if we stopped. I might add additional things to consider. So we all know that there's been lots and lots of discussion on charging base charges to vacant properties and If we continue that process, we just know that those discussions will continue to come up every time we move forward with the lien ordinance. So just something to keep in mind. Future, what does this look like? If we change that, then maybe something that we don't end up rehashing every time we come forward with an annual lien ordinance. Sounded like it. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Councilmember McGee.

Thank you. On slide five, you and I had discussed with you previously about we were breaking things down by percentage. And you actually put dollar figures in there. So I appreciate that. Because that kind of clarifies a little more of what the impact might actually be. Do you have any numbers? I'm going to go off what you were just mentioning. Do you have any numbers that tell us what happens if we don't charge on the vacant properties?

I do have those. Yep. And that's what I will bring you when I send out these averages, these impacts. I have those for both options. Okay.

Because I know that's something that recently I've heard a lot about. I think we're getting there. It just feels like we're fine-tuning the presentation and the data. But we need to come to some decisions. Thank you.

Okay. Councilman Bradbury.

Thank you. With the increase and intending to fund capital improvement projects, can you confirm whether those projects are tied in any way to anticipated infrastructure needs from potential new high volume water demand?

Great question, one that absolutely came up in our industrial discussions. All of the data that we have provided you is based on our existing customer base. It does not take into consideration any sort of future high user, whether that's water, excess strength, waste, we're looking at how can we continue to treat what we have today and make sure that we're accounting for existing infrastructure and We always want to hope for growth, but the city's rates do not support new infrastructure that we fund to support growth like that. So it truly is, what are our needs? If there is a need out in the system, so we need more volume in a pressure zone that's out in a water pressure zone, it would account for something of that nature, but not based on any anticipated new user.

Thank you. City Manager.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So what I'm hearing is, and I appreciate the comments, Councilman McGee, as far as fine-tuning. What I would ask staff and for the governing body to consider is that at the August 11th meeting, which is a few weeks from now, you have an opportunity to ask Sylvia and the team more questions, provide more recommendations. On the 11th, I will ask the team to basically bring the ordinance forward as far as the proposal, the staff proposal for consideration, and then action on August 18th. So that way we can wrap this up. So thank you.

Any other comments, questions? Okay. Let's move on to 7C, utility budget.

C is the discussion related to the City of Topeka 2027 operating budget.

Would you like to consider extending our meeting beyond 10 o'clock? Would the consensus of the governing body like to consider?

Okay. Let's take a voice vote on extending. Do I need a motion? I'll make a motion that we extend past the 10 o'clock hour. Do we have a second? I have a motion and a second. Those in favor, say, please say aye. Aye. Those against?

Aye.

Aye.

OK.

We're going to extend past time. Okay. So, City Manager.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor and members of the governing body, as we presented the FY2027 proposed budget in our City Council meeting last week, this evening we will highlight and discuss the health insurance and debt service funds. and provide overviews of the city manager's finance and city attorney's departmental budgets. With that, I will now turn this over to Josh McInerney, deputy director of budget and finance, to lead us through the discussion. Josh.

Thank you, city manager. Good evening, governing body. So like the city manager said tonight, we're going to go through a couple different funds and hit some smaller department budgets, and then we'll get into the bigger department budgets like police, fire, and public works out of the general fund next week. So starting off, so health insurance. So the reason we wanted to bring the health insurance fund to the forefront is this is a good example of where we lowered expenses and raised some revenue to right size of the fund. So starting with that is of the general fund, almost 10% of the expenses of the general fund are expenses that the employer pays into the health insurance fund as a revenue, which is almost $12 million. Now, as you see to the table on the right, 2023, we had a $5 million fund balance, and then that dwindled down because, A, we didn't increase premiums, and then, B, we increased what we covered in the form of some weight loss drugs and some other stuff to where we had a structural imbalance. We spent down cash, and then in 2026, we increased premiums and removed some coverage to where even if premiums increased at a 3% increase for the subsequent years and we increased or claimed, sorry, rather 3%, and we increase the employer and employee cost share by 1%, we'll be right size going forward. So we wanted to bring this one as a good example of where we can lower expenses and raise revenues to be good for the future. A couple other things of note, in this 2027 budget, we only increased health insurance premiums of the cost share by 1%. Even if we do that, though, if an employee does the wellness incentive, they'll pay less next year than they would have this year, just how the cost share agreement's written. So that's something to keep in mind. And then also in this fund, at the beginning of this year, we transferred $2.2 million like we reviewed last week. from a work comp fund and a risk reserve fund into the health insurance fund to stabilize it going forward. So we wanted to start with that because health insurance is a big portion of expenses that we don't talk about quite as much. So the next slide. So debt service. So notwithstanding the general fund, but as we reviewed last week, debt service fund is funded by mainly property taxes. So what's on your screen right here is we show, and we've talked about this during the CIP, we can program a lot of projects, but we've got to figure out how to pay for them. So given our current CIP, which includes doing large-scale projects like the KTA and three fire stations and all the other stuff we do, this would be the outcome of the expenses of the debt service payments we pay about each year. Now on the revenue side that assumes keeping a current mill levy and then capturing a three percent assessed value growth. Now the one thing to keep in mind is this would be a pretty rapid spin down of fund balance over the next six years and that's because a we're placing less revenue into the fund and we'd also be rolling more principal back on overall in terms of indebtedness on the general obligation side and we'll get to that on the next slide but Um, anytime you spend down cash, just like in your personal life, that's less flexibility we will have for the future to take on new projects that arise or address other needs. So that's one thing to keep in mind is we go in a span of five or six years from $21 million to $3 million.

If I may, I just also want to point out that this year in the proposed budget, we transferred over to the debt service payments for the parking garages from the parking fund to actually keep the parking fund operating in the positive. So I think that was about $534,000 this year. Yeah, so about $450,000.

So it's about 16% of the parking budget. are for general obligation bond debt service payments. And then we know the parking funds is a flat revenue source and increasing expense environment. So to keep that as a non policy issue, we're having the debt service fund assume those payments for the foreseeable future to address that issue. So next, so this is a principal and interest table to where those are total debt service payments by year, and that last column is the principal fund balance. So 2024, we had about 169 principal balance, and then that's more principals rolled off the books. But as you'll see, if we do more projects, that balance will increase over the coming years now. That's ultimately a policy decision because the governing body has to approve all the debt that we issue and what debt is issued for certain projects, which is informed by our CIP process. And so again, the main thing to keep in mind is we have to have enough revenue to pay the debt service payments. We also want to be wary of we don't also want to spin down that debt service fund balance in a quick succession. So that's something we'll have to keep in mind over the next couple of years. So getting into the department. So we're going to start with the finance budget and I think this is on page 40 and it's about a $2.7 million budget. Now the main thing and this will be a recurring highlight for most of the presentations, yes it's page 40, is that about 90% of the next three departments budget is personnel costs. For a service city that's where the expenses lie. But one of the ways we've been able to reduce personnel and department is through attrition and combination of duties. In 2024, we had an FTE count of 27 and that's gone down to 21 for this budget. So that's a way we downsized the organization's revenues, not came in as high as it once was. So that's a win in our books and a lot of people have worked really hard behind the scenes to make that number happen because that's just the reality that we're in. And then going over some of the large non-personnel cost is our financial advisor contract with Columbia Capital. We had to have a financial advisor, the ones who they manage all our money and help with a lot of the bond issuances. Our audit contract, we have to have an independent third-party financial audit to go through the books. And then lease and debt software to keep track of our debt service tables, things of that nature. That's how the previous debt service slide was built. And then W-2s, that's to keep, and tax factory, that's to keep up to date with any payroll changes that are through legislation and then to provide W-2s for employees when the time comes. So this next one is the city manager's office. Again, 90% of that's personnel. The total budget for those three groups, so city manager communications and city clerk, is about $2.6 million. And that's on page 35. Again, I want to underscore that personnel is the largest cost. Some of the other big ticket items within those budget is the beam consulting. That used to be Whitney's contract, but that transitioned over last year. That's about $60,000. There's some professional development stuff that is in there, which is on the screen, for about $15,000. Moving forward to the city clerk's office, Um, they've been with three FTS forever, so there's nothing really changing in there. But granted kisses all the agendas that are posted online, not software they do. They do a code update. Brenda can speak better than I can every other every other year. There's the copy release and then ordinance publication. So whenever we have to give notice and post things online per state statute, that's that's how much we have budget for there. Um, and then Communications is also in this portfolio to where equipment replacement cycle, open meeting software, that's on your iPads, and then just a couple other software functions. But again, majority of these departments that we're talking about with the cost are personnel related. And then finally, legal. So legal's budget, that is split between the special liability fund and the general fund for a total of about 17 FTEs. Their general fund personnel is 91%. We have some people paid out of the special liability fund if they're doing duties related to litigation. and then their largest non-personnel costs are any outside counsel that they use, and then, and Nick can speak to this if there's questions, the legal software, state statute books, and education and travel. But their budget, I think, is about $1.6 million just for the general fund side. And we also have to be wary on the special liability side to make sure if that fund, which a sliver of property tax goes into, I'm used to use the pays any incurring claims that we may pay out for the city. Um, we had a large claim this year and then the end of your fund balance as of 25 was about $2 million. So we will always want to be make sure we have enough money in the fund and not fun to cover any liabilities we have. But This was just a quick, I know this was a very quick overview of just some small department budgets, but I really want to underscore those first two funds we talked about is the health insurance fund was a good example where we raised revenue and lower expenses to be good for the foreseeable future. And then the debt service fund with how we're putting less revenue into that fund and taking on more projects, that's a pretty big spin down to where That could reduce flexibility for the future, but anytime you issue debt, what's the three biggest costs for city? Personnel, equipment, and capital projects. So we want to be mindful of do we really want to commit to this because then we'd be on the hook for 15 years or however long we bond it. So that's just a couple stuff to keep in mind. With that, we'll answer any questions.

Okay. Before we get to any questions, I am going to take public comment. We have three signed up. First one is Kelly Hoffman.

Good evening. My name is Kelly Hoffman, and I am the principal at French Middle School. I'm representing some colleagues here tonight. I have Amy Wagner from Principal of Landon, along with her assistant, Eric Rodriguez. We're speaking on behalf of the SRO unit that Topeka Police Department provides for us. Their officer is Officer Schultz. I have my assistant, Tracy Keegan. Our officer is Officer Darren Campbell. We have Ms. Strom from Robinson. Her officer is Officer Raleigh. Principal Haig, his officer at Jardine is Officer Kyle. We also have the principal from Chase, Dr. Morgan, and her assistant, Mr. Gay. Their officer is Officer Hamilton. They all report directly to their supervisor, Sergeant Dixon. I mention these officers' names because they are the face of the police department. to a little over 2,500 students and their families. I want to talk to you a little bit about the importance of the unit in our schools that works alongside our campus security. First, the difference, because sometimes that gets a little fuzzy. The main differences are the training. Topeka Police Department has a much more extensive training. The officers that come from the police department that work in our middle schools come with a street experience that many of our campus security just do not have. The direct line that they have to the police department and the first responders and the emergency resources, should we have a crisis or a critical incident, it's just faster and it allows for a more coordinated response than it would having to call somebody else, who has to call somebody else, who then has to call somebody else. And then finally, their jurisdiction is different than our campus security. Our campus security's jurisdiction remains just on school property, and the Topeka Police Department's jurisdiction goes beyond that into the community. So often, they are the ones who do the follow-up, whether it's taking the initial report, collecting evidence, doing the interviewing, going out into the community, and sometimes working with juvenile services. So that's the difference, but I also want to talk about what I really want to focus on are the positive aspects and the impact that these officers are having in our communities. So these six officers are embedded in six different communities. Eastside, Westside, Central Topeka, Oakland. We have a bilingual officer that's in our schools that's having a great impact with a dual language school as well. These officers are mentors to our students. They are teachers. They work alongside our teachers and are in classrooms. They help provide a safety component in our schools. They are stationed in our schools during the day, but yet they also serve our community. So they respond to calls out into the community. They're a resource to our parents, and they are also a resource to community members who come in seeking those officers that they know are stationed in our schools on a day-to-day basis. You just can't put a price tag on that connection. You talk about in the community connections that the new chief has put out about community policing, prevention through engagement. You can't get more engagement than these officers have on a daily basis in our school communities. I've been a patron for 55 years in Topeka and lived in Topeka Public Schools area. I've yet to be engaged with a patrol officer, a motorcycle officer, or a bike unit officer when they have that. I have, however, had much engagement with our school community resource officers from when I was a student to my DARE officer in my classroom to the last 20 years with resource officers. They're critical.

Anderson.

Good evening and thank you. As I listen to Ms. Hoffman, I'm going to invite the middle school staff to stand. They've been here a long time. They might just want to stand and get the blood flowing. First of all, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you to our City Manager. Thank you to the Governing Board. You all are exceptional servant leaders and I appreciate all that you do and the listening that you've done as I've met with many of you. I'm going to read from here, but I do wonder if my very first superintendency back 20 years ago in Virginia, the Virginia Tech shootings took place in 2007, and that's where I was superintendent. And I wonder what would have happened if I did not have a school resource officer that was from the city of Blacksburg at that time. The response time would have made all the difference because we didn't have anyone that died in our schools in Blacksburg, but more than two dozen people died at Virginia Tech. I wonder what would have happened in St. Louis where Jennings School District borders Ferguson and the riots started. And we had both a local officer and we also had the city of Jennings as our local police officers in our schools. The students would have walked out, but they didn't. Instead, our city officer helped calm our students and we walked up to the police station and we really created a new plan of community policing and body cameras in a whole different way. I say that just to put that in your mind because at Landon just two years ago we did have a student that brought a gun with plans to shoot up the school and it was the officer from French, Officer Campbell, that came over because Officer Sachs was at a shooter training that day and he helped ensure that there was intervention. Knowing that, city council members, I thank you for your past and continued support of Topeka Public Schools Resource Officer Program. I've had the opportunity to speak with many of you and I sincerely appreciate it. Our district police staff currently assigns two to three officers to each of our high schools and our TPS officers do an outstanding job. They also serve the 15 elementary schools, they serve buses, and they serve a variety of other areas. So it really takes both departments, TPD and TPS, to really have this relationship work seamlessly in support and in protection of all of our students. After learning of the proposed budget reductions that would remove TPD officers from TCALC in the middle schools, we developed a plan to address TCALC. So next year, after this school year, we do have a plan to address TCALC, so we remove that burden from you financially. We also met with our grant writer and we are currently seeking grants and we have identified some already and we're prepared to assist with funding. So we're inviting you to the conversation to not remove the officers, but to use this year, this year, and ideally next year to explore possible funding avenues for some long-term sustainable solutions. We're committed to being a partner. We're committed to finding some added resources. We're committed to thinking differently, but we would like to focus on our middle school officers in support of what they've done for and with our students. Equally important, the officers assigned to our schools are often the same officers reporting to tragedies, domestic violence incidents, mental health crises. Often we are the first on the scene, myself, these principals, and generally a city officer. Before any other officer knows what has occurred, our city officers not only know it at the scene, but can follow up. Often, this is confidential information, so they know the families. And while they may not be able to tell us everything, they can follow up before, during, and after school. And we thank them for that. So I ask for you to really give consideration to maintaining TPD SRO officers in our schools. Thank you for your time and your leadership.

OK. Rylan Storm? Strong, yeah.

Good evening, Deputy Mayor and City Council Members. Thank you for allowing me to opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Raelyn Strom. I am the proud principal of Robinson Middle School. I'm here this evening to speak in support of a school resource officer program and the positive impact it has had on students, my staff, our families, and the whole community. While the role of an SRO is often viewed through the lens of safety, its impact reaches far beyond security. At Robinson, Central Topeka, Officer Rowley has become a trusted mentor. a positive role model, and a caring adult who builds authentic relationships with each of our students every day. We all know that middle school is a pivotal time in a young person's life. Many of our students face challenges that extend beyond the classroom. Having him at the school building helps students see law enforcement not just as an authority figure, but also as people who generally care about their well-being and future. His everyday interactions are helping build trust, strengthen relationships, and shape a more positive perception of law enforcement within our school community. When students know Officer Rowley by name, they laugh with him in the hallways, they celebrate successes with him, and turn to him when it's a lot of difficult times or moments. And a lot of those barriers do come down. Those relationships create a sense of safety, belonging, connection that cannot be measured by any data alone. The SRO program is an investment not only in the school safety but in prevention, mentorship, and the future of our community. Officer Rowley is the kind of partnership that makes this program so valuable. His presence has helped build bridges between students and law enforcement while creating the school environment where students really feel safe. And I do have Miss Regina Platt here, we do have a lot of partnerships at Robinson. We have a lot of students that come in with no hope I mean, at that age, they have no hope. And having these adults at our school present and know that they care for them and they believe in them, that they can break that cycle within the community and that you're not the product of your environment really helps. Restorative Justice of Peace, One Heart, those are just a few partnerships that we have in the community. But Officer Rally definitely is one of the biggest ones that's helped. So on behalf of Robinson Middle School and the Topeka Public School, thank you for your continued support for our students and hopefully we continue that program in our schools. Thank you.

Okay, that is all we have for public comment on this item. So now we're to questions from the Council on the budget portions that were

discussed so uh first up is councilman kill um first up on that open meeting it said we paid ten thousand is that a yearly fee or is that a i think that's your or did dan you know what'd you say it should be less that was the additional fee oh that was the additional fee but i think it's it's a yearly subscription because i think that's what the question is that's this For a tablet to push buttons for both sides, I don't see that paying off. Two years? I'll check. I'll circle back on the buy yearly or yearly. For what I use it for up here, that to me is not worth what we're spending. On to the SROs. As the staff from 501 has come up forward, It's been six years since I've had a child at a middle school in 501. And both my daughters, one just turned 20 yesterday, the other one's 22, they can tell you who their SRO was. They can tell you all the interactions they had with them. Middle school is that vital, pivotal time on where that kid's going to go, which way they're going to go. And they don't necessarily look at an SRO as a law enforcement officer. They don't look at them as a teacher. They don't look at them as admin. They look up as a friend. They look at someone they can trust. Honestly, they snitch on themselves half the time when they're trying to talk to them to try to find out if something is what's going on, you know? So it's one of those things, I think it's a very vital program. Yes, I believe 501 needs to kind of step to the table a little bit more financially on this idea, but I think the SRO program is a very vital program that we need to keep going. We need to figure out a way to, from both sides, to make this work. It's something as a parent, as a person that used to work in 501, when the information is needed the sro is the ones that got the information so we need to figure out the best way on from both sides and make this work so we can continue this well into the future thank you okay anyone else have any comments on brexit uh chris yeah councilwoman valdivia

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Just real quick, I believe that a partnership can continue between TPD and 501. But I think it's going to have to look drastically different. As I stated in this morning's email, I believe that their campus security is greatly underutilized. And a number of them, I've been told, were former TPD. I think the funds for restorative justice and mental health could increase because I don't think Topeka Center for Peace and Justice can probably handle all the need that is out there in 501. But I also believe that from going to NIA meetings and actually having meetings on a very regular basis with community police officers and community members. I think that, and I have told the chief this, we need more CPOs out in the neighborhoods, out in the community. And I don't think that is going to be able to be done, which will in turn lessen that huge caseload that our CPOs have when they have huge amounts of territory that they are involved in And my goal, my hope would be that the chief would allocate those former SROs or some of those former SROs into new CPOs that we desperately need across the city that would also be involved with school children, that would also be involved with families, that would also be involved with NIAs. And I think that we have to look at the best practices as well that the chief is talking about. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Councilman Heller. Thank you. I've got one simple question, at least I think it is, and then since we've had our one-on-one, I was just going to confirm for everybody some things that I think are coming. On the legal page, the Thompson Reuters software, there's a fund that was established through the municipal court department for software. So is it possible that

So are you thinking of the court tech fund? Yes. That at the end of 25 had a $200,000 fund balance. So I'd have to look in the resolution on when that fund was established that that would be an appropriate measure of where we could shift that cost. I can look into that.

It was around when that was set. And I know that it hasn't been. accessed as much as I think we expected. So caught my eye.

Yeah, I'll look into that. I might have to go back a little bit, but I'll look at the guidelines of that.

Okay, thank you for that. Also, just from our meeting, correct me if I'm wrong, we should be expecting to get a personnel roster for the budget books and also a line item set up that would show comparison at least to 2026 for all the various pages that we have. Thank you. and at least some sort of help for us to be able to look at the departments with all their sources, not just general fund.

Yeah, that's a little more tricky since like Public Works, for example, takes about seven different funding sources. So I would stick into the fund level and what they're actually spending money on. So I'll give an example. Facilities is part of the Public Works budget, but I would look at their specific light items within the six-digit account code to compare the two. So that's how I would look at it.

Well, if you can help us.

I'll try to help as much as possible.

Because when we think of a department that's functional, that has X number of people, and they do this, that, and the other thing, and then somehow it only has four, it's confusing to find everybody and figure out how to track it.

Gotcha.

Thank you. And then we did talk about the debt load and the You mentioned the other day, I don't think it was tonight, though, that with that rapid decline in fund balance in the debt service fund, that also puts us at risk of having our bond rating change.

So, yeah, so any time what... So we have our ratings call ironically next Monday and in 2025 or through this year or just over in 2026, they'll rate 2025. But if I don't want to get two or three years from now to where they see continual deficits within our general fund and our debt service funds where we have significantly lower fund balance. Now we still are above our minimum fund balance policy, but recurring deficits would raise an eyebrow, for lack of a better term, to credit rating agencies to where we could see possibly credit ratings downgrade. We'll know more about that in the future, though.

Understood. But that puts some onus on us to be looking at passing a budget this year that appears to be sustainable.

Yeah. And then one other thing I want to add. Implications of any time you get a, and we're talking future years, any time you would have a credit rating downgrade means higher interest costs. Those are the implications on the downside of that. Exactly.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Councilman Banks, is your microphone on?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. You know, I think that in reference to the SROs, I worked in the schools myself, and I see a couple of the teachers that I worked with that are sitting there, and they were really young when I started. I was really young when I started working with them. I think that all of us on this council realize how important the officers are. Just in reference to my presence in the school through the fire department, I had some of the best relationships with those kids because My job was not only to educate them, but also to empower them. And I don't know that we have that level of empowerment right now, but I think that when we start to share as a community the whole process, we all realize that we really need the officers. But we also have to think about financial responsibility that that process brings to the citizens. And I think that when we do that, we are compelled to come up with a plan that will be feasible for both our community and our schools. It is certainly the best job I've ever had, working with the schools and the teachers. And I've had jobs that paid a lot more. But just the interaction with the kids and the teachers and the relationships that I've developed, I think that's probably one of the reasons that I'm an elected official here today. Those kids grew up and they voted for me. And I know it had a lot to do with how I treated him. And I know that this is a very fair council, and I know we'll do the best that we can do to make things work out. Thank you, Deputy.

Okay. Seeing no other... Oh. Yes, Marcus. Councilman Miller, go ahead.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I will not belabor on this, but it's Because the 501 employees came today, which I appreciate you coming, I will state publicly what I've always stated privately as well, is that I do want this agreement to continue, but with some change in the financial responsibility. I share that with many council members. I want this agreement to continue because I do want FRO and schools, but financial responsibility needs to be shared a little more. Thank you very much. Okay.

OK, turn again. Seeing no one else has any other questions or comments, we're going to move into public comment. I have four signed up. I think two might not be here. First one, Joe Ledbetter is not here. Next up is Riley Ringgold. Is Riley here? Yeah, I'm here. OK.

Hello. I guess I messed up in signing up. I meant to speak on the rental registry, so I'm a little late to game. Sorry to repeat some of this. But my name is Riley Ringgold. I'm a licensed real estate agent and local investor and Topeka landlord. With the rental registry, I want to make it simple. Everything the registry claims to accomplish, we already have. The inspections are already happening. They're not going to do interior inspections, as all of you say. We can already find the contact information for responsible parties. It's already available through the Secretary of State. The county appraiser, the TGIS, that's new and in the works, has been in the works. There's no evidence and no common sense reason to believe that a registry forces more compliance than the tools the city already has. What it actually does is add regulation to a market that already has a thin margin and high cost, a thin margin, and that cost has to go somewhere. It's happening at the exact moment Topeka needs more people investing in rental housing, not fewer. I've talked to two small investor mom and pop landlords with a handful of properties each who have told me directly that if this passes, they're getting out. That's not hypothetical. That's happening right now before it's even an ordinance. I've heard of some people downplay the cost of this, saying it only adds a dollar or two per month to the rent once the fees get passed down. I'd ask the council to look past that number because the real cost isn't in the fee itself. It's what happens when investors decide the return isn't worth the hassle and stop buying here altogether. When supply shrinks, rent doesn't go up by a dollar or two. It goes up by whatever the market will bear because there's less housing to choose from. The fee is the smallest part of this. The real damage is fewer people willing to invest in the city's housing stock at all. The city's own staff materials say that 10 to 20% of the properties generate the most housing issues. If that's true, the data to find them already exists through the court records, code case history, the police department, fire department, the property ownership filings the city already has access to. Fix the definitions in the existing ordinance. Target those properties directly. I think in the public health and safety meeting they were talking about changing some of the repeat offender definitions to help with that. Don't build a program costing over a quarter million dollars a year that puts fees, inspections, and public labels on every landlord in the city to solve a problem that's concentrated in a small share of the properties. I'd ask this council to stop the registry conversation and look at what the city already provided or approved works. In 2017, I think I sent this memo on to everybody on the council here. In 2017, the city's own chief prosecutor wrote a memo documenting exactly this problem, and he fixed it. He trained the inspectors. He set up a single dedicated docket with the same prosecutor and the same judge hearing these cases every week. In the next 15 months, cases jumped to 573. No new laws, no new registries, no new fees on landlords, just process applied every time. And it took this city from nearly zero compliance to over 75% within about a year. Fix what's broken in the system, we already have. Don't build a new one on top of it. Thank you.

Okay, next up, Henry McClure. Mm-hmm.

My name is Henry McClure. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. It was a little rich hearing about retaliation, how landlords might retaliate against tenants. Sometimes people get retaliated just by coming down and speaking their mind. That's a shame. I came down tonight to talk about a couple of things. I wanted to give you an idea of, I'm hearing all this hubbub about the data centers. All one of you has to do, and I know my district person knows the way to Andrew Howe's office, and just go down and put it on the ballot. You don't have to have an opinion either way, but let one time, let's let the people decide. You don't have to give an opinion. What I like about my life is when it comes to the real estate business, I find people that pay me for my opinion. But it was a little, I kind of lost my mind a little bit when Shardine was saying it took three days to find out who owns it. There's a program that I pay $9 a month. It's called Land Glide. And I showed him about it, but it didn't look like he really cared. But LandGlide, I can stand up in front of any piece of real estate in America, and it's got the owner. And yeah, you have to do a little research. And if it's an LLC, you can find out who the registered agent. But if there's an opportunity to become a consultant to the city, You know, that's a real popular thing around this joint. I will be the consultant to find out names, and I can do it in hours. So when he gets stumped, just call me. Three days to find out who owns a piece of real estate? That's embarrassing. And also, too, when it comes to the landlords, you know, Ronald Reagan took away the passive loss in 1983. So there's no write-offs that are to the advantage of landlords. you know, it's like making less a year than you did last year. It affects your bottom line. So he's right when it comes down to being razor thin on the margins. So See, I think I had one other thing to pontificate. I don't bring a lot of notes here, but the, oh, I'll tell you what. Let's do this. Let's take the water department data and create a separate book. Income, expenses, the bonds, all the data. You know, that information ought to be off the top of your head, and then you just pick it up, you pick up the Water Department financials, and it should stand on its own. You know, for years, after Jack Alexander turned over the Water Department, Felker started raiding the funds, then... Wagner started raiding the money and then mixing the financials inside the city's financials make it too hard But there's a real easy way to have the data stand on its own I I'm sincere when I say Sometimes it's a shame to come down here and and get retaliated on for just speaking your mind. It's a shame. But if nobody's told you they love you, I love you all. Thank you.

Okay, I believe she's gone. But Alyssa Jacobs. Okay, so see her clerk What do we have coming up in two weeks?

Well, yes. So we actually will not have a meeting August 4th. That has been canceled due to resolution number 9789 due to the primary elections. So our next council meeting will actually be August 11th. And then we will have our third meeting August 25th of the month. So just to give you a heads up. Thank you, guys. City manager.

Nothing tonight, ma'am. Thank you.

Okay. I guess I'm first step on council members. The only thing I have in announcements tonight is I want to make, um, or remind people the fair academy will be starting, um, in August. I do not remember the date, but you have to be signed up by the end of this month. It involves about an hour and a half, two hours for six sessions. I did this two years ago. It was very informative. I really enjoyed it. So I would encourage anybody to go to the website, sign up and take the class. Uh, beyond that, um, I don't think I have anything else. So next up is councilwoman Hiller. Thank you.

Just one thing. Um, for those of you who have followed to the organization Topeka United that did mosaic partner pairs program in the past, That program has migrated to become one called Common Threads. And openings are open right now for people who want to enroll. That is a nine-month engagement that's focused on matching people with multicultural diversities and at the same time some similarities. And they make a commitment to be involved in structured engagements for a nine-month period meeting once, twice a month with their partner and then once a month in a small group. Uh, applications are open right now at TopekaUnited.org. Um, need to get them in within the week. Thank you. Okay.

Councilman Valdivia Acala. I have nothing. Councilwoman Ortiz.

Thank you. A couple of things. Please don't forget about the school supply drive. Um, that we're partnering up with the Fiesta Topeka Planning Committee and this will go until the end of July. So when you're in the stores, buy, just stick a couple things in your basket and drop it by any fire station or at the city manager's office. I also wanted to mention that To my residents, I know they've been calling about 6 and Golden. And I know we've switched sides of the street. We are now doing the south side of the street. Please pay attention to the cones. Please slow down. Please know that we have a lot of traffic going through there because of all of the construction. But we are now to the south. and um trying to get all that figured out so we can get golden done before they do that that intersection thank you deputy mayor and deputy mayor i wanted to say these last two meetings you've done an excellent job it's not easy sitting in that chair having brett tell you to stop and go and stop and go thank you councilman banks i don't have too much to say tonight deputy mayor i just want to

Say if nobody's told you they love you, I love you. Thank you.

Councilman Gill.

Late July and early August is big for my family. My youngest turned 20 yesterday. I turn 47 on Saturday. The first week of August, my wife turns . And on the 9th of August, we celebrate 23 years. So happy anniversary to my wife. Happy birthday to my daughter. Happy birthday to my wife. You know, a lot of us up here, we can't do it without them, and they put up with a lot. Yesterday was my daughter's birthday, and I was out at a city function yesterday for the first couple hours and had to kind of delay her party a little bit. So thank you to them for dealing with everything that I deal with and putting up with the stuff we have with the city. Thank you.

Councilman Miller.

uh thank you deputy mayor um i also don't have much to say but i would be curious to see what any of that retaliation is for anyone that comes i would like to see what that is that's true thank you councilwoman bradbury um

I just want to let everyone know that I appreciate all of the public comment that we've had over the last couple of weeks. I appreciate the engagement, and I hope people continue to stay engaged and sign up for public comment.

Okay. Councilman McGee.

I have nothing to add.

Okay. I forgot one thing. Today I went and did my advance voting. That is open through this week into the Monday before the election, so August 3. So I would encourage everyone to get out and vote. This is a big election for the state, and it's important. So we have two executive sessions.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

City Attorney, please.

Yeah. The motion would be to recess into executive session not to exceed 30 minutes to give legal advice and discuss potential litigation and other matters deemed privileged under the attorney-client privilege as allowed under KSA 75-4319B2. The open meeting will resume in this room in the governing body chambers. The following staff will be necessary to assist the governing body in its deliberations. City Manager, City Attorney, and any other staff members as needed.

Okay. I'm Anyone want to make a motion? So moved. Councilman Kell, motion. Second. And Councilman Banks, seconded. Those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed? Aye. We're going to go into executive session. We're going to take a quick five-minute break, and we will start immediately after that.

Okay.

We have reconvened the meeting and are now back in open session with no action being taken in session number one by the governing body during the executive session. There is a need for a second executive session. City Attorney, will you read?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. The motion would be to recess into executive session for a time not to exceed 30 minutes to discuss personnel matters involving individual employees as allowed under KSA 75-4319B1. The open meeting will resume in this room in the City Council Chambers. The following individuals will be necessary to aid the governing body's discussion. The City Attorney and any other staff members as needed.

Okay. We have a motion on the... We have a Executive session on the floor. I will move that we go into executive session. Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. Okay. We will immediately go into executive session. All right. Okay, we have reconvened the meeting and are now back in open session with no action being taken by the governing body during this executive session. Seeing no other business, this meeting is adjourned.